When asked why he should vote to remove Governor Newsom, it seems that one of the most frequent responses is that his four children are attending private schools.
Although Newsom bowed to the public school teachers’ union in the past year and closed education opportunities for approximately 6 million children, he is capable of sending children to private institutions. How hypocritical can be?
The governor has sent a message to approximately 40 million people that California’s education system is not good enough for his children. He is right. Therefore, I will not tell you the tragic statistics of how bad the Golden State Educational Monopoly System is.
No wonder so many Republican candidates for governor support the choice of school in the upcoming recall election.
In California, children must attend school in the school district where they live. There is an exception to this postal code rule. You can apply for a cross-region transfer. It is also possible to carry out intra-regional transfer, but it is not easy.
Owning a new house with high property taxes makes it difficult for most young couples with school-age children to attend private schools. They are limited to nearby schools. If the local public school system provides excellent teachers and administrators, that’s great. However, with minimal competition, the concern is that employees will become complacent, arrogant and lazy. After all, parents have no choice. Why does the school district pursue excellence?
Parents in California have twice tried to correct this paradigm by voting in the Voucher School Choice Program to educate their children.
Proposal No. 174 in November 1993 ended in failure, thanks to the teachers’ union spending approximately $18 million on the opposition. Proposal 174 will provide vouchers that are equivalent to half of the state’s then-current education expenses—approximately $2,500—for private school opportunities.
In 2000, Proposition 38 tried again to obtain vouchers at a price of approximately US$4,000 per student. It also failed, with about 30% of the vote. The California Teachers Association, funded by union dues, and their campaign funds are too strong.
In 2017, when an Orange County resident approached me to talk about another school choice voting measure, I reminded him of these two previous efforts. But he has different ideas. Determine how much California spends on each student, and distribute the money to each of them so that the funds follow the students.
Let me explain. In 1988, California approved Proposition 98. In short, it requires approximately 40% of state general funds to be dedicated to education. Dividing this amount by approximately 6 million school-age students now equates to approximately $14,000 per eligible child.
If the nearby school is good and the parents continue to let their children go to school, then the funds will stay in the school district. If the parents choose a private school, their tuition for a year is $14,000. If the tuition is higher, then they pay the difference. If it is lower, the money saved will be added to the student’s funds next year. After graduating from the 12th grade, any remaining unused funds can be used to pay for the university tuition of successful applicants at California State University or the University of California campus.
This idea makes sense. In 2018, I proposed legislation, Senate Bill 1344, and Senate Constitution Amendment 16 to achieve this goal.
It is conceivable that the Democrats of the Senate Education Committee benefited from the California Teachers Association and unanimously opposed these bills. If a bill does not pass the committee, then it will be stifled. On April 4, 2018, State Senators Allen, Galgiani, Leyva, and Pan repealed the 2020 Education Savings Account Act.
The story does not end there. The exercise provided a template for schools to choose voting measures because it was thoroughly reviewed by legislative advisers in the Capitol, one of the state’s best law firms, to make it litigation evidence.
The initiators of the bill’s idea decided not to include it in the 2020 ballot. The School Choice Foundation from the Pasadena area decided to take the ball to vote in November 2022. In the process, they worked with two other groups to improve SB 1344, such as canceling qualifications that only apply to UC and CSU systems, and making unused funds available to any university or trade school.
At the end of this exercise, the leadership of the school selection foundation decided to ignore some suggested editorial changes. Unfortunately, no consensus was reached, and one of the new organizations, Fix California, decided to also submit their version to the Secretary of State. Therefore, you will see two like-minded volunteer organizations seeking signatures for two similar voting measures based on my legislative efforts.
The good news is that the school selection plan is moving forward. The bad news is that the personality and disagreement regarding the stated understanding will produce two versions and may divide the donor and volunteer community. One can only hope that after the Secretary of State, the legislative analyst, and the Attorney General complete the administrative review process of the two submissions, the conceit will disappear and a compromise will be reached.
Give downtown parents the ability to allocate $14,000 for their children’s tuition, which will enable them to send their children to a favorite private school in Newsom. Providing a good education for children is the top priority of parents. They know this is the best path to successful adulthood. Every parent wants their children to succeed—not just those governors who can afford to be themselves, but ask others to endure the mediocre school system.
This News Originally From – The Epoch Times