ShareThis Page
George Will

George F. Will: Family disintegration limits education policies

| Wednesday, Aug. 1, 2018, 9:03 p.m.

LOS ANGELES

November’s congressional elections will decide which party will control a narcoleptic institution that is uninterested in performing fundamental functions: Only 43 of the 535 House and Senate seats — 10 in the Senate, 33 in the House — are occupied by legislators who were serving in 1996, the last time Congress obeyed the law requiring it to pass all appropriations bills before the Oct. 1 beginning of the fiscal year.

Here, however, there is a contest that might matter. The choice Californians make for the next superintendent of public instruction could catalyze improvements regarding the education of grades K-12. Marshall Tuck worked in finance before Harvard Business School, then became an education reformer running charter schools, which explains why $3.11 million of the $3.7 million donated to support his opponent in the June primary came from teachers unions and other public-school employees organizations.

The rest came from the Democratic Party. Tuck is a Democrat, as is his opponent, Tony Thurmond, a state legislator. Thurmond finished a close second to Tuck in California’s primary system, wherein candidates of both parties appear on the same ballot and the top two meet in the general election.

California has the largest and one of the most polyglot student population: There are 92 languages other than English spoken in the homes of Los Angeles pupils. More than 3 million of the state’s children cannot read at grade level. The 10 charter schools that Tuck helped to create in this city’s poorest neighborhoods dramatically outperformed local schools in pupils’ results on standardized tests and in graduation rates, and eight were ranked among the nation’s top high schools. Education reform, says Tuck, is not like “trying to figure out how to colonize Pluto.” Often it just requires pruning the California Education Code’s 2,500 pages, a 40-year accumulation of creativity-stifling regulations written to placate the unions whose membership dues help to elect the regulation-writers.

In endorsing Tuck, the San Francisco Chronicle noted that Thurmond “was nowhere to be found” when the state Assembly voted on — and defeated — a measure that he claims he supports but that the California Teachers Association, the union supporting him, opposes. The bill would merely have extended from two to three the number of years teachers must teach before being given tenure. Forty- two states require three to five years before tenure; four states never grant tenure. California actually notifies teachers of their tenure status after just 18 months in the classroom.

When incompetent or negligent teachers get tenure, dismissal procedures are so complex, protracted and costly (upward of 10 years and $450,000) that a court has called the power to dismiss “illusory.” Because about two of California’s 277,000 teachers (0.0007 percent) are dismissed each year for unsatisfactory performance, school districts resort to what is called “the dance of the lemons,” shuffling incompetent teachers from one school to another.

California’s charter schools do not grant tenure.

Family disintegration is the stubborn fact that severely limits the efficacy of even the best education policies. But at least out in the country that is contiguous to Capitol Hill there are elections that might matter.

George F. Will is a columnist for The Washington Post. His email address is georgewill@washpost.com.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me