How I’m voting for the environment on Nov. 7, 2006.

My vote on Prop 88: NO

The prop seems fairly simple: Bill most property owners $50 a year to benefit the public schools.

Educators certainly want more funding for education. But educators don’t like this prop so much.

Reports the San Francisco Chronicle: “The state PTA, the California Federation of Teachers and the California School Boards Association all oppose it, while the largest teachers union, the California Teachers Association, is neutral.”

Why? First of all, the prop’s rather deceptive. It sounds like a lotta money would go towards education, but the money raised would only be about 1% of Cali spending on K-12 education — and the $50 per property owner sum wouldn’t even be adjusted for inflation in future years.

This isn’t enough; Educators “want a more permanent solution to the schools’ long-range funding needs.”

Moreover, by making every property owner the same sum, the prop puts a higher burden on the owners of low-value lots, which seems unfair.

Plus, the prop requires that the funds be spent on “new books, smaller classes, school safety and a data-collecting system” — meaning any other program — music, for ex — wouldn’t get any funding, even if a school feels that’s where the money should go.

Other restrictions: Schools that’ve taken state bond money can’t receive Prop. 88 facility grants, and “schools that use the proposition dollars must swear off future state bond money unless expressly allowed.”

Plus, “Only schools scoring in the top half on standardized test scores may receive money.” Why? This would likely prevent the neediest schools from getting much-needed funds.

Here’s the No on 88 site.

Comments