Proposition 88, the “Classroom Learning and Accountability Act” on the November 7, 2006 ballot, embodies the timeworn trope from the education bureaucracy: Increased government spending on public education will improve the system and produce better results. The initiative would impose a statewide parcel tax on every property owner in California, and funnel the revenue into programs in five different areas of education. State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O’Connell, one of the main supporters of Prop. 88, argues, “I think people still want to invest in public education, they want to invest in the future, and they want to invest in programs that work.”

O’Connell’s sentiments may be correct, but the key question is whether Prop. 88 will ensure effective investment. Overall, government spending on education in California is running at record levels. The recently approved 2006-2007 state budget allocates $55.1 billion to education — by far the largest part of the budget. That amount represents a 17-percent increase over state education spending just two years earlier. If local and federal tax dollars are added to state funding, then $11,264 is spent per pupil per year in California, an increase of more than $2,000 over per-pupil annual spending in 2002-2003.

To pay for all of this government spending, California levies some of the highest taxes in America. For example, the state has the nation’s highest top income tax rate and one of the highest sales tax rates.

Read PRI Pamphlet