Advertise Here

Deliver your message to thousands of readers every day.

Our readers are influential opinion makers - politicians, journalists and activists.

Our latest headlines

Cutting Children’s Health Coverage Will Only Make California’s Budget Situation Worse
Congresswoman Lynn Woolsey’s Endorsement of Mark Leno for State Senate Says a Lot on a Number of Levels
The Ballot Initiative Process in California Doesn’t Have to be Junked: It Can Be Reformed
What if California Had a Normal Government by Which It Addressed the Budget Deficit?
Sierra Club California Thanks Governor, Attorney General, and Air Resources Board for Upholding Clean Air Rules—Says to Automakers: Don't Be "Climate Chickens"
The "Year of Health Reform" in California: Take Two--Lessons for the Next Attempt
Budget Confusion in California: How Big a Gap Do You Want It to Be?

About Us

The California Progress Report is published by Frank D. Russo, a longtime observer of and participant in California politics.

About Frank Russo.
About California Progress Report.

Got a news tip? Want to write a guest column? Contact Frank here.

California Ballot Propositions 91 and 92: The Perspective of a Teacher and Former Legislator

By Jackie Goldberg
Teacher
Former Member of the California Assembly

Prop 91: Just Vote No

Usually I divide ballot measures in an election into "The Good," "The Bad," and "The Ugly." But this time, there is not too much to say about the measures themselves. First of all, on the State ballot, there are really only four issues. The first, Prop. 91, further restricts the use of Transportation Funds, and is opposed by everyone, including those who put it on the ballot. The reason is simple. Everyone agrees that Transportation Funding is already heavily restricted, giving the legislature and the Governor almost no flexibility as to whether or not they can shift priorities during a budget crisis. So, it is easy to say, VOTE "NO" on Proposition 91.

Prop 92

Moving on to Proposition 92, the debate is how to spend money on K-12 and Community Colleges. On its face, this looks like a very good idea. It includes reducing fees to attend Community College to $15 a semester unit (or about $45. for a typical 3-unit class). Also some of the provisions change slightly the number and composition of the Board of Governors who would remain Governor appointees.

But the real fight is really between CTA and CFT, the latter of the two teacher unions being a major sponsor of this ballot proposition. What is at stake is a separate funding calculation for the Community Colleges as opposed to the current situation of both K-12 and Community Colleges jointly being a part of a guarantee portion of the State budget under the terms of former Proposition 98 (The K-14 Minimum Funding Guarantee).

Every time there is a budget shortfall, and K-12 schools face cuts, the legislature and the Governor choose to "protect”" K-12 funding as much as possible over funding for Community Colleges. The Community Colleges want their separate funding mechanism, and they want a guarantee for themselves.

The advantage of this is that Community College students, who are mostly working class, people of color, or students who were not successful in high school need a low cost way "back into" an academic/vocational setting as a way of improving their professional and economic lives. When "fees" get too high, Community College enrollment drops dramatically in urban and rural low-income parts of the state.

ON THE OTHER HAND, say the K-12 advocates, when money is tight, it is children still in compulsory school situations that should have their needs as the top priority.

So, instead of all the advocates for public education, K-12, Community College, State College and State University, and the University of California all organizing to expand the tax base in an initiative (either by closing tax breaks for the rich or adding new levels of corporate and personal income taxes at the higher end), the public is being asked to "pick among competing needs for funds for public education."

I am not sure what I will do. I would have preferred a measure jointing drafted and supported by CTA and CFT, assuming of course that CTA would ever help the Community Colleges. My recommendation is to VOTE YOUR OWN PRIORITIES, understanding that to give to one, is to take from the other.

Before being termed-out of office, Goldberg served six years in the California Assembly and Chaired the Assembly Committee on Education. Prior to that, she served on the School Board for the LA Unified School District for 8 years, LA City Council for 8 years, and has been a high school teacher for 18 years. This article originally appeared on the website of Speak Out California Speak Out California and is republished with her permission.

Posted on January 28, 2008

Comments

Get Email Updates

Want the California Progress Report by email? Once a week, we'll send you the latest and greatest headlines.

Stat tracker