Reader comments
GOP has taken odd stand on vouchers

Bob, As usual you understand more about writing than you do about economics. Every student that leaves the public education system at a cost less than the variable cost of educating a student in the public system leaves more money in the public system and helps reduce class size in the public system. Both of these facts should be desirable--even to the economically illiterate.

Perhaps Dave would also factor in the surprisingly high number of students who at the beginning of the year leave for private or charter schools, thus depriving the local school of funding, but then return to the public school a month or two into the year but bring no funding with them. That situation is likely to increase with vouchers.

Also consider the long-term cost, both economic and otherwise, of students educated in schools where there is no accountability for curriculum or for faculty credentials. I know of a school where the principal had not graduated from college and reports abound of schools using LDS scriptures as the basis for history courses. Do such institutions deserve public funding? Does their "education" meet the needs of a more economically complex and socially diverse Utah? Or does it promote religious fundamentalism and social division?

Legislators eager to dole out vouchers ought first to impose authentic, effective oversight for the schools receiving the funds. They submit public schools to scrutiny. Why should private schools receiving my tax money escape such accountability? What credentials should their teachers have? What curriculum must their students pass to receive a state-accredited diploma? No accountability, no money.

Bob is so off on this. For starters, is he still debating HB148? That is not the voucher bill at play here. Bob is about 8 months behind the times.

As for the redistribution of wealth, simple fact that the moment you pay for anything with tax dollars you are redistributing wealth. That is completely 100% true of public education right now. So the regular system is not a redistribtuion program (it clearly is) but this one is?

And as for the rest, why even debate Bob? The absolute fact of the matter, all this talk about rich v poor, class warfare junk is to an exact "T" the same arguements used to stop the creation of charter schools. And I mean to a "T"! Have charter schools killed the system? Yeah, enough so that even several Districts have sponsored their own charter schools.

Bottom line, vouchers are not going to destroy the system. They are not going to bankrupt anything. They are not going to put teachers in the streets. They are not going to do any of the fear mongering that is thrown out. Just as charter schools didn't before them.

They will lower Union enrollment but....

This voucher things is all about their hatred of the teachers union. To show you how blinded these legislators are by their hatred, the very same people who fight to keep undocumented college students from getting a tuition break have created an entitlement that will give $3000.00 to the children of illegal immigrants to attend private school. Their hatred has caused them to abandon their conservatism.

I strongly support vouchers. We need to change the status quo, and introduce some private competition. Even the private sectors will be competing against each other for quality education; if one fails another could take its place. And the bottom line it will be less costly by reducing the infrastructure of continual building of more schools and may even reduce the tax dollars needed for our present system?

How odd that giving money back that was taken from someone would be called redistribution of wealth. How odd, again, that giving that money back would be labeled an entitlement.

Mr. Bernick,

Thanks for your column and your insight.

I think your column added a new perspective to the issue, one that I don't think has been expressed anywhere else.

It was thoughtfully done.

Thank you very much.

Joe Watts

I'm voting for anything that takes away Teacher Union power. Look who is opposing this referendum: the NEA and other unions that support mediocrity. Being a teacher for 35 years, I know how the NEA (and the UTA) supports bad teachers. It's almost impossible to fire a bad one.
This referendum brings accountability to a bad system in need repair by making a teacher sink or swim based on his or her merit.
Teaching used to be a respected profession. It has become unionized and has suffered by this transition.

Bob, doesn't the state constitution provide the entitlement to education? Aren't vouchers just an alternative way of providing for that entitlement?

Bob is right on. The other curious aspect for conservatives like me is the claim vouchers would foster competition. That's absurd. When the government is paying to subsidize a business, it's not free-market competition. Competition like that won't make schools better, it just increases the number of organizations feeding at the government trough.

Bob L is right; there is already an entitlement, this simply modifies it in a way that provides parents with additional choices for their children.

In addition, Bernick ignores the fact that those who send their children to private schools pay the same taxes that support public education, and if Bernick is to be believed, and they are the wealthy in society, then they pay a much higher share of the tax base to support education. Right now, they get almost no benefit from that "contribution," and vouchers allow them to get a little of their tax dollars back. Redistrubution occurs every time tax revenues are used for government programs, but when those who pay the most taxes get something back, that would seem to be the exact opposite of redistribution.

"Early voucher bills may move us only slowly toward separation. They may include provisions that temporarily prolong the power of unions, school boards, and other remnants of the socialist regime; limit the number of students who can participate; set voucher amounts too low; and place restrictions on qualifying schools. But once established, those programs will be broadened.

Vouchers offer a halfway house to wean the public from their addiction to government provision of education. By removing institutional barriers to privatization and setting in motion a dynamic that ensures further movement toward competition and choice, vouchers are a necessary step toward complete separation."


Joseph Bast
President, Heartland Institute

Bob is right on and vouchers will fail because THEY ARE A BAD IDEA.

J Kidd, to say the wealthy "get almost no benefit" from their tax contribution to education is totally incorrect. We pay education taxes, not to educate OUR children, but to have an educated society. That's why everyone contributes.

If you don't like the services provided by our taxes (be it garbage service, police protection, roads, water, parks/recreation or education) you are more than welcome to chose private services, but please don't ask the taxpayers to pay for your every whim.

Cut the sales tax instead!

Dave,
As usual, your pro-voucher spin only provides half the story.

Could you please tell us HOW, using real world estimates based on real world statistics, vouchers are going to save taxpayer money or reduce class sizes?

As has been stated MANY times in this forum, vouchers have nothing to do with class sizes. If enough students leave, teachers will be let go. Vouchers could actually INCREASE class sizes in some instances. Their net effect on class size will be negligible.

As for the economics, which you clearly either do not understand or simply wish to ignore, the number of students who would have gone to private schools regardless of receiving a voucher will almost certainly far outnumber, probably at a 3/1 or 4/1 ratio. Therefore any benefit to taxpayers from those who leave public schools for private will be negated. In all likelihood, vouchers will be a net COST to taxpayers in perpetuity.

Bob Bernick is absolutely correct that an entitlement, especially one for those who do not NEED it, which increases costs to taxpayers should be anathema to fiscal conservatives. Anyone who considers themselves a fiscal conservative should be ashamed to support THIS voucher law.

School vouchers aren't about redistributing wealth, enacting entitlement programs, or hatred of unions. They're about weakening the public education system so that it can ultimately be privatized. Same with No Child Left Behind, which is designed to stick a "failing" label on every public school in the country -- again, so that Republicans can declare our public schools "failing" and do away with the whole system.

As I recall Tommy Tompson of HHS, gave Gov Leavit (current HHS-Birdman) a check for 50 million in 'flexable funding" designed to help in the David C case. The Birdman said thankyou and promptly put it in the Genral Fund stating that the state knows best how to spend federal money

Yes, Bob is correct, it is an entitlement program covering rich and poor (mostly the rich). It is also distribution of wealth since it is using current taxes directed to a new designated class of rich and middle income citizens. The real problems will begin when rural Utah begins to set up private schools which address the religious aspects of the dominant religious majority, Mormon. Wait until Hilsdale Utah a becomes private school system. The legislative leaders should stay out of the Executive branch and quit meddling in issues they no nothing about.

This is a very interesting and informative article. I think Bob is right on in his assessment. It demonstrates how the ultra right wing of Utah's Republican Party has way too much power. As a lifelong republican, I am very disillusioned with those in power, such as Curtis, Clark, Bramble, and Stephenson. They demonstrate so much arrogance it is disgusting. Unfortunatly, it is the status quo for the party. We need a moderate voice that won't be crushed by the ultra right.