Group Renews Proposal to Split Up School District : Education: The plan by the United Chambers of Commerce would give the Valley its own board.

In the wake of a bitter debate over a newly adopted redistricting plan, a San Fernando Valley business group has revived a call to carve up the mammoth Los Angeles Unified School District to create several smaller districts, including one expressly for the Valley.

The announcement, made by the United Chambers of Commerce, came after a Los Angeles City Council vote last week approving new boundaries that eliminated one of two Valley-based seats on the school board--an action taken over complaints by Valley residents that their voice on educational issues would be considerably enfeebled by the loss.

The United Chambers group, which represents 21 chambers of commerce, voted unanimously Monday to pursue breaking up the school district, a plan which has failed several times in the past.

Robert L. Scott, president of the group, acknowledged Tuesday that his organization faces a tough battle in effecting the change, which would require approval from a simple majority of the district’s 1.5 million voters.

Underscoring the problems the plan faces, Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills) said Tuesday she plans to withdraw a measure she authored last year--now languishing in committee--that would enable Valley voters to create their own district in a referendum election. Boland said she is awaiting a report from a task force she appointed to study the bill’s consequences.

“It sounded good,” she said of her proposal, “but the bill would have failed because we don’t have all the answers. . . . I believe our findings will be positive, and that it will be feasible to have a new district.”

The idea to break up the school district dates back to the 1960s, according to school board President Leticia Quezada.

“That says two things. One, that there is very strong sentiment from some quarters” for the change, Quezada said. “On the other side, it says that it must be very difficult to do, because it hasn’t happened yet.”

She predicted that voter approval in the 708-square-mile district would be difficult to secure. “I go back to the axiom that it’s been tried for 30 years and it hasn’t happened,” Quezada said.

The cause was long championed by former Assemblywoman Marian W. La Follette, whose bills to divide Los Angeles Unified mostly died in legislative committees. Although she contended that smaller districts would be more responsive to their constituents, school officials said the district would probably be open to legal challenges alleging that such a plan would promote segregation.

Critics also cited the prohibitive cost of creating new districts and the difficulty in deciding questions of debt, property and student distribution.

Reaction from Valley lawmakers was mixed.

Councilman Joel Wachs on Tuesday expressed support for slicing up Los Angeles Unified into several smaller districts, including one for the Valley. “I think it ought to be pursued,” said Wachs, who represents an eastern portion of the Valley. “The concept is a valid one. The district is too unwieldy and enormous, and people don’t have a way to participate, to have an impact.”

But Councilwoman Joy Picus said she is concerned that a secession move “might be a quick fix.”

“I’m still not necessarily supportive, but I do support taking a look,” said Picus, who has opposed carving up the district in the past but softened her stance after the redistricting dispute. “It would have to be educationally advantageous to students and fiscally responsible. Those are two absolutes.”

District officials said a secession by the Valley would weaken the Los Angeles school district’s clout in Sacramento--where it gets most of its funding--and would simply create another large bureaucracy.

“It would be detrimental to students. There are a lot of good things about our size, not the least of which is our representation in Sacramento,” Supt. Bill Anton said. “People talk about overadministration; if it got broken up, there would be a lot more administration, in my opinion.”

“Even the Valley would be a huge district,” said school board member Jeff Horton, who with Quezada began last week to represent portions of the Valley under the redistricting plan. “It would be like the fifth largest district in the country by itself. . . . It just adds bureaucracy. It doesn’t add accountability.

“The key to accountability is at the school level with teachers and parents,” he said. “The answer to that is not in breaking up the district but in allowing local schools and local clusters of schools to make more decisions.”

Although the United Chambers’ Scott said he has contacted other members of the coalition that fought the redistricting plan, the 31st District Parent Teacher Student Assn.--a key player in the remap battle--has not weighed in on the breakup issue, according to Cecelia Mansfield, one of its vice presidents.

The association re-examined the issue last year but decided not to reverse its opposition to district fragmentation. Instead, association officials have opted to await the outcome of efforts by a grass-roots educational organization to remold, but not splinter, district governance, Mansfield said.