School Voucher Initiative
* As I read Stephen J. Carroll’s article, “Rolling the Dice With Prop. 174” (Commentary, Oct. 5), I began to wonder why anyone would vote for a proposition that was a gamble--either way! I for one am not ready to gamble with my children’s education. An education is tantamount to a child’s successful future. And these children who are currently in school will be running the country when I retire.
I am not sure why Carroll is so concerned about the fact that “education already consumes almost one-third of California’s entire general-fund revenues” and may increase. Aren’t our children, their future and our futures worth it?
The problems with our current system of entitlements and funding alluded to by Carroll seem to go beyond school funding. There are many inequities in the current state education budget, such as the unequal funding of base revenues to school districts throughout the state. Inequities exist throughout the state budget. Reforms are needed. However, public education should be supported and improved rather than abandoned. Prop. 174 does not seem to address any of these problems.
CAROL TUCH
San Juan Capistrano
* It looks as though the supporters of Prop. 174 are trying to guarantee that religious schools will be publicly financed for the rest of their lives. With the rules of amendment and/or repeal that they have written into the proposition, it is likely that any future actions will take place only if future opponents can muster two or three times as many votes as it takes to pass this bill.
Along with their two-thirds, three-fourths, and/or 50% of registered voter mandates, I’m sure the 174 supporters are hoping for a very low turnout in November so as to influence the result even more. And what if the measure proves to be a disaster? Is this an example of the sneak tactics used by the radical right wing to have their way? The voucher idea may have merit, but none of it shows up in Prop. 174.
W. S. CURRY JR.
Granada Hills
* This is in response to your editorial, “Proposition 174: Look Before You Leap,” Oct. 7. I believe you left out the most important point.
The reason that our public schools are failing is that each district has a monopoly. Administrators don’t have to administrate, teachers don’t have to teach, and in the end, students don’t learn. Prop. 174 will hold administrators and teachers responsible. If a district can’t get its act together parents would have the freedom to take their vouchers and go to another school district or a private school. Either way, the teachers and administrators will be in fear of losing their jobs.
Giving the school districts a little competition will be an effective way to reform the school system.
ALLEN ALEVY
Long Beach
* In your editorial you noted that Californians want some form of school choice including private school options.
It should be noted that any form of governmental assistance for parents who might select private or parochial schooling has been consistently opposed by the state’s wealthiest lobbying force, the California Teachers Assn.
Over the past 25 years a small tuition grant ($125 per year per child) authored by then-state Sen. George Moscone; the loan of state textbooks (about $20 per year per child), authored by Assemblyman John Vasconcellos, and modest state income tax credits (averaging about $150 per year per child) in bills authored by then-Assemblymen Leo McCarthy and Tom McClintock have all been the target of CTA’s lobbying forces.
Given their opposition to any governmental help for parents who might enroll children in non-governmental schools, it is highly unlikely that you will find cooperation by the teachers union in the design of any real California voucher system. Any erosion of their governmentally funded monopoly appears to be unacceptable.
JOSEPH P. Mc ELLIGOTT
Associate Director for Education
California Catholic Conference
Sacramento
