🚀 go-pugleaf

Some background info on Prop 174.  The referendum was written by a DC attorney
who has spent time working with an innercity private school in central Los
Angeles.  The school charges $800/student/year and is out of the reach of
most but not all of the low income minorities that it serves.  The
families that are served by this school are willing to make large sacrifices
for the benifit of their children.  The private school has had excellent results
compared to its neighboring public schools; Less crime on the school grounds,
better tests scores, less drug abuse by students, a higher rate of college
scholarships.  The amazing thing about this school is the $800/student.  
The school is basically just scraping by financially.  With a voucher program
the school would be able to expand to server more students without requiring
the huge financial sacrifices by the families of its students.

The intent behind prop 174 is to allow more the these types of schools to
be created and to make them finacially viable.  The intent was also to
not exclude private religious schools from the voucher program.  Without
some of the wording in prop 174 private religious schools could have been
excluded from the voucher program.

The proposition is modeled after a similar voucher program in the state
of Wisconsin.  The general consensus in Wisconsin is that the voucher 
program there has dramatically improved the quality of PUBLIC education.
Because of the competition created by voucher schools parents have more
options on where and how to educate their children.  Public schools
have a general advantage in that there are many more public schools than 
private schools and they're therefore more convient for students and parents.
This advantage only holds though if the public schools are competitive.
The experience of Wisconsin is that the state spends less on eduction now
than it did before the voucher program was instituted and that test scores
of students are higher than before the voucher program.

The primary oponent to prop 174 is the California Teachers Association.
The CTA acts as the union for all teachers in California public schools.
What they have to lose under the voucher program should be clear.

The public schools in California have changed over the passed fifty years.
The amount spent on schools has dropped from 98 cents of every education
dollar to only 51 cents.  Most of the 49 cents spent on state and district
administration of eduation is spent by the state in Sacromento.  This is
a very high rate for administration.  Other states that spend comparitively
more on eduation than California spend comparitively less on administration.
In 1993 it is likely that administrative expenses will have grown to 50% or
more. 

My personal opinion is that the California Department of Education is
top heavy.  To much money is being spent before it reaches local schools.
The system at present has no incentive to increase effectiveness since
there is no competetition.  A voucher program would create competition
at the local level and would make it increasing difficult to justify the
high overhead rates of the state public education sytem.  I think we
need a voucher program to revitalize eduction in California.  Is prop
174 the right way to do it?  I don't know.  Given that the oponents
of prop 174 have heavily financed an ad campaign based on fear rather than
the merits of the proposition I am likely to vote for it.  There maybe
parts of prop 174 that are bad law though.  Study it carefully and make
your own choice.

TJ Merritt
tjm@netcom.com