LETTERS TO THE EDITOR: NOW IS THE TIME FO CONSTRUCTIVE INPUT ON SCHOOL CHOICE

To the Editor:

If we learned anything from the defeat of Prop# 174 this past November, it is that public education will respond to free market competition. Unfortunately for the people of California they responded by investing their time and money in preventing the free market from infiltrating their domain. Rather than concentrating their effort in the classroom, district by district, school by school, competing for the trust of individuals, they collectively banded together to help defeat the measure that would have allowed parental choice in education. They spent 15 to 20 million dollars to preserve their monopoly on state funds.

HavLng just atende the MOCAP seminar where Senator Peter Kinder jubilantly announced the introduction of a scholarship measure that will bring school choice to Missourians, I came away enthused and confused. Enthused that Missouri has a chance to break the mold and implement a system of school funding that allows for free market competition. I was ready to shout from the mountain top "Free at last...Free at last... Thank God Almighty Free markets at lastl" Of course that will only come after the bill passes the General Assembly and is ratified by the electorate. Two very high hurdles indeed but every journey starts with the first step.

I am confused by the conflicting interests of the public education cabal. If we accept that the teachers' union hierarchy is opposed to the free market, what are we to assume about the body of teachers who make up this union. When the California Teachers Association assessed each member $57 to fight Prop# 174, did the teachers say "N0" ? Under a recent Supreme Court decision they were only obliged to pay union dues associated with the cost of collective bargaining, not the political activities of the union. When teachers ere asked to send home politically slanted handouts did they say"We'll hang together or well ail hang seperatelyl'? Were their union leaders giving them th strait scoop on the implications of school choice?

As we look at the funneling of money that educational bureaucrats are involved in, was it the hierarchy's livelihood that was at stake? All that red tape requires administrators and secretaries to manage. The political clout they wield could be used to reduce red tape but then they would have nothing left to manage. Decentralization is anathema to bureaucrats.

In my view, competition would force government education to do the right thing, downsize the administrative overhead and put their resources to work in the classroom. Local school boards and administrators would have to have more freedom to make decisions based on the communities desires. Principals and teachers would be empowered to provide safe classrooms. All we needis to allow the free market to work it's magic

By expanding options to students and parents we will also expand the options available to teachers. Herein lies the source of my confusion. Effiency will allow for more schools, more classrooms and more freedom for teachers. Why are teachers supporting a union that is bent on denying them a chance at competitive wages? In the free market efficiency rules.

There were some admitted flaws in the California initiative, but nothing to warrant the all out war that was waged against the measure. This is where Missouri teachers are fortunate. We can all learn by the mistakes of California. The Senate will soon be debating the constitutional ammendment that will appear on the ballot. The time is now for constructive input.

Ken Schaefer

Cape Girardeau