Read in Spanish
Mt. Diablo USD News Update
Where Kids Come First
October 18, 2012
District staff and site administrators have been asked questions by parents and community members about the impact of Propositions 30 and 38. By-law district personnel cannot advocate for any Proposition or candidate utilizing district resources. However, in the case of a Proposition we can provide the facts about the Proposition and the impact it would have on our school district.
The following information about Proposition 30 and 38 is directly from the Official Title and Summary prepared by the Attorney General.
Overview of Proposition 30
State Taxes and Revenues
Increases sales tax rate by one-quarter cent for every dollar for four years.
Increases personal income tax rates on upper-income taxpayers for seven years.
Raises about $6 billion in additional annual state revenues from 2012-13 through
2016-17, with smaller amounts in 2011-12, 2017-18 and 2018-19.
If approved by voters, additional revenues available to help balance state budget through 2018-19.
If rejected by voters, 2012-13 budget reduced by $6 billion. State revenues lower through 2018-19
Local Government Programs
Guarantees local governments receive tax revenues annually to fund program responsibilities transferred to them by the state in 2011.
Overview of Proposition 38
State Taxes and Revenues
Increases personal income tax rates on annual earnings over $7,316 using sliding scale from .4% for lowest individual earners to 2.2% for individuals earning over
$2.5 million for twelve years.
During first four years, allocates 60% of revenues to K-12 schools, 30% to repaying state debt, and 10% to early childhood programs. Thereafter, allocates
85% of revenues to K-12 schools, 15% to early childhood programs.
Provides K-12 funds on school-specific, per-pupil basis, subject to local control, audits, and public input.
Prohibits state from directing new funds.
Net State and Local Government Fiscal Impact:
Increase in state personal income tax revenues from 2013 through 2024. The increase would be roughly $10 billion in 2013-14, tending to increase over time.
The 2012-13 increase would be about half this amount.
In each of the initial years, about $6 billion would be used for schools, $1 billion
for child care and preschool, and $3 billion for state savings on debt payments.
The 2013-14 amounts likely would be higher due to the additional distribution of
funds raised in 2012-13.
From 2017-18 through 2024-25, the shares spent on schools, child care, and preschool would be higher the share spent on debt payments lower.
Two nonpartisan organizations California Budget Project and EdSource have each created a side by side analysis of the two propositions. You can view the California Budget Project analysis at http://cbp.org/ , and the EdSource analysis is available at http://www.edsource.org/assets/images/misc/graphic/edsource-californiaschoolinitiatives-
Under the current State budget that was signed by Governor Brown in July 2012, if Proposition 30 passes we will not see any additional funding; however, if it does not pass K-16 education funding will receive an immediate mid-year reduction. For most K-12 unified school districts the estimated amount of this reduction would be $440 per student. For Mt. Diablo Unified School District this would result in an on-going annual reduction of approximately $13.5 million. This type of reduction would be equivalent to permanently shortening the school year by fifteen days.
If Proposition 38 passes it will not prevent the mid-year reduction of state funds for K-16 education. However, it will provide significant new preK-12 funding that comes directly to local school districts. If you would like to get an estimate of the amount of funding that will be provide for the Mt. Diablo schools, please Google "Proposition 38 school funding calculator."
If both Proposition 30 and 38 pass, the Proposition with the most votes will be implemented and the other Proposition would not take effect.
Another informative article by the California Budget Project that analyzes school funding in California and discusses the disinvestment in California schools is School Finance Facts, October 2011. This article can be found at