Plan Would Tie School Pay to Pupil Performance : Education: The proposal, affecting principals and teachers, is unveiled by a coalition of community leaders. The concept is likely to be opposed by unions because it would dilute traditional tenure rights.

A plan that would broaden the power of school principals and link their pay--and that of teachers--to student performance was formally unveiled Tuesday by a coalition of business and education leaders aiming to overhaul the giant Los Angeles Unified School District.

But the proposal by Los Angeles Educational Alliance for Restructuring Now would dilute traditional tenure rights for both principals and teachers--a concept that is sure to provoke the anger of the unions that represent them.

Under the plan, principals would have new authority to select teachers and control their campus budgets. But they would have less job security--their contracts would be up for renewal by the district every two years and unpopular principals could be recalled by a two-thirds vote of teachers and parents.

Veteran teachers would no longer be protected from dismissal by traditional tenure rights. Instead, superior teachers and principals would be rewarded with merit pay, but those deemed ineffective could be fired after two years of poor evaluations.

School funding would be revamped to give campuses more flexibility to meet their students’ specific needs, and parents could choose to send their children to any of the district’s schools, if the plan is approved.

The far-reaching proposal, drafted by a consulting firm that studied school reform efforts across the nation, is the first in a series of recommendations by LEARN, whose leadership includes teachers union President Helen Bernstein, Los Angeles Supt. Bill Anton, former Assemblyman Mike Roos and top business and civic leaders. The plan is subject to approval by the Board of Education.

The recommendations are patterned after reforms adopted in two other school systems--Edmonton, Canada, and Prince William County, Va. In both districts, student achievement improved when schools were given more autonomy and pupil performance became the basis of employee evaluations.

But here, many of the provisions will probably face opposition from employee unions and some top district officials. Some of the changes would be subject to negotiation, and others would strip district management of much of its authority to run schools.

“I think we’re going to have trouble getting it through,” said Francis Nakano, an assistant to Anton, who was out of town Tuesday and could not be reached for comment. “It goes along with some of the things the superintendent wants--to push more accountability down to the principals and make management more like technical support. But you’re talking about changing things that are covered by union contracts and that’s a problem.”

United Teachers-Los Angeles (UTLA) President Bernstein agreed that many of the changes will be hard to sell to the 30,000 teachers she represents.

“I support the basic tenets of the report: That we need to radically change the system in a meaningful way,” she said. “But I have problems with some of the specifics.

“I will never in my life agree to merit pay; I don’t think it encourages or supports good teaching. I will never agree to anything that deprives teachers of due process. And I don’t support linking salaries to test scores.”

The report proposes basing teachers’ raises on such factors as student attendance, test scores, parent satisfaction and use of so-called best teaching practices recommended by a team of teachers and principals that would be created to study and disseminate innovative teaching methods.

“We don’t have a problem focusing on student achievement,” Bernstein said. “But I will never agree to any system (of accountability) if the teachers are not the ones to determine what we can rightfully be held accountable for.”

However, Bernstein said she could support the idea of expanding principals’ authority, even if it weakens the school-based management program that teachers won with their 1989 strike. That power-sharing plan allows teachers to hold half the seats on elected councils at every school that make decisions in such areas as budgeting, student discipline and scheduling.

LEARN’s reform plan encourages, but does not require, principals to involve teachers and parents in school decision-making. But Bernstein said the plan’s recall provision could actually give teachers the power that school-based management promised but has failed to deliver.

“What we’ve got now is a contract with no meat in it, because if a principal’s resistant to the process, nothing happens,” Bernstein said. “This is taking school-based management to its logical conclusion. Because if a principal isn’t fair, doesn’t give the teachers what they want, doesn’t make sure the parents are involved . . . he’s voted out.”

The head of the union that represents the district’s 1,600 principals said he has not seen the entire plan and could not comment on specifics. “It’s an interesting premise,” Eli Brent said. “But accountability has got to extend to everybody, not just us.”

Over the next four months, a 45-member LEARN task force--which includes several of the district’s teachers and principals--will review and amend the report, then submit it to the school board for a vote this summer. If approved, the reforms could be phased in beginning this fall.

The report is critical of the lack of progress that district officials have made in their own efforts to restructure the system. Although Anton reorganized his downtown headquarters a year ago, shifting more authority over schools to regional offices, his plans to develop better ways to measure student achievement and evaluate employees have not materialized.

The report says the district has no strategy for improving student performance and no systematic way to bring teaching innovations to its classrooms.