Let Parents Have Vote on Staying in LAUSD : A bill to be introduced in the Assembly would make it easier to break up the giant school district, whose vast size leads to waste and a lack of accountability.

The Nov. 8 election sent a powerful message. The people said they will no longer accept politics as usual.

By sending Republican majorities to Washington and the state Assembly, I believe, they were also calling for smaller government that is more accountable to the people.

A revolution in government is transpiring throughout our nation with one notable exception--the Los Angeles Unified School District.

The failures of the district can be attributed to its vastness and to a school board devoid of leadership and common sense.

The sheer size of the district is an impediment to efficiency and accountability. LAUSD is the second-largest school district in the country, spanning 708 square miles and serving 792,239 pupils.

The district comprises 418 elementary schools, 71 middle schools, 49 senior high schools, 18 opportunity schools, 44 continuation schools, 18 schools for the handicapped, 132 magnet schools, 26 community adult schools, 97 children’s centers and 11 employment preparation centers.

The total budget for fiscal 1994-95 is $4.2 billion. That exceeds the annual budget of the state of Arkansas.

Defenders of the status quo claim the size of the district saves tax dollars through economies of scale. But the savings opportunity offered by such hugeness is lost through waste and lack of accountability. Two examples come to mind.

A local TV station did an expose on district waste. The camera showed a district catalogue offering a Dr. Seuss book for $12.95. The reporter then went to a membership department store and purchased a Dr. Seuss three-pack of books for $15.95!

The second is the recent indictments of two individuals with the Institute for Successful Living Inc., which managed an independent-study program for dropouts in South Central Los Angeles. The indictments allege that LAUSD was defrauded of at least $730,000 for services never rendered. As early as 1990, a district employee reported billing irregularities, but to no avail.

Clearly, the mammoth size and structure of the district have led to waste and lack of accountability. Moreover, the Los Angeles school board’s turn away from core academics to pursue self-esteem development and other social engineering has robbed a generation of children of the opportunity to acquire the needed tools to compete in our society.

The Los Angeles Times in September, 1993, published a 16-page report on Northridge Middle School. LAUSD claimed the school was in the vanguard for self-esteem-building as a priority in learning. The principal felt that “feeling good” about oneself was more important than academics. The school even offered classes in video watching and baseball card collecting so the kids would be interested in attending class.

When I confronted a member of the board regarding this, he said, with a straight face, that baseball card collecting built language skills. Baseball cards as English literature?

This vignette to me is symptomatic of the Los Angeles School Board. I believe a political agenda, not an education agenda, directs its actions and passions.

The proponents of the status quo claim that I am wrong. Maybe I am. But, unlike the entrenched special interests that run the district, I am willing to let the people decide.

Most citizens don’t realize what a powerful special interest education really is. In fact, the California Teachers Assn. spends more money than any other interest group in Sacramento. The results of their effort? An education code that is written not to protect parents and children, but the school lobby itself.

*

How a community may detach from an exiting school district is a classic example of how the law is written to protect the school lobby.

Here is how it works: Citizens draft a plan and circulate a citizens petition that must be signed by at least 25% of all registered voters in the affected area. Interestingly, amending the state constitution requires only 8% of the votes cast in the previous gubernatorial election.

After the signatures have been acquired, the plan is then reviewed by the county Committee on School District Organization and the State Board of Education. An election is called, and the voters must then approve the plan by a majority vote for the dissolution to occur.

Citizens can successfully wend their way through this onerous process and the incumbent school board can veto the plan and prevent the election.

Would we have term-limits today if the California Legislature had veto power over the people’s ability to place Proposition 140 on the ballot?

A bill that I intend to introduce to make possible the breakup of the school district is simple: First, it would lower the citizens-petition signature threshold from 25% of all voters to 8% of those who voted in the last gubernatorial election.

Second, it would eliminate the Los Angeles School Board’s veto power over a citizens’ decision.

That’s it. My proposal simply democratizes the process so that disaffected parents, for the first time, have a legitimate chance of affecting real change over this bloated bureaucracy.

I believe that parents, not some downtown bureaucrat, know what is best for their children. Let’s give parents the opportunity to vote on what kind of school district they want.