Schooling, by the Numbers

Even as they finally take hold, California’s education reforms are at risk because too many schools have too many students. Children cannot learn to read when their teacher is overwhelmed by sheer numbers, unable to provide students with individual attention. It is hard for teen-agers to concentrate on learning when they are constantly jostled in crowded halls, forced to bolt down lunch after standing in long cafeteria lines or distracted by the hubbub in makeshift classrooms. The Legislature should get together with Gov. George Deukmejian to search for ways to clear a path for learning.

The governor has proposed a package of legislative measures and bond issues that would provide a framework for action, even though there are questions about some aspects of his plan. He wants two $800-million bond measures--one for this November’s ballot, the other for that of November, 1988. The proposal calls for using some of the state’s royalties from tidelands oil production for school construction and rehabilitation. It would give school boards some flexibility to raise money locally for new buildings. All told, the governor’s plan would provide $4 billion over five years.

Sacramento is bogged down not over whether to provide enough classrooms but over who would get credit for it in an election year. That has happened in a fruitless debate over reorganizing state control of toxic waste, but in this case there is more than enough credit to go around.

Sen. Leroy F. Greene (D-Carmichael) can get some of that credit for shepherding a school construction financing proposal through the Legislature last year, only to see Deukmejian veto it. The governor can get some credit for conducting his own survey of need after that veto and changing his mind. Add Sen. John Seymour (R-Anaheim), if he can smooth the stormy waters in Sacramento and get the governor’s proposal passed. And State Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig deserves credit, too, for pressing for new and remodeled classrooms.

The governor’s proposal has some weak spots. Local school boards and their state association worry that some districts cannot afford the 25% contribution from local revenues that the plan calls for. The governor’s office has indicated that the final bill should show flexibility for such hardship cases. Others worry about whether the state should be allowed to cap developers’ fees on new home construction--fees that some local areas already rely on for school-building funds. Still others doubt that enough money is included in the plan to cover air-conditioning if schools adopt year-round schedules to combat overcrowding.

Education-reform efforts in California so far have concentrated on improving teachers’ pay, ensuring that students take the solid academic courses that they will need for employment or higher education, and lengthening the school day and year. These reforms are weakened every time a student enters an overcrowded school. It’s time for cooperation among the grown-ups so that the children can concentrate on hitting the books, not beating the crowds.