Flawed Effort by Wilson to Fix State’s School Woes

Gov. Pete Wilson has put educators, unions and lawmakers on notice: Start fixing the public schools. Hold teachers accountable. Improve student test scores. Or watch his ambitious--though flawed--education initiative pass easily on the November ballot.

The governor deserves credit for kick-starting efforts to fix the evident wrongs in California public education. But he should be willing to pursue a legislative approach before turning to the rigidity and permanence of a ballot initiative.

Wilson could seriously negotiate an education reform package with the Legislature, as Ronald Reagan negotiated welfare and medical reform in the 1970s. But by launching the initiative campaign, Wilson is in effect telling his opponents, “Give me all I want or we’ll just pass the initiative.” That take-it-or-leave-it approach won’t best serve California’s students, and isn’t better teaching for our kids the whole point?

Wilson’s proposed ballot measure would lock in the state’s worthy class-size reduction program, which rewards local school districts that limit classes to 20 students per teacher in the early grades. Nothing wrong with that--until the state’s revenue suffers another steep drop and class-size reduction has to be funded while basic instruction programs starve.

To pay for continuation of class-size reduction, roughly $800 per student per year, Wilson’s initiative would redirect a slice of Proposition 98 money into a special fund set aside for this purpose. Instead, the governor and legislators should set spending priorities annually, though squabbling and gridlock in Sacramento make it understandable why voters turn to the initiative process.

Wilson’s ballot initiative also would give parents a greater voice in school management by creating school councils composed of parents and teachers, with parents the majority, that would make recommendations on curricula and spending. Parent involvement is absolutely a good thing. But it should be from the ground up, not a top-down state program. The better model is local reform such as Los Angeles’ LEARN, which nurtures the involvement of parents.

Oddly, or perhaps not so oddly, Wilson in 1992 vetoed a similar measure to require all schools to create school-based management teams consisting of teachers, parents, business representatives and the principal. That measure was sponsored by Delaine Eastin, now the state superintendent of public instruction. Wilson’s rejection was on the grounds that state law already allows schools to establish their own site-based decision-making programs. Nothing that would influence Wilson has changed except the public opinion polls.

The initiative would also attempt to improve the competence of teachers by requiring applicants to pass tests in the area in which they would teach. Prospective teachers already face qualifying exams, although experts have recommended greater rigor in the tests. This improvement too is rightly a matter for the Legislature, which should also face up to a problem that Wilson avoids: incompetent veteran teachers who can’t be dislodged because of unyielding union protections. Wilson’s plan would allow bad teachers to be shuffled from one school to another.

The California Legislature and the powerful teachers unions have one chance to stop this initiative. Lawmakers--Democrats and Republicans--need to approve a tough and meaningful legislative package that mandates measurable accountability in the classroom. Principals, teachers and students should be held to standards. If the Legislature balks, as it has in the past, lawmakers will have only themselves to blame for Wilson’s victory lap on education and its set-in-stone legacy.