Controversy Over Vouchers

* Prop. 174 does not provide parents with a choice of schools. It does not create an environment of competition. A voucher-redeeming school is allowed to “choose” its student body based on the criteria that each school establishes. While it prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, it does not prohibit discrimination based on gender, religion and physical or mental handicap. Public schools do and will continue to accept all students.

Prop. 174 creates two-tiered schools. And our kids lose.

MARGARITE C. MOSTOFI

Fullerton

* I urge a yes vote on Prop. 174 for the sake of academic freedom. One effect of the separation of church and state is that our educators in public schools are not free to teach our sons and daughters those religious convictions, ideals and aspirations which have enriched the lives of so many of our citizens. The passage of Prop. 174 will enable more of our young people to attend schools where teachers may speak freely of these things.

Far from hurting public schools, Prop. 174 will enable the private schools to lend a helping hand, carrying a larger share of the task of educating our sons and daughters. And they will do it for about half the cost, i.e., a student voucher will cost the state about one-half the cost of educating a student in a public school.

H. WILSON ALBRIGHT

Hacienda Heights

* We had open house at school recently. Out of 200 students, 15 parents showed up; 15 I did not need to speak to!

There in a nutshell is the problem. Not liberals or secular humanists. Not moral decay or lack of mental stimulation. Not teachers who won’t teach or administrators who won’t administer. It is the parents who won’t parent. Parents who send their children to school and expect all the effort and all the work and all the inspiration to be provided by the education system itself.

Nothing will be accomplished unless the parents get off their duffs and accept the fact that they are responsible for their kids’ education no matter what school they attend. If not, all the vouchers in the world will give them nothing but someone new to blame for their own failures.

ROBERT A. FRUGE

Los Angeles

* As a native of Queensland, Australia, I was educated in a public system that allows students to attend the public school of their choice. This system empowers parents with choices over their children’s education regardless of geographic or economic circumstances.

Since California has a commitment to a system accessible to all children (regardless of immigration status), so too should revenue come from all Californians, not just property owners. Property tax revenues should be replaced by a broad consumption tax that will collect from all and be distributed on a per student basis to the schools. Only then can public schools effectively compete with each other, as well as with private schools. Prop. 174 alone will not do the trick!

KAREN WOTHERSPOON

Irvine

* William J. Bennett (Commentary, Oct. 19) does not address the actual provisions of Prop. 174. The only statement he makes about the constitutional amendment is that it would provide the private schools with $2,600 per student. He does not discuss how this initiative undermines the Prop. 98 guarantees for public schools and community colleges. He does not discuss how Prop. 174 protects private schools from any accounting for how tax funds are used.

Bennett does not discuss that the proposition allows for discrimination in private school admission standards based on gender, religion, place of residence, or physical or intellectual ability. He does not discuss that there is no provision in the proposition for paying for the new bureaucracies created to distribute and keep track of the payments made to private schools. In short, he discusses vouchers as an abstract idea divorced from the actual wording of Prop. 174. The reason for avoiding a discussion of Prop. 174 by its supporters seems clear to me--the more you know about the actual language in this constitutional amendment, the more likely you are to vote “no.”

MARTIN HITTELMAN

Professor of Mathematics

Los Angeles Valley College

* In response to “A ‘Kick in the Pants’ With Dangerous Ramifications” by Gerald Uelmen, Commentary, Oct. 15:

Uelmen should stick to teaching and stay out of the political arena. He writes, “ . . . problems we might encounter in shifting a major portion of our school population to institutions that don’t yet exist”--this completely misses the boat. The schools do exist--from the current public schools to the private schools. There are enough schools to go around and any major shift should be no more difficult to handle than the normal uncertainty you would have registering your children for school.

Let’s just teach the kids and get back to the basics of the three Rs.

STEVEN C. CROSBY

Hermosa Beach