Antelope Valley Residents Split on State Test Dispute

A showdown between local and state officials over a controversial standardized test for schoolchildren left some residents rallying support for their side Saturday while others were critical of both.

After a majority of the Antelope Valley Union High School District board voted to refuse to administer the California Learning Assessment System test, state education officials threatened to seek their removal.

“My first thought was, ‘Could they do it tomorrow?’ ” said Mike Kaplan, the father of two children who attend school in the district. “Let’s just remove them and get back to more positive things for the kids out there.”

But others saw the threat by the state Department of Education as a clear attack on local control of schools.

“We’re getting closer to Germany,” said Carolyn Steinke, a chapter director for the nationwide Eagle Forum, a conservative women’s group. “Whatever happened to district control? This is what the true issue is: parents’ rights and district control.”

Steinke believes the Department of Education’s threat will be an opportunity to define local control.

“This is the sifting-out process, and we’re going to find out who’s accountable, who has power over what,” she said. “Do parents have a say when they elect their board officials or is it going to be state-run (schools)?”

*

Department of Education officials Friday advised the district’s attorney that if the the CLAS test is not administered, the state will either file suit or seek to have a grand jury remove the three board members who voted against its use.

“The state Department of Education is not going to roll over on this issue,” said department spokesman William L. Rukeyser.

The Antelope Valley district on Wednesday became the first in California to refuse to administer the controversial CLAS exam. At least a dozen school districts are allowing parents to exempt their children from the exam, despite the Department of Education’s position that exemptions are not allowed.

Support for the state’s position came primarily from those who disagree with the school board’s decision.

Opponents of CLAS say the test violates the privacy of parents and students and that its literature section denigrates the family. Supporters of the test, administered for the first time last year, hail it as a revolutionary method of measuring what students think, rather than only what they know.

Antelope Valley district Trustee Bill Olenick, who with Wilda Andrejcik cast the dissenting votes, said he is concerned about the possibility of the state trying to remove his colleagues.

“We want autonomy from the state Department of Education,” he said. “I resent its role as a big brother (but) would welcome it in a more advisory role.

“I do believe in local control. There are some local-control issues at stake here.”

Olenick remains optimistic that board President Billy Pricer and members Sue Stokka and Tony Welch will reverse their decision if for no other reason than its financial implications.

“The board should not violate state law to make a political statement,” Olenick said. “The fight is not here in this board room, it’s in Sacramento.”

If the state files a lawsuit, the defense could easily cost $100,000, according to lawyers for the school district. The Antelope Valley district is only now beginning to recover from a $14-million deficit that forced layoffs and program reductions.

A special meeting has been scheduled for May 5, when the board will gather in closed session with lawyers to discuss the matter.

Parent Kim Fountain said she is sorry that the state is considering such drastic measures, but believes the board has forced such a step.

“I do think their action (to not administer the test) is serious enough that they should be removed,” Fountain said. “If Sacramento has the power to do that, they should use that power.”

*

Parent Joanne Opdahl agrees. “They took an oath. And they took an oath to uphold the ed code,” she said. “Somebody has to be in charge. The local boards have certain powers but there are certain things that are deferred to the state.”

Elementary school teacher Linda Munski, also a parent of high school students, said she is not opposed to the state’s efforts to remove the three board members, but said she hopes a different remedy is found.

“Ultimately I would like to see them work it out somehow,” said Munski, who disagrees with the board’s decision to not give the test. “It’s going to tear the community apart if they keep haggling this out.”

Ann Best, president of the 34th district PTA, which encompasses 81 schools from Bishop to Santa Clarita, disagreed with the board’s decision, but is concerned about the state’s response.

“To me it’s rather severe,” she said. “I would think there could be some way to work it out that’s not so extreme.”

Added Best: “If anybody wanted them to be removed, it should be (left to) the local people. Not that I’m necessarily saying recall.”

Pricer said he is appalled at the state’s threat because it violates the principal of local control of schools. He said he would welcome any recall attempt, believing it would prove that the vast majority of the community supports the decision not to administer the test.

Stokka believes the department of education would be making a mistake if it tries to have a grand jury remove her, Pricer and Welch from office. “It would be very poor public relations.”

Department attorneys have repeatedly said the board’s action violates state law because the education code mandates the CLAS test be administered. CLAS opponents, however, agree that the code requires an assessment test be administered, but say the law does not require it to be the CLAS test.

Pricer said the school district’s attorney was told Friday by the Department of Education that it may seek, through prosecutors, to have a grand jury remove the three board members. But Suzanne Childs, a spokeswoman for the Los Angeles County district attorney’s office, said Saturday the district attorney could not legally convene a grand jury on the topic if there are any alternative recall provisions in state law.

Staff writer Ann W. O’Neill contributed to this story.