Private Schools Polarized Over Voucher Issue

Sitting in his small, Spartan office, Jerome Porath, school superintendent for the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Los Angeles, speaks with enthusiasm about the “endless possibilities” that passage of the school voucher initiative could bring: expansion opportunities, specialized education programs, more computers.

About 400 miles away, Albert Adams, headmaster of the exclusive Lick-Wilmgerding School in San Francisco, lambastes the ballot measure as “devastating to public schools” and a threat to his operation because “any time you take government money, there will be strings attached.”

From the well-appointed campuses of the most expensive academies to the more austere setting of church-based schools, California’s private schools are deeply divided over whether they should receive state funding--a reflection of their ideological independence and the intense controversy that envelops the Proposition 174 debate.

“Many (private school) organizations find their memberships split,” said Joyce McCray, executive director of the Council for American Private Education. “Private schools greatly value their independence and don’t necessarily feel bound to each other. One of their greatest assets is their diversity of opinion.”

In interviews with leaders of groups representing the majority of the state’s 3,839 private schools, and with superintendents, principals and headmasters from a wide variety of campuses, these conclusions about their stances on the measure emerge:

* In general, the most elite and expensive schools, with tuitions of $8,000 to $10,000 a year or more, oppose the initiative, believing that the financing provisions will hurt public schools and lead to government intervention in private school operations.

* Catholic schools, which educate half the state’s 554,000 private school students, and most other church-affiliated schools appear to favor the initiative. They have tuitions at or below $2,600.

* There is a greater diversity of opinion among moderately priced religious and secular schools with tuitions between $2,500 and $5,000 a year. Although they appear to favor the measure, their support is not as strong as it is among lower-tuition schools.

The Education Vouchers Initiative on the Nov. 2 ballot would amend the state Constitution to give parents of school-aged children a tax-funded voucher worth $2,600 to spend at a private or parochial school that accepts the child.

Any school with 25 or more children could accept vouchers, as long as the school does not discriminate on the basis of race or ethnicity or advocate unlawful or hateful behavior.

The vouchers could be redeemed by students who are already enrolled in private academies, as well as by public school pupils who could use them to transfer to private campuses.

The anti-voucher camp believes that the split of opinion among private schools, which could profit by the measure’s passage, is a clear signal that the initiative is deeply flawed.

“Their opinion is a reflection of the same concerns that people throughout the state have,” said Rick Ruiz, a spokesman for the anti-voucher campaign, which is heavily funded by public school employee associations.

But the pro-voucher campaign said the diversity of opinion on the voucher issue among private schools is one reason it is not counting on private school students’ parents--who number about 300,000--to act as a unified voting bloc.

“Intuitively, one would think that parents of private school kids will support this . . . that they have some self-interest and ought to automatically favor this,” said Ken Khachigian, Yes on 174’s campaign manager. “But the point of school choice is not to benefit private schools. It is to benefit students and kids. The issue has never been private education and public education. The issue is education.”

The controversy over vouchers is exemplified in the polar range of opinions among private schools.

At the most exclusive campuses, vouchers hold decidedly little appeal. These schools have long waiting lists and highly competitive admissions standards. Most of their enrollees’ parents are affluent and do not need a $2,600 government subsidy to meet tuition. At Lick-Wilmgerding, there were 600 applications for 80 spots this year--and the annual tuition is $10,500.

“The well-to-do parent does not have to look at this initiative as critical for the education of their child. They look at the merits of the initiative and say this is not good,” said the headmaster at another tony academy who opposes the measure but asked not to be identified for fear of offending parents at his school. “The less affluent view it as critical to offering alternatives for their child’s education.”

At another independent private school--one with a lower tuition--the opinion is the opposite.

Anyim Palmer, founder of the Marcus Garvey School in South-Central Los Angeles, which promotes a rigorous curriculum and studies in African-American culture, said he supports the initiative.

“Many of our parents feel it is too good to be true because it would ease a tremendous burden from them,” he said, predicting that African-American parents, disillusioned with public schools, would flock to his campus of nearly 400 students.

But among temple- and church-affiliated schools, which enroll 90% of the state’s private school students, the debate is fervent.

Recently, three Los Angeles-area rabbis, whose Reform and Conservative temples educate nearly 1,500 children, held a news conference announcing their opposition to the initiative, calling it a matter of principles over pocketbooks.

“Public funds should be used for public circumstances. It’s as simple as that,” said Rabbi Harold Schulweiss of Valley Beth Shalom, which enrolls about 400 students.

The rabbis cited a state report estimating that the vouchers could drain $1 billion to $1.6 billion from state coffers over the next three years as voucher payments to private school parents are phased in.

At the same time, rabbis with the Yeshiva Principals Council, which represents 14 Orthodox elementary and high schools with 5,500 students, have voted to support the initiative and do not believe it is their congregations’ responsibility to support what they see as a failing public school system.

“The majority of our parents, 99%, are in favor,” said Rabbi Aron Tendler, president of the council of Orthodox schools, where annual tuitions range between $4,500 and $5,000 for elementary schools and up to $9,000 for high schools. “They rightfully see this as some degree of relief.”

Some church-affiliated schools express staunch opposition to the ballot measure because they believe it is a constitutional infringement on the separation of church and state.

“I do not personally believe that state money should be used to fund a church ministry,” said Joe Koella, chairman of the board of directors for Friends Christian Schools in Yorba Linda. “It doesn’t sound right. What other church activity is state-sponsored? Where do you draw the line?”

In the Los Angeles Episcopal Diocese, Bishop Fredrick H. Borsch and Suffragan Bishop Chester L. Talton have announced their opposition to the initiative, but some individual Episcopal school boards have voted not to take a stand.

“Personally, I will vote for it, but many people in the Episcopal schools I know will vote against it,” said Charles Rowins, principal of St. James School in Los Angeles and chairman of the California Assn. of Private School Organizations, which represents about two-thirds of the state’s private school students.

Leaders of low- and moderate-tuition schools who support the initiative say they do not fear government regulation. If the state would start to interfere with religious or other teachings, they say they will stop accepting vouchers.

“If something came along that we could not agree with, if they really go after the religious issues, at that point we step out,” said Don Cole, superintendent of the Whittier Christian Schools, which has 1,300 students on three elementary campuses. “If they begin to regulate our philosophy or our purpose, we would step back, because those things are what we are here for.”

At Catholic and many other religious schools, however, a voucher would cover most if not all of the tuition--a factor that many officials believe will make it attractive in their communities. Most Catholic elementary schools charge between $1,450 and $1,800 a year, while some in poor neighborhoods charge far less, thanks to heavy church subsidies.

A survey last August of about 750 Christian schools that charge tuition between $2,400 and $2,800 showed that about two-thirds supported the initiative, said Burt Carney, director of state legislative issues for the Assn. of Christian Schools.

Many church- and temple-based schools also consider it their moral responsibility to open their schoolyard gates to all who believe in their philosophies and who are willing to abide by their rules. These schools believe that vouchers will aid middle- and low-income parents, who often lack the money to choose private education.

“From our perspective, education is a parental responsibility and our role is to provide service to families who seek a Catholic education,” Porath said.

He would not say how he plans to vote on the measure. But, he said, “I have analyzed this along with educators, and I see it as a benefit for parents, and I see no harmful effect for our Catholic schools.”

The California Catholic Conference of Bishops has declined to take a stand on Proposition 174, saying that although Catholic teaching fully supports a parent’s right to chose schools for children, it is not the church’s role to tell Catholics how to judge a specific statewide approach to school choice.

Clearly, with their low tuitions, the state’s 715 Catholic schools--the largest private school force in the state--would have the most to gain if the voucher measure passes. But the schools “would be faced with many opportunities and challenges,” said a briefing paper on the initiative published by the California Catholic Conference.

Those issues include the possibility of expanding schools and building new ones to “accommodate students whose parents would be financially empowered to seek admission” and providing financial aid to help low-income parents send their children to high schools, which can cost more than $2,600, the document stated.

Inner-city archdiocese schools in Los Angeles have about 5,000 empty seats, Porath said. He estimated the potential of another 28,000 new seats if every schoolroom currently being used for other purposes because of declining enrollment was reconverted to a classroom. This, however, is unlikely because some schools may be unwilling to give up classrooms being used for other important church and school functions, such as for youth centers, libraries and computer labs.

The issue of private school capacity is hotly debated and the true picture is uncertain, according to two recent studies by outside groups and interviews with private school officials.

A study this year by the Southwest Regional Laboratory showed that California’s private schools are so full that they could accommodate only about 43,000 new students.

However, many private school officials have criticized the survey, saying that their schools must run at or near capacity to stay solvent and researchers did not go far enough to talk to the proper school officials who could accurately estimate potential capacity.

For supporters of Proposition 174, analyses of private school capacity misses the point of their argument. They envision an unparalleled restructuring of education in which free market competition and demand for quality education will spur dramatic growth in private schools.

“It’s the magic of the marketplace,” said Khachigian, the Yes on 174 campaign manager.

The state legislative analyst estimated that more than 1 million public school students, or 20%, would have to transfer to voucher-redeeming schools if the state was to break even on the costs of giving tax money to parents of every eligible private school child. This assumes that every private school in the state would accept vouchers.

Many private school opponents of Proposition 174 say it is highly unrealistic--even laughable--to expect 1 million new private school seats to spring up in the coming years.

“It’s hard to open a school; it takes resources and commitment,” said voucher opponent Rick Fitzgerald, president of the California Assn. of Independent Schools. “The new school issue is a false issue. I don’t think it is going to happen.”

About the only thing that virtually all private schools agree on when it comes to the voucher debate is that they despise the anti-voucher ad campaign. Radio and television ads claim that the dearth of government regulations will lead to the proliferation of secretive, fraudulently operated voucher schools.

“The opposition advertising has painted a very inaccurate picture of non-public education,” Rowins said. “It’s very offensive--and offensive to the parents who have made great sacrifices to send their children to private school.”

Surveying the Vouchers

A survey by Southwest Regional Laboratory of 1,004 private schools in California found that many do not have the teaching staff or facilities to educate large numbers of public school students who would transfer using state-funded education vouchers. However, large numbers of those who are receptive to voucher students said they would make changes in their programs or operations to accommodate them. Some survey findings:

* “What changes would you make in response to a statewide voucher program?”

School affiliation Other Non- Anticipated change Catholic religious religious Hire teachers 36.7% 72.9% 59.8% Hire administrators 6.3% 17.4% 17.0% Hire professional staff 61.8% 62.2% 50.9% Change teacher qualifications 8.2% 10.6% 8.5% Add new courses 27.3% 35.9% 36.8% Remodel or modify plant 20.8% 45.7% 33.6%

The survey also polled private schools to gauge their capacity to accept new students. Critics--including the pro-Proposition 174 campaign--say the findings are flawed and not an accurate measure of private school space.

* Enrollment Capacity by Type of School Schools at or near capacity (85%-100% full) Catholic schools: 84% Private religious schools: 62% Non-religious schools: 65% Schools at moderate capacity (65%-84% full) Catholic schools: 12% Private religious schools: 28% Non-religious schools: 20% Schools at low capacity (Below 65% full) Catholic schools: 4% Private religious schools: 10% Non-religious schools: 15% Source: Southwest Regional Laboratory, “What a Voucher Could Buy: A Survey of California’s Private Schools,” December, 1992.