Vouchers: Too Many Reasons to Vote ‘No’ : Proposition 174 isn’t the answer for those dissatisfied with public schools

Supporters of Proposition 174 on Tuesday’s ballot include the parents of current private school students who are expecting immediate relief on their children’s tuition. They may be very disappointed.

The language of this statewide initiative, which would give parents taxpayer-supported vouchers that could be used at private or parochial schools, says that students enrolled in private schools as of Oct. 1, 1991, would not qualify for vouchers until the 1995-1996 fiscal year. By then, your child will have been in private school for as long as four years. Proposition 174 would provide little financial relief or none at all, depending on when your child graduates.

Supporters of 174 also say the proposal would save the state considerable money. Even if that happened, don’t forget that Sacramento would be free to decide how to use the money.

No one--even the respected RAND Corp. think tank, which examined this question--knows whether savings would develop. But for the sake of argument, let’s analyze the conditions that would be necessary to produce a saving for the state; also, let’s see how likely those conditions would be.

THE MATH OF 174 SEEMS SHAKY:

TOO MANY NEW SCHOOLS TOO FAST

First, huge numbers of public school students would have to switch to voucher-redeeming schools to match or exceed the eventual cost of vouchers for the students enrolled in private schools since Oct. 1, 1991. The most optimistic estimate is that this would require 700,000 student transfers from public schools.

Where would they go? Accommodating 700,000 new students would require a huge expansion of existing private and parochial schools, and the creation of thousands of new voucher-redeeming schools.

Proposition 174 says that voucher schools would need at least 25 students to open. Currently, there are 2,707 private schools in California with 25 or more students. So 28,000 new schools with the required minimum number of 25 youngsters would be needed to accommodate 700,000 students. Even if each new voucher-redeeming school took 200 students, that would mean 3,500 new schools.

Is it reasonable to assume such vast new interest in running private schools? If it isn’t, and if many fewer than 700,000 public school students want to transfer, or are able to, then a central argument of Proposition 174 supporters fails. The initiative wouldn’t save money and would instead result in considerable new costs.

But wait, problems exist in other areas too.

EVEN WITH VOUCHERS, MANY MIGHT FIND DOORS OF GOOD SCHOOLS CLOSED

Let’s say there’s a popular private school that it is well run and charges tuition of $5,000 a year. A great many public school parents want to enroll their children there, so the school decides to build a new wing to accommodate them. But what if the school can’t continue to operate and build at $5,000 per student, a very likely scenario. The buying power of vouchers at that school would decline, perhaps enough to put the school out of reach for many middle-class parents.

Then there’s the NIMBY syndrome--”Not In My Back Yard.” It repeatedly shows up in neighborhoods waging long and sometimes expensive legal battles against construction of new office buildings, housing or public facilities, and the resulting increased traffic. How likely is it, then, that enlarging the private school down the block, or opening a brand-new facility, would be welcomed by the neighbors? It’s only safe to assume that there will be objections and delays here.

And there are still other reasons that Proposition 174 is too much of a gamble. If passed, it would take a three-fourths majority vote in the Legislature to change it. At the local level, a new regulation would require a two-thirds vote of the local government, plus approval by a majority of the registered voters. Sounds like a sure-fire formula for political gridlock.

Proposition 174 does not prohibit voucher schools from restricting admission on the basis of sex, religion, academic ability, language ability or physical ability. Just how many more nails do we need to seal the coffin for Proposition 174 with a “no” vote on Tuesday?