All schools need to keep up fight for more parity in public funding.

Byline: JAN VANDERTUIN For The Register-Guard

NANCY WILLARD'S guest column "Alternative schools lead to inequities" (Register-Guard, June 3) brought up legitimate concerns and promoted much-needed dialogue regarding school choice. The elemental question presented was, should per-pupil revenue be more fairly equalized?

Yet perhaps an even bigger question is, how do we bring everyone together in public education at a time when we desperately need solidarity?

Willard mentioned a two-tiered system in the Eugene School District. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a multi-tiered system. There are basically three primary distinctions in publicly funded education: district-run alternative schools, district-run neighborhood schools and independently run schools.

The Eugene district's decision to promote school choice and to develop district-run alternative schools goes back to the 1970s. The district has been open to parents' input and children's needs, as challenging as that might be. Almost everyone will agree that school choice is not going away. In fact, it is on the increase because parents and children need as many options as possible in these complex times.

Independently run schools include private alternative education providers and charter schools. The former have existed since the 1970s, and the latter since 1999. They are nonprofit organizations such as Northwest Youth Corps (a private alternative education provider) and the Village School (a charter school). They are definitely parent- and community-driven, and have filled voids in our educational system. Many of these programs work with some of the community's most challenging youth when all else fails.

For those of us who work with independent schools, it is hard not to want to list the many inequities we face. In the independent schools, the eligibility rate for free and reduced-price lunches averages about 65 percent, with some schools in the 80 percent range. This compares with about 52 percent, as taken from Willard's figures, for district-run neighborhood schools.

We feel that if we as a community value diversity in education in the way we do, then we should value the options in a fiscal sense as well. Although we won't stop working to have all students treated fairly (in economic terms as well as in other ways), the question that many of us reading Willard's commentary asked was, does the struggle for choice and equity need to separate those of us who work in the public school system?

Hopefully all those who are publicly funded and who work with youth can come together around these issues. In times of fear, the best solution to our problems is open dialogue. Rather than trying to isolate others, let's pursue communication. In terms of inequities, let's clarify them. The issue shouldn't be "alternative" vs. neighborhood, but parity across the board. Parity in terms of opportunity. Parity in terms of freedom to teach in the appropriate way (because people learn differently). Parity in fiscal terms.

What we should really be concerned with is how the citizens of the state feel about funding public education.

All children need a better deal, not just the ones whose parents cannot chip in extra or the ones who go to the "wrong" school. Rather than polarize the community, perhaps what we need to do is to bring all those who are involved in publicly funded education together to fight for more funding and better equalization.

Jan VanderTuin of Eugene is executive director of the Center for Appropriate Transport, where he also teaches bicycle framebuilding in an alternative education program. He prepared this column on behalf of Lane Educational Alternative Resources Network, an association of 16 independent education providers in central Lane County.