Misconceptions distort Prop. 38

By Max Roberts

In the recent weeks there have been many articles about
Proposition 38, the school voucher initiative. The opposition to
the measure is based largely on misconce-ptions, however. These
concerns range from the ridiculous (“voucher schools
won’t have to provide an education”), to the sincere
(“there are no good schools in bad neighborhoods”). The
facts allay these concerns.

Concern: voucher schools are unregulated. In reality, voucher
schools must meet all the regulations in force as of 1999 for
private schools, and Proposition 38 lays out several new
regulations, such as mandatory administration of the same
performance tests public schools administer.

Concern: vouchers are a break for the rich. While Proposition 38
would provide a $4,000 voucher to all students, including those
already attending private school, many middle and lower class
families struggle to send their children to private schools.
According to a 1999 census report less than one third of all
private school students come from families that earn above
$75,000.

Concern: a $4,000 voucher won’t help the poor pay a normal
$10,000 private tuition. While certain private schools have tuition
this high or higher, according to the U.S. Department of Education,
the average private school tuition across the nation was $3,116 as
of 1997. Sixty-seven percent of those charged less than $2,500.
Catholic schools averaged only $2,178. Public education, on the
other hand, cost $6,857 per pupil.

Should a student receiving a voucher attend a school where costs
are less than $4,000, the balance of the voucher would be invested
in an education savings account that the student could use in the
future to help pay for another school or to attend college.

Concern: voucher schools can discriminate and would lead to
segregation. Proposition 38 prevents voucher schools from
discriminating on the basis of race and private schools are more
racially integrated than public schools because student composition
isn’t tied to the neighborhood’s composition.

Voucher schools are allowed to “discriminate” on the
basis of ability, gender and religion. But this is to keep cheaper
parochial schools, single-sex schools that certain parents prefer,
and schools designed for the physically and mentally handicapped
open to voucher students. In fact, California already sends some
children with mental and physical disabilities to private schools
that are better suited to meet their needs.

Concern: Vouchers violate the separation of church and state.
Since the parent ultimately chooses where the voucher money goes,
and not the government, vouchers represent no endorsement of a
particular faith. Should vouchers be deemed unconstitutional on
this basis, so too would Pell Grants and the G.I. Bill.

Concern: teachers at voucher schools don’t have to be
licensed. This is true, but under a voucher system, should a parent
feel the teachers at their child’s school are incompetent,
that parent would have the freedom to switch schools. But there are
public school teachers without credentials too. The drive to reduce
class size has forced the hiring of thousands of unlicensed
teachers in the public school system. But indigent parents have no
real freedom to switch schools as it is now.

Concern: there are no good private schools in poor areas. Many
parochial schools operate in urban centers and both parochial
school and private school students outperform public students on
the SAT in California.

When school choice and limited vouchers were implemented in New
Zealand, distance, cost and enrollment capacity were cited as the
top reasons of those not attending the school of their first
choice. Yet a full 85 percent of parents reported their children
were attending the school of their first choice and 97 percent of
parents of those receiving vouchers were either satisfied or very
satisfied with their child’s progress.

Concern: vouchers will destroy the public school system.
Vouchers are not intended to accomplish this, nor do they in
practice. When vouchers were offered to students in F schools in
Pensacola, Florida in 1998, 78 schools had an F rating. By 1999
only 4 schools received an F and none of those 4 were of the
original 78.

In New Zealand a majority of school principals reported that the
education reforms improved their schools.

Concern: vouchers will cost the taxpayers billions.
Unfortunately the long run financial effect of vouchers is not well
known. The fixed cost of vouchers comes from supplying vouchers to
the 650,000 students already in private school, and amounts to
about $3 billion. This cost is phased in over 4 years.

But since it costs nearly $7,000 to educate a student in the
public system, there is a $3,000 saving for every voucher issued.
The Legislative Analysts Office of California has estimated that in
the long run, greater than five years, anywhere from 5 percent to
25 percent of public school students will switch to private
schools. This represents a range of net costs up to $2 billion to a
net savings of up to $3.4 billion.

Should 15 percent of parents respond as happened in Cleveland
then there would be a $700 million net savings.

The reality of the matter is that vouchers work. Under voucher
programs, tests scores of recipients, mostly poor and minority,
have increased significantly. In Cleveland there was an average
gain of 5 percentage points in reading and 15 percentage points in
math among voucher students receiving only $2,500 compared to the
national norm.

In a private $1,400 voucher system in New York students in
grades four and five scored 6 and 4 percentile points higher in
math and reading respectively.

Two thirds of voucher parents in Cleveland were “very
satisfied” with the academic quality of their child’s
school, compared to only one third of public school parents.
Seventy-one percent of voucher parents were very satisfied with the
teaching of moral values, compared to 25 percent of public school
parents.

Even Robert Reich, Clinton’s first labor secretary,
advocates vouchers. But don’t make up your mind on the basis
of this or anyone else’s article. Take your responsibility as
a voter seriously. Do the research and decide for yourself.