California Elections : Propositions 53 and 56 : Measures Seek to Improve State’s Education Systems

At Ramona Elementary School in Hollywood, the school psychologist’s “office” is a corner of a cramped book room, the speech teacher has the back of the auditorium, and the bilingual specialist works in a former girls’ lavatory.

Recess is held in three sessions to avoid overcrowding the playground, and students are not allowed to play games such as kick-ball because there isn’t enough room. The school has more than 1,000 students attending on a year-round schedule, while 400 others who can’t be squeezed in are bused 40 minutes away to more spacious campuses in the San Fernando Valley.

“We use every bit of space we have,” Principal Richard Torchia said, and more classrooms are on the drawing board. But a heightened demand for classroom space, brought about by rising birthrates and immigration, and the sluggish pace of school construction almost guarantee that Ramona will not have room to spare for a long time.

Proposition 53, an $800-million school-construction bond issue, has been placed on the Nov. 4 ballot with schools such as Ramona Elementary in mind. In Los Angeles and other districts from Sacramento to San Diego, school enrollments are going up faster than classrooms, and local districts are falling further behind each day in their efforts to keep pace. Because of a lengthy state approval process, it takes about five years to open a new school.

If approved by voters, Proposition 53 will be the first installment of a $5-billion classroom financing plan signed by Gov. George Deukmejian in September. The plan authorizes the Nov. 4 bond measure, as well as a second $800-million bond in 1988, and $600 million over four years from tideland oil revenues. It also provides districts the authority to raise $1.6 billion in developer fees.

Even if all this help is forthcoming, rapidly growing districts such as Los Angeles will find it a struggle to keep up. Although plans have been drawn to add nine new classrooms at Ramona, for example, Principal Torchia predicts that by the time they are built, they will be filled to capacity and still leave many students without a seat.

Los Angeles district officials say the same situation exists downtown, along the Wilshire corridor, on the Eastside and in the Southeast region. Westside and Valley schools are filling up with the children the district buses out of the crowded regions, leading district officials to foresee a day when all schools may have to operate year-round.

If more classrooms cannot be built quickly, “I could see thousands of kids waiting out in the streets to get into school,” Los Angeles school board member Larry Gonzalez said. “We’re having that problem now. We don’t have sufficient kindergarten space. We’re seeing local schools place these children on waiting lists, and there is some talk of busing kindergarten students to nearby schools. (The classroom shortage) is becoming a crisis.”

With nearly 600,000 students of its own--and 82,000 more expected by 1990--the Los Angeles district needs $1 billion over the next five years to build classrooms and update or enlarge existing campuses. The district has 18 schools on the drawing board now, but “we can’t build them fast enough for the growth we have here,” said Max Barney, who helps oversee district construction.

Statewide, the number of elementary and secondary school students is expected to grow by 600,000 by 1994; the cost of building classrooms to accommodate the increase is estimated at between $5 billion and $8 billion.

The November ballot measure “puts in place the $5-billion plan. It is the first installment,” said state Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig, one of the bond measure’s proponents, along with Deukmejian and Assemblywoman Teresa Hughes (D-Los Angeles). “So it is an absolute necessity to get this bond passed.”

The sole ballot opponent of Proposition 53 is Ellison Bloodgood of the United Voters League, who wrote in a ballot statement that the state’s educational system already is receiving ample funding and should not require more. Bloodgood also suggested that lottery funds should be used to build schools.

Lottery Funds Restricted

The state lottery law, which appropriates one-third of lottery revenues to public schools, specifically forbids using lottery funds to finance capital improvements. Proponents of the bond measure are concerned, however, that misperceptions about how the lottery has helped schools may cause voters to underestimate the need for the money.

“There is that perception out there” that the lottery is satisfying all school needs, including building, Honig said. “We’re trying to dispel it. The lottery can’t be used for construction. . . . It was never meant to take care of the construction problem.”

Until recently, local districts had been unable to raise construction funds on their own through local bonds or levying tax increases. Proposition 13, passed in 1978, took away that right and effectively made the state the primary source of school building funds.

Officials Not Optimistic

Voters passed a measure on the June ballot restoring to districts a limited ability to issue bonds and raise taxes. The proposed developer fees authorized in the legislation signed by the governor last month also will help in districts where residential and commercial construction is occurring.

Despite these changes, many district officials are not optimistic that local revenue-raising efforts can be successful and that, therefore, winning approval of the state bond measure is crucial.

According to Stephen Phillips, business manager for the 30,000-student Montebello Unified School District, where enrollment is growing by 600 students a year, the new developer fees will not help because little residential or commercial development is taking place in the area.

‘Distinct Lack of Success’

He is equally pessimistic about the possibility of passing a local bond measure. “That takes two-thirds approval by the voters. We keep track of districts that try it, and they’ve had a distinct lack of success.”

Also on the ballot is Proposition 56, a $400-million bond measure that would pay for expansion and upgrading of University of California, California State University and community college campuses.

According to the ballot proponents of the measure--state Sen. Gary K. Hart (D-Santa Barbara), Deukmejian and UC President David Gardner--the public colleges and universities have depended primarily on tideland oil revenues to finance capital improvements, but those funds have been shrinking rapidly, while the need for enlarged facilities and refurbishing, especially science laboratories, has not.

In their ballot statement, Proposition 56 advocates say the bond measure would pay for new classrooms, upgrading to meet earthquake and safety standards and equipping state-of-the-art research facilities.

In a ballot rebuttal, conservative Assemblymen Nolan Frizzelle (R-Huntington Beach) and Don Sebastiani (R-Sonoma) argue that the bond will place too heavy a burden on taxpayers and that the money should instead come out of the state budget.