Roy Romer Title: Superintendent, Los Angeles Unified School District Age: 72 Education: Bachelor’s degree in agricultural economics, Colorado State University; law degree, University of Colorado Most Admired Person: Philosopher Martin Buber Career Turning Point: “Yet to happen.” Personal: Married, seven children, 18 grandchildren Superintendent Roy Romer believes that, by the time he’s done, nobody in the Valley will want to break away from LAUSD Roy Romer is trying to work fast. That might explain the hiking boots he wore as he moved quickly around the LAUSD superintendent’s suite of offices one afternoon this month, taking phone calls, bouncing back and forth between multiple meetings, explaining his plans to visitors. Romer blew into town a year ago. After 12 years as governor of Colorado and three as chairman of the Democratic National Committee, he had applied for the job few seemed qualified for, let alone wanted: running the Los Angeles Unified School District, the second largest public school system in the United States. By most accounts, whoever took the job would have a to-do list that included dealing with the Belmont Learning Center fiasco, a looming teachers strike, overcrowded campuses and entire schools where almost every student performed well below academic expectations. Recognizing that some things are more important than others, Romer has made no secret of the fact that that last challenge improving academic skills is the most urgent of all his responsibilities. Consequently, he has developed a short list of district goals and has harped on them with virtually every single one of the dozens of people he runs across in the average day. Romer spoke with Business Journal editor Michael Hart recently about those goals, his thoughts about two potential new school districts in the San Fernando Valley and his plans to change forever the way LAUSD teachers and administrators work together. Question: It is hard to argue with priorities like improving reading, writing and math skills. But many parents in the San Fernando Valley continue to worry and complain about cleanliness and safety issues. And what about those bathrooms? Answer: Those are important issues. Look, I recognize these are important, but not the most important. And I recognize that safety is almost a precondition. You’ve got to have a safe place. It’s a precondition before we start talking about the priorities. Bathrooms, you bet they’re important. We’ve been after it. But this place is not going to make or break over bathrooms. It’s going to make or break over whether or not we improve instruction. Q: What is your position about the potential breakup of the district and the founding of two new independent school districts in the Valley? A: I was hired to make this district work as a whole, including the Valley. My interest is to make it improve so much that people in the Valley will say, “Wait a minute. That is a good enough operation, I’d like to stay in it.” I’d like to make us perform so well that the people in the Valley would say, “It isn’t going to help us to split off. We’re doing better here.” But that’s for them to make that decision. I don’t want to try to dictate to them. Q: When the state board of education meets Sept. 5 to take up the issue of new Valley school districts, will you or some other LAUSD representative be there to present the district’s side of the story? A: I think we would have to be there and describe what the consequences of it are. People make their own decisions but I think I need to describe the consequences. The consequences would involve how it affects the rest of the district, how it affects our ability to put students in buildings. What’s the impact on both sides? You need to have those facts on the table. But my main cause is not to keep the district whole, my main cause is to educate the children as well as they can be educated. If somebody can convince me we can do it a better way, I’m for it. Q: What is the greatest challenge you see to accomplishing your goal of resolving overcrowding in Valley schools and building more classrooms? A: The hill is very steep and we all knew that when we started. We’re building 12,000 seats a year when over the last 17 years there’s been a couple thousand new seats a year. What you’re anxious about is finding enough sites, and we’re doing quite well on that. Then you’ve got to get the environmental work done on time. Then you’ve got to get your proposal in under the deadline so you can get funded. We’re doing really well on land acquisition. But there’s still work to do. Q: Many feel that, in this year’s union contract negotiations, teachers got very generous across-the-board raises. Is that an accurate perception? A: For 10 years this district has given its authority away (to labor unions). We got a bunch of it back. The contract would have been settled at 10 percent across the board if I had gone for a strike. That’s what everybody around was settling for. That’s what this town, which is a strong labor town, and that’s what this board would have gone for. Instead, I went 11 percent and I paid $30 million, $20 million to teachers. Q: And in return you got what? A: We in the past have not had any opportunity to assign teachers. It was totally on seniority. Right now, with the new contract, we’re going to have the same percentage of experienced and inexperienced teachers on each track and now you can move them around for good educational reasons. That is a change. It used to be that if you’re the principal of an elementary school, the only people who could help you were coordinators of special ed, coordinators of bilingual, things like that. They were chosen totally by the teachers. They would just elect them. If you’re the principal, you don’t even get to choose the people who help you run the place. So, we have got a new process that gives the initiative to the principal and gives a check and balance to the teachers, which is fair because you don’t want them totally inundated by a wild principal. That is a big return of power. Q: Then to your mind, having the teachers union relinquish some influence was an acceptable tradeoff for the extra money? A: These are very important returns of power. It’s the first time in 10 years that we’ve gone this direction. These are subtle things but, if you’re a principal at a school, you can’t work for the people who you’re supervising. You’ve got to work for the district and you’ve got to have some authority to make assignments. That was a big gain and one that was worth the extra 1 percent. And the reason it’s worth it is because it still just gets us up to the median (salary). Q: And what about the $150 million budget deficit we hear about as a result of the new teacher contracts? A: That’s crazy. The difference of 1 percent is $20 million for teachers and $10 million for everybody else in the district. We last year started the year with a balance of $220 million and ended with a balance of $100 million. That’s where the big shortfall came from. It just wasn’t available this year. The increased cost of this negotiation was $20 million for everybody. It didn’t increase our classified (employee salaries) because we would have done them anyway. Q: After what must seem like the relative peace of political life in Colorado, how are you adjusting to being a high-profile figure here in Los Angeles? A: You know, I’m not looking for another job. I’m not looking for a political office. I’m here to make this school district run correctly. If I’ve got to fight to do it, I’m going to fight.
