Last week, Prop 98 author John Mockler and state Supt. of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell conducted a press conference on the threat to the state posed by another suspension of the education funding guarantee. And it got sort of kinky. Mockler described Prop 98 as having been "bended," "folded," "mutilated" (and a few other adjectives) by the Schwarzenegger administration.

O'Connell and Mockler talked about how California ranks low in state support for education. They argued persuasively that our schools need better funding.  I agree. But, in the next breath, they talked about the need to protect Prop 98. That's where they lost me.

The logical problem with the argument for protecting Prop 98 is a mirror image of the logical problem with the argument for protecting the 2/3 vote for tax increases that was part of Prop 13. To review: conservatives tell us that California is a mess of over-taxation and over-spending. Then they tell us that without the 2/3 vote and Prop 13, California would be a mess of over-taxation and over-spending. Which is it, guys? Prop 13 has been in place for 30 years, so if you believe that the states taxes and spends too much, it seems safe to conclude that the 2/3 vote doesn't really prevent higher taxes and high spending. It'd be far more logical to assume that the 2/3 vote is part of the problem.

On Prop 98, it is liberals making the illogical argument. Liberals argue (rightly, I believe) that California schools are an under-funded embarrassment. But then they say that we have to protect Prop 98 to prevent our schools from being an under-funded embarrassment. Which is it, folks? Prop 98 has been in the California constitution for 20 years. If our schools are under-funded, it's logical to consider Prop 98 part of the problem.

How's that? Prop 98 is based on complex formulas that involve a variety of economic and budget factors. But what Prop 98 doesn't account for is need and the costs of great instruction. Instead, it creates a culture of just hitting the minimum-politicians can fund the minimum guarantee and say they protected education. So the budget debate about education revolves around the question of whether we're funding the Prop 98 minimum-not whether we're giving schools the resources they need.

Ideally, we wouldn't have an education funding guarantee. The legislature would do the job, and face the consequences if schools weren't properly funded. But there's no way that could happen politically.

So what we need is a better education funding guarantee. We need a process - that is open but not dominated by interest groups -- through which, based on the best research and data, the state determines what is needed to make California children the best educated in the world - materials, technology, teachers. Then you estimate your student population, multiply the amount needed by the student population, and then require that schools have to receive that amount. Such a guarantee would focus political debate on education (not on the budget) and on what sort of instruction and resources are needed to produce top results. Designed correctly, such a process would create incentives to find ways to provide the necessary education in a more cost effective way.

It makes no sense to cling to a guarantee that essentially guarantees a certain part of the budget and new revenues for education. Such a guarantee, which we have in Prop 98, isn't a policy. It's a fetish. If schools are our top priority in the state (and they should be), we need to make sure we're giving them what they need to do the job, irrespective of the rest of the state budget.

There's a lot of talk about initiatives to change Prop 13. Fine. But it's also time to revisit Prop 98 too.