Voucher Opponents Miss the Point : Decrying as elitist parents’ desire for quality and safety in education does little to advance the public-school cause.
Proposition 174, the school-voucher initiative, has become a lightning rod for discussion among educators across the nation. As the fiscal crisis facing public education grows, the threat of further funding cuts erodes a system in which teacher and student needs continue to be undermined. Yet the campaign to stop this proposition has coalesced groups across the political spectrum in a strategy that plays on the fears of parents that Proposition 174 is not only anti-public school, but also an entitlement program for the rich. Unfortunately, in this drive to stop 174, we have missed the opportunity to address an important issue that has plagued the hearts of working- and middle-class parents: access to quality education for their children in a safe environment.
For many Mexican-Americans and African-Americans, the issue of quality has forced re-evaluation of their commitment to public education. In the heart of Los Angeles or New York, the local parochial schools are filled with black and brown faces. That many parents in the urban core opt out of public education is not surprising, given the real fears that their children will not learn in an environment plagued with violence and with peer groups that negate the family values that they struggle to infuse in their children. Many working parents merely want their children to have a sanctuary for learning where common codes of behavior are assumed and teachers are not distracted from teaching. This is why, despite the economic hardship, many of these parents choose parochial schools--not because they do not believe in public education, but because they are not willing to gamble their children’s future to prove that the system works. As I reflect back on my own mother’s choice to place my sister and me in a local parish school more than 30 years ago, I realize how personal Proposition 174 has become for many voters. As a single parent and public-school teacher, my mother valued her colleagues, but knew that, given where we lived, I would not have a secure environment for learning in public school.
I remember little of the agonizing emotional and financial choice my mother made for her children. What I do remember is learning the art of using mass transit and growing up with hand-me-down green pleated skirts and white saddle shoes that always left a trail of white powder as I walked. I remember envying the stylish young girls walking up the street with their miniskirts and go-go boots while I languished in Peter Pan collars and oversized sweaters. As the middle-school years approached, I pleaded with my mother to let me go to the local junior high school so that I could become a normal girl. She honored my request and let me attend summer school in the public school, where more often than not I would become the teachers’ pet because they knew I was there to learn. Although from my point of view I fared well in both the public and private settings, my mother would never waver in her choice for our education. Years later, I asked my mother why she didn’t let us go to public schools, and her reply still rings true: “You were the only children I would have in my lifetime and I was unwilling to sacrifice you for any cause, even a cause I believe in.”
It is not surprising that emotion will often transcend reason with our children. But when parental emotion is linked to real fears--fears that make parents instinctively act to preserve any safety net for their children--then rhetoric that points to financial disaster or uncertainty in public education has minimal impact. Public educators who ignore or dismiss these real fears as racist or anti-public school will lose not only an important opportunity for dialogue, but also a powerful constituency that would work with them for effective change. Parents who care about their children and education are worth listening to, even if their voices do not echo those of the established power brokers.
To ignore the roots of why Proposition 174 is on the ballot and not engage in an honest debate of why it crosses racial, ethnic and class lines is to lose an opportunity to assess the shortcomings of our system and create an alternative vision of public education for our children. Despite its limitations, Proposition 174 speaks to real fears of parents that must be addressed by public education. Be assured that these fears will not dissipate after November’s election.
