Students in California believed that Proposition 30 promised no more tuition hikes, but as usual this political mash up has just created confusion about where the money was supposed to go and where it actually went.
The voter guide for California has descriptions for each proposition, Proposition 30 has education finally mentioned in the last line promising, “In 2012–13, planned spending reductions, primarily to education programs, would not occur.”
According to edSource.org only $2 billion of the $6 billion supposedly collected is actually going to schools in California.
The rest will go to, “reducing debt and expanding medical care under the federal health act, and a small emergency reserve,” according to Merced Sun-Star.
Information on the exact amount of money already collected was not found at this time.
Students at CSUSB felt the proposition promised the people something that would never happen.
Student Sasha Henderson said, “It was misleading because tuition increases are not gonna [sic] stop, we are still going to be collecting more and more debt.”
The commercials for Proposition 30 promised that school spending would be audited every year, but they do not state what would be considered unacceptable spending creating a loophole for politicians to take advantage.
The proposition itself claims the collected taxes will mainly go towards education, but it is also available to fund other programs.
During the voting season, Ads opposing Proposition 30 highlighted these problems.
The teacher funded ad claimed that the politicians could not touch any of the money raised by the proposition. No on Proposition 30 ads mention a loop hole that can be used by the government.
While the Ads were running for Proposition 30, the opposing groups were going back and forth regarding where the money would go and how it would be handled, but the allocation of classroom funding should be disclosed to the public which it’s not.
Professor Joel Harris commented on this, “I suppose this is true for other propositions as well. I am not so much sure of the arguments against, but the arguments for I would say that they were a bit misleading.”
Many teachers and school workers were promised that no more cuts would be made, but the proposition itself never promised a time frame for cuts.
The proposition discussed who was being taxed and how, but never clearly stated where the money was going.
Not being fully informed creates a massive problem when the time to vote approaches.
The government should be informing the public of where their money goes.