Update below: PTA issues a letter to California’s teachers explaining its support of Prop 38.

All pretense of goodwill is gone between backers of the two competing education tax measures on November’s ballot. 

State Board of Education President Mike Kirst and Senate President pro Tem Darrell Steinberg joined union leaders Monday in sending a strongly worded letter to Molly Munger, the primary backer of Proposition 38, asking her not to run TV ads criticizing Proposition 30, Gov. Jerry Brown’s school funding measure. Kirst also emailed PTA district presidents, implying they should pressure Munger “to do all in your power to stop this destructive course of action.” The state PTA, bucking education groups representing school boards, unions, and administrators, is a co-sponsor, with Munger, of Prop 38.

View Munger’s latest ad >>

Munger highlights differences between Propositions 38 and 30 during a Los Angeles TV interview on Sunday.

Munger highlights differences between Propositions 38 and 30 during a Los Angeles TV interview on Sunday.

The letters to Munger and the PTA follow a TV interview in Los Angeles on Sunday in which Munger called Prop 30 TV ads featuring Brown “utterly deceptive,” marking a turning point that advocates for more education funding have feared: both campaigns going negative on each other, to the potential destruction of both.

In the latest polls, Prop 30, which would raise $6 billion annually for the General Fund by increasing the income tax for the wealthiest earners, along with a temporary sales tax increase, has a precarious majority barely breaking 50 percent.

Prop 38, which would raise $10 billion for K-12 schools and early childhood education by increasing the income tax on most earners, has backing of only 41 percent of voters in a recent Field Poll, although Munger insists internal polls indicate increasing support.

In their letter, 10 leaders, who include heads of the state’s largest unions, wrote Munger that a “positive campaign from both the Prop 30 and 38 campaigns will create the highest likelihood that students in California will benefit from the November election.” And they took a swipe at Munger’s brother, physicist Charles Munger Jr., who has donated $23 million into a campaign fund opposing Prop 30 and supporting Proposition 32, which would restrict the ability of unions to raise campaign money from their members. Munger has already spent $28 million promoting Prop 38.

“If you launch these Prop. 30 comparison attack ads you will be the second Munger spending millions against our students and schools. In the end, the Munger family could be known as the  millionaires who destroyed California’s schools and universities,” they wrote. The state budget passed in June assumes the passage of Prop 30. Its defeat would “trigger” $6 billion in cuts for K-12 schools and higher education.

Munger has been ambiguous about encouraging a “yes” vote for both Props 30 and 38, as some education groups, including the California School Boards Association and the parent activist group Educate Our State, are promoting. The state PTA has not taken a position for or against Prop 30. In an interview with EdSource Today, she called Prop 30 the governor’s “band-aid approach” and said that voters would prefer Prop 38 once they learned more about it.

In the interview Sunday on NBC4 in Los Angeles, Munger said the Yes On 38 campaign would not produce ads opposing Prop 30, but would do “compare and contrast” ads. “Part of the communication is to make the distinction between 30 and 38: “’Don’t be confused; you know 38 is the one you want.’ So absolutely, we will be trying to communicate that,” she said.

She acknowledged that proponents of Prop 30 have asked her not to do comparison ads, which they interpret as negative. But she said false claims in the Prop 30 campaign’s recent ads, that it “was all for schools, that it would send money directly to schools,” compel her to respond.

“Prop 30 is really a budget patch, is going around saying it’s the schools initiative when we, who are really the schools initiative, are being asked not to say anything,” said told newscaster Conan Nolan. “Well, no, if you are going to say you are something you are not, we do have to say that’s not actually the case.”

Under the state’s education funding formula, K-12 schools and community colleges would get about half of the $6 billion annually that Prop 30 would raise for the General Fund. Because the initiative would bring in new revenue, this would be a permanent increase in the funding guarantee under Proposition 98.

By not mentioning other uses for the new revenue, one of the latest Prop 30 ads, featuring Brown, could be seen as implying that all of the money would go to education.  Other ads accurately state that Prop 30 would restore money that has been cut from education, fix the state budget deficit and prevent further cuts for schools.

Munger and Prop 38 proponents take umbrage over claims in Prop 30 ads that Sacramento politicians could not tamper with Prop 30 revenue. Legislators technically would retain the power to reallocate money for schools by suspending Prop 98 if they chose. Prop 38 would funnel money into a special fund that would allocate money directly to school sites, outside of the state budget.

In an email Monday night, Paul Richman, executive director of the state PTA, said that PTA leaders had not viewed the upcoming TV ads and reaffirmed the organization’s strong support for Prop 38. He also called on Prop 30 supporters to stop criticizing Prop 38.

“As the campaign season heads into the final month, it’s important for the public and the media to stay focused on distinguishing the real and substantive policy choices voters will make,” he wrote.

Prop 30 backers would add that it’s also important to stay focused on the tax initiative that polls seem to indicate, with less than a month before the election, has the best and perhaps only chance of winning.

Update: On Tuesday, State PTA President Carol Kocivar released a three-page letter to teachers in California explaining why PTA supports Proposition 38.

It reads in part: “The idea is simple and straightforward:  Generate significant additional revenue to start to restore the programs and services that have been cut. Move California out of the basement in school funding. Make sure new dollars go directly to every single public school in California to support our children, help our teachers and improve our schools. And ensure the new money goes for things we know improve student achievement and readiness for college and careers,” she wrote.

“That’s the motive and passion behind our efforts, pure and simple. PTA supports Proposition 38 because it provides more money for every local school, guaranteed, for 12 years – a generation of kids. And it requires local parent and educator input into how the new dollars are spent at each school.”

SHARE ARTICLE

Comments

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Comments Policy

The goal of the comments section on EdSource is to facilitate thoughtful conversation about content published on our website. Click here for EdSource's Comments Policy.

  1. Carl Cohn 4 years ago4 years ago

    Can’t all of us who care about kids and schools get along? Yes on both 30 and 38!

  2. CarolineSF 4 years ago4 years ago

    @Navigio, speaking as a longtime PTA board member and veteran of campaigns, PTA's emphasis is on not using SCHOOL resources to distribute campaign material. Handing out campaign items as individuals, person to person, is sort of a gray area. Presumably PTA was being cautious, but if I happened to chat with you on campus while we were dropping off our kids and handed you a flyer or bumper sticker, that would fall into that gray … Read More

    @Navigio, speaking as a longtime PTA board member and veteran of campaigns, PTA’s emphasis is on not using SCHOOL resources to distribute campaign material. Handing out campaign items as individuals, person to person, is sort of a gray area. Presumably PTA was being cautious, but if I happened to chat with you on campus while we were dropping off our kids and handed you a flyer or bumper sticker, that would fall into that gray area.

    Nonprofits such as PTA (a 501(c)(3)) may not endorse candidates, but may endorse ballot measures.

    Replies

    • navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

      Thanks Caroline, understood about the gray area. I received this letter from the state PTA and it included the following warning: "Dear PTA leaders, Many of you have asked for information to share with your teachers about the benefits of Proposition 38. Click here for a letter we have developed that you can share out. Because it is campaign related, you should not distribute this on school property or use school or school district list-servs." So I … Read More

      Thanks Caroline, understood about the gray area. I received this letter from the state PTA and it included the following warning:

      “Dear PTA leaders,

      Many of you have asked for information to share with your teachers about the benefits of Proposition 38. Click here for a letter we have developed that you can share out. Because it is campaign related, you should not distribute this on school property or use school or school district list-servs.”

      So I figured I’d let people know given that is not included in the letter itself. Personally, I dont think enough people actually understand the restrictions and so an overly cautious approach is probably the safest, imho.

  3. Replies

    • navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

      Btw, the state PTA warns against distributing this letter on campus or using school or district email resources to distribute it since it is campaign-based. Ironic, given that the CTA was on our campus a couple weeks ago handing out vote yes on prop 30 and no on prop 32 pin-on shirt tags..

  4. Paul Muench 4 years ago4 years ago

    I see both of these propositions as polls of how desperate we are as a collective. So I have the following recommendation. If you can hold out for another year, then vote no on both. If you can't hold out for another year, then vote yes on both. It seems to me the biggest factor for most parents will be the extra day care expenses if the school year is shortened … Read More

    I see both of these propositions as polls of how desperate we are as a collective. So I have the following recommendation. If you can hold out for another year, then vote no on both. If you can’t hold out for another year, then vote yes on both. It seems to me the biggest factor for most parents will be the extra day care expenses if the school year is shortened by three weeks. If you think you can afford that for another year, then I think you can hold out.

    Too bad some of the campaign money isn’t going into a proposition that would put this responsibility back into the legislature where a majority of our representatives would need to make a deal/decision.

    Replies

    • el 4 years ago4 years ago

      That 2/3 requirement has been a killer on the legislature, forcing them to make stupid decisions for over a decade to get those last few votes to pass a budget. It has given the 3-5 swing votes needed more power than the rest of the legislature put together. We've killed the 2/3 requirement for passing a budget at all, but it's still there for any revenue increases. Ironically, you don't need a 2/3 to cut taxes, … Read More

      That 2/3 requirement has been a killer on the legislature, forcing them to make stupid decisions for over a decade to get those last few votes to pass a budget. It has given the 3-5 swing votes needed more power than the rest of the legislature put together.

      We’ve killed the 2/3 requirement for passing a budget at all, but it’s still there for any revenue increases. Ironically, you don’t need a 2/3 to cut taxes, which is part of how we got in this mess.

      15 days of day care is probably worth at least $750 to a family who has to pay it… and in most instances, not as educationally valuable as school. But hey, no new taxes, eh?

      • Ze'ev Wurman 4 years ago4 years ago

        The 2/3 requirement for budget approval has not been a killer but a blessing. And the 2/3 need for raising taxes still is.

        As I pointed out, California’s problem is not with revenues but with spending. Until we fix that, we will just tax to death those who still remain here.

        • el 4 years ago4 years ago

          The 2/3 requirement has created weird wasteful spending; for example, millions of dollars for fairground racetracks was added to get Abel Maldonado’s vote a couple years back. It (along with term limits) has had the effect of polarizing our legislature which IMHO has prevented sensible governance for a very long time.

  5. Ze'ev Wurman 4 years ago4 years ago

    Well, my reading is completely different. This piece just strengthens my feeling of "pox on both your houses." California is already one of the more taxed states in the Union. Income taxes, sale taxes, gas taxes, business taxes, green taxes, -- you name them, we have them. In spades. People are already running away from California, as described here (http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-class-divide.html ) and here (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UHTTV9VkiFd ). If education doesn't get enough funds it is only because too … Read More

    Well, my reading is completely different. This piece just strengthens my feeling of “pox on both your houses.”

    California is already one of the more taxed states in the Union. Income taxes, sale taxes, gas taxes, business taxes, green taxes, — you name them, we have them. In spades. People are already running away from California, as described here (http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_2_california-class-divide.html ) and here (http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cr_71.htm#.UHTTV9VkiFd ). If education doesn’t get enough funds it is only because too much of them is wasted elsewhere, between paying off the prison guards, the unions, the innumerable boards and commissions staffed by insiders, the train to nowhere, and I have just started.

    Voting extra taxes in a recession will just make more people escape California faster, and tell the educational system that in a sense they can continue to live in a bubble and ignore the economic reality in the society around them. Much like the extra stimulus funds allowed them to ignore it in 2009-10, rather then use the recession as an opportunity to spend money more effectively.

    I intend to vote NO on both propositions. California will not tax itself to prosperity, and budgeting by the ballot box is a bad idea to begin with.

    Replies

    • el 4 years ago4 years ago

      Ze'ev, I read a book recently that I think you might find interesting, called "The New Geography of Jobs" by Enrico Moretti. He opens with the plight of an engineer in the 1960's trying to decide between two jobs in two highly desirable cities - Menlo Park and Visalia. Obviously today the dynamics of which city is more desirable has changed dramatically, but at the time, they stacked up pretty evenly. There's a lot in … Read More

      Ze’ev, I read a book recently that I think you might find interesting, called “The New Geography of Jobs” by Enrico Moretti. He opens with the plight of an engineer in the 1960’s trying to decide between two jobs in two highly desirable cities – Menlo Park and Visalia. Obviously today the dynamics of which city is more desirable has changed dramatically, but at the time, they stacked up pretty evenly. There’s a lot in there about how people migrate and why certain places are attractive or unattractive to high powered jobs. I don’t agree with it 100%, but I found it very thought-provoking.

      • Ze'ev Wurman 4 years ago4 years ago

        I’ll try to check it out, but let me point out that the data for migration out of California does not cover just the last few years — it goes back twenty years or so. It’s just that in times of recession California’s wasteful idiocies get to be less sufferable.

  6. Frances O'Neill Zimmerman 4 years ago4 years ago

    The Governor's Prop 30 backers are acting like the heavies they have been all along: lieutenants enlisted to squelch Molly Munger and her K-12 school Prop 38 -- whose proceeds will NOT go into the state general fund and will NOT be subjected to diversion by special interests in the Legislature. Darrell Steinberg and Governor Brown's appointee to the State Board of Education should back off, stop slandering Munger's relatives (who have nothing to do … Read More

    The Governor’s Prop 30 backers are acting like the heavies they have been all along: lieutenants enlisted to squelch Molly Munger and her K-12 school Prop 38 — whose proceeds will NOT go into the state general fund and will NOT be subjected to diversion by special interests in the Legislature. Darrell Steinberg and Governor Brown’s appointee to the State Board of Education should back off, stop slandering Munger’s relatives (who have nothing to do with her initiative) and stop carrying Governor Brown’s water. In this clash of the titans, they should resist the urge to mess with the process. Voters will figure out what to do.

  7. mcdez 4 years ago4 years ago

    Here’s what’s needed for CA students:

    1. No more cuts to education
    2. Additional funding to education so our students are at least on par with the national average.

    Our legislators need to work towards it, or be voted out of a job.

    If there are any more cuts made to eduction as a result of this election there will be an outcry and grass roots organizing in this state that has never been seen before.

    Replies

    • el 4 years ago4 years ago

      It seems to me that these two initiatives are the electorate's chance to say they value education and want it funded. If at least one passes, I think the message will be that education is important to the voters and the legislature will respond not just by implementing these measures as passed, but also by keeping it top of mind going forward to future years. If both initiatives fail, the message will be that the electorate … Read More

      It seems to me that these two initiatives are the electorate’s chance to say they value education and want it funded. If at least one passes, I think the message will be that education is important to the voters and the legislature will respond not just by implementing these measures as passed, but also by keeping it top of mind going forward to future years.

      If both initiatives fail, the message will be that the electorate doesn’t care enough to fund education if they have to put any skin in the game. And I think the end result will be a disheartened movement and a real loss to education, even more than we have today, even more than the $400 per student cut might suppose. I think it would trigger a serious rebenching of everyone’s assumption for how education will be funded and a lot of districts will have to shed the optimism they’ve had that they just need to stretch their reserves until better times return.

      • Cinnamon O'Neill Paula 4 years ago4 years ago

        Well said el…

      • navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

        Agree El. While the trigger cuts would be horrible, what really scares me is the message sent to our legislators, school boards, district administrators and teachers about the value of education for the state of CA in the near future (our own district has huge cuts coming next year, regardless of whether 30 passes). Its always interesting to me that people who vote against funds for education believe doing so will somehow send a message … Read More

        Agree El. While the trigger cuts would be horrible, what really scares me is the message sent to our legislators, school boards, district administrators and teachers about the value of education for the state of CA in the near future (our own district has huge cuts coming next year, regardless of whether 30 passes). Its always interesting to me that people who vote against funds for education believe doing so will somehow send a message of fiscal efficiency and a change-your-ways mentality. In contrast, the message is invariably taken as an indication that the community wants services cut. Talk about talking past each other at the expense of kids.

    • Cinnamon O'Neill Paula 4 years ago4 years ago

      We are Californians and supporters of Educate Our State. We are no longer willing to accept yearly budget cuts and mid year trigger cuts to education funding in California. We will no longer accept that the answer to these cuts is endless fundraising to provide our schools with teachers, aides, snacks, paper, pencils, glue, classroom supplies, music, art, athletics, hand soap/sanitizer, toilet paper, etc. We will no longer sit by while our … Read More

      We are Californians and supporters of Educate Our State. We are no longer willing to accept yearly budget cuts and mid year trigger cuts to education funding in California. We will no longer accept that the answer to these cuts is endless fundraising to provide our schools with teachers, aides, snacks, paper, pencils, glue, classroom supplies, music, art, athletics, hand soap/sanitizer, toilet paper, etc. We will no longer sit by while our politicians fail to provide funding for our schools that is logical, sufficient, and stable.
      We are parents uniting the voice of Californians in support of high-quality K-12 Public Education demanding real, systemic change to accomplish this. To join us and let your voice be heard please visit us at http://www.educateourstate.org/ or on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/EducateOurState?fref=ts. We are gaining support every day, but need everyone who cares about public education to add their name to our list of supporters so that we can show Sacramento that we mean business, we will not back down, public education is too important.

  8. navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

    Thanks El. I also appreciate being able to have actual discussions as opposed to just yelling at each other. :-P Part of the problem seems to be societal apathy, or perhaps more accurately, a mis-focus of priorities. Yesterday I was reading an article on huffington post from someone lamenting the lack of logic and critical thinking being used to analyze our presidential candidates. As I neared the end of the piece I noticed in the right … Read More

    Thanks El. I also appreciate being able to have actual discussions as opposed to just yelling at each other. 😛

    Part of the problem seems to be societal apathy, or perhaps more accurately, a mis-focus of priorities. Yesterday I was reading an article on huffington post from someone lamenting the lack of logic and critical thinking being used to analyze our presidential candidates. As I neared the end of the piece I noticed in the right sidebar a picture of a half-naked woman and the title ‘PHOTO: Mila Kunis Named Sexiest Woman Alive by Esquire Magazine’. This was under a section titled ‘Most Popular on HUFFPOST’. That was a pretty fitting dichotomy.

    I feel like we need Jack Nicholson yelling at us that we cant handle the truth. The reality is we are already in a horrible situation. Neither of these options is going to ‘fix’ anything in the literal sense. It is only jockeying for which kind of life raft some of our kids will or wont get.

    Furthermore, there seems to be a movement toward simply slinging mud and lies at the wall just to see what will stick. This is happening in most of the ‘discourse’ having to do with the upcoming election (not specific to these props), and it feels like it has gotten more extreme this year. But perhaps worst of all, anyone who does bother to pay attention even a little will start to notice things that smell like lies. When they do, they are more likely to vote against those positions due simply to that deceit and not based on the issues. At some level, that is deserved as a democratic process based on deceit is no democratic process at all, imho.

    And El, just so you know, I never tell people who I talk to how they should vote. I tell them what I think the impacts of the two different propositions would be and let them decide their position based on their own priorities (essentially state vs public education). And I always include your point about the negative impact for some districts of the restriction on spending for administration. So your points are making it much further than just the internet.. 🙂

  9. el 4 years ago4 years ago

    Sigh. It's always wonderful when adults get so focused on one particular goal that they lose sight of what's important. All over the internet (not just here) I've asked the question about my concerns of maintenance of effort, of how this new restricted money works with our substantial loss of general fund money, of our need to hire counselors and principals who have been heavily cut past sustainable levels and how these issues work with Prop … Read More

    Sigh. It’s always wonderful when adults get so focused on one particular goal that they lose sight of what’s important.

    All over the internet (not just here) I’ve asked the question about my concerns of maintenance of effort, of how this new restricted money works with our substantial loss of general fund money, of our need to hire counselors and principals who have been heavily cut past sustainable levels and how these issues work with Prop 38. If I get any response at all, it’s been a copy-paste platitude about how wonderful 38 is that does not address any of my specific questions. When I asked those people to stop pasting in the same thing and to address my actual question, they went silent.

    Navigio is literally the only person on the internet who has ever engaged me on these issues in a meaningful way. (Thanks, Navigio.)

    Instead of stupid nasty ads and idiotic infighting, why not answer the real, honest concerns that are originating from business managers and other school finance people across the state? They are the people who school boards and local PTAs are consulting about the two measures. Is it really so hard?

    I know there’s concern about which measure can and will pass, and how to package new money in an acceptable way to the voters, which explains why there are two measures. I presume that everyone here has the kids and the well-being of the state as their first priority, rather than any particular ego about their measure being passed. Why not act like it?

  10. Navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

    From the letter: 'The Los Angeles Times even noted in their support of 30: “The measure requires that eighty-­‐nine percent of the money raised goes to k-­‐12 schools and eleven percent to community colleges...”' So even the letter is misleading? 89 + 11 = 100. Prop 30 is general fund revenue. So 100% of that money won't go to education. Rather more like 40%. And realistically even much less a when you factor in the deficit … Read More

    From the letter: ‘The Los Angeles Times even noted in their support of 30: “The measure requires that eighty-­‐nine percent of the money raised goes to k-­‐12 schools and eleven percent to community colleges…”’

    So even the letter is misleading? 89 + 11 = 100. Prop 30 is general fund revenue. So 100% of that money won’t go to education. Rather more like 40%. And realistically even much less a when you factor in the deficit factor (almost 30% this year!).

    Replies

    • Manuel 4 years ago4 years ago

      Er, I know I have erred in the past when reading proposed laws, but this time I really did my homework. I have taken the text of Prop 30 available at voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30 and given it the proper indentation to understand all the nesting of paragraphs. I've come to the conclusion that Prop 30 indeed raises funds through two new taxes and puts them into an "Education Protection Account." Those funds will indeed go to public schools … Read More

      Er, I know I have erred in the past when reading proposed laws, but this time I really did my homework.

      I have taken the text of Prop 30 available at voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/30 and given it the proper indentation to understand all the nesting of paragraphs.

      I’ve come to the conclusion that Prop 30 indeed raises funds through two new taxes and puts them into an “Education Protection Account.” Those funds will indeed go to public schools (89%) and community colleges (11%).

      The catch is that a portion of the sales and use taxes and vehicle license fees will be taken out of the amount used to calculate the Prop 98 guarantee. This reduces the funding to education and generates a “savings” that will then be used to help balance the budget and pay the IOUs the state has been giving schools for the last few years.

      Is this a shell game? Yes, it is. But it is one that is increasing the amount of money going to the state and setting aside those monies coming from a very specific source (the new taxes) for K-14. Does it solve all the problems we have? Certainly not.

      But neither does Prop 98.

      And since we are talking about deceptive ads, well, the one that I see more often has a kid in a swing talking about how he would like to see the laid-off teachers come back. But Prop 38 says it cannot be used for increasing teacher salaries. How can those funds be used to pay for extra teachers?

      Prop 30, as I’ve written before, is nothing more than a taste of the sausage that gets made in Sacramento. Prop 38 is someone’s pet project honed by consultants working with focus groups.

      The bottom line is that there is not much that the public can contribute to this other than vote up or down. Maybe then will the politicians do their job AFTER we’ve gone off the cliff.

      • navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

        Actually, thats not the only catch. Based on my read (and seems consistent with the LAO's analysis), this revenue is counted for prop 98 calculation purposes, so it reduces the amount of money that needs to come from other revenue sources that go to education. In other words, this 'account' is nothing but a way to earmark money to make it sound like everything is going to education. Of course, this is what prop 98 … Read More

        Actually, thats not the only catch. Based on my read (and seems consistent with the LAO’s analysis), this revenue is counted for prop 98 calculation purposes, so it reduces the amount of money that needs to come from other revenue sources that go to education. In other words, this ‘account’ is nothing but a way to earmark money to make it sound like everything is going to education. Of course, this is what prop 98 was supposed to do and I guess the only consolation is this approximately 10% of what education is owed every year would not be subject to the deficit factor. Not much consolation given that that factor seems rather arbitrary lately anyway.
        Note, this is exactly the shell game played by the abx4-26 SERAF ‘account’ creation. That took money away from RDAs and put it into an ‘account’ to give to schools. Sounded great until one noticed that the general fund obligation for prop 98 was to be reduced by exactly the same amount.
        Anyway, the net effect is there will only be about a 40% net difference in what ends up going to education.

        So, admittedly, you and the LA Times are correct. 100% of the money that is earmarked goes to education. But I dont see how that is meaningful when other money is reduced by the same amount by the same ballot measure?

        And btw, I do agree with you that neither is perfect. But one tries to reduce the impact on kids more than the other..

        (also, not to turn this comment into an either or argument, but prop 38 does allow paying for additional teachers, including to reduce class sizes–this is specifically listed as a valid use in the ballot measure’s text..)

      • el 4 years ago4 years ago

        Funds from 38 are explicitly intended to restore class size reduction and to rehire laid off teachers. That's teachers, specifically, not staff in general. The problem for our district is... we didn't increase class sizes and we didn't shorten the year. We - the teachers, the board, the administration - did all the things the backers of this initiative wanted us to do with the money we had... the one scenario that they apparently never considered. … Read More

        Funds from 38 are explicitly intended to restore class size reduction and to rehire laid off teachers. That’s teachers, specifically, not staff in general.

        The problem for our district is… we didn’t increase class sizes and we didn’t shorten the year. We – the teachers, the board, the administration – did all the things the backers of this initiative wanted us to do with the money we had… the one scenario that they apparently never considered. So, as I read it, they want to give us new, restricted money that can only be used to hire new teachers, not to keep the ones we already have. And it can’t be used to replace cut administrators, either, even though many districts have made distinctly unsustainable cuts there.

        Navigio has persuaded me that if it passes, that some combination of court rulings and our budget wizards will enable us to keep doing right by the kids while remaining inside the law. It still makes me grumpy and I would like to hear more from the backers of the initiative how I’m all wrong in my interpretation.

        I wish that Munger truly believed in local control enough to give the local school autonomy to spend the money as best suited to that campus, instead of assuming what the old priorities had been.

  11. Navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

    Wow, did they really say they would be the Mungers who destroyed public education? That is obscene. Not only a low blow, but a flat out lie. The legislature and governor (and to some extent the voters) bear all responsibility not only for how we've gotten here but what happens in November. And Molly is absolutely right. The prop 30 ads are deceiving at best. I would think the prop 30 camp would know that the last … Read More

    Wow, did they really say they would be the Mungers who destroyed public education? That is obscene. Not only a low blow, but a flat out lie. The legislature and governor (and to some extent the voters) bear all responsibility not only for how we’ve gotten here but what happens in November.
    And Molly is absolutely right. The prop 30 ads are deceiving at best.
    I would think the prop 30 camp would know that the last thing they want is a lot of focus on their initiative and it’s ads. The more people understand it the more they will realize they’d rather have 38. Sending letters like this is probably the worst possible response. Really shocked.

    Replies

    • CM 4 years ago4 years ago

      After going through another year of furlough days and pink slips; Why would I vote for a proposition that would tax ME even more, with Proposition 38. It says "for most people," which means me. So if Proposition 30 does not pass and 38 does, teachers who have lost money through cuts and furlough days would get the shaft once again. At least with Proposition 30, I am NO WHERE NEAR the $250K income … Read More

      After going through another year of furlough days and pink slips; Why would I vote for a proposition that would tax ME even more, with Proposition 38. It says “for most people,” which means me. So if Proposition 30 does not pass and 38 does, teachers who have lost money through cuts and furlough days would get the shaft once again. At least with Proposition 30, I am NO WHERE NEAR the $250K income minimum for a tax increase. Teachers have no incentive to vote for 38.

      • navigio 4 years ago4 years ago

        Teachers have every incentive to vote for 38 because it helps kids the most.

        And most district will still need to cut next year, even if prop 30 passes, so teachers will continue to get the shaft regardless. This is what happens when you’re the worst funded state in the nation. The question should be whether kids should be getting the shaft as well..