By Adrian Haymond
During the November elections, voters will decide whether to
institute school vouchers for our children or whether to stay with
the current education system. To be sure, the current system is
woefully inadequate and addresses few concerns. It features bloated
bureaucracies in huge school districts such as the Los Angeles
Unified School District, the flight of qualified teachers from
inner-city schools, rampant crime, inequitable funding, and
disinterested students and parents.
There are some public school districts throughout the state that
have high achievement rates and motivated teachers, but by and
large, these are in suburban neighborhoods where the residents can
afford to raise the funds needed for items such as computers,
books, and adequate restrooms. The rest of the school districts
have to get by with outdated, even hazardous learning
environments.
But are school vouchers any better? We have received a blitz of
information from those who trumpet school vouchers, using both the
positive and the negative aspects to persuade us to buy into the
concept.
On the positive side, school voucher proponents tell us that
school districts in Florida and Wisconsin have instituted the
school voucher program with encouraging results. Reading and math
scores have climbed significantly, they say. In addition, they
claim that poor, disadvantaged people need to have choices as to
where their children can go. And in theory, I agree ““ all
people should have equal access to education so that all have an
equal chance to succeed or fail based solely on their ability and
desire.
However, I’m a little more intrigued at the negatives that
have been spouted out. For example, a radio commercial by the
proponents of Proposition 38 (the school voucher initiative)
vaguely says that in one instance 95 percent of all teachers voted
to strike. Without any specifics, the main point the ad hoped to
drive home was that unions like the one described possess awesome
power, and are therefore dangerous and counterproductive to the
needs of students. This represents scare tactics at their most
insidious.
We tend to say that we treasure teachers, yet pay them little
more than bus drivers. Then, when they want substantial increases,
we say that they’re only interested in themselves and
threaten to stop further funding. Yet, we can see Shaquille
O’Neal make $30 million during his last year on his contract
and only complain that the seats cost too much. But we don’t
say that maybe someone whose best skill is knocking people down
like bowling pins to put a round ball through a hoop does not
deserve so much cash.
The same radio commercial also trumpets that 40 percent of all
teachers send their kids to private school, yet wish to prevent us
from making the same choice. Who is preventing whom? A lower-level
teacher cannot afford to send their children to private school,
just like anyone else. A more well-paid teacher can afford to do
so, like anyone else.
While I agree that this may be a ringing indictment of our
school system, the reasons are more complex than a 30-second radio
spot can or will allow.
But there is another concern I’ve heard virtually no one
talk about. If these vouchers go into effect, how will the poor
kids in the inner-city schools get to these private schools? Most
of the “good” private schools (and there are
“bad” private schools as well as “good”)
are in suburban or well-to-do areas, where the “good”
public schools also are located. Will the mothers of poor children
drive them? I doubt it; the mother (or father, if they’re at
home) needs the cars to drive to work. This means that students
will have to catch the bus.
Remember, this is not a town the size of Milwaukee, Tampa or
even Miami. This is Los Angeles, which sprawls over mountains and
hills for hundreds of square miles. Therefore, any transportation
must take a substantial part of one’s day. And as one that
has been bused from my area (and has travelled the Metro bus
system), much time is wasted and counteracts many of the advantages
of attending a “better” school.
Create a school, you say? Except for maybe Marcus Garvey,
Sheenway and some of the Catholic and Lutheran schools, there are
far too few to handle the amount of students needed to make the
voucher program effective to students who most need it. Few people
think of having a profitable first-class school located in the
middle of East Los Angeles or Watts.
To me, the whole thing abandons the idea of providing cheap and
effective public education for all. Instead, school vouchers want
to replace this with a privatized version that depends on economics
and attractiveness, two qualities sorely lacking in the places
where educational opportunities starve. Those who sponsor
Proposition 38 appear to be applying the “market”
theory of doing things (that market forces should dictate how our
education is distributed and disseminated).
I fear this because the market theory never benefits the
disadvantaged as much as the advantaged. When affirmative action
was repealed in the state of California, I was extremely concerned
that nothing was put in place to help level the educational playing
field of those who cannot afford or who lack the opportunity to
obtain adequate resources.
The voucher system in Los Angeles will only exacerbate the
problem, not resolve it. Besides,my tax dollars will go to those
who need the least assistance, since all private school students
will be entitled to such vouchers.
So what do I suggest? First of all, maybe we should try a new
approach, something that has never happened before ““
accountability!
Not only should teachers be accountable for their students and
principals accountable for their teachers, but administrators
should be accountable for their districts. I’m tired of
hearing about all the petty squabbles, rivalries and jealousies on
the Los Angeles school board. I’m also tired of money being
poured down a bottomless pit without any accountability as to not
only what the money was spent on, but how effectively it was
spent.
I’m sure the problems I listed above helped give rise to
the voucher idea, but shouldn’t we work on keeping good
teachers in urban areas? Shouldn’t we work on supplying
adequate computers and books to such schools where the community
itself cannot afford them? Shouldn’t we work on providing
sufficient security to keep weapons out and serious students in?
Isn’t a good education for our children what we’ve been
working for?
Why should we waste money to send kids to schools that may or
may not accept them, and instead put our tax dollars to use in
creating a suitable environment for all children, not just
suburbanites?