Wilson Education Initiative Badly Flawed

I always have been a fan of Gov. Wilson.

I admired his courage in support of a simple-majority vote for local school bonds despite the position of his party. I have appreciated his continuing support for having California provide adequate state school-construction and modernization funds. As a lifelong educator, I agree with his expansion of preschool programs.

I was proud of the governor’s courage in standing up to those who would have undermined California public education with the Proposition 174 voucher proposal. His leadership led directly to the defeat of this badly flawed initiative. Pete Wilson’s greatest contribution to California public education, without a doubt, was the class-size reduction initiative.

However, as one of his steadfast supporters, I join many other educators, school board members and parents in expressing bewilderment and disappointment with the Permanent Class Size Reduction and Education Opportunities Act being proposed in the governor’s name for placement on the November ballot.

No one is opposed to having the class-size reduction program become permanent. No one would be opposed to expanding educational opportunities for children. However, despite its noble title, this initiative is bad public policy and, if accepted by the voters, will be detrimental to the schoolchildren of California.

Allow me to illustrate my concerns by sharing just three examples:

1. The governor’s initiative would call for a state chief inspector of schools to be appointed for a 10-year term. Aside from the advisability of even having this position when there is already a constitutionally elected chief state school officer, his initiative actually calls for this individual to “visit and rate each California school every two years.” California has more than 8,000 schools! Considering that there are 180 days in a school year, this inspector or his or her army of bureaucrats would have to visit about 22 schools a day. How could this possibly be done?

2. His initiative says that all curriculum and expenditure decisions would be made by school parent-teacher advisory councils. Is he certain he meant all and not some, a few or even most decisions? Will 8,000 school councils really be expected to make all decisions?

3. The governor’s initiative would permit a principal to unilaterally remove a teacher deemed unacceptable and direct that individual to the district office. Wouldn’t it have been more advisable to simply suggest a modification in current law to make it easier for principals to fire incompetent teachers? Is shifting poor teachers from one school to another really the answer?

I implore the governor to take a closer look at this proposal. I hope he will conclude that it is an initiative so flawed that it is unworthy of being associated with his name. There is still time to save the Wilson educational legacy.