LWVCEF LWVC HOME - ELECTION '98 - VOTING Q&As - STATE PROPS - ABOUT LWV
ON BALLOT MEASURES: ABOUT OUR ANALYSIS - LIST of PROPS - SMART VOTER
LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND
Nonpartisan In Depth Analysis of

Proposition 8

PUBLIC SCHOOLS. PERMANENT CLASS SIZE REDUCTION.
PARENT-TEACHER COUNCIL. TEACHER CREDENTIALING.
PUPIL SUSPENSION FOR DRUG POSSESSION.
CHIEF INSPECTOR'S OFFICE.
Initiative Statute

THE QUESTION

Should voters add six provisions to the Education Code that would make major changes in the state's K-12 education system?

PROVISIONS

Proposition 8 changes sections of the Education Code that apply to kindergarten through grade 12 in six categories. The measure would:

  • create a new school oversight office to be headed by a Chief Inspector of Public Schools

  • require each school district to have a governing council of parents and teachers who would have more decision-making responsibilities for their schools

  • require new teachers and certain experienced teachers to pass a subject matter test before they can teach in that subject area

  • require teachers to have a portfolio of approved lesson plans for the subjects they would teach

  • require the immediate expulsion of any student who possesses illegal drugs at school

  • guarantee permanent funding to continue the Class Size Reduction program for all K-3 students

  • provide that this measure can be amended by a statute approved by the electorate or by a 4/5 vote of the each house of the Legislature and the Governor's signature.

BACKGROUND

The State Department of Education, with a $34 million annual budget, oversees the 8,000 public schools in California. The department completes on-site appraisals at each school every four to five years, approximately, and also keeps records on the performance of each school and its students. In addition, public schools answer to the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction; the State Board of Education (appointed by the Governor); the Governor (through the Office of Child Development and Education); and the state Legislature (through its budget and law-making authority). The lines of responsibility and accountability are often blurred or conflicting and are inherently political.

Office of Chief Inspector of Public Schools

Proposition 8 would establish an additional independent oversight department office headed by the Chief Inspector of Public Schools, who would be appointed by the Governor for a single ten-year term. This appointment would not require confirmation by the Legislature, although the Legislature could overturn the appointment by a two-thirds vote. The Chief Inspector or staff would visit each school site at least once every two years to gather information for a public annual report that would rank each school on the basis of its strengths and weaknesses, along with test scores, attendance and dropout rates, and college and vocational entrance rates. The Chief Inspector would also evaluate the education policies of the Department of Education and the Office of Child Development and Education.

Parent/teacher school site governing councils

Under current law, each school district's elected school board has the final authority for budgets, school program and personnel policies. In addition, most schools now have a school site council composed of parents and teachers, an advisory group that develops plans to improve pupil performance. This measure would mandate such a council for any school that wishes to receive certain state funds. In addition, it enlarges the role of the school site council in cooperation with the principal, to determine the school's curriculum and the use of funds allocated by the school board. It is unclear how the school site governing councils would interface with local Boards of Education.

Proposition 8 would also allow a principal to dismiss any teaching or non-teaching employee at the school site. This does not affect state laws governing tenure, since the school district would have to find another job for each released employee.

Testing for teacher credentials

Currently teachers can qualify to teach in California schools either by passing courses specified by the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing (CTC) or by passing a CTC test in a designated subject matter. This measure would make it mandatory for all existing teachers to take the CTC test before they could receive an assignment to teach in a specified subject area. The definition of assignment is unclear in the initiative and could be interpreted to apply to either (1) all teachers (approximately 100,000) or (2) all new or uncredentialed teachers (approximately 7,000). They would also have to pass an exam on the U.S. Constitution. New teachers who receive preliminary two-year authorizations after January 1, 1999 would also have to study "alternate methods of developing English language skills" (including phonics).

Approved lesson plans

Teachers now voluntarily create lesson plans as a guide during the school year, but state law does not require them to do so. Proposition 8 requires the Commission on Teacher Credentialing to develop standards for assessing lesson plans. Teachers would be required to develop lesson plans to meet these standards; however, it's not clear what agency would actually evaluate the plans.

Student expulsion

While the Education Code requires schools to expel students for having weapons at school, it does not currently require expulsion for unlawful drug possession. Proposition 8 mandates that the student be expelled for drug possession at school or at school activities off school grounds. The only exception is a first offense for possession of a small amount of marijuana. The student must then attend an alternative school. The State Department of Education estimates that this would affect 9,000 to 17,000 students.

Guaranteed funding for K-3 classes

In 1997-98, the Legislature authorized $1.5 billion to fund small classes for every kindergarten through third grade in California public schools. Approximately 85 percent of all school districts participate in the program, which limits the class size to 20 students and apportions $800 per pupil for full-time classes and $400 per pupil for part time. Proposition 8 mandates at least the same level of funding (with annual cost-of- living adjustments). The maximum class size would continue to be 20 actual students, not averages per grade.

FISCAL EFFECT

The Legislative Analyst estimates that the new state programs required by Proposition 8 could add up to as much as $60 million. However, the state would probably pay for some of these costs from its existing education budget or they could be offset by fee collections. School districts would also face new costs, especially for the teacher credential requirement. The state could provide additional funds to help districts pay for new costs, but, as the Legislative Analyst points out, this would increase the state's cost for the measure.

Office of the Chief Inspector of Public Schools: The Legislative Analyst estimates the cost of operating the Office of the Chief Inspector would be between $15 to $20 million each year. Funds would be shifted from Department of Education's budget to cover part of the budget for this new department, but the Legislative Analyst says that additional, unknown funds would probably be supplied by the state.

Parent/Teacher School Site Councils: Exact additional administrative costs for school site councils is difficult to estimate because some districts already employ some form of decentralized decision-making. The Legislative Analyst estimates it would cost at least $1,000 per site per year for a total of $8 million annually. Without additional funds from the state, these costs would have to be redirected from other educational programs within the school district.

Teacher credential requirements: According to the Legislative Analyst, the fiscal impacts of the testing requirements would depend on whether they apply to all teachers—currently more than 100,000. Districts would face additional costs of "tens of millions of dollars annually" if a significant number of current teachers failed the CTC test, forcing them to look elsewhere and possibly pay higher salaries to attract teachers who could pass the test. In addition, districts may have to find alternate jobs for current teachers who do not pass the test.

If the requirement is limited to only new teachers and those who are not credentialed in the subject they teach, it would affect about 7,000 new teachers each year and several thousand existing teachers. The Legislative Analyst estimates that additional costs would be modest.

Creating subject matter exams for all new K-12 educators could cost the Commission on Teacher Credentialing in the millions of dollars. If the state requires the commission to test all current teachers who have never taken a subject-matter test, the cost would be $20 million. However, the test-takers usually pay the $200 fee.

Approved lesson plan requirement: If this measure passes, those school districts that do not now require approval of lesson plans would incur additional costs to create a system for approving lesson plans for all classes. The Legislative Analyst estimates the cost might be several millions of dollars. The measure is silent on whether the local districts or the state would be paying these costs annually.

Student expulsion policies: Additional state costs to educate expelled students at alternative schools would be around $15 million each year, according to the Legislative Analyst. Local school districts would also incur "millions of dollars" of additional costs to process expulsion cases.

Class size reduction funding: Since funds are already available for a class size reduction program, there would be little or no fiscal impact, according to the Legislative Analyst. However, making the funding level mandatory would not allow the state to reduce this annual level of appropriation should needs change.

A YES vote means that six provisions would be added to the Education Code that would make major changes in the state's K-12 education system.

A NO vote means no changes would be made in the state's Education Code.

SUPPORTERS SAY

  • Parents deserve a timely and unbiased report card on their child's school.

  • School principals should have power to hire or reassign school employees.

  • Teachers and parents should make financial and academic decisions about their schools.

  • Teachers should have to demonstrate their qualifications to teach a subject.
  • This measure establishes the same "zero tolerance" for possessing drugs as for guns or knives.

  • Funds for the Class Size Reduction program cannot become a political pawn.

OPPONENTS SAY

  • The new Chief Inspector would have too much power and a 10-year term with no legislative confirmation.

  • Funds would be diverted from the classroom to triple the size of the educational bureaucracy.

  • 8,000 school councils with no public accountability are a recipe for tax dollar abuse and academic chaos.

  • Schools already have smaller K-3 class sizes and zero tolerance policies for drugs

  • With six different provisions, this measure violates the constitutional requirement that initiatives cover a single subject.

SUPPORTERS AND OPPONENTS

Official ballot arguments in favor are signed by Pete Wilson, Governor of California; Marian Bergeson, Secretary, Child Development and Education; and Yvonne Larson, President, State Board of Education.

Official ballot arguments in opposition are signed by Lois Tinson, President, California Teachers Association; Lenny Goldberg, Executive Director, California Tax Reform Association; and Bob Wells, Secretary/Treasurer, Parents, Teachers and Educators for Local Control.

For more information:
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.

Supporters: www.yesonprop8.com, 916-329-9427
Opponents: www.noprop8.org, 650-340-0470


On Propositions: About our Analysis - List of Props - Smart Voter
LWVC Home - Election '98 - Voting Q&As - State Props - About Us

Last updated: September 13, 1998
Send comments and suggestions concerning this page to nvmk16b@prodigy.com

Copyright 1998 League of Women Voters of California Education Fund. All rights reserved.