In Wake of Defeat, Voucher Backers Vow a Stiffer Fight : Education: Advocates seek more funds and will focus on movements elsewhere. Opponents call it ‘empty bluster.’

Even before the final votes revealed the crushing defeat of California’s school voucher initiative, the architects of the movement were already plotting strategy for the next showdown.

Unbowed by a more than 2 to 1 trouncing, voucher advocates say Tuesday’s election was only Round 1. In California and nationwide, the defeat of the measure to give parents an annual $2,600 tax-funded voucher to use at private schools is viewed by a potent force of pro-voucher and school choice advocates as a referendum against a risky, massive experiment with public education--not a harbinger of death for their growing movement.

“This is an issue whose time has come,” said Sam Hardage, a Republican pro-voucher fund-raiser from San Diego. “There will be an immediate movement. It will come back again and again and again.”

While California voucher advocates regroup, the focus will probably turn to other states including Arizona, Colorado and Indiana, where fledgling voucher drives are pending. Some say it will be easier to win school choice and smaller-scale voucher measures through state legislation.

Last May, the Pennsylvania Legislature fell 13 votes short of passing a school choice measure that would have given vouchers worth up to $700 for elementary and $1,000 for high school tuition at private schools. And school choice stands to be a prime issue in that state’s 1996 governor’s race.

Several well-organized national groups are casting a wide net and promoting a variety of proposals, from vouchers to charter schools to open enrollment within public school districts. Sooner or later, they believe, they will win.

California proponents say they will push for a new initiative, most likely for the 1996 ballot. That would give them more time to raise the $10 million-plus they would need to wage a competitive campaign.

Undaunted by the prospect of going up against powerful public school unions, proponents said they will consider crafting a voucher plan that would be more generous to the poor and more lean for the rich, provide limited government oversight of private schools and call for a phased-in approach statewide.

But opponents say a sequel would have little chance of passing.

“It would be an absolute waste of time,” said Rick Manter, manager of the No on 174 campaign. “I suspect it is empty bluster. They don’t want to recognize that their measure was rejected in a landslide.”

After sound defeats of similar voucher initiatives in Oregon and Colorado, the heavy California loss indicates that a vastly different approach must be taken to overcome the powerful education Establishment and its employee unions, which pumped nearly limitless resources into campaigns to defeat the measures.

The California loss--1.4 million votes for Proposition 174 and 3.3 million against, with solid defeats in all 58 counties--has become an overnight victory flag for voucher opponents nationally, to be used as ample proof that their arguments are a true reflection of public sentiment.

“California voters recognized the voucher movement for what it really is--an attempt to exploit people’s legitimate frustration to find a new political wedge issue in time for the 1994 election,” said U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley. “It is clear to me that the people of California will not abandon the historic American commitment to universal public education.”

Education experts say the California voucher fight offers valuable lessons for advocates of similar measures and the intense national spotlight on the campaign has in some ways energized the movement by stimulating debate.

“I’m afraid that the pro-voucher people have learned more from this than those against vouchers,” said Amy Stuart Wells, assistant professor of education at UCLA and an expert on school choice. “The yes side has been listening carefully about what it is people don’t like about it.”

Indeed, a recent state poll by the Policy Analysis for California Education group showed that residents favor the concept of a voucher by a 2-1 margin.

In California, voucher backers say their prime concern is not so much the elements in a new initiative, but whether they can raise the massive amount of money needed to fend off their opponents, who spent $14 million to defeat Proposition 174.

Ken Khachigian, chief consultant to the Yes on 174 campaign, said he is “salivating for a rematch.” But the voucher coalition, he said, would have to go beyond conservative Christians, libertarians and the handful of Republicans and Democrats who fought for it and include “a broader representation of business leadership and opinion leaders, some top-flight educators, and . . . a bigger activist base in the minority community.”

He also urged proponents: “Go out and raise $10 million, and get in the ballgame.” With that kind of money, the message can get out.

To this end, proponents said they were hoping to turn their campaign organization into a membership group. They hope to use direct mail to persuade tens of thousands of donors to contribute even $5 or $10 toward school choice.

Some voucher activists and other observers are less certain that there is enough time, money, or consensus over what a new voucher initiative will say.

“I don’t think we’ve developed unanimity at this point,” said one of the major donors to Proposition 174.

John Coons, a law professor at UC Berkeley and expert on school choice and finance, said a “proposal that is more moderate and directed to the real problem of educating low-income, urban children” stands a strong chance for success. Coons, who was in on the early stages of drafting the failed California initiative, pulled his support when his ideas were rejected.

But based on exit polls conducted by the Yes on 174 campaign, voters said they do not want a voucher based on financial need. Those polled said they would like some controls over teachers, such as having a college degree in the subject they teach.

The exit poll showed voters were primarily concerned about the possible costs of the voucher program to the state.

Joseph Alibrandi, campaign chairman, said backers may be able to overcome that with a provision that no private school students could receive vouchers until enough public school students transferred to private schools. A report by the legislative analyst estimated that it would cost the state $1.3 billion to provide vouchers for the 540,000 students enrolled in private schools.

“Those are all constructive suggestions that would make it very difficult for the opposition to hammer us on the kinds of things they picked on this time,” Alibrandi said.

Some say a flash point for conflict in a new initiative is balancing the public’s demand for private school accountability against the private school community’s staunch belief in its independence.

“You could wind up with private schools campaigning against it, saying they have more to lose than gain,” said Michael Kirst, a Stanford University professor and director of Policy Analysis for California Education. “I’m among the skeptics who think it’s going to be a very difficult issue to fix up.”

Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of Teachers, agreed.

“The Catch-22 is the attractive (voucher proposals) are the ones that are extreme,” Shanker said. “And the measures that would be supported by the public are the ones that have difficulty keeping the support of people who have to collect the signatures.”

Private school leaders, who were deeply divided over the California measure but are strong advocates of school choice, show some glimmers of willingness to compromise.

“Accountability is no problem at all. . . . Eighty-five percent of all Catholic school teachers already hold California credentials,” said Joseph McElligott, associate director for education of the California Catholic Conference. “If it gets into the internal matters of religious education, it will be a big problem.” Parochial schools educate half of the state’s private school children.

Sister Catherine McNamee, president of the Council for American Private Education, which represents about 85% of private schools in the nations, said that many private schools now agree to government audits when it comes to receiving federal grant money for students needs. Although any further government regulation of private schools would be cautiously reviewed, the area is ripe for compromise, said McNamee, who works as executive director of the National Catholic Educational Assn. Like McElligott, she said any intervention in religious or philosophical beliefs is a no-discussion issue.

Leaders of several school choice groups throughout the country hope to hone in on private schools’ willingness to support voucher systems and the public’s desire to overhaul public education.

One such group, Americans for School Choice, points out that school choice legislation was introduced or pending in 34 states at the end of last year and citizens groups have formed in at least 19 states to promote the issue. Their strategy involves diluting the vast resources of the education Establishment by churning up measures in many states.

“Their feet aren’t big enough to stomp on every fire that’s going on around this country,” Alibrandi said.

Jill Hanson, executive director of Americans for School Choice, said that California “has afforded us a national spotlight on a very important issue. . . . Other groups are now carrying on the fight and my guess is that it’s not going to go away in California either.”

Times education writer Sandy Banks contributed to this story.

* PUBLIC SAFETY CONCERN: Public safety issues topped Southland voters’ concerns. A3

* SCHOOL VOUCHERS: Joe Alibrandi, a force behind the state voucher initiative, says he will not give up. B8