Reader comments
Yay or nay to vouchers? I vote ...

Vouchers are going down!

Mr Benson's arguments are well thought out, but he seems to be voting no to vouchers because of tradition.
An educated Population is essential to democracy, otherwise only the elete are educated, leading to dictatorships, and elete classes.

Vouchers favor subsidation of the rich at the expense of everyone else. Very Bad Idea is my opinion.

"If this is really about the free market ...why are we offering government subsidies to open the free market?

That argument is specious, at best.

If you and I both grow sugar beets for a living and the government gives you a subsidy to grow them but does not give me the same subsidy, how am I expected to compete with that?

If we are to subsidize an industry then the entire industry must be subsidized at the same rate for all. There is no way that vouchers would allow equal funding for private schools, but its a step in the right direction.

Why does this article deserve a place in the news section? It belongs on the opinion page.

I agree with Mr. Benson when he says the government should not subsidize private education. America is great because ALL children have the right to a public education. In our country we don't tell a child at 14 or 16 that he or she is not good enough to go on. We need to continue with our strong, public education.

Mr. Benson's decision and self-argument is based in part upon a faulty assumption: that vouchers will lead to an education system dominated by private schools. The same argument might be made that UPS never should have begun, or Federal Express, since that would lead to the end of our postal system. Well, the US postal system is still going strong and has been forced to improve to compete. I usually use the US post office now for my personal mailings because the prices are very competitive, I can track them just about as well, and in many ways it is more convenient for me. This is a great improvement over just a few years ago when I would send any package UPS over the USPS. I credit competition in part for this improvement.

Some people act as if the majority of parents are just waiting to put their kids in private schools. I strongly doubt that. But many parents are unhappy with the direction many public schools are going, and the increasing occurrence of crimes committed by teachers against students. Some competition would most likely force the system to improve and keep more students there.

Thanks for sharing your well-thought out opinion, Mr. Benson. You convinced me!

I have always been impressed with Lee Benson's insight. As a result, I was interested and relieved to read his Sunday article. Education is, and should be, a right to all young citizens, regardless of the power, prestige, and productivity of their parents. Our responsibility should be to strengthen public education.

Government doesn't pay for education. Taxpayers do.

Vouchers merely allow taxpayers to redirect their own dollars to whichever education best suits their specific needs. Falling for the logic that vouchers INCREASE government involvement demonstrates Benson's shallow understading of the issue. Voting yes to vouchers is a step in the right direction to putting more power into the hands of taxpayers.

If we don't want to subsidize private education, then let's get rid of all the federal and state college scholarships because, as we all know, they can be used to pay for private education.

Don't base your decision on this matter whether vouchers are a subsidy of private education because it is already happening.

First of all, the founding fathers didn't really think about public education. For them schooling was a private affair. Public education didn't start until 1848 in Mass. and in 1912 Mississippi became the last state to offer free public schools. They all did it promoting the general welfare of the people and to implement Jefferson's ideal of an educated citizenary. Public Education didn't fail either. Our country became a world power after we had an educated citizenary. Education for the elites would weaken us. We need to invest in public schools and we need to get involved with them as parents, volunteers, and school board members. We need to solve problems, not run away from them. I'm voting NO on referendum 1 because I believe in public community schools. I know that all of Utah from the children to the schools to the local merchant who gets the teachers wages will benefit. Vouchers are a step backwards into a society I don't want to live in anymore. I believe in justice (and education) for all. Private education is already a choice in our free society. Like I said, I'm voting NO on referendum 1.

The first person, in America, to introduce the idea of a public school system was Thomas Jefferson. He wanted all to have the opportunity to an education because he had friends who were uneducated and he saw how that hindered them. I think Jefferson would support vouchers because it will force public schools to be better and private schools will also have to compete.
I think both sides of this issue have the same objective: they both want children to get the best education possible. Then I ask, why not allow those who believe that private schools are best for their children be allowed to use their tax dollars to pay for the education? To deny these people the option to choose where the tax money goes is absurd. This would cause public education to provide a better education, which inevitably raise the level of education in America.
I conclude with this, the word education. The word education derives from the root "educe," which means "to draw out." Most tax payers put a lot more in the system than they will ever draw out. On vouchers, put me down as a yes!

Lee Benson writes:

"One [Eyre] speaks for the parents, one [Rusk] speaks for the kids."

Did anyone else catch what this really says? - The school teachers represent the kids, not the parents.

Scarry.

Thank you Lee!! Your comments are excellent. Those last two questions show the hypocrisy of supposed conservatives asking for a subsidy!
"If this is really about the free market, if that's what's going to make things better, then why are we offering government subsidies to open the free market? If you don't like government programs, why would you want to start this new government program of vouchers?" Thanks Pat Rusk!

Lee, I don't think you get it! You quoted Pat Rusk's questions "If this is really about the free market, if that's what's going to make things better, then why are we offering government subsidies to open the free market? If you don't like government programs, why would you want to start this new government program of vouchers?"

I have been thinking about all the goods and services that government entities purchase from businesses in America. There is quite a complicated system of submitting bids and contracting for these goods and services. The government entities have established many procedures to give equal opportunity to our free market businesses. Essentially those who provide the best value will win the business. At the present time in the education business there is no opportunity for a private school to get a "government contract." The public schools get all the government's money. I do not see that providing vouchers would be a government subsidy. Vouchers would be a payment for goods and services.

With regard to Ms. Rusk's second question, there is no new government program! Public education is already the government program. The voucher system is a move towards privatization.

How is Utah public education funded right now?

I have to admit, I consider public education a monopoly. Not because there are no alternatives but because my tax money is "automatically" funneled to public education. I have limited say in how my education dollars are spent.

The education free market is limited as long as the government taxes me to provide the education service. For a free market to truly work the government must get out of the market. So Pat Rusk's question leaves me in a quandary: Don't ask the government to subsidize the free market, BUT the government will keep taking my education dollars and using them where it wants?

Personally, vouchers sound like a good compromise to me. But I'm still considering the referendum...

Excellent comments, Mr. Benson. You mentioned one thing that has particularly bothered my about this whole issue --- that compromising what is already in place is subversive. For a long time now, pro-voucher folks have tried to falsely convince us that our public schools are failing. By passing the voucher bill, legislators appear to be willing to sabotage public education instead of working to make it better. Governor Huntsman has said that he doesn't know of another state that is more committed to public education. If you look at our funding, I can think of 49 other states that are more committed to education. It's time to make a commitment to our public schools. I'll be joining Mr. Benson in voting NO on Referendum 1!

Mr. Benson's opposition to vouchers is based on a very common misunderstanding. For the first 100 years of this nation's history, almost all education was private, not public. The US Constitution does not even mention public education for good reason. The Founding Fathers had just put their lives on the line to support a very painful and costly revolution; simply put, education is not a primary responsibility of our government. Certainly an educated population is necessary, but the public education establishment clearly has shortcomings.

Whether or not a public school system is failing is a very personal measurement. If the local public schools are not educating my children in a satisfactory manner based on my standards as a parent, they are failing. Why should I be forced to send my children and my tax dollars to a failing school?

I will absolutely vote in favor of vouchers.

I don't understand why parents think they can take tax dollars that WE ALL PAY and use them the way they seem fit. I would like a voucher that would help me better landscape my yard, I have no children in school and I already pay tax for public schools. Why can't I get some of my tax dollar back to do what I please.

It seems to me that all the voucher program does is provide private schools funding. I am not for more government but for less which this voucher program does do.

What the voucher program doesn't do is provide better education--just another choice that we can't afford.