SCHOOL-VOUCHER BATTLE // EDUCATION: It's do-or-die
time for Prop. 174, which would set schools on an
uncharted course. But would it be revolution or
cataclysm?
DATE 09/06/93
NEWSPAPER THE ORANGE COUNTY REGISTER
SECTION NEWS
EDITION MORNING
PAGE a01
STORY LENGTH 50 INCHES
HEADLINE SCHOOL-VOUCHER BATTLE // EDUCATION: It's do-or-die
time for Prop. 174, which would set schools on an
uncharted course. But would it be revolution or
cataclysm?
BYLINE/CREDIT DAN FROOMKIN:The Orange County Register
SUBJECT TERMS CA:SCHOOLS:EDUCATION:FINANCE:CHANGE:ELECTIONS:OC
As California's children head back to school, a fierce battle is
raging over the soul of the state's educational system.
And in less than two months, the voters will pick the victor.
A controversial and far-reaching school-voucher initiative,
titled Proposition 174, will live or die on the Nov. 2 ballot.
Alternately described as revolutionary or cataclysmic, Prop. 174
would mark an unprecedented shift from the traditional
public-school system.
By providing parents with government vouchers that they could
use at private institutions, Prop. 174 would -- at least in theory --
let free-market pressures loose in the painstakingly regulated
world of publicly funded schools.
But whether that would improve or worsen the overall quality of
schools promises to be the subject of one of the most expensive,
bruising and inflammatory debates in California history.
And because the state is a bellwether for educational issues
nationally, money, attention and big names are flowing into
California from around the country as well -- on both sides.
Millions of dollars may be spent on advertising and
get-out-the-vote efforts before it's over.
The pro-voucher forces have been unable to expand their power
base beyond a group of business leaders that includes Safi Qureshy
of Irvine-based AST Research, taxpayer groups such as the Howard
Jarvis Taxpayers Association, and the most conservative members of
the Republican Party, including former U.S. Education Secretary
William Bennett.
In contrast, the anti-voucher camp has endorsements that span
not only every major educational organization in the state,
including the California PTA, but grass-roots citizens groups from
the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People to
the American Association of Retired People.
Virtually every Democratic leader in the state has come out
against Prop. 174, along with many Republicans, including state
Sen. Marian Bergeson, R-Newport Beach.
"Where is the support for this?" asked Rick Manter, campaign
director for the Citizens Against 174 organization. "There is none.
Other than a few very wealthy people, they do not have support.
They don't even have the support of the suburban Republicans."
But rallying under the banner of "school choice," voucher
supporters have proved -- at least anecdotally -- that support for
their measure in some cases crosses traditional lines.
In recent polls of probable voters, voucher supporters are
holding their own. And they are pursuing their campaign with a zeal
not seen in the state since a similar coalition propelled
Proposition 13, the tax-cutting initiative, into law in 1978.
"That was the tax revolt of the late '70s," Yes on 174 spokesman
Sean Walsh said. "This is the education revolt of the early '90s.
This initiative will rock this nation and cause us to reassess the
fundamentals of education."
Here are some of the elements of the plan:
The vouchers would be worth about $2,600 per student for the first
year. They would be applicable toward tuition at private or
religious schools, as well as at those public schools that choose
to give up regular state per-pupil funding.
Parents would also have more choice among the regular public
schools, which would remain free. Two public-school choice laws
that go on the books Jan. 1. will expand parental choice, but Prop.
174 would do so with many fewer restrictions.
Prop. 174 would also ban any further regulation of the state's
private schools except with a three-fourths vote of the Legislature.
And -- in some people's minds, most importantly -- spending on
public schools could be considerably decreased.
While the sides clash over whether the state would lose or save
money in the long run if Prop. 174 passes, they both agree that it
would supplant Proposition 98, the constitutional amendment
approved by voters in 1988 to prevent reductions in per-pupil
spending.
At last count, 90 percent of the state's schoolchildren attended
public school -- 5.2 million in all. Private schools serve about
554,000 students.
Prop. 174 would be radical surgery on a patient that many
Californians -- struck by the dismal state of inner-city public
schools, in particular -- feel is clearly not in good health.
But would the surgery heal the patient, or accelerate its
decline?
The debate has already been noisy and fantastically complex. But
two questions seem to rise to the top of the din.
Should public money be used to subsidize parents who send their
children to private school?
Supporters of 174 say it would give poor people the choices that
only the rich have today and that it is the only way to put
pressure on the public-school establishment to mend its ways.
Opponents say it would be a subsidy for the rich and for
private-school operators, that it would leave the vast majority of
students in poorer public schools, and that it threatens the
country's historical commitment to providing equal access to
quality education.
The other question: Is Prop. 174 really about vouchers at all,
or something else entirely?
Its supporters gladly admit that at the heart of their effort is
the quest for a conservative Holy Grail: wresting control of the
state's educational system from powerful unions -- most notably, the
influential and Democratic-leaning California Teachers Association.
"When you talk about unions, and union thuggery and union
tricks, people tend to think of these industrial types of unions
back in the East," said Walsh of Yes on 174. "But the educational
unions and the administrators' unions are the most powerful
entities in this state."
Walsh argued that the opposing forces have only one thing in
common. "They feed off of the bureaucracy," he said.
In contrast, Manter of Citizens Against 174 said the pro-174
movement is not dedicated to school reform at all -- but to the
destruction of the public school system.
"I think the objective is to de-fund the public schools," Manter
said. "I think that's their purpose."
Manter said it is obvious to anyone familiar with the details of
the initiative that Yes on 174's arguments that poor people will
benefit the most from a voucher system are insincere and cruel.
"I find it incredible day in and day out that people buy that
pablum that they're trying to help poor people," Manter said.
"They're a bunch of white, wealthy people."
There are seemingly countless other seminal issues relating to
Prop. 174. What about accountability? What sort of private schools
-- if any -- would spring up to meet the new demand?
Currently, private-school regulation is minimal: For instance,
teachers must undergo criminal checks, but there are no
credentialing rules. Curriculum standards are almost non-existent.
And any kind of religious education is permissible.
Private schools are also allowed to selectively admit students
on the basis of gender, religion, ability or disability -- though
under Prop. 174 they would not be allowed to teach "hatred."
There are also many legal and practical concerns that remain
unresolved.
Would it be constitutional to let public money flow to religous
institutions? Just how would some of the mechanics work -- for
instance, what kind of tests would voucher schools administer? And
how could public schools become voucher schools?
In the next eight weeks, California voters will be hearing a lot
about these issues.
And they'll be hearing two analyses of Prop. 174 that couldn't
be any more different.
"We give a bunch of money to these schools that aren't public
schools, and we let them do with it what they will," Manter said.
"And you might want to get in, but they don't have to let you in."
"The system as a whole is a disaster," Walsh said. "There are
some very good public schools out there, and if your child is in
that school, our initiative will not affect you one bit."
But for those in substandard schools, he said, "the system is
not only failing you, it's failing your child."