HomeMy WebLinkAbout0544.093~
i •
~
b
H
~
~ ~. -; ,
~
•
~ ..
o 11 · . · . · ,
'"f.:;, ,., . ..:.,-
October .14, 1993
The Honorable City Council
Palo Alto, California
BAL'LO'I XEASORES -NOVEMBER 1.993 SPECIAL S'I'AT~IDE ELECTION
Members of the Council:
Report in Brief
Seven state propositions will be presented to the votRI"S on
November 2. The measures have been placed on the ballot either by
action of the state Legislature O~ by initiative petition. Two
countywide measur-es ar-e on the ballot as well. The Council is
asked to take positions on three of the state propositions~
staff recommends that the Council support Prepositions 170 and 172
and Measure A and oppose PropoSition 174. The council may want to
take positions on additional ballot measures.
Background
Seven state ballot measures, or propOSitions, will appear on the
ballot for the November 2, .1993 special statewide election .. six of
these originated: in the state legislature; the seventh measure
qualified for the ballot as the result of initiative petition.
Public agencies may take formal positions in support of or-in
opposition to ballot measures j but public funds may not be used to
encourage citizens to vote a specific way. It is permissible to
provide information to the public on the impact any ballot measure
will have on t~e city.
Further information on the measures is contained in materials
accompanying this report~ th~ California Ballot Pamphlet prepared
by the Secretary of State and the pros/Cons publication of the
League of Women Voters of Califo~nia. pages 4-7 of the California
Ballot Pamphlet contain brief summaries of the seven state
measure.s.
CMR:S44:93
/
Lallque of california Cities pQ;iitioos
The League of California cities Board of Direc~ors has announced
the rollowinq positions on the ballot ~easures:
Support -proposition 172
Oppose -Proposition 1744
Positions on additional proposit~ons will be considered at the next
meetinq of the Board of Directors, unless Annual Conference
resolutions are introduced addressing the measures.
Propg§ition 170 -Majority Vote on School BoDds
This constitutional amendment would allov 1J school facilities bond
measures to be approved by a majority (rather than two-thirds) of
the voters 1n local elections and 2) property taxes to exceed the
current one p€rcent limit in order to rep~y the bonds. For the
purposes of this measure, school facilities include the
construction~ reconstruction, and modernization of schools, as well
as buyin9 land for school purposes l:Iy a school district~ county
office of education, or a community college district. Under this
measure, the limits on development fees wo~ld remain in effect even
if a state qeneral obligation bond for school facilties fails to be
approved by a majority of voters in a statewide electicn.
The Palo ~lto Unified School District Board of Education passed a
resolution in support of p~oposition 170 at its October 5 meeting
and has requested the City Council to formally support the measure
as well. The measure has real significance for the school district
because of the possible need to request funds to renovate and/or
redesign school facilities when the Board takes action on the
recommendations of the Schools for the 21st century Commlttee~
(See Attachment 1.j
This constitutional amendment will earmark one-half cent of the
current state sales tax to local law enforcement and public safety~
It is not a new tax or tax increase, but i~ a continuation of the
temporary half-cent tax imposed in 1991 to lJIeet the budget crisis.
If the measure is approved by the voters ~ the tax would be
collected in all counties hut 'Would he allocated onl}' to those
counties which endorse the tax by one ot two means: 1) a resolution
passed by the hoard of super-viso~s, or 2J a majority of the voters
of the county v~tinq in favor of the proposition~ (The Santa Clara
QIR;544:9J 2
•
/
o
cc:,.unty Board ct Super-visors has adopted the resolution.) Each
county would allocate a portion of sales tax revenues to cities
'Within its borders based on t.heir property tax losses. The n:oaasure
is projected to generate abvut $1.5 billion ann~ally which would
offset, on a permanent basis, about 65 percent of the statewide
property tax 10SG to counties and cities resulting from the 1993-94
state budqet aqree~oant.
Kelsyre A -continuation of One-Half Cent_Sales Tax in santa Clara
county
The county Board of Supervisors has placed a back-up measure on the
ballot, Measure A, which would extend the half-cent sales tax in
Santa Clara county only if Proposition 172 fails to receive a
majority vote statewide. Furthermore, the Board of Supervisors, at
its meeting of September 28, 1993, adopted Ordinance No. NS-216.7
Which would implement Measure A if the statevide sales tax measure
fails and Which would distribute the ~ax revenues to the cities in
the same manner mandated in Proposition 172.
Proposition 174 -The School Voucher Injtiat.!...'lg
This initiative constitutional amendment, entitled "The Parental
Choice in Education Initiative", would enable parents to choose a
child's school by requiring the state to provid£: a voucher for
every school-age child equal to at least 50 percerlt of the prior
fiscal year per pupil spe1"ldinq for K-12 public 6chools4 Thoe
voucher could be redeemed at ar.y qllalifiea public, private or
religious school that participates in the program.
Tl'le Palo Alto U:1ified School District Board of Education has
adopted a resolution in opposition to Proposition 174 and has
requested the Council to similarly voice its opposition. See
Attac.tunent 2.
The proponents of the 6chool v()ucher initiative had originally
intended to qualify the measure for the liovember 1992 general
election ballot. In anticipation of that election a~d in response
to a request from the PAUSD Board of Educatlon~ the Council~ on
March 23~ 1992 voted 9-0 to go on record in opposition to the
initiative. Council action at this time would eimply be an
afrirmation of that prior action.
CMR:S44:93 3
--,-~.,----------
~', .
"" ."
, ',~
SUFMrv of Beeo.eMotions
Staff ~ecommen~s that the Council:
1, Support propositions 170 and 172 and Measure A on the Nove~ber
2# 1991 special s~atewiQ~ electi~n ballot;
2) Oppose Proposition 174;
3) consider 'Whether Council Mem.'bers wish to announce positi.ons in
support or opposition to other ballot measures.
Respectfully submitted,
~~(:~~-~
Assistant to the City Manager
AttaChment s =
1~ PAOSO Soard of Education re proposition 170
2~ PAUSD Board of EdUcation re proposition 174
Ene~os.ures:
LWV Pros and Cons
California Ballot Pamphlet (for council Members only)
CMR: 544: 93 4
;-. . i
.'
1
BOARD OF EDUCATION 0 .1'""\
Attachment Action 16
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date 10-5-93
TO:
FROM·
SUBJECT:
James Brown, Superintendent
Patricia J. Einfalt, Associate Superintendent-Human Resources/Admjn~stration
NOVEMBER BALLOT ISSUES: RESOLUnON IN SUPPORT OF PROf'OSmON 170
(ACA 6): MAJORITY VOTE _ CONSTITUTIONAl-AMENDMENT FOR LOCAL
SCHOOL BONDS
Proposition 170 (ACA 6). the majority vote constitutional amendment for local scnool bonds, has
been placed on the November 2, 1993 ballot. Because the Palo Alto Unified Scno-a/ District, like
mostscflOol districts in Cali-rornia, is in need of making major renovations in its facilities in order
to prepare for the' 21st century, and because the issuance of local bonds is one option the District
could use to fund these repairs~ additions and c.hanges, the passage of thjs Proposition in
November is of critical importance. We be-lieve that a majority vote on a sc.hool bond tssue is
fis.calfy responsible and gives local voters control of funding in their communities. The enclosed
resolution cites other rea sons as to why we bel ieve this Proposition sh auld be supported.
The Superintendent recommends that the Board adopt the resolution in support of
Propcoition 170 (ACA 6) and request that the Palo Afto crty Council and the Palo Alto Chamber 01
Commerce place the resolution on a future agenda for consideration.
OIR, 544,93 Attachment 1
'lQ/SI!I3}
"". ,'r""
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RESOLUTION
-In Support of Proposition 170 (ACA 6}on November Ballot"
WHEREAS, Proposition 170 (ACA 6), the majority vote CO;1stitutjonal Amendmen.t for local General
Obfigation bends fi;)f schools i~ on the November 1993 barlot; and
WHEREAS, California is orie of only four states that reqL'ires a two·third::o ',/ote on local school
bonds; and
WHEREAS. a majority vote is fiscally responsible and gi',/es local ',/oters greiJter -:ontrol o',/tr fo::al
s<hool bond issues; and
WHEREAS. 'oUlI vc1ers need to take control of funding in th~il communities sin(.e they are best
sui1:edto iudgethe needs ofthelr school dis.tric.tartd community; and
WHEREAS, the Pedo Alto Unified Schoo! District,. like m.any Ca~tfomja s.chool districts, is ill need of
making major renovations in its facilities to prEpare for the 21st century, and locar bonds may b.e one
funding option; and
WHEREAS, the GC)ye~nor and many jegfslatol'l have indicated their sUPpOrt for local control and
decision maldng; and:
WHEFCEAS, Callforn)a's s,hool popula1ion ts ~(owlng by about 180,000 student.s eact, ye:3r, creal:it1g
a need for more classrooms and more tea(.i1ers; and
WHEREAS, this enronment growth is a sutewide phenomenon atfKti.ng a~1 dis.tricts, urban as well
itS suburba n .and rural; a rxt
WHER.EAS~ our future depends on OjJr providing adequate 1adljties fer the more than five million
children in california public school5; and
WH.ER£AS, the state will need new fad I ities to accommodate an addftional 1,400,000 new students
by the year 200c; and
WHEREAS. State bond funds. ~rtnot begin to fund the ni!'ed~ facilitjes~ alld
WH.EP~, one out of e\lery two existing California schools is over 30 years old ar'!d many do not
mei!'tthe most recenteilrthquakp standards; and
WHEREAS~ construction of r.c-eded schools will creale thousand:5 of jobs and stjmulate the
l!Conomy; and
WHiR£AS. the California league of Women Voters, the Callfornia Chamber of Cvmmerc..e, the
c.arrrgrnia Pclrl!-Mt-Teacher A:sso<iation, the California Congress (.If S~niors, the California Teacners
Association, and the (a!Hornia School Boards Association are among th'! organizations supporting this
Propositton;
NOW THEREFORE BE rr RESOLVED THAT the Palo Aho Unified SChool Distrkt Baard of Education
SIJPPoru the passage of Proposition 170 (ACA 6} on the NO\lember 1993 ballot.
PASSfD AND ADOPTfO by the Board of Education ofthe Palo Alto Unified School District this __
day of ,1993 .. by the follOWing vote:
AYES; NOES; ABSENT:
t, lames R. Brown, Clerk of the GO',/Erning Board of the Palo Alto Unified School Di!otrlcr at Santa Clara
County. C.alifornia, do helE:·by certify that the fOfl~going is il full, true and <orrect (Opy cf a. resolution
adopted by the.5.i!Ki Board a1 a general meeting -:.hereof held at its regular pface of meetmg at the time
and by the vote above stated, whic.h resolution I:;' on file in the offICe of said Board.
Cle!"k
(lD/S/:' iJ
-:---...... ' .. 41 .. 11 ... _ ... 0 ...... ' ........... ~~----,.-
/
o
BOARD OF EDUCATION Attachment Action 15
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT Date 10-5-93
TO: James Brown. Superintendent
FROM: Patricia J, Einfalt, Assodate Superintendent-Human ResoLJ rees! Adrnini:!tt{ ati,')n
SUBJECT: NOVEM8ER BALLOT ISSUES: RESOlllI!QN IN OPPOS!TIONIO THE ·PARENLA,b
CHOICE IN fDUCATION" INITIATIVE (PRQPOSrnON 174)
Proposition 174 (the Parental Choice in Education lnitiative) is on the November 2, 19B baUot for
California vot:ers. The endosure for this Board meetrng includes a summary analysis of the Proposition as
prepared by EdSource. iI nonprofit impartial education resource center, i!"d a propo5ed resolution in
opposition to the Inrtiative.
The Palo Alto Unffied School District believes that parents and students shou'd have ... hoice options.
!nsupport of this benet, this District provides choke of school .. ttendance opportunities for resident
students and enrollment oppcrtunities for over 500 students who are not residents of our District.
The District als.o encourages pa(en"~ panicipation in deci-sion-making processes which establish school and
District goars, evaluatE.' progress toward ,achieltPment of goals, anocate resources in support of goals., and
di.scus.sion of strategies to implement designated goals. Through such partnerships and cofiaboration this
District -and othr. public s<hool districts -hf!.come even more responsive to the needs of ali our students.
This is the strength of our publfc school system.
Several State org.anizatrons (Parent-Teacht:r Association, CalIfornia Teache!"s Assodation, CalifomrC! Sc.hool
Employees AssO(iatiol"lo, California School Boards Ano<iation, Association of Californi.a ~choor
Administrators, Ca!ifornia Federation of Teach ers, Service Emplo~ees International Unron. and Californians
for Community Coileges) have joined together to educate Ca;lrrornia voters about this Initiati'lle. To
fadlitate this process, fact sheets and brodnlft's have been prepared that outline thE many conc~ms,
induding the potl!'ntial loss of funds for public educatior: (estimated at $1.3 billion). The resulting klss to
our District could be as much a:;; 10% of current revenue. The proposed resofution addre,:ses this and oth.er
concerns in greater detall.
The Superintendent recommends that the Board .adopt the resolution in opposition to Proposition 174 and
that the Pero Alto Cit)' Council be reqt,;ened to place thi:. Jeso!l.J .... lon on a future agenda for consideration.
Enclosures
C!4R:544:93 Attachment 2
(10/5/'93) _ .... _.,,----.~.-.--.
"
•
PALO ALTO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
RESOLUTION
"Ill Opposition to Proposition 174: The 'Parental Choice in Education' Initiative"
WHEREAS, pub!:, education 1n the State of California and the United States of America is the foundation of
our d@mocracyinthatitprovideseduc.CIlionaioppo:1unitjesfor all peop!e; ano
WtiEREAS~ in the Palo Alto Unified School District,. Cil1d in ether public s.:hool districts jrt CaHfornia. parents.
5tudents, teachers, support staff and rOc.<! I (ommunity members are workir'l9 .::ollatordtively to imp.rove the
educatkm3>' proS-ram and opportunities for all students; and
WHEREAS. U.e Parental Choke il'1 Ed .... cation Init~ative will ailow any indi~'idlJa~ or group who attracts
2S student3 ttl dedare the-mjel .... ~ to be a school and recei'ol€ pubil~ funding; and
WHEREAS, sd100fs created und~r thi~ initiative wf~1 rec.eiy€ ta:':Dayer-funded \'oL..:d'ers with no requiremenu
for fir;andal a(.countabiHty on how1hey spend public dollars; and
WHER.EAS. 'lIou.:her ~.:hOOr5 could hire unqu.afiffed te.ad'er~ and operate wit~ou' meeting the curriculum.
health and lafety st4!.ndarcb governing public: ~c:hoois; and
WHEREA5~ this initi .. tive restricb state regulati(ln of arl private schools beyond those currently in existence
unles.s'\here is a h'WIc,~b~e vote of thtee-fo\lrtm of the legislatl.lre, and
WHEREAS~ this initiative wHi aliow the use of pubiicfunds for pri"¥ate sc:.l"looI5 tnat may exdude students based
on reiigion, g~nder. disability, income, and academic ability; and
WHEREAS. this: initiative purports to offer parental <hoke but in reality a"ows prl'llate $-Choors to choOSE' their
stlJdents; !.nd
WHEREAS. this inlti;rtjye would ,-:::-quirE' public sc"'0015 to impiement open enrotiment policies bas.ed primanly
on parental thoice whHi! pri~ ... t~ schools. would not hay,-this feq\Jirem~nt; and
WHEREAS~ Proposition 98 funds 9uarartteed to public schools will be redvc:.ed by.as m!)ch as $5,200 for ellery
stude!'\t who luves the public schools; and
WHEREAS. p\.,!bJk schoots wirl a!so los.e guarantelE!d fundins: in the amount ct an additional S5,200 for ellery
studerttwho redeems a .... OUd\@f at ~ priva.te $Chool; ~r;d
WHfA!AS. the ,ost of pro .... iding 'lIoucilef"5 to the o'ler 500,0{)0 students already in private schools will reducl':'
publk'5.~hoo~ fundlng by an addi;;(of\a~ $1_3 billion or 10% of the current f\1oding fo, (\eighbott-.ood schooLs;
NOW THEREf-oRE IE rr RESotVED TliATthe Palo Alto Unified School District Board ofEduo:ation is oppos.<>d!o
t...'":e P.arental Ch.Ol.:.-I! in Education Initiatiye and the erosion rt wiil (au~e in the: basi.:: s.nength and foundation of
our state and t:ourltry~· public education for a~t childr-an!
PASSED ANO ADOPTEO by the 60ard o~ EduC2tioC"1 .of tl"1.e P03.lc Alto Ur1ifi.ed Sc.hoc District t.his ______ ddy of
____ , 1993, by the foliowing 'IOU>:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
f. Jame. R. BrOwn, O<:rlo: of the GOl/erni:l9 Board of the FOlk> Alto U(1ifiE"d Sd·,o'JJ D!srritl: of Santa (IMa (QI1:1ty,
Cni~fornia. do hereby <ertify that the f::Jregoi(19 ..... fU'i. true .,lId ,orren cop, o~ a :bJ'Ullon adopted t>y the said
BOllrd <lot a gene! .. ! meetillg thereof npld at iu. J~g\Ji;H plate 01 meetif1g .. t th~ time "no by l.t"1e .... ole above-')t'H,cr.: II whi'h ,,,o'otion is 0.' Iii. ,t/ •.. office of ,.id Bo"d .___________ _ _______ _
Clerk
.---
(1615 1'
•
1&
I
I
i
i
I
ClGrifyinR Comp!e%
Educa tiDn Issues
o
Summary of Proposition 174
The Education Voucher Initiative
On November 2 voters will decide whether
or Dot to approve Proposition 174, the Education
Vouche-r-lDitiative. A "ye.,t;,. vote would amend
Article IX oCthe California Constitution and
direot the .ta~ \0 give eam mild a "s<holllrshlp'
.'lI" voucher which could be redeemed at partici
pating private or public scboo1s.
The authOTS of PNp 1 T4. believe that the initia
tive wou1d improve "'the quality of edueation avail
ab1e t4 an children-by allowing parenta l<I decid.e
which schools best meet U! eil" children's needs and
to be financially able t.c:l send their wndrE:n to them.
They say that teachers would have enater emplcy~
ment. opporbmit.iet; and. that higher private scholar
ship schoo1 etU'o!Jment would take the pressure off
increasingly overcrowded pubue &c."lools (and aave
taJpayera the coste of .c:tInstructin& public ac-hools).
Opponenta of Prop 174 count:.er that the initiative
would give !:baiee to schools, not to parents. They
allege 'that. passage of tiKI init.iative would cre8:~ a
bureaucratic and financial nightmare. tllat giving
public: blX money to religious acltools is uncons(.itu·
tional, and that publlc:: &ehoolli eou1d end tJP with
hard--to-edueata cbildron.. They fear that new schools,
o~!"S.ting with few restrietiOhl, W11l not have aUnd
ani course require-menta or certificated teachers..
This summary PVeI. a brief uptanation o(Prop
174 and poses open que&t.ions for voters to consider.
THEVOt'CBERS-Under Prop 174, an
"'resident" ~hildren would be entjtl~ 00 r~ive ""':I
annU3.l voucher to redeem at -s.cholarship· schools.
Each year Uu! voucher would be worth at least. half
tL e prier year's total spending pet puliUe .c;boo)
5Ludent from aD sow-cel>. For the 1993·94 5thooI
)leal', the estimated spen ding is $5,200 per pupil; a
voucher would be worth $2,600, paid directly to tlle
student's scholarship scnool
SCBOlARSHlP SCBOOIS-lfPNp 17.
passes, California "Will have (our types or schools
puhlit {funded by pubHoc tax money), ?ri .... a.le {t.ui.tion
supported), and ~ublic or :private :scholarship-redeem·
in.g school" Cbcth funded \0. ps.rt or .enti.rely by the
new '(ouchers}.
Under Prop 114 a pri .... ate schooT that wa.nts t.o
become a scholarship school tJ1ust fiie a statement
that if. meets the minimal requirements of Prop 174
and uisting regulat.ions on private schools. B)'
November 1994, the Legislature must establish a
process for public schools to bee()[ne seholarship
""hoots if t!'.ey wish. Seb.O'tarMill khool. mu.st. enroll
at least 25 stude;,ts and may not discriminate on the
basis fJ{ ra.ee, e!.hnieity, colo'!', or nationa.l qrigi.n (h\.tf.
could .electively admit studenta on the basis of gen·
der, reli~on, ability ot' disability). They must not
leach "'hatred .. about rac:e, ethnicity, eolor, national
origin, religion or g~r. All schoo.!s., e-.-en public
ones., would be free to est.ablish and eruo!"te, thrcUBh
diiimissru, a student conduct code.
ENROLLME'NT -CU1Tellt public &d10':Jl &tu
dents (5.2 million) t'Ould use their ·~ouchera to b"anJ
fer to. priV2lt.e acholarship achool thAt. will ae.::ept
them. Approzimetely 120,000 children who entered
private schools between October 1991 end No'/ember
195(3 would .. 180 be immediauly eligible for a voucher
iftheiT a.chool chose tQ part.icipate. The 400,000
children who .... ere in private schools befoTe October
1991 would have to waH. untn 199,5..96 to be eligible.
ACCOUNTABILITY -The .tate d ... Dot
require pri'lf&te aenoo.ta to teat their Gudentl. Und.U'"
Prop 17"; the State Board ofEdu.caLion may require
.all tehola.nhip and public: schools to administer and
relellSE the results oJ tests reflecting "'llational' .r..and~
ards-(oot currently ~eloped.). &eored by independ
!nt 1C'Oret"1
FlNANcw.lMPACT TO CALIFORNL\
The financial impaet wowd depend ,Priman1y CUJ how
lll&lJy existing priva~ schoo'" decide UI aceept vouch·
ers and how 'D'.any sludlilnts leave publie scnoou to go
to sch olarship schools. If the 500,000 students in pri
vat..e sc.ltoob ehose io redeem vour.hll'ra. th. coat to the
state would be large. This expen se would be parUa11y
o!" whony haJanced it'puhlic moo) stu:.dent.a Lransf'er
to sch olarship adtools (the vouchers W\)wd be: less
than current per pupil funding}. Assuming that the
state gave only the vouc:her amount to scbolarsbip
schoo!.s, the Office Illthe Legislative Analyst projects
~at,. a.il..Er the phase-in period, Prop 114 would result
"' -an annual net cos-: to
the state of a:round $SO\)
Dlilli~n if 10% (520,000)
of public school students
transfer to Slholarship
~hools
-break·even n20% 0.4
million) t.ransfer
• an annual net sauin.gg
of $1 billion 1£ 33% (L 7
million studenu)
LT,w.sfer.
EdSouroe. _ oonpror.t,
.mperMI education rEt
SOU/'C1I carter. gJaI"l\s
permission to reprint (b.t.
not 10. QKcwp1 troo:'n) this
Summary. An expanded
, 0'9898 d~la11ed analysis
of Proposi1ion 174 (in Eng
ish or.in Spanish) may be
(lrd&,iId 'rom EdSourca for
1 $3.00 Pw copy. I
: e~!_I9!JJtrr~.-.c I
EdScUfQl-S25lMd1alllld Raid. Surta 100· ~ Park, tA S4GZ!i. (4' 5) 32J.8396· FA): (415) 32:J.01BD
•
---_.-
) Supporters emphasize u,a~lic: school en
TOllmenu au growing rapidly and tJiat the eost of
providing $2,600 vouchers to each ehi1d entering a
stholarship school saves another $2.6!JO that would
~ave to be SptT,:, itthat child went into a puhlic l
school rather th&n a ?¢ho 18.rship .sthool. ( nents
argue that the actual sa'.-:gl, estimated b~ :ne
Legislative Analyst at $l,.oo per pupil, would be
offset by the expense o(redeeming a voucher fOT 8
private SC'hool student who had not previously been
suppor-ted by the atate. They claim the impact on
the state', budget could be large enough to :reqWl"'e
additional t..&:I:ea to pay far an the voucher s. as well
as the ongoinJ" sy&iem.
SCHOOL SUPPLY -Aceording to a recent
report hy Sotlthwest Regional Laboratories, the
2.700 eltglble private sdiools in California have
apace (or only 1 ~ (:52,OOO) c:.r current public school
enronment without undertaking major bwlding
pt"egnU'Q$. Proponents of' Prop 174 say that the
demand for private edlleation will aurely reJIult in
the ereatioo or sehools to accommodate students and
teachen t;(I te.:::.b. them. Opponents aay the high cost
oCestablishing or ncpeni'ng .c:."l:mols, especiatly large
high achools, would be-Dearly imposSlble in urban
areas ",hE're interest in c:hai~ may be greatest
PUBLIC SCHOOLS -The authoTS or P!-op 174
believe Illat public BChool5 win be 'tn:nglhened by
the force of the marketplace -that all &cltoolt win
have to impt'C"n in order to keep or attract students.
They contend that teachers: w¢uld have more control
over their own~. Opponents counter that
public &ehool te.ach8J1l wt1l be lEft with more crowded
elasses and the hanHo-edueate children. They
think laek at prvvisions fOT transp~tion costs
eouId Jock poorer or immig1'8l"lt students into schoo ts
from which the more able 01" aftluent studenta -
whose parents "'know their way around the &)'Stem
-have ned. This. they "y, will create a t.wlHlass,
un/'a;, oystem.
PlUV ATE SCHOOLS -It deemed IOOnstitu
ti()na1~ Prop 174 could help religious schools, many
cfw"bieh are small and have low tuitions. Religiaus
IIChoois large enough UI qualify to become scho'tar
ship &Chock eurrently educate about saw, of the mOTe
than 500,000 non-public school &tudents in the stale.
However, many sma1l religious schools and the more
~sive pr. ... ate schools express lie Ie interest in
accepting scholarships for fear of losing autonomy.
THE COURTS AND THE LEGISLATURE
HProp 174 paiiSeS, it will require eonsiderable
C'larifieation. All implementation steps will have to
comply with existing and future federal laws and
eourt decisions, as wen as thE-state and (ederal
constitutions.. The California ugislature will h~
i • .-. . . ,es !'.-irn. ·'mentati"n, including
ie-s.e-r.~.,&-'~hool .!,d
yme1 .. ', detenr,·
<..it),,_ lS,8T" ..ner c:1arit
'" .s and Il~US', :lew system.
OPEN QUESTIONS
ABOUT PROPOSITION 174
Would providing pLililic fUnd_ to religious
8("hools vioJate aepantion of church and st..ate?
How would parents learn aboot the vanoul
s.cho1arship schools that may bet'ome avallab1e?
Would the: ability ot. private acholarahiD
&chaol to reject certain stlirlellu reduce cpporu.
nitiu for many students'?' Would a!lowinl'
pl"ivate sc}lQiarship schools to charge tuition or
other fees above their voucher in::-ome give an
unfair advantage to wealthier rami1ies~
Could schools dismiss a cruld with a learn
ing disabnity on tl>e 'baslS that he OT she waa
deriving-no .s~t.ant.je1 aeademk benefit",
Would school wSl!lissal policies discriminate
against the handlcapped? U:)der the u..S. and
California Constitutions and laws, bow broad
can student dismissal policies. be?
Would. public: school become a aeholar .j)
s;;4oo1 if the voucher payment t.umed out to be
its only source of income? Could public acnolar
ship schools employnon-a:rt.ifieated teetbe,.., as
private onr~s can? Wbo ... ·ould own and maintain
the eristing property, bw.1d.ings. equ:lpment of
public scholarship 'SChools? What would t..'le
relati<:nship be-, if an; ~twee!"1 a public-5Cholar.
ship sch'lOl and its loclJ.J sehoc" _<lard, conective
bargaining Wlits, and district policies?
What are -national standards-against
whieh to t.e-.st? Would tests be the &arne (or all
schools? Would required testing help parents to
judge quality? I
Would the a\'ai1ability ofvGucners. plus the
existence of yat'ant c<>mmerciat and rE!sidential
rea! estate encourage the formation ofrnany new
schools for students who want to lea ... .e thei:
pablic school?
',",oald competition result in a more effective
school system? Would teachers j~, unrt'gulai..ed
public scholarship S(-tl; >"Is do a ,~r job than I
~
.' '';;; in regular pubhc schools~ e private
.,:)10. ". rl'r and better'?
L __ _ -----
EdSourCl' 5251D6dWie1d Re",":' S<J1tI,ao· Me% Park, C4 94025· ('IS) 32]·4396· FU ("15)323-0180
• 'c,' r