Keeping Standards : Opponents Say Prop. 174 Will Touch Off Flurry of Unregulated Schools, but Supporters Say Parents, Peers Will Ensure Quality

With an unceasing flow of television and radio commercials, opponents of the school voucher initiative, Proposition 174 on Tuesday’s state ballot, have conjured up images of “virtually anyone” opening tax-supported schools with “no real standards for teachers, no real course requirements.”

Polls show that the message has struck a chord with voters, who cite the lax regulation of private schools as one reason they are disinclined to support the measure.

“Regulation is a big issue with the public,” said Julia E. Koppich, deputy director of Policy Analysis for California Education, a nonpartisan, university-based think tank that conducted a recent statewide poll on the voucher issue. “People are leery of what they perceive to be unregulated, or not sufficiently regulated, schools.”

But how accurate is the perception?

“I think the fear of powerful, unsupervised non-public schools is unfounded,” said the Rev. Charles Rowins, president of the California Assn. of Private School Organizations, which although neutral on the initiative was so upset by the commercials that it recently issued summaries of the various laws that must be followed by non-public institutions. “The parents will have a level of discretion that will keep the bad schools out of the picture. Not many parents are going to send their children to bad schools.”

Although it is not true that California’s 3,800 private and parochial schools are unregulated, the bulk of state laws applying to them address issues of health and safety. On matters of academic quality, California has relatively little authority. Framers of the voucher initiative sought to keep it that way by prohibiting any new private school regulations unless they were approved by three-fourths of the Legislature, an unprecedented requirement.

The initiative, combined with the state’s relatively light regulation, would invite scores of abuses, opponents say. But proponents counter that the thousands of requirements for public schools have guaranteed neither academic results nor students’ safety.

Moreover, officials at some private schools contend that their own voluntary standards are more stringent--and more effective--than the statutes that govern their public counterparts.

Because it would amend the state Constitution, the initiative could not be changed except by a majority of voters. Further, the state auditor said last month that his office would “not have access to records or the power to audit any state funds received by private schools or parents” under the voucher initiative.

Proposition 174 would provide parents with tax-funded vouchers worth about $2,600 a year for tuition at any private or parochial school that would accept the money and admit their children. Schools with 25 or more students would be eligible to redeem vouchers so long as they do not teach hatred, provide false information about themselves or exclude students on the basis of race, ethnicity, color or national origin.

Otherwise, voucher schools would be regulated in the same way that private schools are. Here are some of the basic academic requirements for non-public schools:

* Private schools must register annually by filing an affidavit with the public schools office in their home county; however, the state does not license, accredit or evaluate private schools (unless they serve the handicapped), and it is up to local school officials to ensure that all school-age children are meeting the state’s compulsory education requirements.

* Non-public schools serving children ages 6 to 16 must offer “full-time” instruction but the law does not address the length of either the school year or the day, except to say instruction must occur sometime between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m.

* Teachers at private schools must be “capable of teaching,” but are not required to hold state credentials unless they work in schools for special-needs children supported by state funds. Schools must have a formal policy against sexual harassment of employees, and employees hired after July 1, 1985, must be familiar with the law requiring the reporting of suspected child abuse. Those hired after Oct. 1, 1985, must submit fingerprints for a criminal records check.

* English must be the basic language in all classrooms, although bilingual instruction is permitted and gifted students may be taught in a foreign language for up to half the school day.

* Students must be offered several branches of study, including English, mathematics, social sciences, science, fine arts, health and physical education, plus a foreign language, applied arts, vocational education and driver education for students in grades seven through high school. The state has no jurisdiction over specific content, textbooks or other materials.

* Non-public schools are not required to test their students or to release results of any tests they administer. The initiative stipulates that the State Board of Education may require voucher-receiving schools to administer and release results of tests reflecting yet-to-be-developed national standards.

* Schools must keep attendance records, but they are not required to report them to the state. Written school records are confidential but must be provided if requested by a student’s new school, whether it is public or private. Schools that expel a handicapped child must report the removal to the county.

In addition, about two-thirds of California’s private schools belong to organizations that require adherence to their own standards as a condition of membership--some of which exceed state academic requirements for public schools. A smaller proportion--925, or 24%--of all private schools are accredited by the Western Assn. of Schools and Colleges, the major independent oversight organization for the region.

Don Haught, executive director of the organization’s Schools Commission, said the number of California private schools seeking accreditation has climbed by about 15% in the last few years.

Most private schools “do not operate in a vacuum,” said Rowins, the private schools’ group president and headmaster of St. James Wilshire Elementary School. “We are accountable at many levels to many groups, and I think overall that accountability helps us to be a better school.”

He added that the notion of new schools--especially fly-by-night institutions--springing up to meet the demands of parents newly equipped with tuition vouchers is unfounded. Starting a new school--finding a site and complying with zoning, building, health and safety regulations, raising money and hiring a staff--is “very serious and difficult,” he said.

As voucher opponents are quick to note, there are some private schools that do not heed voluntary standards. And the potential for abuse--or for someone using tax money to engage in practices that may be frowned upon by a majority of Californians--would always be present under the proposed voucher system.

For example, a teacher recently hired by a fundamentalist Christian school in San Diego County is a woman who served a two-year federal prison term for her role in the attempted bombing of an abortion clinic. Earlier this year, an “alternative” private high school in Sonoma County kicked up a controversy by handing its students a memo describing how to use herbs to induce a miscarriage. (The county district attorney’s office is investigating whether the school’s action had broken any laws.) And members of a self-described coven of witches in Concord recently announced that they would use vouchers to start a school for pagans.

Private school advocates note that there are questionable, if not illegal, goings-on in public schools as well, despite all the government regulations. One cited the recent arrest of a high school football coach and his wife in Hemet because the wife was allegedly having sex with team members.

A PACE think tank study of the state’s private schools earlier this month concluded that there are significant gaps in the data available on these schools; thus some key questions--including student achievement, capacity for enrollment increases and availability of seats for students with disabilities--remain largely unanswered. The lack of information stems in part from the dearth of state regulations requiring that non-public schools report the data.

But Koppich of the PACE think tank said there is another side to the regulation question.

“Public schools are burdened by an 11,000-page Education Code. That’s too much regulation,” she said.

Whether Proposition 174 passes or fails, Koppich said, the question will remain of how much regulation should be applied to any of the schools.

“Among the things to be worked out” in the ongoing reform debate over California’s education system, Koppich said, “is where is the right balance between appropriate public safeguards and so much regulation schools are hampered in their capacity to make significant change for kids.”