February 4, 2006

By Assemblymember John Laird

The Governor's visit to the Monterey Bay area last week—where he and I both addressed a statewide education group—received wide local news coverage. The resulting stories largely repeated points provided by the Governor, understandable given California 's complex education funding system. 

But no matter how arcane the education finance debate may seem, unless certain fiscally responsible actions are taken this year, the state will have to make even tougher decisions next year.

Last fall, California voters resoundingly defeated the Governor's proposed weakening of Proposition 98 - which guides state support to public schools.  Along the Central Coast , voters opposed the Governor in percentages even higher than the rest of the state. 

Among the fifty states, California is 44th in per capita funding for K-12 schools, yet some legislators counter that California spends more money for education than any other state.  Because California is by far the largest state in the nation, both statements are true. 

How did we get to this point?  Proposition 98 was approved by California voters in 1988 and sets aside a minimum amount of the state budget for education.  School funding increases in good economic times and is held back in poorer economic times - and is made up when the economy improves.

This system sets up a confusing discussion.  If funding increases don't happen in better economic times after funds were held back in poorer economic times, they are labeled “cuts” by education advocates.

In 2004, in the face of a large state budget deficit, the Governor and education leaders agreed to a limited suspension of the minimum Proposition 98 education funding guarantees.

In 2005, the Governor walked away from that deal, and instead proposed an additional $3 billion cut in required education funding.  And then he campaigned for the ill-fated ballot measure, Proposition 76, which would have undone the education funding guarantees - which he termed budget “autopilot spending.”

The Governor did have a point in that the majority of California 's budget is dictated by voter-approved ballot measures.  But he ignored the fact that even with these voter-approved “autopilot” measures, the budget would have been in balance but for his own actions. He approved taking over $4 billion out of the state budget without a real plan for either cutting state spending or replacing that revenue from another source. 

With half of the state budget going for education, there was no way that education would not suffer from reduced state revenue.  The Governor had promised no cuts in education, no new taxes, the repeal of the vehicle license fee and a balanced budget.  It was only a matter of which promise he broke first.

For 2006 the Governor has proposed spending $1.7 billion more than the amount required by Proposition 98.  He is able to do this by taking increased revenue to the state budget from three years and spending it all in one budget year.  However, on an ongoing basis, the state would spend more than it takes in.

This is where confusion really sets in.  In his visit to our area last week, the Governor highlighted his proposal to add over $4 billion to education next year.  The problem is that all but $1.7 billion is already required by state law.   And that $1.7 billion is just a partial down payment on what is owed back to schools.  While he is proposing to honor his original 2004 deal, the Governor is ignoring the Proposition 98-required increases that would have been made over the intervening two years.

Adding to the confusion, the Governor's $1.7 billion proposal directs money to new programs, such as music, arts, physical education and vocational education. I support these programs, but am not sure the state should mandate them while still owing over one billion dollars to local school districts for programs mandated in the past—for which they were never paid. 

With the overall state budget deficit at $5 billion next year and almost double that amount the following year, it makes more sense to pay back debt owed local school districts and let them decide how best to use it - rather than leave the debt unpaid and mandate new programs.

In considering the future for our public schools—and working through the confusion over how they are funded—the key question is how to balance the state budget in the coming years without pitting funding for public schools against higher education, health care and support for seniors.

Support for public education should be a bi-partisan issue.  California 's investment in education in the 1960s and 1970s was a major factor in the state becoming the sixth largest economy in the world.

As our economy continues to be challenged in a changing world, our decisions are really about whether California is going to remain economically competitive. The proposed budget just puts off that decision for another year.

John Laird represents the Central Coast in the State Assembly, where he chairs the Assembly Budget Committee.