Volume I, No. 3

November 20, 2008

Key Legislative Staff Meets With Education Advocates to Discuss Implications of Special Session for K-12 Programs and Funding

With the State facing an $11.2 billion deficit in the current year and a projected $13 billion deficit in 2009-10, the Governor has called a Special Session to address this significant fiscal shortfall.  The Governor’s proposal would close the current year deficit with both funding cuts and new revenue.  Concerning K-12 education funding, the Governor proposes to cut Proposition 98 by $2.5 billion.  Specifically, the Governor’s approach proposes to cut revenue limit funding but provides school districts with the flexibility to cut categorical programs. 

To outline the Legislature’s approach to closing the current year deficit, staff to Speaker of the Assembly Karen Bass, staff to outgoing Pro Tem Don Perata, and staff to incoming Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg met with education advocates to discuss their proposal and listen to school district concerns.  Legislative staff began their presentation by stating that the “scale and scope of the deficit would require both cuts and new revenues.”  Furthermore, legislative staff stated that if the deficit could not be addressed, or adequately addressed, they fully expected the Governor to convene a second Special Session in early December.  When concern was expressed about a two-stage approach over two Special Sessions (cuts now, flexibility later, for example), legislative staff stated that the Special Session scheduled for Sunday the 23rd was not a “cuts only drill.”    

Concerning the specifics of the Senate and Assembly’s approach to closing the deficit gap, legislative staff stated that in many ways their proposal takes the opposite approach than the Governor; that is, the Senate and Assembly do not propose to cut the revenue limit but instead make specified cuts to categorical programs instead of providing local flexibility, with an eye toward keeping the cuts “away from the classroom” and protecting “vulnerable populations,” although legislative staff did not enumerate what specific categorical programs might be cut under their proposal. 

After legislative staff outlined their proposal, they asked for feedback from the group.  Although each representative of a school district or educational organization emphasized issues particular to their district or organization, there was wide agreement that school districts preferred the local flexibility of the Governor’s proposal to the Senate and Assembly’s proposal to provide targeted cuts to categorical programs, arguing that a “menu of options” would allow districts to address local priorities.  Concerning specific programs, there was also wide agreement that Class Size Reduction (CSR) flexibility is a priority for many school districts.  Questions also arose about whether or not the concept of shortening the school year was being discussed, and the response was that this concept has not been part of discussions.    

For the sake of historical context, in 2004 California was facing a smaller but still significant budget deficit, and schools were quick to make cuts proposed by the Governor, but cities and counties put up more resistance and ended up in a better position in the end.  In addition, in later years when cuts were restored, much of the funding ended up on the bargaining table, so while the scale and scope of the current year deficit is as significant as advertised, it would benefit school districts to consider the long-term implications of these proposals in addition to the short-term ones.     

Finally, the Governor and legislative leaders are currently meeting to try to reach an agreement by Sunday, November 23, which is the effective deadline to reach and process an agreement for this Special Session.  The Senate and the Assembly are currently scheduled to convene on Sunday, November 23.     

~Ian Padilla

ipadilla@m-w-h.com