Reader comments
Vouchers could save schools money

Howard, your fuzzy oreo math does a disservice to the public. Your math has so many holes, if's and assumptions. Way to many for me. VOTE NO!

I really wish my classes only had 22 students in them!!

I have English classes with over 40 students! I have a friend with health classes of almost 50!

You need to realize that in order to get the number of 22, they account for every class at the school. Regular classes, honors and AP classes, special ed classes, ELL classes, etc.

To say that 22 is actually the average in our schools, at least in high schools, is a little off and unfair to the public to advertise as truth.

But if kids go to private schools, how will we properly indoctrinate them?

Sorry, no. Raise taxes (or start with that surplus). Raise taxes more on people who have more kids. Tax money should not go to religious schools. Private schools cannot be held accountable to the taxpayer, so they shouldn't get tax dollars.

Howard, you and I both know that saving money is not a good thing in the eyes of the educational establishment. A blank check, both financial and accountability is the only thing that will satisfy them.

Howard, you only care about public schools in relation to how fast you can privatize them. The only thing you have done for public schools in 20 years is hurt them. It is hard to believe you care for them now.

I would challenge GDC to actually describe some of the loopholes he proclaims rahter than just dismiss the commentary. Howard seems to have put a whole lot more behind his words than GDC is willing to attempt.

Wow, you focus on a class size that was presented as part of an average in what seems to be an effort to discredit the commentary provided by 'Howard'. You have missed the point of the article all together. Howard's proposing to actually get the class size down in the public schools.

And Turk's sarcasm is funny but again has nothing to do with the commentary.

I am still deciding on my vote but I dare say that the close mindedness and unwillingness of the Anti-Voucher group to actually look at the facts or wisk them to the side is disturbing.

So exclude religious private schools if you are so worried about constitutional issues. Or fix the state constitution so it doesn't matter - the U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal money can go to some religious based social services. If the parents choose a religious school, it's the parents, not the state who are choosing their child's moral training. As is their fundamental right, see Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, or Wisconsin vs. Yoder.

The state hires private road contractors, private building contractors, social services are a mix of state and private providers, we give people food stamps, rent help, we even have private prison services. Having public money go to private providers is NORMAL - except in education. Why is that? What is it about education that makes people think that only the government can do it? What is it about the government's performance in this area that makes people think that the government does it better??? That's a major head scratcher!!! lol

I do not have children in public education. I sent my children to private schools and paid for it. I want a voucher that gives me back the money I now pay into public schools. I should have choice also. If one (elite) group gets to pick where their tax dollars go I should have the same right. The politicians was bought and paid for on this one. It is not what the people who elected them want. Quit taking deductions for all those kids and pay for them yourselves. Lets elect people who represent us and not themselves.

To get that 21 per class average they also count counselors, administration, nurses, etc.

I would really like someone to do a study that actually goes to the schools and counts how many kids are in each class, each period. That should be the only number that makes its way into these reports.

Here we just read that we are going to have another $400,000,000 surplus but Stephenson is saying we can't pay for $198 million to fund schools. Guess what? We could. We could not only cover it but we could cover it twice!

We could get out of 50th place in education spending. We could pay teachers a good salary not just a "get by " salary. We could be the education example for the world to follow.

If it just wasn't for our legislators.

Howard says, "I will not sit idly by, just hoping that a solution for this tidal wave of students will just materialize."

And after 16 years of "sitting idly by" in the Legislature, THIS is the best you can come up with?

You're a legislator. Your job is to come up with actual solutions. THIS AIN'T IT!

In the very same section we see legislators taking about more tax cuts on top of the ones already enacted last session. If the legislature would take even half of the surplus and use it in education funding it would help. The tax revenues are there because of growth and should be used to fund the growth in public education.

Deena,

Here is what our State Constitution says:

"No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment." Article I, Section 4

How can you just flippantly call for a change in our state constitution? Just so your precious little voucher vote will go your way? How selfish. How short sighted.

Many private, religious based schools in Utah have said that even if vouchers pass they won't accept them. I wouldn't either. Our state consitution is VERY clear about this issue (except to most of our State Legislators and Attorney General). However, the Utah Supreme Court has shown in the previous voucher battle that they will uphold our Constitution over the out of state special interest group PCE.

Howard's math is pure fantasy! HB148/174 will not convince anywhere near 12500 students to switch. The Legislature's own impartial analysis is estimating the number of switchers to be less than 2500. That's less than .5% of the current public school student population.

Even if we double the Legislature's own estimates, taxpayers will still be paying $15.1 million more for vouchers once they are fully implemented.

Any pro-voucher math that predicts taxpayer savings is a scam and a boondoggle.

Gwilly,
If you truly are still trying to decide, please be aware that the pro-voucher side uses distorted math to try to sell the program. There may be some benefits to vouchers, but saving taxpayers money, increasing funding for public education or reducing class sizes in public schools are NOT among them.

Whatever benefits there MAY be for vouchers, please realize that taxpayers will ultimately be paying MORE for them once the program is fully implemented.

Prediction: if enough people fall for Stephenson's twisted logic and math and $2000 vouchers pass, within a year the tuition at already-established private schools will go up approximately $2000.

It's free money, the private schools would be crazy not to. Since the legislature didn't put any sort of cap on private tuition, there's nothing any of us could do about it, either.

I'm all about school choice. Create magnet schools, schools with themes (school of the arts, language immersion, tech schools, etc.) but do it in connection with the existing framework. School districts across the country are having great success and since the schools are public, all students have access and can benefit.

Vouchers don't increase choice. They'll just make rich people even richer at the expense of kids.

Oh, and run for school board everyone. Throw the current bums out and get some innovative programs going. It's worth it.

To everyone who disagrees with Howard. If he truly wanted education to improve for everyone he would help put the state surplus to work before it is too late.

Gwilly,

The group that is ignoring the "facts" and trying to sweep information aside is clearly not the anti-voucher crowd.

Ever since the non-partisan voter information pamphlet on Referendum 1 was published and distributed the PCE crowd has been in a complete panic. Even a quick look at the FACTS contained in the pamphlet are enough to support the FACT that vouchers will cost money and not save money. I would strongly suggest that you take the time to read this pamphlet.

Isn't it sad (yet typical) that legislators like Tilton and Bramble are out there trying to discredit this non-partisan information (commissioned by a Republican controlled legislature) and presenting their own fuzzy math "facts" about how much money Utah will save with vouchers. Shame on them. Is the PCE money they received worth selling out their moral principles for?

The constitutional argument just doesn't work against vouchers like opponents would like. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that, as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, voucher money going to religious schools is not a violation of the establishment clause, because the money is given to the parents, and the parents decide where it is being spent. Thus, the government has not made a decision to fund religious schools, the parents have, and they have that right. Even knowing that the vast majority of private schools are religious has not been sufficient to infer an unconstitutional intent by legislatures to fund religious schools by providing vouchers.

The Utah Constitution would likely be interpreted the same way, because the funding goes to the parents, and they (not the government) make the choice about where the funds are spent.

Finally, to exclude religious schools from funding could (I repeat could) be seen as a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, which has been interpreted to require that government show no hostility to religion. A specific exclusion from vouchers could be seen as hostility, and therefore be unconstitutional.

It's not flippant - it brings our state constitution into line with what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous issues - including vouchers in other states which have been used at religious schools. You can always specify that if a religious school takes it, they have to show that they don't advocate illegal activities - like polygamy or jihad. If it's too much for Utahns to swallow, like I said, exclude the religious schools.

As for selfish and short-sighted, I'm not planning on using the vouchers. I'm happily homeschooling - but most people aren't in a position to do that. In my perfect world, we'd do like the Belgians and several other countries (who routinely trounce our kids in international testing, btw), and give ALL kids vouchers that can be used at any public or private school of the family's choice.