* Whether you believe that competition with private schools is the best way to improve public schools, that vouchers equalize opportunity for private education, or that parents who enroll their children in private schools are due financial relief, Proposition 174 is a flawed piece of legislation and should not be enacted.
One flaw is the requirement for a three-fourths majority in both the Assembly and Senate to reform the law. If your child were hit by debris during an earthquake you might want the law to be modified to include structural standards for private schools. Instead of passing Proposition 174, channel your beliefs into influence for educational reform through the legislative process.
I urge all California voters to reject Proposition 174 on the basis of its merit as legislation, to inform themselves about effective education and the challenges public schools face in providing it, and to use their interest and power to enact legislation that will reform the structure of California public schools so that all children become responsible, educated citizens and lifelong learners.
DIANE ROSENTRETER
Corona del Mar
* The opponents of Proposition 174 are attempting to spread hysteria. They cry that private schools would have no regulated standards. Public schools have them, and we rank very low compared to the other states. And last year, our SAT scores dropped one point.
Excellence in private schools would result from parents having a choice. They would not long keep their children in private schools showing poor results.
The cry that the cost of public schools to the taxpayers would rise is also a myth. Public education costs much more per pupil that the $2,600 voucher. For every student leaving public schools, they reap the difference as a windfall.
By stressing moral values beginning with primary grades, we might also just be able to rear a generation of students who would not draw a gun and shoot on the slightest pretext.
Education in California would benefit from Proposition 174 by creating excellence through competition.
IRVIN C. CHAPMAN
Costa Mesa
* I must rebut your recent editorial, "Proposition 174: Look Before You Leap," (Oct. 7) lest more Californians be duped by the teachers union. Your editorial proposes several "loopholes" in the proposal that, in reality, exist in the current system.
You'd wish your readers to believe that we now have accountability when so many of our graduating seniors are legally illiterate. With 13 administrators for every 10 teachers, do you think that we now have any accountability?
You state that "Proposition 174 does not require that voucher schools use credentialed teachers." Another myth. I have children in two private schools. Both are accredited and use 100% credentialed teachers. Competition enforces these standards. In the public school system, the union protects failing, has-been teachers and resists testing standards. In the union-free private system, you perform or you're out. Private schools have more direct accountability--to the parents. Try to have your public school remove a non-performing teacher and measure your success.
Don't be fooled. Parental choice and a competitive environment will force improvement in our school system.
DAVID A. FRAZER
Irvine
* As a parent, taxpayer and (Orange Unified School District) school board member, I find it necessary to respond to Frank L. Ury's column ("Prop. 174 Offers a Choice, Opportunity for a Better Education," Oct. 3) in favor of Proposition 174. Although I am opposed to Proposition 174, I found points in Mr. Ury's commentary that anyone concerned with education needs to pay serious attention to.
Ury's premise concerns the bureaucratic state that our public education system is in today, the lack of control by parents and the lack of accountability by the bureaucrats who run the districts. Supporting Proposition 174 will not give our schools back to the parents and students. That's where they are supposed to be today. The elected board members who set policy for the schools should be the representatives of the parents and students.
Yes, Mr. Ury, you are correct. The educational system in California is a bureaucratic mess. However, some far-fetched proposition that may cost millions of taxpayer dollars to implement is not the answer. The question is, who allowed all of this to happen? If the problem, as Ury wrote, is with the "educational bureaucracy that controls education in California," then I suggest the expedient thing to do is for school board members themselves to tackle the problem head-on. One way to start is to have these bureaucrats look into their very own mirrors.
BARRY P. RESNICK
Orange
