LWVC HOME - VOTING Q&As - STATE PROPS - ABOUT LWV
ON BALLOT MEASURES: ABOUT OUR ANALYSIS - LIST of PROPS - SMART VOTER
-----------

LWV CA Ed Fund LEAGUE OF WOMEN VOTERS OF CALIFORNIA EDUCATION FUND
Nonpartisan Pros & Cons of

Proposition 223

SCHOOLS. SPENDING LIMITS ON ADMINISTRATION.

----------------------------------------
Initiative Statute

THE QUESTION

Should the state of California require public school districts to spend at least 95 percent of all school revenues on direct services to pupils, school site employees, and school facilities?

THE SITUATION

Centralized administrative expenses in the state's public school districts currently average about 7.3 percent of revenues. Some smaller districts tend to have higher than average percentages because of fixed costs, such as district administrators and transportation services.

THE PROPOSAL

Proposition 223 would limit all non-school site expenses to 5 percent of total revenues. Districts would have to publish their administrative budgets every year and demonstrate how each item is linked to "the achievement of a specific performance outcome" for students (performance budgeting). Every five years there would be an outside audit of the district's budget. Districts that do not meet the 5 percent limit would be fined.

FISCAL EFFECT

In order to comply with the 5 percent cap, school districts would have to keep detailed, accurate records of administrators' time; move some central office tasks to schools; or eliminate administrative staff. According to the Legislative Analyst, districts that do not meet the 5 percent cap would pay a fine of approximately $175 per student. The Legislature would redistribute the fines to districts that do meet the cap.

SUPPORTERS SAY

  • Tax dollars should be spent at the school site, not in the district office.

  • Proposition 223 would increase school effectiveness by guaranteeing that any savings will go to schools and classrooms first.

OPPONENTS SAY

  • Mandating a 5 percent cap would impose special hardships on smaller districts where fixed costs can be disproportionately high.

  • Districts would have to reduce other programs to pay for the added costs of performance budgeting.
(Analysis prepared by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund.)

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

Last updated: April 22, 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.