This article originally appeared in the January-February 2004 issue of the Children's Advocate, published by Action Alliance for Children.

Children's Advocates Roundtable

Proposition 55

School facilities bond act

Proposition 55 would raise $12.3 billion to repair, upgrade, and build new schools and university classrooms. Funds would be targeted to areas of greatest need: schools with overcrowded, unsafe, or outdated classrooms, and communities in need of new schools. Local districts would need to provide 40%-to-50% in matching funds to receive state bond money unless the district qualified for hardship funding or the school was identified as critically overcrowded. Funds would be spent according strict accountability measures.

Arguments for

Supporters say California schools need renovation. Studies show that safer, less crowded learning environments help improve student achievement. But more than 1 million students attend overcrowded or outdated schools. Proposition 47, the education bond measure passed overwhelmingly in 2002, only covered about half the needed construction for new classrooms. Proposition 55 is needed to build the other half. The measure has "broad support and recognition by education and business communities because they recognize the importance of investing in California school children and in the future of California," says Kathy Fairbanks, spokesperson for the Yes on 55 campaign.

Supporters say the measure will

• Reduce class size and overcrowding

• Repair school bathrooms and leaky roofs and meet other safety needs.

• Give students more access to computers and technology

• Require strict accountability through independent audits and cost controls

• Help the economy by creating 250,000 new jobs in construction and education.

Supporters include: California Chamber of Commerce, California State PTA, California Taxpayers Association, and League of Women Voters of California.

For more information: Californians for Accountability and Better Schools, 916-443-0872;

Arguments against

Opponents say school repairs and construction should be financed by the yearly state budget, rather than through a bond measure because "California is in worst financial crisis in history," according to Tom Hudson, legislative director for Senator Rico Oller (R, Granite Bay)

Opponents add:

• Instead of passing a bond measure, the state should increase the funds for school construction from 3.5% to 5% of the budget. This would raise twice as much money as Proposition 55

• Taxes will have to be increased to repay the bond.

• There is no way to ensure accountability because schools are plagued with red tape.

• Half of all school districts received nothing from Proposition 47, because only districts that could match 40% of the funds received bond money. Why will Proposition 55 be any different?

Opponents include: Senator Thomas Rico Oller; Lew Uhler, President of National Tax-Limitation Committee; Henry A. Hough, Senior Vice President of 60-Plus Assocation

For more information: California Taxpayer Protection Committee, 916-991-9300; www.protecttaxpayers.com

Return to top

Proposition 56

State budget, taxes & reserve

Currently, a vote by 2/3 of the legislature is needed to approve new budgets and budget-related taxes. This proposition would lower the needed vote to 55%. In addition, the legislature would be required to stay in session until the budget is passed and-along with the governor-would lose pay for each day the budget is late. When the state has more revenue than is needed to run state programs, 25% of the excess would go to a reserve account-available only in an emergency or when revenue is not enough to run state programs. The budget summary would be printed in the state ballot pamphlet.

Arguments for

Supporters say this will hold the legislature accountable for getting a budget passed efficiently without creating huge deficits.

• 55% vote would still require broad consensus to pass the budget, but would end gridlock and deficits caused by the current system.

• The reserve fund would provide a cushion to make extreme budget cuts and tax increases less likely in a weak economy.

• Voters would have better access to budget information.

• Because the budget would be passed sooner, schools would know earlier how much money they will have, so they can plan.

Supporters include: California State PTA, California League of Women Voters, AARP, California Teachers Association, Latino Issues Forum, Sierra Club, California Church IMPACT, California Association of Non-Profits

Arguments against

Opponents say the proposition's real purpose is to make it easier for the legislature to increase taxes and runaway spending.

• Voters put the 2/3 legislative vote in place with Prop. 13 to put reins on runaway taxes and force bipartisan consensus.

• Californians already pay $130 billion in state and local taxes every year.

• A higher tax burden on California businesses and individuals will hurt the state's economic recovery and create more unemployment.

Opponents include: California Taxpayers' Association, Seniors Coalition, American Forest and Paper Association, American Insurance Association, Califo-rnia Building Industry Association, Cali-fornia Business Alliance, San Francisco Hispanic Chamber of Commerce

For more information: Californians Against Higher Taxes, 310-996-2678

Return to top

Propositions 57 and 58

Placed on the ballot at the last minute by the legislature and the governor, Propositions 57 and 58 would borrow to refinance part of the state debt, require that future budgets be balanced, and create a reserve fund. Neither proposition takes effect unless voters approve both.

Proposition 57: California Economic Recovery Bond Act would borrow $15 billion to refinance funds the state borrowed earlier in the year, and be repaid over nine years.

Proposition 58: California Balanced Budget Act would

• require state budgets to be balanced

• create a reserve fund, which would also pay back the bond

• allow the governor to declare a fiscal emergency to propose mid-year budget cuts and require the legislature to stay in session until they approve either the cuts or an alternative plan

• prohibit future deficit bonds.

Supporters say:

• Proposition 57 would provide funds to preserve important programs that otherwise would be cut due to the state budget deficit

• Proposition 58 would stop the state from spending beyond its revenues in the future and create a reserve fund to act as a cushion in hard economic times.

Opponents say:

• Proposition 57 does not address the issue of ongoing budget deficits.

• Proposition 58 would not create significant reform because
  • the budget has always been balanced, at least on paper
  • the state can continue other forms of borrowing
  • the reserve fund is small and does not have enough restrictions on how and when it is used.
    
    
• Proposition 58 would not do enough to curb state spending-some anti-tax and Republican groups are planning a November ballot measure that would tie state spending to inflation and population growth.

Return to top

Looking ahead to November

Improving Classroom Education Act

The California Association of Teachers and Rob Reiner are collecting signatures to put this proposition on the November 2004 ballot. The measure would increase taxes on commercial property by 55% to generate $3 billion for K-12 schools and $1.5 billion for voluntary, universal preschool. An annual audit would track how the funds were spent.

K-12 funds would

• Lower class sizes

• Purchase textbooks and instructional materials

• Improve teacher training and compensation

Universal preschool funds would

• Establish free, voluntary, half-day or more preschool for four year olds-provided by school districts

• Pay salaries, benefits, and training for credentialed child care providers employed by the school system

• Purchase textbooks, instructional materials, and furniture

• Cover renovation, rental, and leasing of facilities

Many in the early care and education community are concerned about the effects of the universal preschool provisions. A December meeting of child care representatives with the proposal's sponsors was called a "positive first step" by Patty Sie-gel, executive director of the California Child Care Resource and Referral Net-work. Siegel said participants raised many questions but seemed to be approaching the proposal in the spirit of "How could it work?" Many groups are waiting to see details, which are not yet definite.

Supporters say:

"There are [thousands] of children on preschool waiting lists," says Michael Trujillo, an aide to Rob Reiner "Those families are waiting for this. [The initiative] would help providers. Almost every provider is eligible-private, public, family child care, non-profit, and [faith-based] providers are all welcome to join. It will pay providers commensurate with the K-12 system, pay for [them] to go back to college, [and] to rehabilitate [their] facility. It will raise the quality of care for other kids [in their care]. This is something great for kids in California."

For more information: Andrew Acosta, Improving Classroom Education Campaign, 916-443-7817

Opponents say:

The initiative "would eliminate funding for non-school-based [child care] programs, which is about 75% of the providers," says Elizabeth Sholes, public policy coordinator for the California Council of Churches. "We also oppose the initiative [because it] commandeers commercial [tax] monies toward a single objective," she adds, rather than spending them on a variety of needs. Other critics are concerned about the proposal's potential effect on support for infant/toddler programs, on families who need full-day, full-year child care, and other issues.

For more information: Elizabeth Sholes, California Council of Churches, 916-442-5447

Return to top

Proposition 55: School
facilities bond act

Proposition 56: State
budget, taxes & reserve

Looking ahead to November:
Improving Classroom
Education Act

Action Alliance
for Children
e-mail aac@4children.org
1201 Martin Luther
King Jr. Way
Oakland, CA 94612
(510) 444-7136