Schools Sued Over Curbs on Transfers of White Pupils

A lawsuit by 250 parents in the Los Angeles Unified School District has focused attention on a growing conflict between the need for child care in the district and the district’s legal mandate to integrate the city’s schools.

The suit filed Friday in Los Angeles Superior Court seeks to block the district’s controversial ruling to limit the number of white students at 11 schools by denying child-care permits to those whites seeking to transfer from other neighborhoods. A hearing on the suit is scheduled for Aug. 5.

“This is the first big child-care issue to hit Los Angeles in a long time,” said Ronald Gold, a Woodland Hills attorney representing the parents. The new ruling, he said, would create hardships for working parents whose children must attend schools outside their neighborhoods because of the need for before- and after-school child care.

In the past, the district routinely approved requests by parents for their children to attend schools closer to their jobs or near a child-care center. Last year, however, school officials said they became suspicious that some parents were abusing the policy to “shop” for schools in neighborhoods where the majority enrollment is white.

The 11 elementary schools targeted all exceed the court-approved desegregation guidelines of 70% white enrollment. They are: Canyon and Marquez Avenue on the Westside, White Point in San Pedro, and Welby Way, Woodlake Avenue, Woodland Hills, Pomelo Drive, Wilbur Avenue, Dearborn Street, Superior Street and Topanga in the San Fernando Valley.

16.9% White Enrollment

Donald Bolton, administrator of student attendance and adjustment services, said having the high percentage of white students at the 11 schools is like waving a “red flag” to the courts. White students make up 16.9% of the total enrollment in the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Under the ruling, fourth- and fifth-grade students enrolled in the schools will be allowed to stay, but those in lower grades will be denied permits. Parents, however, may appeal the decision to the region administrators and to a central appeals committee organized by the district.

“In the name of integration they are canceling child-care permits, without looking at what the issues are,” said David Hoffer, a Mar Vista parent whose 5-year-old daughter attends kindergarten at Canyon Elementary. “They made the assumption that everyone was illegal and put the burden of proving our legitimacy on the parents. They made the assumption that everyone was guilty of ‘school shopping’ to pick white schools. They are wrong.”

Jeff Wise, another parent, echoed Hoffer’s concerns. “I don’t think the school district is looking at the needs of the parents,” he said. “We are not arguing about white majority or integration; it comes down to a day-care issue.”

Wise’s two sons were denied permits to attend Pomelo in September where they have child-care arrangements. Instead, they are being sent back to attend their home school Sunny Brae Avenue in Canoga Park.

Shelli Miller, whose 8-year-old son was denied a permit, also expressed anger at the ruling. “It was a shock,” she said. “They waited until June to tell us about this decision, which did not leave anyone time to make arrangements for next year.”

Ruth Cuccia lives one block from the Point Fermin Elementary school in San Pedro, but she received a permit to send her older son to White Point Elementary, a five-minute drive away, where he stays at a friend’s house after school.

“We are thoroughly disgusted,” said Cuccia, an active parent who last year served as president of White Point’s parent-teacher organization. Cuccia, who teaches piano during the day, said she was able to get her older son into a magnet school that offers after-school care, but her younger son will probably enter kindergarten at Point Fermin.

Despite complaints by many parents that working parents are unfairly being singled out, Richard Mason, an attorney for the Los Angeles school district, said the district had little choice but to act against the permits.

“We have a lot of people who say that the impact of this is unique upon whites, but from our perspective a program or policy designed to avoid segregation is not unlawful or discriminatory,” he said. “The district in its integration lawsuit committed to the court that it would not engage in any acts which would lead to the creation of segregated white schools. . . . We have attempted to fulfill that commitment.”