State Bond Funds for Los Angeles Schools

* Faulty assumptions, based on wrong information, invariably lead to erroneous conclusions. Case in point: your April 2 editorial, “Asleep at the Wheel, Again; LAUSD failure to ask for state funds may well punish students.”

In the mistaken belief that the only criterion used in allocating state school construction bond funds to school districts is “first come, first served,” The Times is critical because “some (LAUSD) official missed the deadline to apply for funds.” The truth is that there is no set deadline and all LAUSD projects for which we are seeking funding are on file with the state. The problem is how the state decides which projects to fund.

The state uses two funding criteria: a district’s willingness to operate its crowded schools on a year-round schedule and a district’s ability to fund 50% of a project up front with local monies.

Los Angeles, which must use year-round education because of overcrowding, amply qualifies under the first criterion. We do not, however, meet the second. This means all of our projects have been placed in a lower category.

Regrettably for Los Angeles and other urban school districts, there has been no funding from the state in recent years to buy land or prepare architectural drawings that would have assisted our projects to be considered on a priority one basis. In order to receive priority one consideration, it would have been necessary for us to take millions from our general fund to purchase land and develop plans based on the uncertain proposition that a statewide bond issue might be forthcoming. Instead, what discretionary funds we did have were used for other priorities such as improving the instructional program, replacing an aging school bus fleet and restoring major salary cuts.

Now that a bond measure has passed, we are requesting that the state give a higher priority to districts that are operating schools on a year-round basis and to fund land acquisitions and architectural planning in addition to construction funding.

Finally, although $66 million in LAUSD projects have already been approved by the Division of State Architecture or are being processed, the real solution to Los Angeles’ school housing needs cannot be fully met with state funds. We have an aging infrastructure. None of the needed fixes, mounting to more than $600 million, are eligible for funding under the state bond program.

The citizens of Los Angeles must take matters into their own hands by approving a local school bond issue to provide for repairs and to generate the revenue that will allow us to compete on an equal footing with suburban districts should there be any future state school construction bond funding.

SIDNEY A. THOMPSON

Superintendent, LAUSD