Reader comments
Sides square off in school-voucher debate

Tiffany Erickson, your article is the first i've read in a long time that was strictly impartial to the topic.

Too often reporters slant their articles one way or the other, but this article presents the facts in a way where the reader is empowered to come to a conclusion.

Excellent job!

The whole increase competition among Public school systems is really a facade. Our Private system has been able to fill its seats for years without a government subsidy. How will competition increase? Only students vying for seats at the Private schools will have to compete. This will drive up academic performance and achievement as the top gifted students replace the more average children. It should also drive up tuition as demand increases.

If I was a parent with children in a Private school, I'd definitely be worried how vouchers would negatively impact my child. Could they maintain enrollment, or will the increase demand mean my child will have to go elsewhere?

Anonymous, nice try.

You clearly understand half of free markets. Yes, in the world of supply and demand if all that ever happened is a large number (estimated to be about 10,000 out of Utah's 500,000 kids) of our children went to private schools, limited supply, higher demand, the price of tuition would go up as the availability of seats went down.

The other side to that is that we WILL see more private schools open up, or expand size. Last week I talked with a teacher in Provo School District who admited that if it passed he was strongly considering opening his own private school. He knew it would be small but he wanted to focus on a curriculum and teaching method that the school districts have gotten away from using and refuse to allow back in.

If the Union were running our food system we would have one restaurant with options of hold the mayo, add some lettuce. If the Union were running our automobile industry we would get one car with the choice of paint jobs, maybe leather interior versus cloth. If the Union were running our shoe manufacturing we would get a choice of either church shoes, or church shoes with rubber soles so you could play sports in them, maybe some choices with colors and neat logos on the side.

We don't allow one-size fits all anywhere else. Why here? Trust that free agency works. That is one of the greatest success stories that has been America. While the rest of the world controlled all the decision and policy making, America did something unheard of: We opened it up and let people be free to choose, let the consequence follow. Time for education to catch up with the rest of the world.

Vote yes!

The level the playing field argument reveals the true intent of the anti-voucher crowd.

It's not about what's best for the individual child, it's about what's best for their system and the status quo.

And that's just sad.

Furthermore, the idea that public schools won't improve because of competition ignores reality. Several studies have been done on this, including some by Harvard professors, and guess what? Public schools react positively to competition. Go to the following website to see a list of the studies with regards to this: http://www.choiceineducation.org/research.php

And I forgot to mention the truth behind Rep. Moss' statement that "we have competition."

It's true that a student can technically go to any public school in the state (through open enrollment), but that's only half the story.

First, most of the top schools don't except more students.

Second, the state law says that if a class is above 80% capacity, than the school doesn't have to take more kids. That seems fair until you look more closely and realize that capacity for 1st through 3rd grade is defined as 17 kids (or maybe it's 15). Does anyone know of any 1st grade class in the state that has less than 14 students in it? Of course no. So in other words, almost no public school has to take kids from outside of their boundaries.

Third, saying that "open enrollment equals competition/school choice" is weak. That's like saying "Hey, if you don't like the Wal-Mart downtown, go to the one in Murray or Taylorsville." And sure, there's differences between individual Wal-mart stores. They hire different people, have different managers, and even different store lay-outs, but it's still Wal-mart! The same holds true with open enrollment.

But really, the bottom line (and I think Mr. Eyre hit on the head) is do you want parents to have more control or not?

And sure, I'm willing to admit that this isn't the "perfect" bill. It's never going to be all things to all people, and compromises were made to get it passed, but it's a step in the right direction.

It's a step towards giving more parents more options to find the school that works best for their family's unique needs.

Vote FOR Referendum 1!!

James, I don't think you understand the other half of the free market economy. The Crandal Mine was not a union mine, it was union miners that came in to help with the rescue. Unions don't advocate for a single product, they advocate for quality products and for adiquate pay for their work. With schools, union members advocate for strong public schools that educate all students. They don't advocate for weakening schools or taking aways students. Those same union teachers are there in school everyday working with all students, overcoming inadiquate funding and overcrowded classrooms to provide a quality education. I'm sure they even try to be professional with parents who are negative, won't support them, call them names, and do everything they can to weaken schools all in the name of trying to help their own child. So James, I'm voting NO on referendum 1 because I believe that Vouchers are unconstitutional, wrong, won't fix the problems of schools, and are an entitlement to the middle/rich class of people who can afford to send their children to private schools. Sorry James, I believe in public schools and I believe in the teachers that teach there and in the unions that work hard to improve the conditions in schools for both students and teachers.

I still have a hard time accepting this parents Choice in Education issue. Parents have choices, public schools, charter schools, home schooling, and private schools. The issue is who is going to pay for it. I pay taxes to support public education, which is good. It is available to all who want to learn. If I want to send my kids to private school, then I must be willing to pay for it because that was the choice I made.

To me this whole thing is about parents choosing a more expensive education and then expecting the public to help pay. Seems like a new tax to me. Why not use their money to fund scholarships?

As far as competition goes, when does it end? I currently disagree with the way my local government is runing the city. Do I start lobbying for a Citizens Choice in Government? A private contrator could patch the pot holes in my street faster than the city seems to be able to. Shouldn't I get a voucher so I can get the work done?

Finally, what will happen if the Voucher Law is repealed? Can we expect out legistature to hear the voice of the people through the vote or will they listen to the special interests and high priced lobbists and just pass another Voucher law?

Vote NO. Keep our tax money available to all and not give it to the wealthy.

No one is accounting for the financial benefit for the schools. A 'rich' person gets $500 from the state to give toward private tuition, a low income family gets $3000. The public school continues to get the money for the departed student (through the mitigation fund), so they have the same amount of money to spend, but fewer students. Right off the bat that lowers class size in the public schools, and over time if private schooling increases, enough students leaving the public school system means fewer new building bonds, fewer crowded schools, more choice for all parents. Everyone wins.

Tom, in debate you did a straw man arguement. The point was to supply and demand, not the title of Union label.

Are you saying that with the passage of vouchers we will not see supply of private school seats increase? End of that discussion.

As to your other points. If vouchers were unconstitutional why has the Union not filed a challenge to it? Apparently you know something that the rest of the Union doesn't. Clearly it IS constitutional, and you're in error.

Second, it will fix schools. Competition works. Read some of the research from the web site that Dave Hansen posted. Those are Harvard's thoughts, not mine.

Third, this is not an entitlement for the rich/middle class. By definition, by and large they won't qualify. The poor get the $3,000 per year, not the rich. And middle class is a pretty broad category. Some of the low, middle class will. The more wealth they have the less they get until at a certain point, they get nothing.

With the examples you have given between the Union controling education and the union controlling other industries is not quite apples to apples. While the title is the same where we will disagree is the amount of influence. I have watched with my own eyes as School Board members literally back down from issues they have worked on for months, the moment the Union leader says no.

We can play symantics all we want. The Union absolutely controls education in Utah. The union did not control the mine, or other industries to this degree. This is a subjective statement so plenty of room to disagree. I have simply been shocked over the years to the degree that the Union basically intellectually owns education in Utah. This is about Union power.

This voucher law is not about taking the taxes that you pay and sending somebody else's kid to private school. It is about letting parents use some of their tax money to pay for their children's education.

I feel that when I pay taxes I am not paying for public education. I am paying for the education of children and I would like my money used in the best way possible. If that means that the best way for a certain child is through a private school, then I am happy to have money go that way.

Also, if you read the law, as your income increases you benefit drops. A wealthy family would only get $500 a year while a poorer family would get $3000. Even if wealthy families participate six times as much as poorer families, tax money would be split evenly between rich and poor.

Currently, I am unable to afford private school. But luckily I was able to get my children into a good charter school. We work a lot with our children to supplement what they learn in school but we found that since they were more advanced than some of the other children, they got lost. The teacher told us that my son had gone beyond what she could do. No child left behind also means, most of the time, no child gets ahead. So if I had not been able to get into a charter school, I would have had no options but to let our children get bored in class because they already knew what was being taught.

I am all for letting parents choose!

I agree John. I have no problem with private schools, competition, or choice. I just have a problem with public tax dollars going towards the private institution, regardless of what theoretical benefits pro-voucher advocates claim. We ALL pay taxes to help the community, but just because I don't drive on 4500 S. doesn't mean my taxes can't help pay for its upgrade and maintainance. Likewise, just because someone's child goes to private school doesn't mean they have more of a right to choose where their taxes go. Public taxes should fund public causes/institutions. Private money should fund private causes/institutions....That's the bottom line for me.

I think a big misunderstanding is really how much the vouchers will not change who can go to private school, but only provide another tax benefit to those who can already afford it. Considering that only the poorest parents can get the $3,000 and some of the least expensive private schools cost $10,000, it just means that still only those who could afford it before will now get a little tax relief. I can�t help but notice, and I�ll admit I live in such an area, that I see by far the highest concentration of pro-voucher signs in well to do area�s. This isn�t about creating competition, it�s not about providing a better education for children, it�s about giving those who already have money more money. Like I said, I�m one of these people, but I know that if I choose to send my kids to private school that my tax dollars still go to help pay for a lunch for a student that can�t afford it, money to hire an assistant for a special needs child, or help keep music and arts in our schools.

Why do have mitigation money if the voucher program is going to leave more money for public schools? Because it isn't going to leave more money for schools. The implication is that the mitigation money will cover all the students that leave the system. They have set aside 9 million dollars for that. That will cover a little over 3,000 students. What if more students than that opt out of the system, I am sure the legislature will increase the money, just like they did when the $2500.00 raise for teachers was under funded. The mitigation money only lasts for 5 yrs. then what? This is a grand experiment with a potentially high price tag. We can afford the most expensive voucher program in the nation when we have the lowest funded school system in the nation, anyone catch the irony in that?

Hears a question for all of you that think the "union" controls education, they don't care about kids just about themselves. With that "control" why aren't they the highest paid teachers in the country? Maybe because they don't have all that control, maybe because they do care about kids.

Lets get real about who has the control of education in the state of Utah. The group that is bent on the destruction of public education in this state. That would be the Utah Republican Party. Who controls them? A long list of special interest groups.

In reading these comments, those of you that have problems with your tax money going to private institutions also take issue with Pell Grants which are allowed to be used at public institutions. This is not a new issue and it is a good use of public funds. If we can send a child to a private school using less public money than if we send them to a public school, I am all for it. If the program makes it possible for more parents to afford private school, then the public schools will have more money per pupil than they currently do, which according to their annual argument will help them to do a better job. It is definitely a win-win.

IM from Michigan and I moved out here in May of 2005. In YOUR local newspapers it read "Utah kids amongst lowest scores in the US." Can you explain that? Positive reinforcement and babying have led your society to be a group of misinfored, under- educated, overly sensitive community. Last time i heard the guy over at Bear Stearns, who invested in all of those subprime mortgages, GOT FIRED! I came from a private high school and the education i received was second to none. It prepared me for college and aided in my opening a business at the age of 23. I am now 25 with an 8 month old son and when he grows up i will teach him about the real world. You only get one shot. There are consequences to your actions and life is not as merry as these people make it seem. There is no way I would ever instill in him that it is OK to be less than your best. Maybe some of you should take a look in the mirror and see what type of example you are setting for your kids. Most of them are sheltered from the real world. Also, since were on the subject of Public Schools, which are government propoerty. Why are there seminaries on the campus of every public school? The only thing i want for my child to be preaching is EDUCATION. This seems to be a problem, I would rather have my child in study hall than in Seminary class. THINK ABOUT IT!!! Im sure seminary studies will help him to audit a publicly traded company...THINK ABOUT IT...

I started my child in private school, through 2 years of pre-school. In each subject taught, he was at a 1st grade, or higher level. Because of the cost, I was not able to keep him in the private schooling system. He went directly into the public school system for Kindergarten. During the year, I was assured by the teacher that she would continue to challenge him. She did not continue with this. I spoke to the teacher on several occasions, I involved the Principal of the school, and even Jordan School District officials. I was informed by both the teacher and principal that all of "his" needs would be met. When nothing was met, I contacted the district, to find out that I "must let my kid be a kid, and not pressure so much school". Public schools do not care about your children, and their education. I have only heard about how teachers are not paid enough. He is a comparison for everyone to take into reality. Public school teachers are paid significantly higher than Private school teachers. Private teachers just care. Maybe Public teachers should care as much. Vouchers allows others to see the positive of Private schools, and will force a public school district to see the problems with their teachers. This will create teachers to think about our kids, and their education. They are the ones that spend 7 hours a day with them. They are the ones that attended extended education courses to give our kids the knowledge they need for their futures.

Doug hit the nail on the head!

This debate has nothing to do with competition or choice. This has everything to do with those who are already sending their kids to private schools keeping more money in their own pockets. But rather than be honest and up front about it, they bring up all these other, seemingly more palatable, arguements to support their case to all of us 30-second sound bite consumers.

Thanks Doug!

Tom, I am not sure of your experience with real unions when you state that they advocate for quality products. Having lived most of my life in the east and around unions, I know they really advocate one thing: power. Power to break businesses down and to power to offer a few dollars more to their members. They never defend safety unless it brings about more power. They never advocate better conditions unless it advances their power brokers.

And now in Utah, they are bringing in outside help to shore up their power over Utah education and to firm up their political power - which has diminished over the last few decades.

Dustin,
I agree with you, however my story is different. My child went to private school as a preschooler. We also couldn't afford private school when she was ready for kindergarten she was also at a 1st grade reading and 2nd grade math. We talked to her kindergarten teacher and since they don't skip grades in kindergarten we couldn't skip her to first grade. Her teacher did challenge her and really encouraged her to test for the magnet program which just started its first year for first grade. We also challenged her so she would retain what she already had learned. She was excepted and is now attending the Magnet program (which is a public school program). Its all about the teacher and parental involvement that will help your child succeed. If more parents are involved and have a choice, it is a win for all children. I vote yes for vouchers. Remember our children will soon be our leaders and if we are capable of giving them the best, their future and ours will be successful.