2,393,361 / 45.6% Yes votes ...... 2,848,248 / 54.4% No votes

• Prohibits school districts from spending more than five percent of funds from all sources for costs of general administration, instructional resources supervision, and supervision of instruction, beginning fiscal year 1999-2000.
• Requires State Board of Education to fine districts failing to comply.
• Requires districts to publish percentage of funds expended on administrative costs annually, report expenditure information to State Board of Education, and undertake performance audits and fiscal efficiency reviews every five years.
• Requires districts to develop systems which indicate the intended contribution of each projected expenditure to the achievement of specific performance objectives.

• This measure would require school districts to reduce administrative costs (as defined by the measure) by up to $700 million. To comply with this requirement, districts could more accurately account for administrative costs, move operations from central locations to school sites, and reduce administrative spending.
• The measure also would result in costs of around $10 million annually for performance based budgeting, and around $20 million every five years for auditing requirements.

Meaning of Voting Yes/No

A YES vote of this measure means:

School districts could spend no more than 5 percent on central administrative costs. The remaining money, at least 95 percent of total funds, would have to be spent on direct services to students, school site employees, and school facilities.

A NO vote of this measure means:

School districts would continue to decide what portion of their budgets is spent on central administration and direct services.

• Offical WWW Site
• Full Text
• Impartial Analysis from the Legislative Analyst

Summary of Arguments FOR Proposition 223:

Our tax dollars must be spent at our schools where our children are educated, not on administrators at central offices. Currently, non-school site administration averages 9% statewide, with some districts spending as much as 20%. The national average is 4.8%. Proposition 223 puts the money where the kids are!

Full Text of Argument In Favor, Rebuttal

Summary of Arguments AGAINST Proposition 223:

Takes money from local school districts and redirects this funding to larger districts, principally the downtown Los Angeles Unified School District. This measure is sponsored by the LA teacher's union. Strongly opposed by the California PTA, California School Employees Association, award-winning teachers, and the California Taxpayers Association. Recommendation: Vote no.

Full Text of Argument Against, Rebuttal

Contact FOR Proposition 223:

Tyrone Vahedi
903 Colorado Ave.,
Suite 200
Santa Monica, CA 90401
(310) 319-9885
Website Address:
http://www.civicweb.com
/yesprop223

Contact AGAINST Proposition 223:

Parents, Teachers and
Educators for Local
Control
400 Capitol Mall,
Suite 1560
Sacramento, CA 95814

All Propositions

includes results by county (from Sec. of St.)