A Key Decision on Schools

There are a lot of important elements in rebuilding California’s public education system: among them, higher academic standards, current textbooks for every student, smaller class sizes in the primary grades, a longer school year and more and better training for teachers. These reforms were delivered by Gov. Pete Wilson and the California Legislature during this session, to their credit. School districts also need more classrooms, plus repairs to what they have. That’s the aim of a $9.2-billion state school construction and repair bond measure that will, after a long seesaw struggle in Sacramento, appear on the November ballot.

The bond measure nearly derailed over what Wilson and other Republicans called runaway costs. Democratic leaders in the end agreed to a compromise that puts a ceiling on the fees that school districts can charge housing developers to finance new school construction.

The bulk of the bond proceeds, $6.7 billion, would rightly be reserved to build or improve elementary and secondary schools, where the greatest need exists. The state would pay half, local school districts half.

The Los Angeles Unified School District plans to use the proceeds from its local bond measure, Proposition BB, to match the state money. Orange County voters have failed to approve a local school bond measure in more than two decades. Affluent areas there can depend on developer fees to build new schools, but for districts without such assets the state bond measure allows special hardship grants in lieu of the local match.

The remaining $2.5 billion of the bond measure would benefit community colleges, the Cal State system and the University of California. The funds would build class space, buy new computers and improve technology, complete earthquake retrofitting, fix leaky roofs, antiquated plumbing and heating systems and poor air conditioning. All of these basic repairs have been long postponed.

The state school construction and repair bond measure can’t make up for year after year of delay in school repair and construction. But its proponents can now make their case for what it would provide in the way of better classrooms and higher achievement to a public that has grown impatient for real, visible improvement in public schools.