COMMENTARY ON SCHOOLS : Prop. 174 Offers a Choice, Opportunity for a Better Education : The bureaucracy that controls the system is the problem. Why not give that control and power back to the parents?

Our public school system in California is failing our children and our parents. No matter how it is packaged, our children are learning less in schools that are becoming more dangerous.

The sad irony is the fact that the problem rests not with the students, parents, teachers or public education. It also has nothing to do with the amount of money we spend on education in our state. The problem is with the educational bureaucracy that controls education in California and the power it possesses. Proposition 174 is designed to give that control and power back to the parents, because parents are in the best position to make educational choices for their children.

Those who oppose Proposition 174 are not doing it by extolling the virtues of the current system. They are not saying that the public education system in California is so great that we don’t need educational choice. What they are doing is attacking the periphery, and in so doing they are saying that parents are too stupid to do what is best for their children and that the bureaucracy knows what is best for every child. If that were so, then the 1 million signatures needed for placing this on the ballot would have been impossible to attain.

Proposition 174 has two main goals: to improve public education through competition and to drive schools to excel through market forces. Currently, there is no competition, or accountability, in the public school system. If there were, the 6,000-page Education Code would be producing better results.

Proposition 174 is about children and opportunity. It funds students. It enables parents to determine which schools best meet their children’s needs. This is not currently the norm in our schools. Parents are told which school their children must attend, and any change from that assignment is very difficult.

Recently, a school board president resigned and moved to another district in Orange County so her child could attend a school with a better music program. Isn’t it sad that parents must go to such measures for the education of their children? If even a school board president can’t effect enough change to want to remain in their district, what hopes do regular parents have in setting the course for their children’s education?

Proposition 174 empowers parents to send their children to schools that best meet their educational needs. This is the key point of Proposition 174, to allow parents to send their children to the schools of their choice. This is also the provision the educational bureaucracy fears most. Why?

Power.

Those in education understand fully the impact on their control if the power they now enjoy were transferred to parents. However, without parental control, there is nothing to motivate those in authority to change the current decline in education in our state.

Opponents of Proposition 174 charge that private schools will be unaccountable for the voucher money because they are relatively unregulated by government. Few statements are more revealing of the public education establishment’s mind-set.

They confuse accountability with red tape. Accountability really means being answerable to those whom you serve, and that cannot happen unless those you serve have the power to walk away.

In reality, it is the public school system that is unaccountable for the billions of dollars it wastes every year. Was Los Angeles Unified accountable when it gave lavish raises to its employees over the last three years and ran its finances into the ground?

Private schools are accountable to parents, public schools are not. Only Proposition 174 will bring accountability to the system, because public schools will have to compete for the privilege of educating our children.

Recently, State Sen. Teresa Hughes (D-Inglewood) said that Proposition 174 is just for rich people, and that poor parents who want to evacuate their children from dysfunctional inner-city schools will just have to sacrifice.

The senator couldn’t be more wrong. The rich have always and will always have school choice, with or without vouchers. The parents who would benefit most are those whose children are literally trapped in crime- and drug-ridden schools, who can’t afford to send them to other public or private schools where children learn in relative safety. How long will the education establishment deny our poor and middle-class citizens the opportunity to make life better for their children? It is the height of arrogance for a legislator making $73,000 a year to tell her constituents to just sacrifice.

Our Constitution and Declaration of Independence are based on opportunity. Not control, but opportunity.

It is opportunity that Proposition 174 gives to parents. The legislature can’t write laws that will get rid of gangs; we should give parents the opportunity to send their kids to safer schools. We can’t outlaw poor academic performance, but we can acknowledge the fact that parents will act in the best interest of their children and give parents the opportunity to send them to a school that meets their needs.

Proposition 174 gives the schools back to the parents and students it serves. Until that happens, any reform in education will only be by the consent of those who control it, and we know the results of the past 30 years of that control. Support Proposition 174 in November, and give our schools back to the parents and students.