Readers Stirred Up by School Boards

* Thanks to The Times for the March 17 article on the Education Alliance (“Conservative Activists Stir Up O.C. Education”).

As a high school teacher who is active in my local teachers’ association, I have observed the inroads made by Education Alliance candidates in the county with great concern. That many of these board members seem to have ideological axes to grind at the expense of the students in their districts should likewise concern everyone.

Also, the fact that the Education Alliance is so heavily subsidized by Howard F. Ahmanson Jr. suggests that his personal philosophy is apt to be reflected in their choice of school board candidates.

As reported in The Times last summer, Ahmanson has financially supported R.J. Rushdooney and his Calcedon Foundation. Rushdooney is the leader of the Christian Reconstruction movement, which asserts that there should be no separation whatever of church and state. The world envisioned by Rushdooney, and presumably those who support him, would be a theocracy in which schools, churches and the government form a seamless whole. The Constitution would be scrapped and replaced by a literal interpretation and application of Biblical law, as read by Rushdooney and other reconstructionists.

That the school board members endorsed by the Alliance don’t publicly espouse such radical views should not be surprising. Many of them may not even share these views and merely represent a first wave, foot-in-the-door effort to weaken public education with the goal of instituting some form of voucher system.

However, the public will ultimately have the final say, and if school boards veer too far in either direction in pursuit of personal agencies, they will be turned out by the voters, just as they were in the city of Vista.

DAN SHEPARD

Huntington Beach

* Re “Conservative Activists Stir Up O.C. Education”:

I call upon The Times to get back to journalistic integrity. The report was extremely biased and inaccurate. If The Times wants to editorialize, then place such articles on your editorial page. With half-truths, slurs and innuendo you have attacked many fine citizens doing what they see as their civic duty and with no thought to personal gain.

Now, please tell me when you are going to do an expose of the liberal activists and their agenda in education? Would that be too close to journalistic objectivity for The Times?

DENNIS LEWIS

Brea

* The takeover of school boards by intolerant extremists is made easy by the practice of electing school boards at-large, as I described in “Orange County Voices” on Oct. 30.

Until unconstitutional at-large elections are eliminated, the extremists will continue to relentlessly win school board elections. It is already very difficult to find good-hearted people to run against the well-financed extremist machine because savvy potential opposition candidates recognize the virtual hopelessness of winning an at-large election against the lock-step bloc voting of the extremists. It becomes an exercise of wasted time and lost money.

So long as at-large elections are held for school boards and city councils, the dedicated voting blocs of extremists will win ever more elections, and good-hearted people will be forced to sit on the sidelines and watch the cancer of intolerance grow in our schools and city governments.

JOHN F. ROSSMANN

Tustin

* Kudos for the informative article. I’ve heard that there are some board members who promote group projects over individual work in the classroom. Let’s out them too. Shame on them, that they would have an alternate opinion and work vociferously toward achieving that goal.

LORRI WALLS

Placentia

* Regarding the March 17 article on the Education Alliance and now your well-thought-out March 23 editorial:

Unfortunately, all too often articles do not convey the real facts, leaving the reader to believe certain issues that really don’t represent the truth.

Harold Martin and I did indeed receive the endorsement of the Education Alliance [for the Anaheim Union High school board], all due to the fact we support a “return to basics.”

If one looks at the gimmicks our students have been subjected to, such as “new math” and “whole language,” in favor of tried and true teaching curriculum and methods, we see failure.

Sadly, the students have been used as guinea pigs. Now, many decades later, we have a citizenry that is unable to read and compute. Carried out in its greatest extreme, there is a real corollary to illiteracy in America’s prisons. We took away the building of foundations for a successful life--and look what has happened, a country in crisis.

If certain groups identify problems and solutions, so be it. Personally, I have never heard anyone from that group talk about teaching religion in school or dismantling teachers’ unions. These agendas may be those of certain individuals but not those of all folks who seek a “return to basics.”

Sad as it is, politics does play a part. Certain groups have stood for certain movements in education, while other groups have opposed the change. Not all members of one group agree with everything that group espouses. To paint a person or group with the same brush is not thoughtful or wise. It is best to directly ask the person running for office or to read a well-written ballot statement that outlines exactly what the candidate stands for. Hidden agendas never serve the candidate or the voter.

KATHERINE SMITH

Member

Anaheim Union High school board

* It was interesting to see “Trabuco Hills Takes 2nd in Brain Battle,” juxtaposed with “Conservative Activists Stir Up O.C. Education,” March 17.

Clearly the activists you cite miss success stories such as this, focusing on the fact that the teachers of these remarkable students belong to a union or that the school is controlled by a publicly elected governing body, instead of being privately held.

It is vital that The Times prints the enormous sums spent in the last election by both the Education Alliance and the California Teachers Assn., because it underscores how high the stakes are.

While CTA’s lobbying efforts have resulted in a massive statewide class-size reduction, the radical right has succeeded only in dividing communities over bilingual education, phonics, grants, vouchers and unions-vs.-privatization.

None of the board members you cited who advocate a “modified voucher system” have suggested beginning with continuation school students, or students with a 1.0 GPA or below, a suggestion endorsed by the late Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers.

The article neglected to mention the fact that CTA and many of their teacher members are engaged at the grass-roots level because of the radical right’s attempts to remove evolution from science education. Other teachers are dedicated to providing a proven, comprehensive, information-based--as opposed to a fear- and slogans-based--abstinence-education curriculum. A final concern is that people who advocate home schooling are running for office to set school district agenda for publicly schooled children.

Uncertain, however, is the effect of Proposition 208 campaign finance reform, passed by voters in November, on future school board races and subsequent debate over education issues.

BOB BATH

Mission Viejo