Debating the value of school vouchers

I’d give The Times a “D” for logic in its broad-brush dismissal of school voucher programs (editorial, Jan. 8).

Many private high school students take the college boards, perhaps a better accountability standard than the allegedly easy high school exit exam at public schools. And if parents are unhappy with a private school, they can pull their children out, a direct method of accountability that some public school parents lack.

Private school teachers are not required to have teacher credentials, the Times continues, thus “accountability stops before it reaches the private schoolhouse door.” Private schools often use prior experience and evidence of effective teaching in their hiring decisions, and many do not have the tenure policies that make it difficult to remove ineffective teachers.

Choice in education, including charter schools and voucher programs, is a complicated topic with no easy answers.

GREG FELDMETH

Pasadena

*

Your editorial correctly identified two arguments against a voucher program for private schools -- lack of accountability and no consistent requirements for teacher certification. But you neglected to mention a few more obvious ones.

Using taxpayer money for religious instruction will always be constitutionally shaky, and private schools do not have to accept all students, as public schools are required to do. As it is, public schools must provide free special-education services to students enrolled in private schools.

California already funds public education far below the national average while having some of the highest academic standards in the nation. The notion that our public schools will improve by reducing their funding is beyond absurd.

KURT PAGE

Laguna Niguel