Local School Control Holds Promise; Cutting Up the School District Doesn’t

Once again, suggestions are being made to reorganize the Los Angeles Unified School District or divide it into smaller districts. These proposals are made with the hope of improving the achievement of the district’s students. Unfortunately, they offer no assurance of success.

Since coming to the district little more than two years ago, I have become well aware of periodic studies to determine if a different structure might be more effective, while still maintaining the benefits of the district as currently constituted. Time and again, the findings have indicated no overriding advantage.

Nevertheless, change must be achieved to address the challenges and problems of low achievement and high dropout rates common to many districts of all sizes throughout the nation. Reform is possible without the disruption, expense and possible legal issues that would arise in dismantling the district.

The current endeavor that I find particularly promising is the district’s implementation of school-based management. This process will provide the benefits of local governance by educators, parents and the community while retaining the economies of scale that are a distinct advantage of the current structure of the district. Indeed, the size of the district came about not because of expansionist ambitions but because of the economic advantage to other smaller districts whose needs could best be met by annexing to the Los Angeles system.

With school-based management, I am confident that each local community will be able to decide what is best for the students served in its schools. Critical to any such effort is the ability to attract and retain good teachers and the assurance of adequate financial resources. Neither of these factors stands to be improved by a breakup of the district. In fact, we currently are finding an unprecedented increase in well-qualified candidates for teaching positions. This bodes well for our future instructional efforts.

As for any potential savings in salaries, it is simplistic to presume that a breakup of the district would result in a reduction in the number of administrators. Glance at the structure of any school district, regardless of size. Personnel must still be assigned to manage coordination of the instructional program, construction and maintenance of facilities, transportation, purchasing, insurance, collective bargaining and the other functions required by law.

The fact is, according to the latest statistics available from the Los Angeles County superintendent of schools, the Los Angeles school district spends a smaller percentage of its education expenditures on central administration than 40 of the other 41 unified school districts in this county.

Most important, however, is the consideration of what is at stake and whether there are advantages to breaking up the Los Angeles district.

Our students excel in a variety of competitions on the local, state and national levels. Visits to our schools reveal the enthusiasm and optimism shared by so many of our students and staff. The size and diversity of the district allow for many educational opportunities that would no longer be possible if the district were broken up. And there would be no assurance of any improvement in achievement. Numerous programs to address students’ unique needs are possible only because of the aggregate number of such students in this district.

Finally, it is tempting to infer circumstances and arrive at generalizations to support a proposal that may have no realistic connection with the problem or its solution.

Local community support of school efforts--in which parents are active participants--will provide the most effective means of turning around the schools in need of improvement, encouraging those that are accomplishing their goals and achieving the success we know our young people are capable of attaining.