Refusing Federal School Funds

Ben Boychuk’s article, “There’s No Such Thing as a Free Federal Program” (Commentary, Dec. 22), strongly suggests that California schools cannot use $42 million. I do not know what schools he has studied. All schools I know of could use a great deal more funding.

Boychuk states that the amount would be $8.09 per student. For my high school of approximately 1,500 students that amounts to $12,135. With this money we could purchase several computers and printers for our library or supplemental books for several disciplines or new maps for the social studies department. The list can go on and on.

Finally, Boychuk is correct in that there are no free lunches. However, this state has historically accepted monies from the federal government and the requirements that go with that spending. The governor needs to accept this money.

RICHARD F. KRAFT

Whittier

Boychuk should know that the federal share of a state’s overall budget for education amounts to less than 7%. One would have the impression from reading his article that states like California receive the majority of their funding from Washington and that the federal government has absolute power over how state departments of education utilize their educational budgets. Not true.

Further, I’m offended by the fact that he refers to the $42 million dedicated to California for Goals 2000 as a “pittance.” As a father of a daughter in elementary school, I want every possible resource used to further her educational advancement. This $42 million may seem small, but integrated into an entire educational program, even the $8.09 per pupil that it breaks down to in California is significant.

JOHN CRAGIN

Chino Hills

Boychuk is quite correct to urge Wilson to turn down federal Goals 2000 money for school reform on the grounds that these funds would come attached with unreasonable strings. He comments that “California’s schools aren’t starving. They are choking to death on educational fads and bureaucratic mandates.” Parents in Los Angeles and other California school districts deserve to hear alternative points of view on some of these fads. Many of them are counterproductive. I will comment on just one such fad I believe is damaging to children.

I refer to the so-called “constructivist” model of education. Students are put into small cooperative groups and given some general task. Teachers are expected to stay out of the way, to become “facilitators,” and students are expected to reconstruct and rediscover knowledge more or less on their own. The use of textbooks is severely limited, and lecturing to the students (direct instruction) is also discouraged.

As a single illustration of this, I recently observed a presentation to parents of a science lesson intended for fourth-graders. The parents were divided into groups and given pipe insulation, tape and small steel balls. They were assigned the task of constructing the “world’s best roller coaster.” For the next half-hour or so, everyone had a great time taping up long tracks and rolling balls down them. No timing devices, force balances, mass balances or any other measurement devices were in evidence. At the end of this rollicking good fun, a parent in the audience blurted out all three of Newton’s laws of motion, implying that he had deduced them by engaging in this activity. This is patently absurd. It is impossible for anyone (let alone 10-year-olds) to “construct” physical mechanics theory merely by rolling balls downhill.

Certainly, children can learn a great deal from such hands-on experimentation, but only if carefully guided by teachers who are comfortable with the science involved, and if the experiment involves the necessary measurements and quantification.

The danger of Goals 2000, LEARN, charter schools and, indeed, reform efforts in California and nationwide is that they naturally tend to follow the latest fad. Right now the fads are more often than not dragging down the level of instruction, not improving it.

MARTHA SCHWARTZ

San Pedro