|
Public education is a big deal in California no matter how you slice it. On
average our schools lag behind most states in academic achievement; any
candidate for local, state, or national office better be hawking a plan to
improve them. Even if you don’t care whether the little rascals learn anything
or not, over half the state’s tax dollars go to support schools.
So everyone has a dog in this fight, be it academics, politics, or taxes. The
latest round is Proposition 38, which would provide a broader range of
educational choices by authorizing vouchers for private education through high
school. The voucher would be set at $4,000 per year initially, considerably
less than the $6,000 - $9,000 per pupil spent by most districts. Private
schools would remain free of mandated curricula and other requirements that tie
the hands of public educators.
Despite the promise of reduced costs and the extension of education choice to
those who could not otherwise afford it, the initiative is not without flaws.
Costs will certainly increase until government schools adjust to post-38
enrollment levels, while the capacity of private schools to handle increased
demand will take time to develop. Provisions allowing the legislature to
mandate public school funding at the national average are disingenuous at best
given that nothing’s stopping them now except their own inertia.
For outright deception though, it’s hard to beat the ads and web site sponsored
by voucher opponents. Topping the list is their “Myth 1: Prop. 38 gives every
parent a $4,000 voucher that would let them send their child to the school of
their choice. But in reality, under Prop. 38, it is private schools – not
parents or children – who have the choice of which schools our children can
attend.”
Have no fear, there will be no draft. Schools will not choose up sides, with
team captains taking turns, picking the smart kids until only academic runts
remain. Opponents make this claim because children have to apply to private
schools, and apparently because they think we’re all morons.
According to the same site, it’s also a “myth” that “the CTA (California
Teachers Association) and powerful education unions are opposed to Prop. 38
because they are afraid of losing political power and their monopoly over our
children’s education.” Instead, they say, “Proposition 38 is opposed by a broad
coalition of parents, teachers, business, and community organizations because it
is a risky experiment that our children can’t afford.”
There is certainly support from other quarters, but I’d bet the proverbial
dollar to a donut that most anti-38 funding comes from unions. Forget the
dollar; I’ll bet a donut to nothing. Hang on to this column folks, and if I’m
wrong I’ll print a time and place after the election and buy anyone who comes in
with this clipping a donut, my compliments. Now THAT’S an offer you won’t find
in the Los Angeles Times.
What you might
have seen in the Times and elsewhere was a small story about legislation
creating college scholarships for low and middle-income students with a C
average or better. The grants cover full tuition to public colleges, or up to
$9,700 tuition to private colleges. The bill was signed into law by Proposition
38 opponent Gov. Gray Davis.
Why are
vouchers a “risky experiment” for elementary and high school students while,
according to Gov. Davis “If you do your part by studying hard, we'll do our part
to help you afford college” with what is, in essence, a voucher? Insert your
own snide remark about a C average as evidence of “studying hard” here, but the
real difference is that college unions are puny, disorganized, and pack little
oomph compared to their brethren in the lower grades.
Though Proposition 38 is imperfect, the organized opposition seems to be about
little more than union power. I’ve put my money where my mouth is – and if I’m
wrong, I’ll put a donut where yours is.
© 1997 – 2002 Brent Morrison
|
