Small Districts’ Views on Proposition 47

Re “2 School Bonds Get Donations,” Oct. 9: You are correct that Proposition 47 has bipartisan support from educators, business groups, taxpayers and parents. By helping to build some of the 46,000 classrooms we need to relieve overcrowding and repair older schools we are investing in the infrastructure necessary to ensure a stronger California.

I want to make one critical correction, however. Your story indicated some small districts were against the measure. California’s small school districts overwhelmingly support Proposition 47 because it helps us reduce overcrowding and repair aging schools. As executive director of the Small School Districts’ Assn., I can confirm that my members -- 500 districts strong -- believe Proposition 47 will benefit their schools and kids immensely. Under Proposition 47, every school district will receive its fair share.

David L. Walrath

Sacramento

*

I agree that all school districts need money to fix old structures and build new structures. The University of California, California State University, the community colleges and local school districts are overflowing with students from a growing population. But historically, five school districts have received most of the K-12 state bond money over the last 15 years: San Francisco, Oakland, Sacramento, Los Angeles and San Diego. Legislators prevent other school districts from receiving their fair share. The voters have an all-or-none choice. Vote no on Proposition 47. Ventura County voted yes on a bond issue for its local community colleges. Voters should be given a choice to vote separately on school bond issues and not subsidize the interests of the politically powerful.

Larry Stein

Oxnard