Deseret News | Voters, approve vouchers in November

Reader comments
Pignanellii & Webb: Voters, approve vouchers in November

28 comments | Read story

Andy | 7:12 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

It isn't the money which concerns the Public School system, it is the loss of power.

Pam | 8:57 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Amen! Great article.

ThouShaltNotCovet | 9:09 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Utahns, get your families off of educational welfare.

Comments continue below

MC | 9:30 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Don't know what LaVarr's drinking, but I'll have one please. Vouchers are just the first part of the strategy of opponents of public education. The next part is the whining about paying for private education AND paying taxes to educate other family's kids. Then come the tax credits. Then finally comes the tumbling down of public education. In the meantime, the voucher kids are gettings their heads filled with creationist garbage and generally losing their societal connection with the lowly "public kids". The Chinese, the Finns and everybody else go sailing by.

Public education needs a lot of adjustment for sure. Less tinkering by the test-em-till-they-bleed crowd. Better pay for good teachers. No pay for bad ones. But it's foolish to believe that public education will be somehow improved by the bogus competition of voucher-supported schools.

JayP | 9:33 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Convenient to post this when no countering view can be offered by Frank. Gutless, actually.

Bob | 10:03 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

I believe the arguement presented on saving money is bogus. A manipulation of statistics. Cost per child to educate them is generally arrived by taking the total expenditures and dividing it among the number of children. If it cost $100,000 to have a teacher, building, utilities, etc. to teach 10 students, that is $10,000 per student. If one leaves, you are not losing 1/10 of a building, or 1/10 of the teacher, your fixed costs are still $100,000. However, it seems you'll be getting less funding to meet those expenditures. Only if you reached a reduction where you could close schools, reduce the number of teachers, admin, etc. would it make it a difference. Reducing a class of 25 students by one or two will not do that.

BobP | 11:18 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

1. Vouchers are provided for all of the students who currently are not in public schools, or wouldn't be anyway in the future. That is an absolute loss for public school funding that far outweighs any gain unless you think private school enrollments will quadruple. 2. The law does nothing to change what schools receive per pupil - fewer pupils, less money. 3. Why should parent whose children have finished school, or couples and individuals with no children pay more to support public schools than those who choose private schools? Everyone benefits, even if they don't use the serivce directly. Can I get rebates for any service I don't use or want? No. Vouchers are an attack on the social contract and education. You don't see conservatives promoting vouchers for poor people to go to private doctors to unburden the public clinics, do you?

jackhp | 11:36 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

ThouShaltNotCovet,
Which one is "educational welfare"? Public education where everyone has the same opportunity; or lining up at the government trough for a voucher check that subsidizes your personal choice?

Hannah | 11:58 a.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Just seems fair to give families their tax money back so they can choose the school that is best for them. Why do we have to be stuck in government-run schools, unless we're rich? Especially in education, where we have decided that it's important to provide education for all. It's not like cars. Education is the one chance to get out of poverty - so yes government should pay for the equal opportunity, but it does not follow that they have to run the schools themselves.

Teacher | 1:49 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Hmmmm...

Voucher accepting private schools can choose their studentbody--accepting only the best and brightest (cheapest to educate) and thus leaving, in the public schools, those who required special services (most expensive to educate). Voucher accepting private schools have no accountability written into this bill (unless you count an audit after FIVE years), and therefore won't have to follow the unfunded and partially funded state and federal educational mandates. Voucher accepting private schools don't have to follow the very expensive teaching and testing mandates of No Child Left Behind. Voucher accepting private schools can (according to a section of this bill) have parents sign away their rights to Special Education services (an Individual Education Plan or IEP) which is probably the most expensive, and unfunded, factor in public education. Voucher accepting private schools aren't required to provide counseling, limited English, bilingual, emotionally damaged, semi lock down, "alternative", or young mothers educational services that the public schools are required to provide. The thing most people like LaVarr forget is that all students are not equal when it comes to funding. Those requiring special services are VERY expensive to educate!
LaVarr, the only point you make that I MIGHT have to concede is the lowering of class size. However, the jury is still out on that one. When the first three Charter Schools opened in my area, the regular public schools were promised by Morley, Bramble, Ferrin, etc. what a wonderful thing this would be for "lowering the class sizes in the regular public schools." Well, here we are 3 years later and my average class size has gone from 36 to 39 students. So much for promises.

Now, LaVarr, just how does a voucher save money for the public school? You haven't been sneaking into Investigations Math have you?

Bob | 2:12 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

A good public education is provided for all through our taxes. But once you leave the public system and into the private, it becomes your responsibility to pay. Some people may not feel that public transit is right for them, but that doesn't mean that taxes that go to fund public transportation should be given back to them to pay for their limo ride.

June | 2:40 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Smaller classes sizes with vouchers? Only if just a few students leave the school. Five students leave; five classes theoritically with 1 student less per class.
But if approximately 15 or more students leave the school, the school district does not have the money generated by the student count so the teaching staff is reduced. Smaller classes will not happen.
Teacher staffing is determined by the number of students. This provoucher argument of smaller classes is bogus and not based on reality at all.

JM | 2:54 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

I recently received my tax notice and I am happy to pay the proposed $1600 to the local school district. They do a fabulous job with what little money they have.

I do however oppose paying $109 to the South Davis Recreation Center. I am all for choice in our recreation activities. I pay a yearly fee to belong to a private pool because as a parent, I have decided I want better for my children than a public swimming pool has to offer. I hereby request the state provide me with a voucher to help pay the cost of sending my family to a private pool. Just think of the benefits. There will be less crowding at the public pool, there will be a lower life guard to swimmer ratio at the public pool, and just think of the extra parking space. The savings to the state abound.

One last point, public education is not just about educating your kids, it's about having an educated society, the very backbone of a functioning democracy. Those who accept vouchers and turn their backs on publically funded education should sign an agreement that they will never go to a doctor, dentist, lawyer, etc. who attended a public school. The point is, we all benefit from educating children. People who send their children to private school should not get public funds just because they don't have children in the public system. Plenty of people with no children pay into the system and they have no children to benefit from it. Everyone benefits from having an education populous.

Pro Student | 4:37 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

June,

You are right on.

When my daughter was in kindergarten, there where 60 students spread among 3 classes, or 20 students per class. The next year, the charter school opened, and the neighborhood school lost 2 children in that grade. Those two kids meant that 3 classes could no longer be justified. The result was 58 kids spread among 2 teachers for a class size of 29 students. Good thing we had the charter school to help reduce class sizes at the neighborhood school!

Having a couple of students per grade leave the system does not automatically translate into a smaller class size.

Chuck | 4:57 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Does creaming off the cheapest, easiest-to-service clients help either funding or competition with insurance companies? No, it runs them out of business.

That is what vouchers do to public schools. It creams off the cheapest, easiest-to-educate students and leaves the rest for the public schools. That doesn't leave more money for public ed. It makes public ed. statistics look more expensive.

Whatever money it initially "saves" will not go to schools. It will just make it easier for legislators to spend it elsewhere or give tax cuts. No real friend of public ed. will support vouchers.

It won't create competition because the public schools CAN"T change with all the laws around their necks.

For that matter, no real friend of private schools will support vouchers either, because it will eventually tie the private schools down with the same restrictions that are on the public schools.

Vouchers are a lose-lose proposition for all except those wanting a hand-out at tax-payer expense!

WC | 5:03 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

To think vouchers will solve all those problems in the school system is insane. You obviously haven't seen the details. The state's independent research on the matter showed that in under 10 years the program will be costing millions of dollars and saving none in the public school system.

This is a load of crap and so are vouchers.

BEST | 5:19 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Maybe those of us parents that have the bright kids are tired of them going to a public school where they are not challenged.
When I was a new parent I put much effort into getting my child ready for school.
When he eventually went he was ahead of everyone else.
This resulted in him spending a great deal of time doing and learning nothing.
Being bright and bored he started to act up. Then he was punished for this.
He eventually learned to hate school.
There seems to be all kinds of programs for the slow kids but very little for the bright ones.

Karen | 5:47 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

Amen, WC

JBean | 9:15 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

This class sized argument is ridiculous. If teacher hiring is based on student population, and if a few students leave and the school hires less teachers, isnt' this an indictment of this silly system? What you're saying is that no amount of funding will ever fix that problem, because they just hire enough teachers to keep classes huge. That's not a problem you can attribute to parental choice--that's a problem with the school system that doesn't fix something when it has the chance.

And one other thing: the argument for choice is one based on evidence of success as well as some very basic economic fact ( i.e., competition makes everything better and cheaper.) But so many of you voucher opponents go on and on about fixed costs and expensive students, yada yada yada. The crux of the matter is IMPROVING THE QUALITY OF EDUCATION. That takes change. Change is hard. But it is needed, and worth it.

Webb is right on. Go vouchers, everybody wins (except lousy teachers and decrepit bureaucrats)

Josephs Myth | 9:24 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

The fact that Paul Mero's Sutherland Institute is BUYING space in the newspaper to promote the voucher idea (based of course on a wholly specious interpretation of Utah constitutional and educational history) ought to be enough cause thinking people to look askance at the whole idea. It's disappointing that LeVar has allowed himself to be sucked in to the delusion.

Show your Sources | 9:49 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

We see a lot of commenters (mostly anti-voucher) making statements as "facts" -- with NO backup for them.

Show us your reasoning, your sources, if you can.

CMH | 10:45 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

I know two families with children who attend both public and private schools. The first family has 2 children who were adopted and are English Language Learners. When they went to enroll them at their private school they were turned away because they couldn't offer any assistance. Meanwhile their other 4 children continue to attend the private school. The other family is very similar. Their two sons who are star baseball players attend a private Catholic High School while their autistic son attends public school where his needs are met. The bottom line is the private schools do not have to take all children, nor do they even want all children. Why should my tax dollars support open discrimination?

There is more at stake than just funding. If those who support public education (as LaVarr claims he does) sell out to vouchers and their only rationale is to increase funding, they have sold our children's birthright for a mess of porridge. Let's not be so short sighted.

Chuck | 11:03 p.m. Sept. 16, 2007

JBean, you must not have read my whole post. Yes, there needs to be change. I said what that change needed to be. Get the feds out and divide the large districts into community owned and operated districts. Politically that is the only way to get class and school size down. The public schools CAN'T change, the way things are now. Yes, change is hard. What I have described is hard, but it is the only real answer. Vouchers will only extend the problems of the public, government-funded system to the private schools, while pulling apart our communities.

By the way, some competition improves many things. It does not ALWAYS improve things. Walmart is not an improvement over locally-owned businesses, who provided real service, more choices, paid local taxes, and supported local causes. The competition weeds bring in a garden doesn't encourage better produce!

Competition is not a panacea. It won't allow you to abdicate your responsibility as a parent. Many advocates of vouchers want "competition" to magically solve all the issue problems with schools, so they don't have to get their hands dirty solving those problems. That is why government welfare was established. People wanted the government to take care of the problem, so they didn't have to. Vouchers would have the same kind of "success"!

Pat | 10:40 a.m. Sept. 17, 2007

Can't wait until Frank gets back in town...

Raymond Takashi Swenson | 1:27 p.m. Sept. 17, 2007

"Public schools" are not sacred, though teacher unions want us to think so. When public money is spent for a "public school", it all goes into the private sector, paying salaries, buying and maintaining buses and diesel fuel, utilities, furniture, school supplies--all the money goes into the private sector. Even building public schools is funded by selling bonds to private sector investors, buying private land, paying private contractors who buy concrete, steel, bricks, windows, plumbing and heating systems from the private sector. Since your school district buys its materials and sevices from the private sector, there is no rational reason it couldn't buy them in a package, such as hiring a contractor to operate a school, hire the people, and buy utilities and supplies.

Poor people spend their Medicare aid at private doctors' clinics and hospitals. Military veterans are allowed to use their education benefits at private universities like Westminster and BYU. There is nothing in government fiscal law that makes it unconstitutional to give beneficiaries of a government program the ability to find their services in the private sector.

The purpose of public education is to create an educated citizenry, which will be able to pay taxes, act as intelligent citizens, and obey the law. There is nothing about that goal that requires that students attend only government-operated elementary and secondary schools.

Most Utahns work for profit-making companies. Profit-making companies are not evil, even if they run schools. Non-profit schools are just as virtuous as public schools. Parochial schools are funded through the sacrifice of many parishioners.

Utahns should remember that public schools exist for children, children (and taxpayers) do not exist for public schools. Public schools are just one means to the end of citizen education, and we should trust parents to pick alternatives.

Ogrepete | 1:45 p.m. Sept. 17, 2007

I've never even seen the proposed voucher bill. I've read tons and tons of articles/comments on it, but not seen the actual language. Is that something anyone knows how to get access to? If it isn't written in 27th grade Legalese, I'd like to read it.

JH Teacher | 3:37 p.m. Sept. 17, 2007

Unlike most public school teachers, I support the concept of school vouchers. But maybe that's because I began teaching AFTER spending 20 years in business management and marketing where we have an understanding of the value of competition. Most public school teachers are threatened by the concept of competition. To them I say, get used to it and use it as a springboard to more success. Is my job on the line? Probably. Will vouchers fix all public education problems? No way. But it is a step attempting to actually do something do change a stodgy, bureaucratic, top-heavy, teacher-shorted, woefully inadequate education system. If competition can't change that, nothing will.

christoph | 3:52 p.m. Sept. 17, 2007

If you can't afford it, don't buy it. If you can't afford a private school, go do the free-market, business, entreprenieurial mind-set and start your own business and make lots of money and then you can afford a private school for your kids, this is the Republican way that our state represents, isnt it? To take money from the public sector is communism isnt it? I did enjoy Mr. Webb's article, honestly, it was convincing, and I have to admit the GOP has come a long way from the days of Reagan when their was talk of shutting down the dept. of education altogether; now the GOP at least admits that do-it-on-your-own-make-yourself- rich at least, includes a little of public and community involvement. Even the PEF (lds edu.fund)
admits some people can not get themselves out of poverty. Frankly, I believe if we get rid of the Utah (or was it Idaho) invention of the TV (sorry Farnsworth) humans would excel in all constructive categories.

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.