Get Santa Ana Schools Built

Once there was a large school district in Southern California with many poor, inner-city students crammed into leaky old schoolhouses.

Recognizing the need for decent facilities, voters in the late 1990s approved a bond measure to build and fix schools, but the money was mismanaged. District officials tolerated delays that raised costs. They sank money into expenses that led nowhere. They resisted oversight that would have found problems early. Millions of taxpayer dollars went to waste, and, in the end, the district could not build everything it had promised the voters.

This is a true tale of the Santa Ana Unified School District. But it happens also to be the story of Proposition BB, a 1997 school bond in Los Angeles. Like Santa Ana, voters in Los Angeles felt the heart-sinking disappointment of seeing a hefty part of their investment in children go south.

Right now, Santa Ana parents are hearing that of the 11 new elementary schools they expected from their 1999 school bond, they are more likely to see four. Projects that the district has spent $15 million on might be abandoned. Consultants propose expanding the capacity of existing schools to stretch the remaining money as far as possible, but that solution upsets parents who want their children closer to home in smaller neighborhood schools.

So why should Santa Ana, sunk deep into its own woes, bother itself about that gigantic school district to the north? Just as the L.A. school bond was fodder for a cautionary tale about the need to move quickly and efficiently with construction money, it now can provide a hopeful allegory about making a new start.

In Los Angeles, a new superintendent came in who cleared away some of the bureaucratic fumbling and, with the remaining bond money, showed the public that the district could get schools built. That gave voters the faith to approve an even bigger school bond in 2002, and the L.A. school board already is moving to put a third bond on the March ballot.

In Santa Ana, the obstacle to school construction was the previous board majority, which micromanaged the bond. By delaying work, approving questionable contracts and insisting on union-only construction -- and resisting the oversight of its own managers -- the board lost opportunities for matching funds, received higher-than-expected bids and watched land and construction costs soar beyond its reach. Now a new board majority vows a leaner building effort.

Before Santa Ana leaders give up on neighborhood schools, they should examine the possibility of going back to the voters. First they’ll need to show they can build some nice schools. Cramming more buildings onto existing campuses isn’t going to persuade anyone to fork over new money.

Los Angeles is in the midst of a 200-school construction project. Surely Santa Ana shouldn’t give up this early on the seven elementary schools it promised to deliver.