Public schools in Kalamazoo are failing, but The Kalamazoo Promise is not the solution. Gabrielle Russon's recent column, "Kalamazoo schools serve as prime example for others to follow" (SN 3/24), asserts that it is "a giant equalizer — putting the students on the same level as their wealthier peers who can afford to live in the better school districts."

I am afraid that she is advocating an overly simplistic solution to a very complex problem.

Offering a student full college tuition in exchange for attending inferior schools is not much of a deal at all. A person who attends university without a solid elementary and high school education is still disadvantaged. I fail to see the equalizing effect.

An inferior school with an incentive to attend is still an inferior school.

But Russon contends that with the benefits of The Kalamazoo Promise being known, more people will come to the district, which will result in more tax dollars, which would further result in the schools improving.

Although I will not dismiss that as a possibility, I will say that this country has had very bad luck in trying to throw money at a problem in the hopes that it will go away. Solving complex societal problems requires critical thinking and commitment, not just money.

I contend that proponents of The Kalamazoo Promise, although well-meaning, are doing a disservice to the disadvantaged children they intend to help. By treating a symptom without acknowledging the real problem of failing schools, they create a dangerous illusion of progress, one in which children will still receive a mediocre education while principals and politicians get to pat themselves on the back.

It is refreshing to see that there are people who are genuinely concerned about the state of education in America, but half-measures and good intentions are not the fix-all solutions we would like them to be.

Christopher Burkard
science and technology studies senior