Plan Could Aid L.A. Schools by $100 Million

A new education finance package proposed by Gov. Pete Wilson and passed by the Senate could fatten the coffers of the Los Angeles Unified School District by as much as $100 million, but still would do little to offset the massive budget cuts the district is facing, school officials said Sunday.

Even if the added funds come through, the district will still have to slash its budget by $241 million, said Henry Jones, the district’s budget director.

“It’s not like sparing anything,” said Jones, when asked what might escape budget cuts if the additional funds come through. “It’s still a gruesome reduction package, an ugly reduction. Ugly is ugly. It’s just $100 million less ugly cuts that the board will have to make.”

Jackie Goldberg, school board president, said: “It’s better than a kick in the head.”

Wilson’s compromise proposal, which passed in the Senate after a lengthy debate, would leave California schools with $800 million more than the governor proposed in January. In putting forth the plan, Wilson abandoned his effort to suspend Proposition 98, the voter-approved constitutional protection for public school funding.

The plan comes as officials in Los Angeles are struggling with a record deficit. The school board is set to meet today to consider a range of budget-cutting options, including a pay cut for its 58,000 employees.

Among the possibilities under consideration are: increasing class sizes and cutting the district’s administrative staff, which would send administrators back into the classrooms; trimming support services and out-of-classroom programs, which would reduce the need for librarians, nurses and psychologists; reducing the school police force, and cutting specialized programs, such as the dropout prevention program.

Those cuts could result in “massive reassignments” and possible layoffs, according to Jones. In addition, Supt. Bill Anton has proposed a one-year, 7% pay cut for all employees. Such a move would save the cash-strapped district $163 million.

Because the board has not yet decided what to cut, it is impossible to predict what programs or positions might be saved should Wilson’s plan be signed into law. Helen Bernstein, president of United Teachers Los Angeles, said she had no idea what to expect, and accused the governor of playing a “cruel hoax” on citizens who have voiced strong support for funding of public education.

“Under this plan,” Bernstein predicted, “I will guarantee you that, unless there is some drastic way in which the district cuts our bureaucracy, L.A. Unified will not be open in the spring. It will shut down.”

Goldberg was pessimistic as well. She spent Sunday in her office, poring over the board’s options for cutting spending. “I’m working on the numbers,” she said, “trying to find out whether there are places to cut where we have missed.”

Goldberg said she was skeptical of the new education finance package; she fears that the additional money may come with requirements that it be used for specified programs, rather than as the district sees fit.

“There are a lot of sleights of hand up there (in Sacramento),” Goldberg said. “Don’t misunderstand me; I don’t look gift horses in the mouth. If they send us $100 million, we’ll take it. But it will still leave us with . . . horrendous cuts.”

The proposal passed by the Senate, however, does not attach strings to how the money is spent. The plan must still be approved by the Assembly.

Goldberg also complained that “there is no way to make sense of” the plan until fuller details are released. For example, she said, the plan does not specify whether Wilson will drop his proposal to change the way pupil attendance is calculated--a change that district officials estimate could cost Los Angeles $32 million a year in state aid.

With 625,000 students, the school district operates on a budget of about $4 billion. More than 80% of that money comes from the state, according to Jones.

In March, as officials looked ahead to the impending budget cuts, the district sent layoff notices to 980 teachers, librarians, nurses and other employees. But last week, an administrative law judge recommended that the district abandon the layoff plan, citing “procedural defects” that would justify rescinding the layoffs.

District officials said they never intended to lay off that many workers and were only looking to provide themselves some flexibility in budget cutting. Although the judge’s ruling is not binding, union officials have vowed to fight any layoffs of permanent employees in court, and the administrative ruling could work in the teachers’ favor.