October 25, 2000

I regret to report I'm voting No on 38, the vouchers thing

As I've mentioned in this space before, I strongly favor school vouchers in principle. All California students without exception deserve a helping hand from government to pay for their educations. Whether a given student wishes to go to public school, private school or a religiously focused school, the state should pay for his or her education. Using economic pressures to force parents to enroll their children in public schools is wrong. Parents should first be able to decide, free of such pressures, which kind of schools are right for the needs of their children. Then the state should make that choice easier by funding vouchers.

Believing what I do, I would normally have been inclined to favor Prop. 38, a voucher initiative. However, I'm also aware initiatives are written by those on the extreme of any given issue. In the case of another voucher initiative, Prop. 174, after reading it very carefully, I realized it would have been almost impossible to change once it got locked into our legal system. Any changes would have needed three out of every four legislators to agree. On local boards it would have required 80 percent of the board members to agree.

Any new law, no matter how good, will require fine tuning. If change is deliberately made difficult, don't pass the original initiative. Never parachute into the Grand Canyon! It's too difficult to climb out. I'd planned to make a long, difficult review of the fine print in Prop. 38. I planned to spend hours on every detail, but its backers have saved me the trouble. Thanks to the folks who brought us Prop. 38 and are blitzing us with TV ads, I plan to vote No.

Why? There are a hundred sources of opposition to any such proposition. Teachers unions fear an erosion of their power. Anti-religious bigots oppose because they don't want to encourage religious schools. Some folks just don't like private schools. I, on the other hand, think it's important for the state to encourage private and parochial schools, and to make it possible for as many students as possible to attend them if that's what parents would choose.

Unfortunately, most pro-38 commercials I've seen are pretty damn slimy. The ads use supermarket tabloid techniques designed to create a negative mood about the public schools. Governor Davis's picture is grainy and repelling. Teacher's unions are demonized. The commercials sensationalize crime in the public schools. They're ugly, negative and bitter. I'm immediately suspicious when I see such a commercial. Why don't they tell us all the good things this Proposition would supposedly accomplish? Instead, they concentrate on belittling our governor and needlessly undermining the efforts of a lot of good people doing their best to teach our children in the public schools. Parents should have a choice of schools. Vouchers should make that choice possible for as many families as possible. That doesn't require we demonize our public school teachers or administrators. It's no wonder the Catholic Bishops are staying neutral. I'm not, though. I'm voting No. The promoters of Prop. 38 have convinced me I must.

Paul Azevedo's four children spent many school years involved in Laguna Salada's educational programs, especially the Alternative Class, which has been a part of the local scene for almost three decades. His e mail address is reactor@wenet.net