Reader comments
Financing voucher fight
170 comments | Read story
Lookee Here, Bryan | 1:30 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Bryan,
Have you read the bill? Here's an excerpt:
"School-age children are the primary beneficiaries of the choice in education program authorized in this part, and any benefit to private schools, whether sectarian or secular,is indirect and incidental"
Ever heard of government pell-grants? They are very often used in toward sectarian higher education.
Have you read the bill? Here's an excerpt:
"School-age children are the primary beneficiaries of the choice in education program authorized in this part, and any benefit to private schools, whether sectarian or secular,is indirect and incidental"
Ever heard of government pell-grants? They are very often used in toward sectarian higher education.
anonymous | 1:35 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Think about it, providing children with 3,000 dollars to go to a private school.
The private school still might cost 12,000 in tuition. No family without
wealth, even with vouchers could afford that. How can anyone feel good about
doing that? Let's just give the wealthy a little more of our tax money,
real smart. And how about the fact that the school is private. They don't
have to go by the same rules as public school. A Satan worshiping school could
pop up and if it was private it would be ok. How would anyone feel about
supporting that? The downs to vouchers outnumber the ups by about a thousand.
Comments continue below
Thankful | 1:52 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Soon it will be over.
The votes will be cast, right or wrong.
As REALITY said at 8:35, this (like many voucher-article comment blogs) has become more about winning than common sense.
Before we start slashin' tires, or whatever . . . let's all be grateful we have the opportunity to express ourselves freely, (though some can't spell, punctuate, or capitalize).
The votes will be cast, right or wrong.
As REALITY said at 8:35, this (like many voucher-article comment blogs) has become more about winning than common sense.
Before we start slashin' tires, or whatever . . . let's all be grateful we have the opportunity to express ourselves freely, (though some can't spell, punctuate, or capitalize).
Steven Jarvis | 2:02 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Attn: Tim | 1:13 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007,
If private schools compete without vouchers they shouldn't be asking for them. That is the true essence of a subsidy.
The government isn't banning the private school system. It is available for anyone who wants to pay for it. They pay for it because it is private.
If you want to talk about fairness, make the private schools have all the accountability that public schools have. That means licensed teachers, State testing and reporting, open elections of school boards, required to admit any child with a voucher, required to offer special education services.
You can't honestly tell me that we should fund private schools like we do public ones while holding them to minimal rules. The whole competition argument is a fraud because private schools won't compete with public schools and we all know it. Its like running a Marathon but letting one competitor start at the halfway mark. That isn't competition at all.
If we are pushing for true competition the state must bring the standards that private schools adhere to equal to that of the public schools. Vouchers are the opposite.
If private schools compete without vouchers they shouldn't be asking for them. That is the true essence of a subsidy.
The government isn't banning the private school system. It is available for anyone who wants to pay for it. They pay for it because it is private.
If you want to talk about fairness, make the private schools have all the accountability that public schools have. That means licensed teachers, State testing and reporting, open elections of school boards, required to admit any child with a voucher, required to offer special education services.
You can't honestly tell me that we should fund private schools like we do public ones while holding them to minimal rules. The whole competition argument is a fraud because private schools won't compete with public schools and we all know it. Its like running a Marathon but letting one competitor start at the halfway mark. That isn't competition at all.
If we are pushing for true competition the state must bring the standards that private schools adhere to equal to that of the public schools. Vouchers are the opposite.
a parent | 2:01 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Why don't we give any credence to our legislators who have written, studied
and passed the bill?. The Public school proponents and NEA just can't let
go of any power. They are arrogant and think that they should be all knowing
and providing for our children's education. Sorry-but as a whole the
system has been doing a poor job. Assembly line education fails too many
children.
Steven Jarvis | 2:12 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
The Real Earnest,
That is quite funny. When I read both statements I had to laugh. The amount of junk put out by both sides has been a complete waste, and no one agrees with numbers.
I use the Legislative Fiscal Analysis numbers. They show Vouchers gradual cost increase as we pay for more kids we would not have to without vouchers (the kids already choosing to go to private schools).
Anyone who believes the money comes from the education fund is incorrect. It comes from the general fund which cuts services like roads. It does however decrease the amount of money the public schools have to work with when a child who would normally go to a public school switches. Each time that happens the school loses federal and state funding for that child. This is how Vouchers harm the public schools and isn't very clear from the Public Schools group. That was why the mitigation funds were set up to hold schools harmless for five years. The mitigation funds replace a tiny fraction of the lost funding because they are divided equally to all District schools. For every 7,500 gone, the school gets back less than a hundred.
That is quite funny. When I read both statements I had to laugh. The amount of junk put out by both sides has been a complete waste, and no one agrees with numbers.
I use the Legislative Fiscal Analysis numbers. They show Vouchers gradual cost increase as we pay for more kids we would not have to without vouchers (the kids already choosing to go to private schools).
Anyone who believes the money comes from the education fund is incorrect. It comes from the general fund which cuts services like roads. It does however decrease the amount of money the public schools have to work with when a child who would normally go to a public school switches. Each time that happens the school loses federal and state funding for that child. This is how Vouchers harm the public schools and isn't very clear from the Public Schools group. That was why the mitigation funds were set up to hold schools harmless for five years. The mitigation funds replace a tiny fraction of the lost funding because they are divided equally to all District schools. For every 7,500 gone, the school gets back less than a hundred.
Steven Jarvis | 2:18 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
It is interesting how two of the biggest supporters of PCE are the Eyres (Oreo
cookie guy) and Byrne. People may want to know why.
Eyre has two private schools in operation in Utah County. Byrne has nineteen private schools around the world according to another article on this paper today.
I hope that makes sense to voters why they have been so vocal about this. They stand to gain if vouchers are passed and their motives are not altruistic.
Eyre has two private schools in operation in Utah County. Byrne has nineteen private schools around the world according to another article on this paper today.
I hope that makes sense to voters why they have been so vocal about this. They stand to gain if vouchers are passed and their motives are not altruistic.
Words of Reason | 2:23 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
First, if approved, the public school will receive full funding per pupil for 5
years, referred to as "mitigation" funding for not having to educate a
child...now this is a good deal.
Second, the taxpayers save $4500 for each child that elects a voucher that otherwise would have attended the public school...another good deal
Third, the legislation basically says that parents know best..yet another absolutely correct position.
Fourth, the public school is a factory. Other kids should be given more choices in schools where curriculum and instruction is a lot different. Why should those parents who pay taxes too have to pay twice?
Fifth, wealthy people are unaffected by the voucher. Middle and lower income people will not have a chance..but this should be for all people and it is.
Sixth, Belgium and other European countries enjoy choices that are paid by taxpayer dollars, so why can't we learn from them. And those kids are smarter than American kids, fact.
Seventh, the public school system has a socialized agenda. Faith has been displaced by the "sexual orientation" lesson. I don't want this for my kids and I don't want to pay for it.
Second, the taxpayers save $4500 for each child that elects a voucher that otherwise would have attended the public school...another good deal
Third, the legislation basically says that parents know best..yet another absolutely correct position.
Fourth, the public school is a factory. Other kids should be given more choices in schools where curriculum and instruction is a lot different. Why should those parents who pay taxes too have to pay twice?
Fifth, wealthy people are unaffected by the voucher. Middle and lower income people will not have a chance..but this should be for all people and it is.
Sixth, Belgium and other European countries enjoy choices that are paid by taxpayer dollars, so why can't we learn from them. And those kids are smarter than American kids, fact.
Seventh, the public school system has a socialized agenda. Faith has been displaced by the "sexual orientation" lesson. I don't want this for my kids and I don't want to pay for it.
Surveyor | 2:28 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
We've been surveying our friends (and anyone who will hold still), without
telling them which way we will vote.
We were surprised: Most are either leaning or definitely voting FOR the Referendum, before any input from us.
Reading the blogs, here and the Trib, over the last few months, has been entertaining.
(We've "never seen so many people ready to fall on their swords over something they know so little about". - Doug Wright, KSL)
It seems like there are just a few Anti's and they are all busy posting on the blogs day after day.
Hmmmm. Wonder if they're paid to do that?
We were surprised: Most are either leaning or definitely voting FOR the Referendum, before any input from us.
Reading the blogs, here and the Trib, over the last few months, has been entertaining.
(We've "never seen so many people ready to fall on their swords over something they know so little about". - Doug Wright, KSL)
It seems like there are just a few Anti's and they are all busy posting on the blogs day after day.
Hmmmm. Wonder if they're paid to do that?
Ed | 2:30 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
To A Parent: I would give credence to them if they decided to put their OWN
money into the campaign to push vouchers on the population, like Mr. Byrne of
Overstock.com did. These individuals are afraid to put their OWN money where
their mouth is, knowing full well that this is going to end up biting them in
the backside.
How about this. | 2:31 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Allow the voucher law to go into effect, Then have the public schools
"compete by giving our children a great education" for the same amount
that is presently granted. You will have private schoolers returning in droves.
This makes the best of both worlds, we have a system that will pay for someone
to try a different method along with a wonderful school that will teach the
majority with great teachers that want to teach our children and it will remove
the slouches that don't. This will force the public schools to reassess the
priorities of teaching our children and producing a great product and we will
arrive at the place we all want, a state where all are educated well enough to
survive in the twenty first century.
Confused | 2:36 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Most of the Pro-voucher people don't understand what it's like on the
front line. I'm a teacher, and I have several classes of almost 40
students. The problem, they claim vouchers will reduce class size, fact, here
at my school we had a reduction in enrollment because there wasn't as much
growth in our city, and we lost 3 teachers in 2007.
Each school district has a teacher-pupil spending ratio, in our district its 1 to 29. If you really want to lower class size require it statewide to have no more than 25 per class like they do with the Kidergarten and 1st grade. As long as Utah teachers keep having the lowest high shool dropout rate in the nation, and one of the highest AP test pass rates in the nation, then the State legislature is going to keep our classes as high as possible.
It's funny Steve Urqhardt who started this whole mess is a lawyer and can afford private school, he says he's for the little guy, $3000 for Utah's poor, in St. George I've only seen the "I'm for 1" signs in the upper class neighborhoods. This is a just kick back for the rich!
Each school district has a teacher-pupil spending ratio, in our district its 1 to 29. If you really want to lower class size require it statewide to have no more than 25 per class like they do with the Kidergarten and 1st grade. As long as Utah teachers keep having the lowest high shool dropout rate in the nation, and one of the highest AP test pass rates in the nation, then the State legislature is going to keep our classes as high as possible.
It's funny Steve Urqhardt who started this whole mess is a lawyer and can afford private school, he says he's for the little guy, $3000 for Utah's poor, in St. George I've only seen the "I'm for 1" signs in the upper class neighborhoods. This is a just kick back for the rich!
Ronald | 2:46 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
It's a question about being fair. If private schools are providing service
for our government, educating our school children, then money needs to go to
them just like it goes to the public schools system that is providing the same
service.
It makes so much sense that portion of our taxes go to educating our children, all of them, not just them in public schools. As a society we benefit from having educated citizens, the more the better. Public and private schools are providing the service. Let's support both of them......
It makes so much sense that portion of our taxes go to educating our children, all of them, not just them in public schools. As a society we benefit from having educated citizens, the more the better. Public and private schools are providing the service. Let's support both of them......
To How about this | 2:54 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Ok fine, private schools have to take all the national tests, be restricted by
NCLB, and take all illegals and Handicapped children, as well as have high class
sizes. Then it will be fair! Oh yeah, parents that are complaining about the
public schools, you actually have to help with your students education, yeah,
read to them, work on math, it's not just the teacher's fault.
Thankful, too. | 2:57 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
We ought to thank Patrick Byrne for willingness to put up his own money to make
the monopoly schools wake up.
I'm not as successful at employing others as he is, and I respect his ability to make the contribution.
And, I'm thankful for Thankful #1, for the thot this will all soon be settled. [Except for the adjustments to the law which we should expect as we all get smarter as we watch it work.]
I'm not as successful at employing others as he is, and I respect his ability to make the contribution.
And, I'm thankful for Thankful #1, for the thot this will all soon be settled. [Except for the adjustments to the law which we should expect as we all get smarter as we watch it work.]
JB | 2:58 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Two things:
1. This is not about freedom of choice. The choice to go to a private school already exists. The voucher money is not enough to make a freedom-altering difference for nearly all families in UT.
2. Public money going to private schools is a bad idea. If it's so good, why don't we start subsidizing BYU and giving in-state tuition discounts for UT residents? Think about it. A lot of private schools are run by organizations the government has no control over, as well as by organizations the general public wouldn't otherwise give their money to.
1. This is not about freedom of choice. The choice to go to a private school already exists. The voucher money is not enough to make a freedom-altering difference for nearly all families in UT.
2. Public money going to private schools is a bad idea. If it's so good, why don't we start subsidizing BYU and giving in-state tuition discounts for UT residents? Think about it. A lot of private schools are run by organizations the government has no control over, as well as by organizations the general public wouldn't otherwise give their money to.
Conservative against vouchers | 3:08 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
It's interesting to see so much support for school vouchers from
Republicans/Conservatives who have a fundamental belief that taking from one to
give to another is wrong. Yes, parents pay taxes for schools, but in reality
it's all the older folks paying taxes that cover the majority of school
costs, not the parents with children. As a Conservative I think it is very
wrong to take their money and give it to others to spend how they wish! Either
abolish public Ed and put the responsibility to pay for education on the parents
or keep the money public. It has to be one or the other, Not Both...That is
nothing more than welfare.
Fundraiser for Schools | 3:07 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Teachers and administrators should start understanding that private individuals
donate hundreds of thousands to public schools to make them better, through
their foundations. This is money over and above what they receive from
Government sources.
By trying to save a few bucks on a voucher program they may be stabbing their contributers in the back who tend to be conservative and pro voucher. I am sure getting the message loud and clear. My money is better spent on the private sector, when public teachers think that all the money for education is theirs.
Administrators and Foundation boards should think about what issues they really want to support and what ramifications this will have on them when they even more money. We might just say no next time they come asking for money and no when the next bond comes forward.
By trying to save a few bucks on a voucher program they may be stabbing their contributers in the back who tend to be conservative and pro voucher. I am sure getting the message loud and clear. My money is better spent on the private sector, when public teachers think that all the money for education is theirs.
Administrators and Foundation boards should think about what issues they really want to support and what ramifications this will have on them when they even more money. We might just say no next time they come asking for money and no when the next bond comes forward.
Steven Jarvis | 3:15 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I actually saw a Pro Voucher sign in my poor HUD neighborhood. I am discouraged
at whoever stole the sign, and would ask that if you stole it to please bring it
back. I think I am the only one with a No sign up. I haven't seen any
other and would guess most of my neighbors don't vote regularly.
When the neighbor who had the for sign came over and introduced himself we had a chat. He was surprised that I, a Charter school teacher, would be so against vouchers as that was why he was for them (He has kids at a Charter). I explained my position and what will happen with Charter schools if vouchers pass and if they did not pass. Charter schools stand to gain more by this legislation being defeated, and will have increased incentive to remain public. That isn't the case if vouchers pass.
That isn't the whole brunt of why I oppose vouchers, just a little bit of icing on the cake. I expect funding of the WPU to be matched with that of the District schools finally allowing Charters to improve libraries and other infrastructure for kids.
When the neighbor who had the for sign came over and introduced himself we had a chat. He was surprised that I, a Charter school teacher, would be so against vouchers as that was why he was for them (He has kids at a Charter). I explained my position and what will happen with Charter schools if vouchers pass and if they did not pass. Charter schools stand to gain more by this legislation being defeated, and will have increased incentive to remain public. That isn't the case if vouchers pass.
That isn't the whole brunt of why I oppose vouchers, just a little bit of icing on the cake. I expect funding of the WPU to be matched with that of the District schools finally allowing Charters to improve libraries and other infrastructure for kids.
Cantfoolme | 3:24 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Confused, the state legislature is has no say in the class size, no matter how
much money they give the districts. It is the District Superintendent who does
not manage the money correctly. The School Districts have not downsized or
tightened its belt for years. They have grown too big and they need someone
other than a former teacher as superintendent. I suggest a businessman.
Hmm...my cynical elitist view | 3:27 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Well, it is all spelled out here! The kids aren't even being considered. It
boils down to a union issue / class war. The lousy public school teachers are
opposed to it because if enrollment drops they lose their jobs, and class sizes
will remain the same (although spending per student can increase, except it wont
because everybody knows that in public education all the money goes to worthless
administrators). And the others opposing 1 are the "poor" with their
oppression complex and "take, take, take" attitude, hating to see
anything good go the way of "rich people". Having been educated in
both private (Challenger, who have said they won't take vouchers, they only
take the elite) and public (Wasatch and Skyline) schools in Utah (the private
education was academic and beneficial, the public education was, well, neither
academic or beneficial) I say that anything and everything that can be done to
get any and all pupils away from apathetic teachers, parents, and students
involved in the public school system should be done. VOTE 1
Brian | 3:29 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
At least Patrick lives in Utah. I agree that this is about unions protecting
their turf and it is these unions that must go down. Vote yes on this
propostition.
Scooter | 3:35 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
School vouchers help both public and private schools while saving money.
Private schools on average (if you take out the most expensive private school
that's in Summitt County) are about $3,000 less than public schools. Plus
the competition will help both sides provide better education.
The comment about this being just for rich families is untrue. They can already afford private schools. Plus Students that already attend private schools cannot get vouchers. It's only for those that switch from public to private or for those just entering kindergarten. The max they could receive if they wanted to claim it is $500. This is about helping the less fortunate have a choice in school.
The money is given directly to the school of their choice, not the parents.
I think it is also up to the parent how they want their child to be taught. If you want that choice now there are huge switching costs associated with that for those that are less fortunate. Vouchers would help reduce the switching costs and make it easier for parents to make that choice. It may not get rid of all switching costs but it at least will help.
The comment about this being just for rich families is untrue. They can already afford private schools. Plus Students that already attend private schools cannot get vouchers. It's only for those that switch from public to private or for those just entering kindergarten. The max they could receive if they wanted to claim it is $500. This is about helping the less fortunate have a choice in school.
The money is given directly to the school of their choice, not the parents.
I think it is also up to the parent how they want their child to be taught. If you want that choice now there are huge switching costs associated with that for those that are less fortunate. Vouchers would help reduce the switching costs and make it easier for parents to make that choice. It may not get rid of all switching costs but it at least will help.
Aggiefan | 3:51 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Why does Utah lead the nation in home forclosures, bankruptcy, etc. Because we
see our neighbors with a big house and a big suburban and we must have them too!
The same is with private schools, many people want to send their kids to
private school for their own egos and not for the benefit of their kids. Kids
will find the opportunity and be successful in public school just as much as the
best (I mean most popular among the jet setters)private school. Believe me, our
public schools would be just fine if they had the parental support for the
teachers and parents made their kids accountable. When I was a kid, if I got in
trouble in school, I got it worse when I get home. Now it's the teachers
fault if the kid has a problem. If people want to send their kids to private
schools let tem pay the premium. Do not shovel the costs to the rest of the
public and deplete the public school system. Ooo I want a Lexus so would you all
pitch in get me one so I dont have to pay full price so I can be as cool too.
gary | 4:06 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Anonymous praised Patrick Brynes "sane viewpoint". Would this be the
same Patrick Bryne that said that a Sith Lord was trying to destroy his company?
Wow, where is Luke Skywalker when you really need him? Try googling Bryne, you
can find loads of other "sane" things about the man. If nothing else,
he is certainly a man with an agenda, and it isn't just "for the
kids."
Just a Utahn | 4:41 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I've followed the blogs for the past bit and I have noticed that many
people who are "teacher", "teacher's son", "Joe,
who has a daughter-in-law who is a teacher", and "Mathman"
yesterday was a teacher for five years.
But, people say teachers are all the ones donating money to defeat the vouchers?
All the teachers I know are against vouchers, not because they are afraid of losing jobs (remember extra Oreos and tenure, no teachers ar leaving) but because they would rather have the money go to educate "'my' children".
I hear all of the people with average sounding Utah names repeating basically the same arguements for vouchers, and I am starting to come to a conclusion.
I believe many of the posters in this blog supporting vouchers are out of state, paid bloggers who do not care about Utah education, but are working it for money.
I'm sure someone will argue this point with me, but I'll just ask the people reading these posts if they also smell something fishy.
Bottom line, there is a polished crew out there trying to get me to vote for something professionals are against. Why is that?
Maybe Utahns aren't stupid.
But, people say teachers are all the ones donating money to defeat the vouchers?
All the teachers I know are against vouchers, not because they are afraid of losing jobs (remember extra Oreos and tenure, no teachers ar leaving) but because they would rather have the money go to educate "'my' children".
I hear all of the people with average sounding Utah names repeating basically the same arguements for vouchers, and I am starting to come to a conclusion.
I believe many of the posters in this blog supporting vouchers are out of state, paid bloggers who do not care about Utah education, but are working it for money.
I'm sure someone will argue this point with me, but I'll just ask the people reading these posts if they also smell something fishy.
Bottom line, there is a polished crew out there trying to get me to vote for something professionals are against. Why is that?
Maybe Utahns aren't stupid.
Anonymous | 4:46 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Utah even has California beat for the title of "Land of the
Yuppies."
But they strive for perfection here so they'll never admit it.
But they strive for perfection here so they'll never admit it.
samhill | 4:57 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
So 90% of the money fighting vouchers comes from the teacher's unions.
That can't be too surprising. Those unions, like so many others, fight
only for the interests of the members. Which, in this case, means the students
are the losers. That sort of sums up the general appraisal of the American
public educational system.
The only possible motivation for the supporters of vouchers, especially those who are donating vast sums of money, like Mr. Bryne, is to try and at least add options to the educational landscape for the parents and students who are currently being poorly served.
My general position is that I think we should try vouchers as an experiment. That seems fair. But even TRYING something different is always fearsome to a monopoly. That is, the teachers unions.
The only possible motivation for the supporters of vouchers, especially those who are donating vast sums of money, like Mr. Bryne, is to try and at least add options to the educational landscape for the parents and students who are currently being poorly served.
My general position is that I think we should try vouchers as an experiment. That seems fair. But even TRYING something different is always fearsome to a monopoly. That is, the teachers unions.
Re:Conservatives Against Voucher | 5:17 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I couldn't agree more.
All of a sudden a big spending Republican legislature is a good thing?
I'm conservative Republican who believes that districts need to become more fiscally responsible, cutting administration at the state and district level, and giving the wasted money to teach the children.
Giving more money to the "educational" Haliburtons of the world is not the answer.
In the meantime, we should be remembering who is pork barrelling in this legislature, and which free spending governor signed the bill that the people of Utah are going to reject.
All of a sudden a big spending Republican legislature is a good thing?
I'm conservative Republican who believes that districts need to become more fiscally responsible, cutting administration at the state and district level, and giving the wasted money to teach the children.
Giving more money to the "educational" Haliburtons of the world is not the answer.
In the meantime, we should be remembering who is pork barrelling in this legislature, and which free spending governor signed the bill that the people of Utah are going to reject.
Martha | 5:18 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
The problem is the system, not the teachers.
Over the last century, far too many have believed, or been led to believe, that they can just "send" little Johnny to public school and somehow they will get education. We've gotten lazy, we're not "involved".
Government funding of mass education works for many, doesn't work for a significant share of the students, who then don't finish or can't qualify for the workforce and become taxpayers, to fund the system. Then we have to get "involved" in cleaning up their messes.
One advantage of private schools is that they can require parents to be involved.
The voucher system is not the total answer, but will help much more than it hurts.
"It's a good thing."
Martha
Over the last century, far too many have believed, or been led to believe, that they can just "send" little Johnny to public school and somehow they will get education. We've gotten lazy, we're not "involved".
Government funding of mass education works for many, doesn't work for a significant share of the students, who then don't finish or can't qualify for the workforce and become taxpayers, to fund the system. Then we have to get "involved" in cleaning up their messes.
One advantage of private schools is that they can require parents to be involved.
The voucher system is not the total answer, but will help much more than it hurts.
"It's a good thing."
Martha
RE:Sam Hill | 5:31 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
So now, we should do this as an experiment?
Hey, let's try funding education as an "experiment".
Unions are the only ones who have been fighting for more money for classrooms, not Mr. Byrne, which would, in this case, make the students the winners.
But, if you could explain how teacher's unions are a "monopoly" in a Right to Work State? --or-- How public education is a "monopoly" in a state with private schools, that would help.
Your "experiment" would make the "Corporate Educators" the winners, and the students the losers...
I think that would be fair to the students.
(It would be fearsome to overpaid administrators and paid posters)
Hey, let's try funding education as an "experiment".
Unions are the only ones who have been fighting for more money for classrooms, not Mr. Byrne, which would, in this case, make the students the winners.
But, if you could explain how teacher's unions are a "monopoly" in a Right to Work State? --or-- How public education is a "monopoly" in a state with private schools, that would help.
Your "experiment" would make the "Corporate Educators" the winners, and the students the losers...
I think that would be fair to the students.
(It would be fearsome to overpaid administrators and paid posters)
CG | 5:45 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Free Enterprise works! Anytime we let the government take control of something
they complicate and mess it up. Given a little time under this system our
teachers, that think everyone is out to hurt them, would find theselves making
more money and with better conditions. Not so many bureaucratic restrictions.
The students would be getting a better education.
We look at a Country that rejects the chance for Freedom and we think "what is wrong with those people, can't they understand what they are giving up"? So now we find ourselves facing that question. Do you want to choose where your child goes to school? Would you like to send your child to the best private schools? Wouldn't you want the very best for your children? Why would someone turn down that opportunity.
It is like someone trying to convince you that you won't like the taste of ice cream, becasue they have a hidden agenda that would make them money if you won't eat it.
I know teachers are afraid because they think it will expose a weak system. If you are a GOOD teacher you have nothing to worry about and much to be excited about.
We look at a Country that rejects the chance for Freedom and we think "what is wrong with those people, can't they understand what they are giving up"? So now we find ourselves facing that question. Do you want to choose where your child goes to school? Would you like to send your child to the best private schools? Wouldn't you want the very best for your children? Why would someone turn down that opportunity.
It is like someone trying to convince you that you won't like the taste of ice cream, becasue they have a hidden agenda that would make them money if you won't eat it.
I know teachers are afraid because they think it will expose a weak system. If you are a GOOD teacher you have nothing to worry about and much to be excited about.
John | 5:58 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
The teachers in the private schools are not the best. The private schools pay a
lot less..do the math
Short & Sweet | 6:08 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
1) Choice exists already - this law doesn't add any more choices. It just
takes state money that could be used for public schools and gives it to private
schools. I know, it's from the General Fund, but left pocket or right
pocket, it's still state money.
2) Class sizes won't go down - when the school population drops below the district's teacher/student ratios, they take out (read: lay off) a corresponding number of teachers.
3) No cap on the income level to qualify for a voucher. Why should a millionaire get $500?
This isn't about competition or secret union motives. It's about getting a handout to go to private schools. And I'm voting NO!
2) Class sizes won't go down - when the school population drops below the district's teacher/student ratios, they take out (read: lay off) a corresponding number of teachers.
3) No cap on the income level to qualify for a voucher. Why should a millionaire get $500?
This isn't about competition or secret union motives. It's about getting a handout to go to private schools. And I'm voting NO!
Steven Jarvis | 6:12 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Just a Utahn | 4:41 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007,
Yes. They are paid to do this. I am not, though on some given days I post at least ten percent of the posts on the voucher boards. I give my real name because I feel it strengthens what I have to say and I am not intimidated by PCE. I am a poor out of work teacher who cares a great deal about protecting our kids from unscrupulous investors. I am also not union. I have been active in the debate long before the fake posters showed up. PCE should have paid some in Utah that were for Vouchers. They have much better arguments and may have helped their cause. The leading proponents like Sutherland Institute, Bryne and Eyre have done more harm to their campaign than good.
I've called them out many times. Most of the single name person have been the same poster, but not all. His voice and word choice are dead giveaways of his authorship and usually hit up to twenty percent of the posts on this.
Yes. They are paid to do this. I am not, though on some given days I post at least ten percent of the posts on the voucher boards. I give my real name because I feel it strengthens what I have to say and I am not intimidated by PCE. I am a poor out of work teacher who cares a great deal about protecting our kids from unscrupulous investors. I am also not union. I have been active in the debate long before the fake posters showed up. PCE should have paid some in Utah that were for Vouchers. They have much better arguments and may have helped their cause. The leading proponents like Sutherland Institute, Bryne and Eyre have done more harm to their campaign than good.
I've called them out many times. Most of the single name person have been the same poster, but not all. His voice and word choice are dead giveaways of his authorship and usually hit up to twenty percent of the posts on this.
Has anyone actually read the bil | 6:32 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I decided to actually read the bill to find out the truth since both sides spin
it so badly. One area that worried me the most, even though neither side has
mention it, was that the difference of money ($3000-$4000) per voucher child
will only be put in the Educational system for 5 years after which the
difference will be put in the State General Budget to be used wherever the
legislature decides. That alone requires me to vote against Ref1!
Me | 6:39 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
It is amazing the ignorance that is shown by the vote no crowd. Do any of you
have any idea what you are talking about? The UEA is a close to a socialist
organization as you can get. All of you want to tell us that we have a choice
and can send our kids to private schools if we want but then in the same breath
tell us to give you our money so your kids can go to public schools? All of my
kids are in public schools now and I am unsure if that will change if this
passes. By voting against this you are telling me what I get to do with my
money. You have no right to tell me what to do with my money. It isn't
the job of the government to tell me what to do. With all of the "teacher
postings in here you would think that a few of them would have read the founding
documents of our country and understand that goverment should have a very
limited role in what we do and say. Wise up you no voters or should I say
"Comrades"?
Free Enterprise | 6:44 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I read with interest someone mentioning that competition like the businesses
have is the best thing for Education. Since 90% of all businesses go out of
business after 10 years it doesn't seem like the most stable environment
for our children's education. Won't 90% of the new schools follow the
same pattern as the free market, leaving a huge mess for the public school
system to clean up? I think we need to look long term, not short term like the
voucher supports are doing.
Steven Jarvis | 6:48 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Me,
How many different names are you going to use?
By voting against Vouchers I am saying you can't use my tax money for unregulated private schools. It is as much my tax money as it is anyones in Utah and that is what you have forgotten each time you have posted the argument.
How many different names are you going to use?
By voting against Vouchers I am saying you can't use my tax money for unregulated private schools. It is as much my tax money as it is anyones in Utah and that is what you have forgotten each time you have posted the argument.
To: Me | 6:53 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
What? Your money? I have 3 kids in the school system and each child cost $7000
dollars. That's $21,000 dollars to educate my kids. I paid only $700 in
property tax to my local and state school budget and just over $4000 in income
tax to the state. I'm and you are not the ones paying for our kids
education, it's all the people with no kids in the system, so how can you
get off by saying "my money" when in reality it's their money
that fund the system! Get off your high horse and realize where the money
really comes from and be grateful!
Steven Jarvis | 7:00 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Free Enterprise,
It would be interesting to know how many private schools have failed in Utah. The one that occupied my old elementary school building failed at least twice its first year and had three name changes.
It would be interesting to know how many private schools have failed in Utah. The one that occupied my old elementary school building failed at least twice its first year and had three name changes.
Disappointed | 8:22 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
As I read these comments I am dumbfounded. After 40 years in business I have
observed that innovation and true change does not come from government or a
monopoly. Our public school system is really an arm of government with a
monopoly. I have been really involved in the school system, including serving on
the local school board, but folks it time to try something new. The Milwaukee
voucher program deserves your consideration. I'm voting yes.
Sid Gillligan | 9:59 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I hope you have seen the mailed-out flyer from the "business leaders for
referendum 1" that we received today. You can see where their interest in
the referendum lies. Not one mention of its being "good" for the
students; but it seems to be good for everyone else who has money on their minds
instead of real help for students. Not a very convincing plug, is it? All those
chairmen, ceo's, and presidents should have looked this one over before
they put their names on it.
Sid Gilligan
Sid Gilligan
An involved parent | 10:20 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
We made our choice as a family when our kids started school 15 years ago. My
wife and I have served on School Community Councils and my wife has served as
PTSA president for many years. Because we got involved our kids have received a
great education. The key to success in school is not the money but the parental
involvement. Parents who are helping with homework, attending events,
volunteering at the school make the biggest difference for school success. Go
beyone the money to see the real research on success for students.
And there is already choice. Look at West High in Salt Lake City. They made AYP this year, had over 15 National Merit Scholar semi-finalists last year, have a teacher of the year for NCLB, and made AYP this year. This is a school with over 2500 students, 40+ languages and a huge at-risk population. The schools work where people get involved.
And don't just look at the present voucher bill. This is just the opening. Milwaukee increases their funding for vouchers regularly. And it may only be for new students, but we all know that will change.
My family is voting NO VOUCHERS.
And there is already choice. Look at West High in Salt Lake City. They made AYP this year, had over 15 National Merit Scholar semi-finalists last year, have a teacher of the year for NCLB, and made AYP this year. This is a school with over 2500 students, 40+ languages and a huge at-risk population. The schools work where people get involved.
And don't just look at the present voucher bill. This is just the opening. Milwaukee increases their funding for vouchers regularly. And it may only be for new students, but we all know that will change.
My family is voting NO VOUCHERS.
To Can't fool me...and others... | 11:54 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Sorry to burst your bubble, the State Legislature can require classes not be
more than a certain number of children for example:
Check out H.B. 149 2007
Chief Sponsor: Karen W. Morgan
Senate Sponsor: Howard A. Stephenson
Cosponsor:Carol Spackman Moss
This bill provides a class size cap in kindergarten through the third grade.
I do agree though, that districts are top heavy. Teachers or "workers" in my district received a 3.4% raise which I was happy about, while the "CEO" or Superintendant received a 28% raise. Sounds like the business world to me?
Also, to whoever it was in the previous blog that said, "Think how the Constitution would be different without John Adams". Are you kidding me? Even I with my lowly M.ED, and being one of those crummy teachers from Utah, knew that John Adams was in England on a diplomatic mission to the foreign minister during the Convention.
To the parent who ripped on Utah teachers,I worked my tail through over 8 years of school, an M.ed, and 3 endorsements, and if I'm not as qualified as a person with "special skills", then I'm sure your new private school teacher will enjoy your parental support.
Check out H.B. 149 2007
Chief Sponsor: Karen W. Morgan
Senate Sponsor: Howard A. Stephenson
Cosponsor:Carol Spackman Moss
This bill provides a class size cap in kindergarten through the third grade.
I do agree though, that districts are top heavy. Teachers or "workers" in my district received a 3.4% raise which I was happy about, while the "CEO" or Superintendant received a 28% raise. Sounds like the business world to me?
Also, to whoever it was in the previous blog that said, "Think how the Constitution would be different without John Adams". Are you kidding me? Even I with my lowly M.ED, and being one of those crummy teachers from Utah, knew that John Adams was in England on a diplomatic mission to the foreign minister during the Convention.
To the parent who ripped on Utah teachers,I worked my tail through over 8 years of school, an M.ed, and 3 endorsements, and if I'm not as qualified as a person with "special skills", then I'm sure your new private school teacher will enjoy your parental support.
Bob G | 6:16 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007
At least citizens of Utah are fighting for the right to choose and not some
outsider union group objecting to citizens voting for choice. The real issue
here is quality of education and the failure of the Utah education public school
systems. The anti referendum should be doing something to get the illegal and
unauthorized foreign nationals out of the class rooms instead of being sheep to
the system. Puting these illeal foreign nationals in our schools is costing tax
payers $41 million dollars a year, where are the objections to that? New
studies have shown even in todays papers that education in Utah is very under
parr and a failure. Parents want their children educated and if it takes private
schools then so be it. Then everyone knows that the school systems have had a
substantial windfall tax increase this year so their argument about the money is
fuitile and a waste of time. The first priority is the children and the children
getting an education, the corrupt public education system fails to educate. The
amount of money public education has does not improve the quality of education.
It has an opposite affect in reality.
Who's telling who what? | 7:59 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007
Why are we letting other states and people step in and take over our rights as
citizens of UT? Since when did any of us Utahns take an interest in another
states law and send money to help for or against it. Most private schools
don't accept vouchers anyway so what's the big concern over it.
I'm all for letting someone come up with an idea they think will work and
trying it. If someone wants to start a school they think would benefit their
children let them do it. I'm all for freedom of choice. This is not a
fight about the issue of vouchers in the least but about who we Utahns are
letting step in and run our state government. Let the voucher system fall on
it's face on it's own or help our education system. I am all for the
vouchers.
Problem | 9:42 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007
When this experiment, vouchers, falls on it's face, it will cost the state
of Utah Millions of dollars.
This discussion has illuminated several shortfalls of Utah's educational system. Why doesn't the state legislature address those issues, rather than throw money at corporate educators?
Corporations care about the bottom dollar, not the product, the students... Look at all of the recalls, corporate litigation and corporations going bankrupt. Do we really need an educational Haliburton?
We're talking about our children, for goodness sakes.
Are people in Utah really that big of gamblers.
This discussion has illuminated several shortfalls of Utah's educational system. Why doesn't the state legislature address those issues, rather than throw money at corporate educators?
Corporations care about the bottom dollar, not the product, the students... Look at all of the recalls, corporate litigation and corporations going bankrupt. Do we really need an educational Haliburton?
We're talking about our children, for goodness sakes.
Are people in Utah really that big of gamblers.
No Children Choice | 10:15 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007
I like the idea that tax payers should support Parent's choice. If we are
giving money for choices, how about giving an option for those of us that
elected to not have children. If you do not need my tax dollars for public
education, how about a refund of my money. I do not get a deduction for having
children so I land in a higher tax bracket and therfore, probably pay more taxes
than those of you who have multiple children.
Single adults without children UNITE! We want a refund. I don't want to pay for children going to private schools. If we are giving people rewards for choices, how about a reward for saving you tax dollars by not having children? Why not charging more on taxes for people with children and giving us deductions for not creating new burdens on society.
If this does not sound realistic, then think how unreal the concept of tax dollars for private education seems to some of us that made other choices.
Get real! Vote No and then give us back the dollars you do not need for education.
Single adults without children UNITE! We want a refund. I don't want to pay for children going to private schools. If we are giving people rewards for choices, how about a reward for saving you tax dollars by not having children? Why not charging more on taxes for people with children and giving us deductions for not creating new burdens on society.
If this does not sound realistic, then think how unreal the concept of tax dollars for private education seems to some of us that made other choices.
Get real! Vote No and then give us back the dollars you do not need for education.
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.
- Teen hurt while riding on car hood 12:41 p.m.
- CSU bans guns on campus 12:40 p.m.
- Driver killed in Wyoming bus crash 12:37 p.m.
- Washington, Poe set auction records 12:35 p.m.
- Marriage vs. living together with kids 12:21 p.m.
- Re-creating Bethlehem 12:12 p.m.
- N.C. nativity display spans globe 12:12 p.m.
- Plan would open HOV lanes 12:03 p.m.
- Navajo politics turn sour 11:59 a.m.
- Focus: Put Christmas back in stores 11:53 a.m.
- Ed Smart 'appalled' at testimony
- Mr. Football 2009: Tuni Kanuch
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing
- 5A high school football All-State
- George lost in rivalry hatefest
- 4A high school football: All-State
- Utah Jazz going green with unis
- MVPs wrap up stellar prep careers
- Jazz outrun Pacers
- Nutty Putty Cave to be sealed today
- Why is Y. ignoring spew of hatred?
302 - BYU says Hall incident resolved247
- Letters: Liberal because LDS242
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game189
- Hate not limited to 1 in-state rivalry188
- Aggies shoot past Cougars179
- Y. profs: Beck not all-knowing152
- N.Y. Senate rejects gay marriage120
- Max Hall: a fixture in rivalry lore118
- Unbeaten BYU takes trip to Logan104
Trolley Square's annual Holiday Open House will feature visits with...
That does it — I'm having an affair! Thanks to Tiger Woods, David...
First, a big thank you to all who posted questions here for me to ask...
Latest comments
turtle my friend you will be missed greatly i worked and roomed with you many...
I am sad to see how much general bashing there has been of the faculty of...
Personally, I'd rather Matheson, Bennett, and the whole group of paid off...
In my family we don't buy gifts for anyone over 18 years old. We haven't...
President Hinckley was probably wise in what he said to Larry King.We don't...
There is a reason that both Beck and Skousen are so popular and have enjoyed...
Fez Fez and More Fez.. Cop: Of course, "jer" and his you know "who" do...
My son took statistics his senior year because he'd finished AP calculus B/C...
Mitchell is competent. However I have my doubts about the person who...
Fox appeals to the lowest common denominator of our society. Shouting,...
Advertisements
It's the PUBLIC schools which can't handle the competition. They fought tooth and nail against every measure which opened up alternative education, such as charter schools. They said the same things then that they are saying now. THEY WERE WRONG.
But let's assume that you work for a private company. How fair would it be for the government to force every one of your customers to buy your competitor's services, even when they would rather use yours?