LWVC logo
Action Guide
November 3, 1998

LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA

OPPOSES

Proposition 8 — Education. Parent Teacher Governing Councils. New Office of Chief Inspector of Public Schools.

DESCRIPTION

This is an initiative statute making permanent the existing K-3 class size reduction funding for districts, but only if they establish governing councils composed of 2/3 parents and 1/3 teachers in each school in the district. Those councils would have the power, in consultation with school principals, to make all curriculum and expenditure decisions for their school, within the budget provided by the district. Procedures for setting up the councils and establishing their rules are not spelled out, but would be established by each school district. Teachers would be responsible for drafting an educational plan each year, which could then be modified by the school site council. Principals would make personnel decisions, and would have added power to do so for their school.

The measure sets up a whole new state bureaucracy under an education czar called the Chief Inspector of Public Schools to evaluate and report on school quality. This person would be appointed by the Governor for a ten year term, not be subject to approval by the Senate, and could be removed from office only by a two-thirds vote of both houses of the Legislature. There are no educational or professional requirements for the appointee to this office. The Inspector would have broad authority to hire, fire and set compensation for the employees of the office as well as for him- or herself. Funding for the office, which the Legislative Analyst estimates could be $15 to $20 million annually, would come from the approximately $34 million annual budget of the State Department of Education.

The measure adds some additional requirements for examinations for teachers to receive credentials and assignments to teach particular subjects, and provides that pupil performance would be used in teacher evaluations. It makes minor additions to requirements for expulsion of students for possession of drugs. Overall, the measure creates up to $60 million in new state programs, with a significant portion probably coming from the existing education budget. The potential costs to local school districts could be in the high tens of millions of dollars.

BACKGROUND

This measure was sponsored by Governor Wilson as a response to low comparative test scores for California's students. It gives parents a greater role in running the schools their children attend. It is also intended to provide greater state oversight of the schools and reporting on the performance of individual schools.

IMPORTANT POINTS

Supporters
Signing ballot argument for:

Pete Wilson, Governor
State of California

Yvonne Larsen, President
California State Board of Education

Kim Jacobsma
1996 Teacher of the Year

Opponents
Signing ballot argument against:

Lois Tinson, President
California Teachers Association

Lenny Goldberg, Executive Director
California Tax Reform Association

Bob Wells, Secretary/Treasurer
Parents, Teachers and Educators for Local Control

Resources

Parents, Teachers, Cops and Taxpayers Against Prop 8, 111 Anza Boulevard, Suite 406, Burlingame 94010, 650- 340-0470, fax 650-340-1740, www.noprop8.org

An excellent impartial analysis of Proposition 8 is available from EdSource, a nonpartisan, nonprofit education policy research organization. The report is posted on the Web at www.edsource.org, or you can call (650) 857-9604 to purchase a copy.


Go to League position on:    Prop 2 | Prop 8 | Prop 9 | Prop 11
Go to League In Depth Nonpartisan Analysis of this Proposition.
Return to Action Guide Summary, November 1998
Go to LWVC Home Page.

The League of Women Voters is always nonpartisan: It does not support or oppose candidates or political parties. However, we are political because we support and oppose legislation, lobby legislators and take stands on ballot measures.
© Copyright 1998. League of Women Voters of California.