Reader comments
Bob Bernick Jr.: Vouchers or not, families will be fine
30 comments | Read story
Earlyriser | 4:46 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007
The point about Republicans screaming about a government social program giving
$6,000 to a family making $150,000 is interesting. Making such a point assumes
that the money is the government's (that all money is the
government's). That is, in my opinion, a pretty arrogant assumption. In
my view what is really happening is the government is saying, "If you will
take your kids out of our classroom we will give you SOME of the money back we
have taken from you."
Craig Johnson | 6:47 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Interesting commentary. So what about that family of 8 who makes $150,000 that
never intended to go to public schools in the first place? Right now,
we're paying $0 for that family because they exercised their choice to go
somewhere else.
But with this voucher bill we'll be paying out for them, too, as all private school students are phased in. The cost of paying vouchers to those who would have gone to private school anyway far exceeds the savings attributed to the switchers.
The impartial analysis points to this fact. In year 13, for instance, we'll be paying out $71 million dollars but only saving at most $28 million.
Over the first 13 years of the program we're looking at a NET COST to the taxpayer of 260 million dollars.
This the same legislature who couldn't find 2 million dollars to help blind, elderly, and disabled folks get preventative healthcare.
This is the truth that Parents for Choice in Education doesn't want you to hear. This bill saves nothing - it costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
But with this voucher bill we'll be paying out for them, too, as all private school students are phased in. The cost of paying vouchers to those who would have gone to private school anyway far exceeds the savings attributed to the switchers.
The impartial analysis points to this fact. In year 13, for instance, we'll be paying out $71 million dollars but only saving at most $28 million.
Over the first 13 years of the program we're looking at a NET COST to the taxpayer of 260 million dollars.
This the same legislature who couldn't find 2 million dollars to help blind, elderly, and disabled folks get preventative healthcare.
This is the truth that Parents for Choice in Education doesn't want you to hear. This bill saves nothing - it costs hundreds of millions of dollars.
Instereo | 8:22 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007
I think both sides of the voucher debate have researched their core support
group for the words that will send their message most effectively to their
supporters. I've noticed that the pro-voucher side seems to use fear as a
prime motivating message while the anit-voucher side uses more hope and faith in
the present system to state their point. I think it's sad that we have to
use fear of a public education system to justify our points. I look at
what's happened since our country has taken it upon itself to educate all
citizens in a public education setting and all I can see is how were are the
greatest, most open country in the world. I also see that where there are
problems in public schools, you have people working to solve them within the
system. In otherwords I see faith in ourselves. I know I'm going to vote NO
on referendum 1 because I believe in public schools and in families who have
faith in their own abilities to raise good children within the system.
Comments continue below
Tax Cut | 9:23 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007
How about a tax cut instead? If the state government has that much extra money
floating around, we're being overtaxed. Then individuals can pay for
private schools if they choose to. A tax cut is real choice.
Slacker 7 | 9:49 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Interesting and informative column. I'll be voting NO on the initiative,
too. One thing Bob failed to mention is that, due to Utah's income tax
laws, a family with 8 kids probably isn't paying any income tax. So by
using vouchers they would be leaching money out of the system.
Bill Keshlear | 10:05 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Vouchers or not, families will be fine. I am not as confident.
The Nov. 6 special election will have costly and possibly far-reaching consequences. It is not for nothing so much money is being poured into campaigns for and against.
I know it seems far-fetched but as far as I can tell the so-called nationwide "school-choice" wants to kill America's K-12 public school system and privatize it. Vouchers represent a more or less politically acceptable first step toward that long-range, radical goal � or at least that�s what their leaders have said.
Just before the Supreme Court in 2002 upheld an Ohio voucher program, Joseph Bast, president of the pro-voucher, global-warming disbelieving, uber-conservative Heartland Institute, wrote that he considered voucher programs to be springboards to the long-range goal of privatization. "Soon, most government schools will be converted into private schools or simply close their doors. Eventually, middle- and upper-income families will no longer expect or need tax-financed assistance to pay for the education of their children, leading to further steps toward complete privatization."
As of March 2007, eight Utah lawmakers sat on Heartland's �Board of Legislative Advisors�, including Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble.
The Nov. 6 special election will have costly and possibly far-reaching consequences. It is not for nothing so much money is being poured into campaigns for and against.
I know it seems far-fetched but as far as I can tell the so-called nationwide "school-choice" wants to kill America's K-12 public school system and privatize it. Vouchers represent a more or less politically acceptable first step toward that long-range, radical goal � or at least that�s what their leaders have said.
Just before the Supreme Court in 2002 upheld an Ohio voucher program, Joseph Bast, president of the pro-voucher, global-warming disbelieving, uber-conservative Heartland Institute, wrote that he considered voucher programs to be springboards to the long-range goal of privatization. "Soon, most government schools will be converted into private schools or simply close their doors. Eventually, middle- and upper-income families will no longer expect or need tax-financed assistance to pay for the education of their children, leading to further steps toward complete privatization."
As of March 2007, eight Utah lawmakers sat on Heartland's �Board of Legislative Advisors�, including Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble.
Bill Keshlear | 10:21 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Vouchers or not, families will be fine. I am not as confident.
The Nov. 6 special election will have costly, possibly far-reaching consequences. That�s why so much money is being poured into campaigns for and against.
It seems far-fetched the so-called nationwide "school-choice" movement wants to kill America's K-12 public school system and privatize it. Utah�s expansive program and others already in place in other states represent a more or less politically acceptable first step toward that long-range goal � or at least that�s what their leaders have said.
Just before the Supreme Court in 2002 upheld an Ohio voucher program, Joseph Bast, president of the pro-voucher, global-warming disbelieving, uber-conservative Heartland Institute, wrote that he considered voucher programs to be springboards to the long-range goal of privatization. "Soon, most government schools will be converted into private schools or simply close their doors. Eventually, middle- and upper-income families will no longer expect or need tax-financed assistance to pay for the education of their children, leading to further steps toward complete privatization."
As of March 2007, eight Utah lawmakers sat on Heartland's �Board of Legislative Advisors�, including Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble.
The Nov. 6 special election will have costly, possibly far-reaching consequences. That�s why so much money is being poured into campaigns for and against.
It seems far-fetched the so-called nationwide "school-choice" movement wants to kill America's K-12 public school system and privatize it. Utah�s expansive program and others already in place in other states represent a more or less politically acceptable first step toward that long-range goal � or at least that�s what their leaders have said.
Just before the Supreme Court in 2002 upheld an Ohio voucher program, Joseph Bast, president of the pro-voucher, global-warming disbelieving, uber-conservative Heartland Institute, wrote that he considered voucher programs to be springboards to the long-range goal of privatization. "Soon, most government schools will be converted into private schools or simply close their doors. Eventually, middle- and upper-income families will no longer expect or need tax-financed assistance to pay for the education of their children, leading to further steps toward complete privatization."
As of March 2007, eight Utah lawmakers sat on Heartland's �Board of Legislative Advisors�, including Utah Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble.
Lew Jeppson | 11:20 a.m. Sept. 28, 2007
I see vouchers as a way of providing competition to the public education
establishment. Unfortunately the pro-voucher media campaign in Utah is an
example of retrograde Utah conservatism. Vouchers have "had it" in
Utah. Congratualtions Sutherland.
Anonymous | 12:41 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Vouchers have ALWAYS been a national issue. Mr. Bernick, for you to pretend that
East coast liberals and the ACLU aren't betting on this fight in Utah is
incredibly naive, dishonest or intellectually bankrupt. They have a long track
record of supporting the defeat of vouchers in state after state. They only lay
low this time around because they know their names carry too much baggage for
Utah.
Mr. Bernick, your bias is showing... or is that just your ignorance?
Mr. Bernick, your bias is showing... or is that just your ignorance?
No and No | 1:10 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
I won't vote on this at all. The people who send their kids to private
schools can afford it. They want to pull money from the public schools, which
they have paid through taxation. Tough luck. I'm retired and must pay
property taxes for public schools too, without having a say about it.
What's good for the goose.....
RangerGordon | 1:22 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Private schools already compete with public schools for students. Propping up
bad private schools with taxpayer dollars won't make them any more
competitive.
The idea that the school-choice movement and neocons in general are bent on doing away completely with public education is not so very far-fetched. Read what Grover Norquist has to say on the subject.
The idea that the school-choice movement and neocons in general are bent on doing away completely with public education is not so very far-fetched. Read what Grover Norquist has to say on the subject.
James | 1:48 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Craig, bad logic. We are paying nothing for their education? You are paying
nothing. That family is paying taxes on $150k a year after write offs.
And for your scenario to work then the 8 children must all be 4 years old or younger because those already in the system are not eligibile for the voucher.
And what about this family. They get to pay taxes on $150k, they have 8 children under the age of 4 and they should get bent, right. They get to pay for your kids to go to the local Union school then they should get to pay again for their own kids to go to a private school.
Is this just class warfare? All people perceived as rich are the enemy? Anyone who steps out of line must be pounded back into line? We must all pay for others values and principles in education but holy cow if we think people should be able to choose their own values and principles in education.
Free agency works.
And for your scenario to work then the 8 children must all be 4 years old or younger because those already in the system are not eligibile for the voucher.
And what about this family. They get to pay taxes on $150k, they have 8 children under the age of 4 and they should get bent, right. They get to pay for your kids to go to the local Union school then they should get to pay again for their own kids to go to a private school.
Is this just class warfare? All people perceived as rich are the enemy? Anyone who steps out of line must be pounded back into line? We must all pay for others values and principles in education but holy cow if we think people should be able to choose their own values and principles in education.
Free agency works.
jackhp | 2:45 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Slacker 7,
It all depends on how much income they have. They definitely won't pay as much in taxes as someone with the same income and no kids, but there seems to be a bit of a misconception about the tax breaks for having kids in Utah. Each kid is worth another personal income exemption, not an actual tax credit. Each personal exemption is for about $2500. Therefore, under the new 5% flat tax, each child is worth about $125 in actual income tax reduction.
That being said, if we use Mr. Bernick's example of the family of 8 (6 kids) making $150000, reduce their taxable income by $20000 for personal exemptions and maybe another $15000 for charitable giving (that's 10% for anyone who's curious ;) ) that leaves a taxable income of $115000 and a tax of $5750. If this family receives $6000 in private tuition vouchers, then they have effectively become a net drain on tax resources.
What ever happened to public education being a burden we ALL should share?
The current voucher law is horrible public policy. I am defnitely voting NO on Referendum One.
It all depends on how much income they have. They definitely won't pay as much in taxes as someone with the same income and no kids, but there seems to be a bit of a misconception about the tax breaks for having kids in Utah. Each kid is worth another personal income exemption, not an actual tax credit. Each personal exemption is for about $2500. Therefore, under the new 5% flat tax, each child is worth about $125 in actual income tax reduction.
That being said, if we use Mr. Bernick's example of the family of 8 (6 kids) making $150000, reduce their taxable income by $20000 for personal exemptions and maybe another $15000 for charitable giving (that's 10% for anyone who's curious ;) ) that leaves a taxable income of $115000 and a tax of $5750. If this family receives $6000 in private tuition vouchers, then they have effectively become a net drain on tax resources.
What ever happened to public education being a burden we ALL should share?
The current voucher law is horrible public policy. I am defnitely voting NO on Referendum One.
Craig Johnson | 3:41 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
James,
You are simply ignoring the facts. A family of 8 (6 children, not 8 as you say) making $150K would be a net loss to taxpayers under the voucher scheme.
"Union schools" and "class warfare" are simply diversion tactics that have nothing to do with the bill. It's sad someone like you would be spouting out such useless rhetoric. You only bring up such things because the bill can't stand on its own. The Republicans I speak to are embarrassed by such disreputable tactics.
The bill will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and gives taxpayers no accountability for the results. Google "Florida voucher fraud" and see what I mean.
This is the worst school-choice bill in the history of the United States. It costs a fortune, does not hold private school businesses accountable to the taxpayers, and does nothing to improve the public schools where 96% of our children attend.
You are simply ignoring the facts. A family of 8 (6 children, not 8 as you say) making $150K would be a net loss to taxpayers under the voucher scheme.
"Union schools" and "class warfare" are simply diversion tactics that have nothing to do with the bill. It's sad someone like you would be spouting out such useless rhetoric. You only bring up such things because the bill can't stand on its own. The Republicans I speak to are embarrassed by such disreputable tactics.
The bill will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and gives taxpayers no accountability for the results. Google "Florida voucher fraud" and see what I mean.
This is the worst school-choice bill in the history of the United States. It costs a fortune, does not hold private school businesses accountable to the taxpayers, and does nothing to improve the public schools where 96% of our children attend.
Jake R | 4:09 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Vouchers? We don't need no stinking vouchers!
Jason Bourne | 4:11 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Voucher foes, led by State School Board Chair, Kim Burningham, continue to try
to play the accountibility card on the voucher issue:
The radio ad, titled �Troubling,� focuses on accountability concerns regarding private voucher schools that receive public funds�no accountability for tax dollars.
While this is an old argument, it is �troubling�. It inherently indicates that parents (the voucher recipients) are incapable of making the right choice for their children. It indicates that government bureaucrats, not parents, know what is best.
The radio ad, titled �Troubling,� focuses on accountability concerns regarding private voucher schools that receive public funds�no accountability for tax dollars.
While this is an old argument, it is �troubling�. It inherently indicates that parents (the voucher recipients) are incapable of making the right choice for their children. It indicates that government bureaucrats, not parents, know what is best.
Jason Bourne | 4:13 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Parents have full control of the vouchers. First, you need not get a voucher if
your public school is doing a good job (most of us). However, we all know of
children that have difficulties learning in our �one size
fits all� system. If your son or daughter is struggling in
a public school, you may opt for a voucher to help pay for a private school that
better fits your child�s method of learning. Should a
private school be inadequate, your money and the voucher walk (talk about
instant accountability).
Jason Bourne | 4:15 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Further, parents using vouchers will typically be more involved and heavily
scrutinize the school their child is attending. Remember, a voucher will often
not pay the full tuition at the private school. That means parents will be
opting for additional out of pocket costs rather than the already paid for
public school.
I fully believe that parents will do what is best for their children. Public schools will serve most, but not all, of us and our children well (myself included here). However, we all know of neighbors/friends/family with children who need a more challenging environment, who require more discipline or individual attention, who are in a bad learning environment or on the verge of dropping out, or where other factors hinder their educational progression in a system designed to serve �most�.
While opting and paying for a private school to allow their child to excel may not be problem for the rich, it is for others. That is where to vouchers come in. Private schools will be within reach of those willing to make the financial sacrifice to ensure that their child can meet their full potential.
I fully believe that parents will do what is best for their children. Public schools will serve most, but not all, of us and our children well (myself included here). However, we all know of neighbors/friends/family with children who need a more challenging environment, who require more discipline or individual attention, who are in a bad learning environment or on the verge of dropping out, or where other factors hinder their educational progression in a system designed to serve �most�.
While opting and paying for a private school to allow their child to excel may not be problem for the rich, it is for others. That is where to vouchers come in. Private schools will be within reach of those willing to make the financial sacrifice to ensure that their child can meet their full potential.
James | 4:19 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Explaining basic free market economics is a tough sale. It is far easier to
allow government to raise one from cradle to grave.
And a family of 8, 6 kids or 8 kids makes little difference - paying taxes on $150k - apparently that is your tax money.
So it is fair for them to pay for your kids education then turn around and pay for their own children a second time?
The Union education community absolutely believes that all money in the state of Utah belongs to them. Let him put his kids into the system and it will cost roughly $45,000. So he takes his $6,000, leaves the remaining $39,000 in the system and the system loses money? Union book keeping again.
This is the exact same logic of when Democrats talk about giving a 7% raise to education, the Republicans in the end giving a 6% raise and then Republicans are evil because they cut education by 1%. Rerfusing to admit that funding increased by 6%. How many times have I heard this one.
Amazing!
This bill completely stands on its own, my faults aside. And the few GOP embarrassed by this debate; Sheryl Allen?
And a family of 8, 6 kids or 8 kids makes little difference - paying taxes on $150k - apparently that is your tax money.
So it is fair for them to pay for your kids education then turn around and pay for their own children a second time?
The Union education community absolutely believes that all money in the state of Utah belongs to them. Let him put his kids into the system and it will cost roughly $45,000. So he takes his $6,000, leaves the remaining $39,000 in the system and the system loses money? Union book keeping again.
This is the exact same logic of when Democrats talk about giving a 7% raise to education, the Republicans in the end giving a 6% raise and then Republicans are evil because they cut education by 1%. Rerfusing to admit that funding increased by 6%. How many times have I heard this one.
Amazing!
This bill completely stands on its own, my faults aside. And the few GOP embarrassed by this debate; Sheryl Allen?
Mark Towner | 5:34 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Bob, You are right. The families will survive, life will go on, and nothing will
change. This is exactly what the NEA / UEA want, no change, except of course
give us more more more money and we will fix things.
If the PPE were 10,000 what would change exactly?
Mark Towner
If the PPE were 10,000 what would change exactly?
Mark Towner
Charles H | 5:38 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Accountability?
I'd love to see some in a government schools.
When 25% of HS seniors fail basic competency tests after four attempts, who gets fired? Who is demoted? Which schools are closed? Which extra-curricular activities are canceled so the kids can spend more time on academics? How about when 20% of our schools fail to make standards? Complain that the standards are not fair?
When Jordan SD illegally closes a public meeting and the AG has to threaten court action just to review the meeting minutes who is held accountable?
When a teacher abuses a child in a government school, can the parents sue? Or is the school protected under sovereign immunity?
I can assure you, if ANY of this nonsense went on in the private school we use, it would be out of business in a heartbeat.
Accountability? Not in government/union schools.
I'd love to see some in a government schools.
When 25% of HS seniors fail basic competency tests after four attempts, who gets fired? Who is demoted? Which schools are closed? Which extra-curricular activities are canceled so the kids can spend more time on academics? How about when 20% of our schools fail to make standards? Complain that the standards are not fair?
When Jordan SD illegally closes a public meeting and the AG has to threaten court action just to review the meeting minutes who is held accountable?
When a teacher abuses a child in a government school, can the parents sue? Or is the school protected under sovereign immunity?
I can assure you, if ANY of this nonsense went on in the private school we use, it would be out of business in a heartbeat.
Accountability? Not in government/union schools.
Craig | 6:06 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
James,
Bashing unions and liberals is just debate strategy? Amazing, indeed.
You again put words in my mouth. Your hatred of unions is clouding your judgment. You ignore the fact that the very free-market you cherish allows those participating in it to organize and insist on basic rights. Even still, Utah ranks 48th out of 50 in teacher pay. This is in spite of our red-hot economy and our maddening class sizes. Year after year, our legislature asks teachers to do more with less and somehow that is the "union's" fault.
But all of that really is beside the point. Union haters like you are simply trying to divert attention away from a bad bill that pays out hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds without establishing even the most basic minimum standards for those private voucher schools receiving the windfall.
We shouldn't have to pay for private voucher schools without insisting on taxpayer accountability. Such a scenario guarantees greed, fraud, waste, and abuse (e.g., Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin).
Yes, switchers do cost less. But paying for those who never intended to go to public school far outweights any savings from the switchers. The impartial analysis makes this crystal clear.
Bashing unions and liberals is just debate strategy? Amazing, indeed.
You again put words in my mouth. Your hatred of unions is clouding your judgment. You ignore the fact that the very free-market you cherish allows those participating in it to organize and insist on basic rights. Even still, Utah ranks 48th out of 50 in teacher pay. This is in spite of our red-hot economy and our maddening class sizes. Year after year, our legislature asks teachers to do more with less and somehow that is the "union's" fault.
But all of that really is beside the point. Union haters like you are simply trying to divert attention away from a bad bill that pays out hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer funds without establishing even the most basic minimum standards for those private voucher schools receiving the windfall.
We shouldn't have to pay for private voucher schools without insisting on taxpayer accountability. Such a scenario guarantees greed, fraud, waste, and abuse (e.g., Florida, Ohio, Wisconsin).
Yes, switchers do cost less. But paying for those who never intended to go to public school far outweights any savings from the switchers. The impartial analysis makes this crystal clear.
Mark Towner | 7:29 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Bob, You are right. The families will survive, life will go on, and nothing will
change. This is exactly what the NEA / UEA want, no change, except of course
give us more more more money and we will fix things.
If the PPE were 10,000 what would change exactly?
Mark Towner
If the PPE were 10,000 what would change exactly?
Mark Towner
l | 7:37 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
I'll be voting for vouchers. My kids are currently in public schools, and
I don't necessarily plan on switching them, but I like the option. The
other thing is that by implementing vouchers, more money will be spent on our
children's education than is currently being spent. Isn't that a good
thing?
Overall, it appears that the anti-voucher people are lying about the proposed voucher program a lot more than the pro-voucher people.
A downside to vouchers passing, though, is the anti-voucher people will probably file more lawsuits. Although I suppose either way it turns out that's bound to happen.
Overall, it appears that the anti-voucher people are lying about the proposed voucher program a lot more than the pro-voucher people.
A downside to vouchers passing, though, is the anti-voucher people will probably file more lawsuits. Although I suppose either way it turns out that's bound to happen.
James | 8:37 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
Craig, intent is all in your head. Prove intent. That is something that judges,
attorneys, jurors, etc spend weeks and hundreds of hours trying to do.
So you are in love with the Union. That is a clear difference. And with that is the notion that my child is a pawn in their games for power, education definitely aside. When it comes to the Union and education you are either completely ignorant of the games or shamefully covering up. The single greatest obstacle to any education reform in the nation has been the Union.
Answer the issue about fairness. Is it fair that someone must pay for both your child�s education and then pay a second time for their own? And the moment you say yes, does it fit "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Does that not fit perfectly into your class warfare lingo? No? My mistake.
And for those who think education in Utah is so wonderful, what percentage of Utah students enroll in our colleges and universities and the first courses they take are remediation? The number is staggering! And this from the crowd that is college bound.
Oh the Union!
So you are in love with the Union. That is a clear difference. And with that is the notion that my child is a pawn in their games for power, education definitely aside. When it comes to the Union and education you are either completely ignorant of the games or shamefully covering up. The single greatest obstacle to any education reform in the nation has been the Union.
Answer the issue about fairness. Is it fair that someone must pay for both your child�s education and then pay a second time for their own? And the moment you say yes, does it fit "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Does that not fit perfectly into your class warfare lingo? No? My mistake.
And for those who think education in Utah is so wonderful, what percentage of Utah students enroll in our colleges and universities and the first courses they take are remediation? The number is staggering! And this from the crowd that is college bound.
Oh the Union!
Craig | 11:43 p.m. Sept. 28, 2007
James,
Your extreme positions do not imply that I hold extreme inverse positions. To suggest such is a fallacy. Also to be rejected is your false dilemma of ignorance or cover-up. You generate a lot of heat but shed little light.
Your anti-union, anti-public school rants and class warfare red herrings are irrelevant to a discussion of the actual bill.
What is clear is that you are ignoring the facts that this bill will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and that private voucher schools are not held accountable to the taxpayers for the money they receive. These are fatal flaws that no amount of ideological white-washing or wishful thinking is going to fix. The pro-voucher, anti-government lobby have bet the farm on this bill so I can understand their desperation in wanting it to pass. But it is going to lose by a wide margin because the bill itself is broken and voters are smart enough to see through the rhetoric.
Your extreme positions do not imply that I hold extreme inverse positions. To suggest such is a fallacy. Also to be rejected is your false dilemma of ignorance or cover-up. You generate a lot of heat but shed little light.
Your anti-union, anti-public school rants and class warfare red herrings are irrelevant to a discussion of the actual bill.
What is clear is that you are ignoring the facts that this bill will cost hundreds of millions of dollars and that private voucher schools are not held accountable to the taxpayers for the money they receive. These are fatal flaws that no amount of ideological white-washing or wishful thinking is going to fix. The pro-voucher, anti-government lobby have bet the farm on this bill so I can understand their desperation in wanting it to pass. But it is going to lose by a wide margin because the bill itself is broken and voters are smart enough to see through the rhetoric.
James | 12:29 a.m. Sept. 29, 2007
Craig, your arrogance is breath taking. You hold some great esteem of thought
yet refuse to answer a simple question about fairness. Who is whitewashing?
Your positions are very extreme. They insist on simple socialist principles without the least amount of redress. In laymans terms, let's keep doing what we are doing, and insist on a different result. That is actually a pretty solid definition of insanity.
Since you have such a love for the Unions, have you Unionized the charter school you participate in? And why the double standard? Could it be because you recognize that with a voucher you stand to lose far more students then the neighborhood Union schools will. You compete against Union schools with advantages. Along comes a different form of competition and you are smart enough to recognize you may not come out on top. So keep your own advantage, shut down others.
Tsk, tsk. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
My anti-everything to include gross ingnorance aside, please respond to the fairness. Is it fair that someone be forced to first pay for your system, then if they can afford it, pay for their own second?
Your positions are very extreme. They insist on simple socialist principles without the least amount of redress. In laymans terms, let's keep doing what we are doing, and insist on a different result. That is actually a pretty solid definition of insanity.
Since you have such a love for the Unions, have you Unionized the charter school you participate in? And why the double standard? Could it be because you recognize that with a voucher you stand to lose far more students then the neighborhood Union schools will. You compete against Union schools with advantages. Along comes a different form of competition and you are smart enough to recognize you may not come out on top. So keep your own advantage, shut down others.
Tsk, tsk. Good for the goose, good for the gander.
My anti-everything to include gross ingnorance aside, please respond to the fairness. Is it fair that someone be forced to first pay for your system, then if they can afford it, pay for their own second?
James | 12:39 a.m. Sept. 29, 2007
Oh and Craig, there are concepts at play here. The whole issue of
accountability. Do not lecture me on how wonderfully accountable the public
school system is to anything. Certainly we have laws but did that stop Nebo
School District from one year having an oops and the entire Districts test
scores went up in smoke. Literally the dog ate them, I mean the janitor happened
to burn them. Countless HUNDREDS of millions of dollars that magically disappear
when audit time comes. No one is driving a Ferrari but certainly no one can
account for where class size reduction money, text book money, technology money,
etc went. State audits.
And the stories that could be told about some accountability issues in charter schools, they get uncomfortable as well.
Could it be that the singlest greatest form of accountability we could create is one of openness? Open the system wide up. Let students go where ever they want, within Constitutional parameters. Publish ALL test scores in a timely manner. Perform an audit so people can see where each penny is spent. Then let the parents decide who is serving the best!
It works. It is called the 21st Century.
And the stories that could be told about some accountability issues in charter schools, they get uncomfortable as well.
Could it be that the singlest greatest form of accountability we could create is one of openness? Open the system wide up. Let students go where ever they want, within Constitutional parameters. Publish ALL test scores in a timely manner. Perform an audit so people can see where each penny is spent. Then let the parents decide who is serving the best!
It works. It is called the 21st Century.
Craig | 7:06 a.m. Sept. 29, 2007
James, if you believe that supporting public schools is an extreme position then
we're going to have a difficult time agreeing on anything.
School choice is important; I simply reject your and anyone else's assertion that I must endorse this bad bill or else be an enemy of school choice. This is the PCE rhetoric that disrespects the wide spectrum of ideas and innovations leading to real solutions and reforms.
And I do find the constant union taunting to be both unfair and irrelevant.
The "paying twice" argument is the classic appeal to self-interest. I don't buy into the argument because attending public schools is not a consumption tax. To make such an argument valid would entail allowing anyone and everyone who does not want to support public schools to refuse to pay state income tax since it is constitutionally appropriated to public education. I'm not an attorney but I imagine equal protection disputes if you allow just the parents of schoolchildren to refuse to pay state income tax while requiring it of everyone else. It's a reverse earmark. Should we, by your same logic, not pay sales tax on bottled water because we're opting out of government socialist water?
School choice is important; I simply reject your and anyone else's assertion that I must endorse this bad bill or else be an enemy of school choice. This is the PCE rhetoric that disrespects the wide spectrum of ideas and innovations leading to real solutions and reforms.
And I do find the constant union taunting to be both unfair and irrelevant.
The "paying twice" argument is the classic appeal to self-interest. I don't buy into the argument because attending public schools is not a consumption tax. To make such an argument valid would entail allowing anyone and everyone who does not want to support public schools to refuse to pay state income tax since it is constitutionally appropriated to public education. I'm not an attorney but I imagine equal protection disputes if you allow just the parents of schoolchildren to refuse to pay state income tax while requiring it of everyone else. It's a reverse earmark. Should we, by your same logic, not pay sales tax on bottled water because we're opting out of government socialist water?
Jackopus | 11:47 a.m. Oct. 15, 2007
Vouchers Equal Segregation
The base of Ultra Mormons don't want thier kids exposed to the real world, thats where this started.
The base of Ultra Mormons don't want thier kids exposed to the real world, thats where this started.
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.
- Laurent's objects to be auctioned 11:26 a.m.
- Rucker up for two CMA awards 11:22 a.m.
- Glamour mag's Women of the Year 11:19 a.m.
- 'Aha' suit against Winfrey settled 11:15 a.m.
- Disney studio executive exits 11:10 a.m.
- Madonna in Brazil 11:09 a.m.
- Chimpanzee attack victim on 'Oprah' 11:08 a.m.
- Stocks fall as dollar slide eases 11:06 a.m.
- Clemency denied for D.C. sniper 11:04 a.m.
- Suspect: Drop Letterman case 11:02 a.m.
- Utah group finds homes for orphans
- Soccer MVPs know how to win
- Senators want food tax restored
- Jazz blow big lead, hang on
- Matheson gets no thanks from GOP
- Alta's Ohai is Ms. Soccer 2009
- Mitchell seeks to block witnesses
- Price injured; Miles has cast removed
- Y. tight ends talented tandem
- Utes get extra motivation
- House passes health care bill
238 - TCU showdown has big implications184
- Lobo suspended182
- Cougars crush hapless Cowboys154
- Utah Jazz fall apart against Kings131
- Senators want food tax restored122
- TCU 4th in AP poll; U. 16th, Y. 22nd118
- Thousands protest health bill118
- RSL rallies to advance103
- No 'backlash' for pioneers, gays analogy102
Advertisement
Latest comments
No Uncanny, you are not the only one who can tell the difference between hugs...
Coming from out of state, I have noticed that going to college is not...
She needs to be suspended for a long time . The coach and the BYU player...
You had your chance at home against TCU and were routed by the faster, more...
My wife quit full-time employment for 10 years to raise our children. This...
To "Annoy a Liberal..... | 8:58 a.m." another way to annoy liberals is to...
Nice to see it worked out.
I do thank all of the workers at TSA world wide for a job well done in...
Quote the news paper "it was as bad as it gets. We're just very very...
'I'm personally tired of having gay rights shoved down my throat.' Then...
Advertisements