Comments about ‘Voucher issue about taxes’

Those who support vouchers take a view that their neighbors don't have a right to determine how their taxes will be spent and to hold those who spend it accountable. Those who support vouchers basically argue, "you will give us money but have no vote in our private school Board but we will retain our right to vote for the School Board of a public school district." Until I have the right to walk into a private school board meeting and say to them, "answer my questions or lose my vote" than I will not support vouchers. You hit the issue on the head when you pointed ou that even those who do not have children have a responsiblity to support public schools but with that responsiblity comes the right to vote in school board elections. To require that they pay taxes so your child can go to a private school of your choice where they don't have an equal vote is a violation of their rights. I intend to vote against vouchers because I love my right to vote and will not let those who support vouchers vote that right away so that they can advance their own interests.

Anonymous, the first problem is that it is likely several people have posted with the anonymous title. If not, this is one of your better points.

You have narrowed the accountability down to two great points: Accountability via the election process, or accountability via the front door. Both are very tried and true American style. And both work rather well though I would say that the latter, voting with your feet by removing a child from a private school that does not perform to expectations, is likely the better model here.

When it comes to the former you see right now a massive political to do, in order to get the elected Board into something much more manageable. This of course is the splitting of large school districts.

I would also throw in that I would love to see this passion for the election ballot from the anti-voucher crowd. I am thinking of legislation that would require all bonds to be voted on in a general election, thus maximizing voter participation. The Union loves the idea of the smallest turnout in order to increase our taxes, and suppress votes.

Your arguement doesn't work with the practice of the Union.

James,

You argument doesn't work. The union has no control over when the bond elections are held. The Legislature has said when the elections can take place and the District School Boards say which option they will use. Usually the timing of the bond elections has to do with the timing of needed buildings. If they need the buildings now, the bond election will take place at the next available time, if the buildings are not needed immediately the bond elections will wait until the next municipal or state election. Remember that the districts have to pay for the election and they don't want to spend money on an election if they can wait and split the costs with the municipalities or the state.

Mr. Betts is right, those who send their kids to private school are not currently nor will they be relieved of their financial support of public ed via their tax payments. Strange that he mention it, since it's not even in question. This is not a bill for tax credits.
Currently, we collect tax money and spend about $7500 on each kid in the public school. With this voucher program, we still collect tax money, but some percentage of families volunteer to opt out, take a voucher for a fraction of the total spent on thier kid, and get them educated elsewhere for less. That's good "tax dollars at work" I say--actually cutting government costs while still achieving the education of children, and with greater accountability to parents.
This fettish about "tax dollars going to for-profit" entities is so silly anyway. Who builds our roads? Private companies. And yes, they make a profit at it. Can you imagine what the road would cost if the government were personally building it? Well, public ed costs roughly twice as musch as private ed. So if you believe in continued unquestioned, unaccountable, ever-rising tax dollar expenditures, vote against vouchers for sure.

Amazing how all these "conservatives" are for tax subsibies/entitlements posing as "school vouchers" and choice.

@cdmom

Yes the Union is at the helm. As much as you want to deny this, those who JOIN the union and hide behind this to push their own political cause are those who are of School Boards, Teachers and Administrators. You really cannot separate them in this case.

@JBean

Very well said.

Millions of tax dollars are already being used to pay for private school tuition, through the GI Bill and Pell Grants. Students using these two programs are free to attend the University of Utah, Weber State, BYU, Notre Dame, etc. Private or public school, it doesn't matter. It seems to work great at the college level, why not try it at the K-12 level? If the sky falls in as some predict, then we can go back to the status quo.

Why is the UEA continually pointed at as the great bogeyman of politics and education in this state? MANY teachers do not belong to the union. NEA and the PTA has to run to their aid and commit monies to fight vouchers. If UEA fights to increase teacher salaries, they have obviously done a lousy job, just ask your friends who are teachers. State legislators will not talk with UEA lobbyists.

Who really wants to believe that this ragtag bunch of burned-out educators (who have left the classroom to run a union) really has the power to squash a gnat?

Well said Frank. If the UEA has such influence over education in this state, why do we even have this voucher issue?

Second, one the pro voucher ad currently mentions the big bad liberal union from the east and all of the big bad liberal people and groups that support that union. What does any of that have to do with the question of vouchers?

My point is this, for the most part the ads against vouchers give people several reasons to vote agianst them such as are privite schools accountable, are privite school teachers required to be certifed, etc.

The pro-voucher people, at least in this particular ad, have not given any reasons to support vouchers. The state that because the governor and some of the legislators thouht it was a good idea that everyone should get on board.

In other words the big bad liberal union nor any of their supporters mentioned in the ad get to vote in Utah. Each voter in Utah needs to understand what the voucher issues are and vote for which ever side he or she agrees with.

Right on.

Amen.

Hallelujah!

Can I get the state to pay for my private security guard if I decline to call the police? What about a voucher to use at the book store if I agree to avoid the public library? What if I promise not to go to the public pool or golf course - can I get a tax deduction for the cost of my country club? And if I stay away from state and national national parks and forest, I can get one to pay for my vacations elsewhere, right?

These are ridiculous propositions. Yet they're philosophically the same as what the voucher advocates want - a rebate for voluntarily declining a public service, which will actually raise the cost of that service for the rest of us.

Scotty, your analogy to Pell Grants and the GI Bill doesn't work. We don't provide free public higher education, and attendance isn't mandatory, so if we want to encourage higher ed for qualified low income students, or express our thanks to veterans who would like to advance their education, we need to pay for it.

Also, Pell Grants and the GI Bill include accountability provisions that are absent from the voucher program the legislature enacted. A college students receipt of federal financial aid through a Pell Grant is legally considered aid to the institution, thus making colleges and universities subject to federal civil rights laws. Vouchers are considered aid to the student. Voucher schools could deny admission to students for reasons that would be prohibited under Pell. Colleges accepting Pell grants must also be accredited and licensed. The absence of accountability for voucher schools has been well discussed here.

I want a voucher for not having kids.

JBean: Where do you get your figures that public ed costs twice as much as private ed? That is just not true. If we use the figures provided by the Parents for Choice in Education (a pro-voucher group), they estimate that it costs $7,500 per student per year to educate a student at public schools in Utah. They also estimate that the average yearly tuition at a private school in Utah is $9,000 per student per year. PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE MORE EXPENSIVE. (Some private schools cost $20,000 per year.) And public schools offer more programs and services over-all than private schools. Why else would the legislature have attempted to pass a bill last session requiring public schools to allow private school students in their boundaries to participate in extra-curricular activities at the public schools at the public expense? I do not see the supposed efficiencies and economies in the private system. They just aren't there in comparison to the public system.

Once a woman fom our PTA, showed up at my door wanting me to sign a petition to keep guns out of the schools. It was hard for me to tell the woman no, but I told her I could not sign. She then smiled and said " I agree with you, but I was told this was my responsibility."
We in our PTA are asked wo to go out and get signatures for vouchers. (I won't) At the recent back to school night there was a box set up asking everyone to donate to oppose vouchers. Parents want to support our schools, but they are trying to use any influence they can to FORCE the issue. I plan to stay in public school when the vouchers pass, with my child in a smaller class, and teachers who care more about what I have to say as a parent because now they have competition. Vouchers are a no brainer. Whether you choose private or public school ALL the children will be better off. As for the UEA and the Union, maybe it won't be better for them, but it isnt about them is it? It's about the kids.

It all come down to freedom to do whats right for each student. All i ever hear is The public schools are so over crowded, so do vouchers and help out the poor public school teachers. Less students=better education. Oh thats right we dont care about the kids just the money well we flushed so much down the public school toilet now so why not keep it up, no reason to try somthing else. As for me I will vote to change a failed system every time.

It might cost $7500 to educate a student in Utah, but that is not the amount the legislature has allocated for the wpu ($6375).

Private schools do not help decrease class size in public schools. With a decrease in students, there is a decrease in teachers (FTE).

It is interesting that private and home schooled students are allowed to participate in public school extracurricular activities. Hmm, must not be able to provide these programs in their little worlds. Additional money from the legislature does not pay for these students to belong to public ed when it is convenient/fun for them.

SBM and SRD, good points.

My kids all over 18 so can I get a voucher to have my taxes going to public schools rebated?

Of course not. That's not the way the system works.

If we allow the government to run schools (which we do) we "all" have to support them with our taxes. The concept of the few who want to bail on public schools getting their money back so they can spend it elsewhere is ludicrus.

Everybody says conservatives are For vouchers, but I'm a conservative and I'm not for them. This may be a philosophical issue but it isn't a partisan issue.

If the proposal were, "Get government out of the education business", I would be for it. But that's not the proposal. The current proposal is, "Let a few select people take their tax money back out of the education system and run". I know they are not taking 100% of their tax support back, but that's not the point. In my mind it doesn't make sense for the population or the government to be forced to fund 2 parallel and competing education systems.

Vouchers is way for public schools to be held accountable for being crappy. it is a way to add competition and make education better. If you want a government monopoly that makes a below average product vote against vouchers.

Tre -- The law to allow (force the public schools to allow, with no funding, of course) did not pass last session. I just think it's interesting that if the public schools are so "crappy" (to quote Spencer), why would the legislature want them to provide peripheral services to home schooled and private school children? By the way Spencer, exactly what criteria is used to judge a "crappy" school system? With test scores above the national averag, how is the Utah public school system below average?