Clinton Seeks Funds for Repairs at Schools

The Clinton administration on Friday proposed spending $5 billion to speed the repair of rundown schools and the construction of new ones, especially in urban areas such as Los Angeles struggling to cope with record enrollments.

The money would not be spent directly on bricks and mortar, which caused some school officials to grumble. Instead, it would be used to subsidize as much as half the cost of borrowing--an arrangement designed to spur as much as $20-billion worth of projects, officials said.

That is but a fraction of the $112 billion that the General Accounting Office in 1995 estimated as the cost of repairing serious defects in the nation’s school buildings. But the new money, if approved by Congress, still would amount to the most ambitious federal school construction effort ever and the first in about three decades.

“It’s hard to learn to read if your classroom is too hot or the bathrooms don’t work or if the roof is leaking,” said Vice President Al Gore, speaking at an elementary school in San Bernardino. “And in California, lots of children have to take their classes in portables because their schools have just run out of room.”

President Clinton had planned to announce the program--part of the 10-point education agenda that he has made the centerpiece of recent appearances--at a school in Florida. But he spent Friday recuperating from emergency surgery to repair his knee, which he injured during a stumble outside the home of professional golfer Greg Norman.

The president’s education agenda includes national standards and tests in math and science that some have denounced as a federal intrusion into education, historically the responsibility of states and local communities. In a prepared statement released Friday, Clinton said: “Underinvestment in school infrastructure has become a national problem and it demands national action.”

Under the Clinton plan, half of the $5 billion would be set aside for the 100 school districts in the nation serving the highest number of children living in poverty. Part of that money would be allocated on a per-pupil basis and part given out through a competitive grant process.

Thirteen California school districts--including those in Los Angeles, Long Beach, Compton, Santa Ana, San Diego, Montebello and San Bernardino--are on the list to benefit from that part of the plan, potentially sharing up to $220 million in financing subsidies based on enrollment.

The other half of the $5 billion would be allocated to the states, which would decide how to redirect it to school systems with the greatest needs and the least resources to meet them.

California could apply for as much as $221 million from that pot, with a catch--to get it, the state would have to increase its own spending on school facilities.

But while the federal money could be used only to assist in “leveraging” financing, the resulting funds could go for a wide variety of projects, from building new schools to wiring classrooms for computers.

U.S. Department of Education officials said the proposal is structured to encourage local districts and states to spend more on construction, rather than to try to come close to meeting the huge need for new and upgraded facilities with federal funds alone.

Mike Vail, facilities director for the Santa Ana school district, said districts such as his--where voters have been unwilling to spring for local financing for school construction--would have trouble qualifying for the funds. The district needs to build a high school and three elementary schools just to keep up with an enrollment that is swelling by more than 1,500 students annually.

“We think the idea of the feds putting in money is excellent, but we need to work with the Department of Education and Congress to find a way that a district like Santa Ana can access some of this money,” Vail said.

Michael Casserly, executive director of the Council of the Great City Schools, acknowledged that some urban districts will have trouble raising local funds, but was enthusiastic about the possibility of federal assistance.

“Historically, the repair and renovation of school buildings has fallen solely on local school systems, so any relief is welcome,” he said.

Casserly said the amount proposed by Clinton is far more than the $3 billion to $3.5 billion that all 50 states now spend annually for that purpose. “We’re very enthusiastically supporting the package,” he said.

In California, state education officials are bracing for 1 million new students over the next decade. The cost of providing those students with a place to study, retrofitting buildings for computers, modernizing facilities and making badly needed repairs is $33 billion.

State Supt. of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin said the state should raise some of those funds through a $4-billion state bond issue she supports. Eastin met with federal education officials a year ago and pushed them to pitch in.

The situation in Los Angeles Unified School District epitomizes the daunting task facing school officials nationwide. The district’s enrollment hit an all-time high of 668,000 this year. That number is expected to grow by almost 10,000 annually through 2000.

On April 8, the district will ask voters to approve borrowing $2.4 billion to make sure those students have classrooms. But California law makes passing such a measure difficult, requiring the support of two-thirds of the voters.

The district would receive at least $116 million, the third largest amount in the country, if the Clinton proposal passes.

“When you look at the needs in Los Angeles, $116 million is nice--and we’re happy to get anything we can to help our schools--but compared to the need, it’s not much,” said Beth Louargand, the district’s director of facilities.

Other California districts in line to benefit are those in Bakersfield, Fresno, Oakland, Sacramento, San Francisco and Stockton.