Vouchers not the solution to public school woes

By Andrea Saenz

I would first like to thank Todd Smith for his important
realization that the root of California’s education problem
is in its K-12 public education (“Social promotion hinders
public schools,” Viewpoint, May 18). I would also like to
state that I acknowledge the problems social promotion raises. But
there is a lot more to the picture than Smith’s frighteningly
capitalist-minded view of education.

Social promotion is, indeed, a problem. But Smith conveniently
forgets to tell us the similarly problematic flip side: retention
doesn’t work. Not only does it cause the social and emotional
problems he blows off, but it is rarely effective in getting a
student back on the grade-level standards track.

The reason for this is simple.

By the time we have to decide between social promotion or
retention, it is too late.

The end of the school year is not the time to realize that a
child is failing.

Policy initiatives that focus on early identification and
intervention have proven effective. Children with learning
disabilities should be identified in the first two years of their
education so they can enjoy the resources the state currently has
in place for them. For children without learning disabilities who
are struggling, teachers can refer them to the school’s
resource specialist program for extra help, or recommend them for
after school and summer programs that are growing in number at
needy schools.

Students in Los Angeles’ year-round schools frequently
pack “intersession” programs to get additional
instruction when their class is off track. We always hear about how
awful the schools are, but in reality, there are wonderful programs
in place for struggling students.

The problem has been twofold. First, not enough students are
being identified as at-risk until it is too late. The solution is
hiring more qualified teachers, resource specialists and school
psychologists. The lack of ongoing teacher training in California
is appalling and a remedy would alleviate a lot of current
concerns.

Second, these intervention programs need to be expanded in urban
areas so more low-performing students have the opportunity to get
help when they need it.

Smith makes it sound as though everything would be fine if we
just held the kids back one more year.

But what they really need is some intensive personal attention,
not an exact repeat of the year they just failed.

Next, I want to address the issue of overcrowding, which Smith
treats in a particularly bizarre fashion. State lawmakers claim
that they have “remedied” overcrowding in
California’s public schools by enacting class-size reduction
initiatives. Such measures sound great in stump speeches, but in
reality they leave many schools with nowhere to put new classrooms
and a dearth of qualified teachers.

Smith and I agree that overcrowding is a problem, but we have
very different policy solutions. I believe that the real problem
with California’s schools is a lack of qualified, passionate
teachers who are supported by the public and helped by their
districts. Teachers deserve respectable salaries, safe teaching
environments, sufficient classroom resources and training to keep
up with the constantly changing reforms that politicians with no
background in pedagogy keep throwing at them.

Smith, however, brings up two unrelated proposals that he is
sure will save education: charter schools and private-school
vouchers. Let me first say that charter schools already exist in
the status quo as an important part of school districts. Even the
scapegoated L.A.Unified School District has many fine charter
schools, and parents from throughout the district are free to apply
on behalf of their children.

This is also true of magnet programs at schools outside of a
student’s home area. I went to magnet programs my entire
public school career, so I don’t understand what Smith is
getting so upset about when he says parents are “stuck with
whatever school the government says they have to attend.”
There is plenty of “school choice” in the status
quo.

But the heart of Smith’s argument is in the advocacy of
vouchers, one of the most misguided policy proposals in education
history. The problem is that it assumes a competition-based
paradigm is good for the educational system. The government’s
mandate to provide an education for all children is incompatible
with a market-based view, in which there must be winner and losers.
Schools should not be run as businesses. The voucher system gives
up on the public schools by telling them to sink or swim, and the
real losers are the children who are still enrolled in these
neglected schools. The government should not, and realistically
cannot, give poor parents money to send their children to private
schools.

Pragmatically, the amount of money involved is staggering,
considering the high level of private school tuitions. Most
proposals involve the government giving parents a check for a few
hundred dollars to be applied toward private tuition. It would
never really be enough, and economic analysts have suggested that
it would create an “underclass” of private schools
while sucking key resources away from the still-existing public
schools. The voucher system realistically does nothing to close the
rich-poor gap and will lead to an even greater neglect and public
distrust of the school system.

As you can see, I have a greater number of opinions on public
education than I could fit in one Viewpoint submission. Feel free
to write me and voice your own. Our public schools need the support
of the public and the politicians, and that support must include
both the confidence and the commitment to provide the necessary
resources and programs.

Call me an eternal optimist, but I’m not ready to give up
on the schools yet.