GAY GEISER-SANDOVAL -- Educationally Speaking

If there is a tooth fairy, surely there must be a college tuition

fairy. With that in mind, I thought my wish had been granted when a nice

young lady called me up last month and asked if I would like to receive

$4,000 for my child’s education.

I said, “Sure. Make the check out to Stanford.”

The next thing I knew, I received a certificate in the mail making me

my neighborhood’s Yes on Prop. 38 School Vouchers 2000 team leader.

I haven’t read the text of the proposition, but I already have my

concerns. According to the campaign literature, California schools are in

sad shape, with our students performing at the bottom of the nation’s

rankings.

But what those polls don’t tell you is that the actual number of

California students who excelled in all of those test indicators is

greater than the number in other states.

Probably more Newport-Mesa students attend the top 25 universities in

the nation than almost any other school district. That doesn’t mean we

don’t have problems, but I don’t think we should make decisions on a

handful of numbers thrown out there to scare us.

The question I keep asking myself is how my $4,000 in tax dollars for

the students already going to Sage Hill or Mater Dei will improve

California students’ overall performance scores.

Currently, private school students are not required to take any of the

standardized tests, so we won’t know if the $4,000 I don’t currently

spend on sending those kids to school makes any difference. And the

proposition doesn’t require those students to take a test if it passes,

so taxpayers won’t know if they are getting their money’s worth.

Instead of spending my tax dollars on kids already at private schools

-- and who have no effect on state test scores because they don’t take

the test -- why not spend more money on the kids scoring in the bottom

20% on the tests?

Target the worst performers. If the vouchers were only available to

the kids scoring at 20% or below, then it might have some effect on the

state results. If those kids were at a school that didn’t take the test,

it would raise the state’s overall scores, even if those children made no

improvement.

But given the correlation between low test scores and poverty, the

voucher system would only work if the voucher picked up the entire cost

for those students in the bottom 20%, including transportation and lunch

costs. And even if that hurdle could be passed, you would have to talk

private schools into taking the kids in the bottom 20% -- who might have

special education needs, medical problems, or speak a different language.

Special education students cost 33% more than is received for special

education. What private school is going to take a number of students that

costs them 33% more than they receive in tuition?

There are currently 700,000 students enrolled in private schools in

the state of California. Right now, our tax dollars do not pay for their

schooling. However, if Prop. 38 passes, we would be forking over $4,000 a

head, for a total of $2.8 billion a year that we aren’t spending now.

Although my Yes on Prop. 38 newsletter assures me there will be no tax

increase, it doesn’t say where this $2.8 billion a year will come from.

Before you vote on Proposition 38, ask yourself who will be going to

private schools if this passes.

Will it be the kids who score in the bottom 20%, from families below

the poverty level? Or will it be kids who score in the top 20%, whose

parents will be able to afford the additional $2,000 to $10,000 a year to send their kids to a private school with the help of the $4,000 state

voucher?

* GAY GEISER-SANDOVAL is a Costa Mesa resident. Her column runs

Tuesdays. She can be reached via e-mail at o7 [email protected] f7 .