PROPOSITION 38 In addition to funding a public
school system, the state would make available to all school-aged
children (kindergarten – 12th grade) scholarships (vouchers) of at
least $4,000 each year to pay tuition and fees at private schools.
SOURCE: California Secretary of State Original by VICTOR CHEN Web
Adaptation by MONICA KWONG/Daily Bruin Senior Staff
By David Drucker
Daily Bruin Reporter Legislation calling for a $4,000 voucher for
parents to send their children to private schools may decrease
public school funding, while giving parents more say in their
child’s education.
Proposition 38, the controversial ballot initiative up for vote
this November, calls for taxpayer funds ““ based on the annual
cost per pupil ““ to be refunded to parents in the form of
vouchers redeemable for K-12 education at the school of their
choice.
Proponents argue it will enable poor and middle-class families
to afford the same high quality private education as the wealthy,
while strengthening public education’s financial picture and
holding schools accountable for their performance.
“We want the government to stop interfering with what we
feel is best for our children,” said Sherry Davis, a
spokeswoman for 38 Yes’ South Central Los Angeles office.
Opponents, such as the California Teachers Association, contend
that $4,000 is insufficient to cover the cost of private school
tuition. They also say the measure’s passage will trap poor
and minority children in public schools pushed further into decline
by the lack of funds resulting from the wealthy’s use of
vouchers.
“Prop. 38 will cost taxpayers at least $3 billion per year
and not one dime of that will go to improve public schools,”
said No on 38 spokesman Jeremy Prillwitz. “We need to
continue investing in them, rather than abandoning them.”
Professor Jeffrey T. Grogger, whose area of expertise at the
School of Public Policy and Social Research includes the economics
of education, understands the desire for change.
“There’s clearly a degree of dissatisfaction among
parents because incremental reforms have not delivered the results
they’ve promised,” he said.
But Grogger cautioned against making any wholesale changes
overnight.
“While I’d support an experimental voucher program
in selected urban areas, we don’t yet have enough information
to know if it will work on a large scale,” he said.
But the two sides are determined. According to Calvoter.org, a
non-partisan political information Web site, they have spent more
than $35 million attempting to sway California voters. The
California Teachers Association is the opposition’s biggest
donor at close to $18 million, according to Calvoter.org.
In support of the proposition, Davis argued against the belief
that the money won’t prove to be enough for poorer families
to send their children to private schools.
“And we don’t need teachers telling us what we can
and cannot afford,” she said.
But Prillwitz said the facts purported by Yes on 38 simply
don’t pan out.
“$4,000 per student is not an incentive for private
schools,” he said. “It’s bad policy and a false
promise to claim you are providing a choice when in reality
you’re not.”
Proponents of Proposition 38 counter that while public schools
may lose funds, there will be a corresponding decline in student
enrollment.
Limited voucher experiments in cities like Milwaukee and
Washington D.C proved popular with inner-city parents, and were
instituted because they were unhappy with the quality of education
their children received as compared with those in private
school.
Frank Baxter, an L.A. businessman, donated $25,000 to 38 Yes
because he wants to see poor children have the same choice he had
when they were growing up.
“I have a passionate desire to make sure our
underprivileged youth get a chance to participate in the American
dream,” Baxter said.
But Prillwitz said the proposition doesn’t necessarily
ensure the equality and opportunity proponents argue will be the
result.
“Prop 38 will allow private voucher schools to
discriminate for any reason,” he said. “Whether
it’s by their ability to pay, religion, gender or academic
ability, it’s the school that will have the choice, not
parents.”
Though the California Department of Education cannot take an
official position on a proposition, CDE spokesman Doug Stone
painted an even worse picture.
“Someone could open up a school for skinheads, and there
would be no accountability to stop that from taking place,”
he said.
But Davis said opponents of 38 Yes are misinterpreting the
facts. She added that parents are aware of private schools’
practice of being selective, and that they don’t want them to
change as long as they have access through the vouchers.
“When people talk about private schools, they think of Ivy
League type institutions,” she said. “But we have a lot
of Catholic schools here in the inner city that run the gamut in
terms of tuition and academic standards.”
Grogger said it’s puzzling that voucher experiments
implemented thus far have netted a high degree of parental
satisfaction, but only small gains in test scores.
“Anyone who says either side is fundamentally wrong is
incorrect,” he said. “That’s just blind
advocacy.”