Deseret News | Reader comments: Pro-voucher group may be breaking law

Reader comments
Pro-voucher group may be breaking law

Equity on the Issue | 8:06 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

How about how the UEA is handing out anti-voucher pamphlets or leaflets in the schools. Is not this also breaking the law? Is this also being investigated by the Attorney General's Office?

Frank | 8:18 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

This is easy to explain. Pro-voucher supporters don't believe in supporting social institutions, like public schools. "Society is corrupt and public school teachers are just a bunch of liberals trying to indoctrinate our kids!" they scream. They don't believe that there is any social contract or obligation to help other children in the community, it is all about "their" kids. They want no government restrictions on "their" tax money, which must be returned in the form of a voucher. When someone is so egocentric, why would one even think of obeying the law? After all, it's "their" money, isn't it?

Mc | 9:14 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

I think Frank has been brainwashed by rhetoric from the anti-voucher groups instead of studying the real issues and concerns of those who support vouchers. I've found most in favor of vouchers to be very responsible citizens who care deeply about every member of our society. They recognize that there is more than one way to educate and not every child fits the public system. Those against vouchers seem more interested in perpetuating the system than in the needs of individual children.

Comments continue below

Truth Teller | 9:53 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Vouchers are really nothing more than an opportunity to shelter one's children from controversial and immoral ideas such as social justice and sexual responsibility. As gagged as public schools are on sex education, a child's more likely to learn about STDs there than at Moroni High.

Turk | 10:18 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Yes Frank. It is our money. What do you think the gov't is? Why is it there? Who funds the gov't? That would be all of us Frank.

When I went to South Jordan Middle School in the late nineties it was a haven for drugs, pornography, atheism, and socialism.

Why are you so afraid of people keeping their own money for their own kids? Isn't that the parents responsibility?

Turk | 10:20 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Truth Teller....what???
What is Moroni High?
Are you trying to be condescending to LDS homeschoolers?

Alana Knutson | 10:33 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

I think it is sad and unhelpful to resort to mud-slinging and claims of "brain washing" when people feel strongly about their beliefs and opinions. We should offer our respect to both sides and assume the best of each other. That's the only way we can really engage in an intelligent debate over such important and impactful issues.

Personally, I am in favor of a school voucher system. The quality of education provided to ALL of our children deserves to benifit from the impact of competition. Details of how to work it will be much better if we can engage in an intelligent and non-offense-taking dialogue about what the needs are on both sides of the fence.

jackhp | 10:44 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Turk,
"Drugs, pornography, atheism and socialism"? Lions and tigers and bears, oh my!

Alana,
How exactly will vouchers provide competition to public schools?

Drew | 10:51 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

It doesn't really have much to do with competition, the only difference I have seen between public and private schools is mandatory vs. voluntary parental involvement. If the parents are worried about their kids' education maybe they should volunteer some of their time at the public schools instead of putting them in a private school where it will usually be required. Then there wouldn't have to be this big fight over the vouchers.

Ada | 11:04 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Voucher proponents say what public schools need is competition. In sports, teams play by the same rules. That is what makes it fair competition. Voucher schools want to be exempt from the rules and still call it fair competition

The voucher law has been set up so that taxpayer money will go to private schools with....
1)NO thorough annual audit requirements for the first five years
2)NO public financial reporting requirements (GRAMA)
3)NO Core Curriculum requirements. Anything can be taught or not taught.
4)NO teacher training/licensing requirements
5)NO school accreditation requirements
6)NO required days or hours of instruction
7)NO uniform testing requirements
8 NO required protections of, or access to records

This is not fair competition.

The taxpayers of Utah deserve accountability for the use of their money and the education of their children! The voucher law is a law that subjects our children to an experiment without critical safeguards, and takes scarce money away from public schools.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS PUBLIC MONEY
PRIVATE SCHOOLS PRIVATE MONEY

Kerry | 11:16 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Well said, Alana. No matter which side of the debate you fall on, being respectful to the opinions of others is the best way to persuade others to your point of view. Rallying others to your cause by demonizing the opposition just means that both sides harden their positions, but there's no net change in support. As I'm still trying to make up my mind on this issue, I'm hoping that civil discourse will prevail.

Turk | 11:19 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

jackhp,
Are you going to tell me that these are not serious problems in our public schools? Are you attempting a joke?
My question to you is: Why are you still defending a broken ineffective school system?

Jim | 11:47 a.m. Sept. 20, 2007

My children attend private school because I don't believe in the ability of the public school system to provide a solid education. I myself was failed by the public school system in Utah and had to work very hard to overcome the damage done and become successful. The truth is, the public school system allows teachers and administrators to stereotype and categorize students into groups that may not always be accurate and because of this the students opportunities are greatly limited. Not only have I experienced this myself, but I am currently watching it happen in my own neighborhood between a teacher who lives next door to me and our neighbor across the street who does not belong to the same faith as the teacher next door. Here's the shocker. I DO NOT support the voucher program. I believe if a private school education is important to you, then you should do what YOU have to do to make that happen, even if that means you work 2,3 jobs! If you aren't happy with the education your child gets then find a way to pay for private school or get elected to the school board and fight for better.

Marissa | 12:58 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

This is my first year of being involved in a public school and it is a joke. Already I have been "required" to pay 20.00 for my son to have food experiences. Then later, after I paid, I am told that it is just a donation. Then I have to participate in silly fundraisers and fork out another 20.00. Plus they want my husband and I join the PTA for $3 a piece, I did not. Then they want other "donations" of tissues, wipes, kleenexes, shirts etc. I also put money into paying for school clothes.
For those who say this voucher law is only for the rich because they are the only ones who can afford it. I am being nickled and dimed by my "free" public education every time I turn around. I think it may actually be cheaper for me to put my child in private school then send him to public school. Please vote for a choice for me and my son.

Dean of Ed. | 1:10 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

I don't believe this issue is about education-- I've seen the curriculum taught in these schools and most of it boils down to old wine in new bottles. The same things are being taught in public schools, at different intervals. There might be an achievement difference between public and private, but that is only because the parents of private schoolers have given their children a better chance before Kindergarten begins. I believe this issue centers around safety and in some cases racism. Why do those who have social phobias have a right to be medicated with our tax dollars? Private schools are ivy towers in which severely delusioned children live and are educated daily.

JJ | 1:27 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Dear Dean of Ed.

Why are my kids in private school 2 grade levels ahead of the same aged kids in public school in math and science and 1 grade level ahead in language skills?

JJ

jackhp | 1:36 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Turk,
Some yes, some no.

Drugs? Maybe in some places but I can't say that it's the huge epidemic you make it out to be.

Porno? Come on? Seriously?

Atheism? I take offense to that suggestion.

Socialism? Red-baiting is so eighties.

I don't believe the entire system is broken or ineffective and your little jabs aren't doing anything to convince me otherwise. Would you like to try again?

jackhp | 1:38 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Marissa,
Your comment doesn't do anything to make me want to support vouchers. But it does make me determined to support FULLY funding public education so that you aren't "nickled and dimed" any more.

Thanks for bringing these things to my attention. Hopefully, by the time my kids are in school it won't be an issue anymore.

DBG | 1:52 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

@Ada

Actually you are wrong. The sad truth is that everyone is focusing upon HB148 when there IS AN AMENDED HB174. The Amended bill addresses all of those.

1. There is an audit
2. There is reporting
3. There is a core (has to be approved)
4. There is testing to measure progress and reproted to the State Board
5. Schools must be accredted
6. Hiring of teachers taught at these private schools are clearly laid out in HB174.

Stop looking at the OLD Voucher law and read the Amended one. Its like trying to file today's taxes with the tax code of 1920.

There is nothing more than plain ignorance on the anti-voucher camp.

Sue | 2:39 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

RE DEAN:

You are exactly correct. It's not about education. This is about not wanting their kids to have to go to school with your kids. Vouchers smack of elitism, racism and top-down class warfare. Sadly, most people won't realize this until it's too late.

Frank | 2:48 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Turk,

Tax money belongs to ALL the people, no matter how much each individual has paid in taxes. Tax monies paid are public funds. If vouchers go to poor families, they may get more out of the system than what they have paid in. That's fine with me, it is the duty of all of us to ensure the next generation is educated. But...

If someone is using public funds (vouchers), the people and/or their representatives get to set the conditions. Under this system, their aren't any. Hardly any standards at all! "Ahhh, let's just trust the parents" they say. Parents are people who make mistakes too. If their mistakes are within their own families and not criminal, fine. But this is with public funding!

That is NOT being fiscally conservative! Voucher supporters are greedily setting up another entitlement program. It resemble's FDR's New Deal programs. It is definitely about one group asking for a payoff from public funds with NO accountability.

Show me real accountability for all schools accepting vouchers, then we MAY have a decent program. No rational individual can possibly claim to be fiscally conservative and support the current voucher program.

YES to vouchers | 3:08 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

How many private school teachers have been in the news for molesting their students? None that I remember.
How many public school teachers? Just another one today. About one very week I'd say.
I am for vouchers, help parents give their children a safe place to learn!
I have found pro-voucher supporters to be very responsible and very concerned with their children's education, quite the contrary for those against vouchers. They are more for teachers being their babysitters. I know, I have taught in the public school system and therefore I am all for vouchers. Couldn't ever stand all the Union stuff going on and channel 2 mandatory or they'll take your TVs and VCRs away, where is your choice there?

1st Amendment Protects Ads | 3:29 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Before the Attorney General's office runs off and attempts to prosecute anyone for an anonymous political ad they should read carefully the United States Supreme Court opinion on such.

In McIntyre v. Ohio Elections Comm'n (93-986), 514 U.S. 334 (1995), the United States Supreme Court was asked to determine the validity of statutes, which attempt to regulate the dissemination of anonymous political literature. "The most common explanations given for these statutes are that they deter fraud and libel in the election arena and that they provide valuable information to the voters." In McIntyre, the Court addressed whether an Ohio statute, banning the distribution of anonymous campaign literature by a private citizen, violates the First Amendment right to free speech. In a 7-2 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment encompasses the right to publish and distribute anonymous political literature.

Richard G. | 3:42 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

I'm telling you folks, vouchers are Satan's handiwork!

TRUTH | 4:07 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Mr. "1st Amendment Protects Ads"

Have you even READ this article? "Anoymous" protects INDIVIDUALS, NOT "GROUPS OF PEOPLE"

What part of that simple definition don't you understand? Why would you argue with the Lt. Gov (an obvious voucher supporter) on his legal reasoning to forward this case to the AG?

Are you as stupid as your posts indicate?

Anonymous | 4:26 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Jackhp,
Fortunately for you the vouchers do provide more money for your children. If I take my child out of public school your child is fortunate enough to not only get his $$$ but part of my child's as well.

There is no way to reduce the # of kids in Utah , there are always going to be more. There is a way to add more $$$ to the schools and divide up the children by adding private schools to make everyone happy.

jackhp | 4:44 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Yeah, Anonymous, the mitigation money is a boondoggle. I've figured it out and it will amount to about $25 per student for those who remain in public school.

You wanna help? FULLY fund public education . . . THEN we can talk about your handouts.

jackhp | 4:48 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

1st Amendment,
Does that cover ads on television?

jackhp | 4:51 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Ahh, nice catch TRUTH. What say you Mr. 1st Amendment?

1st Amendment (jackp) | 5:03 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Does "what?" cover ads? Seems to me that the Lt.gov. and his team responded to ads, respcetive of the law.

Got a prolem with the LG?

First Amendment Protects Ads | 5:18 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

To TRUTH, I read the constitution and Supreme Court Rulings that protect the First Amendment. Even if a person prints, states in a radio ad, TV ad, online blog/web page or any form of speech that he is a part of a group, but in reality is really speaking as an individual, the anonymous action is protected. See also Talley v California, try googling it and the McIntyre Case. Supreme Court rulings and the Constitution are the law of the land. How can you be stupid if you read and follow them?

1st Amendment Protects Ads | 5:27 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

To TRUTH, yes I did read the article, please try reading this: On April 27, 1988, Margaret McIntyre (an individual) distributed leaflets purported to express the views of "CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAX PAYERS." The US Supreme Court ruled "Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation--and their ideas from suppression--at the hand of an intolerant society. Political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse. See Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630-31 (1919)

Anonymous | 7:18 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Turk,

I went to SJMS as well. I suppose you were hanging out with a different sort of crowd if you were inundated with all those horrible things, as I never witnessed those. I feel your pain, but don't understand how you can assign blame to public education.

And to the reader bring up safety--consider that with vouchers Private Schools accepting vouchers will finally be required to do background checks. Private does not mean safe, and the governments strings will try to change that.

Ruby | 7:33 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Oh DBG, DBG, you need to read your bills more carefully. (1) Neither HB 148 OR 174 requires an "audit," only "agreed upon procedures." (2)There is "reporting." "Reporting" of what? Parents (only parents, not all taxpayers who contribute to the vouchers) can receive information about test scores and accreditation of voucher schools. (3) There is no requirement, in either bill, for any "core" to be used in private schools. Hare Krishna schools can use a religious "core," Scientology schools can use saunas to "soak" math into students. (4) It is true that ONE "norm-referenced test"--with results only available to parents is required. What "norm" is required? (5) "Hiring?" No REQUIREMENT for teachers to have college degrees; they may have "special skills"--like cake decorating? Pensmanship? (6)P.S. The criminal background check so thoughtfully required by HB 174 does not forbid voucher schools from hiring teachers with BAD background checks. Nor are schools required to enlighten parents. Just have the $91 background check--FBI? Local only?

All voters should read both bills about a single voucher program (thank you, Ut. Supreme Court!) with care.

Teacher | 9:50 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Dean,
My child is in private school and now is several years ahead of public schools academically. There is no way he would get that rigerous of an education in your school district.

The bottom line is the anti voucher public school crowd is afraid of losing some fat salaries and losing control over the lives of children.
Go to this web site http://www.utahsright.com/h_salaries.php and look at the administrative salaries of the school districts compared with teachers. A pure money grab. You don't see those administrative salaries in private schools.

Mrs. Teacher | 10:11 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Yes to Vouchers.
At least when there is a problem with a public school teacher, you'll read about it in the news because public schools are required to report it.

You think this can't happen in a private school?
Have you read about Catholic Priests lately?

Did you read about Warren Jeffs' private "school" where girls were taught to blindly obey him and their assigned "husbands" or forfeit heaven?

Private schools don't have to report criminal activity of their employees.

Regardless of where kids are educated, I'm glad when we find out about a teacher who doesn't deserve to be in a classroom. News is called news because it ISN'T the norm. Find them and dismiss them. I don't want my students near them and I don't want to teach next door to them. In some cases, however, they leave public school and find jobs in private schools where their records don't have to follow them.

Dean of Ed. | 10:13 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

JJ,

I'm not impressed with your children's achievement from the stand point that the private system had anything to do with it--obviously you are a motivated parent and probably gifted as well. They say that giftedness runs in our genes. Your children would be just as far ahead in the public system. The private system did nothing to get them where they are--you did. The private system is unfortunately just a way to get away from the world and reality.

Dean of Ed. | 10:52 p.m. Sept. 20, 2007

Dear Teacher,

You completely missed my point and if you really are a teacher, please work on your spelling skills (rig"o"rous). The fact that your children are ahead means nothing--they have potential and are intelligent, and you have done your best to help them get ahead. Their private school had nothing to do with getting them ahead. I've heard the anti-administrator argument before, but it's only a smoke screen created to draw attention from the fact that private schools are in existence to protect your children from my children. If I bring my children to your school, and my public school "homies" bring their children to your school, you'll probably create some other politically correct form of segregation for me to pay for just keep our children separated.

Teacher | 8:21 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Dear Dean of Ed,

Utah public schools achievement levels are mediocre when compared to other industrialized nations. At UVSC 67% of incoming public school students are not ready for college algebra and must take remedial high school math.

Poor achievement in Utah has nothing to do a mediocre gene pool. It has everything to do with dogmatic ivory tower public school administrators drawing $100,000 plus a year and parents who are not watching what is going on in the classroom.

Despite a hard fight by public schools there is a renaissance in classical education in Utah by parents who started looking into the classroom. These parents didn't like what they saw. This has led to surge in private, home and charter schools. These schools are beginning to produce a new generation of students who will be prepared to compete on a global basis. Other parents are starting to join the movement and as a result for every seat in a charter school there are legions of students waiting for that seat to open.

Despite what you think, your "homies" are welcome in any school as long as they refrain from drugs, foul language and practice discipline while at school.

Teacher | 8:31 a.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Dear Dean of Ed,

Thanks fer halping me out with my spellin' I went ta a publik scool en califarnia bak when they taut hole languige. Neva larned phonetics type of stuf. Ya no. "Look See Say See Construstivist" type o stuffff.

Dont fell sorri far me. I teech yor childin writin at UVSC now an that ain't no joke.

Course ma bad spellin cald be ma genes.

TRUTH | 8:29 p.m. Sept. 21, 2007

Mr. 1st Amendment, you have probably failed to read:

http://le.utah.gov/~code/TITLE20A/htm/20A0A002.htm

the "defintions" page of the election code. Here is a snippet just in case you don't have the knowledge of how to click on a hyperlink or cut-and-paste into your own browser:

(28) (a) "Political issues committee" means an entity, or any group of individuals or entities within or outside this state, that solicits or receives donations from any other person, group, or entity or makes disbursements to influence, or to intend to influence, directly or indirectly, any person to:
(i) assist in placing a statewide ballot proposition on the ballot, assist in keeping a statewide ballot proposition off the ballot, or refrain from voting or vote for or vote against any statewide ballot proposition; or
(ii) sign or refuse to sign an incorporation petition or refrain from voting, vote for, or vote against any proposed incorporation in an incorporation election.

1st Amendment Protects Ads | 7:08 a.m. Sept. 22, 2007

TRUTH I've read and understand. The law states that IF a political issues committee has received political issues contributions totaling at least $750, they have to file and report to the Lt Governor's Office OR they disbursed political issues expenditures totaling at least $50 during a calendar year on current or proposed statewide ballot propositions, they have to file and report to the Lt Governor's Office. (See Utah Code 20A-11-802)

The fact that an individual (under the individual's own name or the name of some fictitious group) on a web page asks for contributions, is not a violation of Utah law. In fact such a statement is protected 1st Amendment speech. The Lt Governor's office is demanding that a Political Issues Committee report be filed when they have no information that any contributions were received or that more than $50 was spent if any contributions were received. In fact the Lt Governor's office has been told that no contributions have been received and the only funds spent were private funds of a single individual. Read the Supreme Court cases, they override this state law.

1st Amendment Protects Ads | 7:33 a.m. Sept. 22, 2007

TRUTH, you are hung up on the words in the article that allege that there is a "Pro-Voucher Group" running radio ads without complying with the "Political Issues Committee" reporting to the Lt Governor's office. What I'm telling you is in this case an individual is using the name of a group. In the McIntyre case, Margaret McIntyre purported to express the views of "CONCERNED PARENTS AND TAXPAYERS", a group. An individual can use the name of a group. That is protected 1st Amendment speech. You can read all the state law you want but will not understand the issue until you have read the court cases: McIntyre v Ohio Elections Commission and Talley v California. Give it a google.

Truth | 4:48 p.m. Sept. 22, 2007

You are not seeing my point, Mr. 1st Amendment -

Noone seems to care that someone is using a "group" name instead of a "personal" or "anonymous" name.

The point you are CLEARLY missing is that the "anonymous" character you are defending has solicited funds online, which would only leave the Lt. Gov's office to determine, that since that "individual" was raising money, they might be "spending" others' money - thereby relegating that "individual" to follow state laws of a Political Issues Committee.

Why are you so obstinate about this? The law is the law. I'm sorry that you seem to be on the wrong end of it - I'm also sorry that you seem to have a poor grasp of the law, despite your Supreme Court references.

If I were you, I'd get a different attorney - whoever is feeding you the nonsense that is spouted here is probably one of the worst lawyers in the history of the world.

1st Amendment | 12:51 p.m. Sept. 23, 2007

Soliciting funds online is not against the law and requires no reporting to the Lt Gov. The law says IF you have received $750 in donations from others (not your own money) and you have spent at least $50 of that received money then you have to report. If you haven't received donated funds, even if you have asked for it online, or you have not spent more than $50 from any funds raised, you DO NOT have to report to the Lt Gov. In this case, the individual has received NO FUNDS from other individuals, therefor he doesn't have to report. And because he hasn't received any donations from others the $50 rule doesn't apply. That is the law. If you read it any different maybe you should consult an attorney. It's also apparent you haven't read the Supreme Court cases yet.

Truth | 5:45 p.m. Sept. 23, 2007

Mr. 1st Amendment,

You are clearly not reading what I've written. You're like a broken clock - right twice a day, but wrong most often.

Your "guy" hasn't proven that he hasn't accepted any money, nor has he (as you identify, 'him') proven that he hasn't spent other people's money.

If he's soliciting funds online, wouldn't you conclude that there is, at least, an "atmosphere" of trying to get money from others to spend on this voucher issue?

And if you knew that an individual was soliciting funds, but had no PROOF one way or the other, would not YOU behave in the same manner as the Lt.Gov's office?

Please, stop citing "Supreme Court" decisions that have nothing, at all, to do with this situation.

Get a Utah Code-Book, read the law and examine your client's activities.

1st Amendment | 5:25 a.m. Sept. 24, 2007

Oh, you want this person to "prove" that he hasn't broken the law. The fact that this person asked for funds online or anywhere else doesn't mean he has broken any law. Just because you think there's an atmosphere of trying to get money from others doesn't mean that you can make him provide you PROOF that he hasn't. The LAW says if he has, he has to file. If he hasn't he doesn't. If he says he hasn't you can't force him to PROVE that he hasn't. In the words of the Supreme Court "The right to remain anonymous may be abused when it shields fraudulent conduct. But political speech by its nature will sometimes have unpalatable consequences, and, in general, our society accords greater weight to the value of free speech than to the dangers of its misuse." You're hanging your hat on the fact that there was a solicitation for funds on line to support "political speech", therefore you just have to know who this person is and expose him in case someone gave him money. Soliciting funds to support his cause is protected speech. He didn't receive any so he doesn't have to file.

Add your comment

Comments are monitored. Any comments found to be abusive, offensive, off-topic, misrepresentative, more than 200 words or containing URLs will not be posted.

Words Remaining

E-mail address: For internal use only. We may want to contact you to publish your comment (not your e-mail address) in the newspaper or for a separate story idea.

Deseret News health series

Advertisement

Reader comments
Pro-voucher group may be breaking law

Add your comment

Letters: Delete annoying cartoon

Letters: Christian founders

5A: Davis runs over Hunter

5A: Hinds runs roughshod

Sponsor for gay-rights bills found

Attack meant to kill apostle

5A: Bingham rolls to title game

Sponsor for gay-rights bills found

Vandals take advantage of young Utes

3A: Hurricane advances to title game

Reader comments Pro-voucher group may be breaking law

Add your comment

Reader comments
Pro-voucher group may be breaking law