BY STATE ASSEMBLYMEMBER JENNY OROPEZA

For some time, experts have predicted Tidal Wave II, and that higher education enrollments would grow by more than 750,000 students over the first decade of the new millennium. This prediction is already proving itself true. In the past two years alone, our colleges and universities have seen an increase in total enrollment of 281,000. While the challenges presented by the coming enrollment surge may be great, they are not insurmountable.

To help California meet this challenge, the Legislature and the governor have provided voters with an opportunity to vote for the largest school bond in state history. Voter approval of the $13-billion Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act this November, and a second $12-billion education bond in 2004, will not only provide for the more than 6 million students in California’s public elementary and high schools, but will channel much-needed dollars to public higher education segments to manage enrollment surges.

To illustrate the need for the bond, one need only look at our local community colleges. Community colleges alone have experienced unprecedented growth in student enrollment. Recently, California Community Colleges Chancellor Thomas Nussbaum announced that the number of students attending state community colleges has climbed by more than 115,000, or about 6.9%, compared to last year. The combination of the increased number of college-age students and laid-off workers is causing enrollment to skyrocket at California’s community colleges. Nearly 3 million students attended California’s community colleges last year, and more are expected. We must ensure that all these students are able to receive a quality education in quality facilities.

Supporting the Kindergarten-University Public Education Facilities Bond Act will ensure students’ continued access to our public colleges and universities by providing high-quality, modern classrooms and laboratory facilities.

For the first time, the amount of bond funding allocated to our public colleges and universities is specified in the bond measure itself. If approved by the voters in November, the initial bond will provide $1.65 billion for California’s three public higher education segments (the University of California, the California State University and the California Community Colleges), with an additional $650 million authorized in lease-revenue bond funding, for a total of $2.3 billion. Another $2.3 billion would come to California higher education from the 2004 measure.

While some would say this is not the right time for such a large bond measure due to our uncertain economic situation and the large state budget deficit that we are currently experiencing, I strongly disagree. There is no better time for a school bond than now. Given that interest rates are at an all-time low, this is a great time to invest in our educational infrastructure.

Leadership means looking, and planning, toward the future. California has long been the envy of the world for its excellent public higher education systems and commitment to access. We know that the future holds great promise if the challenges we face are met with a well-thought-out and comprehensive plan. The bond is a critical element in maintaining our historic commitment to access and quality in higher education.

Putting the bond off will not stop the students from coming or stop the need for modernizing aging facilities. Putting off the bond threatens the very values that have been the foundation of our commitment to generations of Californians. We must act now.

Assembly Budget Chair Oropeza (D-Long Beach) represents the 55th District.

BY STATE SENATOR WILLIAM J. “PETE” KNIGHT

There is no doubt that the school facilities shortage in California is a crisis that needs to be addressed. Far too many children in our state are left without adequate classrooms in which to learn, or without a neighborhood school to attend. And because school choice in California is as limited as it is, the government forces children to attend these dilapidated, often failing schools.

I fully realize the importance of this issue. That’s why I’ve supported every single local school bond measure that has come before the voters of my district during my time in office. However, Proposition 47 does not deserve the same support because it is poorly written and patently unfair.

For starters, Proposition 47 does not encourage immediate school construction. Under the scheme put in place by this proposition, the school districts with the neediest kids don’t even have to begin building a single school for 61/2 years. These Critically Overcrowded School (COS) districts can reserve bond money by simply stating an “intent” to build a school in a general location.

They don’t need to have plans drawn up, complete an environmental impact study or even identify an approvable site. Other districts have to do all these things before they get a penny of new construction money. In short, Proposition 47 will allow COS districts to tie up bond funds while other sites that are ready-to-build go unfunded.

Additionally, the distribution of the bond funds in Proposition 47 is suspect. According to numbers from the Office of School Construction within the California Department of Education, the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) is eligible to receive more than 24% of the new construction funds, even though the district accounts for only 12% of the state’s student population. LAUSD will have the ability to lock up COS money by stating its intent to build a school, then turn around and apply for the non-COS money that other districts have to compete for.

LAUSD shouldn’t be able to double-dip like this. There should be a wall between the COS and non-COS funds. But Proposition 47, as it is written, will allow LAUSD to drain new construction funds away from the rest of the state.

School officials in many communities are pushing for the passage of Proposition 47 because they want to get their “approved, but unfunded” projects finished, and there is no doubt that these backlogged projects will be funded if the bond passes.

But what happens after that? We’re left with a school facilities system that allows LAUSD to do things other districts can’t do. Proponents point out that this bond does away with the “priority points” system that has haunted us for years, but it does no good to replace one unfair system with another one.

There is a reason why 11 senators voted against AB 16, the measure that put Proposition 47 on the ballot. We, as a state, can do better. The people of California should demand a bond that treats all school districts fairly, while still taking care of the unfunded projects currently waiting in line.

Proposition 47 does not fit the bill.

Knight (R-Palmdale) is a member of the State Senate’s Education Committee and represents the 17th District.