Vouchers = Yes, Prop 174 = No
Ray
Well, I feel that vouchers are an OK first step in getting away from
the mess that public schools have become, but I don't think that
California's Prop 174 is a good voucher initiaitve.
The state legislator have been trying to use education funds for
other means for quite some time. Prop 174 is written so the money
"saved" by giving a child a voucher goes into the state's general
fund and that is not a pretty thought.
--
Ray (DJ) DeGennaro II
dege...@scf.usc.edu
Jim Davis
I'm not disagreeing or agreeing at this point. What does concern me a
great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
defeat Prop 174. When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
Where are the proponents of 174? I want to hear that side?
Jim
Data Rentals and Sales
>
>I'm not disagreeing or agreeing at this point. What does concern me a
>great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
>defeat Prop 174. When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
>but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
>
>Where are the proponents of 174? I want to hear that side?
They are mostly the 'moral majority', i.e. those of conservative
religeous views (including a witches' organization). The thing I don't
like about prop 174 is that even if nobody changes what school they're
in, the public schools lose over $1Billion.
--
#include <standard.disclaimer>
_
Kevin D Quitt 96.37% of all statistics are made up
Ron Asbestos Dippold
>I'm not disagreeing or agreeing at this point. What does concern me a
>great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
>defeat Prop 174. When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
>but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
It's the teachers unions paying for the advertising. Their motives
are rather simple: make sure their power isn't threatened (individual
teachers care about students, but the teachers' unions have
continually acted against them).
>Where are the proponents of 174? I want to hear that side?
They don't have nearly as much money to burn as the unions do.
They'll be starting their commercials a week or so before the
election, and a few commercials in selected areas before then.
--
We will cross out that bridge when we come back to it later.
Joshua Levy
>great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
>defeat Prop 174. When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
>but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
>
>Where are the proponents of 174? I want to hear that side?
The San Jose Merky News had one or two articles on this in the last week
or two. I do not remember the details, but you are right in that the
proponents of 174 are being outspent by the opponents. I THINK it was
about 1 million to 9 million, but I could have the units wrong.
The vast majority of the anti-174 money was coming from teacher's unions
and PTA organizations. I don't remember where the pro-174 money was
coming from.
Also, the pro-174 groups seem to be having some internal arguments.
The Merky said that one particular Catholic publication had a strong
statement in favor of 174 on one page, and a weak statement against
174 on a different page.
All this is from memory.
Joshua Levy <jos...@veritas.com>
Richard Ottolini
>great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
>defeat Prop 174. When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
>but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
>
>Where are the proponents of 174? I want to hear that side?
Last I saw was $1M for the proposition, 80% raised from Christian groups
in S. CA; $10M against the proposition, 80% raised by a special union tax
of $63 on every public school teacher. A couple of Orange County schools
are being sued for sending anti-174 flyers home with the children.
Mark S. Peercy
Jim Davis <jda...@ssf-sys.DHL.COM> wrote:
> I'm not disagreeing or agreeing at this point. What does concern me a
> great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
> defeat Prop 174. When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
> but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
>
> Where are the proponents of 174? I want to hear that side?
According to the October 13 issue of the San Francisco Chronicle, opponents
of Proposition 174 have raised $10.3 million dollars, a very large chunk of
which comes from the California Teachers Association. In contrast, proponents
have raised $2.1 million dollars. Because of the relative meagerness of this
amount, they have had to hold off on wide advertising until close to voting
time.
The motives of the opponents certainly should not go unnoticed. In the
October 11 editorials of the San Francisco Chronicle, Milton Friedman writes:
To know how important it is to pass Proposition 174, all you need to know
is the list of people who are opposed to it. Based on the September 12
editions of The Chronicle, the opponents are: the State Board of Education;
the interim superintendent of public instruction; the California PTA; the
League of Women Voters; teachers' unions and the state AFL-CIO; the
California School Boards Association; and most Democratic office holders.
There is also the major opponent, the National Education Association.
There exists no shortage of pamphlets and papers where the self-interest of
the author is completely unveiled. While this fact is not a refutation of
his or her position, it does completely deflate any arguments he or she may
make based on the self-interest of others.
Mark Peercy
pee...@kaos.stanford.edu
Lon Stowell
>
>The motives of the opponents certainly should not go unnoticed. In the
>October 11 editorials of the San Francisco Chronicle, Milton Friedman writes:
>
> To know how important it is to pass Proposition 174, all you need to know
> is the list of people who are opposed to it. Based on the September 12
> editions of The Chronicle, the opponents are: the State Board of Education;
> the interim superintendent of public instruction; the California PTA; the
> League of Women Voters; teachers' unions and the state AFL-CIO; the
> California School Boards Association; and most Democratic office holders.
> There is also the major opponent, the National Education Association.
>
decent education. Perhaps we should consider reducing their
budgets by the tens of millions of OUR funds they are spending on
this campaign?
Or if they spent as much time teaching (or worrying about quality
of same) as fighting, the proposition wouldn't even BE on the
ballot in the first place?
I dunno if Prop 174 is really any kind of answer to the atrocious
educational system of current California, but if all those groups
are fighting it, it just might put the fear of God into them and
help with getting on with improving education without taxing
Californians into bankruptcy.
George S. Kong
> decent education. Perhaps we should consider reducing their
> budgets by the tens of millions of OUR funds they are spending on
> this campaign?
the voter information bulletin that describes this year's
propositions says that public schools get $5100 per student.
that's more than $150,000 for a class of 30!
we should be getting more for our money.
vouchers provide competition. high-quality teachers and schools
continue to thrive; incompetent ones go out of business.
of course, there will be many side-effects, some good and
some bad, but the primary effect will be increased competition,
and that's good.
George S. Kong, Silicon Graphics, Inc., (415)390-3281 g...@sgi.com
Joe Buck
>October 11 editorials of the San Francisco Chronicle, Milton Friedman writes:
>
> To know how important it is to pass Proposition 174, all you need to know
> is the list of people who are opposed to it.
This is the baldest kind of ad hominum argument. Prof. Friedman should
present arguments in favor of the proposition, not try to slam it because
of the identities of the opponents. Presumably this means that he finds
it easier to slam the opponents, because labor unions are unpopular with
many people, than make arguments in favor.
> Based on the September 12
> editions of The Chronicle, the opponents are: the State Board of Education;
> the interim superintendent of public instruction; the California PTA; the
> League of Women Voters; teachers' unions and the state AFL-CIO; the
> California School Boards Association; and most Democratic office holders.
> There is also the major opponent, the National Education Association.
I am not a member of any of these groups. I went to Catholic schools
throughout my childhood and my family was not wealthy and certainly could
have benefitted greatly by voucher money. If anything, one could argue
that my self-interest goes the other way.
I might even be for a well-designed voucher system (though it is my belief
that private schools do better because every private school student has
parents who care so much about education that they were willing to pay
twice, not because the public schools are so vastly inferior). I am very
much against Prop. 174.
Prop 174 is a very poorly conceived measure that would take large amounts
of money away from public schools unless huge numbers of students move.
It not only places no requirements on schools that receive the money, but
it has unprecedented language designed to prevent either the legislators
*or* the public from ever changing major portions (even an initiative
would fail unless it got 50% of *all eligible voters* voting in favor,
something that is flat-out impossible in the typical election with < 50%
turnout).
Even if you're in favor of vouchers, vote this turkey down, re-write a
decent one, and try again.
--
-- Joe Buck jb...@synopsys.com
Posting from but not speaking for Synopsys, Inc.
Formerly jbuck@<various-hosts>.eecs.berkeley.edu
Clayton Cramer
>great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
>defeat Prop 174. When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
>but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
>
>Where are the proponents of 174? I want to hear that side?
>
>Jim
Why be surprised? The fat cats, the status quo, the mass media,
are all on the NO side. No one likes to admit that they've really
screwed the pooch, and that's exactly what has happened with
public education in this state.
It's not ALL the fault of public schools -- there's plenty of
parents out there who seem to have no concept of decent parenting --
but the public school establishment has been spending money on
public schools like a drunken sailor, with ever increasing amounts
for many years (even inflation adjusted), and the results are getting
more and more depressing.
Admittedly, if *I* was an elected official, I would find nothing
scarier than to have educated citizens who could and did read
carefully, think critically, and knew some history, so I can see
why the establishment is lining up with support and money on the
NO on 174 side.
--
Clayton E. Cramer {uunet,pyramid}!optilink!cramer My opinions, all mine!
"Who's going to catch us? We're the police. We're in charge." Former NYC
police officer, explaining to a commission why he wasn't afraid while
committing robbery, aggravated assault, rape, and burglary in uniform.
Data Rentals and Sales
>of course, there will be many side-effects, some good and
>some bad, but the primary effect will be increased competition,
>and that's good.
The primary effect, even if nobody leaves public school will be the
loss of over $1Billion to the public schools because of the people
*already* in private schools. I don't see how this increases the
competition. And private schools will just raise their rates
according to the value of the voucher (leastwise, that's what the
owners I know have told me).
Jim Brownfield
>
> They are mostly the 'moral majority', i.e. those of conservative
> religeous views (including a witches' organization).
This is what the teachers' unions would have you believe. I know a lot of
people who are for 174, and very few of them are religious right wingers. Most
of pro-174 crowd want to give parents a wider latitude in giving their children
an education without being forced through the government education monopoly.
> The thing I don't
> like about prop 174 is that even if nobody changes what school they're
> in, the public schools lose over $1Billion.
Of course, there is another perspective on this. If 174 passes, the people who
are currently sending their children to private schools will no longer be
getting screwed by paying high taxes for public education AND tuitions for
private schools. Seems fair to me.
>
>
> --
> #include <standard.disclaimer>
> _
> Kevin D Quitt 96.37% of all statistics are made up
--
Jim Brownfield (Jim_Bro...@Radical.Com) NeXTmail accepted
Radical System Solutions, Inc.
rad i cal \'rad-i-kel\ n -- a basic principle: FOUNDATION
Bob Van Cleef
<<snip>>
>(even an initiative
>would fail unless it got 50% of *all eligible voters* voting in favor,
>something that is flat-out impossible in the typical election with < 50%
>turnout).
I had missed this in my reading. Here is the text from page 33:
"Local governments could impose new health, safety, or land use
regulations on private schools only upon a two-thirds vote by
the local governing body and approval in an election by a majority
of all the people in the affected area who are registered to vote."
You are correct - that is an impossible requirement to meet under
normal circumstances.
I tend to support the idea of vouchers, but I am leary of poorly
worded laws. This piece of information just shifted me over to
the opposition. I will vote NO on 174.
Bob
--
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> \|/ <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Bob Van Cleef Peace -0- be re...@garg.Campbell.CA.US
The Land of Garg BBS unto /|\ you BBS (408) 378-5108
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> | <>< <>< <>< <>< <>< <><
Robert L. McMillin
> jda...@ssf-sys.DHL.COM (Jim Davis) writes:
>>I'm not disagreeing or agreeing at this point. What does concern me a
>>great deal is the inordinate amount of advertising that's being done to
>>defeat Prop 174. When that kind of money is being spent I can't help
>>but think there's some motive other than the 'public good'.
> It's the teachers unions paying for the advertising. Their motives
> are rather simple: make sure their power isn't threatened (individual
> teachers care about students, but the teachers' unions have
> continually acted against them).
According to fairly recent figures, the NEA and its local, the CTA,
have raised something like *twelve times* the amount the pro-174 side
has. Kill, kill, kill, die, die, die!
--
Robert L. McMillin | Surf City Software | r...@helen.surfcty.com | Dude!
"It's okay to stare at my ear. I know you can't help it." -- Bongo
Thomas J. Merritt
who has spent time working with an innercity private school in central Los
Angeles. The school charges $800/student/year and is out of the reach of
most but not all of the low income minorities that it serves. The
families that are served by this school are willing to make large sacrifices
for the benifit of their children. The private school has had excellent results
compared to its neighboring public schools; Less crime on the school grounds,
better tests scores, less drug abuse by students, a higher rate of college
scholarships. The amazing thing about this school is the $800/student.
The school is basically just scraping by financially. With a voucher program
the school would be able to expand to server more students without requiring
the huge financial sacrifices by the families of its students.
The intent behind prop 174 is to allow more the these types of schools to
be created and to make them finacially viable. The intent was also to
not exclude private religious schools from the voucher program. Without
some of the wording in prop 174 private religious schools could have been
excluded from the voucher program.
The proposition is modeled after a similar voucher program in the state
of Wisconsin. The general consensus in Wisconsin is that the voucher
program there has dramatically improved the quality of PUBLIC education.
Because of the competition created by voucher schools parents have more
options on where and how to educate their children. Public schools
have a general advantage in that there are many more public schools than
private schools and they're therefore more convient for students and parents.
This advantage only holds though if the public schools are competitive.
The experience of Wisconsin is that the state spends less on eduction now
than it did before the voucher program was instituted and that test scores
of students are higher than before the voucher program.
The primary oponent to prop 174 is the California Teachers Association.
The CTA acts as the union for all teachers in California public schools.
What they have to lose under the voucher program should be clear.
The public schools in California have changed over the passed fifty years.
The amount spent on schools has dropped from 98 cents of every education
dollar to only 51 cents. Most of the 49 cents spent on state and district
administration of eduation is spent by the state in Sacromento. This is
a very high rate for administration. Other states that spend comparitively
more on eduation than California spend comparitively less on administration.
In 1993 it is likely that administrative expenses will have grown to 50% or
more.
My personal opinion is that the California Department of Education is
top heavy. To much money is being spent before it reaches local schools.
The system at present has no incentive to increase effectiveness since
there is no competetition. A voucher program would create competition
at the local level and would make it increasing difficult to justify the
high overhead rates of the state public education sytem. I think we
need a voucher program to revitalize eduction in California. Is prop
174 the right way to do it? I don't know. Given that the oponents
of prop 174 have heavily financed an ad campaign based on fear rather than
the merits of the proposition I am likely to vote for it. There maybe
parts of prop 174 that are bad law though. Study it carefully and make
your own choice.
TJ Merritt
t...@netcom.com
Mark S. Peercy
>pee...@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Mark S. Peercy) writes:
>>The motives of the opponents certainly should not go unnoticed. In the
>>October 11 editorials of the San Francisco Chronicle, Milton Friedman writes:
>>
>> To know how important it is to pass Proposition 174, all you need to know
>> is the list of people who are opposed to it.
>
> This is the baldest kind of ad hominum argument. Prof. Friedman should
> present arguments in favor of the proposition, not try to slam it because
> of the identities of the opponents. Presumably this means that he finds
> it easier to slam the opponents, because labor unions are unpopular with
> many people, than make arguments in favor.
Probably not, seeing as Milton Friedman was the first to propose this form
of vouchers back in 1955 -- in an article entitled "The Role of Government
in Education" in _Economics and the Public Interest_, Robert Solo, ed.
Chapter 6 of _Capitalism and Freedom_ is a revised version of this article,
and another discussion can be found in Chapter 6 of _Free to Choose_.
In addition, I quoted only the second paragraph of the October 11 article;
it by no means summarizes his purpose for writing the editorial. That
purpose can be found in the fourth paragraph:
However, I am more optimistic about this amendment than I have been about
any others I have been associated with over the past 30 years. The
reason is that public recognition of the defects of our educational
system are widespread. Support also is widespread. Therefore, I want
to stress two arguments that have not received enough attention...
The reader should dig up the editorial or read the other references that I
gave above to understand the arguments that Milton Friedman gives in favor
of vouchers.
I quoted only the second paragraph because it echoes the concern of the
original poster that the opposition of Proposition 174 often seems to be
motivated by something other than the public good.
Mark Peercy
pee...@kaos.stanford.edu
Michael J. Eager
>In article <PEERCY.93O...@kaos.stanford.edu> pee...@kaos.Stanford.EDU (Mark S. Peercy) writes:
>>
>>The motives of the opponents certainly should not go unnoticed. In the
>>October 11 editorials of the San Francisco Chronicle, Milton Friedman writes:
>>
>> To know how important it is to pass Proposition 174, all you need to know
>> is the list of people who are opposed to it. Based on the September 12
>> editions of The Chronicle, the opponents are: the State Board of Education;
>> the interim superintendent of public instruction; the California PTA; the
>> League of Women Voters; teachers' unions and the state AFL-CIO; the
>> California School Boards Association; and most Democratic office holders.
>> There is also the major opponent, the National Education Association.
>>
> Hmmmm. Those same folks claim they haven't enough money to provide
> decent education. Perhaps we should consider reducing their
> budgets by the tens of millions of OUR funds they are spending on
> this campaign?
Where did you get the impression that they were spending "OUR" funds? By that
I presume you mean public money.
Based solely on postings in ba.general, my impression is that the CTA has
provided the bulk of the money by levying a charge on the union members.
This is clearly the teacher's money, unless you believe that since they are
public employees, the public should have a say in how they spend their wages.
My understanding and personal knowledge is that teachers purchase supplies,
books, and educational materials out of their own pockets because the state
fails to provide adequate funding.
---
Michael J. Eager Michae...@eagercon.com
Eager Consulting (415) 325-8077
1960 Park Boulevard, Palo Alto, CA 94306-1141