Voucher systems hurt minority communities because they create false hope for minority parents who want the best education possible for their children.
The Draper voucher initiative - Proposition 38 on the November ballot - plays on the anxiety of minority parents and creates the false illusion that vouchers will be a cure-all. But placing a child in a private school does not guarantee a better quality education. And a voucher system like the one envisioned under Prop. 38 could cause irreparable harm to large numbers of children - especially minority children and children in low-income families - left behind in public schools with diminishing funds due to declining attendance.
Teacher Guillermo Gomez helps Ana Cortes at Vista Square Elementary in Chula Vista...
As Peter Schrag, a columnist for the Sacramento Bee, puts it, "The good fortune of the winners is matched by worsening prospects of the losers."
There's no guarantee that every student receiving a voucher would find a private school willing to accept him or her. Many elite private schools realize that, if they accept every student who applies, they will no longer be able to maintain the level of excellence they reach by schooling only high achievers and/or highly motivated students. Under Prop. 38, the choice would be up to the private school, not the parents. Since no reason would have to be given for rejecting a student, charges of discrimination would be hard to prove - assuming they were illegal at all, given the way the initiative is written.
...while other sixth-graders vie for his attention.
By increasing the percentage of high achievers in private schools and by leaving low achievers and students with special needs in the public schools, vouchers could make the playing field more uneven than it already is and hurt the children most in need of help.
If Prop. 38 passes, California's public schools will not only suffer a "brain drain" of high-achieving students considered to be "acceptable" to private schools, but also of parents most likely to contribute their time and efforts at their neighborhood school.
Vouchers worth $4,000 will not cover full tuition at many private schools. Parents may also find many "hidden costs." According to a study by Policy Analysis for California Education (PACE), "Private and parochial schools may have additional expenses for transportation, books, meals and activities not covered by vouchers. Since many families cannot afford these extra costs, they are unable to use vouchers even if they receive them."
Even the Catholic Church, whose schools stand to benefit from vouchers, has taken a dim view of Prop. 38 because of detrimental effects on children living in poverty in California. Robert A. Teegarden from the California Catholic Conference was quoted in Education Beat as saying that the Draper initiative "would result in an unbalanced playing field because it provides no preferential option for the poor. The worst public schools are in the central cities, where the worst family poverty levels are. We feel the schools and children in those areas should get special attention. Mr. Draper's proposal to give $4,000 to each child, regardless of family circumstance, would make the poor poorer."
Higher expectations, expanded opportunities and an air of dignity in the magnet program at Crenshaw High in South Central Los Angeles are helping students like Alicia Nassardeen excel; teachers would like to see what works there expanded to all inner-city schools.
Many voucher proponents espouse "means-tested" vouchers available only to students from families earning low incomes. But Prop. 38 would make vouchers available to any student, regardless of how wealthy, even if the student is already enrolled in private school. In fact, by the end of the four-year phase-in period, vouchers for students currently enrolled in private schools could cost $3 billion, according to the state's legislative analyst, without improving the options of public school students at all. The money for vouchers would come from state funds allocated for local services such as police and fire protection, which will mean either a reduction in services or increased taxes to make up the difference.
Voucher proponents have intentionally targeted low-income and minority communities. For example, the Children's Scholarship Fund lottery, launched with $100 million from billionaire Wall Street mogul Ted Forstmann, Wal-Mart Stores heir John Walton and other business moguls, offered private voucher "scholarships" to 40,000 low-income parents across the country. These so-called "gifts" are intended to pave the way for a tax-funded voucher program. CSF vouchers are only good for four years; after that, the goal is to have taxpayers pick up the tab.
"They make it sound like vouchers are designed to help poor, minority students, but in reality vouchers are about expanding a tax break for the rich, because tax money will go to private schools," says Esteban Ramirez, a member of the Windsor District Educators Association who is serving on CTA's Voucher Monitoring Workgroup. "I don't trust the voucher people. The rules will change. The goal is not to help the poor. The goal is having vouchers for all."
His suspicion is founded in truth. Once vouchers were in place in Milwaukee, proponents began to lobby state officials to phase out the requirement that vouchers only be given to poor students on the grounds that it was unfair to middle-class families. Noted one observer, "Targeting the poor was supposed to clear up an injustice. Now they are saying that targeting the poor introduces an injustice."
When the Chicago Tribune carried a story contrasting targeted voucher plans for low-income families with the radical universal plan proposed by Prop. 38, Yes on 38 spokesman Chris Bertelli defended the universal plan. The authors of the initiative, he said, decided that it "should be universal and should not succumb to class warfare." A targeted plan is not fair to the wealthy, he explained. "Everybody pays for education. It's wrong to treat people differently because they have less money, so why should you discriminate against people who have more money?"
"Dangling the conservatives' voucher agenda in front of the nation's most disenfranchised Americans under the guise of helping them is both immoral and hypocritical," says Timothy McDonald, chair of the national African American Ministers Leadership Council and president of Concerned Black Clergy. "Inner-city parents whose schools are not performing well are desperate for solutions, and the Religious Right is exploiting that frustration. This is really an attempt to divide the African American community against itself."
