reshaffer@csupomona.edu
Ralph E. Shaffer and
Walter P. Coombs
PROP. 26: A POX ON BOTH THEIR HOUSES
For those who are strong advocates of California's public schools and have
long endorsed abolition of the 2/3 requirement for passage of school bonds,
adoption of Prop. 26 will bring little satisfaction. It will be a victory won
by deceit. The misleading arguments put forth by its opponents have
unfortunately been matched by equally deceptive claims and wrong-headed
arguments advanced by its supporters. The official Voter Information Guide for
Prop. 26 is filled with fallacies on both sides.
In statements that display the lingering influence of Howard Jarvis, who
didn't think he should have to pay to educate another man's kids, Prop. 26's
opponents make it clear that their real goal is to lower property taxes, not to
improve schools. These are the same folks who some years back sold us Prop.
13, and are therefore partly responsible for the run-down condition of many of
the state's public schools.
Prop. 13's 1% cap on property taxes eliminated a district's ability to pay
for repairs and upgrading of school plants through the traditional method of
moderate tax increases. Increasingly public schools have relied on bonds, with
their two-thirds supermajority, not only for new construction but for repairs
as well.
The Jarvisites, in their zeal to defeat the current ballot measure, raise
the specter of evil renters versus hard-working property owners. They would
have voters believe that property taxes stop at the door of the homeowner.
Renters are bogeymen who will joyously vote for bonds, burdening the rest of us
with taxes to educate their kids. Surely no landlord would pass on a tax
increase to the tenants!
That the main concern of the Jarvis organization is property taxes, not the
improvement of public education, is evident by counting nouns in their ballot
argument. "Tax," in some form, appears nearly 30 times. "Children" are
mentioned once.
For their part, proponents of Prop. 26 have carried obfuscation to its
zenith. Their ballot statement and television commercials imply that passage
of Prop. 26 will be the magic bullet for improvement of our schools. Vote for
the ballot measure and "help make school boards accountable." Never mind that
they always were, faced with recall or re-election, as the Belmont fiasco
demonstrated. While proponents claim that Prop. 26 will "prevent problems like
Belmont High," they ignore the fact that the Belmont disaster occurred even
though the Los Angeles school board followed up-front procedures similar to
those in Prop. 26.
Furthermore, they argue that Prop. 26 will "help reduce class size for all
our kids," though nothing in the measure guarantees that. Bonds still have to
be voted, and while the bonds may build schools they don't staff them or buy
pencils, paper and books. And a new but empty classroom won't reduce class
size.
Just as their opponents have waved the red flag of "renters" outvoting
property owners, so the pro-school crowd has found its own whipping boy:
"bureaucracy." Somehow Prop. 26 frees us from those awful bureaucrats who
currently run the schools. Unfortunately, the California Teachers Association
doesn't seem to realize that in the minds of many voters the people who support
this measure are the bureaucrats, and that includes the teachers.
Those overcrowded classrooms that backers of Prop. 26 decry are not solely
the fault of the supermajority requirement for passage of bonds. Over the last
decade school boards, with the tacit acquiescence of faculties, have turned
campus after campus into private, usually religious, schools. The Jarvisites
are unusually quiet about what amounts to a taxpayer subsidy to parochial
schools. But then they have never opposed dismemberment of public education.
In one San Gabriel Valley district (Charter Oak), four of the eleven schools
that once served the community are now rented to religious-based educators. At
the same time, portable classrooms have mushroomed on the district's remaining
campuses. To convince voters of the need for more classrooms and repair of
existing facilities, the administration recently circulated a "survey," perhaps
paving the way for Prop. 26. There is little interest in reclaiming those lost
classrooms that could quickly end overcrowding.
To strengthen their position with some voters, proponents have caved in to
the charter school forces, who represent no more than 2% of the state's public
school students. A large portion of the proposition provides for allocation of
bond money for construction of charter facilities even though the whole concept
of charter schools is contrary to the traditional idea of public education.
That's one reason why the California Federation of Teachers opposes Prop. 26,
although the Jarvis argument, which cites the CFT opposition, won't tell you
that.
Advocates of a simple majority for the passage of school bonds may prevail
on March 7. Education has become the chic buzzword of the time. But our
children will not benefit until the democratic concept of public schools
becomes once again the powerful commitment that motivates California's
educational policy.
- - -
(Ralph E. Shaffer and Walter P. Coombs are professors emeriti at Cal Poly
Pomona.)