Health Educator’s Notebook

The Impact of Proposition 13: Myth or Reality? Patricia Hill, MPH

After listening to or reading comments about the impact of Proposition 13 on education in California, one might conclude that programs such as health education and health services were all but wiped out. Fortunately, this is not true. Emphasis on health education has increased, although the level of staffing remains at about the pre-Proposition 13 level. Funding for instructional materials and inservice training has decreased at the local level but has increased slightly at the state level. Staff for school health service programs has been reduced in many school districts, has increased in a few and has remained about the same in the majority of districts.

To understand the situation, it is important to know the other major factors interacting with the effects of Proposition 13. The most important factor was the one-year emergency “bail out” legislation following the enactment of Proposition 13. Other factors include the Serruno Decision, declining enrollment and new school finance legislation. In the following paragraphs, a brief overview of these factors will be given; and a picture of their combined impact on school health programs will be described.

Proposition 13, commonly alluded to as the “tax payers’ revolt,” had several basic provisions. Those having immediate impact limited taxes on real property to 1% of “full cash value” and established “full cash value” at county assessor’s 1975-76 valuation of real property. The proposition, voted on in the June 6, 1978 election, became effective July 1, 1978. Cities, counties and districts lost more than half of their current tax revenue - a little over $7 billion.

Immediately following the enactment of Proposition 13, the legislature passed and the Governor signed several pieces of legislation to implement the provisions of “13” and to address questions it raised. One of the outcomes was the provision of $2.1 billion for schools from the state surplus. This guaranteed, on a statewide basis, 90% of estimated 1978-79 budgets; the actual aniount varied slightly among districts. For the 1978-79 fiscal year only, the $2 billion was apportioned in the form of block grants in order to give local school districts maximum flexibility in allocating limited resources to safeguard essential instructional programs. This, of course, contributed to the varying impact of Proposition 13 on specific programs.

One more factor influencing increased revenue in some districts and decreases in others is the Serruno Decision. In December 1976, the state supreme court said the quality of schooling available to children in California depended too much on the value of residential, agricultural and commercial property in the particular school district in which a child happened to live. The more real property value per pupil in a district, the more money the district could readily raise per pupil. The court gave the state legislature until September 1980 to develop a more equitable means of financing public schools. In 1978, legislation was enacted which provides substantial compliance with the Serrano edict. Thus, former low-wealth districts are receiving additional funds; and some of them are up- grading their school health programs.

A study of local government impacts of Proposition 13 was made by the State Department of Finance and

Patricia Hill is Consultant in Health Education, School Health Program, California Siate Department of Education, Sacramento.

588 THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH DECEMBER 1979

transmitted to the Governor and legislature in February, 1979. The impact of Proposition 13 and the subsequent fiscal relief legislation on the total revenues and expenditures of K-12 school districts showed up in a 2.7% drop in total revenues for 1978-79 over 1977-78. However, total district expenditures increased 0.7% in the same period. This was accomplished by using district reserves and/or expending a greater percentage of available district revenues.

To obtain information on the effects of Proposition 13 on various programs, the State Department of Education conducted a special survey in a sample of school districts and reported the results in February, 1979. The survey form was sent to a cross section of 157 school districts and nine county offices of education; responses were received from 111 districts and seven county offices. One of the questions asked was: “Has your health services staff increased, decreased or remained the same (1978-79 compared with 1977-78)?” The response showed three districts/county offices had an increase in staff, 25 had a decrease and 76 remained the same. Percentage-wise the largest decrease was in high school districts (five positions in 14 districts), and in districts with over 10,OOO ADA (9 positions in 27 districts).

In July 1979, the California School Nurses Organiza- tion conducted a survey related to the impact of Proposition 13 on School Health Services. Analysis of data is not yet complete, but preliminary findings agree with the above-mentioned Department survey - that is, there was an increase in health services staff in a few districts, decreases in many others and little or no change in staffing for health services in the majority of school districts. In some of the districts, loss of revenue for staff was proportional to declining enrollment and

not due just to Proposition 13. The impact of Proposition 13 and the other factors

mentioned above on health education programs also varies among the 1,044 school districts in California. Some have delayed the implementation of separate courses in health education at the secondary level until staffing patterns are stabilized. Most districts have curtailed or eliminated released time for teachers to participate in inservice education programs. Participa- tion outside of school hours has been hindered in many areas as the result of teacher negotiations. Thus, there has been an impact on inservice education in health education. Some districts report less money for health education instructional materials; others report more. In those districts with separae courses in health education at the secondary level, class size has increased. This is due to elimination of such offerings in summer school.

At the state level, a budget augmentation for implementation of the Comprehensive Health Educa- tion Act was approved only a few weeks after Proposition 13 passed. This is the first time in California that funds have been allocated specifically for comprehensive health education. Funding was also provided for a statewide program on genetic diseases and disorders and for continuation of the V.D. education program. Thus, there was an increase in funding for health education at the state level, and this has continued into the current year.

In conclusion, it is safe to say that the real impact of Proposition 13 on education in California cannot yet be assessed. With a long-range school finance bill enacted in mid 1979, it was hoped that schools would get back on an even keel and emphasis would again be placed on improving instructional programs for children and youth in California schools.

Health Education Writers Award A Health Education Writers Awards program has been established by the

Department of Health Education at Central Michigan University. Awards are provided for published materials which have appeared between January 1 and December 31 of each year and made for materials of excellence which focus on health education. For more details and an entry form, please write to: Dr. James Pahz, Awards Chairperson, Department of Health Education, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859.

DECEMBER 1979 THE JOURNAL OF SCHOOL HEALTH 589