Reader comments
Pignanelli & Webb: Voucher debate grows more heated
47 comments | Read story
A Parent | 2:51 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Good idea.
Jack | 7:36 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Frank's comments are ridiculous and biased on this subject -- as usual. He
cries about the reference to Ted Kennedy, but his outrage never seemed to come
over into his writings when the teacher's union always says Wal-Mart is
financing the pro-voucher movement. Reality, the NEA that supports many things
opposed by working families is funding the anti-voucher movement by the tune of
$3 million. Spin that Frank!
another parent | 7:53 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Public money funding religious instruction is indeed a scary thought.
Propagating any form of Fundamentalism through schools, which will be a reality
with this plan, with money we are compelled to supply to the state through our
taxes, should give nightmares to any freedom loving American.
Comments continue below
Tim | 8:10 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
What kind of 'safeguards' are we talking about here? Will special ed.
kids and behavioral problem kids get more money? They take more money to teach
and babysit. Will all these kids get tested to make sure they're actually
learning what they need to? It would've been nice to get some specifics
here...
Carl | 8:19 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Kudos to both of you!
Good thinkin'!
�
Good thinkin'!
�
VOR | 8:38 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Hey Webb The money already follows the student in the public school system!
Pretending it dosen't just confuses the issue. If parents want to send
their child to a school that better serves them persoally they can. They just
have to pony up the funds.
vor | 8:44 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Parents already have choice in where they send their children to school. The
money follows the child through the public school system.
Anonymous | 8:55 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Most reasonable talk we've heard on the voucher controversy! Lead on!
In fact, the most reasonable points on anything when both of you are commenting. :)
Who are you really, and what have you done with P&W?
In fact, the most reasonable points on anything when both of you are commenting. :)
Who are you really, and what have you done with P&W?
Just A Math Teacher | 9:10 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Perhaps it is time to re-examine the proper role and scope of government. Since
government is funded by theft, and its edicts executed by violence, I'd
rather it be divested of its presumptive role in education. Eliminate public
education, eliminate property taxes which go towards public education, and
eliminate child-labor laws. Let those who learn by their own experience the
value of an education acquire one through the sweat of their, or their
parents', brows.
mlba | 10:42 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
The arguments mostly seem to be about the money. I see the issue as a division
of social classes. All children are entiled to a free education, not an inferior
education. Fix the public schools first!It is society that benefits from a
quality education. Every one should pay for it. If school voucher proponants get
their way, we will have only quality education for the rich. The public schools
will still have the same problems and no one will care about it but the poor who
will still be footing the bill for all. Qualifying for the maximum benefit of
$3,000.00 is still not going to help a poor family who can not make up the
difference in tuition. The legislators are telling us that they can't fund
public schools, but they can fund private schools?? Listen to you conscience,
people! Vouchers are a bad idea.
Higher Education Bad Example | 10:45 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
The availability of federal aid has distorted the price of higher education to
the point that students graduate with so much debt they will repay it their
entire careers. We don't need that with K-12 too. Plus, that Harvard degree
will always be worth more than an equally as expensive degree at a lower-rated
school. Do we want to stratify K-12 as well?
Another Scary Thought | 10:59 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Here's a scary Halloween thought for Webb. Let's take your idea a
step further...
Let's give parents the ultimate "choice" in education by allowing them to pay for the education of their children. They can then "choose" the Walmart option or the Nordstrom option or all "choices" in between.
Or, if that's too scary for you Mr. Webb, I'll meet you half-way. Let's give ALL taxpayers the "choice" of deciding what school/student they want to fund with the educational portion of their taxes. ALL taxpayers would have a scholarship set up in their name and the appropriate amount of money donated to the school/student of their "choice". That way, if a taxpayer doesn't want their tax dollars going to the "education establishment" they can "choose" something else. However, it also would protect the taxpayer who doesn't want their tax dollars going to fund private or home schools that base their curriculum on a particular religious idea (American Heritage, for example).
Let's give parents the ultimate "choice" in education by allowing them to pay for the education of their children. They can then "choose" the Walmart option or the Nordstrom option or all "choices" in between.
Or, if that's too scary for you Mr. Webb, I'll meet you half-way. Let's give ALL taxpayers the "choice" of deciding what school/student they want to fund with the educational portion of their taxes. ALL taxpayers would have a scholarship set up in their name and the appropriate amount of money donated to the school/student of their "choice". That way, if a taxpayer doesn't want their tax dollars going to the "education establishment" they can "choose" something else. However, it also would protect the taxpayer who doesn't want their tax dollars going to fund private or home schools that base their curriculum on a particular religious idea (American Heritage, for example).
More money | 11:17 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
I like Webb's idea, "when public money flows to the individuals rather
than the institution a better result is achieved in his opinion"
I would like a voucher for police protection. I feel if i had my own security detail around me 24/7 I would feel safer. I wouldn't have to call the police with petty little problems like break-ins.
I would also like a voucher for my own military protection. I am not a big fan of the Iraq war. I would rather have my voucher go to some peace efforts and maybe some nukes and a bunker.
You know, uh, I have never felt my state reps have really looked out for my interest and my tax dollars. I would like a voucher for hiring an attorney to overturn some of the bone head ideas they come up with.
As I said I think Webb is spot on, but I doubt he thinks I should get vouchers like these because it is foolish and absurd, but how can one argue that school vouchers should be given and not police vouchers or military vouchers?
Vote no on 1.
I would like a voucher for police protection. I feel if i had my own security detail around me 24/7 I would feel safer. I wouldn't have to call the police with petty little problems like break-ins.
I would also like a voucher for my own military protection. I am not a big fan of the Iraq war. I would rather have my voucher go to some peace efforts and maybe some nukes and a bunker.
You know, uh, I have never felt my state reps have really looked out for my interest and my tax dollars. I would like a voucher for hiring an attorney to overturn some of the bone head ideas they come up with.
As I said I think Webb is spot on, but I doubt he thinks I should get vouchers like these because it is foolish and absurd, but how can one argue that school vouchers should be given and not police vouchers or military vouchers?
Vote no on 1.
LikeEducationalFoodStamps | 11:26 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007
You statists supporting the government school monopoly wouldn't argue that
food stamp recipients have to eat at a government cafeteria, would you?
So like food stamp recipients who get to shop at supermarkets like most of us (excluding those members of the political class who get to eat out all the time), let parents receiving educational vouchers chose where that money will be spent -- whether government-run or independently run.
So like food stamp recipients who get to shop at supermarkets like most of us (excluding those members of the political class who get to eat out all the time), let parents receiving educational vouchers chose where that money will be spent -- whether government-run or independently run.
Alice | 12:15 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
LaVarr says, "A lot of legislators and business leaders want fundamental
reform and more parental options." Isn't that interesting that
parents aren't included in that list of supporters? Seems that the
pro-voucher people forgot to ask the parents what they want. Oh, wait, they
already know. Every poll has shown that the majority of parents don't want
vouchers. This might explain why the pro-voucher legislators (Republican
leadership) are using obscure references to religion and abortion as well as
threatening a non-partisan group of community leaders who are studying solutions
to the health care debacle.
jackhp | 12:16 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Millionaires don't get food stamps.
jackhp | 12:23 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Hey "Just A Math Teacher",
Maybe you should have studied more history . . . or do you really want to go back to a society made up of ONLY "haves" and "have nots"?
Maybe you should have studied more history . . . or do you really want to go back to a society made up of ONLY "haves" and "have nots"?
Linda | 3:16 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
That's right! My tax money never has paid for millionaires to get food
stamps and lets not forget that while there are no government operated
cafeterias where people can spend their food stamps, there are safeguards in
place that guarantee that people are actually buying food with their food
stamps. Utah's voucher law has no safeguards in place that guarantee that
people shopping with their vouchers are actually buying quality education.
Anyone could start a private school, hire teachers that "they" deem
qualified, teach whatever curriculum "they" feel is appropriate,and
give whatever norm referenced test "they" feel whould make their
school look good at the end of each year and receive state money to run their
program and let's not forget, make a nice profit for themselves. If
vouchers ever become a reality in this state, I'd like to know as a tax
payer that my money was actually paying for an education that was, at the very
least, comparable to that in public schools.
Anonymous | 3:32 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
jackhp and Linda, your comments are right on! Thanks for speaking common sense.
I'm a definite NO on vouchers!
spider webb | 4:40 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Nice try at spinning yet another Webb. Mr. Webb would make a good utah county
legislator. Trying to spin his ideas and get people to bend to his ideas even
though time and time again the people say they don't agree.
It is simple. Vouchers will go down. The people putting out the kennedy, moveon, clinton ads will be blamed for it. Then some pathetic legislator will have a new voucher bill ready for reading the day after the vote.
Listen people. If your legislators supports voucher even after they get voted down, you need to vote them out.
It is simple. Vouchers will go down. The people putting out the kennedy, moveon, clinton ads will be blamed for it. Then some pathetic legislator will have a new voucher bill ready for reading the day after the vote.
Listen people. If your legislators supports voucher even after they get voted down, you need to vote them out.
JBean | 4:46 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
LaVar's analogies make sense. The police analogy does not.
In any case, all you who say the poor would never be able to use a voucher because of not being able to afford the difference, there is proof to the contrary if you only care to look.
An article the other day spoke of a west valley hispanic single mom with three teenagers who had worked two jobs, sought school and charitable financial aid, and driven the kids every day back and forth to a private school in Park City because the public school they were at was doing them no good at all--violence, cliques, big classes, etc etc. You bet the poor could use vouchers. They are the only ones getting any real amount anyway, since the so-called rich would only get a measly $500 anyway.
The rich would be paying taxes as well as most of their private tuition, the poor would be getting a big boost of help and a real option of schooling. The public schools would be getting more money per child and smaller classes. Kids and parents would be better able to find the place (public or private)that best serves thier learning needs.
In any case, all you who say the poor would never be able to use a voucher because of not being able to afford the difference, there is proof to the contrary if you only care to look.
An article the other day spoke of a west valley hispanic single mom with three teenagers who had worked two jobs, sought school and charitable financial aid, and driven the kids every day back and forth to a private school in Park City because the public school they were at was doing them no good at all--violence, cliques, big classes, etc etc. You bet the poor could use vouchers. They are the only ones getting any real amount anyway, since the so-called rich would only get a measly $500 anyway.
The rich would be paying taxes as well as most of their private tuition, the poor would be getting a big boost of help and a real option of schooling. The public schools would be getting more money per child and smaller classes. Kids and parents would be better able to find the place (public or private)that best serves thier learning needs.
JBean | 4:51 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Also, the bill does have more guidelines than voucher foes would have us believe
as far as private school setup. Teachers must have a degree in the subject or
professional expertise--not just a degree in "education".
And anyway, it's the public schools that teach "whatever they want" without having to listen to parents. Private schools couldn't do that--their customers can walk away too easily.
And anyway, it's the public schools that teach "whatever they want" without having to listen to parents. Private schools couldn't do that--their customers can walk away too easily.
jackhp | 5:53 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
JBean,
How's this for the rich paying taxes?
A family of 8 (2 adults, 6 kids) that makes $150,000 a year is still eligible to receive a $1000 voucher for each child.
Let's do the math, shall we?
$150,000 gross income less $20,000 (8 personal exemptions) less $15,000 in "charitable" giving (that's 10%, just so you know) equals a taxable income of $115,000. At the new 5% flat tax rate, this family will pay $5750 in State Income Taxes. If they get $6000 back in private tuition vouchers, then they are now getting back $250 more than they "pay".
Now, if this family is one of the many that would have sent their children to private school regardless of receiving a voucher, then they have now become a net drain on the public school system. According to the Legislature's own impartial analysis, there will be many more of these families than those who actually switch to private schools because of the vouchers.
Vouchers are a loser for taxpayers, a loser for public schools, and a loser for many families and children who will be ripped off by unscrupulous hucksters.
Vote NO on Referendum 1.
How's this for the rich paying taxes?
A family of 8 (2 adults, 6 kids) that makes $150,000 a year is still eligible to receive a $1000 voucher for each child.
Let's do the math, shall we?
$150,000 gross income less $20,000 (8 personal exemptions) less $15,000 in "charitable" giving (that's 10%, just so you know) equals a taxable income of $115,000. At the new 5% flat tax rate, this family will pay $5750 in State Income Taxes. If they get $6000 back in private tuition vouchers, then they are now getting back $250 more than they "pay".
Now, if this family is one of the many that would have sent their children to private school regardless of receiving a voucher, then they have now become a net drain on the public school system. According to the Legislature's own impartial analysis, there will be many more of these families than those who actually switch to private schools because of the vouchers.
Vouchers are a loser for taxpayers, a loser for public schools, and a loser for many families and children who will be ripped off by unscrupulous hucksters.
Vote NO on Referendum 1.
Richard | 8:36 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
jackhp,
You left a few figures out of your math problem. The family you describe probably owns a home and so they will pay thousands of dollars in property taxes. (Not included in your calculations.) They also will pay thousands each year in sales taxes.
If this family would have sent their children to private school regardless of receiving the voucher, as you claim, then their kids would already be in private school so they would get nothing with this voucher bill. I wonder if your figure of $1000 per child is accurate as well given their income level.
In any case, even if this hypothetical family of yours would come out ahead (i.e. receive more in vouchers than they pay in taxes), this would be very short lived. Unless their kids were sextuplets or 2 sets of triplets, there would only be a few short years where all 6 kids were in school at the same time. So of the 60 or so years these parents are paying taxes (income and/or property), they would only be ahead for maybe 3 or 4 of those years.
Your math does not add up.
You left a few figures out of your math problem. The family you describe probably owns a home and so they will pay thousands of dollars in property taxes. (Not included in your calculations.) They also will pay thousands each year in sales taxes.
If this family would have sent their children to private school regardless of receiving the voucher, as you claim, then their kids would already be in private school so they would get nothing with this voucher bill. I wonder if your figure of $1000 per child is accurate as well given their income level.
In any case, even if this hypothetical family of yours would come out ahead (i.e. receive more in vouchers than they pay in taxes), this would be very short lived. Unless their kids were sextuplets or 2 sets of triplets, there would only be a few short years where all 6 kids were in school at the same time. So of the 60 or so years these parents are paying taxes (income and/or property), they would only be ahead for maybe 3 or 4 of those years.
Your math does not add up.
jackhp | 8:47 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
I want to know why my second comment on this thread (originally posted within
minutes of my 5:53pm comment) hasn't been posted. It does NOT violate the
comment guidelines. I've submitted it three times already; here it is
again:
Good job JBean. Your rhetoric is just close enough to being truthful that the uniformed won't question you. But you ARE being untruthful by using some very shady wording. The teachers in private schools are not REQUIRED to have a "degree in the subject or professional expertise."
HB174 states, regarding teacher qualifications, that they must "employ or contract with teachers who . . . hold baccalaureate or higher degrees; OR, have special skills, knowledge, or expertise that qualifies them to provide instruction in the subjects taught." (emphasis added)
The bill says NOTHING about "professional" expertise. And what exactly does "special skills, knowledge, or expertise" mean? Who gets to decide? The bill doesn't say, so I guess it's up in the air. Maybe they could hire you for your "special skills" in using misleading rhetoric . . .
Vote NO on Referendum 1
Good job JBean. Your rhetoric is just close enough to being truthful that the uniformed won't question you. But you ARE being untruthful by using some very shady wording. The teachers in private schools are not REQUIRED to have a "degree in the subject or professional expertise."
HB174 states, regarding teacher qualifications, that they must "employ or contract with teachers who . . . hold baccalaureate or higher degrees; OR, have special skills, knowledge, or expertise that qualifies them to provide instruction in the subjects taught." (emphasis added)
The bill says NOTHING about "professional" expertise. And what exactly does "special skills, knowledge, or expertise" mean? Who gets to decide? The bill doesn't say, so I guess it's up in the air. Maybe they could hire you for your "special skills" in using misleading rhetoric . . .
Vote NO on Referendum 1
Charles H | 8:51 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Jackhp bases his entire thesis on one assumption:
That the family would have sent their kids to private school anyway. But if they don't and instead use government schools (a fair assumption since 95% of all students in Utah attend gov schools) what do they get?
Well, using Jack's numbers, the family still pays $5750 in State income taxes (plus whatever they paid in local school district property taxes on that home large enough for 8 people). But now instead of getting a paltry $6,000 in vouchers redeemable at a private school, they get (6 * $7500 (average per child costs in gov schools) =) $45,000 worth of implicit vouchers redeemable at gov schools.
Looks to me like about a $39,000 savings to the taxpayers.
Additionally, at a private school the family pays about $3,000 per child out of their own pocket for tuition. This is $18,000 added to the TOTAL educational "budget" in this State that otherwise would not have been available.
IF our goal is the education of CHILDREN, then spending in private schools is as valuable as spending in gov schools, maybe more so given higher efficiency of most private schools.
Vote YES on Referendum 1.
That the family would have sent their kids to private school anyway. But if they don't and instead use government schools (a fair assumption since 95% of all students in Utah attend gov schools) what do they get?
Well, using Jack's numbers, the family still pays $5750 in State income taxes (plus whatever they paid in local school district property taxes on that home large enough for 8 people). But now instead of getting a paltry $6,000 in vouchers redeemable at a private school, they get (6 * $7500 (average per child costs in gov schools) =) $45,000 worth of implicit vouchers redeemable at gov schools.
Looks to me like about a $39,000 savings to the taxpayers.
Additionally, at a private school the family pays about $3,000 per child out of their own pocket for tuition. This is $18,000 added to the TOTAL educational "budget" in this State that otherwise would not have been available.
IF our goal is the education of CHILDREN, then spending in private schools is as valuable as spending in gov schools, maybe more so given higher efficiency of most private schools.
Vote YES on Referendum 1.
jackhp | 8:56 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Nice try Richard. Let's take a look at your objections.
Property taxes. Yes, I did not include property taxes, because vouchers are not paid with property taxes. Regardless, your claim that they will pay thousands in property taxes does not specify how much is actually for public education. In Salt Lake City, the property taxes for public education on a $250,000 home are approximately $750. Are you really going to claim that a family earning $150,000/year is doing their part for public education by contributing $500?
Sales taxes. Sales taxes aren't used for public education. They are used for the other functions of government we ALL enjoy: roads, police, fire, etc. So, unless you are saying this family shouldn't contribute to those things as well, your point regarding sales tax is not applicable.
Kids already in school. This is only until the plan is fully implemented. After 13 years, ALL private school kids, even those who would have gone anyway, will be eligible to receive vouchers. Funny how the pro-voucher crowd likes to ignore this fact . . .
cont'd . . .
Property taxes. Yes, I did not include property taxes, because vouchers are not paid with property taxes. Regardless, your claim that they will pay thousands in property taxes does not specify how much is actually for public education. In Salt Lake City, the property taxes for public education on a $250,000 home are approximately $750. Are you really going to claim that a family earning $150,000/year is doing their part for public education by contributing $500?
Sales taxes. Sales taxes aren't used for public education. They are used for the other functions of government we ALL enjoy: roads, police, fire, etc. So, unless you are saying this family shouldn't contribute to those things as well, your point regarding sales tax is not applicable.
Kids already in school. This is only until the plan is fully implemented. After 13 years, ALL private school kids, even those who would have gone anyway, will be eligible to receive vouchers. Funny how the pro-voucher crowd likes to ignore this fact . . .
cont'd . . .
jackhp | 9:01 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
cont'd from above . . .
You wonder if my figure is accurate? Check your voter information pamphlet. I'd link to it, but for some reason, the D-news doesn't like links in its forum.
The benefit is only for a few years. My math adds up fine. It doesn't matter if they are getting back more than they pay for only three or four years. What matters is that they are getting any money back at all. Why should they get to shirk their responsibility toward public education for ANY amount of time?
You wonder if my figure is accurate? Check your voter information pamphlet. I'd link to it, but for some reason, the D-news doesn't like links in its forum.
The benefit is only for a few years. My math adds up fine. It doesn't matter if they are getting back more than they pay for only three or four years. What matters is that they are getting any money back at all. Why should they get to shirk their responsibility toward public education for ANY amount of time?
jackhp | 9:02 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Richard,
The next time you want to debunk my math, or "wonder" if any of my figures are accurate, maybe you should try reading up on the subject first.
Thanks.
The next time you want to debunk my math, or "wonder" if any of my figures are accurate, maybe you should try reading up on the subject first.
Thanks.
no on one | 9:08 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Maybe it is time to start talking about a head tax. Parents can allow their
money to follow their children with the state kicking in the private school
discount. No children, no cost. Ten kids, ten times the cost. Or we can all
support public education for all and share the burden for all of our benefit.
Charles H | 9:11 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Jackhp,
You seem very concerned that those using vouchers might get a voucher worth more than they paid in State taxes.
Are you equally concerned about families who get more spent on their kids in government schools than they paid in State income taxes?
The reality is, we do have educational welfare in this State and nation. MOST families will have more spent on educating their children in gov schools than they pay in State income taxes (that includes a LIFETIME of paying income tax, much less in any individual year). So methinks this concern is either moot, misguided, or a red herring.
95% of children attend gov schools in Utah. Only 5% attend private school. In the VAST majority of cases, taxpayers will be spending upwards of $7500 per child (on average) in the gov schools next year while parents pay only a small fraction of that cost.
OR, we can spend about $2400 (on average) per child who attends a private school while the parents chip in about $1600 per child (TYPICAL private school tuition is about $4k per year). Looks like a win for taxpayers to me, in addition to the benefits to kids.
You seem very concerned that those using vouchers might get a voucher worth more than they paid in State taxes.
Are you equally concerned about families who get more spent on their kids in government schools than they paid in State income taxes?
The reality is, we do have educational welfare in this State and nation. MOST families will have more spent on educating their children in gov schools than they pay in State income taxes (that includes a LIFETIME of paying income tax, much less in any individual year). So methinks this concern is either moot, misguided, or a red herring.
95% of children attend gov schools in Utah. Only 5% attend private school. In the VAST majority of cases, taxpayers will be spending upwards of $7500 per child (on average) in the gov schools next year while parents pay only a small fraction of that cost.
OR, we can spend about $2400 (on average) per child who attends a private school while the parents chip in about $1600 per child (TYPICAL private school tuition is about $4k per year). Looks like a win for taxpayers to me, in addition to the benefits to kids.
CharlesH | 9:16 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Jackhp,
ALL information on the costs or savings of our current voucher law--whether from one side or the other, or even from the independent analysis in the voter information guide--is based on ASSUMPTIONS. The primary assumption that affects the outcome is how many students attend private school using vouchers.
If the number of students remains close to the CURRENT number (or percentage) of students using private schools (about 5%) then vouchers cost more than they save as we have, indeed, simply given a break to people who would have used private school anyway. Whether they "deserve" such a break is a debate for another day.
However, if vouchers encourage significantly more parents to choose private schools than currently do, then vouchers do end up saving the taxpayers money as the typical $2400 voucher is MUCH cheaper than the average per child total cost of $7500 spent in gov schools.
National average is 10% of children attending private school. Utah is 1/2 of that at 5%.
NOBODY really knows whether vouchers will, in total, save or cost money.
I believe we should try them for a few years. If they work out, great. If not, repeal them.
ALL information on the costs or savings of our current voucher law--whether from one side or the other, or even from the independent analysis in the voter information guide--is based on ASSUMPTIONS. The primary assumption that affects the outcome is how many students attend private school using vouchers.
If the number of students remains close to the CURRENT number (or percentage) of students using private schools (about 5%) then vouchers cost more than they save as we have, indeed, simply given a break to people who would have used private school anyway. Whether they "deserve" such a break is a debate for another day.
However, if vouchers encourage significantly more parents to choose private schools than currently do, then vouchers do end up saving the taxpayers money as the typical $2400 voucher is MUCH cheaper than the average per child total cost of $7500 spent in gov schools.
National average is 10% of children attending private school. Utah is 1/2 of that at 5%.
NOBODY really knows whether vouchers will, in total, save or cost money.
I believe we should try them for a few years. If they work out, great. If not, repeal them.
jackhp | 9:19 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Nice try Charles H. Yes, my thesis is based on one assumption. But that
assumption is based on the Legislature's own impartial fiscal analysis and
the fiscal note attached to the bill.
Again, I'd link to it, but . . . D-news????? If you search hard enough, I'm sure you can come up with it; try "HB 174 fiscal impact".
There aren't going to be enough "switchers" to make up for all the vouchers we'll be paying out to those who would have gone to private schools anyway. There will be more families such as those above who are on the "would've gone to private anyway" side than on the "switched because of vouchers" side. Using the Legislature's own impartial analysis, the numbers for vouchers just don't add up.
Vouchers are a loser for taxpayers AND a loser for public schools.
Again, I'd link to it, but . . . D-news????? If you search hard enough, I'm sure you can come up with it; try "HB 174 fiscal impact".
There aren't going to be enough "switchers" to make up for all the vouchers we'll be paying out to those who would have gone to private schools anyway. There will be more families such as those above who are on the "would've gone to private anyway" side than on the "switched because of vouchers" side. Using the Legislature's own impartial analysis, the numbers for vouchers just don't add up.
Vouchers are a loser for taxpayers AND a loser for public schools.
MEB | 9:31 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Richard,
Add that to the fact that with this family's children going to private school, that's $6000 per pupil funding at public schools less the $1000 per child voucher. That means that this family takes their 'burden' out of the public schools, and the public school system still gets to keep $30,000 to 'not' educate them. This money can be put toward educating other children!
How can the public schools lose with a program like that? As you pointed out, the numbers are actually even better than that, since the payout is only over 5 years!
Add that to the fact that with this family's children going to private school, that's $6000 per pupil funding at public schools less the $1000 per child voucher. That means that this family takes their 'burden' out of the public schools, and the public school system still gets to keep $30,000 to 'not' educate them. This money can be put toward educating other children!
How can the public schools lose with a program like that? As you pointed out, the numbers are actually even better than that, since the payout is only over 5 years!
Charles H | 9:38 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
"Another Parent" wrote:
"Public money funding religious instruction is indeed a scary thought. Propagating any form of Fundamentalism through schools, which will be a reality with this plan, with money we are compelled to supply to the state through our taxes, should give nightmares to any freedom loving American."
I just not seeing the evidence that the tax money that flows to BYU, Notre Dame, or other religious colleges in this nation are causing any problems at all, much less the kind of gloom you predict.
I do see significant evidence that the propagation of secular humanism, atheism, moral relativism, and other credos primarily via the government schools has created a host of problems including a 75% unwed birth rate among certain demographics.
"Public money funding religious instruction is indeed a scary thought. Propagating any form of Fundamentalism through schools, which will be a reality with this plan, with money we are compelled to supply to the state through our taxes, should give nightmares to any freedom loving American."
I just not seeing the evidence that the tax money that flows to BYU, Notre Dame, or other religious colleges in this nation are causing any problems at all, much less the kind of gloom you predict.
I do see significant evidence that the propagation of secular humanism, atheism, moral relativism, and other credos primarily via the government schools has created a host of problems including a 75% unwed birth rate among certain demographics.
jackhp | 10:09 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Charles H,
No, I'm not "very concerned that those using vouchers might get a voucher worth more than they paid in State taxes." And no, I'm not "concerned about families who get more spent on their kids in government schools than they paid in State income taxes."
What I'm concerned about is the fact that what PCE and other voucher supporter SAY this bill will do and what it actually is likely to do are two extremely different things. The scenarios I present are simply to debunk the standard pro-voucher talking points regarding THIS bill. If you'd like to know how I feel about vouchers in general, or if I could support some other incarnation of vouchers, then ask. Don't assume you know my views simply based on my debunking of others' faulty talking points.
No, I'm not "very concerned that those using vouchers might get a voucher worth more than they paid in State taxes." And no, I'm not "concerned about families who get more spent on their kids in government schools than they paid in State income taxes."
What I'm concerned about is the fact that what PCE and other voucher supporter SAY this bill will do and what it actually is likely to do are two extremely different things. The scenarios I present are simply to debunk the standard pro-voucher talking points regarding THIS bill. If you'd like to know how I feel about vouchers in general, or if I could support some other incarnation of vouchers, then ask. Don't assume you know my views simply based on my debunking of others' faulty talking points.
Craig Johnson | 10:11 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
CharlesH, I'm not about to support an expensive taxpayer-funded program
based on "hey, let's just see if it works."
I've reviewed the impartial analysis in detail. The switch rate in the analysis is generous. Even still, the program is slated to have a NET COST of $260 million dollars. The legislative fiscal analyst would have to be off by hundreds of millions of dollars just to come out even. The facts are that the bill costs far more than it saves.
Vouchers imply a trust relationship amongst three stakeholders - parents, private schools, and taxpayers. This bad bill does not honor that relationship. Taxpayers have no say whatsoever in how this money is spent. And, with no basic minimum standards required of private voucher schools receiving the windfall, we are guaranteeing greed, fraud, waste, and abuse which will hurt parents, too.
Show us one page in a Utah textbook advocating secular humanism or anything leading to high unwed birth rates. And, if you've found such a page, have you alerted your local or state school board rep? I'm sure they'd like to know.
Such bogus irrelevant arguments are exactly why support for vouchers is currently in the toilet.
I've reviewed the impartial analysis in detail. The switch rate in the analysis is generous. Even still, the program is slated to have a NET COST of $260 million dollars. The legislative fiscal analyst would have to be off by hundreds of millions of dollars just to come out even. The facts are that the bill costs far more than it saves.
Vouchers imply a trust relationship amongst three stakeholders - parents, private schools, and taxpayers. This bad bill does not honor that relationship. Taxpayers have no say whatsoever in how this money is spent. And, with no basic minimum standards required of private voucher schools receiving the windfall, we are guaranteeing greed, fraud, waste, and abuse which will hurt parents, too.
Show us one page in a Utah textbook advocating secular humanism or anything leading to high unwed birth rates. And, if you've found such a page, have you alerted your local or state school board rep? I'm sure they'd like to know.
Such bogus irrelevant arguments are exactly why support for vouchers is currently in the toilet.
jackhp | 10:17 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Charles H,
The Legislative Fiscal Analysis is a professional, impartial analysis of the costs and benefits of THIS voucher law. I'm assuming the people who put together the LFA know what they are doing, otherwise, why would we be paying them to do fiscal analysis? I'm not a statistician, so I'm not at liberty to challenge the numbers presented in the impartial LFA. Are you?
If you think their assumptions are nothing better than guesses, then please show us your own fiscal analysis and reasoning for why the LFA could be hundreds of millions of dollars off the mark.
As for your opinion that we "should try (vouchers) for a few years. If they work out, great. If not, repeal them," do you really think it would be possible to remove such an entitlement once it is implemented, no matter how fiscally irresponsible? Good luck . . .
The Legislative Fiscal Analysis is a professional, impartial analysis of the costs and benefits of THIS voucher law. I'm assuming the people who put together the LFA know what they are doing, otherwise, why would we be paying them to do fiscal analysis? I'm not a statistician, so I'm not at liberty to challenge the numbers presented in the impartial LFA. Are you?
If you think their assumptions are nothing better than guesses, then please show us your own fiscal analysis and reasoning for why the LFA could be hundreds of millions of dollars off the mark.
As for your opinion that we "should try (vouchers) for a few years. If they work out, great. If not, repeal them," do you really think it would be possible to remove such an entitlement once it is implemented, no matter how fiscally irresponsible? Good luck . . .
Mark Towner | 10:37 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
I have been promoting LaVarr's ides for years and have actually detailed
what would be necessary for a program like this to work.
Here is what would have to happen.
1) The Legislature would need to provide funding to local school districts to cover the costs and continued expenses of buildings and infrastructure.
2) The State School Board would need to be disolved, and the State Board of Education's only role would be for teacher license and certification.
3) A constitutional amendment would need to be ratified.
4) Each student would receive a voucher from the state that they would take to the school of their choice (public or private) during the registration process. The individual school would receive 1/3 of the total voucher funds, and they would receive the other 2/3 as long as the student remains in that school.
5) Each teacher would receive their base salary as agreed with collective bargaining, but the principle could add additional bonus money for high preformer teachers, math and science etc to get the best teachers to teach in their specific school. The best teachers would be free to go to whatever school is best for them.
Win Win
Here is what would have to happen.
1) The Legislature would need to provide funding to local school districts to cover the costs and continued expenses of buildings and infrastructure.
2) The State School Board would need to be disolved, and the State Board of Education's only role would be for teacher license and certification.
3) A constitutional amendment would need to be ratified.
4) Each student would receive a voucher from the state that they would take to the school of their choice (public or private) during the registration process. The individual school would receive 1/3 of the total voucher funds, and they would receive the other 2/3 as long as the student remains in that school.
5) Each teacher would receive their base salary as agreed with collective bargaining, but the principle could add additional bonus money for high preformer teachers, math and science etc to get the best teachers to teach in their specific school. The best teachers would be free to go to whatever school is best for them.
Win Win
Charles H | 11:17 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Jackhp,
What do you mean "nice try?" I said right up front that ALL forecasts--including the legislative impartial analysis--are based on the assumption of how many students switch. Yes, I've read and studied the analysis on all sides. "Impartial" does not mean "infallible." Maybe they are right and after 10 years, the costs will exceed the savings. Maybe they are wrong and we'll see far more students switching than they or you predict.
OTOH, I notice that a LOT of concerns about vouchers center on the idea that HUGE numbers of kids are going to switch and thus the government schools will lose public support and/or be left with only the trouble kids. So which is it?
Lots of kids switching, or very few children moving to private schools?
Some five years ago Alpine SD tried "Innovations/Discovery" math. Now they are changing back. Education tries new stuff all the time. If vouchers cause even half the problems you and other opponents claim they will, it will be EASY to repeal them in a few years. Of course, if they don't cause such problems, if they actually work....
BTW, how do you feel about the Carson Smith vouchers?
What do you mean "nice try?" I said right up front that ALL forecasts--including the legislative impartial analysis--are based on the assumption of how many students switch. Yes, I've read and studied the analysis on all sides. "Impartial" does not mean "infallible." Maybe they are right and after 10 years, the costs will exceed the savings. Maybe they are wrong and we'll see far more students switching than they or you predict.
OTOH, I notice that a LOT of concerns about vouchers center on the idea that HUGE numbers of kids are going to switch and thus the government schools will lose public support and/or be left with only the trouble kids. So which is it?
Lots of kids switching, or very few children moving to private schools?
Some five years ago Alpine SD tried "Innovations/Discovery" math. Now they are changing back. Education tries new stuff all the time. If vouchers cause even half the problems you and other opponents claim they will, it will be EASY to repeal them in a few years. Of course, if they don't cause such problems, if they actually work....
BTW, how do you feel about the Carson Smith vouchers?
Charles H | 11:19 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Jackhp,
You still haven't told us how you feel about parents getting a much larger "voucher" value from government schools than they pay in State income taxes?
Why is this such a concern for you with private schools, but left unmentioned with government schools?
You still haven't told us how you feel about parents getting a much larger "voucher" value from government schools than they pay in State income taxes?
Why is this such a concern for you with private schools, but left unmentioned with government schools?
Charles H | 11:25 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Craig Johnson wrote:
"Vouchers imply a trust relationship amongst three stakeholders - parents, private schools, and taxpayers. This bad bill does not honor that relationship. Taxpayers have no say whatsoever in how this money is spent. And, with no basic minimum standards required of private voucher schools receiving the windfall, we are guaranteeing greed, fraud, waste, and abuse which will hurt parents, too."
Craig, how does your same, flawed, argument not apply to taxpayer money made available for private college education.
Also, your assertion about teacher standards is not accurate. The bill requires private schools to hire only teachers with at least a bachelor's degree or specialized experience in the field they are teaching. They are required to disclose to parents what their teachers' credentials are as well as the status of school accreditation. Parents are presumed smart enough to decide if that meets their children's needs.
It does not require a teacher certificate. Neither does the UoU, BYU, Harvard, Notre Dame, nor any other college in this nation. Teacher certificates are of very questionable value EXCEPT to indoctrinate teachers to join the union and feel personally attacked by every policy disagreement.
"Vouchers imply a trust relationship amongst three stakeholders - parents, private schools, and taxpayers. This bad bill does not honor that relationship. Taxpayers have no say whatsoever in how this money is spent. And, with no basic minimum standards required of private voucher schools receiving the windfall, we are guaranteeing greed, fraud, waste, and abuse which will hurt parents, too."
Craig, how does your same, flawed, argument not apply to taxpayer money made available for private college education.
Also, your assertion about teacher standards is not accurate. The bill requires private schools to hire only teachers with at least a bachelor's degree or specialized experience in the field they are teaching. They are required to disclose to parents what their teachers' credentials are as well as the status of school accreditation. Parents are presumed smart enough to decide if that meets their children's needs.
It does not require a teacher certificate. Neither does the UoU, BYU, Harvard, Notre Dame, nor any other college in this nation. Teacher certificates are of very questionable value EXCEPT to indoctrinate teachers to join the union and feel personally attacked by every policy disagreement.
Charles H | 11:51 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
Craig Johnson wrote: "I'm not about to support an expensive
taxpayer-funded program based on "hey, let's just see if it
works.""
Thanks. If you and the school boards would adopt a similar attitude concerning "Discovery/Investigations Math," "mainstreaming" very slow children into regular classrooms, bi-lingual education, elimination of gifted & talented classes, forced attendance at pro-homosexual rallies, and every other new idea to come down the educational pike there might be far less demand for school choice.
If local school districts were actually responsive to parents and respectful of the religious, cultural, and political beliefs of families, far fewer families would be looking to alternatives.
But again, we heard all kinds of dire warnings about what the Carson Smith voucher would do. It seems to be working out so well that voucher opponents don't even want to acknowledge that it exists.
On a seemingly unrelated vein, ten years ago we heard horror stories of blood in the streets if we allowed every law abiding adult to get a concealed weapons permit. The NEA/UEA and school boards fought to keep teachers from exercising their rights. Ten years later, nary a problem.
Freedom works.
Thanks. If you and the school boards would adopt a similar attitude concerning "Discovery/Investigations Math," "mainstreaming" very slow children into regular classrooms, bi-lingual education, elimination of gifted & talented classes, forced attendance at pro-homosexual rallies, and every other new idea to come down the educational pike there might be far less demand for school choice.
If local school districts were actually responsive to parents and respectful of the religious, cultural, and political beliefs of families, far fewer families would be looking to alternatives.
But again, we heard all kinds of dire warnings about what the Carson Smith voucher would do. It seems to be working out so well that voucher opponents don't even want to acknowledge that it exists.
On a seemingly unrelated vein, ten years ago we heard horror stories of blood in the streets if we allowed every law abiding adult to get a concealed weapons permit. The NEA/UEA and school boards fought to keep teachers from exercising their rights. Ten years later, nary a problem.
Freedom works.
Anon | 11:53 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007
jackhp wrote:
"The scenarios I present are simply to debunk the standard pro-voucher talking points regarding THIS bill. If you'd like to know how I feel about vouchers in general, or if I could support some other incarnation of vouchers, then ask. Don't assume you know my views simply based on my debunking of others' faulty talking points."
A case of letting "the perfect become the enemy to the good enough (and/or political possible)"?
The current bill is not perfect. In a different environment it might be a step in the wrong direction.
It is the best we could get and like all new laws will require some tweaks or even repeal along the way.
"The scenarios I present are simply to debunk the standard pro-voucher talking points regarding THIS bill. If you'd like to know how I feel about vouchers in general, or if I could support some other incarnation of vouchers, then ask. Don't assume you know my views simply based on my debunking of others' faulty talking points."
A case of letting "the perfect become the enemy to the good enough (and/or political possible)"?
The current bill is not perfect. In a different environment it might be a step in the wrong direction.
It is the best we could get and like all new laws will require some tweaks or even repeal along the way.
Charles H | 12:03 a.m. Oct. 1, 2007
Jackhp,
There are a couple of weaknesses with the fiscal analysis done on this bill.
First of all, determining how many children will switch is VERY difficult to determine. It is one thing to favor switching, until one faces the bill. Similarly, it is easy to say you have no interest in a voucher until your child begins having real problems in school. I know of no way around this weakness. We simply have to acknowledge it.
However, the fiscal analysis fails to consider the impact of private money flowing into the TOTAL educational pot. IOW, the fiscal analysis looks only at direct State/taxpayer costs without considering the benefits received in return: either fiscal, or more subtle, social and educational.
We frequently spend RDA and similar money to "seed" economic development. To be fair, a lot of these projects do not deliver for the taxpayer. But some do.
So too, as my example above shows, every family moving to private school not only saves the State some money, but also VOLUNTARILY invests private money in education. This represents an increase in total education spending unachievable via tax raises. It also results in increased parental involvement in education.
There are a couple of weaknesses with the fiscal analysis done on this bill.
First of all, determining how many children will switch is VERY difficult to determine. It is one thing to favor switching, until one faces the bill. Similarly, it is easy to say you have no interest in a voucher until your child begins having real problems in school. I know of no way around this weakness. We simply have to acknowledge it.
However, the fiscal analysis fails to consider the impact of private money flowing into the TOTAL educational pot. IOW, the fiscal analysis looks only at direct State/taxpayer costs without considering the benefits received in return: either fiscal, or more subtle, social and educational.
We frequently spend RDA and similar money to "seed" economic development. To be fair, a lot of these projects do not deliver for the taxpayer. But some do.
So too, as my example above shows, every family moving to private school not only saves the State some money, but also VOLUNTARILY invests private money in education. This represents an increase in total education spending unachievable via tax raises. It also results in increased parental involvement in education.
Ronald S | 2:02 p.m. Oct. 1, 2007
This bill is called parental choice in education. Isn't that in itself a
half truth?
We already have choice.
We can choose private schools now.
We can choose charter schools.
We have window applications to other public schools.
We can bring our kids home to educate them.
So lets get rid of the half truths and call the bill.
New government entitlement program to fund private schools.
We already have choice.
We can choose private schools now.
We can choose charter schools.
We have window applications to other public schools.
We can bring our kids home to educate them.
So lets get rid of the half truths and call the bill.
New government entitlement program to fund private schools.
Concerned Teacher and Parent | 2:39 p.m. Oct. 3, 2007
I am amazed at the manipulation of the truth on both sides of the issue.
Although I agree that there are some fundamental flaws in education, I believe
that this voucher bill is not the answer. I think that the way to fix public
education is to one, have more parental involvement- (school is not a daycare),
two, change the way we evaluate our educators - I should be evaluated by an
objective and independent person who does not know me, and they should randomly
pop in a time or two, and fire those teachers that need to be fired, and three,
pay good teachers what they are worth. I believe that if we can do this, then
education can be fixed.
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.
- Lawyers earn fees from own laws 1:36 p.m.
- No. 2 fugitive mob boss nabbed 1:35 p.m.
- Frustrated Palestinians appeal to UN 1:25 p.m.
- 'Tweeters' to report on shuttle launch 1:24 p.m.
- Pet cemetery reflects dedication 12:58 p.m.
- Film honors NYC defense attorney 12:57 p.m.
- Redgraves recreates grandma in play 12:21 p.m.
- Can 65 be considered young now? 12:14 p.m.
- Marriage: having each other's back 12:13 p.m.
- Presidential libraries open history 12:04 p.m.
- SLC council OKs gay rights policies
360 - BYU happy to escape with victory215
- Editorial: Mormons and gay rights200
- TCU creams U.194
- Will state consider gay rights law?148
- Letters: Strange breed in Utah132
- Can BYU root for (ick) Utah Utes?130
- Utes remain silent about BCS120
- RSL heads to MLS title game105
- Celtics crush Jazz104
Maybe someone out there can help me understand how raising the state...
Advertisement
Latest comments
I keep reading comments about WSU's poor shooting performance from beyond the...
Losing to Air Force will be the end for you Yner fans! Funny that a freshmen...
JD played PC and beat them with an overwhelming defense and an unstopable...
Huh. That's funny. I didn't think Keith, Rachael, Chris, or Bill broadcast...
That great performance yesterday? That's funny.
Why the new picture and the change in the headline? The Dwseret News botched...
My introduction to Talk Radio in Utah was Barberi and his nasty intolerant...
I don't understand what the Zoob fans are yapping at Utah about. BYU was...
@Albert Gay men have no hatred of women that is a total fabrication. Women...
Utah leads the nation in anti-depressant use, white collar fraud, porn...
Advertisements