Compton District Gets a Lecture as Return of Local Control Nears

Even as she prepares to gradually return power over Compton’s schools to a locally elected board, state Supt. of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin warned Wednesday that she will not hesitate to reassert control if she sees irregularities reappear.

“If anyone tries to rob or cheat or steal from the schoolchildren, we will retain control,” she said. “This period of return . . . is a test for the board. This is sort of like spring training for the big major league season.”

Citing Compton’s difficult history, she also argued that California needs to be more aggressive in identifying and intervening in failing schools.

“We have learned a great deal from the experience in Compton,” she said. “It makes me more convinced that the state should develop systems to intervene sooner.”

“We can never let another district fall as far as Compton again.”

In an hourlong interview with The Times, Eastin discussed the state’s seven years running Compton’s schools and her plans to return the district--piecemeal--to the locally elected officials.

She said that while the state is more aware of school troubles because of systematic testing of students, California still needs more of an early warning system to identify problem districts and schools.

Such a system, she said, would include hiring more state compliance officials, increasing funds for the training of school administrators and teachers, and deploying a comprehensive statewide student tracking system.

By 2005, the state hopes to build such a system, which would include data on everything from test scores to attendance. But Eastin said California should speed up the process by buying a program from one of the dozen states that already have one in place.

Compton is the third--and last--California district to be taken over by the state in this decade. And it is the only one to be seized for both financial and academic mismanagement. The district was $20 million in debt, and had the state’s lowest test scores, when the takeover began in 1993.

The seven years were marked by as many failures as successes. The system went through four administrators in three years, making for little reform. In despair, Eastin, who took office in the second year of the takeover, said she considered splitting the district up, but decided against it.

Under the most recent state administrator, Randolph E. Ward, appointed four years ago, the district has made modest gains in maintaining its buildings and increasing its state test scores. The district also has paid back its debts on schedule.

The progress was impressive enough that the state is moving to give the board control over facilities and community relations. The board could receive authority over the rest of the district--including financial and academic matters--if it continues to make progress.

Eastin said she has not launched a takeover of any other district during her tenure, because no other school district had reached such depths. She said there are some new safeguards being provided by recently enacted federal policies tying school funding to academic standards, as well as state legislation setting up a testing program for all schools.

She urged board members to attend a special training session the state has arranged for Nov. 18. And she said the state would enforce laws requiring the bidding of contracts, vowing that there will not be a return of the “nepotism” that caused the district financial problems seven years ago.

“Compton has changed oversight forever,” said Eastin. “I hope we would not have another district like that . . . not unless there was hard-core corruption.”

The seven-member board has repeatedly criticized Eastin and Ward as heavy handed. Critics, including board Vice President Basil Kimbrew, did not immediately respond to requests for comment Wednesday afternoon.

The board has appointed three members to negotiate a memorandum of understanding outlining exact terms of the power return. Eastin said that while her staff would meet with the board’s negotiating team, the state was already moving to return power “with or without” a written understanding in place.