This article originally appeared in the January-February 2000 issue of the Children's Advocate newsmagazine, published by Action Alliance for Children.

PROPOSITION 26: Majority Rule Act for Smaller Classes, Safer Schools, and Financial Accountability

Prepared by Yvette Artiga

This initiative would change the vote requirement for local school bonds from a two-thirds majority to a simple majority making it easier to build and repair classrooms.

Arguments for

• Enrollment growth and the class-size reduction program have increased the need for new classrooms.
• A majority of voters in California consistently vote in favor of local school bond measures that fail because they don't get two-thirds of the vote.
• School districts waste time and money on repeated bond campaigns trying to get a two-thirds majority.
• Since 1998, local districts can't get state money for school construction unless they put up matching funds, so it's even more crucial to pass local bond measures.
• Only three other states require a two-thirds majority for local bond issues.

Arguments against

• Because it will be easier to pass a bond, property taxes may increase.
• There may be a move to eliminate the two-thirds vote protection for all local bonds and taxes.
• A two-thirds vote for local schools bonds is not impossible to achieve

Decision-making

Arguments for

• Provides greater local control in education with the democratic principle of majority rule.

Arguments against

• There are many historical examples of two-thirds vote rules in the United States and California.
• Californians have repeatedly demonstrated their support of the two-thirds vote requirement and rejected efforts to lower it.

Accountability

Arguments for

Many provisions are included to ensure that bond money is spent appropriately on repairing school facilities required for class-size reduction and other needs.

• School districts must give voters a detailed list of specific projects their bond money will be used for.
• If voters approve a school bond request, districts have to undergo annual, independent performance and financial audits for every project.
• Bond proceeds can't be used for salaries or other administrative costs.
• Funds will be shared equally among all public school pupils, including those who attend public charter schools.

Arguments against

• Local officials have mismanaged bond funds and this measure doesn't put enough control on how school districts spend bond money.
• There's no legally binding timetable for completion of projects and no penalties for misspending funds.
• School districts don't have to specify how much money each project will receive.
• There is no citizen oversight of bond spending.
• The measure doesn't require school facilities be adequately maintained.

Supporters: California Teachers Association, California Federation of Teachers, League of Women Voters, California State PTA, California Manufacturers Association, Chamber of Commerce, California Business Roundtable, and Congress of California Seniors. For campaign information call Let's Fix Our Schools (916) 554-0324.

Opponents: Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, Sherman Oaks Homeowners Association, Council of Sacramento Senior Organizations. For campaign information call Save Our Homes (213) 384-9656.

On November 16, 1999, the Prop. 26 campaign announced that Silicon Valley executives had contributed more than $3 million to support Prop. 26. Reed Hastings, chief executive officer of NetFlix.com and co-chairman of the campaign, said business leaders rely on public schools to supply an educated work force, so Prop. 26 is a high priority. "If we don't fix our public schools now, the future of California is in jeopardy," said Hastings.

SCHOOL FACTS:

• An estimated 300,000 new students will flood California's school systems within the next five years.
• Half of California's school buildings are more than 30 years old, and many are in serious disrepair.
• More than two million California students attend classes in temporary trailers.
• California ranks 49th among the 50 states in number of pupils per class.

Sources: EdSource, California Department of Education, California Department of Finance.