Parental Choice Initiative

David Kirp’s “How to Create Welfare Hostels for the Intellect” (Opinion, June 7) makes several false statements about the Parental Choice in Education Initiative. The falsehoods include:

-- Today, children can attend any school within the district.

-- Participating schools can take the money with almost total freedom from state rules.

-- It is a “bailout” for “church-run schools and a sop to the wealthy.”

-- It raises church-state constitutional questions.

-- Private school tuition is “typically” higher than the proposed scholarship.

-- Transportation costs are not covered.

-- Most schools will not participate because the scholarship is too small.

-- It gives the “back of the hand” to the poor.

The facts are:

Parents today must request permission from district offices if they wish to move their child from one school to another. They are not always granted their request.

Participating schools will have to adhere to the state regulations that exist today for private schools.

Church-run schools and the wealthy do not need a “bailout”; in fact they are bailing out the public schools by taking on the responsibility to educate more than 530,000 children in California. Where would we put these kids in the public schools? The public schools have grown to count on these schools and the wealthy for help.

Constitutional scholars have found the initiative free of any legal problems. In addition, Wisconsin’s Supreme Court just found such a system constitutional.

Private school tuitions in California average between $1,800 for grades K-6 and $2,500-$3,000 for grades 7-12.

The initiative does cover “reasonable” transportation costs.

Most private schools will participate because they will be able to serve more children and the scholarship will allow them to provide more financial assistance to those who need it.

The poor will benefit from this initiative most for several reasons: They do not have the opportunity today, the schools with the most openings are in the inner city, and school officials will stop taking them for granted and will listen to their needs more intensely.

It is a shame that Kirp presented his opinion as if it were based on facts. The fact is, he simply took the propaganda that has been widely distributed by the education Establishment, which is opposed to parental choice, and regurgitated it. It is because the education Establishment is so opposed to this initiative that each of us must take the time to read and understand this initiative.

KEVIN D. TEASLEY, Campaign Director, Excellence through Choice in Education League, sponsor of the Parental Choice in Education Initiative, El Segundo