Not Emergency Plans, but School Choice and Armed Guards

State Sen. Ted Lieu wants schools to enact emergency plans or face a fine. Lieu should support school choice, let schools compete and station armed guards on campus.

The Newtown, CT, mass murder at Sandy Hook Elementary School was unprecedented and devastating. Gun enthusiasts in Congress, the NRA, and liberal gun-control advocates like New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg condemned the violence and offered a plethora of solutions. Never letting a crisis go to waste, South Bay state Sen. Ted Lieu (D-Torrance) has reintroduced legislation which he had sponsored in 2011 with state Senate President Darrell Steinberg. Their bill would require schools to have a comprehensive emergency response plan, specifically in response to an armed intruder. Schools which fail to comply would lose state finances.

Before commenting on the competence or wisdom of this legislation, one should recognize the welcome rarity that one of Lieu’s bills did not clutter the governor’s desk for his signature. However, unlike his other bilious boutique bills, Lieu's “emergency plan” legislation possesses some merit. Still, to impose a financial penalty on schools overburdened with pension obligations, dwindling revenues, and expanding curricular expectations seems out of place at this time.

Justifying the "emergency plan" proposal, Senate President Darrell Steinberg commented:

"The legislature has a responsibility to do what it can to ensure basic safety requirements are enforced in our schools.The safety of our children demands 100 percent compliance."

Our legislature wants to improve public education, yet voters should remain incredulous, since Sacramento politicians have been holding school funding hostage for years, with the latest “hold-up” forcing passage of Prop 30. Our schools still face growing pressures to boost test scores, protect our children, and furnish funds for the growing number of retiring employees, retirees whom school districts cannot replace either for lack of funds or flexibility from teachers unions.

Now Lieu wants to fine schools that do not have a comprehensive emergency plan in case of disasters, earthquakes, or shooters on campus. Certainly, every school needs to have proper procedures for protecting children during natural disasters and earthquakes. As for preparing against armed intruders, Lieu and his colleagues should rescind the “gun free zone” legislation, which turns schools like Sandy Hook Elementary into “safety free zones.” Prohibiting trained personnel from bringing a firearm onto the campus lets a "bad guy with a gun" do his worst. One armed campus employee could neutralized a deranged attacker and  discourage future attacks.

Aside from the physical, natural, or homicidal dangers to our schools, when will Sen. Lieu deal with the more latent yet still more dangerous problems afflicting California public education?

Even though the state legislature boasts of a mere “one billion dollar deficit” for this year, the revenue shortfalls are cascading all over and crippling our schools. Qualified educators are still looking for work, while school districts remain top-heavy with administrators, deputy superintendents, and assorted consultants. Manhattan Beach Unified has hired former superintendents as ad hoc consultants to do the jobs which district administration were hired to do in the first place. Every South Bay district has three assistant superintendents. Los Angeles Unified School District assigns math and reading coaches to supervise teachers, when most of the time they micromanage the creativity and authority of the teacher while receiving bloated salaries. How many more bureaucrats does a school district have to hire before they concede: “We have met the enemy, and he is us?”

Still, Lieu favors more state intervention to solve everything. This track record of “more government” has given California one of the highest levels of unemployment in the country, along with a  terrible business climate. Levying a fine on our schools for falling behind on emergency plan compliance would add to their fiscal emergencies. Besides, if any group of people should be fined for "non-compliance", it should be our state politicians, who raise taxes, increase regulations, yet refuse to cut spending with comprehensive budget and pensions reforms. They should also be held accountable for sitting by and doing nothing while another “armed assailant”, the public sector union lobby, continues to influence our legislators and frustrate meaningful, cost-cutting reforms in our schools.

Instead of more legislation, one simple solution would improve school safety, provide proper disbursement of school funding, and enable much-needed pension reform: public school choice with a voucher. Instead of punishing schools for not providing emergency plans, Sen. Lieu should press for school choice for all Californians and force schools to compete for students. Competition will lead to school compliance better than government fiat. If Sen. Lieu cares so much about the children, he should sponsor legislation which will let parents choose where they enroll their children. Let people choose where they go, and schools will be forced to spend wisely, protect their students, and improve overall.

This post is contributed by a community member. The views expressed in this blog are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Patch Media Corporation. Everyone is welcome to submit a post to Patch. If you'd like to post a blog, go here to get started.

Jack Charles December 28, 2012 at 01:33 AM
Ah! So vouchers for school choice will keep students safe from gun-wielding, mentally ill killers! Wow, now that's some conflated, twisted logic.
Arthur Christopher Schaper December 28, 2012 at 05:05 PM
No. . . Schools which do not protect their students would not have as many students enrolled in their schools, because they would choose to go elsewhere. I spoke with some students who lived in Gardena, but they chose to enroll at Compton High School (Compton!) rather than risk getting shot. Imagine the competitive drive of schools going out of their way to protect their students so that they will come to school? School safety is much more than preventing the extreme yet remote possibility of an armed assailant.
Arthur Christopher Schaper December 28, 2012 at 05:06 PM
If you want to talk about twisted logic, please explain the following: 1. Public schools do not release to the communities how they spend our money. Parents have a hard time getting access to their children's records, or even meeting with administrators. They are "public in name only". 2. Is it a "Free" education, when students are forced to go to a school just because it lies in the same zipcode. What's wrong with letting parents choose where their kids go to school? We choose our supermarkets, we choose our cars, we choose our spouses, we choose where we live, do we not? 3. Public sector teachers unions claim to protect children, yet they defend teachers with frequent allegations of misconduct or perversion to remain in the classroom. Unions resist permitting good teachers to receive merit pay. Because of UTLA politicking, LAUSD nearly missed out on federal funds. CA cannot waive out of No Child Left Behind in part because unions resist innovative reforms, like school choice. Now whose logic is twisted?


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »