THINKING OUTSIDE THE BOX; NEW IDEAS, NOT MORE BOND DEBT, NEEDED TO IMPROVE STATE'S PUBLIC EDUCATION SYSTEM.

Byline: Howard Kaloogian

EDUCATING our children is a traditional American value. Protecting workers from paying excessive taxes is as American as the Boston Tea Party. Apparently at odds, can education be fully funded while protecting working Californians?

As we stand at the door of the new millennium, how we solve the challenge of educating our children depends on whether one is trapped inside the box of outdated thinking or applies innovative techniques to solve our admitted problems.

In considering all the newly proposed bonds this year, some of my allies - teachers, the Building Industry Association and Gov. Pete Wilson - want to lower the standard by which a local school bond can pass from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority. Each may have their own motives and interests, but setting those aside, let's look at this proposal on its merits.

Inside the box

Some claim this scheme to lower the vote required makes it easier to fund education. Their thinking is simplistic: More bonds mean more money, and more money is always better. However, this machination overlooks the impact of such bonds on working families who saved enough to buy their own homes.

While all voters cast their ballots for a local bond, only property owners are taxed. A fundamental principle of fairness requires that the smaller the base of people being taxed, the broader the coalition base of voters must be. Thus the power to pass a local bond currently requires a two-thirds, or a ``super-majority,'' vote. This protection for homeowners has been a part of the California Constitution since 1879.

The two-thirds majority provides a reasonable, broad-based consensus needed among the homeowners who pay property taxes.

Furthermore, we already know the voters' opinion. In 1993, Californians overwhelmingly rejected a constitutional amendment seeking a simple majority for a local school bond to pass. That protection must be set aside, one argument claims, because the state's population growth since 1980 makes it impossible to gain a super-majority. History shows this is simply not true. Our state's population grew faster from 1900 to 1980 than afterward, yet we were able to build facilities for our children with the super-majority requirement.

Moreover, the fact is most school bonds actually do pass. Nearly 70 percent - 34 of 49 - of all school bonds proposed in the last election cycle passed. That is satisfactory unless you believe all school bonds should always pass.

In order for bonds to pass with a super-majority, a school district must:

Be perceived as being efficiently run.

Clearly demonstrate the need for more money.

In my Assembly district, parents in Escondido, Encinitas and Carlsbad passed bonds to improve their schools. Statewide, the most significant example was in the Los Angeles Unified School District, which last election passed a $2.4 billion bond - the largest ever. These school districts were frugal in their planning and perspicacious in their indebtedness, and voters rewarded them by passing a bond.

Another argument used for lowering the vote threshold is the claim that California does not spend enough on education. But future choices should not be based upon outdated assumptions: The low-funding argument is no longer true. The new reality is that California this year will earmark $31.7 billion - 55.5 percent of its state budget - for public education. That figure validates the tremendous emphasis placed on funding public education, which in fiscal year 1994-95 received $16.9 billion. Teachers in this state are paid, on average, 115 percent of the national average for an instructor. That ranks California teachers sixth in the nation, according to the U.S. Department of Labor Statistics.

There is no denying our schools need fixing. But let's not haphazardly mortgage our children's future with suffocating public credit-card payments. School bonds are decades of debt. Debt financing through bonds, like credit cards, should be used sparingly and only when necessary. More money isn't necessarily the only answer.

Outside the box

Forward thinkers believe the answer is more sense than dollars. They ask, Is our education money being wisely spent? Outdated concepts, poor policy decisions and an overall belief that schools deserve an open checkbook made education the growth industry of the 1990s. This comes at a time when the graying of the Baby Boomer generation is predicted to significantly shrink the current tax base. This factor alone will force legislators and educators alike to rethink their approaches.

The Little Hoover Commission, a bipartisan, independent body that promotes efficiency and economy in state programs, has four conclusions that deserve serious consideration. The commission recommends lifting the cap on the number of charter schools, eliminating prevailing-wage criteria on school construction, streamlining the steps involved and - most important - revising or waiving the Field Act so that nonpublic facilities can be used.

Charter schools are recognized as being the cutting edge of education. Interestingly, charter schools are not allocated bond money for facilities, yet they seem to thrive. A charter school that replaced a rundown inner-city high school was transformed within three years into a model campus where ``low-income, disadvantaged students'' were mastering Japanese. With some tough love and enthused instructors using proven teaching methods, a dismal graduation rate of less than 20 percent turned into a college-bound rate of 95 percent! It seems results are dependent upon using teaching methods that work, not upon the money spent in the process.

Another idea from the commission is to streamline red tape in building our schools. While some may think that building homes is a cumbersome process, constructing a school is a nightmare. An example: After local architects are finished conforming to all local standards, a state architectural board reviews the plans for its stamp. This extra step has taken extra years and that adds costs.

One solution that can help us build more schools for less money is to standardize architectural drawings instead of designing each campus anew. Perhaps the state could preauthorize 10 blueprints that could be modified for local circumstances, eliminating an unnecessary bureaucratic step and saving classroom dollars. Another commission proposal is to reform the costly Field Act, which requires schools be built to withstand ``ground-zero'' in natural disasters. This requirement is not placed on other buildings where children stay, such as day-care centers, charter schools or our homes. Other than adding costs over the past decades, has anyone proven its merit in protecting our children?

One benefit of reforming the Field Act would be to allow school districts to lease vacant commercial centers or plazas. An Escondido charter high school leases a commercial complex and former bank building for its campus; students there are on the cusp of computer technology due to the commitment and resourcefulness of the school's administration. All without any bond money.

The success at these charter schools shows what happens when one discards stale concepts and begins thinking outside the box. We need to encourage this kind of innovation within our educational communities, rather than simply rewarding past failures with more money.

Before burdening our children with decades of debt, ask yourself, How will the money be spent? How much will be enough? Is there a business plan? Ask yourself honestly, Is this expenditure going to markedly improve my child's learning experience? Then ask those who want a bond if they have thought outside the box.

Their faces will answer the question.

CAPTION(S):

Photo

Photo: no caption (child writing)

Daily News