EDUCATION FUNDING. PAYMENT PLAN.

Requires supplemental payments to local school districts and community colleges to address recent budget cuts. Annual payments begin in 2011–12. Payments are funded from the state’s Budget Stabilization Fund until the total amount has been paid. Payments to local school districts will be allocated in proportion to average daily attendance and may be used for classroom instruction, textbooks and other local educational programs. Summary of Legislative Analyst’s Estimate of Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:

Fiscal impact would depend on how current constitutional provisions would otherwise be interpreted. Potential state savings of up to several billion dollars in 2009–10 and 2010–11. Potential state costs of billions of dollars annually thereafter.

ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF PROPOSITION 1B

California schools have been hit very hard by the state budget crisis. Education spending has been cut by over $12 billion. These horrific cuts have forced the layoff of more than 5,000 teachers and threaten the jobs of at least 13,000 more.

These cuts have increased class sizes, left classrooms with out-of-date textbooks and provided school children with too few teachers, counselors, nurses and librarians. Important student programs like vocational education, art and music have been eliminated in many schools.

Prop. 1B starts the process of paying back to the schools and community colleges some of the money lost by these devastating cuts.

Instead of permanently losing these vital education funds, Prop. 1B sets up a repayment plan to ensure schools and community colleges are paid back as economic conditions improve. If we don't pass 1B, California will be permanently downgrading its public school system.

That is why the California Teachers Association urges you to vote Yes on Prop. 1B.

In 1988, voters passed Proposition 98 which provides a minimum guarantee of funding for K–12 education and community colleges. Prop. 98 is a safety net that provides the bare minimum funding necessary to keep our schools open . . . but we still rank 47th in the nation in per pupil spending. These recent budget cuts will push California even lower.

1B provides a way for schools to continue to get the minimum funding already set out in voter approved Prop. 98 by establishing a repayment schedule starting in 2011. This will allow local school districts to rehire teachers, reduce class sizes, purchase up-to-date textbooks and restore critical education programs. 1B requires strict accountability for education funding repayment and guarantees that the funding will go to local school districts to be spent in the classroom. School districts are audited annually by law.

During a crisis we all understand that every state program will receive cuts. But Californians have long recognized that high quality education leads to more prosperous and healthy communities for all of us. The future of our state depends on the investment we make in our public schools.

For future economic recovery and stability, California businesses need a well-educated workforce. California schools and community colleges must have adequate funding to educate our children to be vital members of this state's workforce. We cannot afford to lose jobs to other states.

Prop. 1B is part of a package of reforms that will provide short-term solutions to get us through these difficult economic times and long-term solutions to ensure we never again face the type of deficits we faced this year.

Prop. 1B is only a part of the solution, but it's a step we need if we are going to provide a quality public education to all students and keep public education a top priority in California. Vote YES on Prop. 1B. DAVID A. SANCHEZ, President California Teachers Association

ARGUMENT AGAINST PROPOSITION 1B

Proposition 1B is intended to restore $9.3 billion in "lost" funding that public schools and community colleges normally would have received under Proposition 98, money they haven't received recently and won't for a couple of years more because of the dismal fiscal outlook. The problem is how much more it might do.

The money, to be paid over an estimated six years starting in 2011, could force the state to increase its funding guarantees to schools in the long-term future, and because public education is the single biggest item in the state budget, higher guarantees have the potential to become budget-busting expenditure locks. The proposition threatens to ratchet up the autopilot budgeting that Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger says he's trying to stop.

All of this arises from obscure aspects of school funding that are little understood by anyone beyond experts. Proposition 98, passed in 1988, gives public schools and community colleges a minimum of 40% of the state budget, but it can be suspended under certain circumstances. A lack of clarity in the measure, however, has left an unresolved conflict over the state's financial obligation to schools in years following such suspensions. Proposition 1B, insteadof resolving the legal ambiguity in Proposition 98, could worsen its effects by increasing that financial obligation no matter how little money is in the state budget.

The Times called for a no vote on Proposition 98, not because we don't favor the highest possible funding for schools but because the decisions about that funding must depend on the revenue available and the current needs of the schools. If public school enrollment were to drop significantly but the number of university-age students swelled, there would be no flexibility to put the money where it is most needed because four-year colleges are not covered by Proposition 98. Proposition 1B exacerbates the most problematic aspects of Proposition 98.

Proposition 1B isn't necessary for the rest of the budget stabilization package to work as intended. Nor does its failure prevent the Legislature from giving as much money as possible to schools -- something it should do anyway. But the measure's main reason for being on the ballot is that it gives the powerful California Teachers Assn. and other school unions reason to support the overall package, or at least not campaign too heavily against the spending caps in Proposition 1A; 1B cannot take effect if 1A fails. That's not a good enough reason to pass a measure that conceals a potential time bomb. The Times urges a no vote on Proposition 1B.

Vote | View Results

Options