Plan to Slash L.A. School Bureaucracy Unveiled

Interim Los Angeles schools Supt. Ramon C. Cortines on Monday unveiled a reorganization plan that significantly reduces the district’s huge central office and shifts power over budget and instruction to 11 new subdistricts.

Department heads and many mid-level bureaucrats will be forced to compete for new administrative jobs, and those who don’t make the cut will be sent back to schools as teachers, principals and deans.

“The current culture of isolationism, pessimism, blame and denial, which unfortunately often accurately describes the district, will be replaced with a culture of hope and optimism,” an executive summary boldly predicted.

Fear and anxiety, however, were the prevailing moods at district headquarters Monday as hundreds of employees pored over organization charts and tried to divine whether they still have jobs.

If approved by the Board of Education, the plan would take effect July 1, the same day that a new superintendent is due to take over. It calls for the 2,000-employee central office to shrink by 843 positions, or about 40%.

Many of those jobs would be transferred to the new districts, which would be made up of 50 to 75 schools. The primary mission of the districts would be to improve the reading skills of children in every grade, with standardized test results being the measure of success.

About 300 positions would be cut through retirements, voluntary departures and elimination of vacant positions.

Cortines did not indicate whether there would be layoffs, but all senior managers are being required to compete for new positions that could be given to outside applicants. Those who are not chosen for the new jobs could be forced to return to the classroom if they have a teaching credential; those without a credential could be out of jobs altogether.

Cortines and chief operating officer Howard Miller, the plan’s main architects, characterized it as a dramatic recasting of the central office into a service-oriented operation that would assist the 11 districts with their data, facilities, personnel, planning and business needs.

“The issue has been to reshape the central office, but it has also been to change the culture from one that gives directives to one that gives support,” Cortines said.

A majority of board members said they would support the plan even though some had reservations about some aspects of the reorganization. Cortines will formally present the plan to the board today, and a vote is scheduled for April 11.

Board member David Tokofsky noted that nothing in the reorganization directly guides student achievement.

“Ideally, it would help to have a week by week recipe for what is to be taught in the districts,” he said. “But it is possible for a new superintendent to do it with strong vigilance and the cooperation of the 11 local superintendents.”

The plan closes 13 offices and reduces 15 others. It also creates five new offices and beefs up three, including facilities and personnel. The net reduction of 333 employees would save $46 million annually, district officials said.

The largest cuts are: 55 from the curriculum and instruction branch, 82 from the professional development branch, 63 from the division of special education, and 90 from the offices that oversee the district’s 27 school clusters.

Many of those jobs will be distributed to the new districts.

The subdistricts would have 70 to 90 employees each, not counting clerical staff, with about two-thirds of them working on instruction. Each would be led by a superintendent and “have substantial control over resources and the autonomy to make most decisions about the instruction of children,” the executive summary said.

Many details of the plan suggest, however, that the balance of power would be delicate.

For instance, under the plan, the district’s seven-member board remains the only elected policymaking body. Parent advisory councils are the primary means for local control. Also, the general superintendent retains the power to define the educational mission of the local districts.

The interplay between central power and the districts was the focus of some staff speculation, especially in light of Cortines’ track record of asserting a strong central hand. For example, he ordered low-performing schools to adopt one elementary reading program, Open Court.

One senior administrator, who asked to remain anonymous, complained that the 250-page report lacked crucial details and “raised more questions than it answered.”

“Can a local superintendent add administrators? Or reading consultants? Or replace Open Court with another reading program?” the official asked. “Essentially, Cortines’ report doesn’t say whether board policy can be waived, or overruled at the local district level.”

The plan received mild praise from State Supt. of Public Instruction Delaine Eastin, who offered support, but also criticized Cortines and Miller for not making school construction a priority.

“I am convinced that you will not be able to make any substantial progress toward reaching your goals without first resolving the facilities issues,” Eastin said.

Those trying to break up the 711,000-student district said they found nothing in the plan to silence their movement.

“We have strong memories of what has been and what didn’t work,” said Carolyn Harris, leader of the group attempting to form a separate district in Carson. “Remember there were regions? There are clusters. And now there is Cortines rehashing an old system.

In separate interviews Friday, Cortines and Miller both said they see the plan as the first step in creating a district in which all employees are focused on student performance and are evaluated on measurable indicators such as test scores.

Both Cortines and Miller deflected the criticisms by saying that the new system, along with new accountability measures they are demanding in negotiations on new labor contracts this year, will set the stage for creating a system in which student performance, as measured in standardized test scores, will be used for the first time to measure how well the district and all its employees are succeeding.

“We are turning around a $7.5-billion organization by making the central office more lean and delegating authority,” Miller said. “So, for the first time we will have real accountability standards against which we can measure people.”

Tokofsky and other board members expressed concern that they are not being given enough time to modify aspects of the plan.

“The nature of the short time-line . . . makes it difficult to tinker with it,” he said.

“Ultimately, the war against poor student achievement can only be won classroom by classroom, school by school,” Tokofsky said. “It cannot be won by proclamations and reports.”

However, Tokofsky said he will support it.

Board member Victoria Castro expressed concerns about a correspondence from Cortines in which he requested minimal discussion about his reorganization plan when it is presented to the board for final approval April 11.

“I don’t want to simply receive this report and then vote on it--I want lots of public feedback on such a major policy recommendation,” she said. “If necessary, I’ll call for a special meeting to allow ample discussion on the board and from the public.”

Board member Caprice Young agreed, to a point.

“I have no problem with the superintendent wanting a chance to fully make his pitch before he is peppered with questions,” Young said. “But I strongly support a meeting to have public input prior to April 11.”

Overall, however, Young described the reorganization plan as “a big start toward more responsibility, accountability and authority on the local level. The current structure is not capable of addressing kids’ needs.”