If Proposition 55 on your sample ballot looks overly familiar, it's because a school bond measure just like it got approved in the last election. That should be enough for now.

Schools need the money, but the timing is wrong for two reasons: There is another, more important bond measure on the ballot; and the state's debt level already is high enough.

The important bond issue on the March ballot is Proposition 57, which will refinance $10 billion in state debt and provide several billion dollars toward the deficit. If 57 were to fail, the alternative could be a very unpleasant round of deep spending cuts and tax increases.

Also, if 57 is approved, the state's debt level will be close to 6 percent, which is about as high as it should go if the state is going to restore its credibility in the financial markets. At the moment, that credibility is strained.

Besides, if the school-bond proposition does get defeated in the March primary, the measure automatically will end up on the November ballot. By that time, the state's financial problems either will be much better, in which case it might make sense to approve the bonds, or much worse, in which case the proposition might have to go back on the shelf.

The school-bond proposition would provide $31.5 million in matching funds for projects in Long Beach Unified, $63 million to Cal State Long Beach for a new science building, and similar grants to schools, colleges and universities throughout the state with qualifying projects. The need for those projects is real, and California's schools, no longer among the nation's best, deserve more resources.

It's less clear they should be built with borrowed money. If the Legislature would switch to a pay-as-you-go system, schools would get twice as much construction for the same amount of money.

Until that happens, California must use restraint. Before approving another round of school bonds, voters must make sure the state can handle the debt it already has incurred.