Educators Must Heed the Public

A June 1 article reported the results of a Times Orange County Poll that “revealed a breach between how people feel about their own schools--generally thumbs up--and how they feel about the system--generally dissatisfied.”

This phenomenon was documented by Harold Stevenson and James Stigler in their 1992 book, “The Learning Gap,” based upon a long-term study that compared American and Asian schools.

This phenomenon is a version of NIMBY. Parents generally like their children’s teachers and principals as individuals; they hate to think that it’s their kids getting shortchanged.

Therefore, they cast the fault for American public education’s failure with some other school or district. By contrast, the authors found that Asian parents feel that their schools could do more--even as they lead the world in academic achievement.

In the article, Louis Miron, head of the education department at UC Irvine says, “That [breach] is troubling for education professionals and policy makers. . . . What more can they be expected to do?” Well, he might start listening to his customers for a change.

The article lists five key findings: vouchers, conservative boards, basic skills, bilingual education and harder schools. The public supported each. Yet our state’s education departments, including Miron’s--in collaboration with the National Education Assn. and California Teachers Assn.--are steadfastly opposed to all five areas their customers support. This is a major disconnect.

The NEA and CTA spent tons of money to defeat the voucher initiative a few years ago, while education departments generated studies to back their positions. The unions have poured money and their own candidates into school board races. University educators and unions have fought basic skills, instead promoting new-new math, whole language and inventive or “temporary” spelling. They lobby against immersion language training, which is demonstrably successful, and fight to keep bilingual education with its special funds. Both groups have opposed charter schools because the latter are freer of both the anemia of university-developed, state-directed curricula, and the sclerotic effect of union constraints.

What more can education professionals and policymakers do? They can snap out of their collective state of denial, and admit that the empirical test data are correct. They can accept that studies like The Times Orange County Poll reflect the sentiments of the majority, not just some mythical theocratic conspiratorial fringe group. They can start backing programs demanded by the customers, instead of fighting the customers every step of the way.

If they do those things, there will be no breach. There will be broad, enthusiastic support. Simple enough.

BRUCE CRAWFORD

Fountain Valley