School-Power Ballot Measure by Wilson Stirs Official Anger

A move by Gov. Pete Wilson to strip important powers from school boards and give it to parent-teacher groups is sparking outrage among local officials, who say they are poised to fight.

“You would have anarchy,” predicted Capistrano Unified School District Supt. James A. Fleming. “I am convinced the people of this state will reject any ill-conceived initiative.”

Known as the Permanent Class Size Reduction and Education Opportunities Act, the governor’s ballot measure would change everything from expulsion rules to teacher training programs. Its banner proposal earmarks at least $1.5 billion every year to pay for the state’s class size reduction program permanently.

Those parts of the proposal, to be voted on in the November election, have stirred little disagreement.

But many educators are protesting a provision that would give existing, advisory parent-teacher councils decision-making power over spending and curricula--two of the most important issues now handled by elected school boards.

Under Wilson’s plan, the councils would be composed of two-thirds parents, one-third teachers. Members would make virtually every decision--such as determining course offerings, selecting textbooks, voting on school construction spending--down to the last dime.

“It begs the question: Do school boards have any role at all?” Fleming said.

Mitch Zak, Wilson’s campaign director for the initiative, said school boards would still have overall governing powers over district decisions. The councils would work within the guidelines set by the board and state.

“The school board would allocate money to the school and the site councils would establish a road map for their respective schools,” Zak said. “I see it as a complementary role.”

However, if there are disputes between a council and the school board over school spending and the curriculum, the council would have the final word, Zak added. He could not clearly define how power would be shared between the two governing bodies.

John D’Amelio, president of the California School Boards Assn., argued that a lack of clarity in the provision is a recipe for conflicts between site councils and school boards. D’Amelio, who is a board member for the Escondido Union High School District in San Diego County, said that under the current structure, councils and boards are already feuding.

The latest dispute erupted over a 14-year-old peer counseling course that a parent wanted to eliminate, arguing that students should not give advice to their peers. D’Amelio discounted the criticisms, saying the class has been effective, and kept the course.

Even some of the parents who would gain power through the initiative disagree with it.

Cheryl Braun, an Irvine parent council member, said councils have plenty of power and responsibility already.

During her three years on the Los Naranjos Elementary council, she said she has been able to help evaluate the curriculum, start after-school reading programs and decide how special funding for disadvantaged students should be used.

Broadening council powers could create more problems and red tape, she said.

“It scares me if too many hands get into the pot,” Braun said. “I think that on spending and curriculum, our teachers and administrators should make those decisions. That’s where their expertise is and it shows in the advancement of our children.”

But Debi Watson, a parent council member in Westminster, said she would prefer to have more control over how her children’s schools should be run. In her district, run by a majority conservative board, the site councils have limited powers and must seek approval from the board on most issues, she added.

“The parents are more informed on what’s going on in the classroom,” Watson said. “With curriculum, the district decisions are great but the council could also do a lot of good.”

Some contend that the governor’s position on site councils is just another attempt to garner parents’ vote on this initiative. Others go as far as saying the overall measure is part of Wilson’s ongoing swipes against the public school system.

“Wilson is just trying to make schools look like they are broken so he can leave office looking like the education governor,” D’Amelio said.

Educators are also protesting, although less vigorously, a proposal to appoint a state chief inspector of schools, also contained in the initiative. The inspector, who would be named by the governor to serve a 10-year term, would visit and rate all California schools at least once every two years.

Robert Balen, a Santa Ana Unified school board member, called that proposal an “authoritarian approach.”

“Each school district already does that now,” he said.

The governor contends that reform to get parents more involved and teachers better trained is needed for an effective class size reduction program.

“It’s all within the educational context,” Zak said. “Permanent class size [reduction] is great, but if you don’t have qualified teachers, what good does it do? We’re taking a comprehension approach.”

A similar plan was proposed in a bill earlier this year by Assembly Republican leader Bill Leonard of San Bernardino. But the Legislature killed it in the spring. In an unexpected move, Wilson resurrected the proposal by qualifying it for the November ballot.

“It’s unusual the governor would put such a complex package in a single ballot initiative,” said Mike Kilbourne, legislative liaison for the Orange County Department of Education.

Critics already are preparing battle plans, contending that the measure is a ploy to cloak major changes with money for small class sizes.

D’Amelio, with the School Boards Assn., said he’s setting up a task force with his 1,000-member association to fight the governor’s initiative. Other organizations, including the Assn. of California School Administrators and the California Teachers Assn., have announced opposition.