Guidelines Could Stymie LAUSD Breakup

The state Department of Education has proposed regulations that could make it harder--if not impossible--to break up the Los Angeles Unified School District, by requiring strict standards of racial and socioeconomic parity among newly formed districts.

The proposed regulations, which must be decided by the state board of education, will be used to interpret a new state law that makes it easier for districts to be dismantled. State Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles) sponsored the legislation to prevent poor and minority neighborhoods from being abandoned by school districts.

“We took a look at the bill and believed it needed further administrative interpretations,” said Patrick Chladek, director of school district organization and transportation for the state Department of Education. “We just thought that for the [state education] board to make an opinion that they would feel comfortable with then they needed more guidance in the regulations.”

Chladek presented a draft of the regulations to the state board at a meeting this week in Sacramento. The proposal includes a range of alternatives, some of which could have only a small effect on breakup plans.

Using race as an example, the board could mandate that newly created districts remain within 10% of the original school district’s racial or ethnic makeup. Or, they could allow as much as a 50% difference.

The board must approve regulations before considering plans to split up the Los Angeles district. A proposal to create a separate Lomita Unified School District from a southern portion of the district has been waiting for state approval since January 1995 and spurred the board into action, said Greg Geeting, secretary to the state Board of Education.

Critics of the proposed regulations include the Los Angeles County Office of Education and Assemblywoman Paula L. Boland (R-Granada Hills), who say the state education department’s proposals are too harsh.

The proposed emergency regulations “would impose excessively restrictive standards on parents petitioning for reorganization,” Boland wrote in a letter to a state Board of Education member.

Marc Forgy, secretary to the L.A. County Committee on School District Organization, said the proposed regulations would make any local breakup effort very difficult.

“The intent of the regulations is not to be restrictive,” Forgy said. “The law says it should be equitable and fair to all parties.”

Hayden’s bill lays out 10 measures ranging from socioeconomic diversity to the fair division of magnet and charter school programs.

But county and state education officials thought the statute was too broad. The county developed draft guidelines of its own in August. But, Chladek said, “We just didn’t see enough detail in the county guidelines that we thought it should have.”

The education board can reject the department’s proposal or create its own. Forgy suggested the state education board incorporate some of the county’s regulations, which are less restrictive.

Michael Johnson, an attorney for the Los Angeles district, agreed the state’s proposed guidelines were more strict than the county’s draft but closer to the intent of Hayden’s legislation.

“The Hayden bill is itself restrictive, and these regulations are a fair embodiment of the statute,” said Johnson.

The state board will review the draft at its Oct. 9 meeting.