On Nov. 7, California voters will decide on Proposition 88, an
initiative that would increase education funding by creating a
property parcel tax.
Should the proposition pass, it will create a new parcel tax for
Californians to pay in addition to their existing property taxes.
The parcel tax will apply to land owned by individuals and will be
taxed at a flat rate of $50 per parcel, or property, irrespective
of its size.
A large portion of the estimated $450 million dollars of revenue
that the new tax is expected to produce would be used to fund
improved classrooms and to update facilities in California K-12
schools.
The funds collected by the tax would be placed in a
state-sponsored special fund. Moneys from this fund would then be
allocated to school districts based on student performance,
socioeconomic status in the district and necessity. From there, the
moneys will be transferred to the schools that need it, and a small
portion of the tax money will be used to pay for the costs of
distribution.
The bill focuses on educational issues such as class size
reduction, improved instructional materials, school safety programs
and facility-related grants.
Some of these goals, such as class size reduction and greater
access to instructional materials, would be universal across all
California school districts. But only publicly chartered schools
and schools in low-income neighborhoods would receive
facility-related grants.
Opponents of the measure say they believe the proposition will
be ineffective at making real changes and question whether the
special state fund to allocate the tax revenue will be
efficient.
In addition, many oppose the introduction of a $50 flat tax that
poorer Californians might not be able to pay.
Some UCLA professors emphasized the importance of small
classes.
“Teaching is about trying to meet the needs of
students,” said Megan Franke, a professor in the education
department at UCLA.
Fewer children per classroom means that teachers have more of an
opportunity to get to know their students, understand their
abilities and to engage them in the learning process, she said.
“With more challenging concepts, smaller classes are a
better chance to get engaged,” she said.
In addition, moneys resulting from Proposition 88 could provide
up to $100 million more per year for new textbooks and
instructional materials. As a result, up to one-fourth of
kindergarten through 12th grade students could have one additional
core textbook per year.
Proposition 88 also focuses on facility grants for charter
schools and schools in low-income areas. While students at these
140 schools would greatly benefit from such grants, they make up
only 5 percent of all students in California, according to the
California Attorney General’s office.
Kyle Kleckner, the issues director for the Bruin Democrats, said
he believes improving California schools should be a priority but
does not agree with how Proposition 88 would fund it.
“Our schools should be palaces, but a property tax (that
adversely affects) the poorest people won’t solve the
problem,” he said.
Kleckner also believes that a regressive tax, which remains flat
regardless of income level, hurts poor Californians and the $50 tax
proposed by the initiative would not be an effective way to give
back to California schools.
On the “No On 88″ organization’s Web site,
Riverside County treasurer Paul McDonnell said, “Proposition
88 is a costly administrative nightmare, creating new layers of
expensive bureaucracy.”
But while the proposition may be flawed in many ways, Franke
said that California schools need help when it comes to resources.
Though California schools are grossly underfunded, she believes
school districts could more effectively use the resources they
already have.
“We could be doing so much more,” Franke said,
“We’ve got to find a way to fund them.”