Reader comments
Voucher issue unifies Demos, divides GOP

133 comments | Read story

June | 5:49 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

But vouchers are another entitlement program. Do we need another entitlement program? I think not.

Anonymous | 6:28 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

"Sometimes being a minority political party has its advantages ï¿½ it's easier to speak with one voice on important and emotional issues because its officeholders hold a single view."

How is it not possible that a majority political party cannot do this? And, why is it that the minority is looked upon with disdain for its' unity?

I yearn for the day when Utah and Utahns follow in the footsteps of the former soviet union and adopt more democratic principles as opposed to the one party state.

Comparative Analysis | 7:11 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Steve,

You failed to provide any substantive examples. Here is what the Journal of Public Economics stated about Milwaukee's schools:

"As a voucher program in Milwaukee has expanded, taking money and pupils out of public schools, the schools have responded by ramping up their own performance, a forthcoming study in the Journal of Public Economics argues."

You also missed the point of the statement about Milwaukee. Many are frustrated about the idea of using taxpayers dollars. This is an example where philanthropists are coming in to help out.

Here is another example of a substantive example:
Wisconsin's Department of Public Instruction has ordered 11 private school schools out of Milwaukee's voucher program due to violations.

No one is saying they are the gold standard, but the point is to see what works and what does not. Learn from other's state's mistakes and what they are doing right.

Comments continue below

Milwaukee? | 7:24 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Comparative Analysis,

No one in their right mind would use the 17 year Milwaukee voucher debacle as a valid example to promote vouchers. Do your research next time!!!

Comparative Analysis | 8:13 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Homework done!

Example One
"I find that students in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program had faster math score gains than, but similar reading score gains to the comparison groups"

"Private School Vouchers and Student Achievement: An Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program," Cecilia Elena Rouse (Princeton University and National Bureau of Economic Research), Quarterly Journal of Economics (MIT Press),
May 1998, Vol. 113, No. 2, Pages 553-602

Example Two
"Two randomized-experiment studies of the Milwaukee school voucher program have found that students who received vouchers through a lottery made academic gains when compared to their peers who remained in public school."
Heritage Foundation citing Jay P. Greene's Education Myths (Lanham, Md.: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2005), pp. 150ï¿½154.

Example Three
The Journal of Public Economicsstudy mentioned earlier was by Cornell and Harvard educated economist Rajashri Chakrabarti. She now works for the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

Hope that helps.

I think Mark Twain said | 9:27 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

"There are lies. Then there are damn lies.Then there are statistics."

Good debate | 9:33 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Another point of view: It seems like if we vote against vouchers that we put the responsibility of educating our kids back to the government system. We clearly need a change. It is debatable whether the government education system does a good job, but their goal seems to make sure that everyone is treated (or educated) the same way no matter what your circumstance is. The government just looks on the outside of an individual and educates the masses based on statistics. It does no good to just blindly pay taxes to a system like that. People should be taught based on whatï¿½s on the inside, not on the outside, which requires a lot more individual attention and that is why parents make the best decisions for the education funds for their children. It seems like vouchers will allow parents to give their children more of a ï¿½Thomas Jeffersonï¿½ type education and create leaders versus a ï¿½one-size-fits-allï¿½ education that creates followership. The bill could be written better but is a good start for a better direction.

wrz | 10:02 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

"I am tired of all the complaining from the union majority in this state. Give the voucher system a chance for a few years. If we aren't producing better students we can cancel out."

If you vote vouchers in for "a few years" it will be with us forever. Few government give-away programs ever get canceled. We need to get it right the first time.

"In the long run it will save money because the private schools are only asking a third of what it costs in a public school."

In the long run, a voucher program will eventually escalate to include full funding for all private students.

Steve Jarvis | 10:06 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Good Debate,

Try a Charter School. Charters are free public schools with accountability built in, meeting every requirement you just asked for. This option is more affordable than asking me and other tax payers to pay twice for your child. Using a Voucher feels quite like that since I am already paying for other people's children (I have none of my own) and now am being asked to have more of my taxes used so a select few can experiment with Private schools.

But really the responsibility for educating relies in all of us. I am sure you have heard the term, "It takes a village." It takes more than schools, teachers and students to work. Parents and family are still have the largest part in educating our children. It is best when all groups work together for the success of the child.

Just say NO to vouchers | 10:07 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Just say NO to vouchers! They are not good for ALL of Utah's children- only a select few. Just vote no!

Steve Jarvis | 10:10 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

The sad irony is that wrz, CDmom, others and I have already hammered out most of these answers (without ever knowing who the other two were). I think I can knock down most of these arguments and counter-points without much thought.

The debate was much more lively before so many paid posters came on the boards. Sigh.

James | 10:56 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Steve, you are a good guy but are missing the big point. And do you really subscribe to the notion that it takes a village to raise my children?

And "...more of my taxes used...." Do you think your taxes are going to go up? Sad logic. Taxes are not increasing one penny. How the tax dollars are being spent will change but no one will pay 1 more red cent in taxes.

And as for paying twice, by that logic why should we have ever allowed charter schools? They started out with the exact (to a T) concern about paying twice. Now you are advocating charter schools?

Charter schools are essentially a voucher, as you imply. They are a voucher with a very controlled list of who can redeem the voucher. They are a voucher for just over $5,000 per kid.

These vouchers are for much less, are not spending twice (just as charter schools are not) and have a broader range of who can redeem the voucher.

I was not aware you had such structuralist leanings to your philosophy.

Vouchers-NO | 11:20 p.m. Sept. 27, 2007

Until the LEGISLATURE is willing to fully fund public education, they have no right setting up another PUBLIC financed educational system. I fully support PRIVATE schools, let's just keep them funded with PRIVATE not PUBLIC funds. VOTE NO on Referendum 1.

Darwin at work | 12:39 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007

The public schools (and their East Coast masters) fought long and hard to get evolution into the curriculum.

The schools tell us that Darwin said that competition and natural selection are the way for a species to become strong.

Make up your minds -- either it does (in which case vouchers are a good thing) or it doesn't (in which case evolution shouldn't be taught).

Which is it?

Anonymous | 12:51 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007

Vouchers no? Fully fund education? How do you expect them to do that? We spend all of our income tax and most of our property taxes on education. Should we just give our paycheck to the UEA and ask for a stipend to live on? You're crazy! We can't tax our way into funding education. And if you cannot support public funds funding private education you'll support a repeal of any grants or tuition loans given by our federal government to schools like BYU, right? What's more, why should I give MY money to educate YOUR kid? You're happy to steal from my family to educate your kid...living high on the hog. That's why Ezra Taft Benson said that casting the burden of your life on your neighbors, the taxpayers, was one of the greatest sins facing his day. Public education is nothing more than socialism.

Worried | 3:12 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007

In response to "Tired", if vouchers are approved then funding will start. And once this law passes do you have any idea how difficult it will be to get it overturned? Ohio, Wisconsin, Florida, and other states that have approved smaller versions of this system (some more than 10 years ago) are to this day trying to get rid of them!! Small towns in Ohio can't even afford to pay local public works employees because vouchers backfired, didn't fix their problem and they can't stop paying the school vouchers. Look at the idiots on the hill that voted for these stupid things, they were backed by the UEA and surprised them by pushing this through. Why would legislators go against the biggest union in the state? Because they have MAJOR MONEY getting shoved in their pockets to push vouchers through. This state is overwhelmingly Republican. At best 50% are against vouchers, so why do our ELECTED leaders vote against what we want?!? Because they are getting rich off these vouchers by major businesses from OUTSIDE UTAH!! So when you see the commercial saying the NEA is deciding education in our state, know that more $$$ is going to support vouchers.

Steve Jarvis | 6:41 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007

James,

You have missed my point. Vouchers are using tax money up--3K per child. That means with each child 3K that was used for other things is gone. More of my taxes will be used to subsidize Private education is an accurate statement. That leaves a shortfall for other public works like roads, police, etc. I never said they would raise my taxes. Vouchers are an additional cost that we are not paying for now.

You and your buddies tout that all that money not used because the child left stays in the Public schools with each voucher used. Now you say the opposite. Each Voucher costs less. It can't be both.

I have also touted Charter schools for more than two years. The difference between Charter and Private is a gapping one--accountability. Charters being public accept EVERYONE equally, follow all the same laws that govern Public schools.

Charters get State funding less than the vouchers. $2,500 per child unless that changed while I was asleep. I know more about Charters than the average Joe.

tongue and Cheek | 7:22 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007

Anonymous,

THAT is crazy talk. First of all Benson was an educator. I wouldn't be surprised if he was part of the union either. He may have even been a Democrat or voted for one.

I have a solution for you if paying all your taxes for education hurts that much. MOVE!

And why are you casting the burden of educating your kids on others feet. You could always home-school instead of sending them to a Public one. If your rant was for vouchers, don't be asking me to be burdened to send your kids on my dime there. What will I have to do next for you? Pick your kid up and make him a PJ sandwich for lunch?

Comparative Analysis | 8:23 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007

In providing my comparisons, I have provided evidence from peer-reviewed articles and items published by major think tanks in the nation. The response has been a little disturbing. Rather than providing substantive responses, there has been mudslinging. Rather than providing concise examples, there has been "do your research/homework." Once that was provided (again from peer-reviewed articles and items published by major national think tanks), the response was a comment by Mark Twain (who was quoting Disraeli).

My whole point here has always been: LEARN FROM OTHERS! What works, what does not? Create policy based on what works and what does not.

Lessons from Milwaukee:
ï¿½Public schools have increased in quality due to private school competition
ï¿½Philanthropic donors from the private sector do give to private education (not all funding to private schools is from the taxpayers)
ï¿½There needs to be fiscal accountability to ensure money is used appropriately (something Milwaukee failed to do previoussly, but is doing vigorously now)

Lessons from Utah's education unions:
ï¿½We fight No Child Left Behind because it creates standards we do not agree to
ï¿½We fight school vouchers because it fails to provide standards.

So which one is it? Standards or no?

Cleopatra | 2:25 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007

For all of those who keep with the same rhetoric that "vouchers only help the wealthy" you should actually read the Referendum and research the program before regurgitating the same old crap. It proves that you are not only uneducated but ignorant. It is plain as the nose on your face that the lower and middle income families in Utah will benefit from the educational vouchers. Lower income families receive 3000.00 per student. High income receive 500.00. Do your math people! LOWER INCOME BENEFIT FROM VOUCHERS!!!!

Mark Antony | 2:48 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007

Considering that the Voucher does not cover the cost of tuition at nearly all the Private schools Cleopatra, low income people won't be able to use them.

Then consider how unethical it would be to give one child the 'quality' education and sacrifice the other four if you could put together two-grand to pay the difference and for uniforms and materials.

Re: "Comparative Analysis" | 10:13 a.m. Sept. 30, 2007

Teachers don't fight No Child Left Behind because we disagree with their standards of education. I want to teach my students to the best of my ability so that they leave prepared to go on to the next grade prepared to build upon what I taught them. I don't understand this hatred that people have for teachers. It's like you think teachers in public schools just want to sit on their chairs all day. Teachers that I know want to improve their skill so that they teach more efficiently and affectively. Going back to your comment that we fight N.C.L.B. because we don't like the standards, we fight it because Pres. Bush promised funding to go along with that stupid law. But all we got were the testing standards and no funding to help with lowering class sizes. I don't care what anyone sais, classes of 20 learn more and better than classes of 40. The other problem with the law is testing. What about all those kids that don't test well? The ones with single parents that work two jobs and can't come home and help the student do their homework? Their scores of course will be lower.

1time | 12:15 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

So, once the voucher program is up and running, net cost is $43-60 million per year! How is this a cost savings? PLEASE read the information. Become informed. The current voucher proposal is NOT what it's touted to be by some legislators.

DJ | 12:15 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

The problem I'm seeing with many comments is public eduation has been termed a "product" in a "free-market" system. The original purpose of public education was to create an educated populace--providing for the poor and challenged in our society an equal opportunity for an education. When we look at education as a "product" that can be changed through competition, then what we are saying is that those providing the "product" can compete in a free market system. Public education takes ALL children. Not all children cost the same to education. Special education, severe-diabled, English language learners all cost more to educate than your average or above average student. When we talk about an average of $6500 per student, it's obvious that there are those who cost $2500 and those who cost $10,000. Which ones leave for private schools? Private schools have the ability to "choose" their "raw material". That is NOT a level playing field.
As a society we pay taxes sometimes for the good of the whole. Your share of taxes is not YOURS to use as you see fit.

Anonymous | 12:15 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

If you find people who all they want is a bill that "isn't perfect, but it's a start", then you all will probably get what you deserve. (Boy, you almost sold me with that endorsement). I don't see it as a cornerstone for an "educational renaissance". Check out the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, read some Willard Dagget, Alfie Kohn and other experts in educational reform and let's get something going that helps kids in the classrooms and doesn't dump more government $$$ into corporate America and their "educational consultants". You sound like a lightbulb maker afraid of the sunshine. (I know, it sounds as stupid as your metaphor).

CR | 12:16 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

What the UEA fears is the undermining of children and their educational needs. [I]Your bosses paying for you to post all day on these boards[/I] want our tax money to go into their private ventures without the least thought of accountability. When parents pull their child and put them into Private, those same parents may forget to check up on their child's progress. They may fall behind and that child is put into crises.

driver | 12:16 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

I know people who make good money who CHOOSE to drive a Lexus and others who aren't doing as well that CHOOSE not to own a car.

Public education is about educating the public. People make good CHOICES, and poor CHOICES. People who want the Lexus of education are free to pay for it.

Anonymous | 12:16 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

One thing that gets my Ire up by all the paid posters on here is that they use so much misinformation. M for instance claims she makes too much to get a voucher. That is a dead-on indictment that she is a paid out-of-state board poster. I think most citizens are quite tired of the debate and just want to vote it off the media one way or another by now. We are educated on at least the basics of the bill and the amended one.

Anonymous | 12:16 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

I have been hitting heads for months with "real" Utahns over this issue. They kept to facts, used the same core of 'valid' arguments and I the counters, and provided a lively debate. I am not seeing that with a great deal of these posts. Where are the real Utah Voucher Supporters?? Bring back the real ones who know the facts about Utah!!!

noyv | 12:17 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

Since I don't have TV watching time (and those owls moved the antennae making PBS my exclusive 'choice'), can anyone give me a rough estimate of how many commercials during an hour of viewing time are Pro and how many Anti Voucher ones are on? I am curious because of all the hype that the 'NEA' and its minions are pumping the most money into the campaign.

tbh7 | 12:18 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

Research of Chile's voucher through the eyes of a Stanford economist shows little, if any, benefit.

Anonymous | 12:18 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

If we are going to send public money to private schools let's introduce some REAL choices and competition to education.

mkl | 12:18 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

If private schools can choose their studentbody then shouldn't public schools be able to CHOOSE the same selection methods?

long | 12:19 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

If private schools can choose to have parents sign a waiver and have their student not receive extremely expensive Special Education services shouldn't public schools be able to offer the same CHOICE?

Anonymous | 12:19 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

If private schools can choose not to provide costly special services (ESL, bilingual, counseling, lock down, remedial, behavioral, etc.) then why shouldn't the public schools be able to CHOOSE likewise?

more | 12:19 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

If private schools can choose to sidestep NCLB, UPASS, and other unfunded government education mandates then why can't the public schools be able to make a similar CHOICE?

her | 12:20 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

The money would be coming from the same funding source so shouldn't the "choices" for private and public schools be the same?

And as far as the UEA/NEA goes--isn't it a TEACHERS union funded by teacher dues? Does the pilots union look out for anyone except themselves? I don't remember the pilot being very helpful the last time I was bumped from my flight.

teacher | 12:20 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

Choice?:

Parents are allowed in public education to sign a waiver to not have their children receive Special Education services.

Anonymous | 12:20 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

The education union would do anything to avoid competition with the vouchers. They fall all over themselves with charters and they predictably do the same with vouchers. The teachers union, like the auto union, will drive things to ruin for power, influence and money. Never trust these big unions. They are not for kids, they are for union first! Vouchers, like charters, will force teachers and administrators to perform better. While I can't vote for vouchers, I can only hope that Utahns will see the benefits, vote yes to vouchers, and take control of your schools. Remember parents, you are not stupid. Teachers and principals don't know what's best for your kids. You do.

Educator | 12:21 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

In the Public School, parents often waive special education testing, meaning their child cannot receive assistance beyond what the general student population receives, not waiving services once the child has established a right to it. Parents do this because they often feel a label on their child will either effect themselves or their child negatively. We had two children at the school I worked at two years ago whose children needed testing. The parent withdrew her children when approached with our data that their children needed help. Fortunately, not all parents wish to hide their children and welcome additional assistance.

Anonymous | 12:22 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

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.

Anonymous | 12:21 p.m. Sept. 30, 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).

Right or left | 12:22 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

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 ...

jKl | 12:23 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

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?

Anonymous | 12:24 p.m. Sept. 30, 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 ??.

Anonymous | 12:24 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

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.

Anonymous | 12:24 p.m. Sept. 30, 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.

kal | 12:25 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

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.

brown | 12:25 p.m. Sept. 30, 2007

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!!!

Anonymous | 12:25 p.m. Sept. 30, 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.

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.