California State 2006 -Proposition 88 Education Funding. Real Property Parcel Tax. - Constitutional Amendment.

Official Summary, Pros & Cons
Other Resources
Visitor's Comments
Join the Discussion!

Official Summary, Pros and Cons

Imposes $50 tax on each real property parcel to provide additional public school funding for kindergarten through grade 12. Exempts certain elderly, disabled homeowners from tax. Use of funds restricted to specific educational purposes. Fiscal Impact: State parcel tax revenue of roughly $450 million annually, allocated to school districts for specified education programs.

Proposition 88 Summary
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 88 Analysis
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

Proposition 88 Arguments & Rebuttals
(Source: Official CA State Voter Information Guide)

A YES vote on this measure means: The state would levy an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land in California, with the proceeds allocated to school districts for five specified K–12 education programs.

A NO vote on this measure means: The state would not levy an annual $50 tax on most parcels of land to raise additional funding for K–12 education programs.

Top of the page.

Other Resources

Follow the Money (for and against this proposition)
To find the information, first click on a "Committee Name" link,
and then select the radio button "Late and $5000+ Contributions Received."

Organizations & individuals FOR Proposition 88

EdVoice

Taxpayers for Better Schools and Smaller Classes
(major funding by Reed Hastings and John Doerr)

Reed Hastings, Past President, California State Board of Education

Jack O'Connell; HRT, , California State Superintendent of Public Instruction

Organizations & Individuals AGAINST Proposition 88

Californians Against the Parcel Property Tax-No on 88

California State PTA

California Federation of Teachers

California School Boards Association

California Tax Payers Association

California Democratic Party

California Republican Party

Selected Articles, Editorials, Opinions, Reports

Should Progressives Support Proposition 88?
Beyond Chron, by Paul Hogarth
Oct. 10‚ 2006

Vote Yes on 88 to Help Our Schools Now, Not Later
The Mercury News, by Christopher Cabaldon, President of EdVoice

Education Groups Say School Tax Plan is not Nearly Enough
San Francisco Chronicle Editorial
October 8, 2006

Editorial: Unlikely allies align against Prop. 88
San Francisco Examiner
Oct 7, 2006

Top of the page.

Visitor's Comment List

Visitor Name: Cooper Zale
Congregation: Sepulveda Unitarian Universalist Society - North Hills

This past year, for the first time in my life, I have started to vote no on measures for additional funding for public schools. All my adult life (I've been voting for over 34 years), I have been a solid yes vote for school bonds. But being a parent who has watched his two kids try to navigate their way through the public school system, and doing a great deal of reading on the subject of education, I now see our public education system as a big bureaucratic authoritarian institution that I believe is doing more harm than good to many, if not the majority of the youth enrolled, and contributing to the deterioration of the democratic fabric of our society.

From what I can see through my kids' participation in Los Angeles public schools, and my participation as a parent, public schools consciously and systematically violate all seven of our UU principles:

1. We affirm the inherent worth and dignity of every person.

Though public schools are committed to teaching every youth, they treat kids mostly like widgets in a factory and push them through a one-size-fits-all program and do not have the staff, other resources, or even the basic inclination to taylor a program to the individual youth's needs or interests. I see this in no way affirming the inherent worth and dignity of each individual youth.

2. We affirm justice, equity and compassion in human relations.

What justice can youth have in an institution where they are regulated by rules they have no say in and are constantly judged by others than their own peers? What sort of compassion is it to throw all these youth together, struggling to discover their own unique gifts, their own self elstem, and subject them to constant evaluation, grading and ranking that focuses not on them as unique individuals, but constantly compares them, better or worse, with others.

3. We affirm acceptance of one another and encouragement of spiritual growth.

A state mandated standardized curriculum built around high stakes testing, delivered to youth in generally a rigid and regimented classroom environment, with a strict schedule for what is learned when with uniform expectations for individual student progress, seems to me anything but an environment for spiritual growth, or any other kind of real growth.

4. We affirm a free and responsible search for truth and meaning.

Our youth are coerced to go to school by force of state law. They are forced to receive instruction in a state mandated standard curriculum that leaves little room for them to pursue other learning that interests them. My daughter was in several high school classes where the majority of her classmates did not want to be there. How are our youth free in this setting and responsible for their own learning, their own search for truth and meaning?

5. We affirm the rights of conscience and the use of the democratic process.

Our public schools are about the most undemocratic institution imaginable. The majority of the people within the institution (the students) have absolutely no role in the significant decisions of how the school is run, how it is staffed, and what can be learned or taught. Even the teachers have less and less of a say these days in these huge bureaucratic institutions that are run by far away district and even farther away state boards and bureaucrats.

6. We seek world community with peace liberty, and justice for all.

What liberty is there in mandated school attendance, mandated school curriculum, with little or no opportunity for the youth or their parents to choose an individualized course of study, a liberty adults have when they participate in an educational institution such as a college or technical school.

7. We affirm the interdependent web of all existence.

Schools break up the interconnected aspects of life into generally unconnected subject areas of english, social studies, math and science. Shallow learning of a broad spectrum of subjects to prepare the youth for high stakes testing replaces deep learning in a few areas of real interest.

---

Top of the page.