As it is now, our schools’ demographics don’t even reflect the city’s identity.
Culver City School District
48% White 37% Hispanic
25% Hispanic 24% White
12% African-American 17% African-American
12% Asian 10% Asian
The Committee concluded that by adding Ladera Heights’ almost 6,000 registered voters to the Culver City School District’s voting rolls, "it could substantially and negatively alter our community’s identity."
The actual effect is an unknown. Even though more than ninety-five percent of the students involved in the transfer are African-American, Ladera Heights’ demographics are seventy percent African-American, twenty percent white and ten percent other.
Of course, this twenty-five percent influx of new voters would have an effect on electing future School Boards for the District. And why not? If they came into the School District, shouldn’t they have a say in how the almost billion dollars ($975m) they are adding (eighteen percent) to the School District tax base is spent?
The County Committee just as easily could have said that there would be a positive effect on our District.
Condition #3: The proposal will result in an equitable division of property and facilities of the original district or districts.
The County Committee states that there are no school facilities to be divided within the petition area. However, it concludes that the Ladera Heights’ property valuation is a major source of funding for the Inglewood School District and that transferring it might leave it in a future fiscal bind.
Even though Ladera Heights property generates fifteen prcent of the Inglewood District’s funds, it only accounts for a minority (two to three percent) of its student population. Although it seems the property taxes that Ladera Heights pays are seen an integral part of the Inglewood District, their children’s education doesn’t seem as important.
The County Committee basically has given the administration of the Inglewood District the legal right to hold Ladera Heights property owners fiscal prisoners in a district they no longer wish to be associated with.
By holding them and their children in bondage, the County Committee is denying them the freedom to seek a good education for their children elsewhere by rejecting the individual transfers they seek for their children.
Uninformed Projections Were Wrong
Condition #9: The proposed reorganization will continue to promote sound fiscal management and not cause a substantial negative effect on the fiscal status of the proposed district or any existing district affected by the proposed reorganization.
The County Committee did not comment on whether it thought there was an already sound fiscal management now in place in the Inglewood School District. But there is no doubt that if the Inglewood District would lose fifteen percent of its tax base, it would negatively affect its future funding of bond measures to maintain its aging infrastructure.
The uninformed predictions of passionate opponents of transfer in Culver City —more overcrowding, more traffic congestion, more costs — did not materialize in the Committee’s report.
The County Committee showed how the Culver City School District could address the concerns of overcrowding when accepting the three hundred and thirty-seven more permanent students. It suggested that the District balance out its enrollment by declining an equal number of its outside, interdistrict permits.
The opponents’ concerns about traffic congestion were also unfounded. Since Ladera Heights is adjacent to Culver City, carpools probably would be much easier to form. In fact, the carpools might lessen the traffic jams caused by uncoordinated commuting of the far-flung permit-holders now accepted by the District.
Addressing the concerns of having to increase School District spending due to possible bussing, the County Committee concluded that the transfer of three hundred and thirty-seven students would not have a negative impact on the District’s future General or Capitol Funds. The Committee said there would be no increase in District spending.
The Color of Spin
From the standpoint of a parent and homeowner, this seemed like an acceptable proposal. However, the governing School Board at best acted standoffishly toward the initial proposal. The only real fact widely known about the proposed transfer was that the students who wanted to receive a better education were predominately black.
I guess that was enough reason for the Culver City School Board to pass its premature resolution opposing the transfer even before it had a chance to read the County Committee’s report.
At no time was there any positive information released by the School District on this proposal. Although the Ladera Heights transfer would not bring any more funding — regarding Average Daily Attendance or otherwise —the transfer would have the broadened the District’s tax base by almost one billion dollars, raising it by nearly one-fifth.
Voter-approved indebtedness, as with the present Measure T bond, can only be paid off with local property taxes. The Ladera Heights transfer would have helped us pay down our own bonded indebtedness of Measure T faster than anticipated, saving property owners millions of dollars over the length of the bond.
If you are wondering why we, the taxpayers, were not informed about these potential savings, you might ask your School Board members. Maybe they can enlighten you on why they opposed a resolution before even reading the County Committee’s report on it.
Why they didn’t bring up these multimillion-dollar savings during the public debate on the transfer?
In the near future, I hope Culver City can elect an even more enlightened, much less short-sighted School Board. One that could actually see beyond the color of someone’s skin and see that the color of their money is exactly the same as ours.
I would like a School Board that could see it would have been in our best interests to have accepted the Ladera Heights parents’ petition, letting them come in and join us in giving our children and theirs an education they deserve.
