As the budget stalemate drags on, one suggestion has begun to reappear in budget talks: Borrowing. But the Education Coalition opposes any borrowing to achieve a budget solution.
In a message sent to the Senate and Assembly, the coalition points out that because Proposition 98 is calculated based on “the proceeds of taxes,” if the Legislature were to replace the proposed 1-cent sales tax that would raise $3.6 billion with an equal amount of borrowed money, the net result for education would be a loss of $900 million from the amount received in 2007-08.
“ACSA and the Education Coalition are opposed to any borrowing proposals,” said ACSA Executive Director Bob Wells. “For too long, the state has used borrowing to solve chronic budget problems, and if we were to do that again this year in lieu of raising revenues, education would lose out.”
The Education Coalition has publicly asked state legislators to support the Budget Conference Committee’s proposal regarding education funding. As EdCal previously reported, this proposal would restore $2.4 billion of the governor’s proposed $4.3 billion cut to schools.
“In the midst of California’s $15.2 billion budget deficit, the Education Coalition remains steadfast in supporting the original Conference Committee budget package, which closes tax loopholes and provides new and steady sources of revenue to help protect our public schools and community colleges from deeper cuts,” said Marty Hittelman, president of the California Federation of Teachers. “It’s long past time to pass a budget that invests in our future, and anything that proposes deeper cuts to education is simply unacceptable – our students deserve better.”
The coalition also declared its opposition to Assembly Constitutional Amendment 19, which is the GOP-proposed spending cap on the state budget. ACA 19 would limit the growth in funding currently allowed under Proposition 98. The limits in ACA 19 will mean that program cuts made during lean years would never be restored, resulting in long-term decline of all public services, including schools.
“Our position is clear – we have said all along that we will protect Prop. 98, and we have no intention of backing down from that,” said Scott Plotkin, executive director of the California School Boards Association. “The fact is, our students deserve more funding to help them achieve high standards we have set for them, not funding cuts. We will not accept any proposals that turn back the clock on our students, whether it’s ACA 19, or cuts beyond those proposed in the original Conference Committee package.”
ACA 19 not only flies in the face of Prop. 98, which voters approved nearly 20 years ago to create stable funding for California schools, but also in the voters’ 2005 rejection of Prop. 76, which included provisions to lock in inadequate funding levels for schools.
Meanwhile, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell also issued a public plea in support of the Conference Committee’s proposal and opposition to ACA 19, and issued letters to both the Senate and Assembly.
“I oppose caps on future state spending that would perpetuate the current inadequate level of funding for public education,” O’Connell wrote.
O’Connell went on to note that schools have already seen a $500 million mid-year cut for 2007-08. The cuts have already resulted in many schools having to lay off educators and cut programs. The timing could not be more inauspicious since California already ranks 46th in per-pupil spending, and dead last in the number of counselors, librarians and school nurses per student.
“The Conference Committee budget package is $2 billion less than the workload budget,” he wrote. “School districts are facing increased costs for supplies, food, transportation and employee health care costs. Any further cuts to education funding will critically impair California’s ability to meet the educational needs of our students.”