• printer friendly
• mail this article
• iPod format
• digg

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.