Letter: Public schools are essential

I oppose vouchers because I am a patriot. President John Adams said, “The whole people must take upon themselves the education of the whole people and be willing to bear the expenses of it — not founded by a charitable individual, but maintained at the public expense of the people themselves.”

We began at a time when only very privileged young white men were educated. We thrived because we grew to understand that the destiny of all of us is tied irretrievably to the destiny of each of us. With such understanding came the goal of political and economic participation for all and public education to make that participation meaningful.

Free public education is a cornerstone of our democracy and the responsibility of every state.

I oppose vouchers because I hold constitutional freedoms dear. The mission of religious schools is to provide an excellent Catholic or Baptist or Jewish or Christian or Islamic education. Given the opportunity to provide a nonreligious education to children, those in charge of these schools would not likely do so. Government educating children in religion is a violation of our Constitution and a threat to the religious freedom of all.

Many private schools provide a fine education; many do not. Few are organized to meet the needs of every child. The lack of universality makes comparisons of national test scores specious at best.

I oppose vouchers because we should not give up our public responsibility. Supporting a few children’s private educations with public money permits those who see doing so as the answer to the problems found in public education to turn away, satisfied that they have addressed the problems. Children whose needs are not met will be left to languish because public schools will increasingly be underfunded and under political radar. We leave children to languish at our peril.

Public money should be spent on the work of providing every child a free and high-quality public education. Any diversion of money to private education is a step away from our historical triumph and lasting obligation.

We know that public school systems can provide an excellent education for every child regardless of family background, economic status, special needs or educational ambitions. We know because there are examples all around us that when citizens care, commit themselves and their tax money, and pay constant attention, schools work. Caring, committing and paying attention is what Louisiana should be doing for the education of its children, not giving the responsibility away to those who operate schools without being responsible to attend to the needs of every child and who are not required to respond to the citizens who support their mission.

Diane Burkhart

retired legislative lawyer

Zachary


Please log in to comment on this story

Comments (31)


1) Comment by twinkie1cat - 12/03/2013

Thank you Ms. Burkhart. You have said what the real teachers say but are often afraid to publish. It is going to take people like you, the retired teachers who can't be fired, and those with such good records that no administrator will try to fix this school situation.>>>> The purpose of a religious education is to raise adherents to that faith. The head of teacher training for the Catholic Schools from Notre Dame called the parochial schools the "greatest tool for evangelism the world has ever known". A few years ago the head of Focus on the Family told their followers to either send their children to "christian" academies or homeschool them because "public school teachers were not Christians". >>>>>>> I uphold a parent's right to send their children to faith based schools if they really want to, although they need to be aware of the terrible curricula and uncertified desk fillers many of them use. But our tax dollars must not go to supporting these choices. Quality public schools that do not try to fit every child in the same little box are the only way to keep America free and avoid disenfranchisement. Public schools protect America from dictators. And real teachers with education degrees are the only professionals qualified to run them from the Pre-K to the State and National Superintendent.

2) Comment by prbeav - 12/03/2013

Sorry "indoctrination" not "indoctrinated"

3) Comment by prbeav - 12/03/2013

@InPVille. One way to recognize indoctrinated is to observe speech against "freedom of religion," and experience the inability to imagine, let alone prefer, freedom of thought.>>>>Recall that I write to persuade Americans to keep their personal religion if they want to yet for public governance accept the gift of the US Constitution, which in its preamble sets seven goals for just governance by the governed.>>>>Recall also that the US Constitution grants us the right to live without the imposition of religion, but American practices impose the costs of religion (such as the foolish invasion of Iraq) on everyone.>>>>Lastly, give yourself a break from DQ and read a little Machiavelli, who wrote in "The Prince," nations under God "are sustained by the ordinances of religion, which are so all-powerful, and of such a character that the principalities may be held no matter how their princes behave and live. These princes alone have states and do not defend them, they have subjects and do not rule them; and the states, although unguarded, are not taken from them, and the subjects, although not ruled, do not care.">>>>Think on these things the next time you hear a President propagandize you with "May God bless America."

4) Comment by InPVille - 12/03/2013

@prbeav: "The 1st Amendment, in its religion clauses, is unjust." -[**]- If you believe it is unjust, there is a mechanism to correct it. Seek an amendment to the constitution. If you can't get it passed, you have a losing definition of what is unjust. - - - - "As long as his/her religion does not motivate behavior that harms other people. . ." -[**]- Does this extend to your recent complaint about the number of times the word "God" was uttered during the SOTU Address you recently complained about? If people are harmed so easily by exposure to the mere utterance of a word and their thoughts so easily sent careening out of kilter, what hope is there really for people so weak in their psychological constitution and so easily led astray ? It brings to mind an image of Don Quixote at the windmill.

5) Comment by prbeav - 11/03/2013

@scrooge. The preamble to the US Constitution literally reads, We the People, to fulfill these seven goals, govern this nation. The laws and institutions that follow would fulfill the preamble. The Constitution had and has many injustices, and they are gradually discovered and addressed. The nation started with many functions fulfilled by the state's churches, and once of the early tasks was to separate church and state. The courts primarily accomplished that separation, but many citizens never gave up the notion that this is a Christian nation, and that remains true today. A book on this is Mark Douglas McGarvie's "One Nation Under Law," 2004.>>>>When an injustice remains or is identified, We the People eventually effect an amendment. Slavery was originally legal and known to be unjust, and We the People ended it with Amendment 13.>>>>The 1st Amendment, in its religion clauses, is unjust. First, the 1st Congress, a political body, rejected the Constitution's signers inclusion of freedom of conscience. It remains for We the People to correct this injustice, and the better way to effect the correction is to revise the religion clauses to assure the individual person's freedom of thought, leaving religion as a subset of thought. That is, there should be no religion clauses.>>>>Expressing these ideas is not treason at all. It is expressing opinion.>>>>Speaking about the injustice of indoctrinating anyone into religion is not treason. It is expression of an opinion.>>>>>As long as his/her religion does not motivate behavior that harms other people, my neighbor's religion is as appreciable to me for him as any other personal preference he may have for him. However, I do not want anyone to attempt to impose religion on me.>>>>Anyone should be able to put these last two thoughts together to realize there does not need to be any law regarding freedom of religion when freedom of thought is protected. Fundamentalists may deny it, but freedom of thought is essential to all but freedom of religion is a bane to all.

6) Comment by Scrooge - 11/03/2013

Prbeav what is the background of separation of church and state? Is that not fundamental to our country's principles? Would not attempts to subvert that be treason?

7) Comment by GardenVariety - 11/03/2013

Great letter!

8) Comment by prbeav - 11/03/2013

SuzanneMS; viewing children as the posterity We the People is committed to, indoctrinating them in religion is questionable. Becoming involved in religion's problems should be voluntary, and indoctrination into religion should not be imposed on anyone by anyone.>>>>I wish my family tradition was open-minded commitment to and trust in (together, faith in) the objective truth.

9) Comment by SuzanneMS - 11/03/2013

You are quite welcome to send your child to any school you choose, Dawson, but you are not welcome to send your child to a religious private school using the public's money. Public money is collected to finance and support public schools.

10) Comment by prbeav - 11/03/2013

Sorry: "1780 [by] the people." Also, I meant to point out the Adams's focus on education extended to his observable posterity. Too many of today's voters take no responsibility for their posterity. President Obama, a Constitutional "scholar" labeled the majority voters "we, the people," in his 2nd inaugural speech, perhaps expressing understanding few would detect.

11) Comment by prbeav - 11/03/2013

@Ms Burkhart. You present the evidence; you are a patriot -- a person who loves, supports, and defends her country and its interests with devotion, especially defending individuals against interference by the federal government.>>>>Your quotation of John Adams is from Massachusetts's new constitution, ratified in 1780 the people. Unfortunately, the patriots who authored the US Constitution, 1787, did not adopt the Massachusetts people’s policy, though it started racially biased.>>>>In 1787, the Massachusetts legislature ignored the plea of black citizens (slavery had been abolished in 1783) against public taxation without education. Google “politics of black education -- Boston Review.” Boston blacks formed their own school.>>>>Consider recent rankings of public schools by state. Google “state with best public schools,” and choose the Washington Post article. Massachusetts is among the top three and Louisiana is among the bottom three.>>>>Also, Adams wrote “’I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study . . . mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history, naval architecture, navigation, commerce, and agriculture in order to give their children a right to study paintings, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain.” (McCullough, page 236.) Religion is justly omitted, as it is an endeavor no person should impose on another.>>>>People: consider We the People and its seven goals, stated in the preamble to the US Constitution.

12) Comment by Dawson - 11/03/2013

Why should the government determine where a child goes to school and what type of education your child receives? Why should anyone oppose a voucher to allow a family to determine which school is best for their child? The government should not determine where your child goes to school based on your address or based on what the government thinks is best for you. Let the family decide what is best for the child. Government is not the answer, individual liberties and rights are. Why is it so hard to allow people to make their own decisions? Why is the only "choice" that the left holds dear is the choice of abortion? Let the families choose, you know the liberal motto "my body, my choice".

13) Comment by InPVille - 11/03/2013

@agagent: Forget it! I wasn't questioning he statement. I was supporting it, you . . . Are you being intentionally obtuse?

14) Comment by agagent - 11/03/2013

The author used data from the first 10 years of the federal DSH funding to hospitals serving the poor, dating back from 2010. You would have to use the same data to dispute her statement.

15) Comment by InPVille - 11/03/2013

@agagent: Whoa dude! Read what I wrote again. The sources and statistics I cited while from a difference source, the government, and not from the foundation you referenced, they support your claim that five states used almost fifty percent of the DSH monies in the year you referenced . My numbers mention both 2010 and 2011. Two sources for a statistic and one of them from an official source(a foundation and the govt.) is better than one as would be showing that the trend covered more than one year. Don't you think? Sheesh! Or were you talking about that other poster?

16) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 11/03/2013

"I wouldn't want to give up on Public Schools, but they've given up on us; they're no longer a vehicle for students to aspire to success but for unions, administrators, and "educrats" to enrich themselves." I am curious about this quote. All these people supposedly "enriching themselves." I spent 20+ years teaching, and my highest salary was under $50,000. The average principal in the charter schools is making a whole lot more than principals in our public schools... yet they keep changing them out here and in New Orleans (while hiding student scores and school scores through this "churning" of charters" to make the RSD look better than it really is). So who are these people making big bucks? Have you looked at the neat ways that people with no experience or training are becoming wealthy in the current Department of Education. These people are REALLY making big bucks, yet in the world of public ed (outside the influence of the flow of money from the Billionaire's Club) these untrained, in experienced people would NEVER be making the money they are making now. And, for the record, the vast majority of people, even in Louisiana, still aspire (and are) successful in their local PUBLIC schools.

17) Comment by agagent - 11/03/2013

The article I referenced was written in 2010, after Obamacare was passed. It was talking about data from 10 years prior. Redclown would have to use the same data for the figures to match. So much for your “got you” moment.

18) Comment by agagent - 11/03/2013

You are not telling the truth. You know it was a quote from another source, which I referenced. The main point is valid: the federal government has given funds to support our state hospitals for 12 years and now, through a provision in Obamacare, the federal government will be reducing that funding.

19) Comment by InPVille - 11/03/2013

@postscript56: Oh?! Would you be referring to my post on your post, on agagent's post on "Our Views: A new face of failures" where I posted on what you actually posted? . . . and I quote: "@agagent: "Five states (New York, California, Texas, Louisiana and New Jersey) receive nearly half of all DSH funds" -[**]- @postscript56: "agagent - Your numbers have been thoroughly debunked by RODEOCLOWN" -[ **]- The above figure from agagent's source is fairly close. According to the following Congressional Research Service Report to Congress: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42865.pdf For 2011 in millions of dollars a total of 11,278 millions were allotted. CA $1096.3 million, LA $732 million, NY $1606.4 million, NJ $643.8 million, TX $956.3 million. This comes to 44.64% of the total allotted. For 2010 the percentages comes to 44.47% according to CRS. When 10% of states receive that high of a percentage of the total, it is a pretty high disproportionate share of a disproportionate share. Even in terms of population the five states only have 27.63% of the total population in the 50 states."

20) Comment by postscript56 - 11/03/2013

InPville - "...genetic fallacy filled litany of rants..." - That's a good line. I'm probably going to steal it from you. But before you dismiss me so easily are you really implying none of the things I said have been posted here before? If so, you should pay more attention to the posts.

21) Comment by SuzanneMS - 11/03/2013

Beautifully written, Diane. You are, of course, preaching to the choir, but we, at least, are listening.

22) Comment by DMJ - 11/03/2013

Well put, Diane.

23) Comment by tradewinns - 11/03/2013

i'm one of those far right fringe liberals love to brand. i do not support vouchers but public education. i also believe most teachers are hard working, who want to be able to perform their duties and educate the kids. however i also understand the other side of the coin where lots of public education supporters have given up trying to "save" public education because of the liberals domination of the education systems. liberals do not want to blame individuals for failure but systems. the reason there are so many failing schools in the poor areas is because of our racist, sexist, economically deprived, poorly feed or not fed at all children (although they eat 2 meals at school and the tapayer pays for 3 meals at home) and a mire of other excuses. the problem with our education system is no one is held responsible for their charges (that's kids for the uninformed). if a parent can not properly take care of their children, they should allow the state to open orpanages where the kids will be well fed, clothed, schooled and properly raised to become a productive member of society. currently "they" believe the child does so much better being with their "family". perhaps those that believe that need to read the statistical data. "kids are not statistical data" that was their next line, as usual total baloney and also totally useless verbage. we, society, are insisting that totally useless parents turn out more and more totally uneducated, socially unadjusted, even more baby producers with the same no futures for the children. society should hold the parent(s) responsibile for their childrens' upbringing. every child should arrive at school completely prepared to participate in that day's educational opportunities. after a while that will become the habit not the unusual. those who do not will be punished by fiscal fines (yes even more so the poor must pay) and/or incarceration. or of course we can and probably will do nothing but whine and increase the cost to the taxpayers while accomplishing absolutely nothing!

24) Comment by InPVille - 11/03/2013

@Noel Hammatt: As for postscript56; "belong to a union. . . lazy teachers. . . supply side economics, global warming, evolution. . ." blah, blah, blah. What is that other than the usual genetic fallacy filled litany of rants from someone whose primary interest is silencing anyone with a different opinion by attacking their character rather than actually taking a candid look at issues and/or discussing solutions to problems?

25) Comment by rgeraldwallace@cox.net - 11/03/2013

I wouldn't want to give up on Public Schools, but they've given up on us; they're no longer a vehicle for students to aspire to success but for unions, administrators, and "educrats" to enrich themselves.

26) Comment by InPVille - 11/03/2013

@Noel Hammatt: Thanks for your comment. However, I am fully aware that the "F" doesn't refer to the quality of the teaching available and I don't think that teachers can't make the difference for some of the children from your 80%. I've family who have taught in the public schools and could cite examples of successes. Don't think that I support the methods of gauging teacher performance currently being implemented. We have been over that issue before. But who, if given the chance to escape, would willingly opt to have their children educated in a school where 80% or more of their classmates were suffering from the effects of all of the social ills you have listed if there existed an option for placing their children where the environment was more conducive to their growth. Doesn't exposing the other 20% of the children to the effects of the same social disfunctionality as the 80% place those children in a less than desirable educational environment and make bringing up a sound and productive member of society that much harder for the parents of the 20%. I had a child in the EBR GT Program when the deseg went into effect. We were told by the school board that they couldn't guarantee the children in the GT program wouldn't be moved from school to school each year if it was necessary to achieve the necessary racial balance. We opted out of the public school system at that point even though at the time I was a low paid state employee and my spouse's pay for half a day was even less and during those years went back to college for three years and we didn't even have that income so I had to work on weekends to make our modest ends meet. Best decision we ever made.

27) Comment by postscript56 - 11/03/2013

Noel, thank you, both for your support and your comments.

28) Comment by Noel Hammatt - 11/03/2013

@spqr: please re-read the post by @postscript56: The poster is not making these claims, I believe, but rather is claiming (and from the history of most posters from that right fringe, correctly) that these are the claims they will make. @InPVille: you mistakenly assume, it appears, that an "F" ranking actually means a failing school. What it really means is that there are likely more than 80% or more of the students in that school who face life from birth with very few of the resources many take for granted. Thinks like security, a stable home, electricity and food regularly there, you know, the basics. The average school rated "F" by the state of Louisiana has 89% of the students living in households where the income is under 135% of the poverty line. in "A" schools that number is 34%. The patterns of poverty and their relationship to school performance scores is widely known, and totally ignored by the so-called "reformers" who simply pay lip service to "poverty" and tell you, deceitfully, that we have overcome the effects of poverty in schools where their reforms are in play. Michelle Rhee claims she has the means to overcome poverty, and before her facts were actually brought to life, claimed to have done it with her students in those two short years she taught. It was demonstrated that she had wildly inflated the truth. Wendy Kopp says her Teach For America members regularly overcome the effects of poverty, though the evidence rarely if ever suggest that they are even close in their two short years of service. The State Superintendent used to advertise schools that were overcoming poverty, until my research, and the research of others (back in the days when the state was not HIDING ALL THE DATA) showed that the state was playing very loose with the data. Check it out yourself, for this data is still online, because it fits the propaganda pattern they wish to portray to the public: High Performing High Poverty schools. A list is produced each year. try to find ONE SCHOOL that has been on the list every year? Doesn't happen. Not one. Why? Before the apologists for the reformers get their hackles up, I am NOT SAYING that "Poor people can't learn." Nor am I saying that good schools can't improve the academic achievement of students who come to school behind. What I am saying, and can demonstrate very effectively I believe (which is exactly why the reformers were so darn anxious to get me off the School Board, because the last thing they want is someone in the public eye who can actually demonstrate, with data and analysis, that the Superintendent and the reformers are not being honest with the citizens of Louisiana) is that there is NO EVIDENCE that school alone can overcome the gaps that exist when children arrive at school. No matter how you cut it, for those students who arrive at school years behind in terms of their exposure to language; who have not had the stable homes that many middle class families take for granted where there is a ready supply of nutritious food and where the young children are subject to debilitating stresses of fear and lack of positive and healthy relationships, the schools may be the most positive environment these children have ever faced. BUT, the idea that schools can overcome these gaps is a total denial of everything we know about the human condition and cognitive science. Can schools improve the lives of all? Yes, Can they meet the standard set by the state which is totally oblivious to reality? No. There is no science or logic to the state's accountability system. It is purely ideological. A kind of Alice in Wonderland of "Louisiana Believes" and "we feels" that everyday does damage to our schools, out teachers and students, and ultimately, to the very democracy most of us hold dear. And why? Follow the money.

29) Comment by InPVille - 11/03/2013

"We know that public school systems can provide an excellent education for every child regardless of family background, economic status, special needs or educational ambitions. We know because there are examples all around us that when citizens care, commit themselves and their tax money, and pay constant attention, schools work." -[**]- While this may be true, there is a chasm of difference between "can" and "do". Given the number of "F" rated schools in this state, it is clear can and do haven't the same meaning. Much of the fault lies at the family level and not with the teachers. But teachers can't solve those family problems. They aren't licensed in Social Work and Psychology. Even if they could solve family problems, there would not be any time in the day left to teach. I can understand those whose children are stuck in "F" schools being willing to go long to escape a public school.

30) Comment by spqr - 11/03/2013

Postscript, MOST TEACHERS DO NOT BELONG TO THE UNION. You would know that if you were an educator instead of a newspaper-"knowledgable" follower of issues you have never experienced.

31) Comment by postscript56 - 11/03/2013

Good letter, Ms. Burkhart, but I doubt any of the radical right posters will agree - for three reasons. First, most teachers belong to a union, therefore all teachers are lazy supporters of the status quo and probably communist sympathizers, too. Second, academia rarely supports their goofy ideas and thus needs "reform." Whether we're talking about supply side economics, global warming, evolution, the "fairness" of flat taxes, or any number of other issues academia demands adherence to facts and reality, not "world-as-I-want-it-to-be" fantasy. Finally, all good conservatives know the only legitimate use of tax dollars is to give it to private business, since only private business can be efficient, creative and a force for good. So, Diane, while you make some excellent points you forgot one important fact - conservatives long ago made up their minds about public education.