But a counter narrative is emerging that suggests the real problem is that all school districts are being unfairly tarred with skepticism over their bonds because of high-profile problems that Los Angeles Unified has had with its use of $1.3 billion in bond funds to buy iPads and laptops. George Skelton’s latest column — headlined “Don’t punish other districts for L.A. Unified’s problems” — makes this case.

However, those who pay attention to education issues (and/or Cal Watchdog) know that there are a wide range of scandals involving school bonds that go far beyond the controversial practice of using borrowed money to purchase short-lived technology. Here’s a short list:

Capital appreciation bonds

This is from a 2013 L.A. Times story:

By Chris Reed

It’s time for a tale of comic-book villainy from San Diego Unified, the state’s second-largest school district and one in which voracious unions so dominate decision-making that a stunning 92 percent of the operating budget goes to employee compensation.

When 11 of every 12 dollars goes to pay and benefit, the squeeze on the rest of the budget is enormous. And so you see students forced to pay for educational supplies, in defiance of the California Constitution. And so you see 30-year-bonds used to pay for routine maintenance and short-lived electronics like laptops and iPads.

And you see money specifically designated to be used to subsidize school lunches for tens of thousands of students from poor families grabbed for adult employees — over and over and over.

Adult employees 3, poor schoolkids 0

This is from my U-T San Diego editorial:

“On scams and scandals large and small [in California], the motivation is often protecting the interests of public employees, whether or not it serves the public interest. …

” … when it comes to sheer obnoxiousness, a local example is tough to beat. We refer to the three reports this year of San Diego Unified improperly diverting money to adult employees from school lunch programs meant to help low-income students.

“In February, a state Senate report blasted the district for improperly taking at least $4.5 million in federal lunch funds to help pay for the salaries and benefits that consume more than 90 percent of the district’s operating budget.

“Last month, the state Department of Education demanded a refund of $13.4 million from San Diego Unified because it had used funds from a federally reimbursed state program meant to subsidize lunches for poor children for other purposes, starting with $10.9 million in employee salaries.

“Last week, the district announced it would stop using funds that are supposed to subsidize lunches for low-income students to pay for gifts to encourage good “attendance” and other positive behavior by cafeteria workers. About $300,000 had been diverted for that purpose over the past 12 years.

“We suppose this represents progress, because in the first two cases, the school district flatly denies it has done anything wrong — even though the state laid out a lengthy, specific, unrefuted list of district violations in its May 15 letter demanding repayment of the $13.4 million.

“Nevertheless, San Diego Unified officials seek to depict these reports as inter-government squabbles over accounting procedures. Instead, they’re more properly seen as a pathetic serial scandal involving a district that repeatedly raids funds meant to help tens of thousands of low-income students so it can give the money to adult employees.” 

Even for California, this is pathetic

Even by the appallingly low standards of California governance, this is pretty extreme.

San Diego Unified’s leaders should be ashamed. If they’re capable of being ashamed.

By Chris Reed

The use of 30-year school “construction” bonds to pay for routine maintenance and short-lived electronics like laptops is a huge, ongoing, but basically uncovered scandal in California. Since automatic annual pay raises for most teachers don’t get suspended when revenue is flat or declining, in many state school districts, California’s recent budget woes have lead to compensation eating up 90 percent or more of the operating budget.

So what do schools beholden to teachers unions do to cover costs that used to be in the operating budget? They make kids illegally pay for some school-related program, constantly pester parents with fundraising efforts and, oh yeah, use 30-year borrowing to pay for basic upkeep and electronics that aid in learning but last two years or less.

How does the state’s top educator feel about the latter practice? When I interviewed him, he all but said ho-hum.

“… state Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Torlakson expressed more sympathy for the irresponsible officials who engaged in it than for the taxpayers who are brutalized by it. He cited the ‘stress’ officials faced because of the state’s budget woes and implied it was understandable and reasonable for routine maintenance becoming a ‘capital improvement’ cost paid for with bonds.

“Torlakson declined to offer the slightest criticism of the folly that is 30-year borrowing to pay for products that will be broken in four years or less. His concession to appearances: ‘I’ve asked my staff on school construction to look into this and figure out where the line is on what’s eligible.'”

And now what does Torlakson want to do? Float a possibly unaccountable bond of his own, one in the megabillions.

No, it’s not a case of, “If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em.” Torlakson is all for the scams. It’s more like, “Hey, I want a piece of that action!”