On Nov. 2, Californians voted against Proposition 174, the Parental Choice in Education Initiative. Friends of the status quo - surprisingly, there are some - rejoiced. "Public education scored big," crowed the Deseret News' education editor. Unfortunately, California's children were the losers. Too many of them remain trapped in dysfunctional public schools.
Absent from the election post-mortem has been any discussion of their plight. The typical analysis instead speculates about how the initiative might have disrupted the public school system. A Nov. 24 Deseret News column, for example, recites opponents' purported fears that Proposition 174 "would leave many public schools devastated." The writer urges Utahns to "resist" voucher proposals because "the state's public system could ill afford any drain of tax revenues."Focusing on the system instead of the children, such analyses miss the point. It is time to reframe the debate.
I served as one of Proposition 174's chief advocates. At nearly every debate and forum, someone asked me the same question: "What will your initiative do to the public school system?" I asked in reply something more fundamental: "What will it do for the education of our children?"
What Proposition 174 does to the public school system, I explained, depends entirely on that system's willingness to provide quality education. The initiative doesn't focus on the needs of the system; it focuses on the needs of the children the system is supposed to serve.
Our aim in drafting the initiative was to offer every child a quality education, something California's public school system was failing to do. Maintaining the system unchanged was never our goal.
Schools don't exist to exist; they exist to teach. The public school system is merely one means to that end, not an end in itself. Failure to make this distinction distorts most discussions of educational reform, which assume that we already have the one best system, that children should be compelled to attend it, and that taxpayers should be compelled to finance it - regardless of its performance and regardless of whether parents prefer alternatives.
The public school system is useful only to the extent that it provides what its clients, the parents, expect. Two questions clarify the debate: What should schools do? Are the public schools doing it?
What should schools do? Parents give one consistent answer: Teach the basics. Parents expect schools, above all else, to teach reading, writing, arithmetic and other academic subjects. In the process, parents hope schools will prepare their children for productive work, for higher education and for responsible citizenship.
Judged against these expectations, America's public schools are failing. One of five students drops out. Two of five finish high school with no better than seventh-grade reading skills. The remaining two are demonstrably less educated than were their counterparts of a generation ago. Measured by their performance on internationally used math and science exams, America's best students are among the industrialized world's worst.
California educators blame inadequate funding and exogenous social ills. But money isn't the problem. California's average teacher salary is well over $40,000. In the Los Angeles Unified School District, one teacher makes more than $100,000 annually -- as do 30 administrators. Only 44 percent of California's public school employees are teachers; for every 100 teachers in the system, there are 127 non-teachers. Appropriations have substantially outpaced both inflation and enrollment growth. The public school system now costs California taxpayers $5,200 per student per year.
Nor can poor academic performance be blamed on general social ills. Even in the most dangerous and blighted urban areas, examples of successful private schools abound. Many disadvantaged students are prevented from attending such schools only because they cannot afford them.
School vouchers would change that. It empowers parents to choose a school, public or private, for their children. Then the dollar follows the scholar. Students choosing public schools continue to receive full state funding. Students choosing private schools may receive state scholarships worth half the per pupil cost of public education, or about $2,600 per year.
Thus, every student who switches from public to private school saves tax dollars. More importantly, since the voucher amount is almost identical to average private school tuition, the initiative puts a better education within reach of all students.
Proposition 174 represented a historic opportunity. That Californians failed to grasp it is disappointing, but understandable; the education establishment outspent proponents by 7-1 in an extremely negative campaign.
Why their vehement opposition? School choice revokes their monopoly, funding public schools only to the extent that parents voluntarily enroll their children there. The education establishment fears that parents free to send their children elsewhere will do so.
But that is an argument for school choice, not against it. If parents are so eager to leave, why force them to stay? If they find an independent school that does a better job for less money, why not let them take advantage of it?
The educrats are on the defensive. Several states will consider school choice proposals in 1994; more will do so in 1996. School choice is moving from hope to fact. It is a sensible, fair idea whose time has come.
Let's make it happen here in Utah.