Legislator Defends Proposal for School District Takeover : Education: Assemblyman Willard H. Murray Jr. was met by a barrage of criticism at the school board meeting.

School officials and supporters went toe-to-toe this week with the state assemblyman whose bill has put the Compton Unified School District on the brink of an unprecedented state takeover.

Assemblyman Willard H. Murray Jr. (D-Paramount) strode into Tuesday’s school board meeting to defend his bill before a hostile audience. Murray’s measure would permit the state to take over the school system on the grounds that the schools are failing to provide an adequate education. Murray, who had asked to speak at the meeting, said that only state intervention is likely to reverse the district’s low test scores and high dropout rates.

“The children of this district have the capacity to learn as well or better than any group of students in this state,” he said.

Murray, who represents parts of Compton, met a barrage of criticism from officials, employees, parents and community members, some of whom were wearing black.

“We’re all wearing black because we’re all mourning education,” said Gladys Russell, whose grandchildren attend district schools. Russell and the others vowed to lobby against the bill, which awaits Gov. Pete Wilson’s signature. Wilson has not taken a position on the measure.

“Our motto is ‘Whatever it takes,’ ” said parent Kalem Aquil. The bill “is discriminatory and unfairly singles out Compton Unified School District when many other districts are in the same situation.”

Undaunted, Murray went to the speaker’s podium and offered his own eight-point school improvement plan, including conversion to a year-round schedule, recruiting more bilingual teachers, finding model education programs to bring to Compton, and consolidating elementary and middle schools to reduce administrative costs.

Some board members called his ideas simplistic, flawed or already tried; others launched a lively counterattack. President John Steward said that the board includes two attorneys and three holders of master’s degrees, and did not need Murray’s advice.

“There will be a vacancy on this board in 1993, should you choose to run for the school board,” Steward said.

“I would like to make some suggestions to you,” he added, in a tone that barely contained his anger. “You work on legislation to provide jobs to reduce unemployment of our youths after they graduate. . . You introduce and support legislation that would make college education affordable for students of our district. . . I would love to see you address the problem of neglected children and drug babies with the same enthusiasm that you address the problems of this district.”

Murray accused board members of trying to obscure their own responsibility for the district’s problems and rebuked them for rejecting his help and ideas.

Murray’s bill would allow the state schools superintendent to appoint a trustee for at least three years, because the district fails to meet minimum performance standards specified in the bill. The district’s performance includes placing in the bottom 1% on statewide standardized tests, the bottom 5% in dropout rates and the bottom 5% in the percentage of students who complete requirements for admission to the University of California. The school district would have to pay the salary of the trustee, who would have authority over the district’s board and superintendent.

Never in California has a state trustee taken control of a district for a reason other than financial insolvency.

The State Department of Education supports Murray’s bill. State officials pledged that they would not be heavy-handed in using this authority and that they would cooperate with local officials as much as possible.

School officials insist that they are already doing a good job. They blame the low test scores and dropout rates on factors outside the school system, such as poverty, gang-plagued neighborhoods and one-parent families. About a third of district students speak limited English. Officials also note that the district has a high student turnover. Thus, the test scores include the results of newcomers who are not products of the school system.

Despite the obstacles, school officials said they are making progress, which they hope will soon show in the test scores. They listed for Murray a host of programs they said were innovative, including partnership efforts with area colleges to provide extra training for teachers and more learning opportunities for students.

Board member Kelvin Filer argued that too much emphasis is placed on test scores. “Is the child in a position after graduation to contribute to society? Those are things we should start looking at,” he said in an interview before the meeting.

Aquil, a parent and frequent past critic of the school system, has rallied to the district’s side on this issue. He said Murray’s bill denies the democratic process to local residents by stripping control from their elected officials.

Aquil is one of 16 members of a committee that is organizing a campaign of calls, faxes, letters, cards and petitions against the bill. The petitions began circulating Wednesday, the first day of school. Organizers planned to distribute postcards printed in Spanish and English to each of the district’s 32,600 students.

Each class will also write a protest letter to the governor as an exercise, said Margie Garrett, president of the local teachers’ union. Kindergartners would also be encouraged to participate, getting their point across with pictures, Garrett promised.

Committee members also are soliciting help from prominent political figures and groups. Los Angles Mayor Tom Bradley has already criticized the Murray bill as an example of harmful legislative meddling in local affairs.

The Compton branch of the National Assn. for the Advancement of Colored People has also gone on record against the bill, chapter President Royce W. Esters said.