LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Against a backdrop of several years of increasingly damaging cuts to educational funding, two propositions promising to raise revenue for schools are going before California’s voters this fall.
Proposition 30 and Proposition 38 present different approaches to a pressing problem in California, once considered a beacon of public education – how to provide more funding to schools and colleges at a time when the state economy and its revenue sources continue to struggle.
Californians can vote for both initiatives, however, the one that receives the most votes will become law.
Proposition 30, the “Schools and Local Public Safety Protection Act,” proposes to temporarily increase the state sales tax by 0.25 percent and add a personal income tax increase for individuals earning over $250,000 and households earning over $500,000. The resulting tax revenue would be allocated to K-12 schools as well as community colleges.
Gov. Jerry Brown is vigorously campaigning for Proposition 30, which is supported by the California Teachers Association, League of Women Voters, California Federation of Teachers, California Police Chiefs Association, the California Democratic Party and the Big 11, representing California’s largest police associations.
Proposition 38 – “Our Children. Our Future. Local Schools and Early Education Investment and Bond Reduction Act” – put on the ballot by the efforts of Southern California philanthropist Molly Munger. It would increase personal income taxes on Californians filing as single taxpayers and earning over $7,316.
A breakdown of the two propositions created by EdSource, which can be seen in its entirety below the article, explains how that the lowest earners would see their taxes increase by 0.4 percent under Proposition 38, extending up to 2.2 percent to the highest income levels over $2.5 million.
Proposition 30’s opponents include the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, whose president, Jon Coupal, called it a “half-baked shell game”; California Republican Party; and the National Federation of Independent Business.
In addition, it’s opposed by the Californians for Reforms and Jobs, Not Taxes, www.stopprop30.com , a coalition that warns that the proposition will “drastically increase taxes and give them to politicians and special interests to spend as they please,” that it offers no reform, no guarantee of funding for schools, and would destroy businesses and jobs.
The group argues that Proposition 30 lacks accountability, and points to dropping support for the initiative reflected in recent poll numbers.
Munger’s proposition’s major backer is the California PTA Association, with chief opponents including the California Chamber of Commerce, California Democratic Party, California Republican Party and the California State Sheriffs’ Association.
How the propositions would work
Proposition 30 is expected to raise $6 billion annually, with $2.9 billion going to K-12 schools and community colleges in the current fiscal year if passed. The funds would go into a new “Education Protection Account” in California’s general fund.
The personal income tax portion would last for seven years, retroactive to Jan. 1 of this year. Sales tax increases would run four years beginning Jan. 1, 2013.
Comparatively, Proposition 38 is expected to raise $10 billion annually for K-12 schools and early childhood programs, with 30 percent of the annually collected revenues going to pay down school bond debt in the first four years. Schools would begin receiving funds in the 2013-14 fiscal year. Colleges would not receive funding.
Proposition 38, if passed, would go into effect in Jan. 1, 2013, and continue for 12 years. The revenues it generated would go into a special “California Education Trust Fund” with a fiscal oversight board of five state officials to oversee it.
Under both propositions, school district boards would be required to hold public meetings to get public input on how the funds would be used, with Proposition 38 requiring schools to annually report on how they spent the money. At the state level, both propositions require annual audits.
State and education officials have warned that Proposition 30’s failure would carry heavy consequences, including trigger cuts and a loss of $5.4 billion in funding to schools and community colleges, with the University of California and California State University systems both to lose a minimum of $250 million, according to EdSource’s analysis.
No cuts would result from Proposition 38’s loss, but schools and education programs would not receive revenues, with no new dedicated funding source to pay off state bond debt.
The Regents of the University of California and the California State University Trustees have endorsed Proposition 30, and even former President Bill Clinton has urged Californians to vote for the initiative.
Around the region, the initiative also has gotten the support of the Santa Rosa Junior College Board of Trustees, Sonoma State University Academic Senate and the Humboldt State University Senate.
Lake County school superintendent weighs in
Of the two measures, Lake County Superintendent of Schools Wally Holbrook said he personally favors Proposition 30, and has formally endorsed it.
The Lake County Board of Education hasn’t taken a position on either proposition, he said. Holbrook asked the board if it wanted to take a position on Proposition 30, but trustees chose not to do so.
He said the county’s school districts haven’t all taken positions, either, although they have all attended workshops on the initiatives.
Holbrook is concerned that Proposition 38 would jeopardize site-based programs. While Holbrook said he thinks there is merit to directly funding schools, that tends to overlook programs not based at a school site.
Such programs are common in Lake County, which has more programs coordinated on a countywide basis than is done in urban areas, Holbrook explained.
“I think Proposition 30 does a better job of trying to address the ongoing deficit factor in education,” he said. “It has, I think, a clearer, stronger plan to reduce that deficit, which I think will make the education budget stronger in the future.”
He added, “But it’s not a quick fix.”
Holbrook said the Lake County Office of Education has told all of Lake County’s school districts to plan their coming budgets as if the two initiatives had failed. “It’s the worst case scenario budget.”
Based on what local district superintendents are telling Holbrook about how their budgets look when planned in that way, it “doesn’t look good.”
While some districts can make it work, many of them – especially those that must show multiyear funding plans – “just look really negative,” Holbrook said.
Without some revenue solution, Holbrook said it’s estimated that the districts across the state in qualified or negative financial status with the state are expected to double.
“There will be some effect in Lake County with school districts, too,” Holbrook said.
“Almost all districts have had to make such significant cuts over a number of years that we’re now getting to the place where even those really well managed districts are very close to the edge,” he said.
The college view
The California Community Colleges Board of Governors has endorsed Proposition 30. On Sept. 12 the Mendocino College Board of Trustees voted unanimously to pass a resolution in support of Proposition 30, with its Academic Senate passing a similar resolution Oct. 11.
Miriam Root, a Yuba College spokesperson, told Lake County News that the Yuba College Board of Trustees reviewed documents at its Oct. 11 meeting that outlined the implications of the propositions’ passage.
“They did not take a formal stance on the proposition; the item was for information only,” Root said.
The California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office reported that funding for community colleges has been cut $809 million, or 12 percent, over the past three years.
At the same time, officials said course sections – or classes – declined nearly 24 percent systemwide from 2008-09 to 2011-12.
The budget cuts have resulted in an historic 17-percent drop in enrollment at the state’s community colleges over the past three years, according to system officials.
Since fall 2008, the community college system’s 72 districts and 112 colleges have seen an enrollment drop of more than 485,000 students for a total enrollment in 2011-12 of 2.4 million, with further drops expected in this new academic year.
Those 485,000 students the system has lost is more than those that are enrolled at all California State University campuses combined, the system reported.
Before he retired this fall, the system’s then-chancellor, Jack Scott, warned that colleges face another $338 million cut in January if Proposition 30 does not pass.
In the past five years, community colleges have lost 9.6 percent in per-student funding, from $5,659 per student in 2007-08, to $5,115 in 2011-12, according to Mendocino College officials.
Mendocino College’s pro-Proposition 30 resolutions state that the initiative will provide $548.5 million to California’s community colleges in 2012-13 and “enable California's community colleges to restore essential student service programs that were cut by up to 60 percent over the last three years.”
“If Proposition 30 does not pass, Mendocino College will experience a 16 percent decrease in state funding. That's $3.3 million over the next three years,” said Mendocino College interim president and superintendent, Roe Darnell.
Darnell said Mendocino College has seen an enrollment drop of 7 percent, the equivalent of 200 full-time students.
He told Lake County News in an interview earlier this fall that in the wake of its financial cuts, they have had to not replace positions when people retire and have had to cut back programs and classes.
“Fortunately this district has been very well managed financially,” said Darnell, and they have been able to minimize the cuts’ impacts.
Some of the class cuts served lifelong learners at the college’s Willits and Lake centers. “We had to cut back on some classes that really served a local need,” he said.
If more cuts come to the district’s expenditure budget, which for this fiscal year totals $20 million, they may have to dig into reserve and cut more classes, Darnell said. “We frankly don't want to do that. That's not the way to serve a community.”
Root said the Yuba College district and its Clear Lake Campus are down in enrollments, just like the statewide trend.
The college reduced its class offerings by 3 percent at Clearlake in fall 2012 compared to the previous year. At the same time, they are down 11 percent in student enrollment and 14 percent in the number of enrolled units.
Root said if Proposition 30 does not pass, the Yuba Community College District would have to cut an additional $2.45 million from its $44 million budget, there would be a forced 7.3 percent workload reduction, the elimination of approximately 170 sections or 531 full-time equivalent students and there would be no apportionment funding.
The Community College League of California also has taken a support position on Prop. 30 and a neutral position on Proposition 38.
The league’s president and chief executive officer, Scott Lay, said if Proposition 30 fails, both the new funding provided by the measure and an additional amount – “the trigger” – will be cut from both K-12 and community colleges for a total of $5.4 billion.
For more information about the propositions, visit http://www.prop38forlocalschools.org , www.yesonprop30.com and www.edsource.org .
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
EdSource Explains Prop 30 and Prop 38
