School Beat: Schools and the Special Election

by Lisa Schiff, 2005-08-18

Fall is coming, which means another new school year, and unfortunately, a costly special election that Californians can ill-afford. As part of his aggressive agenda to restrict our rights and benefits, Governor Schwarzenegger is pushing forward several propositions that will be presented to voters on November 8th.

The issues these propositions address are wide-ranging, from limiting young women's access to safe-abortions through required parental notification laws (Proposition 73), to a redistricting overhaul (Proposition 75), to prescription drug pricing regulations (Propositions 77 and 78). More details about each proposition on the ballot can be found at:
. http://www.easyvoter.org/california/nextelection/7_27_05new-rev.html and
. http://www.igs.berkeley.edu/library/htSpecialElection2005.html

All of these propositions would have a significant impact on California residents, but two--Propositions 74 and 76--are particularly targeted on public education.

Proposition 74 would needlessly extend the probationary time for new teachers from 2 years to 5 years. A 2-year probationary period is lengthy enough for any profession. A 5-year period creates a level of job insecurity that only adds to the pile of discouraging factors preventing people from taking up this profession.

This is especially so since all that teachers gain after their current 2-year probation is the security that specific reasons and procedures must be followed before they can be fired. Coincidentally the Education Commission of the States reports that by the fifth year, an alarming 40-50% of teachers leave the profession.

Proposition 74 was clearly not intended to improve. Instead, it is a rather blatant attempt to: 1) distract the public from the real issues facing schools, such as funding; and 2) keep teachers busily engaged fighting to maintain existing rights as opposed to continuing their challenge against the variety of attacks on public education.

If Proposition 74 is a focused jab, Proposition 76 is a much more strategic move at achieving a long-term power grab on the part of the Governor and for whomever holds his office in the future. At its core, Proposition 76 renders the budgetary process pointless and makes all of us vulnerable to arbitrary, unilateral budget cuts at any point in the year.

The rhetoric behind Proposition 76 is that we need to get the budget under control, which is nothing more than a veiled way of saying that funds for social services and benefits to low-income and working people need to be cut. The mechanism for asserting this control is a cap on the budget (spending must be limited to the ".prior year's level plus three previous year's average revenue growth.") and the ability to declare a fiscal emergency if revenue has fallen 1_% below the previous year's revenue or if the balance of the reserve fund is projected to decline by more than 50%. At that point, the legislature would have 45 days to amend the budget, and if they did not, then the Governor would be able to make unilateral budget cuts throughout the fiscal year without going back to the legislature.

School funding is specifically targeted in Proposition 76 in changes to formulas and rules established in Proposition 98, which set a base line of funding for schools, ending up to about 40% of the state's general fund. Although school financing qualifies as a dark art, even a novice's reading of the proposed legislations reveals these troublesome facts:
First, Proposition 76 goes after what is known as the "maintenance factor" in Proposition 98. In "lean" years, less money can be allocated to schools, but those funds must in theory be made up in the following year. We're seeing now how this does not play out in the real world of politics. Proposition 76 would go one step further, eliminating this outright.

Second, any outstanding monies that are owed would be considered "one-time" funding and would not be considered in the formula for determining next year's public education spending. Over time, this is projected to result in a decrease in overall public education spending. Additionally downward pressure to reduce spending would come from the legislature's desire to avoid triggering a "budget crisis" under the new definition.

Third, excess funds in the general fund currently go to schools and tax relief. Under Proposition 76 they would go to debt repayment, construction and the reserve fund.
In short, not only would Proposition 76 reduce the amount of guaranteed funding for schools, it would make that amount subject to the legislative process and therefore less stable from year to year.

These propositions are quite frightening, frightening enough to start people talking. This past Saturday, a variety of labor, political and community organizations met to learn more about them and to hear about a new alliance that has formed to coordinate efforts amongst groups to meet this latest electoral challenge.

Aptly named the Alliance for a Better California, the group is setting up offices throughout California, including San Francisco. The goal is to ensure solid voter education and turnout, without duplicating efforts and unintentionally harassing voters with numerous phone calls.

At this point, representation is strongest amongst labor groups, the local Democratic Party and Democratic clubs and, from a quick glance around the auditorium, people of European descent. To strengthen this network, more diverse community organizations and other political entities must be included. To facilitate this, the Alliance is planning to hold weekly leadership meetings where representatives from all the organizations that have signed on can hash things out. Organizations interested in endorsing the coalition and helping to shape and be a part of this campaign can call 415-503-5797.

Whatever our political differences, these propositions represent serious threats to us all and need to be defeated. Not only would their successful passage restrict the specific rights and protections they target, but they would further fuel the ongoing effort to constrain the public sphere and the lives of working people.

Lisa Schiff is the parent of two children who attend McKinley Elementary School in the San Francisco Unified School District and is the president of the board of directors of Parents for Public Schools of San Francisco (http://www.ppssf.org).