The Wall Street Journal - 03.09.2019

A16| Tuesday, September 3, 2019 THE WALL STREET JOURNAL.

LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

Letters intended for publication should

be addressed to: The Editor, 1211 Avenue

of the Americas, New York, NY 10036,

or emailed to [email protected]. Please

include your city and state. All letters

are subject to editing, and unpublished

letters can be neither acknowledged nor

returned.

“So we’re supposed

to be impressed?”

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Charters Point to Effective Education Reform

Regarding Glenn Sacks’s “Charter

School Success Is an Illusion” (op-ed,

Aug. 27): Charter schools dispropor-

tionately serve a larger percentage of

students of color than district schools,

and the majority of charter-school

students receive a free or reduced-

price lunch. These are the very stu-

dents who have traditionally been left

behind for decades. Mr. Sacks disre-

gards research that shows when over-

subscribed charter schools admit stu-

dents by random lottery—accounting

for his all determining factors of stu-

dent motivation and family commit-

ment—students who gain a charter-

school seat through the lottery

outperform their district peers who

don’t get a place.

Mr. Sacks’s suggestion to provide

more funding to traditional schools is

absurd in the wake of his stance that

student outcomes have little to do

with district schools. That level of ap-

athy alone should drive families to

new schools that believe each individ-

ual student has endless potential.

Only now that charter-school stu-

dents, many from low-income fami-

lies, are finding individual success are

supporters of the one-size-fits-all sta-

tus quo complaining they were the

“better” kids all along.

NINAREES

President and CEO, National Alliance

for Public Charter Schools

Washington

Only when Mr. Sacks, co-chairman

of the United Teachers of Los Angeles,

supports the removal of underper-

forming teachers from public-school

classrooms should we consider his

proposal for more education funds.

Between 2015-2016, a mere 75

teachers out of approximately 75,

were fired for misconduct or incom-

petence in the New York City public-

school system. It is almost impossible

to remove a teacher from the class-

room for incompetence, misconduct

or insubordination. In fact, underper-

forming teachers are rewarded annu-

ally with salary increases regardless

of the quality of their teaching, the

results of statewide tests or their stu-

dents’ failures.

In the past, an increase in educa-

tional funding resulted in an increase

in the number of teachers, their sala-

ries and benefits but yielded stagnant

student scores on the National As-

sessment of Educational Progress, the

only national assessment of what

American students know and can do.

Although Mr. Sacks’s proposal may

not result in excellent education, it

does translate into an increase in

union dues to fund the campaigns of

friendly politicians. Once again, in-

creased funding without accountabil-

ity will reward underperforming

teachers, the teachers unions that

protect them and their political allies.

LAURANNPANDELAKIS

Manhasset, N.Y.

Rather than give these striving

families choices that academically

challenge their kids, why not protect

them from ignoramus bullies and bet-

ter position them to lead our nation

and its innovative economy against

fierce global competition? The envi-

ous teachers unions instead want to

drag the strivers back down into

steerage with the rest of the lumpen-

proletariat.

DARRENMCKINNEY

Washington

Having identified motivated par-

ents as the reason for charter schools’

success, does Mr. Sacks believe that

more public-school funding will result

in more motivated and responsible

parents? Wouldn’t it be better to ad-

dress the core issue of why more par-

ents are not concerned about their

children’s education and why the cul-

ture in some communities looks down

on kids who are “bookish” and want

to improve themselves?

Report after report shows the dete-

rioration of the family unit is at the

heart of this issue. Yet many groups

continue to support programs that

provide disincentives for family for-

mation, promote generational depen-

dency on government largess and ac-

cept antisocial behavior.

RICKSTONE

Monona, Wis.

In most human endeavors, compe-

tition raises everyone’s game com-

pared to a monopoly, but maybe Mr.

Sacks has data to prove public educa-

tion is an exception. With regard to

public-school financing and student

performance, the Los Angeles Unified

School District is in the top quintile of

major metropolitan districts in spend-

ing per student, but average student

performance in reading and math is

below national averages and achieve-

ment gaps between black or Hispanic

students and white students in read-

ing and math exceed national aver-

ages. A teachers union will never say

that there is enough money to be

properly staffed and paid, even as the

costs of union-employee pensions and

health benefits are already crowding

out funding for all other municipal

services.

THOMASBELL

Atlanta

Mr. Sacks cites Gordon Lafer’s

claim that a significant factor in the

success of charter schools is that they

“exercise recruitment, admission and

expulsion policies that often screen

out the students who would be the

neediest and most expensive to

serve.” A significant factor in the fail-

ure of district schools is that they re-

quire that every class have an equal

share of these screened-out students.

Each class has to have a few chroni-

cally disruptive students, a couple

with learning disabilities and equal

shares of slow, average and fast learn-

ers. This distorted attempt at equality

results in every student in such

classes being poorly served. Instruc-

tional time is wasted in an attempt to

control the disruptive.

If classes were organized based on

learning ability, and the disruptive

students were in their own classes

with specially trained teachers, edu-

cational results would greatly im-

prove and there would be no need for

charter and magnet schools. There

would also be no need for talented

and gifted programs, as these chil-

dren would be maximally educated in

the new normal course of events.

However, this would subvert what

appears to be the objective of today’s

system: Educate children to a com-

mon low level, define that new low

level as normal and suddenly have the

success of everyone being on the

newly defined grade level.

HELENEKRAUSS

MARTINKRAUSS

Rye Brook, N.Y.

Pepper ...

And Salt

Walmart Follows the Rules

For Sale of Firearms: Good

Regarding the Hayley Peterson for

Business Insider Notable & Quotable

(Aug. 23): Hats off to Walmart,

which followed the firearms sales

rules exactly. Background checks

only work when buyers and sellers

follow all the rules. Establish you are

who you say you are, and where you

claim to live. Ms. Peterson was no

doubt unsuccessful in making a pur-

chase anyplace else in the same

state. Vendors can only do so much.

Walmart was following the rules and

laws—the bedrock of successful gun

control.

CHRISBLASCO

Yorba Linda, Calif.

AARP Fights High Drug

Prices on Behalf of Members

Dr. Gerard Gianoli’s “AARP’s In-

terests Diverge From Its Members’”

(op-ed, Aug. 30) doesn’t address the

root cause of skyrocketing drug

prices: list prices set by Big Pharma

itself. Pharma fuels attacks on AARP

and other change-makers because

it’s good for their business. Quash-

ing change hurts seniors, everyone

who pays into health insurance, and

taxpayers—since we all bear the

costs of today’s out-of-control drug

prices through premiums, cost-shar-

ing and higher taxes.

Americans pay the highest pre-

scription prices in the world “for

the exact same drugs, often made in

the exact same place,” as President

Trump said in his State of the Union

Address. AARP is fighting for

change. So far this year there are 35

new laws across 23 states to help

reduce drug costs. Moreover, the

Senate Finance Committee, thanks

to Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa

and Ranking Member Ron Wyden of

Oregon, just advanced the federal-

level, bipartisan Prescription Drug

Pricing Reduction Act. We strongly

encourage the full Senate to take up

the bill.

AARP and our allies aren’t done.

When Big Pharma attacks us, it’s a

badge of honor.

JOANNJENKINS

CEO, AARP

Washington

Subsidize My Electric Car, Please

T

he great myth of political subsidies for
business is that they will help an indus-
try get started and then go away. We’ll
soon see if Congress can for
once live up to its temporary
promise and block the emerg-
ing effort to continue subsi-
dizing the affluent to buy
electric cars.
Wyoming Republican John
Barrasso is circulating a letter asking Senate
Leader Mitch McConnell to reject an expansion
or extension of the electric-vehicle tax credit.
The federal government currently provides a
$7,500 consumer tax break for an auto maker’s
first 200,000 cars. The tax credit then drops
by half for EVs sold over the next six months,
and by half again for another six months. It
then disappears.
Washington has been underwriting EVs for
nearly 30 years, which is a long time for an in-
fant industry. The current EV handout was part
of the 2009 Obama “stimulus,” and its backers
promised it would be temporary. But Tesla and
General Motors hit 200,000 in sales last year,
and Nissan, Ford and Toyota are well on their
way. With the phaseout approaching, auto mak-
ers and environmental groups are now begging
Congress for an extension.
They’re floating a bill from car-state Sena-
tors Debbie Stabenow (D., Mich.) and Lamar Al-
exander (R., Tenn.) that would extend a $7,
buyer tax credit for another 400,000 cars once
auto makers hit the 200,000 limit. An Ernst &
Young study estimates the expansion would
cost taxpayers nearly $16 billion over the next
decade.
It’s hard to imagine a more blatant income
transfer for the well-to-do. Electric cars are
significantly more expensive than the average
vehicle, with a starting price of around
$36,000. A recent Congressional Research Ser-
vice study found that nearly 80% of the credits
were claimed by households with adjusted

gross income of more than $100,000. Sales data

show that about half of all electric vehicle sales

occur in one state—California.

That’s not surprising since

California sets quotas for

electric-vehicle sales. For

years auto makers com-

plained that California’s EV

mandate forced them to sell

cars below cost. The Trump

Administration has proposed relaxing the

Obama-era fuel economy standards and re-

scinding California’s Clean Air Act waiver that

require manufacturers to ratchet up electric

car production.

Yet auto makers are resisting the Trump

Administration’s regulatory liberation. Cali-

fornia has threatened to sue to enforce its own

rules, and BMW, Ford, Honda and Volkswagen

cut a deal with the state that would preserve

the state’s EV quotas. Governor Gavin

Newsom is pressuring other auto makers to

jump on board.

Auto makers say federal subsidies are neces-

sary to help them comply with California’s EV

mandate, which a dozen or so other states have

adopted. But then why shouldn’t these states

pick up the subsidy tab to fulfill the mandates

that they are imposing?

By the way, CEO Elon Musk had been saying

not too long ago that his competitors want the

subsidies while Tesla doesn’t need them. But

Tesla’s sales fell as the tax-credit phaseout hit,

and he’s now joined the special pleading for a

subsidy expansion. None of this will have the

slightest impact on the climate.

Mr. Alexander and Maine’s Susan Collins are

so far the only Republican co-sponsors on the

EV bill. But supporters are hoping to add the

subsidy expansion to other legislation this fall

when few people are watching. Senator Bar-

rasso is sounding the alarm and hoping to at-

tract enough opponents to make clear the sub-

terfuge can’t pass the Senate.

Auto makers want

Congress to expand

this gift to the affluent.

The Lament of Carrie Lam

P

rotests continued for a 13th straight
weekend in Hong Kong, defying the city
government’s refusal to issue a permit.
Meanwhile, signs of a diver-
gence between the city gov-
ernment and Beijing are
emerging that could raise the
stakes for everyone.
Reuters reported Friday
that Carrie Lam, the Hong
Kong chief executive hand-picked by Beijing,
had considered agreeing to some of the de-
mands of protesters. In particular, she wanted
to formally withdraw the proposed extradition
bill that ignited mass protests in June. But Reu-
ters reports that Beijing refused to allow the
concession.
Then on Monday Reuters delivered another
scoop, this time an audio recording of a closed-
door conversation last week between Ms. Lam
and Hong Kong business leaders. “For a chief
executive to have caused this huge havoc to
Hong Kong is unforgivable,” Ms. Lam says in the
video that Reuters says is an excerpt of a 24-
minute recording. She adds that “If I have a
choice, the first thing is to quit, having made
a deep apology.”
Ms. Lam then implies that she doesn’t have
a choice because Hong Kong’s crisis has risen
“to a national level,” a clear reference to offi-
cials in Beijing, and “to a sort of sovereignty
and security level, let alone in the midst of this
sort of unprecedented tension between the two
big economies in the world.”
Therefore, Ms. Lam continues, “the politi-
cal room for the chief executive who, unfor-
tunately, has to serve two masters by consti-
tution, that is the central people’s
government and the people of Hong Kong,
that political room for maneuvering is very,
very, very limited.”
A spokesman for Ms. Lam told Reuters she

attended two events last week that were private

and declined to comment on the audio record-

ing. But he didn’t deny the contents of the tape,

and Ms. Lam’s analysis sounds

realistic. Now that Hong

Kong’s protests are getting

global media attention, Com-

munist Party leaders in Bei-

jing will be highly reluctant to

let her concede anything lest

they look weak and set a precedent that might

encourage protests in mainland China.

Ms. Lam also says on the tape that Chinese

leaders have “absolutely no plan” to send the

People’s Liberation Army into Hong Kong be-

cause “they know that the price would be too

huge to pay.” But Beijing’s official media con-

tinue to issue almost daily threats, including

one Monday that “the end is coming for those

attempting to disrupt Hong Kong.”

There’s also no sign that Hong Kong’s free-

dom fighters are about to give up, despite the

arrest last week of pro-democracy lawmakers

and activists. Thousands tried to shut down the

Hong Kong airport on Sunday, and thousands

of students boycotted the first day of school on

Monday.

All of which suggests an honorable path for

Ms. Lam if she is sincere in apologizing for

causing such “havoc.” If as chief executive she

truly has no room to compromise with protest-

ers, then she should publicly admit her func-

tionary status, resign as chief executive, and tell

Beijing to stop violating its promise of one

country, two systems for Hong Kong.

If she and other Hong Kong leaders join the

protesters in showing a united front to Beijing,

they might cause China to rethink the costs of

its current crackdown and refusal to compro-

mise. Resigning now is the only way she can

avoid going down in history as the woman who

sold out Hong Kong.

Hong Kong’s chief exec

says she’s not in charge.

Well, then resign.

Everyone Loses in Germany

E

uropean elections these days are gen-
erally contests between a beleaguered
mainstream and insurgent alterna-
tives. Voters in two German
states on Sunday chose a
form of “none of the above”
as the country stumbles out
of the Angela Merkel era.
The biggest vote-getters
were the main parties of the
center. Mrs. Merkel’s conservative Christian
Democrats (CDU) came out on top in Saxony,
a state they’ve governed since 1990. The cen-
ter-left Social Democrats (SPD), with whom
Mrs. Merkel maintains an awkward coalition
at the national level, are on track to maintain
their long-time control in Brandenburg.
Yet both parties emerged with diminished
support. The CDU’s share in Saxony fell to 32%
from above 39% in 2014, while the SPD’s Bran-
denburg total dropped to 26% from 32%. The
result raises new questions about Mrs.
Merkel’s preferred successor to lead the CDU
and the country, Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer,
who doesn’t excite voters anywhere. It also ac-
centuates the crisis of confidence afflicting the
leaderless SPD, which can’t decide whether its
national coalition with Mrs. Merkel is hurting
or helping its fortunes.
The alternative parties also underper-
formed expectations. The far-right Alternative
for Germany (AfD) party did increase its vote

totals to 27.5% in Saxony and 23.5% in Bran-

denburg from 10% and 12% five years ago, re-

spectively. But this is unlikely to be a harbin-

ger of national success, even

if the AfD is currently the

largest opposition party in

the national parliament.

The AfD’s base is in former

East German states such as

those that voted Sunday, and

the party mainly attracts voters who once

supported the former Communists in the Left

Party as a protest vote. It has yet to show it

can broaden its appeal geographically or to

larger numbers of centrist voters.

That perhaps leaves the Greens. The party

did surprisingly well Sunday outside its

Western, urban comfort zone, largely by at-

tracting disaffected CDU and SPD voters

who want centrist policies but fresher polit-

ical faces. But “well” still means relatively

small vote tallies of 8.6% in Saxony and

10.8% in Brandenburg, suggesting limits on

its support.

This is an indictment of Germany’s ruling

class, and especially the suffocating centrism

of Mrs. Merkel and her left-right coalition in

Berlin. With an economic downturn possible

and echoes of the 2015 migration crisis still

reverberating, voters seem eager for change.

They’re still seeking parties or leaders who

can deliver the change they want.

Voters in state elections

effectively choose

‘none of the above.’

REVIEW & OUTLOOK

OPINION