Proposition 98 Adversely Impacts Calif. Education Funds

There was a lot of lawmaker hand-ringing and wrangling until a Democratic-majority budget was passed, tweaked and ultimately signed by California Gov. Jerry Brown. Although promising to refrain from "smoke and mirrors" tactics, the creative interpretation of Proposition 98 puts the governor at odds with his own words.

* The 2011 Budget Act funds higher education in the state of California to the tune of $22.1 billion. Of these funds, $12.2 billion come from the general fund while $9.9 billion are cobbled together from ancillary funding options.

* It is interesting to note that California's bastions of higher education are now on the hook if their students default on student loans at alarming rates. Eliminating the dabblers and requiring schools to be more selective of the risk factors their students represent, Cal Grant program participation hinges on "normal" three-year student loan defaults. If a school is deemed to exceed this number, it is barred from Cal Grant program participation for a year.

* The UC and CSU systems each lose $650 million. A net apportionment reduction of $419 million to the community college system requires a $10 per unit increase of student fees. The latter is an outcropping of California's Proposition 98, which was enacted in 1988.

* Another holdover from Proposition 98 mathematics is a proposed reduction of the school year by seven days, as well as the elimination of "home-to-school transportation." These measures go into effect if the state's income estimate is off by more than $2 billion.

* Proposition 98 is generally considered to affect only public school spending, but it is a little known fact that it is actually inclusive of the community college years, making it K-14 rather than K-12. The Legislative Analyst's Office explains that electorate-mandated education spending must equal 45 percent of the general fund. Muddying the waters -- somewhat -- is the subsequent adoption of Proposition 111, which was billed the "Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act of 1990." A fine print provision, however, reduced minimum funding guarantees for education if the economy found itself in a slump.

Putting it all together, it is very likely that individual school districts and university systems will once again draft numerous propositions to goad voters into paying more taxes for education. Various students are likely to lose grant funding, while others are unlikely to qualify based on income ceilings and (perceived) credit-worthiness. Assuming that legislator- or education provider-sponsored ballot measures seek to address the current and proposed cuts, there is a good chance that the electorate may not go ahead this time and buy into the measures.

The Cal-Tax research bulletin enumerates that of the $18.9 billion in government waste, $1.34 billion was at the K-12 education level, while $331.55 million fell under the heading of higher education. With figures like these, it is dubious that voters will see past the pork to take stock of the needs that individual students, future graduates and current high school seniors, who could be entering the higher education system soon, represent.

Sylvia Cochran is a Los Angeles area resident with a firm finger on the pulse of California politics. Talk radio junkie, community volunteer and politically independent, she scrutinizes the good and the bad from both sides of the political aisle.