Federal Money for Education

Robert Borosage makes an excellent point (Column Left, Feb. 6) when he contrasts Eisenhower’s well-funded road building project with Clinton’s underfunded education project. There is a much more serious problem with the plan, however. Eisenhower’s project was passed with the best of intentions that the federal government would not meddle in states’ internal affairs. But before we knew it, Congress was making laws about highway speeds, how California does automobile inspections and even our drinking laws. In each case we were told that Congress can’t force you to do these things, but if you don’t do it, we won’t give you back the tax money we took from you.

There is nothing so valued and zealously guarded in the U.S. as the local nature of education; and the federal government lusts after taking away that freedom. Goals 2000 is a good example of the Clinton administration’s interest. Can you imagine what leverage the federal government would have with a $1.4-billion carrot to wave in front of California each year? Clinton’s plan might not have enough money to do a good job but it probably does have enough to seriously erode local control of education.

C. RAYMOND MULLIN

Santa Barbara

“Education Reform: Congress Has Some Sorting To Do” (editorial, Feb. 6) outlined how federal education dollars should be allocated and what should be the priorities on that spending.

One point, that government “lacks any system to ensure that money lands where it is needed or that is spent on quality learning,” can be addressed in California by passing the California Educational Efficiency Initiative, also known as “95/5,” in 1998. This initiative stipulates that 95 cents of every education dollar be used strictly for local school sites and the remaining five cents be used to meet the needs of downtown, centralized personnel and functions.

United Teachers Los Angeles backs 95/5. Let’s have business and community leaders join with us, and guarantee that money lands in local school sites where it belongs.

DAY HIGUCHI, President

United Teachers Los Angeles

Your editorial states, about early child development, that educational outcomes can be dramatically improved in the first four years of life. I have two children, ages 2 and 3, who have been in an excellent early intervention program named Carousel Early Intervention, located in Westchester.

I cannot begin to tell you the difference it has made in their lives. I have seen the other children in that program go from no speech whatsoever to talking little people at the end of two years, to having the school readiness skills they need. This could not be accomplished without the love and determination not to give up on these children by the teachers as well as the director of the program.

More funding should go to those programs. We must all remember that one day these children will sit in our seats.

TERRY VIGIL

Los Angeles