I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity to review our successes with the 2006 bond measure, to determine what we have learned, and to propose for the Legislature's consideration components for the 2008 facilities bond measure.
The 2006 and earlier statewide bond dollars, together with the approximate $30 billion generated by local communities under the Proposition 39 guidelines that I authored and 2/3 vote measures in the last eight years, provide a substantial infrastructure investment in both California schools and the statewide economy. In the last two statewide bond cycles alone, the approximate $10 billion already expended created over 175,000 jobs and doubled the direct impact on the economy to approximately $20 billion because construction activity generates additional business and employment in sectors which provide the lumber, concrete, and many other goods and services which go into the construction and modernization of schools.
First, I'd like to comment on three programs in the 2006 bond measure that are of significant importance to the Department of Education.
1. The Career Technical Education Facilities Program
This program is resoundingly successful, judging by the 208 applications received, covering all 15 career sectors. Approximately $210 million in projects will be scheduled for approval by the State Allocation Board in February and we believe that the entire $500 million authorized will be allocated by mid next year.
When it comes to CTE (Career Technical Education) facilities funding, program is driving design and to a greater extent funding. This is a significant step forward in delivering high quality school facilities to support career-related education and industry needs.
I fully support CTE funding in the next bond measure.
2. The Joint Use Program
The state of California should continue to provide incentives for school districts to build joint use projects — it's just good public policy.
Last year the Department reviewed and approved more than 81 joint use projects for multipurpose rooms, libraries, gymnasiums, childcare and teacher training centers. We believe at minimum, a $50 million set-aside should be placed in the 2008 bond.
3. The Small Schools Pilot Program
Frankly, we missed the mark in the small school pilot as we only had one school project apply for the funds. This is disappointing because research tells us that small learning environments can have a positive impact on student performance and experience, particularly for students from lower socioeconomic groups.
The program simply did not provide enough fiscal incentives, nor was it flexible enough to embrace small learning communities in forms other than by simply creating separate small schools.
We welcome the opportunity to revise this program to reflect the higher cost of building and operating small schools.
Now as we look to the next bond measure, we cannot begin to address future needs until we address grant adequacy for all state administered facilities programs.
California schools continue to struggle with inadequate funds to construct the facilities we need to truly create 21st century learning environments. The current system of awarding facilities grants — both the amount of the grants and the way they are distributed — is at the core of LEAs (local educational agencies) ability to address equity in school facility condition, design and utilization.
We are particularly concerned about hardship projects that increasingly are reduced to portable-only projects. These lack essential core facilities, let alone design to support 21st century learning.
So I call on the Legislature to reinstate the fifty-fifty partnership conceived of ten years ago by increasing the per pupil grants to necessary levels.
There is no more important issue facing local education agencies today than that of grant adequacy.
Now, beyond this issue of grant adequacy, where do we need to be in regards to the 2008 bond? I believe we need to address four additional areas:
- Preschool facilities;
- Increasing modernization funding to allow for true modernization of school facilities;
- Food service facilities; and
- Space for community services on school campuses.
In November, I hosted the Achievement Gap Summit here in Sacramento where over 4,000 educators from all segments and sectors of public schools gathered along with parents, students, business and community representatives. We held in-depth conversations across the spectrum of ideology around four major topics impacting California students:
- Providing access to learning opportunities;
- Building a climate and culture of achievement;
- Setting and maintaining high expectations; and
- Promising strategies and practices.
The four areas I just mentioned for consideration in the 2008 bond are a direct result of the achievement gap research and what we learned at the summit.
Let me speak to each of areas briefly and then volunteer my staff to continue to discuss the details of each:
Preschool
You will hear from a panel today on the proposal for integrating preschool facilities into the K-12 facilities funding model.
I strongly support this program augmentation to the bond. I further support that facility standards for preschool follow Title 24 (the Field Act) and be integrated into our Title 5 standards for site safety and educational appropriateness.
It makes sense for preschool to be co-located with kindergarten on primary campuses and to meet the same structural, access and safety standards of all students and staff.
Modernization for 21st Century Design
We all know that the modernization funding simply covers systems upgrade for buildings over 25 years old. The per ADA (average daily attendance) amount is not sufficient to truly address educational upgrades necessary to deliver 21st century curriculum and prepare our students for the global economy and not for the factory floor.
Our current funding model supports simply the lecture style teaching station. What our schools need is funding that will support flexible design, and technology-rich spaces of different sizes and configurations depending upon the specific educational needs of students and schools.
We need to provide both funding and incentives for facilities flexible enough to support small and large group instruction, student to teacher and student to student collaboration space, among other things.
We also need to remove aging portables from our school facilities inventory and consider whether buildings over 50 to 75 years old should be replaced.
Food Service
A bond set-aside is critically needed for school food service nutrition facilities and equipment. Improving school nutrition facilities is one of my priorities for the 2008 school bond, because California's long term neglect of its school kitchens and eating areas is now a barrier to our efforts to combat obesity.
School kitchens and eating areas in California schools have been financially neglected by the federal and state government as well as local districts — for about 30 years.
Accordingly, I recommend that $500 million be set aside in the 2008 bond for food service upgrades and equipment.
Community Services on Campus
We know that it takes more than schools to close the achievement gap. It will take parent and community involvement, as well as social supports. Our facilities investment should allow school districts to respond to the unique needs of their students and community and strengthen that all important parent/community/school connection. Depending upon the community this could be space for a parent volunteer room, spaces for integrated health or social service delivery.
I'd like also to comment on the issue of a complete school — you'll hear more about this from Kathleen Moore later in this hearing.
During the last bond cycle there were hardship projects and other projects funded that had to eliminate core facilities because of grant inadequacy. For those projects we need to provide the matching funds to complete schools, so that they have libraries, multipurpose rooms, gyms and complete site development, including physical fitness areas. In the future, we should consider funding not on a per pupil basis but on a project basis so that complete schools are built and modernized.
Finally, funding should encourage and enable districts to develop comprehensive educational specifications to inform school facilities planning and design. This will encourage development of designs reflecting the real needs of communities and students.
Thank you again for this opportunity. By improving our school facilities, and by promoting facilities designed specifically to help close the achievement gap, we improve California's ability to deliver a world class education for all students.
