California State Lottery. Allocation for Instructional Materials. Legislative Initiative Amendment.
	Argument Against Proposition 20

Arguments on this page are the opinions of the authors and have not been checked for accuracy by any official agency.

- This proposition has no merit. It is about state control as opposed to local control.

- School management needs some flexibility to best serve our children.

- School instructional materials are already funded, by several sources, at $542 million. This would add an estimated $15 million in the first year, money more critically needed for school security, safety, and other identified needs.

- Public school funding is already highly restricted as to use, so restricted, in fact, that school management must shuffle and scrape to fund such necessities as:

• School safety and security
• Expenses for class size reduction
• Reading Specialists
• Student CounselorsOutdoor Education
• Needs locally identified

Additionally, unnecessary detailed state control creates burdensome record keeping and reporting requirements, involving extra employees and wasted expenditures.

Who should run our schools, politicians or political appointees in Sacramento, or parents, caring local school boards and school administrators?

Who knows best the needs of our children for:

• Security and safety?
• Protection from drugs while at school?
• Classroom deficiencies and needs?

Proposition 20 handicaps already burdened local administrators, school boards, parents and teachers, adversely affecting our children's safety, health and basic education, and is wasteful of our funds requiring additional employees for burdensome and unnecessary record keeping, planning and reporting.

Support local control. Please vote NO on Proposition 20.

Assemblyman George R. House Jr.
Assembly District 25

Assemblyman Steve Baldwin
Assembly District 77

Proposition 20 | Vote 2000 Home | Next - Prop 21 | Secretary of State Home |