Settlement Would Equalize School Spending : Education: Critics argue that the results of a lawsuit aimed at improving the quality of education for inner-city minorities will actually end up hurting them.

At first glance, the latest chapter in Los Angeles’ public school woes looks like another case of Westside-bashing: a victory by a group of minority parents in a landmark lawsuit widely perceived as pitting the interests of inner-city blacks and Latinos against affluent whites.

The case, known as Rodriguez vs. LAUSD, is on the verge of settlement after nearly six years of acrimonious debate.

But opponents of a proposed consent decree that would end the case say such a settlement would not only disrupt many Westside schools, but it also would end up hurting the very students it seeks to help, regardless of where they live.

The Rodriguez complaint was brought by a coalition of public-interest law firms on behalf of four black and Latino parents.

It contends that poor and minority children receive inferior educations because they are more likely to attend aging, overcrowded schools where the teachers are young and inexperienced, rather than spacious suburban campuses with state-of-the-art equipment and veteran teachers.

The suit seeks to equalize funding among schools by allocating a flat amount per pupil for teacher salaries and classroom supplies.

Opponents of the settlement say they will try to force the issue to trial, even though attorneys for the Los Angeles Unified School District and the plaintiffs reached agreement last week. Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Pro Tem Ralph Nutter will be asked to approve the settlement May 5.

Under the proposed decree, beginning in the 1997-98 school year, each school would receive the same amount of money per pupil to pay for teacher salaries and classroom supplies. At least 90% of the city’s public schools would be required to come within $100 of a set spending limit, and the rest would have to be moving toward complete compliance. Otherwise, the district would face stiff legal penalties.

Although a significant reason for varying spending levels from school to school is the concentration of senior, more highly paid teachers at desirable campuses, no teacher transfers would be required under the proposed agreement. Rather, inequities between school faculties would be gradually eliminated as teachers are assigned to fill naturally occurring vacancies.

“Teachers with high levels of training or experience shall be assigned to schools in the lower third of faculty training and experience; teachers with low levels of training or experience shall be assigned to schools in the highest third of faculty training and experience,” beginning with the next school year, the decree states.

Calling the plan “racially divisive, illogical and nonsensical,” parent activist Merridee Marcus of Cheviot Hills, spokeswoman for a group of parents that has intervened in the case, said school district officials have embraced it to avoid being perceived as bigots.

In fact, however, Anglo children are now in the minority at virtually all Los Angeles Unified schools, including those on the Westside. Thus, said Marcus, the war for financial scraps is being waged between various minority groups, not between Anglos and minorities.

“There are no affluent white schools left out there,” said Marcus, “and those whites who have chosen to stay in the public system care about equality.”

Opponents of the proposed settlement--for different reasons--include Westside school board member Mark Slavkin, a group of white and minority parents known as the Marcus Interveners, and unions representing teachers, administrators and office employees.

“The concept of equalization of per-pupil spending and greater local school site flexibility is very important,” Slavkin said, “but the district has never looked at the question of how is this going to happen. We need an analysis of sample schools, not just a leap of faith.”

Under the decree, money for teacher and aide salaries would be reapportioned, along with funds for administrative and office expenses, materials and supplies. Bilingual, school improvement and special education funds would not be reapportioned, nor would so-called Chapter 1 funds, which are federal allocations for schools in poor neighborhoods.

“If it is right and just to distribute one pot of money evenly,” Slavkin said, “why is it not right and just to distribute the other pots of money on the same basis?”

The assumption that the plan will help the inner-city and hurt the Westside is “a myth,” he said. “About half the Westside schools will benefit and half will lose,” he said.

Data compiled by the district for the 1989-90 school year shows that an average of $3,246 was spent per pupil on instruction and instructional support at the elementary level. Surprisingly, however, the poorest and richest do not always break down along predictable lines.

Among Westside schools, for example, Coeur d’Alene Elementary in Venice, where large numbers of poor and homeless children are enrolled, received $3,988 per pupil, and nearby Westminister Elementary, in the Oakwood area of Venice, got $3,830.

Meanwhile, six elementary schools situated in some of the city’s most affluent neighborhoods fell far below the district average in spending per pupil. They are Kenter Canyon Elementary and Brentwood Science Magnet in Brentwood, Third Street Elementary in Hancock Park, Marquez Elementary in Pacific Palisades, Roscomare Elementary in Bel-Air and Castle Heights Elementary in Beverlywood.

Marcus said her group, which includes three Anglo Westside parents, an African-American mother whose children are bused to Westside schools and a Latino father from the San Fernando Valley, complained that initial negotiations between parties to the lawsuit were conducted quietly, without public hearings. She said that groups recently admitted to the lawsuit as interveners have been unsuccessful in reaching agreement.

She said the current proposal fails to set limits on class sizes, except to guarantee that no schools designated as having a mainly minority enrollment (without busing) will be adversely affected.

The teachers’ union is equally adamant in its opposition. UTLA Vice President Day Higuchi said discussions are under way on whether to force the matter to trial. He said the union will ask Nutter next month to set a hearing date to address its concerns.

“Our two main gripes are that there is nothing specific about how they are going to institute the policies that prevent extreme disparities--they just keep saying, ‘We can work that out later,’ ” Higuchi said. “The rigid formulas do not allow the district to use money to address special problems at certain schools, such as a need for extra counseling or extra supervision where there are a lot of shootings.”

Higuchi said he also fears that the plan offers “a disincentive to compliance. For example, if the total teacher salary at a particular school is below the average, you must spend the difference on programs to compensate for their relative inexperience. That may motivate principals to increase teacher turnover so as to have a slush fund to use.”

He added that even though mandatory teacher transfers have been dropped from the most recent settlement proposal, teachers are concerned about the plan’s effect on already depleted school budgets. “We’re at a point where we are pushing minimums around,” he said.

Parents fighting the plan say its adoption may mean the avoidance of long and costly litigation, but at the expense of individual schools.

“This is the last straw, the nail in the coffin, the last gasp for quality public education in Los Angeles,” Marcus said. “It may be time for Westside parents to get out those private school applications or move to Colorado.”