Malcolm Rivera
Proposition 98, also known as Prop. 98, is a constitutional amendment passed by California voters in 1988 that establishes an annual minimum funding level for K-14 education. The funding for Prop. 98 comes from a combination of state general fund revenue and local property taxes. While Prop. 98 establishes a required minimum funding level, it does not protect individual programs from reduction or elimination. Additionally, the legislature can amend the Prop. 98 funding level by a two-thirds vote of each house. On the other hand, H.J.Res.98 refers to a proposal for a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States introduced during the 115th Congress (2017-2018). This amendment aimed to address fiscal responsibilities and set requirements for Congress and the President.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Proposition Number | 98 |
| Type | Constitutional Amendment |
| Passed By | California Voters |
| Year | 1988 |
| Purpose | Establish an annual minimum funding level for K-14 education each fiscal year |
| Funding Source | State General Fund Revenue and Local Property Taxes |
| Spending Support | K-12 Schools, Community Colleges, County Offices of Education, State Preschool Program, State Agencies Providing Direct K-14 Instructional Programs |
| Flexibility | Does not protect individual programs from reduction or elimination |
| Calculation | Based on a percentage of state general fund revenues or the prior-year guarantee adjusted for K-12 attendance and an inflation measure |
| Legislative Option | Amend the Budget Act to reduce funding to the lower revised minimum guarantee |
| Suspension | Can be suspended for a single year by a two-thirds vote of each house |
| Balanced Budget Amendment | No |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Proposition 98 is a California constitutional amendment
California's Proposition 98, also known as the Mandatory Education Spending Initiative, was a ballot measure in 1988. It was a combined initiated constitutional amendment and state statute that amended the state constitution to require a minimum percentage of the state budget to be spent on K-14 education, referred to as the minimum guarantee.
Proposition 98 established two formulas or tests to determine the minimum guarantee, which is the highest funding level produced by Test 1 or Test 2. Test 1 links the minimum guarantee to about 40% of the state's General Fund, equal to California's 1986-87 funding level for public education. Proposition 98 also added a third formula, Test 3, which considers student attendance, the cost of living, and changes in the General Fund revenue.
The proposition was approved by California voters in 1988, establishing an annual minimum funding level for K-14 education each fiscal year. The funding comes from a combination of state General Fund revenue and local property taxes. Proposition 98 supports K-12 schools, including transitional kindergarten, community colleges, county offices of education, the state preschool program, and state agencies providing direct K-14 instructional programs.
While Proposition 98 establishes a required minimum funding level for programs, it does not protect individual programs from reduction or elimination. The Legislature can address budget shortfalls by amending the previous year's Budget Act to reduce funding to the lower revised minimum guarantee. Proposition 98 has been suspended twice, in 2004-05 and 2010-11, and can be suspended for a year with a two-thirds vote of the Legislature and the governor's concurrence.
Constitutional Amendment: Understanding the 84th Amendment Bill
You may want to see also
It establishes minimum funding for K-14 education
Proposition 98, or Prop. 98, is a constitutional amendment that was adopted by California voters in 1988. It establishes an annual minimum funding level for K-14 education each fiscal year. This funding comes from a combination of state General Fund revenue and local property taxes.
The Prop. 98 funding supports a range of educational institutions, including K-12 schools (including transitional kindergarten), community colleges, county offices of education, the state preschool program, and state agencies that provide direct K-14 instructional programs. While Prop. 98 establishes a required minimum funding level for these programs, it does not protect individual programs from reduction or elimination.
Each year's Prop. 98 guarantee is calculated based on a percentage of state General Fund revenues or the prior-year guarantee, adjusted for K-12 attendance and an inflation measure. The inflation measure is either the percentage change in state per capita personal income for the preceding year or the annual change in per capita state General Fund revenues plus 0.5%.
If the Prop. 98 spending requirement is below the funding level assumed in a budget act, the Legislature can choose to amend the Budget Act to reduce funding to the lower revised minimum Prop. 98 guarantee. The Legislature also has the option to suspend Prop. 98 for a single year by a two-thirds vote of each house. On the other hand, providing funding above the Prop. 98 minimum guarantee for one budget year can increase the minimum funding level for the subsequent year's budget and beyond.
Amendments: Shaping the US Constitution
You may want to see also
Spending comes from state revenue and local property taxes
Measure 98, also known as the Oregon State Funding for Dropout Prevention and College Readiness Initiative, was approved by Oregon voters in 2016. The measure requires the Oregon Legislature to distribute at least $800 per high school student each year for establishing or expanding career and technical education programs, college-level educational opportunities, and dropout-prevention strategies. The funding for Measure 98 comes from state revenue and local property taxes.
The state sets aside approximately $150 million annually, providing districts with about $800 per high school student. The $800 adjustment is relative to changes in inflation and population. The measure did not increase taxes to fund the programs but appropriated new revenue from economic growth. The funding for Measure 98 comes from state revenue sources, including the General Fund, and local property taxes.
The Proposition 98 Guarantee is adjusted upward to accommodate the cost of the program. The state calculates the program's cost for 2023-24 and funds this cost on top of the minimum guarantee. Beginning in 2024-25, the funding is incorporated into the guarantee, and the percentage of General Fund revenue allocated to schools is increased accordingly. The Constitution requires the state to deposit Proposition 98 funding into a reserve when there are high levels of capital gains revenue and the minimum guarantee is growing rapidly. The state also withdraws funding from the reserve under specific conditions, such as when the guarantee grows slowly relative to inflation and student attendance.
The Measure 98 funding model is targeted, with 70% of funds allocated to school districts, charter schools, and county offices of education based on prior-year enrollment. The remaining 30% is distributed based on the share of low-income students enrolled in those entities in the previous year. School principals are responsible for developing expenditure plans that outline how the funds will be utilized. The funds are primarily used to hire new arts staff and supplement existing arts education programs.
The Student Investment Account under the Student Success Act is funded differently from Measure 98, as it relies on a new tax specifically for SSA spending. However, the passage of the SSA in 2019 did impact Measure 98 by helping secure full funding from state lawmakers. It is challenging to determine the precise impact of Measure 98 on student improvements, as the SSA funding may have also played a role. Nonetheless, supporters of Measure 98 believe that the initiative has positively impacted Oregon high schools, contributing to improved graduation rates and equitable outcomes for all Oregon high schoolers.
Amending Michigan's Constitution: How to Propose Changes
You may want to see also
Explore related products
H.J.Res.98 proposed a balanced budget amendment
H.J.Res.98 has been proposed multiple times in different years, each with a unique focus.
The H.J.Res.98 proposal of 2017-2018, by the 115th Congress, suggested a balanced budget amendment to the US Constitution. This amendment would prohibit a court from issuing an order in any action that might lead to increased revenue collection.
The H.J.Res.98 proposal of 2019-2020, by the 116th Congress, suggested repealing the 23rd article of amendment to the US Constitution.
The H.J.Res.98 proposal of 2013-2014, by the 113th Congress, suggested an amendment to ensure that laws are applied equally to citizens of the US and the Federal Government.
The H.J.Res.98 proposal of 1995-1996, by the 104th Congress, suggested an amendment to clarify the meaning of the Second Amendment.
Each of these H.J.Res.98 proposals is a unique attempt to amend the US Constitution, with a specific focus on issues ranging from budgetary concerns to legal equality and the interpretation of existing amendments.
The Fourteenth Amendment: Understanding Equal Protection
You may want to see also
The amendment would affect the President's and Congress' compensation
The 27th Amendment, also known as the "congressional pay amendment," limits changes to Congressional salaries. It was designed to prevent corruption in the Legislative Branch, ensuring that Congress members could not raise their salaries before getting voted out of office. The official text of the amendment is: "No law, varying the compensation for the services of the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of Representatives shall have intervened."
In other words, Congressional pay raises can only occur after the next election of representatives. This amendment was proposed in response to concerns that the Constitution did not adequately protect the rights of states and individual citizens. It was one of twelve potential amendments supervised by Representative and future President James Madison. Ten of these amendments, excluding the Congressional finance proposal and one other, were accepted and ratified in 1791.
The Congressional pay amendment sat in limbo for over 200 years. During this period, Congress experimented with different compensation methods for representatives and senators. In the late 1700s and 1800s, they received a per diem for each day they appeared in Congress and for travel. In 1817, Congress changed the compensation from a per diem to a salary (per annum). Congress also voted to increase salaries semi-regularly, leading to public resentment.
In 1967, the Commission on Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries was created. This commission recommended a new salary every four years, further fuelling public dissatisfaction. In 1982, a University of Texas at Austin student, Gregory Watson, wrote a political science essay arguing that the dormant Congressional pay amendment was still "live" and could be added to the Constitution. Watson's research sparked a 10-year campaign that ultimately led to the revival and ratification of the amendment.
DC Amendment: A Constitutional Necessity
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Proposition 98 is a constitutional amendment that was passed by California voters in 1988. It establishes an annual minimum funding level for K-14 education each fiscal year, known as the Prop. 98 guarantee.
Proposition 98 funds K-12 schools (including transitional kindergarten), community colleges, county offices of education, the state preschool program, and state agencies that provide direct K-14 instructional programs.
Yes, if the Proposition 98 spending requirement is below the funding level assumed in a budget act, the Legislature can amend the Budget Act to reduce funding to the lower revised minimum Prop. 98 guarantee.
