California Proposition 98, Mandatory Education Spending Initiative (1988)
For other propositions labeled "Proposition 98" consult the Proposition 98 disambiguation page.
| California Proposition 98 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date November 8, 1988 | |
| Topic Education | |
Status Approved | |
| Type Amendment & Statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 98 was on the ballot as a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute in California on November 8, 1988. It was approved.
A "yes" vote supported amending the state constitution and adopting a law to establish a minimum level of funding for public education (K-14) using two formulas based on a certain percentage of the state budget or the prior fiscal year's allocation plus an adjustment for capita growth and student enrollment. |
A "no" vote opposed this ballot initiative to establish a minimum for education funding. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 98 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
|
|
4,689,737 | 51.03% | ||
| No | 4,500,503 | 48.97% | ||
Aftermath
In 1990, the state legislature referred Proposition 111 to the ballot where it was approved with 52% of the vote. Proposition 111 added a third formula, Test 3, which considers student attendance, the cost of living, and changes in the General Fund revenue.[1]
Overview
Proposition 98 amended the state constitution to require a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education, which is referred to as the minimum guarantee. Proposition 98 established two formulas or tests to determine the minimum guarantee, which is the highest funding level produced by Test 1 or Test 2. Test 1 links the minimum guarantee to about 40% of the state General Fund, which is equal to California's 1986-87 funding level of public education. Test 2 calculates the minimum guarantee by adjusting the prior year's minimum guarantee by student attendance and changes in the cost of living.[2]
The initiative authorized the California State Legislature to suspend the education funding minimum for one year by a two-thirds (66.67%) vote.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 98 was as follows:
| “ | School Funding. Initiative Constitutional Amendment and Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ | Amends State Constitution by establishing a minimum level of state funding for school and community college districts; transferring to such districts, within limits, state revenues in excess of State's appropriations limit; and exempting excess funds from appropriations limit. Adds provisions to Education Code requiring excess funds to be used solely for instructional improvement and accountability and requiring schools to report student achievement, drop-out rates, expenditures per student, progress toward reducing class size and teaching loads, classroom discipline, curriculum, quality of teaching, and other school matters. Contains other provisions. Summary of Legislative Analyst's estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact: Meeting the required minimum funding level for schools and community college districts will result in state General Fund costs of $215 million in 1988-89. No excess state revenues are expected in 1988-89 for transfer to schools and community colleges. Local administrative costs are estimated to be $2 million to $7 million a year for preparation and distribution of School Accountability Report Cards. No fiscal effect can be identified for the required prudent reserve fund. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
- See also: Fiscal impact statement
The fiscal estimate provided by the California Legislative Analyst's Office said:[2]
| “ | Meeting the required minimum funding level for schools and community college districts will result in state General Fund costs of $215 million in 1988-89. No excess state revenues are expected in 1988-89 for transfer to schools and community colleges. Local administrative costs are estimated to be $2 million to $7 million a year for preparation and distribution of School Accountability Report Cards. No fiscal effect can be identified for the required prudent reserve fund.[3] | ” |
Support
Supporters
- California Teachers Association[2]
- California State PTA[2]
- State Superintendent of Public Instruction Bill Honig[2]
- Association of California School Administrators President Ray Tolacher[2]
Arguments
- California Teachers Association President Ed Foglia and California State PTA President Helen H. Lindsey said, "Proposition 98 takes school financing out of politics by ensuring a minimum funding level for schools which the Legislature and Governor must honor except in fiscal emergencies. Proposition 98 requires that if there is a state budget surplus over and above the government spending limit, the money that goes for education can only be used for instructional improvements, paying teachers, or reducing class size."[2]
Opposition
Opponents
- Gov. George Deukmejian (R)[2]
- California Commission on Educational Quality Chairman George Christopher[2]
- California Taxpayers' Association Executive Vice President Richard Simpson[2]
Arguments
- Gov. George Deukmejian (R), California Commission on Educational Quality Chairman George Christopher, and California Taxpayers' Association Executive Vice President Richard Simpson said, "Proposition 98 would place all other important state services at risk. Proposition 98 would throw away the reasonable limit on state spending imposed by a vote of the people."[2]
Background
California Proposition 4, Government Spending 'Gann Limit' Initiative (1979)
Proposition 4 also known as the Gann Limit, was approved in 1979. Proposition 4 added Article XIII B to the California Constitution. Paul Gann sponsored the ballot initiative.[4]
Proposition 4 limited growth in state and local government spending financed from tax revenue and certain fee revenue to 1978-1979 levels with an annual adjustment for changes in population and cost of living; required that governments adjust tax rates or fee schedules to remit funds when the government spending limit is exceeded; and required the state government to reimburse local governments the costs of complying with state mandates.[4]
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute is equal to 8 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated amendments filed in 1988, at least 595,485 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
- November 8, 1988 ballot proposition voter guide
- Proposition 98 Primer
- The Basics of Proposition 98: A Tutorial for State Lawmakers
Footnotes
- ↑ California's Legislative Analyst's Office, "A Historical Review of Proposition 98," January 18, 2017
- ↑ 2.00 2.01 2.02 2.03 2.04 2.05 2.06 2.07 2.08 2.09 2.10 University of California Hastings, "Voter guide," accessed August 12, 2022
- ↑ Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ 4.0 4.1 California Secretary of State, "Official 1979 Voter Guide," accessed May 12, 2021
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2024 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
