Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.
California Proposition 223, Performance Budgeting Requirements for School Districts Initiative (June 1998)
| California Proposition 223 | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Election date June 2, 1998 | |
| Topic Education | |
Status Defeated | |
| Type State statute | Origin Citizens |
California Proposition 223 was on the ballot as an initiated state statute in California on June 2, 1998. It was defeated.
A "yes" vote supported requiring each school district to budget based on performance requirements and limiting the amount of the budget spent on general administration to 5%. |
A "no" vote opposed requiring each school district to budget based on performance requirements and limiting the amount of the budget spent on general administration to 5%. |
Election results
|
California Proposition 223 |
||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| Yes | 2,569,355 | 45.51% | ||
|
|
3,076,263 | 54.49% | ||
Measure design
Proposition 223, if it had been enacted, would have limited the amount each public school district in the state could spend on administrative costs to 5% of the district budget. It also would have established performance budgeting requirements.
Text of measure
Ballot title
The ballot title for Proposition 223 was as follows:
| “ | Schools. Spending Limits on Administration. Initiative Statute. | ” |
Ballot summary
The ballot summary for this measure was:
| “ |
-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. | ” |
Full Text
The full text of this measure is available here.
Fiscal impact
The California Legislative Analyst's Office provided the following estimate of net state and local government fiscal impact for Proposition 223:[1]
| “ | 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.
|
” |
Support
Supporters
- Los Angeles Mayor Richard Riordan[1]
- U.S. Senator Dianne Feinstein (D)[1]
- Tyrone Vahedi, State Board of Equalization[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in support of Proposition 223 can be found here.
Opposition
Opponents
- James Livingston, president of California Association of Suburban School Districts[1]
- Alvin Sandrini, president of Small School Districts' Association[1]
- Rhoda Coleman, teacher of the year (1995)[1]
Official arguments
The official arguments in opposition to Proposition 223 can be found here.
Path to the ballot
In California, the number of signatures required for an initiated state statute is equal to 5 percent of the votes cast at the preceding gubernatorial election. For initiated statutes filed in 1998, at least 433,269 valid signatures were required.
See also
External links
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
