Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 10051993 - 1.34 1 . 34 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra FROM: Phil Batchelor, County Administrator Costa September 30,' 1993County5, ounty DATE: rq 65U SUBJECT: NOVEMBER 2 , 1993 BALLOT: PROPOSITION 174 SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S),&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a position in OPPOSITION to Proposition 174, an initiative Constitutional amendment which provides tax funds to private schools, thorough!ta "voucher" program which would subsidize each child enrolled in a private school by approximately $2600 per year. BACKGROUND: Currently, about 5 .2 million pupils attend kindergarten- through 12th grade (K-12) in California public schools . In addition, about 550,000 pupils aie enrolled in K-12 grades in various private schools that are not a part of the public school system. Under existing law, state and local governments do not provide for pupils attending K- 12 private schools, except for a small number of children with physical, mental, or learning disabilities who are placed in certainprivate schools . i Proposition 174. requires the State to offer an annual scholarship to every- resident school-age child in California. The scholarships would be used for the payment of tuition and other educational fees at schools with ', 25 pupils or more that choose to become "scholarship-redeeming schools Private schools could become scholarship-redeeming schools by filing certain legal statements with the State Board of Education. Public schools also could become scholarship-redeeming schools . CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE: TRECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE (S): 'ACTION OF BOARD ON Ort-Abe 5 i 1993 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED 000' OTHER VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AYES: NOES: AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD ABSENT: ABSTAIN: OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ATTESTED OCT 5 1993 Contact: PHIL BATCHELOR,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF CC: County Administrator SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR Each Board Member Each School District Superintendent (Via .CAO) BY-- DEPUTY {i II i; The scholarship would be at least 50% of the average amount spent per K-12 public school pupil in the previous year from all funding sources . The Legislative Analyst estimates that. the initial voucher would be worth about $2600 per year. The scholarship or "voucher" would be available beginning with the current school year to pupils who were not enrolled in a private school on October� l, 1991. Thus the voucher would apparently be effective immediately for nearly all current public school students . Private school students would be eligible for the voucher beginning' in the 1995-96 fiscal year. While Proposition 174 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, , color or national origin, it does permit scholarship-redeeming schools to restrict admission on other bases, including sex, religion, ability and disability. The fiscal effects of Proposition 174 depend almost entirely on how many pupils switch from public to private schools . The more pupils who switch to private schools, the greater the potential savings to the public school! system. However, it is likely that the public school system will sustain additional costs in early years under almost any circumstances . The "break=even" point appears to be in the neighborhood of 17% to 20% of the public school pupil population. Among the criticisms of Proposition 174 are the following: ❑ It provides , a public tax subsidy to religious schools, arguably inlviolation of the doctrine of the separation of church and state. ❑ It does not 'require that faculty be credentialed, only that they be "capable of teaching" . ❑ It requires no specific core curriculum or required courses in any particular fields of study. ❑ It provides the private school with the chance to discriminate against certain groups of students, perhaps unconstitutionally in the case of discrimination on the basis of gender (on the basis of recent court interpretations of the 14th amendment to the United States Constitution) . ❑ It provides little or no accountability for the expenditure of taxpayer funds . ❑ At a time when the public school system can hardly afford to lose revenue; it provides virtually a gift of public funds to every current private school, since the school would be able to apply to receive $2600 for each current student. ❑ It runs the' risk of establishing a two-tiered system of education injCalifornia where the public schools will likely be left withthose pupils who are unable to get admitted to a private school or whose parents care so little that they will not even make the effort to try to get their child enrolled in a private school . Among the arguments in support of Proposition 174 are the following: ❑ It allows parents to choose the best school for their child. ❑ It makes private school education more affordable and therefore will tend to open private school education to a group.-of-pupils for whom this has never been an alternative. ❑ Competition will force the public schools to improve the quality of education the offer. - ❑ The public school system has failed the people and needs to be reformed. -2- i it ❑ , The measure will actually save the taxpayer money by reducing the financial demands on the public school system. The argument in support of Proposition 174 is signed by former Secretary of Education William J. Bennett; an Associate State Superintendent ofj'; Public Instruction; and a school board member from the Palo Verde Unified School District. The rebuttal to the argument against Proposition 174 is signed by the Chairman of the Center for the California Taxpayer; the Chairman of the California Business Roundtable' s Education Task Force; and a teacher at Roosevelt High School . I The argument opposing Proposition 174 is signed by the President of the California School Boards Association; the President of the California Teachers Association; and the Chairman of the American Association of Retired Persons California State Legislative Committee. The rebuttal to the argument in support of Proposition 174 is signed byGray Davis, State Controller; a member of the State Board of Education; and the Vice-President of the Committee to Protect the Political Rights of Minorities . t On the basis of the uncertain initial funding and the pressure any further funding complications will place on all elements of local government, it is recommended that the Board of Supervisors indicate its opposition to Proposition 174 . i I r, ;I it �I l -3- �I