CA: State to pony up Prop. 49 funding

As of July 1, more than $600 million for after-school programs will sit in a state bank account waiting for schools to ask for it.

The lion's share — more than $400 million — will come from Proposition 49 — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's pre-gubernatorial initiative, his first foray into politics.

Voters approved The After-School Education and Safety Program Act in 2002. The measure required the state to be economically in the black before the measure triggered.

It took four years for that to happen and now for the first time, the state will be required to set the money aside to pay for after-school activities for the state's schoolchildren.

Adding Proposition 49 funds to other state, federal and local funding, nearly $1 billion will be available for after-school programs when school starts in the fall.

The goal is to provide after-school programs in every elementary, middle or junior high school in the state.

That means more art, music, cooking classes, sports, dance, running, playing and fun — all after school and all with an educational twist.

"I've visited these programs," said state Sen. Tom Torlakson, D-Antioch, who authored the state's initial after-school legislation. "What I see is students actively engaged in their homework, in learning lessons they couldn't quite grasp during the day. Students get help so they don't start to fall behind or get lost in a class."

The art, drama and physical activities motivate children to come to school and engage them.

"It makes school fun," Torlakson added. "It's something they can look forward to as a really fun part of the day."

At Malcolm X Elementary School in Berkeley, 105 students attend the state-funded X-Plus after-school program this year. Staff work with the school's teachers to make sure what happens after school is linked to what happens during school. The program also brings in 27 college-level tutors from San Francisco State University.

In addition to homework help and tutoring, the after-school staff plays what program coordinator Pamela Harrison-Small calls "disguised learning." Translation: Fun stuff that helps kids learn.

"Yesterday, the kids made sushi in a cooking class," said Harrison-Small. "Today, they're going to be in a visual arts class, and then we'll have our drama class."

Parents pay on a sliding scale anywhere from $50 to $360 per month to supplement the state money.

It is this type of program the governor and Proposition 49 supporters want to see for all kids.

With current funding, about 2,000 schools serve an estimated 110,000 kids. With the new money, state officials hope to see 5,000 schools serve 600,000 children.

The way the laws are written right now, the bureaucratic process is so unwieldy and unfriendly to schools that millions of after-school dollars go unspent every year.

Currently, schools get reimbursed money based on how many students attend the after-school programs each day. But that means if a few students don't show up on any given day, the school has all the same bills to pay, but less cash from the state to pay them.

"When you only have 19 kids in the class instead of 20, you don't get to turn the lights down 5 percent," said John Malloy, education program consultant at the state Department of Education.

In addition to the reimbursement problem, schools now have to pony up 50 percent in matching funds in order to get the state money. But some districts have a harder time raising that extra cash than others.

Places like Pleasanton and Piedmont, for example, might have PTA money or parcel taxes to help, while Oakland or East Palo Alto might not.

The third problem is what school officials say is a too-low cap in Proposition 49 funds. Elementary schools would generally be eligible for $50,000 annually and middle or junior high schools $75,000.

Pending legislation would address all those issues, doling out up-front grants instead of quarterly reimbursement checks, increasing the caps and making it easier for schools with many low-income students to get the money.

The fear is that without these changes, schools won't apply or qualify for the money and the state could have up to $300 million left over in the bank at the end of the academic year.

"It would be absurd to have some of the dollars go unspent," said Ted Lempert, president of Children Now, an Oakland-based children's advocacy group working to amend Proposition 49.

"People really have to swing into action and get this done," Lempert said of the pending legislation. "Let's make 49 work right."

With at least some money bound to be sitting idle regardless of the pending legislation, Torlakson has also introduced a constitutional amendment to put a measure on the November ballot that would put any remaining funds back into education budget for other uses.

In the meantime, critics of the measure say California is still deficit spending and can't afford to spend $550 million on after-school programs.

Efforts to ask voters to delay or repeal the measure have been soundly rejected by the governor.

"We are able to do this. The people have enacted (Proposition 49). We do need to follow it," said Scott Himmelstein, state deputy secretary of education. "This is how we've chosen to spend the money."

In the meantime, critics of the measure say California is still deficit spending and can't afford to spend $550 million on after-school programs. Efforts to ask voters to delay or repeal the measure have been soundly rejected by the governor.

Why do something fiscally responsible? Dang liberals!

Voters approved The After-School Education and Safety Program Act in 2002. The measure required the state to be economically in the black before the measure triggered. It took four years for that to happen.

It was triggered by appropriations, not revenue, not deficit elimination. What in the heck do they mean by "economically in the black"? Is this some sort of new liberal SacSpeak?

The measure required the state to be economically in the black before the measure triggered.

The measure has no such provision. Here's the trigger language.

(h) To make sure this new four hundred sixty-five million dollar ($465,000,000) appropriation is not an undue burden on other state programs, to provide a trigger to increase the eighty-five million dollar ($85,000,000) appropriation in the 2004–05 fiscal year or later when and only if state revenues have grown sufficiently over the highest of the 2000–01, 2001–02, 2002–03, or 2003–04 fiscal years to provide more than one billion five hundred million dollars ($1,500,000,000) in new appropriations not guaranteed for education purposes.

If you're from Rio Linda the text says a budget, which includes Prop 49 funding, must have at least a $1.5B increase, from the previous budget, in revenues available for expenditures in non educational areas

There is no reference to a balanced budget. The reference is only to proposed spending. The reason that there is not a reference to a balanced budget or in the black spending is because it is illegal to pass an unbalanced budget. It's been done for the past five years but it is illegal.

Why the political class and the MSM perpetuate this myth should be obvious. Why a Republican would front this lie is beyond reason, if we were dealing with a traditional Republican. But we aren't. We're dealing with a new breed of Republican. The liberal Republican.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.