State Funding for Schools

Some state legislators point with not-so-hidden criticism at the problems and faults of large urban school districts located outside their own areas, low test scores, high drop-out rates, students who can’t speak English, violence on campus, overcrowding and a gamut of others that most smaller districts are very fortunate not to have. Given those severe problems, which affect several hundred thousand students in the Los Angeles Unified School District, it seems unreasonable on the part of Assemblyman Pat Nolan to question what he perceives to be “disparities” in the state funding formulas used to provide resources to public school districts of different sizes (Op-Ed Page, June 9).

Nostalgia for the good old days in public education or wishing that things were different today doesn’t take care of the enormity of educational needs in large urban districts such as Los Angeles, San Jose, Oakland and San Francisco. Los Angeles alone has 13.2% of the state’s K-12 public school enrollment, and we believe that an appropriate amount of additional categorical funding is essential in helping us attack these problems and make some gains.

Yes, it is true that some much smaller districts might have greater percentages than Los Angeles of students from poverty-level families or students with limited proficiency in using the English language or students with other specific problems that impact heavily on their ability to do well in school. But in Los Angeles, educators deal daily with multiple obstacles, often in combination. These obstacles must be overcome--either by the teacher or with the assistance of specialist or special programs outside the classroom--before the educational process can work successfully.

At some of our schools, students represent 40 or more language groups. More than 185,000 students in the Los Angeles district are not yet fully fluent in English. Other schools are in the heart of ghettos or barrios of economic poverty, drug abuse, gang activities. These youngsters and their parents often view the school as an oasis or safe harbor from the problems that encompass their lives.

Many other schools serve communities where thousands of new immigrants have settled. A good portion of these new arrivals are refugees from countries where political, social, economic or military strife have torn apart their family life and disrupted whatever schooling was in progress for their children.

It is not our intent, as a school district, to “short-change” educational opportunities for students in any other district. Indeed, “fair share” funding should be a goal for all school districts. We have, in fact, actively supported and will continue to support legislative and funding adjustments that ensure that the educational needs of young people are met, regardless of the size or location of the district in which they are enrolled.

But Los Angeles, as a school district and as a city, is widely known to have more than its “fair share” of problems that affect the education and well-being of young people and the operation of the schools that serve them. It is for that reason, rather than as an exercise of “political muscle,” as Nolan puts it, that we seek to maintain the additional categorical funds that have been properly apportioned to Los Angeles schools.

ROBERTA WEINTRAUB

President

Los Angeles Board of Education