On Tuesday, Nov. 6, California voters took to the polls to decide the future of California education and approved Proposition 30 with 54 percent of the vote for and 46 percent against. Meanwhile, Proposition 38 failed with 72 percent against and 28 percent for. With California currently in a multi-billion dollar budget deficit, cuts to education have been utilized as a means of balancing the budget. After several years of painful cuts, many are outraged and dismayed by the inability of the government to protect education and ultimately the posterity’s welfare. Some, including Gov. Jerry Brown and civil rights attorney Molly Munger, have taken the issue to California voters in the 2012 election each with a measure on the ballot.
Prop 30, spearheaded by California Gov. Jerry Brown, is projected to generate $6 billion annually in additional revenue, which would help balance the state budget and prevent cuts to K-12 schools, universities and community colleges. It accomplishes these goals through tax increases. Prop 30 raises personal income tax for seven years on those earning $250,000 or more. The current state personal income tax rate is 9.3 percent, but under this proposal, the rate will increase by one to three percent depending on the income bracket. In addition, the state-imposed sales tax will go up a quarter percent to 7.5 percent for four years. Including local sales tax, the median rate in San Mateo County will rise to 8.5 percent.
While tax hikes in a troubled economy are concerning, Brown, on a recent interview with KTVU, reasons, “We either get the new money assumed by our budget or we cut the 6 billion, [which would mean] a couple of weeks of school gone, thousands of classes gone, [and] tuition dramatically up at U.C. and Cal State.”
However, Brown also explains why California is in the position it is today. He says, “We had a big deficit when I took over – $27 billion. I’ve cut $20 billion of that. The last piece is either more cuts or this temporary revenue.”
In contrast, Prop 38, backed by attorney Molly Munger, was projected to raise $10 billion in fiscal year 2013-14 with more revenue in years after. It would have raised the personal income tax of most Californians, except those in the lowest tax bracket, by 0.4 percent to 2.2 percent and would have been in place until 2024. The revenue generated would have been allocated mostly towards K-12 schools with the remaining going towards lowering state debt and childcare programs. Unlike Prop 30, this initiative could not be amended by the state legislature.
One of the principal reasons Munger put forth Prop 38 is that state legislatures do not have the power to make changes to it. Only voter approval of another ballot can change or nullify Prop 38. Munger points out, “I don’t think we’d have a very good functioning democracy if we always just did what one person at the top wanted. In fact, one of the reasons we have democracy is because that old method, which is to just do what the king says, led to some very bad decisions over time.”
Despite the good intentions of proponents of both initiatives, the negative campaigning employed by both sides had nearly jeopardized the passage of either.
“Prop 30 will provide more immediate relief and keep the education system stable in California,” says sophomore Benjamin Maisonpierre, “[But] instead of worrying if one of the two failed, I would worry more if both failed to pass. We would be at a loss for how to fund education.”
If neither proposition had passed, cuts to education in the state budget would have been imminent, and Aragon and the district would have had to face tougher economic times.
Prior to the election, SMUHSD Deputy Superintendent Elizabeth McManus said, “We would be looking at about $3.8 million dollars of additional funding reductions in January… so some type of service or program [would] have to be eliminated, and the bottom line is that [$3.8 million] is a lot of elimination. We [would have been] looking at [cuts to] supports classes, art classes, counseling services… custodians, groundskeepers [and increased] fees.”
If those cuts were all translated into teacher layoffs, “That’s about 38 teachers…and if you…times 30 students times five periods: that’s the impact on students,” says McManus.
However, despite the understanding that one or both of these propositions must pass to protect California education, some prefer one to the other.
AP Psychology teacher Carlo Corti, also the vice president of the Teachers Association for the San Mateo Unified High School District, noted prior to the election, “[The teacher’s association] endorses and strongly supports and are advocating [for] Prop 30. We think that it’s a more responsible initiative [and] deals more with our immediate budget crises while also protecting money for education.”
Unlike Prop 38, Gov. Brown’s ballot measure also provides relief for higher education institutions. The CSU system has previously sent out controversial letters to high school applicants warning that there may not be room for them if Prop 30 did not pass.
“The UCs, CSUs and community colleges would definitely take a hit. They’ve already been scaled back the last couple of years so they can’t offer the courses they used to,” says Assistant Principal Jim Coe. “Hopefully the [new] budget will reinstate those funds so that those schools can take in more students and offer the programs that they need for students to graduate, so [students] are not on five or six year programs, and they can get out in four with their BA degrees.”
While the passage of Proposition 30 provides critical financial security to our public schools, the changes it makes to the tax code are temporary, and what remains to be seen is how California schools will improve and compete well into the future. Nonetheless, Prop 30 may take a large first step towards solving the state’s deficit crises and sets the stage for a more responsible fiscal future.
Corti says, “I think Prop 30 makes significant structural changes to the [state] budget. Hopefully, in seven years our economy will have rebounded, and there is a bigger tax base, and they don’t have to extend any tax [increases] then.”
