Wrong Cure for LAUSD

State Sen. Richard Polanco (D-Los Angeles) is legitimately concerned about the enduring failures of the Los Angeles public schools. But his proposed remedy, a state monitor as a prelude to breaking up the district, is at best premature. At worst, his measure smacks of politics.

While outside oversight is sometimes appropriate, it is not appropriate for the Los Angeles Unified School District at this time. The bill, SB 2071, should be defeated Wednesday by the Senate Education Committee, before it scares off the remaining candidates for superintendent of the school district. What strong school chief would be willing to take on a huge, troubled urban system just as the state appoints an outside monitor to look over his or her shoulder?

The Los Angeles school board already faces an impossible deadline for selecting a new superintendent, by June 5, to allow a monthlong transition before the popular interim superintendent, Ramon C. Cortines, leaves. Meddling from Sacramento wouldn’t help this process.

The Legislature should give the next superintendent and the reform-minded school board, in office not quite a year, a chance to implement improved reading instruction, a systemwide reorganization and other steps shepherded by Cortines. The interim superintendent opposes the Polanco bill. So do members of the school board; they are elected and should be held accountable by the voters for any continued lack of improvement.

If SB 2071 passes, the measure will authorize Supt. of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin to appoint a state monitor for the LAUSD by Jan. 1, set improvement goals, provide intervention strategies to help the district meet the new accountability benchmarks and establish new guidelines for the district’s central headquarters. If this approach failed to raise test scores, improve teacher quality or speed up construction of new schools, the taxpayers would still have to pay for the additional layer of oversight.

Why does the bill single out L.A. and ignore other failing school districts? Isn’t that contrary to statewide reforms pushed by Gov. Gray Davis and the Legislature that require every school to measure up?

Under SB 2071, if the already desperate L.A. school system failed to make sufficient progress after three years of monitoring, the state could propose restructuring the LAUSD into separate school districts--unless the voters rejected the reorganization. That may eventually need to happen, but it should not come about through a backdoor political process. And it should start only after the current LAUSD board has been given a reasonable opportunity to move the district onto a new course, one that has been set by Cortines.

Polanco has been threatening to introduce breakup legislation in Sacramento ever since the school board last year forced out then-Supt. Ruben Zacarias. After the board abandoned construction of the half-built Belmont Learning Complex, which is on a contaminated site in a predominantly Latino neighborhood near downtown, Polanco made it clear that the district would pay a political price. Yes, something drastic should be done to improve public education in Los Angeles. But the Polanco bill is the wrong answer at the wrong time.