Big Brother, Thy Name Is Vouchers : For $2,600, we would be inviting government into our private-school classrooms.

Should California give $2,600 vouchers to private-school students, as the school-choice initiative on the November ballot would mandate? When conservatives think about this idea, they may get cold feet.

In the 1950s, conservatives fought federal aid to education because federal control would follow. Liberals said that the government money had no strings, but today, Washington domination of local public schools is taken for granted. State aid to private education will have a similar effect.

To qualify for vouchers, for example, schools will have to obey government regulations in such areas as curriculum and discipline. Voucher advocates deny this, since the initiative says that private schools will be free from “unnecessary, burdensome or onerous regulation.” But what bureaucrat has ever considered his regulations “unnecessary?”

Today, California private schools are among the most unregulated--read, responsive to parents--in the country. Teachers need not be state-certified, and student-testing requirements are minimal. The voucher initiative changes all that.

For example, the initiative allows the state Board of Education to “choose and administer tests reflecting national standards.” That means no Thomas Jefferson and plenty of Cesar Chavez.

The proposition, moreover, states that “no school which discriminates on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin may redeem scholarships.” If we’ve learned anything in the last few years, it’s that the anti-discrimination nose is followed by the statist camel.

In academia and business, “non-discrimination” means quotas, and it must be so, since no government official can read people’s hearts. He therefore counts the numbers. In schools, that will mean racially and sexually proportionate discipline, promotion and assignment to honors classes or massive lawsuits.

The state shall also “prevent from redeeming scholarships any school” that teaches “hatred.” But “hatred” is a politically loaded term. It encompasses not just a Fourth Reich Elementary, but also opposition to homosexuality by a Baptist school, and to women priests by a Catholic one. (Some forms of hatred are sanctioned, of course. There would be no trouble for a Crips ‘n’ Bloods Junior High.)

Can a vouchered school kick out dimwitted or misbehaving kids? Not without lawsuits. The initiative says a school can dismiss a student only if he is “deriving no substantial academic benefit” or is “responsible for serious or habitual misconduct.” But the courts, at the behest of the ACLU, will determine the meaning of “substantial.”

There also will be less competition among these neutered institutions. “No school with fewer than 25 students may redeem scholarships,” says the text. So much for small schools, or new ones that might threaten the Establishment.

But can’t a school reject vouchers? Yes, and go out of business. Parents paying, say, $2,500 a year tuition will have the choice of saving that money or not. By default, if not design, the only private schools left will be under the close supervision of state and even federal officials (because of the “national standards” the vouchered schools will be judged by.)

The initiative also affects good public schools. They will have vouchered students arriving from everywhere to demand entrance. What if a suburb refuses? It cannot. The initiative says it must be open to “children regardless of residence.” The dirty secret of vouchers is that they effectively abolish school districts.

Many Californians pay high prices for homes in areas with decent public schools. But under this initiative, people will not have to live in an area to go to school there. Say goodby to some of the value of your house if you live in a good school district.

And the residents that can’t be discriminated against include more than those from Anaheim or Rancho Cucamonga. An existing amendment to the state Constitution requires that immigrants be treated the same as residents. Thus California will become the only place in the world where foreigners can force the natives to pay for private education. Just what California needs: more incentive for immigration.

Will school choice save money? Even its proponents grant that it will increase state spending by $1.3 billion immediately, though they promise savings in the future. So does Hillary Rodham Clinton for socialized medicine. I’ll eat this newspaper the day public-school funding is cut to equal private-school outlays.

Public subsidies to private industry are a mistake, as conservatives ought to know. Choice is only legitimate when you’re spending your own money. When it’s someone else’s, it’s called welfare.