Reader comments
Voucher issue unifies Demos, divides GOP

My personal take? Family. Family. Family. Promote healthy relationships there and partnerships with the good public education you have.

Injecting competition into the business of making widgets is fine, but I think it would be sad to experiment with children as products without serious academic consideration of the Milwaukee and Chile voucher systems. Utah is currently doing quite well. Think twice, Utah.

Deseret News, please bring to light the expert opinions of quantitative policy analysts in education who have considered the voucher question. There will be some conflicting opinions, sure, but I imagine that a broad meta-analysis of credible opinions will prove useful to this important decision. So far, much of what has been said is political banter. Let's examine research.

Why is there so much controversy about vouchers..The ultimate goal is to give the children a quality education and give the parents a tool to use in achieving that end. Whether the child being educated comes from a wealthy family or a poor one is irrelevant..there are dumb rich kids and there are smart poor ones. Right now, with "teaching to the lowest level" none of the potential geniuses are helped to achieve greatness.

We have a failing public school system which continues to suck down more and more money while delivering less in terms of well educated graduates.

We continue to fall behind the rest of the world in both the quality of our educational output and the quantity.

Tanya Clay House of the People for the American Way recently declared, "We've never seen a shred of credible evidence that shows school vouchers actually help students learn�

But lets ask the question another way, we've also not seen those now in charge of the public school system having the ability to turn it around. In fact, there seems to be more evidence than not that they're incapable of doing so.

So the question becomes how competition could be any worse than monopoly? How could allowing the consumer of the education product to choose that which they find to best fill their own children�s needs be any worse than the arbitrary standards and needs of the monopoly?

From the side of the political spectrum which claims to be for "choice" this should be an issue for which they are fighting for the choice vouchers bring, not against.

My friend heard the Pro Voucher argument on the radio that Hilary Clinton, the liberal teachers Union and other outlandish groups were against vouchers.

Obviously, the Anti-Voucher group is wasting money advertising. Surely, those winning arguments will be enough for Vouchers to pass.

Since the Democrats are so unpopular, and it is getting pretty obvious the Republicans don't represent the interests of Utah, what are we going to do....vote Libertarian??

The vouchers are nothing but welfare for the rich. No public money should go to privatly owned schools.

The Democrats are not unpopular , just jerry mandred out of power by those who belive that have a representative republic is just fine, as long as only their view is represented.
Jason Boure what do you define as failing?
The R's set the rules for the schools the teachers follow the rules and get the blame when the children fail to learn .

Volunteer at you local school. That would do more to help the kids than anything else.

Jason, competition is good, competition is healthy, vouchers are not competition. Private schools can select their product, public schools can't. If an individual has serious disabilities which would affect the school's bottom line, a private school can turn him down, public school's can't. If a student is a holy terror in class, a private school can simply get rid of him, a public school can't. Private schools don't have to follow a truck load of (expensive) Federal guidelines, public schools do. Competition means you have a level playing field. If, in a pick up basketball game, I get to handpick and select the Jazz and you have to take whoever happens to be wandering around the park that day, I don't call that competition, and I'm not sure what lessons can be drawn from it.

If private schools were required to take a cross section of the area students and keep them it may work. Many times private schools reject the difficult students leaving them to the public schools.
There is no competition when public schoools are required to take all students requardless of ablilty, disability, parental involvement, or disclipline (or lack of).
Vouchers only help those with the financial ability to send their children to private school. The poor still cannot afford private schools.

Sam, your comment is passionate but doesn't stand on its merits.

Welfare for the rich? The voucher is designed for the exact opposite. It is welfare for the poor.

Only the poorest among us will get $3,000. And the rich, they get $500 based on the logic that the rich pay the most in taxes so it is only fair that they get something back, IF they decide to send their child to a private school.

So a poor person may pay nothing in income taxes, after all write-offs, etc. And a few hundred a year in property taxes, through home ownership or nothing if they rent. In return they will receive $3,000.

One of my friends paid over $12,000 in state income taxes last year. They also paid $9,000 in property taxes. They are quite wealthy, paid over $21,000 into public education and they get a subsidy of a $500 voucher!

For them their $500 voucher is more a token of appreciation for the other $21,000 they paid into the system.

For the poor person the $3,000 voucher is a real chance to do something different.

And plenty of private schools work with $3,000. More once it passes.

This issue is much simpler than it seems. It is a single issue -- UNIONS! The teachers unions are very stong, becoming stronger, hate vouchers, and support the democrats who are notorious for todying to union wishes no matter how stupid and outlandish. Here in California, the voucher children out test the public school students in every way. My children are raised, but there is no way I would put them in a California public school today whnen the main subjkect is socialism and the United States, nee President Bush, is bad. My Florida son refused to put his children in public schools there for the same reason. Wherever there are unions, you will find socialism, and right there with them, democrats who, no matter what the guise, liberal,socialist, progressive democrat, communist, all believe the same thing -- only they are bright enough to rule and if everyone else will just give them all their money, everything will be fine. There is a radio commentator who states, simply: "Liberalism is a mental disorder." I only wish I had thought of it first.

The pro voucher crowd insists that vouchers will give parents options in how they educate their children. Truth be told, parents already have many options concerning educational opportunities. Because of Utah's open enrollment policy if a parent does not like the school their child is attending they can simply transfer to any other public school in the state, if there is space. Also, there are many public charter schools available that provide a wide range of educational opportunities.
I am not a fan of the UEA, NEA, Hilary Clinton, Move on.Org, public school bureaucracies, George Soros, Ted Kennedy, Utah Democratic Party, or any other organized group opposing vouchers. But lets face it, this voucher law was created by right wing, Eagle Forum type zealots, and enacted into law by their dupes in the legislature. As is common with the state legislature, this law was not carefully crafted or debated sufficiently. It is fine with me if people want to send their kids to private school, but don't make me pay for that choice.

Since we hear from Jason often on this topic my bet is that he is a member of a PAC. His venom about our failing schools is very tiresome. Mike, on the other hyand, hits the nail squarely on thehead.

If vouchers really increased "Choice" and would improve education I would whole heartedly support them, but they don't. They don't help the poor, because the poor usually can't make up the difference between what most private schools cost and for what the vouchers pay. There are very few that it actually helps. I am a very faithful republican, and am conservative, but this voucher issues is merely an attempted first step in doing away with public education. The goal of those pushing this issue is to privatize education. If we allow market pressures to be the guiding force for education, the poor will have even less opportunities for education than they already have

Mike makes a good argument for vouchers. Count me in.

The real issue here is whether to allow the monopoly held by the present "in control" group to maintain their monopoly or not.

In the case of these vouchers, it isn't even a significant impact on that monopoly, but ANY threat to their control is going to be taken seriously, as evidenced by the millions that NEA, UEA are putting into killing the voucher program.

So, if you support allowing the existing control over our (some say failing) education system, then vote against vouchers. If, on the other hand, you feel that some limited (and it is limited) competition is a healthy thing, then vote for vouchers.

The real issue here is whether to allow the monopoly held by the present "in control" group to maintain their monopoly or not.

In the case of these vouchers, it isn't even a significant impact on that monopoly, but ANY threat to their control is going to be taken seriously, as evidenced by the millions that NEA, UEA are putting into killing the voucher program.

So, if you support allowing the existing control over our (some say failing) education system, then vote against vouchers. If, on the other hand, you feel that some limited (and it is limited) competition is a healthy thing, then vote for vouchers.

Hey Art, you last statement is very curious...'..but don't make me pay for that choice..'
Oh, so you would force everyone else to pay for YOUR choice? What is the difference???! With private schools, I get to use MY money how I want. With public schools, I have NO choice...and I am FORCED to do it.

Vouchers are just another government subsidy. It is hypocritical for supposed conservatives to speak against big government and then want to expand it into the private schools. No wonder it is dividing my party.

Democrats are united against vouchers for a number of reasons. Vouchers are a government entitlement, mixes church and state, subsidizes private schools, and because they don't support for profit education. Republicans are divided because their leadership is out of touch with their constituants. Most people in Utah believe and are pleased with their public schools. They don't understand how giving tax dollars to people for making private school choices is going to make them better when they can't afford to send their children to the same school even with a tax credit. They don't believe in subsidizing private education. I also think both concerned democrats and concerned republicans that see problems in education get involved with their public schools in either voluteering, PTOs, or even on school boards. They don't run away from the problems and pull their children out of school, they fix the problems. I'm going to vote NO on referendum 1 because I believe the pro-voucher supports are not being honest and just being emotional in their arguements and campaigns for vouchers. I believe the anti-voucher people are saying how most of us in Utah, democrats and republicans, really feel.