|
|
|
Proposition
38 Rejected by California Voters by Denise M. Bonilla |
|
Proposition 38 would have given $4,000 to students attending private or religious schools. |
|
In a landslide victory for public school advocates, Proposition 38, the school voucher initiative backed by Silicon Valley millionaire Tim Draper, was defeated on Tuesday, getting less than 30 percent of the vote. With 82.3 percent of precincts reporting and 7,717,315 votes tallied, Proposition 38 recorded only 29.4 percent of voters' support or 2 million votes. Opposition to the measure reached 70.6 percent or nearly 5.5 million votes. It failed to win in any county. Proposition opponents were hardly surprised to see the initiative fail. "This makes it very clear that vouchers are not the answer," said Becky Voglman, spokesperson for No On 38, the group that campaigned against the measure. "Voters in California have voted for the second time in seven years against vouchers, so they know it's not the way to improve our schools." School voucher initiatives were also on the ballot in Michigan, where Proposition 00-1 would amend the state constitution to allow tax dollars to be spent on private and religious school vouchers. Proposition 00-1 fell quickly, losing by 70 percent, with 642, 990 votes against the measure and obtaining only 275, 200 votes in favor, or 30 percent of the total vote. With 26 percent of precincts reporting, the measure was declared defeated at 8 p.m. EST. Brian Tanner, another spokesperson for No On 38, said that the defeat of Proposition 38 and Proposition 00-1marked a turning point for the voucher issue. "Vouchers have been clearly rejected," Tanner said. "This is the day. The voucher debate is over." California's Proposition 38 had been one of the most hotly contested ballot measures this year, pitting public-school advocates against the deep pockets of a Silicon Valley millionaire. It was conceived by Tim Draper, a venture capitalist who backed the measure with more than $20 million of his own money. The initiative offered $4,000 in vouchers to any student in the state who wished to attend private or parochial school. Unlike past voucher measures in California, Proposition 38 did not target low-income students, a fact that drew the ire of public education supporters and even parochial school administrators, a group that typically backs voucher initiatives. Advocates of the measure, such as private schools, said Proposition 38 would strengthen public education because the transfer of students to private schools would reduce class size in public schools. It would also increase the amount of money spent per student, thereby leading to smaller, better functioning schools. According to Yes On 38, the political arm of Draper's crusade, the initiative would save taxpayers billions of dollars over time, because the state would spend roughly half of what it spends per year to educate a student in public school. Those opposed to the ballot measure-including teachers unions and Gov. Gray Davis-countered that all 700,000 students currently enrolled in private schools would also receive the $4,000, leaving tax payers with a heavy burden. No On 38 claimed the voucher money would only benefit more affluent students and ignore the needs of low-income students. "Four thousand dollars won't get you into many private schools in California," said No On 38 Coalition Director Janis Nielsen before the election. Those who favored Proposition 38 said that any funds given to improve education is money well spent, even if some low-income families were forced to come up with the additional money needed for a private education. "Even if they have to pay a difference, I think it would be far better than having to go to a public school where the kids are not afforded an education," said Doris Limbrick, principal of the Operation Kick-Off Christian Academy in Oakland, a private school that costs $3,500 a year. Whether all public school students would be allowed to attend private schools was another sore point for No On 38 campaigners. According to the group, while all schools participating in the voucher program would not be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race, ethnicity, color, or national origin, Proposition 38 did not guarantee that students would not be rejected from private schools on the basis of academic performance, religious beliefs or learning disability. Opponents also pointed to a lack of accountability in the voucher-accepting schools. No on 38 claimed that voucher school operators were not required to have any training or experience educating children and teachers were not required to have a college degree. Yes On 38 countered that the measure made schools more accountable to parents because they would perform background checks on all teachers. The schools would also be required to release annual financial statements. One of the most vocal opponents of the school voucher initiative was the California Teachers Association, which stated it did not believe in using public money for private schools. According to CTA Communications Consultant Dale Martin, the measure was also flawed because it did not help ailing public schools. "I hope (the measure's defeat) will show that people are supporting public schools and that they see other ways to improve them," Martin said before the election. According to Voglman, this Election day's results indicate the end of voucher initiatives on future ballots. "If you look across the country, at the way the vouchers were soundly defeated in Michigan, the message from voters is clear-no vouchers," she said.
|
||
