Proposition 223 | Argument in Favor | Proposition 223 | Argument Against |
Schools. Spending Limits on Administration.
Initiative Statute.
Rebuttal to Argument in Favor of Proposition 223

SHIFTING MONEY FROM LOCAL DISTRICTS TO L.A. UNIFIED IS NOT THE ANSWER

We understand why downtown Los Angeles leaders want more money for downtown LA schools, but we don't agree that those dollars should be taken away from the hundreds of other local school districts that this initiative targets for massive cuts.

Their arguments would be more credible if Proposition 223's $200-per-child penalties and fines also punished downtown Los Angeles schools. Unfortunately, they won't.

The proponents make phony comparisons between California and other states. For example, under Proposition 223, the mechanic who fixes the brakes on the school bus is counted as an "administrator." Proposition 223 uses misleading statistics to hoodwink California voters, and insure that most local school districts cannot comply, no matter how hard they try.

That's why the California Taxpayers' Association opposes this measure, because it is a flawed approach to reducing administrative overhead and would unfairly penalize small school districts in favor of large districts.

The downtown teachers' union is attempting to feather its nest at the expense of everyone else, and that's simply not fair to the overwhelming majority of California's schoolchildren.

Read the fine print. Proposition 223 hurts our children and hurts our schools. Join with the PTA, local principals and schoolteachers in voting NO ON PROPOSITION 223.

JAMES A. LIVINGSTON
President, California Association of Suburban School Districts
ALVIN G. SANDRINI
President, Small School Districts' Association
RHODA COLEMAN
California Teacher of the Year, 1995
Proposition 223 | Argument in Favor | Proposition 223 | Argument Against |