$400 Million in School Cuts for Next Year Urged

Gearing up for yet another round of deep budget cuts, Los Angeles Schools Supt. Bill Anton on Monday proposed $400 million in spending reductions for the next fiscal year that would dig into district administration, shorten the school year and require employees to take more cuts in compensation.

Anton, who said offering these cuts made him “sad, angry, frustrated and feeling betrayed,” also proposed increasing high school class sizes, reducing the school police force and continuing the eroding of schools’ custodial and maintenance services. A total of 1,543 jobs would be eliminated.

But school district officials told the Board of Education--which has the final say in budget decisions--that it may need to make cuts of at least $600 million to balance the 1992-93 budget. That is because the state, which provides three-fourths of local districts’ operating funds, continues to suffer fiscal problems of its own. Some officials are proposing deeper cuts in state support of public education as a way out of California’s projected deficit.

Anton said he was upset that “taxpayers and government officials are not aware that education is a long-lasting solution . . . the one best chance we have” of solving society’s problems.

Many of the proposals drew fire from school board members and district employees. They signal a still-deeper plunge into a budget-slashing cycle that over four years has reduced spending in the Los Angeles Unified School District by more than $800 million. That represents nearly one-fourth of the district’s $3.7-billion annual operating budget.

To stay solvent this fiscal year, the board increased class sizes, reduced maintenance services, laid off employees--including teachers--and required all of its workers to take 3% pay cuts and some unpaid days off.

The lost pay was to have been restored, beginning in July. But district officials, in their opening offers in contract negotiations with United Teachers-Los Angeles, the biggest of the eight employee unions, said Monday they want to renegotiate the pay-back plan because it “would simply add to the size of the salary reduction” anticipated for the next school year.

On Monday, Anton gave details on only $104 million of the proposed cuts and recommended that the rest come from salary and benefits. His recommendations included:

* Not covering cost-of-living increases in employee health insurance plans, which would save $24 million.

* Making cuts of $19.8 million in central and regional administration, including reducing the number of offices that provide direct supervision to schools, cutting the office overseeing reform efforts and eliminating 299 jobs. Reacting to criticism that the district is “over-administrated,” budget officials said the cut would mean a total reduction, since 1988-89, in off-campus administration of 29%, or 1,114 jobs.

* Cutting $60.2 million--and 1,244 jobs--in instruction and maintenance programs. They included adding three students to classes in grades nine through 12, cutting 10 elementary school music teachers, eliminating 19 school police officers and requiring schools to fend for themselves for non-routine custodial and maintenance services.

But by far the biggest savings--roughly $300 million--would come from undetermined pay cuts, unpaid work furloughs and a highly controversial proposal to shorten the school year by 17 days. The district would try to make up for the lost instruction time by adding 30 to 40 minutes to each school day but would not pay teachers and other staff for their longer hours.

State officials, whose permission would be required for such a plan, have indicated that they take a dim view of the proposal. To give themselves more time to assess the prospects for shortening the school year, board members postponed adoption of next school year’s calendar until a special meeting Tuesday.

UTLA President Helen Bernstein reacted angrily to Anton’s proposed budget reductions, saying it would add up to a 30% cut for teachers and other employees and denouncing it as business as usual.

“If I wanted to convince someone this is a district in crisis, then I would cut all (nonessential) services before I cut teachers and support staff. . . . I’m not getting the message this is a district in crisis. I get the message it’s a district that wants to cut its teachers and its auxiliary personnel by 30%,” Bernstein said. “This is not budget-fixing, this is union busting . . . and it’s the kids that are getting a raw deal in all this.”

Nearly every school board member also attacked at least portions of Anton’s proposals, including the call for increased class sizes. But most reserved the brunt of their anger for budget writers in Sacramento and for those taxpayers unwilling to making public education a spending priority.

“Either you pay the money upfront or you pay later,” said board member Julie Korenstein.

Board members have until June 30 to adopt a balanced budget. They will continue their discussion of Anton’s proposals during a special meeting at 4 p.m. Thursday.

In related actions, board members:

* Decided to encourage early retirements by allowing employees with at least 20 years of service to retain their rights to lifetime retirement benefits if they resign by July 31.

* Rejected 5 to 1, with one abstention, board member Leticia Quezada’s proposal to grant no more contracts to outside firms for public relations services. The district came under fire for spending $250,000 last year to improve its image while making deep cuts in school budgets.