Stephanie Carter

Stephanie Carter is not your typical PTA mom.

She has taken educational volunteering to a new level, serving on state Senate select committees and leadership councils. She has written reports on earthquake preparedness in the schools and has been a founding member of several grass-roots organizations dedicated to improving public education.

Given her efforts on behalf of the schools, it is somewhat ironic that Carter’s current energies are directed toward dismantling the Los Angeles Unified School District. She serves as co-chair of FREE (Finally Restoring Excellence in Education), an organization that has gathered 20,962 validated signatures from voters in an effort to create two independent school systems in the San Fernando Valley.

The signatures have been submitted to the Los Angeles County Committee on School District Organization, which will hold public meetings and submit the proposal and a recommendation to the State Board of Education. The state will hold further hearings and decide whether to call an election.

Carter, who lives in Tarzana with her businessman husband and daughter, is optimistic about the breakup efforts. “It’s pretty apparent to everyone in Los Angeles, as well as Sacramento, that this behemoth district is too dysfunctional,” she said recently.

Her efforts have drawn criticism from school board President Genethia Hayes, who said, “Why are they talking about breakup when there is a new school board with a new thrust?”

The Times recently talked to Carter about the breakup effort.

* * *

*

Question: You were a teacher at one point in your life. Did that experience influence your decision to become involved in the school district breakup movement?

Answer: Yes. I taught before we had our family, in a small school district at Lennox Elementary School. My whole family is in education so it is something I learned about growing up.

When we placed our daughter in the Los Angeles district, we were really surprised at the way things worked. For the most part, the teachers were OK, but when it came to dealing with the larger picture, it was very difficult.

We had trouble getting answers from principals or from anyone other than those people downtown, and found that the only way we could have the needs of the kids at school addressed was to go downtown to the school board. It took a lot of time to do that. But it wasn’t just the distance. It was that no one in between the school and downtown could ever accomplish much. It was a three-month struggle to get what we asked for, the number of aids we needed at our school or the materials we needed.

Q: At what point did breaking up the district become a topic of conversation?

A: I think parents all over the area have been talking about a breakup in their frustration. This is an issue that has been discussed as early as the 1940s.

Q: So you didn’t have any trouble finding people who agreed with you?

A: Never.

Q: Your plan calls for breaking the Valley into two districts. Why not just one Valley district. Why not more than two?

A: There are criteria that have to be satisfied in any plan that goes forward, including size. The current 200,000 students in the Valley would comprise a district that is way too large and one in which you could not accomplish the kinds of change that you need.

I think that some people are so used to being in a school district that is so gargantuan that they look at 200,000 and think that would be a lot more manageable than what they have now. [The current district has 710,000 students citywide.] But one district of 200,000 is still not going to afford the flexibility to accomplish the kinds of things you want to accomplish in a smaller district. We looked at census data and that helped determine where and how the district could be divided. Breaking into two appeared to fit all of the criteria that we needed for the best possible solution. Of course, we would like more school districts but at the time we drafted the proposal and looked at the numbers, it wasn’t possible.

Q: Isn’t a 100,000-student district still large?

A: It is still big. But we don’t think anything smaller would meet the state’s criteria, according to the regulations. You have to remember that at the time we drafted this, circumstances were not as they are today. For example, in the last few months, the atmosphere has changed. You have the Little Hoover Commission coming out and making statements that the district is dysfunctional. But 100,000 was as small as we could do it under the guidelines. However, things can change with the Legislature. Certainly, our government agencies can make more districts.

Q: Do you have political support in Sacramento for your efforts?

A: I think we’re talking right now.

Q: The Valley delegation was for the most part behind the secession petition movement. Do you expect the same kind of support?

A: I would assume so. I think no one is happy with this situation, and keeping the status quo is close to ridiculous. We’re always hearing, “Why don’t you wait and let the new board go ahead?” There is always something. Let’s wait for this, let’s wait for that. People forget that this district is not sovereign. It is a public school district. These are children’s educational lives that are being thrown by the wayside. That is the great tragedy here. Once the breakup is accomplished, once it happens, once things get in order, I think people will say, “What were we afraid of?”

Q: Do smaller districts necessarily function better than larger ones?

A: There is no guarantee. Obviously, Compton is the flagship for dysfunctional small districts. But you cannot point to one school district the size of Los Angeles that is performing at an excellent level. You can point to a lot of smaller districts that are, and the closer you are to the classroom, the teachers and the kids, the better support system you have in the school district. That is the point of the school district and of administration: to support what is going on in the classroom. What we have now is an adversarial relationship between teachers, administrators, even students. I sat in on a leadership council where we argued about adding one minute onto a school period. That gets to be tiresome, and it is not working as a team. We need a team of teachers and parents and principals working together in the school community.

Q: Ramon C. Cortines, who becomes interim LAUSD superintendent this month, said he wants to split the district into 11 mini-districts. Do you see any merit in his plan? What do you offer that he doesn’t?

A: We offer the real deal. We are not trying to pacify the public. They want to hold on to those purse strings. They still want to be in charge. If they are really saying they want smaller districts, well then, do it.

Q: What is your relationship with the Valley VOTE (Voters Organized Toward Empowerment) people? Have they offered expertise?

A: We’re the ones who have the expertise on this issue. We are the ones who have been doing it for years, and we know quite a lot more about the subject at this juncture. We would anticipate support. We would hope and we anticipate support from everyone who is interested in breaking up the school district. Now is the time to go forward, do the work, make the proposal, get it done and start educating kids again.

Q: The next step is for the county to hold public hearings?

A: That is correct. [The county Committee on School District Organization] announced at their regularly scheduled meeting that the petition is sufficient, and they may schedule a hearing within the next 60 days. They have 120 days from the time the petitions are presented at the hearing. Then there is a period of time from the commencement of the first public hearing to pass on the recommendation to the State Board of Education. The state then makes a ruling. What they’ll do once they see that we’ve met all of the criteria is set an election.

Q: They also have the authority not to hold an election, right?

A: They could say no.

Q: Do you think you’ll get your election?

A: I feel positive about that. The whole point is that we are trying to get to an election held. I find it interesting that we get all of these hurdles in front of us and all we’re trying to do is get to an election. Maybe the people don’t want to have smaller school districts and they’ll vote it down.

Q: Can you live with that?

A: Yeah. But I can think they’re wrong.

Q: Would you start another breakup effort?

A: No. After an election, I can do other things.

Q: How will the new districts be funded? Will those living in the new districts pay higher taxes?

A: The bulk of the funding would come from ADA (Average Daily Attendance) money and discretionary funds that come from the state. The funding is the same for new districts that are formed as it is for existing districts.

As far as a tax increase, I don’t see that at all. One of the points of doing this is to not throw money away the way it is now. Ninety percent of the problem in LAUSD is that the funds are not getting down to the classroom. This is not the first time a district has been reorganized. Certainly, it’s one of the largest ones, but it’s done all the time. The decision on how things are divided up is set in the education code. So there are provisions for funding.

Q: What about teachers? Would they be forced to work in the new districts if they didn’t want to?

A: Teachers would be given a choice of whether they wanted to stay in the new districts or return to the old one. They get to choose. Another thing teachers and other personnel get is to choose who they want to represent them. They can form a new union or go with the United Teachers-Los Angeles if they like.

Q: In the event new districts are formed, would you be a candidate for school board or a superintendent’s job?

A: I have no plans for a school board position. That is not attractive to me as far as running an election campaign. I don’t have an administrative credential so that would eliminate a superintendent’s job. But hopefully, with the sizes of the districts we’re looking at, the superintendents would actually have a chance to get around to each school.