Let the Valley March to Its Own Drummer : Secede: Its obstructionism has Balkanized the district; let’s get on with fixing L.A. schools.

For many years, the educational policy goals of San Fernando Valley voters and voters in the rest of the Los Angeles Unified School District have been growing further and further apart. Yet, they continue to exist in the same district.

More than 20 years ago, a measure to provide funds for earthquake safety improvements at schools throughout the district was on the ballot. It won easily in the rest of the city but fell so far short in the Valley that it wound up losing districtwide by a handful of votes.

The same thing happened to a community-college bond measure in 1991. While the L.A. Community College District is separate from the unified district, the lesson was the same. Outside the Valley, the measure got more than the needed two-thirds majority. Not so in the Valley, which dragged the districtwide total below the required margin for passage.

It was the influence of the Valley at the height of the anti-busing mania that led to the recall of school board member Howard Miller, perhaps the most brilliant individual to ever serve on the local board.

That same Valley-based anti-busing issue led to the division of the school district into seven separate election districts for board members. Until the late 1970s, board members were elected at large. The anti-busing fervor in the Valley created the prospect of a voter turnout there strong enough to elect seven board members whose only reason for running was to subvert the court order desegregating schools. Rather than risk that, many who had successfully opposed earlier efforts to switch to elections by area shifted their positions and supported the change to ensure a chance for a balanced board.

So it has been, year in and year out--the Valley hears a different drummer than the rest of the district. Proposals for policy reforms and new spending measures are abandoned when public opinion polls show Valley opposition so heavy as to discourage efforts to pass them districtwide.

Opponents of the current movement for separation of the Valley express fears that the move would Balkanize the school district. In fact, that process began with the division of the district into election areas in 1979. From that day on, it has been unnecessary for Valley-area candidates to campaign in South-Central or the Eastside, and vice versa. It politicized the school board, making members answerable only to the provincial constituencies they represented instead of the district as a whole.

With this kind of history, one might expect a “dump the Valley” movement in the rest of the district. Instead, the reaction “over the hill” has been to oppose Valley separation efforts. The folks in the rest of the district might want to take a second look at the issue.

With the Valley gone, the rest of the district could get on with passing bond measures to repair their schools and build new ones free of the anchor of the Valley vote. The rest of the district could pass tax measures to fund improvements in the instructional program, hire more teachers and enact educational policies free of the stifling influence of the Valley.

Instead of blocking the doorway to Valley separatism, the folks in the rest of the district might be better off showing Valley folks the door and waving goodby.