Wilson and the Voucher Question : Prop. 174 isn’t the reform California wants--governor should oppose it

Gov. Pete Wilson, who appears to be leaning in the direction of opposition, should publicly declare that Proposition 174, the statewide voucher initiative on the November ballot, isn’t good for California. Even for those who philosophically or intuitively are inclined toward the voucher concept, Proposition 174 is not the way to go.

Prop. 174 would supply parents with taxpayer-supported vouchers worth about $2,600 a year that they could use at private or parochial schools.

The voucher initiative was born of understandable frustration with California’s large and bureaucracy-bound public school systems. But the random privatization encouraged by this initiative could actually shatter the state’s public schools, rather than force them to improve through competing with private schools, as Prop. 174’s supporters claim. Thus the opportunity for the truly difficult work of internal reform would be lost. Who wants that?

In addition, the measure includes a number of undesirable sleeper clauses, including the requirement of a three-fourths majority to change the proposition if it is passed. Is that straitjacket wise?

The fiscal effect is a huge question. The initiative would not only reduce public school funding by the $2,600-per-pupil voucher amount; funding would also be reduced by an equivalent amount that the public schools otherwise would receive in state aid for each pupil attending.

As the governor himself put it Monday, “I have to be concerned with what the impact of the passage of the initiative will be upon the state budget, and specifically upon the funding of the public school system.”

Moreover, the public schools accept all comers. They do not turn away the poor and the disabled. They do not bar those slow to learn.

The private schools that charge several thousands of dollars in tuition are not generally in the business of seeking out students whose families have limited financial means, nor are they much in the market for those students who may take longer to learn.

It’s true that Proposition 174 would prohibit the use of vouchers at schools that discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity or national origin. It however does not prohibit such schools from restricting admission on other bases, including sex, religion, academic ability, language ability and physical ability.

By stating that the vouchers or scholarships are “grants” made to students rather than to individual schools, the initiative, as worded, attempts to avoid the issue of the separation of church and state. But that issue won’t so easily go away--and some experts suggest that this is likely to be subjected to court challenge.

Having said all this, we nevertheless must note that the defeat of Proposition 174 won’t end the public’s increasing anxiety about the quality of public education. Unless public school performance improves and public confidence grows, this measure, or something like it, will return and return and return.