PERSPECTIVES ON EDUCATION : Will LEARN Bring Real Reform, or Is It Time for Vouchers? : Attempts at reform, including LEARN, have failed. The initiative would work because it would empower parents.
The story of LEARN, from its inception to the school board’s approval of its reforms to the news that teachers are going to boycott it, is one we should all learn from.
Many good people interested in improving education came together in what has been called the last hope to save our city’s schools. Corporations, foundations and individuals have poured huge sums of money and time into supporting LEARN’s staff, programs, community meetings and its media campaign. Superficially, it appeared that true reform might at last be on the way. The school board approved the plan and Los Angeles had reason to hope.
But that hope is in danger today. Why? For the same reason that many of us who have labored to reform the educational system from within have been frustrated.
Although Helen Bernstein, president of the teachers union, supports LEARN’s proposals, her members do not. Bernstein’s predecessor, Wayne Johnson, led the teachers’ charge against the plan. The teachers are an important ingredient in getting a child educated; if they don’t go along with the program, then what?
LEARN is likely to fail if it does not shift the balance of power away from the entrenched unions and bureaucracy to the parents and students, where it belongs. As long as the system continues as a special interest monopoly, the system’s priorities will be pay, pensions and power for bureaucrats and unions instead of learning, values and accountability to students and their parents.
There are more than 640,000 students in L.A. Unified. It is safe to say that there are more parents than teachers, yet the parents don’t have any real power. They can’t withhold their tax dollars from the schools. But teachers can withhold their services and strike.
Teachers should have their concerns met. They are entitled to want what they want. But parents are entitled to get what they want for their kids. It should be a two-way street.
I am more than ever convinced that the only way to accomplish this is the Parental Choice in Education Amendment. Since it has qualified to be on the June, 1994, ballot, the amendment is already having a big impact.
“With vouchers a year away, we really don’t have a choice,” said Leticia Quezada, president of the Los Angeles Board of Education. “We have one year to prove the L.A. district is really interested in changing itself.”
Fresno, San Francisco, East Whittier, Capistrano and many other school districts have begun public school choice programs. Sacramento lawmakers have approved a “charter” school bill allowing 100 schools to break free of state-mandated regulations and local bureaucracy to create their own schools; nine “charter” schools already have been approved. And Los Angeles avoided a teachers’ strike when Assembly Speaker Willie Brown argued that the only winners in a strike would be the “voucher proponents.” (Translation: parents, kids and taxpayers.)
Clearly, the initiative is more than just vouchers. It is a motivator for change, because it will empower parents.
Many education reformers fail to recognize two facts: California needs a school system that constantly seeks excellence, not just when an amendment is on the ballot. And we need a system that can handle nearly 2 million additional children by 2000.
The proposed amendment provides solutions. By holding the schools accountable to parents, it promotes healthy competition among schools and encourages innovation and excellence. With the power to choose alternative schools, parents will no longer be taken for granted by an unresponsive system. The system will be forced to focus on the children as its top priority.
This amendment is in line with the findings of a March 26 Times poll that people want “wiser” spending on public education, not more, and that they feel there is too much bureaucracy. The Times poll also said that the public is generally against the amendment, but that is because the question misrepresented the amendment.
If the state maintains the status quo, the public will be forced into a 40% increase in education spending--more taxes--by the year 2000 to pay for the projected jump in enrollment to 7 million students. Can we afford this?
The Parental Choice in Education Amendment will lead to “wiser” spending of education dollars because parents, not bureaucrats, will decide their children’s education. And because parents can choose schools at less cost to the taxpayer, the pressure to increase taxes will be relieved.
We have been “reforming” our schools for years. We have increased spending dramatically. We have entrusted our children’s future to the establishment bureaucrats. The results have been fruitless. It’s time to put our kids first, time to empower parents, time to support the Parental Choice in Education Amendment.
