Mediaboss Marketing

When a much-feared mad moms revolt against Gov. Gavin Newsom failed to materialize during the recall campaign this summer, that might have given backers of proposed initiatives to underwrite private and religious school tuition in California second thoughts as to their prospects for success. Thats because deep discontent among parents over the state of public schools, especially among Democrats and independents, will be essential if these initiatives are to have any chance of getting voter approval.

But supporters of the Republican-led initiatives apparently believe there is enough unhappiness in California with public schools, exacerbated by a brew of pandemic-related issues, to press ahead.

In recent weeks, two competing groups have received the go-ahead from California Attorney General Rob Bonta to collect signatures to put their initiatives on the November 2022 ballot. Both initiatives would divert billions that would normally go to public schools into private education savings accounts for parents. These savings accounts are a variation on taxpayer-funded school voucher plans in place in several other states.

At first glance, it seems far-fetched that either initiative could pass. But the recent election results on the East Coast suggest that there can be no room for complacency about the outcome of what will inevitably be a fierce and expensive campaign. In Virginia, in particular, unhappiness with schools during the pandemic was a significant factor in the upset victory of the Republican gubernatorial candidate Glenn Youngkin over Democrat Terry McAuliffe.

While there are some minor differences between the initiatives, both represent a full-scale attack on Californias public school system. Were either one to get on the ballot and get voter approval, it would give California the most comprehensive and arguably the most radical program of its kind anywhere in the country.

One proposed initiative, called the Education Savings Account Act, comes from a group called Fix California. It is led by Ric Grenell, who was acting director of national intelligence in the Trump administration and ambassador to Germany, where he served a tumultuous term. He was a featured speaker at the Republican National Convention that renominated Trump last year.

The other initiative, titled the Educational Freedom Act, is promoted by an organization called Californians for School Choice. Its president is Mike Alexander, a Republican who runs a private trust management company in Southern California.

If approved, the state would be required to divvy up the approximately $80 billion in funds now designated for public schools under Proposition 98 and deposit $13,000 or $14,000 each year (depending on the initiative) in a savings account that parents could spend on tuition for private or parochial schools.

It could cost California an extra $4 billion to $6 billion annually just to provide funds to parents whose children are already in private or parochial schools. Depending on the initiative, some funds could also go to students who are currently being homeschooled.

And, to a greater extent than any other state, funds that California parents didnt use for kindergarten through 12th-grade education could be saved to pay for college or vocational training in any private or public college university, in or outside California until a student turned 30. (The Fix California initiative would limit the amount to $60,000.)

Every student, regardless of income, would qualify for the funds (although the Fix California initiative would limit eligibility based on family income for the first four years it would be in effect). That contrasts with most other states where school choice plans have been restricted to certain children, based on family income, special education status and other factors.

It is an audacious attempt, considering Californias status as one of the bluest states in the nation, and that two previous, and far more modest, school choice initiatives failed to get close to the majority of voters support.

But the last time the issue was presented to voters was over two decades ago. This time, backers of the initiatives are counting on Democratic voters, and especially parents, to respond differently.

They are hoping that many parents who couldnt bring themselves to vote to replace Newsom with a right-wing radio talk show host will be more likely to support their initiative out of pure self-interest compounded by frustration about the pace of school reopening during the pandemic and other school-related grievances.

On top of that, Democrats cant be counted on to vote in predictable ways. That was powerfully demonstrated last November when California rejected initiatives to drastically reform Proposition 13 by increasing commercial property taxes and to overturn the decades-long ban on affirmative action in the state.

And getting the approval of California on a school choice initiative may not be not far-fetched at all, especially in the current climate. The last time the Public Policy Institute of California surveyed Californians on the issue was in 2017, when two-thirds of public school parents backed the idea of tax payer funded vouchers. And that was long before the pandemic upended education.

Whats impossible to anticipate just how unhappy parents, especially those registered as Democrats and independents, will be with their schools next November.

Also unknown is the extent to which brewing controversies around race and ethnicity, including critiques of critical race theory, will affect the outcome. Its possible, for example, that Californias recently adopted law mandating high school students take an ethnic studies class could become a flash point during the campaign, especially among suburban and rural voters.

Proponents of the initiatives are aware that they are throwing down the gauntlet before California voters.

Is this a radical proposal, in the sense that it will shake up the system? asked Lance Christensen, the chief strategist for the Fix California campaign.

I hope so, he said. Otherwise, what is the point of having a school choice initiative in the first place?

Leaders of the initiatives say they have bipartisan support, and this is a continuation of the civil rights struggle for a quality education for all children or a needed effort to inject more competition into public schooling.

But so far most of the energy and leadership has come from more extreme forces.

Almost all the money raised by Californians for School Choice, for example, is a $400,000 contribution from Dale Broome, a physician and prominent member of the Redlands Tea Party Patriots in San Bernardino County. As a reason to vote for the initiative, Broome earlier this year railed against what he called the morally objectionable and un-American curriculum being foisted on public school children. That, according to Broome, includes comprehensive sex education, global warming, social justice, anti-Americanism, atheism, critical race theory, socialism, communism, gender fluidity, globalism, religious pluralism and evolution.

Whats clear that if either initiative were to make it on to next years ballot, it would place schools at the center of an electoral storm not seen in a half century. So brace yourself for another education battle that could reshape California schools far into the future. At this point, it would be foolish to predict which side will prevail.

Louis Freedberg, formerly executive director of EdSource, is a veteran analyst and reporter on California education.

Read the original here:
Republicans are coming for California's public schools. And they could actually win - San Francisco Chronicle