Schools Consider Major Change in Funding Methods : Education: Settlement of suit brought by minorities would take money from suburban schools and give it to poor ones.

Five years after a group of black and Latino parents filed suit over alleged school funding inequities, Los Angeles Unified School District officials are considering a settlement that would radically redistribute the mammoth system’s resources by pumping more money into schools in poor and minority neighborhoods at the expense of suburban campuses.

Today, the school board will begin a series of hearings on a proposed resolution of the discrimination lawsuit, which experts have compared in its impact to the landmark desegregation case that led the district into mandatory busing more than a decade ago.

The 1986 lawsuit alleges that the district for decades has discriminated against minority children by spending less money on their schools.

The proposed settlement is expected to provoke a firestorm of controversy--particularly among teachers, who could be subjected to wholesale transfers, and among parents in suburban neighborhoods whose schools will be forced to make painful adjustments.

Essentially, people on both sides agree, the settlement would create a new standard for determining the level of funding that each school receives.

“We’re moving away from saying to a school, ‘You have 1,000 kids, so you get 100 teachers,” explained district budget director Henry Jones. “Now we’ll say, ‘For every student you have, you get a per-pupil allocation’ ” based on the average amount the district spends on each student.

In the short term, the settlement could cause upheaval at many of the district’s 600 schools next fall as teaching assignments and campus expenses are adjusted to bring each school’s spending in line with the district’s average per-student expense. In the long term, it has the potential to reshape schools and give them more autonomy and flexibility in how they spend their money.

“It is going to change dramatically the way schools are funded within the district,” said Peter Roos, an attorney with Multi-Cultural Education Training and Advocacy, one in a coalition of public interest law firms that filed the suit.

“It should give inner-city schools more money to provide assistance to the kids who need more,” he said.

The lawsuit contends that black, Latino, Asian and poor children have received an inferior education because of staffing patterns that concentrate experienced, higher-paid teachers in schools in predominantly white neighborhoods. As a result of those practices, the district spends as much as $400 a year less per pupil in predominantly minority elementary schools--in effect, denying them the same educational opportunities that white and middle-class students have, the suit charges.

The lawsuit also uses district figures to show that more minority and poor children are forced to attend schools that are overcrowded or on year-round schedules, and contends that these factors contribute to an inferior learning environment.

The preliminary plan--the details of which are expected to be worked out over the next two months--is subject to approval by the school board and a Superior Court judge, who is scheduled to review it in January.

Under terms of the proposed consent decree, each school would be given a set amount of money, based on the per-pupil expenditure, with which to pay its teachers, administrators, clerical staff and custodians. Schools with a substantial proportion of highly paid veteran teachers would have to balance their staffs with lower paid employees.

This differs from current practice, in which the district allocates schools a set number of teachers each year based on enrollment.

Because their enrollment is growing faster than that of suburban campuses, the inner-city schools must hire younger, less-experienced teachers to fill openings. Veteran teachers, who have seniority, often prefer to work on the Westside or in the Valley.

Under the plan, suburban schools would be forced to scale back their payroll costs to match those of inner-city schools. The plan could also limit fund raising by parents to offset any losses, asserting that such efforts could perpetuate inequities.

Roos said there is no evidence that the changes will negatively affect the education of students on the suburban campuses.

“Wealthier schools have inherent benefits, such as families that are better educated and can assist their kids and influence the school,” Roos said. “We don’t think there will be any hurt to them at all. They may well benefit over the course of time by an infusion of some younger teachers.”

The clash over funding mirrors legal battles fought in several states across the nation. Courts have generally held that states must equalize funding between rich and poor districts.

In California, a 1976 ruling by the state Supreme Court upheld an earlier mandate that the state eliminate funding gaps between school districts because they violated equal protection provisions of the state Constitution.

“This case is fairly unique, as it deals with allocations within a school district,” said Roos. “But it follows the basic thesis: That inequalities in the funding of schools, particularly when they place more burdens on poor and minority children, are both morally improper and legally incorrect.”

School district attorney Richard Mason said the consent decree does not reflect any admission of wrongdoing or discrimination by the district. District officials have tentatively agreed to the settlement to avoid the expense of a protracted court fight.

According to Mason, the school board supports the concept of the plan, but the procedures to put it into place will be worked out after public hearings and talks with employee groups, parents and community members.

Although the teachers union was not a party to the original case, United Teachers-Los Angeles has joined the lawsuit and may contest the consent decree, contending that it would create chaos by forcing schools to operate with continually changing budget limits.

“We think it would mandate almost constant movement every year for teachers,” said UTLA Vice President John Perez. “It’s like the salary cap in the NBA, where you can’t trade a player unless you can get a lower priced player to play on your team.

“Every year a school would have to reevaluate and every year you’d have to either cut programs or move out faculty. We just don’t believe that a constant movement of teachers around this district is going to improve the education of students,” he said.

District officials deny that the decree would require such drastic annual readjustments because it allows five years for schools to comply and builds in leeway for schools that spend more than the district’s average.

“We haven’t worked out the mechanics, but we’re not going to do something that’s counterproductive,” said Deputy Supt. Ruben Zacarias.