Proposition 98Join now to read essay Proposition 98Proposition 98, an amendment to the state Constitution requiring significant spending on K-14 education, altered the California budget through a process called earmarking. The initiative passed by a thin margin in 1988, with 50.7 percent of voters (4,689,737 voting for compared to 4,500,503 voting against) approving at least 40 percent of the budget be spent on elementary schools, middle schools, high schools and the state’s 23 community colleges. According to the Legislative Analyst’s Office, a nonpartisan advisor to the state legislature, initial education funding is derived on the prior year and with a year-by-year change based on average, daily K-12 attendance. The Legislature may increase funding to K-14 education; however, any raise resets the minimum funding level in subsequent years. The Legislature also has the power to suspend automatic funding for one year based on the nearly insurmountable two-thirds vote. The affect of earmarking has placed education as the top budget priority in California.
Proposition 13 of 1978 forever changed the landscape of local funding in California. Local school districts have had to rely more on state funding, including approximately 67 percent of local school costs (Ross, 26). The slow growth of property tax money spurred a call for more education funding. “California schools are the fastest growing in the nation,” according to the text of Prop. 98. “Our schools must make room for an additional 130,000 students every year.” Voters worried California schools were insufficiently funded and feared the state would rank among the lowest in the nation. The LAO says state spending is approximately the national average (Ross, 26). However, the Democratic Party and the California Teachers Association contend the state ranks among the bottom 10 states in elementary-secondary education spending (Ross, 26).
The Independent and State Budget Committee report said that the $2.3 billion needed to meet the state education needs was only $450 million. As of late 2009, approximately 2% of the state’s elementary school students could not attend school due to lack of funding and the $200 million needed to meet state funding. Since then the average level of school attendance has declined from 5.8% (the highest enrollment in 2007 to 2% in 2010) to 1.5% (the lowest). The Los Angeles Times’ 2014 Education Monitor report warned the current system is not adequate and states should consider an increase in educational funding. “This is not the time for the state to do it itself. This is the time for state governments, private students, and school districts to take an informed public role in their responsibility to help students better understand and achieve their educations,” the report wrote. The report also warned of a need for more teacher training programs, which were being used to grow local private schools.
California School Debt
California’s State Education Comptroller found in 2013 that state spending is projected to be $2.8 billion more than current funding by 2016, which is not surprising because these programs are the most expensive in the nation.
The State Bureau predicted a 0.7 percent decrease in state budget deficits by 2015. If there was some kind of deal reached that would prevent the governor from imposing a major financial squeeze, the governor should be looking very carefully about how his budget would be financed. The Independent and State Budget Committee report stated California’s budget should be able to cover $80 billion annually by 2016. According to that report, California can only afford $25 billion in state funding, or $30 billion in state spending on education for low-income students (the Los Angeles Times, 11/14/2011). The state’s share of education spending by the state has been declining steadily since 2005, and the current shortfall is projected to continue to grow and grow as more high-performing high schools become available. (The Independent and State Budget Committee write, “California’s public schools are facing a choice between spending more or less as they become more attractive to private-sector talent as a result of education reform, as the state and federal administrations have both agreed through their own “spending freeze” laws and state appropriations laws on how much teachers should receive in return for their services during college.”)
The Independent and State Budget Committee reported that while the state cannot afford to build more schools and replace it with privately funded charters, the overall shortfall in federal spending could be substantially larger. According to the report, there are 4,200 private-sector schools in California, of which there would be 14,400 to 20,000 state charters, and of those, 568 are privately operated, with an additional 5,000 to 11,000 operated public schools. (This number is estimated to be up to 970,000 children.) A 2015 report from the State Department for Education and Economic Development provided more detail on the proposed budget plan. According to the report, California’s state school revenue growth can be reached through the federal public aid program for low-income children under age 4 through the Higher Education Assistance Program (HEAP), a program created by Congress under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that provides direct programs for both public and private
According to some figures, approximately 42 percent of the state budget is spent on K-14 education compared to 13 percent spent on four-year colleges in the California State University and University of California systems (Ross, 24). Some have argued the fiscal requirements of Prop. 98 are as inefficient as they are effective at ensuring adequate funding to education. The spending requirements protect “education when revenue lags but also can be perceived as a spending maximum when more than 40 percent is needed” (Lawrence 230). Others contend Prop. 98 hasn’t spent enough on education. “Despite the assurances of Proposition 98, California’s spending for elementary and secondary education is well below the national average” (Ross, 26).
The LAO says Prop. 98 is responsible for about 75 percent of total funding for K-14 education funding. K-12 education received less than $37 billion of the General Fund and more than $12 billion from local property tax revenues for a total of less than $49 billion in the 2006-07 revised budget. Less than $18 billion not budgeted through Prop. 98 funds teacher retirements, bond payments, state lottery allocations, federal fund allocations and other programs. Prop. 98 money and other funds total less than $67 billion to K-12 education. Community colleges received more $4 billion from the General Fund and less than $2 billion from local property taxes for a total of less than $6 billion in 2006-07. Other agencies, which include special and adult education, received $114 million. The combined General Fund total accounts for less than $41 billion compared to more than $14 billion in local property taxes, illustrating the move from local to state funding. Prop. 98 accounts for a total of just less than $55 billion for 2006-07.
Opponents, including then Gov. Deukmejian, business groups and some employee unions criticized Prop. 98 before its passage because budget development would begin