VOTERS SAY NO // School-voucher plan can't make the grade //ELECTION '93: The ballyhooed education revolt of the '90s fizzles as Californians vote Prop. 174 down.



DATE                  11/03/93
NEWSPAPER             THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
SECTION               NEWS
EDITION               MORNING
PAGE                  A10
STORY LENGTH          33 INCHES
HEADLINE              VOTERS SAY NO  //    School-voucher plan  can't make the 
                         grade //ELECTION '93: The ballyhooed education revolt 
                         of the '90s fizzles as Californians vote Prop. 174 
                         down.
BYLINE/CREDIT          DAN FROOMKIN:The Orange County Register
SUBJECT TERMS         OC:ELECTIONS:RESULT:SCHOOLS:FINANCE:

     It was supposed to be the first huge salvo of the education
  revolt of the 1990s. Sort of like Proposition 13 was to the tax
  revolt of the 1970s.
     But California's voters instead apparently decided Tuesday that
  Proposition 174 would do more harm than good, and were resoundingly
  defeating the far-reaching school-voucher initiative.
     After a bitter and unbalanced campaign, which was closely
  monitored not only in California but across the nation, the
  initiative was going down by more than a 2-to-1 ratio.
     Even in Orange County, where the conservative authors of the
  initiative had counted on strong support, voters turned a decisive
  thumbs-down on Prop. 174. The margin of defeat was more than 20
  percent countywide.
     "I think what this says is that Proposition 174 was a very bad
  proposed piece of legislation, and that vouchers are not the right
  answer," said Bob Nelson, whose Irvine-based political consulting
  group planned the No on 174 campaign strategies.
     "But that doesn't mean our schools don't need help," he said.
  "They need a lot of help."
     Nelson said voters realized that Prop. 174 was a "non-solution."
     "I think they saw Proposition 174 as a negative for the
  neighborhood schools," he said.
     At an election-night party at the Los Angeles Airport Marriott,
  supporters of the initiative conceded defeat, but vowed they would
  return.
     "We fought the good fight, and this is the beginning of the
  battle," said Yes on 174 spokesman Sean Walsh. "Not only for school
  choice in California, but for school choice nationwide."
     Walsh said supporters were so outspent they never managed to get
  their message across. But, he said, "The people here are dead-set
  committed to seeing this happen."
     And Walsh said that if nothing else, the campaign called
  attention to dissatisfaction with the current system, so "the
  education establishment just can't go back to business as usual."
     The backers of Prop. 174 had pitched their initiative as a bold
  attempt to destroy the government monopoly on state-funded
  schooling, as a way to let competition loose on a system being
  strangled to death by regulations and union control.
     But the public discussion of Prop. 174 quickly turned away from
  theory and toward practice.
     In practice, the initiative would have created a billion-dollar
  entitlement for parents -- including very wealthy ones -- who
  currently send their children to private school.
     In practice, billions of tax dollars would have started to flow
  to religious organizations and other, possibly disreputable,
  groups, which would have been able to spend the money with few
  rules and virtually no accountability.
     And in practice, the initiative would have undermined
  Proposition 98's minimum public-school funding guarantees,
  conceivably sending public-school budgets into a tailspin.
     Alarmed by the possible effect on the state treasury and on the
  state schools, few California opinion leaders joined the revolt.
     Financed in large part by the powerful California Teachers
  Association, the No on 174 coalition also fired up a barrage of
  television and radio ads, stressing the initiative's quirky
  language.
     In Orange County, handfuls of free-market activists,
  union-haters and parents disillusioned with public schools worked
  passionately for the Yes on 174 campaign.
     Gathering Tuesday night at a Newport Beach restaurant, Orange
  County supporters of Prop. 174 vowed to continue their fight for
  vouchers.
     "This isn't going to go away until our schools are reformed and
  our children are being educated again," said Mark Bucher, head of
  the Yes on 174 organization in Orange County.
     Bucher said supporters of Prop. 174 are proud of the concessions
  educators made about the school system.
     "They've been admitting all over the state that the system has
  serious problems, but that 174 isn't the way to fix it," Bucher
  said.
     "Now, I think the people are going to be saying, `OK, what is
  the way to fix it?' "
     Orange County had more than its share of people in opposition to
  Prop. 174 -- teachers, PTA members, parents who support the public
  schools and people concerned about government support of private
  schools.
     And many local opponents gathered Tuesday night at the Anaheim
  Hilton to watch the returns.
     "I am so pleased," said Norma Potter, an Anaheim schoolteacher
  and CTA board member. "The whole education family has worked so
  hard on this. And the numbers in Orange County are incredible.
     "Those are numbers that conservative Orange County normally
  doesn't turn out for an education issue."
     Had the initiative passed and survived the inevitable court
  challenges, it would have given parents taxpayer-funded vouchers
  worth about $2,600 per child applicable toward tuition at religious
  or other private schools.
     Parents would also have had more choice among the regular public
  schools, which would have remained free.
     Even in loss, however, the supporters of Prop. 174 can point to
  some changes their crusade brought about in the state's school
  system.
     Two new state laws, passed during the heat of the campaign in an
  attempt to address some of the issues raised by the initiative,
  will soon require schools to admit any student who wants to attend
  if there is room after taking local students.
     That is expected to vastly expand the parental choice within the
  public school system.