Assemblyman Seeks Outside Help for Schools : Education: Willard H. Murray Jr.’s legislation ranges from providing expert advice to a state takeover of low-achieving schools as a last resort. The superintendent and some parents say he’s going too far.

When Assemblyman Willard H. Murray Jr. looks at Compton’s 35 schools, he sees an educationally bankrupt system that is failing the district’s roughly 30,000 students, who consistently rank near the bottom on statewide achievement tests.

When J.L. Handy, superintendent of the Compton Unified School District for about the past 18 months, looks over the same educational system, he sees a fast improving, fiscally sound program that should not be graded on the basis of past performance.

And when Compton parents see their youngsters off to school each morning, they fret about a mind-boggling set of problems--from racial tensions between blacks and Latinos to the lack of textbooks. But they also believe that they and local educators are capable of repairing the system.

The quality of public education in Compton has become part of a legislative debate over whether low-achieving schools should be singled out for special help from the state, perhaps even targeted for takeover.

Murray has introduced four bills that single out Compton schools for assistance ranging from modest reviews of the district’s teaching methods to a drastic “last-resort” state takeover of poor-achieving campuses within the Compton Unified School District.

Murray, whose legislative district includes Compton, complains about Compton’s high school dropout rate--in 1990 it was almost 29%, or about 40% higher than the statewide average. He bemoans the district’s achievement test scores, ranked among the lowest in the state. And others wonder about the district’s high administrative costs, noting that the percentage of the district’s general fund that goes to administration was roughly 23% higher last year than the average for other large school districts.

“The community is losing confidence that its students are receiving anything close to the quality of education justified by funding to the district,” say Murray and Assemblywoman Delaine Eastin, (D-Union City), chairwoman of the Assembly Education Committee. Their declaration was issued in a letter they wrote last month urging the state auditor general to conduct a comprehensive review of the district’s activities.

The request is part of an uncharacteristic personal campaign for Murray, a back-bench lawmaker who has generated little attention in his two terms in Sacramento. Murray, running for reelection, shrugs off suggestions that he is motivated by election-year politics.

Murray says his legislation stems from a desire to boost scores on standardized tests by improving “the educational content” taught to Compton students.

To improve the schools, Murray is seeking to put the district’s programs under a microscope to determine whether there are unique factors in Compton that contribute to the district’s lagging performance. Once those strains are isolated, he wants the guidance of outside experts to make recommendations to Compton administrators, teachers and parents to improve their schools.

So far, Murray has managed to persuade the state Department of Education to review the district’s programs and report back later this month. But his legislation has stalled, partly because of opposition from Compton parents and school officials who object to interference in their local affairs by politicians and bureaucrats in Sacramento.

Kelvin Filer, a member of the school board for the past decade, says that Murray is seeking changes without consulting Compton parents. Filer says that instead of sounding out Compton educators and asking “what can we do to deal with the problem” together, Murray introduced legislation unilaterally, without input from the district. He branded Murray’s effort as “a waste of taxpayer money.”

Supt. Handy maintains that his administration has started to turn the district around, raising teacher salaries, installing computer laboratories in elementary schools and creating a $4-million surplus in a budget that is currently $154 million. Just two years ago, the district was teetering on the brink of insolvency, according to an Assembly analysis of one Murray measure.

Handy asks that the state give Compton “an opportunity to develop a program that lives on its credibility and not a reputation of the past that continues to haunt us.”

In testimony last month to the Assembly Education Committee, Handy also said he opposes any legislation “that singles out one particular school district to a degree I think is harmful. It’s a morale killer, quite honestly.”

Education Committee Chairwoman Eastin says many other districts are plagued by similar classroom problems, and she also questions whether legislation should be limited to a single school district. But she suggests that perhaps the Legislature “ought to have a way” to take over districts “when they are going into the tank educationally.”

Gary Longholm, director of government affairs for the Department of Education, said Supt. of Public Instruction Bill Honig has supported similar proposals in the past, which either stalled in the Legislature or were vetoed. He noted that Gov. Wilson this year has proposed setting aside $10 million to assist low-achieving schools.

Even though her committee has either shelved or watered down several Murray proposals, Eastin last month joined Murray in seeking an auditor general’s review of Compton’s financial practices. The likelihood that an audit will be conducted soon is slim because budget cuts have forced the state’s auditors to limit their workload.

While Murray waits for the auditor general, a more modest study is underway.

Last year, Murray inserted language into the current state budget to direct the Department of Education to review instruction in Compton and issue a report, due out by the end of this month.

Albert Koshiyama, a state administrator overseeing the report, says that in Handy’s short tenure, the district’s high schools have begun to show “small, steady growth” in academic achievement, and the district’s finances have begun to turn around.

Stephen Blake, a lobbyist for the Education Department, agrees that the district may be solvent financially. But he says it still may be experiencing “an academic bankruptcy.”

Murray says his efforts have been motivated by Compton’s inability to boost its performance on statewide achievement tests, not by the district’s financial health. “They have not been improving,” Murray asserts.

Murray and officials in the Department of Education cite the 1989-90 scores on statewide achievement tests. For the fourth year in a row, Compton schools ranked in the first percentile statewide in every category, meaning that 99% of the students in the state scored higher than Compton students in topics ranging from reading to science. Because of state spending cuts, no CAP tests were given in the last school year.

Although several Compton parents interviewed by The Times acknowledge widespread problems in their schools, they regard Murray’s effort as misguided. For one thing, they say it ignores bright spots, especially some schools where increased parental involvement is helping turn out better-educated students.

Mark Deese, a parent in Compton, complains that Murray is “not representing the truth about Compton.”

Compton parent Kalem Aquil said there are a variety of factors contributing to the low scores and high dropout rates cited by Murray, including the large transient population that moves through Compton’s schools.

Among those factors cited by Murray, legislative staff members and school administrators are the district’s shifting school population, in which Latinos have risen from 51% in 1990 to 57% currently; 30% have only limited proficiency in English; 37% are on welfare and 65% receive free or reduced-price lunches.

As a consequence, the district has been granted a variety of special funds for bilingual education, low-achieving students and gang suppression. Clarence Hampton, Compton’s director of personnel services, says these “special needs” may explain why the district’s administrative costs are higher than many other large districts.

Aquil specifically objects to one Murray measure that he says would have removed control of the schools from the local school board.

He was referring to a Murray proposal that initially would have established a three-phase, five-year program to identify low-achieving Compton schools and formulate a battle plan to raise standards. If, after several years, the school failed to improve, state officials would have been required to implement recommendations of an outside consultant, who would remain at the school until it was no longer low-achieving. Murray described this step as a “last resort.”

In the face of opposition, Murray scaled back the proposal so that it would merely require Honig’s office to identify low-achieving Compton schools, develop a plan of action with the help of educators outside the district and, if funds were available, implement the plan. The measure was approved by the Assembly Education Committee but stalled in the Ways and Means Committee.