Further lessons in education

Re “Year of Education, still,” editorial, Jan. 12

Interestingly enough, California has had a merit-pay program -- the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards’ incentive program. National board certification involves an intensive process of documenting student learning and professional growth and passing timed tests that demonstrate a knowledge of subject and teaching practices in a specific field. When I started this certification process, the state law for this incentive was in place. But our state legislators, unbeknown to me, voted to stop funding this merit pay incentive. When I was awarded my certification, I found out that 650 or so newly designated, nationally board-certified teachers, including me, were out of luck. It is no wonder that teachers do not support merit-pay programs that are subject to the caprice and whims of politicians.

Steven Nagler

Montclair

--

The Times asserts that charter schools outperform public schools. The Times also asserts that the imposition of merit pay would improve public education. There is no hard data to support either assertion. The main problem with public education in California is that the system has been set up for failure. There is no accountability for students -- they move from one grade to the next regardless of individual academic performance. End social promotion and provide real school-to-work programs. The system will become healthier.

Mark Kotch

Delano

--

Here we go again. Some writer who has never taught in a classroom has all the answers for reforming education. I have been a classroom teacher for more than 35 years. Why don’t you get 100 teachers together and ask these two questions: Given that your classroom has 40 students of diverse socioeconomic and intellectual backgrounds, is there a fair way to evaluate teacher performance based on student test results? No.

Is it possible that your class could be “front loaded” so some decision-maker could arrange for you either to succeed or fail? Yes.

Then ask me if a smaller class size makes a difference in teaching. Another yes.

The only opportunity I ever had to have that experience was during a flu epidemic. Stop writing editorials in a data-free or obviously prejudiced environment, please.

Lloyd Porter

Yorba Linda

--

The Times’ editorial is a good start but falls way short of where it could have landed.

California’s method of funding public education is unfair not only because different amounts are allocated for different schools and districts, but more so because it is based on the number of students in attendance and not on total enrollment.

Unfortunately, even charter schools are funded this way, but most have found ways of spending their funds efficiently so that they can have smaller class sizes and more teachers who receive merit and higher pay with excellent benefits.

The editorial left out one important suggestion: Break up giant districts into many (50 or more) autonomous charter districts run by the people who live in each district.

Without raising taxes, we would see a tremendous improvement in a short period.

Perhaps then Californians will want to put more money into their public schools so that the state can be the best in education, and every year can be a Year of Education.

David J. Eagle

Pacific Palisades

The writer is founder and first chairman of the board of the New West Charter School.