Fortunately, the strength of our public education system has taken front-and-center on the radar screen of voters and individuals running for elective office in 1998. No education issue has greater long-term implications and fewer short-term rewards than funding for the growth and modernization of school facilities. Unlike the state's successful Class Size Reduction Program, which I authored, the success or failure of the Legislature and Governor Pete Wilson to address this issue might not be noticed by the public for some time, but would be just as important for our children.

A broad-based school building program has been embraced by Governor Wilson and all but a few members of the Assembly. This four-part package will balance funding among developers, new home-owners, and local and state taxpayers, and it includes a cap on developer fees, streamlining of the state's school construction program and combined state and local general obligation bonds to match the contributions of developers and homeowners. This reform package is designed to fully fund the more than $40 billion needed to build and modernize our schools over the next 10 years and ensures that the funding of school construction is balanced among taxpayers at all levels.

A critical element of the package intended to accomplish this goal is an amendment to the state's Constitution, which would allow for local school bonds to be approved with only a majority vote rather than the current two-thirds requirement.

To understand the facility dilemma facing California, one must understand the numbers that form the foundation of the legislative deliberations. The number of students attending our public elementary and secondary schools will grow by one million by the year 2005. The classrooms needed by these 6.4 million students will cost $15 billion and is nearly equal to the number of schools that currently exist in all of Oregon and Colorado.

Compounding the tremendous growth of our schools is age. Not only do they still look the same as the year I entered my first high school classroom as a teacher in 1975; they still look like they did the day I entered public school as a kindergartner in 1956. More than 60 percent of our existing schools are more than 30 years old and lack the necessary infrastructure to plug in even one computer, let alone a fully equipped technology lab. The cost to modernize, repair and retrofit these classrooms over the next 10 years is $22 billion.

Not only are they antiquated, but our classrooms still house far more students than were ever intended. And, even with our successful Class Size Reduction Program, California still ranks last among the states - averaging 30 students per class. If we are still serious about reducing the number of students in each class, we must have additional classrooms in which to teach them, which will make the total need for classroom dollars $40 billion.

On top of our schools, Governor Wilson's Department of Finance has projected nearly $60 billion in capital outlay and infrastructure needs for our college and university campuses, prisons, transportation, parks and recreational facilities.

Using what many believe to be the most reasonable debt service ratio for the state - 6 percent - to retire general obligation bonds, we can issue no more than $5 billion in bonds per year over the next three years to fund these tremendous needs in our physical plant. This leaves the state several billion dollars short in meeting our critical infrastructure needs.

Jack O'Connell, a former high school teacher, was elected to the state Senate in 1994 after serving 12 years in the state Assembly. He represents the 18th Senate District, which includes his hometown of Carpenteria. He has carried many education-related measures as a legislator, including SCA 12.

By contrast, the unused debt capacity of our local schools tops $32 billion, yet a small minority of voters stands in the way of the school's ability to tap into this unused resource. Although a few school districts have asked local voters for help, the unfair reality is that it takes two votes cast in the affirmative for every one person voting no to pass a local school bond. Since the 1800s these bonds have required a super-majority, or two-thirds vote, for passage.

Unfortunately, although a broad majority says yes, because of the old two-thirds vote provision, few efforts succeed. Since 1986, more than 400 general obligation bond elections have been held by school districts across the state. Overall, 55 percent failed to achieve a two-thirds vote. However, 91 percent received a majority. And these numbers don't begin to tell the true story due to the fact that many districts don't even make the attempt because they know they will be hard-pressed to gain the two-thirds vote. Up until this year, no school district in Orange County had even placed the question before it's voters in the last 20 years.

We can remedy this dilemma by amending the state Constitution to allow local bonds to be approved by the same majority requirement we have for bonds at the state level, done in concert with other reforms.

Concern has been expressed that greater utilization of local bonds to build schools will create an inequity between districts in the quantity and quality of our schools similar to the dilemma facing public officials in Arizona. The reality is that this inequity already exists in California. Sacramento is typical. The city of Sacramento has crumbling schools that were built 30, 40 and more than 50 years ago. Several times it has fallen a few hundred votes short of the two-thirds vote requirement for a local bond. Five miles down the road, the Elk Grove School District enjoys new and modern facilities for new and modern homes that have been primarily financed by the developers of new homes and subsequent home buyers. Voters there recently passed a local bond.

Along with reforms to the state school construction program, the capping of developer fees and state bonds structured to match the local contributions of developers and homeowners, our proposed change in the local vote threshold will ensure that school construction funding is balanced and that schools throughout the state have equal resources and taxpayers throughout the state contribute equally. It is just as unfair for the homeowners in Orange County to rely 100 percent on statewide general obligation bonds and developer fees to fund their schools as it would be to rely 100 percent on local general obligation bonds and homeowners to fund their school's needs.

SCA 12 is a tool; it's not a tax. It doesn't immediately cost you anything; it doesn't immediately give you anything. More importantly it doesn't give local governments a blank check. It retains the solid and sure check of voter approval; but it doesn't allow a minority of the public to shut down the will of the majority. More importantly, coupled with other reforms, it provides the tools necessary to balance the funding of our schools across all taxpayers of the state.

It would be a shame if we left Sacramento this year with nothing more than a school bond as a temporary Band-Aid for our burgeoning and crumbling schools.