Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: WEDNESDAY, November 22, 1995 TAG: 9511220021
SECTION: EDITORIAL PAGE: A-8 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: ALEX L. MARTIN III
DATELINE: LENGTH: Medium
What public-school myths?
To paraphrase the opening quote in his letter: It's not what we don't know that hurts us (and others); it's what we think we know that ain't so.
We do know that empirical educational research strongly supports a class enrollment of 12 to 14 students. Why? Because the need of the student requires a great deal more opportunity for individual instruction than teachers are now afforded. Except in rare or special-need areas of instruction, most teachers have classes with enrollment approaching 30 students.
Key's figures for pupil-teacher ratio are obviously derived by seeking a direct ratio between student and teacher totals, which includes administrative personnel in systems, districts and/or the state at large. Back up, Key. Public demands for schools to provide instruction for children with special needs and for development of outstanding talent, and for specialists in more areas than you may imagine, means in reality that these specialists do not and cannot effectively operate with large groups of students.
Yes, some schools operate at or above capacity, and some do not. Key's simplistic suggestion to change school-bus routing overlooks a vital fact of which he, in his political position, should be well aware. The Roanoke Valley contains three separate and distinct school systems - each striving to provide education for a separate political entity. In Virginia, Roanoke County ranks No. 17 in enrollment, Roanoke city No. 18 and Salem No. 63.
If these localities combined, the resulting unified school system would rank No. 8 in Virginia. As a businessman and politician, Key might envision the economics achievable in our local education system and the "clout" a unified Roanoke Valley would command. Not only in education, but clout in a great number of areas that would impact positively upon our welfare and our posterity.
Only two of his suggested innovations might merit thought: year-round schools and longer school days, if limited to the ninth through 12th grades.
But block scheduling is an elephant searching for that mythical valley of tusks, and his other suggestions are those continually espoused by the very conservatives whose votes his party seeks. These conservative groups and individuals are all too often seeking public funds for education without first seeking to help improve their local schools in an unbiased manner.
Had Key shared my experiences of 20 years serving teachers and education, he would have learned that many of our finest teachers earn far less than the figures he cites. He would also have learned that the continuing requirements and costs for postgraduate study are neither recognized nor reimbursed as they should be for this group of outstanding professionals.
Further, as a politician he should know that members of the Virginia and national educational associations are prohibited by Virginia law from collectively bargaining or representing teachers in any school system. The member teachers of these associations may most readily express their views concerning education by exercising their franchise to vote.
For the sake of today's children and tomorrow's citizens of Virginia, it's my fervent hope that this particular bloc of voters is in complete and total opposition to those suggestions and viewpoints he espouses.
Public-education policy should be based on developing each student's abilities to the fullest potential. And, fortunately or unfortunately, the public interest to come will be in our children's future - a future that Kahlil Gibran succinctly writes in "The Prophet" is "in the house of tomorrow. Which you cannot visit even in your dreams."
Alex L. Martin III, of Roanoke, is a retired publisher's representative to the education community.
by CNB