Leece stands firm in support of school vouchers

Danette Goulet

NEWPORT-MESA -- A lone voice on the school board can be heard in

support of Proposition 38, the state ballot initiative that proposes to

offer school vouchers to parents to send their children to private

schools.

As she has many times in the past, Wendy Leece stands in direct

opposition to the remainder of the Newport-Mesa Unified School District

Board of Education.

While the other six trustees vary only in their respective levels of

opposition to the initiative, Leece called it a win-win situation.

“Proposition 38 will make public schools better,” she said. “Everybody

wins -- parents, teachers and especially those kids in the inner city

where many come from disadvantaged homes and go to failing schools.”

The parents represented in the state PTA and the American Federation

of Teachers stand in opposition of the initiative.

In fact, the latest statewide poll showed the school voucher

initiative trailing with 52% of those polled opposed and 40% in favor.

Still, Leece remains steadfast in her support.

“Without the heavy-handed influence of the state Department of

Education and teachers’ unions who have their own political agendas to

keep kids, especially minority kids, uneducated and locked forever in a

failed system, there will be great success ahead for our state if Prop.

38 passes,” Leece argued.

While all trustees claim advocacy of parental choice, the consensus

among her colleagues is that this initiative is not the answer.

“First, it’s a change that isn’t well thought out,” said trustee Dave

Brooks. “Every student would have to have a separate account. What is

that going to cost, just to administer the money?”

For any student in kindergarten through 12th grade wishing to opt out

of the public school system, the state would offer individual vouchers of

up to $4,000 to be paid to the private institution of their choice.

By accepting the vouchers, private schools would be required to adapt

to several state regulations.

They would have to agree not to discriminate on the basis of race,

ethnicity, color or national origin -- although single-sex admission is

permitted and income, religion, academic or athletic ability are not

specified.

Private schools would be required to provide parents with an annual

financial statement upon request, but they would not have to submit that

statement to the state.

High schools would be required to either offer at least one course

that meets college or university admission requirements or be accredited

by a state-recognized agency.

And finally, private schools would have to administer a standardized

test.

These few mandates would be put on private schools that accept

vouchers, but they would for the most part continue to run as

autonomously as they have in the past.

“There’s no accountability,” said trustee Jim Ferryman, voicing the

main argument of all school board members opposing Prop. 38. “They are

not required to educate every student, and in my mind, that’s not a good

use of public resources.”

The argument regarding lack of accountability is heard repeatedly.

“They don’t have to meet the testing standards,” said school board

member Martha Fluor. “Their teachers don’t have to have credentials,

fingerprinting or background checks.”

But, Leece argues, where children go to school should be up to their

parents.

“Parents can accept a scholarship and use their own judgment and have

the freedom to choose private schools if they want to,” she said. “Ah,

freedom to spend hard-earned tax dollars on education -- now there’s a

new concept.”