Publications


Spring 2004 Newsletter

State Superintendent Jack O'Connell On The Promise Of California's Proposition 55

Jack O'ConnellBy passing another $12.3 billion of school facilities bond funds on the ballot in March, California has yet another opportunity to invest in its education infrastructure. The question is whether the state and its local districts will spend the money wisely, building schools that serve as centers of the neighborhoods within which they reside. NSBN is pleased to present this interview with California State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell, in which he addresses the opportunity presented by Proposition 55 on the March ballot.


Let me begin by asking you to put in context the school facilities needs of this state going forward. If we're to achieve the student performance outcomes that have been promised, how many classrooms are needed?

There's a dramatic need not only for additional classrooms, but also to modernize the schools that we have today. The reality is that 60% of our schools today are at least 30 years old. We have an aging educational infrastructure. We need to build 22,000 classrooms to relieve overcrowding and deal with increasing student enrollment. We need to build 19 classrooms a day simply to accommodate the growth in our projected student enrollment. This is really the second installment of our approach towards helping to solve this school construction crisis in our state. The first approach was Proposition 47, when the voters stepped up to the plate and made a significant investment in public education. This measure is the follow up to Prop. 47.

The State's Legislative Analyst report of three years ago concluded that the way the state funds capital improvements for our schools ( $10's of billions) needs significant reform. Are we funding/ building better today than in the past?

We are clearly distributing school construction money in a more thoughtful and prudent manner. We have built in significant accountability measures such as independent audits every year, strict cost controls, actual site performance audits and other requirements to guard against potential waste and mismanagement. We also established a bond oversight committee made up of public representatives. So, the money cannot be spent on bureaucracy and a strict auditing procedure ensures that it will be spent on projects related to school construction.

You have frequently addressed our New Schools-Better Neighborhoods symposia, both in Sacramento and in Los Angeles. The consistent question arising at these symposia is: how could the state institutionally incentivize the building of collaboratively-planned, neighborhood-centered schools, rather than factory-like schools that by design are separate from the neighborhoods they serve?

We've done a little bit better, and this measure will help us to an even greater extent. This measure has $50 million for joint-use so that we work in a collaborative manner with cities, counties and special districts and realize even greater utilization of our existing facilities. It could be open space, parks, basketball courts, gymnasiums, swimming pools, libraries, or cafeteria facilities. This is a much more collaborative measure.

The most significant health epidemic among youth in the Los Angeles basin is not flu or tuberculosis, but obesity and diabetes. Curiously, the $50 million of Joint Use funds in the last state bond actually precluded its use for joint-use parks. The latter coupled with the cost of land in our inner city and inner suburban neighborhoods high, results in school sites now being purchased with little regard for community open space and recreation needs. Is the State connecting the dots here; might we find a better way to leverage our school facilities bond dollars to achieve both our eductional goals and healthier neighborhoods for our children?

I believe we are getting better. We're still not where we all want to be in terms of seeing that collaboration occur, but when you have the set-aside for joint-use that really does portend to a much more collaborative approach to addressing a communities' problems. The education community needs to do a better job of reaching out to the child- care community, to the senior community and to other groups. We need to allow seniors to utilize cafeterias for bingo after school, for service clubs in the evening and for recreational opportunities on weekends. We should not chain our schools at three in the afternoon and just leave them empty. We need to do a better job at making the schools the focus of their neighborhoods.

There were few applicants for the last joint-use money in the first bond. Only $17 million of the $50 million available were awareded because the state allocation board rules and matching dollar requirements were so restrictive. There have been legislative attempts to improve those rules and regulations. Do you see better utilization of these funds this round?

We have to see better utilization. I know that there were some concerns about the way the initial measure was drafted, however we have attempted to address many of those concerns.

Mr. Superintendent, as we do this interview the Los Angeles Times editors are "regrettably" recommending a No vote on Proposition 55, while at the same time endorsing the LAUSD's $3.8-billion bond, Measure R. What's your response to the LA Times editorial?

I'm disappointed with the absence of support for Proposition 55. The L.A. Times editorial board has always been extremely supportive of public education in our state. On the other hand, I understand their concern, in terms of bonded indebtedness.
I would suggest, and I think this is a key point, that this is a job creation measure. An independent analyst from Sacramento State University found that this Prop. 55 will sustain 200,000 jobs in school construction, architecture and other related areas.
More importantly, we have a dramatic need today. Prop. 47 is almost totally depleted. We cannot afford to wait until November for the passage of the next bond, as the Times editorial also suggests. We need to pass Measure R, and the state needs to have the ability to provide its share of the match. As you know, it's really a combination of local and state revenues that build most of our schools. So, it's important that both the local and that state measures pass so that both funds can collaboratively and collectively meet the dramatic needs that we continue to have for our growing school population.

Jack, Senator Dede Alpert has often noted how very difficult it is to get a school district and a city, a community college and others to work collaboratively. Senator Jack Scott said the way to get a win-win-win here is for the city, the schools district, and the taxpayers to try to win, and we need to provide incentive for that to happen. I want to come back to this issue. How do we make it more common than rare that we get these win-win-win situations with these tens of billions of dollars of investment in new schools?

We need to communicate and be creative in working to address communities' needs. My experience has been that there is a higher success rate of local school bonds when community groups are encouraged to use school facilities. Again, if you padlock the gate at 3pm on a Friday and don't open it again until 8am on Monday, you are less likely to engender community support for that school.

But with it being a state driven educational facilities decision without any local approvals, what are the incentives that you can put in place that encourage collaborations given the difference of funding streams and timelines? What provides the incentives for the parties to work together?

The joint-use is the best example, because the education community does not qualify for the cookie jar full of joint-use money if there's not a partner.

So Jack, for the national audience that's going to read this, what are the lessons to be learned from our efforts here in California over the last five years and going forward about building facilities to meet our needs?

We need to do a better job of planning ahead, of projecting in to the future. If you wait until the students show up to class, it's too late. According to our projections, we're looking at continuing growth into the foreseeable futaure. To get ahead of that curve, you really do need to plan accordingly.

And your prediction on the outcome of this bond?

I'm optimistic. Virtually every time we've given the citizens of this state with an opportunity to support and invest in public education, we have been successful.