Battle Lines Are Drawn in School Voucher Fight

With less than five months before the November election, forces on both sides of the controversial school choice initiative are gearing up for what is expected to be a bitter and bruising campaign.

The pro-voucher forces will try to turn the election into a referendum on the state’s public schools and make the stumbling Los Angeles Unified School District--the state’s largest--a centerpiece of that campaign.

Opponents will portray the initiative as a threat to a basic democratic belief in public education as the great equalizer and will hit hard at the fact that tax money would go to private and parochial schools.

Surprised by Gov. Pete Wilson’s announcement Thursday that the measure will go before voters in November--seven months ahead of schedule--both sides kicked their fund-raising campaigns into high gear Friday in their bids to sway voters.

A poll taken by The Times in March showed 51% of Californians oppose the voucher plan and 41% support it.

But almost half the parents polled--49% compared to 36% of non-parents--said they support the idea of vouchers. The initiative’s backers hope to lure voters to the polls with a campaign that taps into dissatisfaction with public schools.

“People are unhappy with the status quo, and we will emphasize to them that without vouchers any movement to change the status quo will stop the day after the election and it will again be business as usual,” said Kevin Teasley of the Choice in Education League, which is sponsoring the ballot measure.

The initiative would allow parents to take public tax money, in the form of a voucher worth about $2,500, to pay tuition at private or parochial schools. The scholarships would cut into the amount the state spends on public schools.

Teasley said the measure’s proponents will portray school choice through vouchers as a way to “level the playing field” and create a better balance between the interests of parents and those of the powerful labor unions that now influence school district management.

Mindful of Teasley’s tack, California Teachers Assn. President Del Weber said his group will focus on persuading voters that teachers have been the agents of reform and not its stumbling blocks.

“It’s easy to accuse us of being against reform, but we’ve supported every reform movement that has come down the pike and we have to get that message across to the public,” he said.

The giant Los Angeles district will probably provide the pro-voucher forces with a vivid example of all that can go wrong with public education.

Observers believe that the advanced election date may aid pro-voucher forces because it enables them to wage their campaign at what is probably the worst time in recent history for the 640,000-student system.

The district, the nation’s second largest, is embroiled in labor problems, faces mounting accusations of mismanagement and is entering another year of grueling budget cuts that will further erode already lean programs and services.

A study by the CTA shows that a huge percentage of the likely voters on the voucher issue live in the Los Angeles area and will probably be influenced by the district’s well-publicized problems.

In the face of rising campus violence, a move to dismantle the district and an ongoing struggle to remain solvent, the district’s ability to persuade voters that public schools can deliver may emerge as a key issue in the campaign.

“It’s not surprising that they would pick Los Angeles as the target for this issue,” said school board President Leticia Quezada. “But I don’t think the effort depends on what we do to immediately turn around the image of this district. That’s going to take a lot more than the five months we have between now and November.”

Allan Odden, USC education professor and co-director of Policy Analysis for California Education, a university-based think tank, said the “instability and lack of faith in Los Angeles Unified might initially make people feel positive toward a voucher system.”

But he believes that the Los Angeles district’s troubles ultimately will not be enough to carry the day for voucher proponents.

“The bottom-line question is: Do people think a voucher will buy them a good education?” he said. “When somebody looks at the price and the fiscal reality--that you just can’t buy much for $2,500--the answer is going to be no.”

In addition, many high-quality private schools are far costlier and are already full, he said, putting them beyond the reach of most families with children in public schools.

Finally, voter dissatisfaction with public schools may be canceled by a strong aversion to spending tax money on private school tuition, especially at religious institutions, the largest chunk of the broad spectrum of non-public education, Odden said.

Odden predicted that the voucher initiative would pass only “if it becomes a big protest vote” against public education and government in general and the sentiment is strong enough to overcome voters’ historic reluctance to subsidize private schools.

Helen Bernstein, president of United Teachers-Los Angeles, which represents the district’s 33,000 teachers, said Los Angeles will loom large in the debate.

“The constant fighting and battling that we are engaged in . . . is only going to turn people off on public schools,” Bernstein said.

“But we’re just mirroring what people are saying in terms of what is wrong with the system,” she added.

Highlights of Education Initiative

Here are the highlights of the school choice initiative that will go before voters in November:

* The initiative would make available a scholarship, or voucher, for every child in kindergarten through high school, which parents could spend for private or parochial schools.

* A voucher would be worth at least half the amount spent per child in public school, about $4,500 this year. The funds would come from money available for public schools.

* Students enrolled in private schools on Oct. 1, 1991, could not get vouchers until the 1995-96 school year; all others would be eligible for vouchers beginning in 1993-94.

* No new regulations regarding private schools would be permitted except by a three-fourths vote of the Legislature or a two-thirds vote of the electorate or local governments.

* Any school with 25 or more students could qualify to redeem the vouchers. But schools that discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, color or national origin could not redeem them, nor could those advocating unlawful behavior, teaching “hatred” of races or other groups, nor those providing false or misleading information about themselves.

* The Legislature would be required to set up a process for public schools that wish to convert to voucher-redeeming schools.

* The State Board of Education would have the authority to require public and private voucher-redeeming schools to administer achievement tests reflecting national standards and make public the composite results for each grade level.