School Policies and Breakup

* The Nov. 2 Valley section contains two articles on the Los Angeles Unified School District, “Lack of Information Can Often Be Costly for L.A. School Board,” and “School District Breakup Backers Start Petition Drive.” Although ostensibly unrelated, the former illustrates beautifully the need for the latter. While the first article outlined in interesting detail what information the board was lacking (denied?) to make informed, educated, budget-conscious decisions in the best interests of both kindergartners and Reading Recovery students, there was no discussion of accountability or repercussions. Who is responsible for withholding this important information from the board? What actions are being taken to discipline the perpetrators and prevent a recurrence? Why aren’t board members and the superintendent as angry as I am that children’s educations and my tax dollars are being squandered unnecessarily because of shoddy work on the part of district staff?

Board member Jeff Horton is quoted as switching sides, from voting for the Reading Recovery program to [casting] the deciding vote for postponement because, “It’s too weird.” Then he is quoted in the second article as opposing the breakup because “I have never heard proponents give an explanation on how it will improve instruction in the classroom.” Is it possible that he doesn’t see the irony? How’s this explanation: With smaller districts there will be fewer hiding places for staff who don’t do their jobs properly or attempt to sabotage the board. Therefore there will be repercussions when the boards don’t have all the information they need before making important policy decisions on expensive educational and fiduciary issues. Programs like Reading Recovery and kindergarten class size reduction will be analyzed on their merits and continued or discontinued based on sound, fully informed reasoning. Children in the classroom will be the beneficiaries.

JILL REISS

Northridge