What would it do?

•Nothing if Proposition 1A fails; 1B would go into effect only if 1A and 1B both pass.

•Transfer 1.5 percent of the state's estimated revenues each year into a fund for K-12 schools and community colleges, until $9.3 billion has been deposited in that fund.

What are the objectives?

•To restore $9.3 billion in education funding that was lost, or at least at issue, in the budget deal. Education spending was determined by one particular Proposition 98 test, but education advocates say another test should have been used; the difference is projected at $9.3 billion. (Don't ask - it only gets more complicated from there.)

•To get the teachers unions to support the whole package of propositions. It worked in the case of the California Teachers Association, but not the California Federation of Teachers and the California Faculty Association.

What does it cost taxpayers?

•Nothing directly. It's possible the higher floor 1B would provide for Proposition 98 calculations would raise future school spending enough to necessitate future tax increases, but that is speculative.

What's the effect on the general fund? On the deficit?

•The general fund amount available for non-school spending would be reduced each year by the 1.5 percent of anticipated revenues diverted to the education fund. That amount could be added to the deficit if not somehow replaced or offset by spending cuts elsewhere.

Who's for it? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, legislative leaders, California Chamber of Commerce, California Teachers Association, California Democratic Party.

Who's against it? The California Republican Party.

Interesting tidbit: It's possible that education advocates would win the disputed $9.3 billion for school funding in court if 1B fails; 1B's passage precludes such litigation.