Schools Don’t Merit Exemption From Budget Pool

As a member of the George Deukmejian Administration since 1984, I am deeply concerned about Proposition 98, the Classroom Instructional Improvement and Accountability Act.

This initiative, sponsored by the California Teachers Assn. and the Assn. of California School Administrators, is a budget-buster of some magnitude. It would take public education from kindergarten through the community colleges out of the budgeting process and effectively repeal the Gann spending limit as it relates to these schools.

The process of creating the state budget is one that requires delicate and complex balances that must be weighed to sustain the hundreds of state government programs plus more than 1,000 school districts, 400 cities and 58 counties, all of which rely to varying degrees on the state for their revenues. Every taxpayer dollar is carefully scrutinized to ensure that it is being used for the highest-priority programs. As a result of this process, Gov. Deukmejian has been able to fulfill his promise to Californians to hold the line on new taxes.

Proposition 98 would impose a constitutional funding formula that would bar the Legislature and the governor from reducing school spending below the percentage of the state budget devoted to public education--kindergartens through community colleges--in 1986-87. The initiative would increase this spending floor for schools to account for inflation and enrollment growth, yet state funding for these purposes would not be decreased even if student enrollments were to fall.

This is money that may come from only three sources:

Higher taxes --The governor is adamantly opposed to this option, and the constitutional spending limit would preclude such an increase anyway.

Depleting the $600-million reserve --These funds have been set aside for such emergencies as earthquakes, fires, a continuation of the drought and an expanding prison population.

Slashing other essential government programs --These would include a range of programs and services, including but certainly not limited to higher education, medical care, services for the elderly, public safety and local government support.

These options, none of which are desirable, would come on the heels of the $1-billion revenue shortfall of last spring, an event that sorely stretched the state’s budget as we began the current fiscal year. It should be understood that, if we must start to choose among these options, the state budget is already very tight.

Proposition 98 would force lawmakers to allocate funds with no evaluation of the need for those funds. Even if we discovered that the schools were using the funds unwisely, we could not stop the payment of this money. In fact, denied this ability, lawmakers would have no leverage over the public school system in efforts to reform it. Far from promoting accountability in the school system, Proposition 98 would destroy it.

Public education has been and will continue to be this Administration’s highest funding priority. From 1982-83 to 1988-89, annual funding for kindergarten through 12th grade increased from $7.7 billion to $13.4 billion. During the six years that this Administration has been in office, funding for schools has increased 78% while student enrollment has increased just 14%. Since it was approved by the voters in 1984, the lottery has supplemented this funding by another $2.6 billion.

The National Education Assn., the parent organization of the California Teachers Assn., has just produced statistics on revenues for education in each state since 1983, the year in which major education reforms swept the country. Nationwide, total school revenues rose 34.1%. I am proud to report that the NEA shows that California was the second-fastest-growing state for school revenues; we have grown 58.7%. Alaska, the leader, experienced an 87.9% growth.

It seems clear to me that California schools are doing very well under the present system of letting the governor and the Legislature set the priorities for the state budget. It is totally unnecessary to provide the schools with a constitutional guaranteeof a permanent, constantly rising share of the revenues of the state.