State Delays Action on Rules for District Split

Bowing to pressure from groups seeking to divide the Los Angeles Unified School District, the State Board of Education postponed action Friday on regulations governing the proposed breakup and promised to hold hearings in Los Angeles before making a final decision.

The board action came on a split vote after breakup proponents from the San Fernando Valley and South-Central Los Angeles castigated the draft regulations as a disguised attempt to block, rather than facilitate, their plans.

“We find these regulations to be beyond the scope, excessively burdensome and excessively micro-managed to the point of becoming destructive,” said Stephanie Carter, spokeswoman for a group preparing plans to form several districts in the Valley.

The proposed rules--which hold the key to the fate of plans of at least five groups to carve pieces out of the Los Angeles Unified School District--require any petition for a breakup election to be supported by a thorough analysis of the effects on student demographics and district resources.

Assemblyman Tom McClintock (R-Northridge) told the board the regulations ask parents to determine equitable distribution of school resources and compliance with court desegregation orders as well as the Americans with Disabilities Act and federal Voting Rights Act, and to set policies for everything from magnet schools to protection of minority rights.

“These are highly specialized, intricate legal details which no parents’ group can possibly attempt,” McClintock said. “To shift this burden from the government to parents is a rather obvious ploy to set an impossible standard.”

McClintock offered the board alternative regulations that he said more closely follow the spirit of the 1995 compromise legislation that made breakup politically feasible for the first time. He said his proposal would allow consultation with parents and community activists and would include former Assemblywoman Paula Boland, author of the breakup bill.

Board members largely avoided discussing the substance of the regulations, instead trying to assure breakup opponents that they are open-minded.

“I must tell you we want to do the right thing,” board President Yvonne W. Larsen said. Larsen was one of two dissenters in a 6-2 vote in which the board committed itself to hold hearings in Los Angeles.

“I am not sure I want to go to hearings in Los Angeles,” Larsen said after the vote. “There will never be enough.”

Board consultant Greg Geeting said no date had been set for the hearings, and none can be before the board’s next monthly meeting. Board members want to review McClintock’s proposal before settling on final wording to be presented to the public, Geeting said.

The rules are designed to help the board interpret the 1995 compromise legislation by Boland (R-Granada Hills) and state Sen. Tom Hayden (D-Los Angeles). Boland’s bill took away the LAUSD’s veto power over breakup proposals and eased the petition requirements. Hayden’s companion bill requires that any proposal adhere to strict conditions that would prevent harm to students and teachers. Those conditions include socioeconomic diversity, geographical compactness, equity of resources, compliance with court-ordered desegregation and adherence to labor contracts.

As the board approaches a decision on the first breakup proposal, filed by residents of the small city of Lomita, its members sought guidance on how to interpret those conditions, staff member Pat Cladeck said.

The proposed regulations suggest that petitioners extract information from the U.S. Census Bureau data “by using either qualified volunteers or hiring a contract consultant.” The regulations suggest the cost would be from $1,500 to $5,000 for each study.

During brief public comment allowed on the proposal prior to the vote, breakup proponents traded barbs with representatives of the California Teachers Assn.

The cross-fire began when Clint Simmons, speaking on behalf of the Inner City School District Formation Committee, accused state Department of Education staff members of reflecting only the views of the Los Angeles Unified School District and the teachers’ union.

“The real problem in California is the teachers’ union,” Simmons said. “It’s just like you have termites in a building, and you can paint over it, do whatever you wish. If you don’t get the termites out, the building will have to come down.”

Later, Lloyd Porter, representing the California Teachers Assn., looked sternly at Simmons and said, “I am not a termite,” a phrase repeated by Christine Redding-Lower of United Teachers-Los Angeles.