Deseret News | Voucher 'threat' sparks debate

Reader comments
Voucher 'threat' sparks debate

134 comments | Read story

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3

Choice? | 9:30 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007

To "Teacher"

You are missing my point (and you know it). We can try to avoid the real issue or get right to the point--it is actually written in the voucher bill that private schools can have parents "waive" the right to special education services freely guaranteed in an IEP (Individual Education Plan) that the public schools MUST provide (if requested) or take the risk of being sued. Why would legislators specifically write this into the bill? Obviously because most private schools won't accept the students who will need these very expensive services because it would financially break them.

Now, if you are a private school and don't want to hurt your financial bottom line, wouldn't you only admit those who waive that right? Would a private school really take the wheelchair bound student who requires (by unfunded mandate) two full time teachers aides (at a cost of $19,000 each a year plus benefits) to clean his/her breathing tube and change their diaper (as required by a recent Supreme Court ruling)? Be honest...they wouldn't!!!

Public schools MUST admit (and provide a free and appropriate education to) all those who come knocking.

jen | 9:48 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007

the bottom line is that the teachers union freak out over this kind of thing because they don't want to have to work any harder for their money, they don't want to excel, they don't want to have any healthy competition, they want to be lazy and keep getting paid for it. Vouchers will create an atmosphere of competition among school and teachers, and that is a GOOD THING. This means that the good teachers and the good schools who have proven themselves will benefit from getting the children and the money to those schools. If vouchers go through, we are on our way to getting rid of bad teachers and schools and promoting those who are really qualified to teach our children, and removing the ridiculous power that the mediocre teachers unions have over our children and our school system. What are they really so afraid of? What is bad about good competition that raises the bar and rewards the best teachers? I mean come on, really. think about it people.

Zero-tolerance for bullies | 9:53 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007

I am embarrassed by the childish behavior of our legislative leaders. House Majority Leader Dave Clark is acting like a spoiled child that throws a tantrum when he does not get his way. Only a bully would bring up a completely unrelated issue in order to strong arm this group of businessmen. I hope the members of this group can stand up to the bully or at least pacify him until he goes away.

We voted them in, we need to vote them out.

Comments continue below

Biker | 10:01 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007

Random, I read your post about vouchers costing Utah schools $28 million per year. Frankly, I didn't believe it. But I Googled Utah 2007 Voter Information Pamphlet and there it was, page 5 in the impartial analysis section just like you said.

Why do they keep telling us vouchers will save money but the voting information says it will cost a bundle? At first I thought vouchers seemed like a good idea, but the whole thing has gotten disturbing. The people pushing this seem like they will say or do anything to get us to support it. Even things I find out now are not true.

CC | 10:04 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007

As a teacher, I could care less about vouchers! What I do care about is a legislative branch that is out of touch with their constituents. Apparently, they simply can't believe that people might question the wisdom of a voucher bill, and that by a citizens' referendum their mighty power is being challenged. How dare we, the people, decide something for ourselves?

On the issue of the "failing public education system," I disagree with this oversimplified phrase. We do have failing students in public education. If anyone can find the magic answer of how to motivate every kid to success, the wealth of the world is yours. Today, we had a kid who got caught stealing from the candy machine. The parent threatened legal action, because we had not removed our soda and candy machines, which offer poor nutritional offerings. Obviously, the school system has failed this student. I asked an 8th grade girl who was the first president of the U.S? She had no clue. I came home and asked my third grade son the same question. "Son, Do you know who was the first president of the United States? He said, "Yes dad. Don't you?" It's called parenting!

biker | 10:07 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007

jen, I'm not a teacher, but I still find your comments very insulting. If you think people go into teaching so they can be "lazy" why don't you go try it?

Teachers are working hard to fight vouchers for many reasons, but because they want to be lazy I'm certain is not one of them.

Steve Jarvis-my EXCUSE | 10:59 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007

Mr. Jarvis, you are right that all those things you list should somehow be in our schools, BUT that somehow is costing me and everyone who owns a home so much money in increased taxes that if a cap of some kind isn't put on property taxes we will all have to sell. We spend more on our schools than just about any state, but because we have more kids per household (and it's not just Utah natives having many kids but immigrants from all over) the monies are spread thinner. I personally feel my kids get a great education when compared to Mexico and other countries. I would hate for them to live in the countries, particularily Asian countries, that require six days a week of education that lasts nearly all day. I didn't have kids so they can be owned by the state. I suggest that we, as parents, PAY for our children's elective classes in school and give the parents the CHOICE to have their kids in school 7 hours a day or not. If a parent is low income they should recieve a subsidy for electives but NOT a free ride, then I pay twice.

Mr. Jarvis-Excuse continued | 11:26 p.m. Sept. 25, 2007

I would like to add some more comments to my original reply. As a lunchworker, I see a great amount of Government funded "Free or reduced" lunches. By law I'm forced to not let a student take a lunch if they are short money, and can't find someone to help pay, if their account says they are able to pay. I wouldn't have a problem with it so much, as it does teach the kids responsibility, but I get upset knowing kids getting a free lunch are never turned away and often have extra money in their lunch accounts, from their parents, to buy extra junkfood! It upsets me that our current system gives away lunches at my expense, with little parental accountability, costing taxpayers and schools thousands of dollars every year that could be better spent to lower class size. Many free lunches go to those who are here illegally as well, but heaven forbid my own children, whose lunches I pay for on top of those getting a free lunch, should get a lunch if they are a few cents short. So instead of taxing me more to put in place your good recommendations...FIX THE SYSTEM!

The pro-voucher conceit | 12:05 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I have felt uneasy about vouchers since the issue arose, a feeling that intensified as I've seen pro-voucher commercials attack anti-voucher funding sources instead of promoting the issue (I've always considered mudslinging an indication of lack of substance).

Then the 2007 Voter Information Pamphlet came out and it made it cleat that the pro-voucher side is far too egotistical and elitist for a middle-class guy like me. I encourage everyone to read through it before making a final decision because it does bring to light some annoying inconsistencies.

First, the money issue (the MOST important issue because that is what this is all about). Supposedly vouchers will save money for public schools ... yet, as has been mentioned before, will end up (in 13 years) costing twice as much as it saves. Maybe an accountant can explain why this is a good idea by I wonder why the governement doesn't use that $43-60 million to properly fund the current system.

Second, I thought the opportunity for both sides to present their arguments in a rational format and respond to what the other side said would be a great way to see what both sides believe ...

The pro-voucher conceit | 12:13 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

... but here is the extent of the pro-voucher rebuttal to the anti-voucher arguments:

"Itï¿½s simple. A vote for vouchers is a vote to improve education.
If you vote ï¿½Yes,ï¿½
ï¿½ school funding will improve
ï¿½ childrenï¿½s options and opportunities will increase
ï¿½ academic achievement will go up
ï¿½ parents will gain a stronger voice within the system
Why is there such a fuss over 0.0025% of the education budget? Because some people think the status quo is good enough.
Letï¿½s do better. Vote FOR Vouchers to improve education.
Sincerely,
Steve Urquhart
Utah State Representative"

It did nothing to address concerns over not using the money to support public schools, nothing to talk about the use of subsidies to aid the weathly while doing almost nothing for the low-income (who still won't be able to afford private education), nothing about possible segregation, nothing about being a test case for the nation, nothing about constitutional issues, nothing on the fact that the current system does have choice and competition already built in, nothing on any of the issues I wanted them to clarify. It just spouted the same rhetoric.

Is the pro-voucher side egotistical enough to not address anything substantial?

Mr. Jarvis-my excuse apology | 12:33 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Mr. Jarvis, I wish to apologize if my comments came across as attacking yours. Your desires for our school system are wonderful, but in current economic times and with taxes as high as they are burdening families, your suggestions are just to hard to fund with out a total change of how we fund our schools.
As for those debating school vouchers, keep in mind that the parents who choose to put their kids in private school, for the most part, are already paying for every one elses child to be educated as well. They simply want some money back from the state to go to their own child. But with that said, the only thing most of the money will really cover is text books. A friend of mine spends well over a thousand dollars in text books each year for his children's private schooling. So maybe, instead of vouchers, we should give a tax break, proportional to taxes paid per family, to those who homeschool or pay for private schools. Those who don't pay taxes don't get the break. Families with kids in public schools wouldn't get this tax break either, middle class,rich, or poor.

Citizen Observer | 2:32 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Concerning the article, if the supporters of the voucher bill feel that it can stand or fall on it's own merits, why would Mr. Clark feel the need to connect business support for the voucher bill to health insurance for the many people who need it? How do you spell E-X-T-O-R-T-I-O-N ??.

Steve Jarvis | 6:46 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Your comments are fine.

I worked at a title one school my first year of teaching. It was from there I learned what hunger was. Kids were also given breakfast and more than half the school got both free. Yes many of the parents were probably illegal, but the kids having been born in the US were citizens. I had so many children taught responsibility by the school that when they did not get there on time they went without. Unfortunately, that meant these kids had not eaten a meal since lunch the day before at school. It was usually the parents fault that the child had not arrived on time, with most dropping their child off on the way to High School or work. The children who were late were bleary eyed and complaining of pain till after lunch.

These children suffered because of parental neglect. I was so glad to come back to Utah where the amount of neglect is so much less. But it is still there, even if it only effects a family or two per school.

Steve Jarvis | 6:56 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I worry about the Pro Voucher stance that we should trust the parents with making the best choice for their child. In the Public school system it is not parents alone that make choices, it is a combination of educational experts, teachers, specialists, parents and administrations that work together to ensure the success of the child.

As an experienced educator, I have first hand seen the results when that collection of people work together. I have also seen first hand when the parent goes it alone.

Think of it this way. If your child needed an operation, would you cut that child open yourself (assuming you are not a trained doctor) or would you take that child to the doctor? Here we have a group degrading the profession of educator saying to the public that we are not needed nor professional. That the parents themselves should be trusted exclusively. I've spent over six years in the classroom and have logged more hours in educating children in addition to four years of technical training to earn my professional degree, and training beyond. Certified Teachers are professional educators.

Freedom Rocks | 7:47 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

The facts are that vouchers will be a win-win for private and public students alike. Right now the state pays about $6000 for each student. For each student that accepts a voucher, the state saves $3000.

Then why will the vouchers cost the state of Utah 28 million the first year? Because of the requirement that for each dropped student, the schools are still guaranteed to keep the entire $6000. They did this to keep schools from losing ANY money. But this does end up costing the state until they can get the funding straight.

If you anti-vouchers guys care so much about the students and smaller class sizes, you would support the vouchers which gives money to the schools for students they are not even teaching!!!

Freedom Rocks response | 8:24 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Your argument is the same that has been spouted by voucher proponents from the beginning ... one that looks good until you read in the details that it would only do that for the first few years.

Then it's going to cost the state $43-60 million more to have the voucher program while not helping the public schools out at all.

Public education generally takes 13 years per student. A few years of double funding isn't going to make that much difference overall when the program is going to end up costing so much without any guarantee that it will make any difference at all.

Anonymous | 8:56 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Freedom Rocks---your information is incorrect. Go back and read both bills.

Mr. Jarvis-nice response | 9:04 a.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I want to thank you first Mr. Jarvis for taking the time to be a professional educator. It is very difficult. With that being said, I am concerned about your comment that you don't trust parents to educate or pick what is best for their child. While it's true, many would make inadequate educators (myself included which is why my children attend public school) many are FABULOUS educators of their children and are every bit as good as any teacher I've seen in school. The advantage of homeschooling is #1-more one on one attention and #2-networking with in the home schooling community, different groups come together to have children learn from different parents with different areas of expertise. Plus, once the older kids hit the upper area grades, they can still attend Public school part time for upper level education as my neighbor's daughter now does. I could never educate my children as well as she has hers, so I have relied on wonderful educators as yourself to do that, but I feel strongly that those who oppose the many educational philosophies of the schools today, should have their constitutional right to chose and get a small tax break.

Face it | 12:20 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Face it if more money in the schools pockets will fix the problem then the teachers must be dumbing down the kids or not giving there all or I dont no many only giving 50%. More money WILL NOT make them teach more, will not make them care more,will bye then more soda pop. competition will make them do there job or like the rest of us they will have too look for another one. Oh no then they would have to work all year.

Jason's step brother Teddy | 12:37 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Jason Bourne is Mark Towner from the Political Spyglass Blog.

If public education is failing then we need to blame ourselves Mark. We are the people and we choose who runs our government.

We are also responsible for our children and our neighbors children. Something Parents for Choice in Segregation cannot understand.

Educator | 2:42 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Freedom Rocks is incorrect. The Public system does not keep the total money when a child goes to the private system because the state only gives money based on actual students attending each school. Some money stays at the school for the first five years if mitigation funds, spread out evenly between schools that have lost enrollment to Private Voucher schools, but after that five years is up none will. None will come via students that never enrolled in the public system, which is where I suspect most voucher recipients will come from.

The voucher program alloted nine-million to public schools as mitigation funds for the first year, and has been the highest selling point of the Voucher program. But the program is going to cost a lot more than that. Consider that it is not capped, that every kindergartener entering will be elligible, and the costs double the second year. At the point that all kids have them the State should be shelling out over a hundred million each year for the program. This is going to be costly tying up funds from other needs.

Steven Jarvis | 4:35 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

I only wish a tax break, at least equal to the cost of supplies was available to homeschoolers. I do believe those costs are deductible. I have worked with a handful of home-school children in their first experience in Public eduction, and found some way ahead of their peers and others that in the upper grade could not read or write. Not all parents are up to the task of making objective decisions for the education of their child because of the closeness they have.

The example of a parent in sports is rather apt as a comparison. The parent know more than the coach how talented the child is, what position they should play and whether they should hand off or pass. They are always second guessing the coach because they know their child. They really don't need a coach at all.

But often the reality is the coach knows the reality of the game better than the parent. Little Jimmey has a great throwing arm, but does not have the speed to avoid the sack, or size to see over the linemen. Jimmey would be better used as a reciever than the QB.

Steven Jarvis | 4:40 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

Face It,

I want to teach year round on an extended contract. Few are offered. But you are right. More (or less) money will not make teachers care more about the children. It has never been about money for caring. More money will mean your child will have better materials, fewer students to compete for the teachers attention and air conditioning.

Don't ever underestimate air conditioning for helping students focus. Comfort is a luxury some Public schools can't afford.

Ellen | 11:38 p.m. Sept. 26, 2007

RE Vouchers: As a University student nearing graduation to become a Utah school teacher, I am surprised that anyone would think it's ok to have Utah kids taught by unqualified teachers. I am happy to adhere to the requirements and background checks, etc. in order to become a teacher because I believe that educators should be held to a high, unwavering standard of quality. Are there licensed teachers that are not productive that make the rest look bad? Of course there are. There are substandard employees in every profession. But using the 'slugs' in the education system to justify vouchers is not a valid argument. THERE IS ONLY SO MUCH MONEY ALLOCATED TO EDUCATION IN UTAH. So choosing to give vouchers just re-allocates what little money there is, and serves no real purpose. I applaud the licensed, productive, caring school teachers that prove daily that they can do MORE WITH LESS than any other educators in the nation. On the high end, some states spend as much as $11,000 per student per year and our Utah teachers do so with $2500.

School it | 1:24 p.m. Sept. 29, 2007

Public schools and private schools should not be regarded as competing like some people suggest. Since public schools are governed by a completely different set of rules than private schools, how can one make a fair assessment as to who is doing better? Don't forget one other thing, at least with public schools, the public owns the buildings, property, and materials within. Private schools are owned by investors who expect to turn a profit. This equates to public education dollars finding their way into a few well-positioned pockets. I wonder how many of our state legislators will be financially benefiting from school vouchers?

jb | 1:26 p.m. Sept. 29, 2007

When we lived in Ohio our two oldest girls were put in a public school that was awful. The second was in kindergarten. The curriculum of the kindergarten was coloring pictures. But my daughter could read. We tried working with the teacher. We tried working with the school. After a number of months with no action it became clear that my daughter would waste a year of her life trying to "work inside the system."

We were not rich and could not afford to take her to a school that would help her. So my wife homeschooled. It was a great experience for all. But I would have loved to have had the choice to take my daughter to a school that would work!!

Great teachers and administrators will ALWAYS be in demand. They should embrace vouchers.

PUBfunds | 1:28 p.m. Sept. 29, 2007

Vouchers mainly allow kids who were already slated to go to private school to go there cheaper... This equates mainly to subsidized private schools. Can you hear the "giant sucking sound" from the state budget as private schools sprout up around the state?

Public funds should be used on public education, period. If you can't afford to send your kids to private school, but want to afford it, work 3 jobs, borrow the money, live in a trailer instead of a house, but don't hold out your hand asking others to help pay.

In the meantime, work on making public school education better.

so true | 1:35 p.m. Sept. 29, 2007

I had some thoughts. Teachers don't always get a fair shake. They put up with some really horrible kids. They have some pretty mean parents to deal with. I do feel for you. It seems though when ever change is in the wind, everyone in the establishment freaks out. Listen, for all we know, it is the best thing that ever happened to your industry. Who knows, even if public needs less teachers, then you find a job that doesn't involve bad kids, bad parents, politics, and the rest. It might be refreshing. We don't need to spend more money, we need to spend it better. And nobody spends it as wisely as the ones who earn it.

Greg D | 1:40 p.m. Sept. 29, 2007

Rural, I for one don't want our tax dollars to be used to teach the FLDS, LDS, RLDS, or Catholic religions. And, I happen to consider myself a religious person. The public system is not failing in Utah. Get a grip.

bigbucksvhr | 1:51 p.m. Sept. 29, 2007

Is this true???

Did anyone else read the Voter Information Pamphlet distributed in newspapers over the weekend?

Under the heading "Impartial Analysis" it says vouchers will cost "$71 million during the Program's 13th year, after all private school students in Utah have become eligible..."

To Ellen | 9:59 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

Some of these schools with so called "unqualified teachers" have some of the highest SAT & ACT scores in the state. My son goes to a private school and is getting a fantastic education. The school is able to boast about the amount of academic scholarships the students recieved. For example, in a class size of 180 there were over $6M in scholarships. There are a large number of kids that are skipping their freshmen year of college due to the fact that they've taken the courses in high school. This is because some of the teachers are college accedited. This doesn't sound like a bunch of unqualified teachers. If these schools were so bad I don't believe that they'd have waiting lists. Many have stated that people that are financially well off are the only kids to be benifitting from this. There are a large number of kids that receive some sort of financial aid. The vouchers would benefit many more of these kids that are caught in between the students with financial needs and those that can afford it. Maybe instead of the vouchers we need to look at tax dedutions for those in private schools.

Anonymous | 5:36 p.m. Oct. 3, 2007

The tax deduction you mentioned above was what Utah parents were pushing for a few years ago. Tuition tax credits would be a better solution to the education problem in Utah. Unfortunately the House and Senate did not pass that bill. Vouchers are another great option to our pathetic government funded school problem. Vote yes to vouchers because it is a step in the right direction for Utah kids!

Brutus | 5:46 p.m. Oct. 19, 2007

If I may, All of you who support vouchers, do you honestly believe that all Utahns stand to benifit? Will minorities, immigrants, and poor Utah children truly be able to afford using the voucher and going from a public school to private?

Lynn | 12:28 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Read the voter information pamphlet which tells us what the true cost to the public school system over a several year period would be if vouchers are implemented. Why do we need them? There is certainly no evidence that they would improve our schools. The time spent by our right wing legislature in creating the voucher law would have been much better spent in working with the UEA and the public school system to develop reforms that would actually improve our schools, which by any objective standard, are in many ways already better than many in the nation. And all this talk of competition is little better than intellectual claptrap, for even a cursory review of history will show that cooperation in developing and implementing new ideas rather than competition has made possible most of the major advances in civilization. And now, how ironic that we have our Republican legislature and governor, and pro voucher people espousing an idea that is anything but conservative: that public money be used to subsidize private institutions. Could this be the beginning of an ideologically driven attempt to privatize everything regardless of practical implications?

Page:
< Previous
1
2
3

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.