Ellner Is Out of Touch on School Voucher Issue

* In response to “A Seductive Proposition” (Valley Commentary, July 4):

Carolyn Ellner espouses that the school voucher initiative would create a two-class system of haves and have-nots. She should come out of her ivory tower at Cal State Northridge and realize that we already have a two-class system.

On one hand, we have the private school system--a system which has high graduation rates, high standards of discipline, an environment conducive to learning, no graffiti, the right to have religious teaching, no guns on campus, no gang violence, etc. The drawback: It is only available to the rich and middle-class families who must make substantial sacrifices to pay the tuition.

On the other hand, we have the public schools, which are not safe for students or faculty, have tremendous dropout rates and many of those who are fortunate enough to graduate do not have the skills necessary to go on to higher education or earn a decent living.

Ellner says that the voucher system would leave behind “students who will suffer a school system which has been deeply wounded--sapped of strength, its competitive edge blunted, pauperized.” The public school system is already there! We need increased competition from the private sector to regain any kind of competitive edge in the public school system.

As for the cost of the voucher system, why would anyone want to give $4,200 to the state to try to educate a child in a dangerous environment with a significant chance that the child will drop out anyway, when you can provide a higher quality education in a safe environment conducive to learning for half the price? My only complaint with the School Choice Initiative is that many families will still not be able to afford to supplement the cost of a private education.

DAVID E. MILLER

Granada Hills

* Carolyn Ellner suggests that the proposed school voucher plan will create a two-tiered education system. She states that “the privileged can walk away from public schools with a check for about $2,100, leaving behind students who will suffer a school system which has been deeply wounded--sapped of strength, its competitive edge blunted, pauperized.” The problem with her analysis is that it is hard to believe public schools could get any worse than they already are. Her concern that they will be abandoned so eagerly is itself an acknowledgment of their failure.

Clearly, Ellner is more concerned with the survival of the public school system than with the quality of education our children are getting. After all, under a voucher system, all the public schools have to do to keep students enrolled is provide the quality of education that private schools do already.

Many people who object to vouchers argue that the underprivileged will be less likely to benefit from vouchers because of ignorance or indifference. At best this is government paternalism. At worst it is outright racism.

Another common argument used by Ellner is that private schools will tailor themselves exclusively to the intellectually gifted and the athletic stars--that the market will shun children with special needs. In reality, children with the most severe special needs are already contracted out to specialized private schools.

Ellner and others advocate renewed commitment to our public education system. The phrase “renewed commitment” translates as “more money.”

THANT TESSMAN

Glendale