Deseret News | 'Tricks' flayed by voucher foes

Reader comments
'Tricks' flayed by voucher foes

105 comments | Read story

Vouchers | 10:40 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Vouchers are good for public schools because it introduces competion into the education system.

It's also good for tax payers because it gives people more choice over how the taxes are spent.

JBean | 10:52 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

You anti-voucher people act like this is about aboloshing public school or something. Sheesh! We are talking about .0025% of the education budget people! This is not anti-public school, this is about helping some who don't get the help they need there.
Most kids do fine in public school, and most will stay in public school. And they will all benefit from extra dollars when some kids leave with a voucher.
It's not a givaway--the rich don't get much out of it. Poor parents care too and will stand to benefit the most. With $3,000 of help, they may gladly make sacrifices to make up the rest and seek the education that will meet their need.

A system that promotes parental choice and a little competition is in everyone's interests. Results, not regulations, matter.
Vote for vouchers.

To: CONCERNED | 10:54 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I am anti-voucher, HOWEVER, you are right. Competition and choice would make our schools better. I struggle with my occupation and my "political-preference" being on different planes. As I have studied this, I really think it would help or even fix education in the long run.

The problem I have is this. When a new Wal-Mart moves into town it does the same thing. Local business has to compete, tighten their belts, and do business differently. This would happen in the public schools, HOWEVER, the belt tightening would be on the backs of the students; especially those in the lowere socioeconomic classes and special education students. There would be a HUGE void in education unitl the leveling worked out. We would pay in social programs for those kids for generations. We have got to find a different way....I agree. but it is not vouchers the way it is set up right now.

Comments continue below

Re: Concerned | 10:57 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

You hit the nail on the head. Anytime you can introduce competition and, thereby, soften the government's stranglehold on any system, you will get a better result. The cream rises to the top, the garbage sinks to the bottom. Why wouldn't we want this for our kids? Ever wonder why there is never enough money for the kids? It's because of the government bureaucracies that have to be established to implement their foolish systems. Get government out of the way and there will be plenty of money to go around AND the best teachers will finally be compensated according to their value and abilities. A system that compensates bad teachers equal to excellent ones just because they know how to work the system is wrong. A system that diverts money away from the kids and into bureaucrats pockets is wrong. Let the free market system work. It's win, win, win for citizens, students, and good teachers. It's lose, lose, lose for the NEA, the bureaucrats, and bad teachers.

Competition and Such | 11:01 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Do not be scared of competition. Competition is what makes our country what it is. The best way to improve in sports, education, business, etc. is by having competition. Competition helps us all strive a little harder to be our best.

Please note that vouchers are not for the rich. No rich person will receive any money, because of the salary limitations for vouchers. Basically if you make more than 85,000 /year household income, forget about getting any money for vouchers. Maybe $500, but for a year of school that is little help, when that is one months tuition at a private school.

Also, any student who is already in private school will not receive any money. Rich people who want their kids in private school, already have them their and they wouldn't receive a dime from the voucher program.

If you don't make very much money, and your kids are not already in private school, and you want to try a different program besides the public school, then the voucher program may be beneficial to you.

Jeans | 11:07 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

All this voucher plan does is allow people who are going to use private schools anyway choose if they are willing to pay for a service they don't use. It's a vehicle for creating an itemized tax for public education. We decided long ago as a society that all of us would pay to support public education. Are we going to change that now? If so, maybe we should escalate the itemized tax idea and pay only for public services we individually use. Chances are, after we do that for a while, medical and scientific research would cease, libraries and schools would close, public parks and protected spaces would close as the burden of supporting those publicly funded programs would fall on the few who pay for them. That money would not be enough to support them.

The question of this voucher vote is essentially this: Do you want an itemized tax system for public education or are you willing to support the education of children in public schools, even if you don't use them?

rightwingredneck | 11:12 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Vouchers are the best idea our legislature ever came up with. It was such a good idea, that they were considerate enough to try and push it through without the people voting on it. Which is a good thing, because I don't know if I could think for myself enough to vote for such a wonderful program. Let's hope that as many parents as are financially able pull their kids out of public school and put them into a private one. I make a lot more money than most people, so that automatically makes my family and I better and more deserving. I can't stand the thought of my children having to rub elbows with the financially disadvantaged, or worse yet, someone with brown skin and an accent!

rightwingredneck | 11:13 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Hopefully, this will bring about the end of Utah public schools. What about those kids who can't afford private school, even with a voucher? They should have thought things through before they went and were born into a poor family. Besides, they'll just be that much easier to keep down with no education! We can then deport all of the illegals, because we'll have their replacements ready in all of those kids who can't get into school.

Personally, I wish we could just euthanize poor people. But hey, someone's gotta cook our food, clean our offices, cut the grass, and build our houses.

rightwingredneck | 11:14 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Hey, while we're at it....I really hate the Postal Service. They have poor service and are totally inefficient. Maybe I should just use FedEx or UPS instead, and have the government subsidize me for it! Sure, I can more than afford it, but why turn down free money? Come to think of it, I have not had the police called on me or anyone in my family, and I've never been pulled over. Where's my cut of that? I mean, I don't use that public service, so I deserve a refund. I've never had a fire in my house, and have never needed to call the fire department. Who knows all of the money I've wasted funding them over the years. Where's my check for that?

Gov't or parents | 11:15 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Who will do a better job in ensuring children are educated: parents or the government?

If you believe the answer is the government, then vote against the vouchers.

If you believe the answer is parents, then vote for the vouchers.

CC | 11:26 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

So, who has changed their minds because of what you have read here on this debate? Make your decision by reading the bill. Both sides are utilizing propaganda to forward their position. Neither side is being completely honest.

Some experience data | 11:31 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Utah seems well behind the curve - many other states have led the way. What does real data say?

One analysis abstract is attached: Public School Benefits of Private School Vouchers.
Author: Rees, Nina Shokraii
Availability:
Journal Citation: Policy Reviewn93 p16-19 Jan-Feb 1999
Publication Date: 1999
Language: English
Document Type: Journal Articles (080); Reports (143)
Abstract: Research findings show public schools benefit from private-school vouchers. Competition is good for learning. When public schools are faced with the possibility of large student transfers and a corresponding loss of funding, the schools make improvements both in how and what they teach. (MMU)
Descriptors: Competition; *Educational Improvement; *Educational Vouchers; *Private School Aid; *Public Schools; *School Choice
Identifiers: New York (Albany); Texas (Houston); Wisconsin (Milwaukee

I love | 11:36 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

The government gives food stamps that we can use at ANY grocery store, not just a government store.

Pell grants are free government money used by college students to help them at any college of their choice - public or private.

This is not a tax refund, but about giving the children the best education at the best school, public or private, that they can find.

Re: rightwingredneck | 11:38 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Fear, fear, fear.

The fear of change is clear in your sarcastic comments. Don't fear change... it is scary to start but then you will see the benefits.

Just give the program a chance! If it doesn't work then cut the funding and it is done.

BTW - FedEx and UPS are excellent examples of private and public services competing AND working together (USPS sends letters in bulk using FedEx - kind of like a subsidy). Just think if the USPS union got their wish to keep FedEx from opening... we'd still have only the regular letter rate and 5 day delivery (remember that?... I do).

re: Gov't or parents | 11:45 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Duh! Of coure it's the govt. Parents just screw up their kids with teaching values, work ethic, fairness, etc.

Reasons why this is a big issue | 11:50 a.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I think one of the things to keep in mind with this is that this is a terribly big issue. It is involving our kids and it is involving chance.

Many argue that the anti-voucher people are all union supporters, blah, blah, blah. Is this really what this issue is about. No, it's about children, and it's about chance.

Are there problems with public schools, absolutely. Are there going to be problems with Vouchers and private education, absolutely.

The new law, as I see it, claims three things "choice for all," "chances for the poor and disadvantaged," and "change in education."

As I see it, the new law addresses one of these three issues: Change in education.

As for the other two:
Does this law offer any chances for the poor and disadvantaged? My take: No, not unless the entire cost of education is covered.
Will there be [new] choices for anyone: My take: No.

The question then becomes: Are the changes that will come about in passing this law for the positive benefit of society or the negative?

I believe that they are for the negative, and for this reason I will vote against vouchers.

fear in redneck's voice | 12:00 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

To: Redneck - (yep, everyone who doesn't agree with you must be a right wing redneck - brilliant)

The fear of change is clear in your sarcastic comments. Don't fear change... it is scary to start with, but then you will see the benefits.

Just give the program a chance! If it doesn't work then cut the funding and it is done.

BTW - FedEx and UPS are excellent examples of private and public services competing AND working together (USPS sends letters in bulk using FedEx - kind of like a subsidy). Just think if the USPS union got their wish to keep FedEx from opening... we'd still have only the regular letter rate and 5 day delivery (remember that?... I do).

Re: Re: rightwingredneck | 12:08 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

If I'm not mistaken, in order to have two day shipping, you have to pay extra... where is the subsidy?

Jason Bourne | 12:10 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

We have a failing public school system which continues to suck down more and more money while delivering less in terms of well educated graduates.

We continue to fall behind the rest of the world in both the quality of our educational output and the quantity.

So the question becomes how competition could be any worse than monopoly? How could allowing the consumer of the education product to choose that which they find to best fill their own childrenï¿½s needs be any worse than the arbitrary standards and needs of the monopoly?

From the side of the political spectrum which claims to be for "choice" this should be an issue for which they are fighting for the choice vouchers bring, not against.

mike | 12:11 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Wow, talk about Pavlov's dogs. Someone mentions vouchers and we all recycle the same arguments everyone has been posting for the past year. The article, if I recall, was about using allegedly disingenuous and dishonest means to promote your cause. Now I don't care if you're pro- or anti- voucher; but this is bad, right? Or does all politics simply come down to whose political ox is being gored?

Charter Schools | 12:13 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

No doubt the UEA fear campaign will brainwash voters that any change is bad...and vouchers will not pass.

As an alternative - try looking at charter schools. They are privately organized (by citizens) and publicly funded. They are not unionized and typically put teachers in one year renewable contracts. The teachers that go there, leaving security of union protection, tend to "get" the whole system and thrive. Classes are small and students typically test well over peers.

The UEA and the school districts don't say it, but they HATE these schools. They'll point out shortcomings of specific schools (yes, there are some bad charter schools) while parents put their kids on waiting lists and have to have lotteries to get their kids in.

More and more are opening and the fear campaigns against them by mainstream educators are becoming ineffective because the proof is in the results. Look into charter schools around your area, they work and don't cost you any more money than the taxes you now pay.

Also - ask the anti-voucher leaders their position on Charter Schools and if their kids attend any... you'd be surprised they do (private schools too!)

Anonymous | 12:14 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Too many of you miss the point - it is NOT public money, it is MY money and YOUR money. YOU should choose to leave yours in Public Education if you think it is doing OK. I should be able to choos to have mine go somewhere to educate MY children. My child's future is NOT your responsibility. I still don't buy the idea that professional educators know best, I believe in parents!

Re: Re: rightwingredneck | 12:25 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Oh, and one more thing... these "unions" are not arguing that all private schools are "not opened" but rather that "the public" not paying for their not closing.

Fed Ex stays open without any government subsidies.

AG | 12:28 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Don't look to Shurtleff to investigate any wrongdoing cuz he believes that the end justifies the means.

Re: Re: Re: rightwingredneck | 12:39 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Yes, we pay a little extra, but we now have the CHOICE to have two day shipping. You may recall that the USPS was happy to "leave things the way they were" and not let any private experiment threaten the post office's business and position. Without letting private initiatives happen the progress wouldn't have happened.

The same claims by UEA and opponents that this new idea will close public schools were made by the USPS - they'll have to shut down. They didn't shut down but sure got more efficient and left the consumer with a choice.

My point is try something new... it may actually work and teach us things about the private and public system! The alternative is more of the same promises from districts for improvement and underperfoming schools with more and more money yet teachers that are underpaid.

Re: Re: rightwingredneck | 12:48 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

This is not a money issue and the educators know this. Less money is being taken from public schools than they would have to "pay" per student if they attended.

This is a change issue. Districts and the UEA don't want to risk changing anything. They know very well that if this program is successful then they are DONE. Never mind that kids (all economic levels) will benefit, they just don't want to risk losing their current postions.

Don't fear change. Try it!

Pragmatic | 12:51 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I'm a true believer of "ain't broke don't fix it..."
It's broken, let's try something new.

Limo Service | 12:55 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I'm not particularly fond of icky public transportation. I'd much rather take a limo to work. I believe I'm entitled to government
funding to help me pay for a superior car service.

Terry | 1:09 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

As a Utah tax payer I for one think the tax laws should be changed so I don't have to pay so much towards the school district's finances. My children are all grown so I have no one in K-12. If I or citizens like me were allowed to use those tax dollars towards my grown children's college education, they might be able to make more to pay more taxes. Also I could help pay for my grandchildren's private education then their parents wouldn't constantly be wanting to borrow money from me. With a change to the property tax on a home, there would be no need for a voucher system. A pay for you own education system could be implemented. Everyone would get there money and could then say how it would be spent on education. If you're a renter, rent would go down because taxes did. Better yet, let's implement a head tax at the same time so all those with the most children contribute more to the education system. I mean, that seems fair doesn't it? The ones with the most children create the most burden on the school system. So letï¿½s let them pay for it.

cdmom | 1:28 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Having read both HB 148 and HB 174 here are some of my concerns:

1. Voucher accepting private schools do not have to be audited for five years. District schools are audited yearly.
2. Voucher accepting private schools do not have to provide a yearly report to anyone outside of parents of enrolled students. Districts have to provide yearly reports to every residence in their district.
3. Voucher accepting private schools do not have to let everyone in the state vote or run for their school boards. Every registered voter is able to vote or run for district school boards.
4. The amount of money needed each year for vouchers will have to go up. This is tax money from the General Fund, what is being reduced or not funded so that less then 2% of the 2006-07 statewide district school student enrollment can have a voucher? How high will our taxes be raised to support two systems of education?

JBean | 1:56 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

USPS example is extremely relevant.

Again, ask ourselves why the hysteria over .0025% of the education budget?

that's like $25 out of 10K. It's not even close to proportionate to the percentage of kids expected to use it (10-12%)? What can it hurt?-- and it might even help some kids a lot.

there is no reason not to try this.

UEA--Unofficial Boggeyman | 2:57 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Educated Shopper,

Utah legislators do not fear the UEA. Mostly they laugh at the union because it is largely ineffective politically. As an example, the last time I talked to a Union person two years ago they endorsed around two-dozen candidates. One got elected.

Huntsman who was running at the time appeared before the conference. I admired him for his courage as he spoke of his support for vouchers in an environment where that was the last thing people wanted to hear. Did this hurt Huntsman's chances of success here in Utah? Of course not. The union backed Matheson, but the people voted in Huntsman.

Nobody listens to the UEA anyway unless the convention is going on.

You should be fearing the real power behind education in the state--the PTA. They are the ones who will firmly defeat Vouchers if your clan doesn't kill them by your support.

Oh, and by the way, these are real Utahns, not some paid out of state lobbyists that are against you.

Steven Jarvis | 3:07 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

JBean,

The reason not to try this is the potential for harm to children entrapped in some schemers web. Private schools will pop up and take advantage of trusting parents and the child being used as a pawn does not learn anything. Those who pushed the legislation through stand to gain millions by building these schools. There were really no safeguards in the original bill.

The second bill, an amendment to the first one put in a small amount of accountability so at least Private schools would be required to do a background check. That issuance alone should cause parents to question whether a private school is as safe as they hope.

utahkeith | 3:37 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Well if you are against the voucher program you should be for it, then you can leave your kids in the schools they are already in, and it won't hurt you a bit! If you are for the voucher program, you can move your kid if you want, and have a couple grand as a voucher to help pay to move them to a "Better" school. What is the problem here?

dblagent007 | 3:44 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

As already mentioned above, this issue is very simple: Who should control the education of children - Parents or government? If you answer government, then please move to Venezuala where the government is busily taking over everything. I mean, after all, it worked so well for the Soviet Union.

As for this benefitting only the rich, I have news for you people: rich people already have lots of choices. Its the other half that can't afford to send their children to anything other than public school that have a whole new world opened up to them.

By the way, last year my son was in the class of a horrible teacher (the parents from the year before tried to get her fired). Initially, we were told there was nothing we could do. They wouldn't switch his class, fire her, nothing. Why? Because the union makes it impossible to get rid of substandard performers (don't unions exist to maintain the jobs of marginal employees?). She was finally fired, but it took forever and my son's education suffered. If we had a voucher system in place, I would have had a choice and could have sent my son somewhere else.

atl | 4:59 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

The vouchers would amount to nothing more than a subsidy for parents who can already afford to send their children to public school. Those who can't afford it are not going to be made able to by the awarding of a $500 to $2,000 voucher. Private schools are much more expensive than that.

The only folks benefitting here are upper-class families, the one's who least need the help. Taking money from our schools is reverse progress.

If you are worried about your child getting a bad teacher, cultivate relationships with the school administrators. I have found them very open to parental input, especially if it ensures future parental involvement with the school.

Thanks for your Concern But... | 5:07 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Steven Jarvis,

Your point is to limit people's choices because there is a potential harm. Tough one to swallow because it is just classic "let's not try anything new because there is a potential for someone to do harm" "government knows best" mumbo-jumbo.

New schools will be regulated and believe it or not, some parents (probably most) will actually do research and compare before enrolling. Govt assumes they are too stupid.

Oh yeah and by the way, because it is a PRIVATE business if its customers see or hear about bad behavior, teaching or even if the results are bad... they simply leave and the business closes down. How's that for incentive for not being a schemer, it called capitalism and seems to doing well with almost every other business (and even with schools in other countries). The captial to start a school is signifcant, not like an internet scheme or the like, and the owners would have more incentive to operate correctly and keep clients happy and paying than rip them off once and go out of business.

Don't fear, try something new- If it's not for you keep your kids where they are. Fair enough?

Private Schools will Get Cheaper | 5:19 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

More schools will mean more competition and lower prices. That's why they will work.

Just a thought. . . | 5:30 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

To Freethoughttoday,

While I understand it is politically correct to believe in evolution I would like to appeal to your sense of science in this matter. Have you ever taken a Physics class? There is an interesting "theory" known as entropy. All things move from order to disorder, unless acted upon by some outside force or energy. Evolution kind of tries to fly in the face of that and say that living beings are the exception. Many great scientists seem to agree there is a God (Einstein or Hawking anyone?) Even Darwin had trouble with his own theory. Since science and brilliant scientists doesn't support evolution, neither do I. And because of that, you are correct in saying I don't want the "theory" of evolution taught in public school, to my kids, on my dime.

Respectfully,
Me

Steven Jarvis | 5:35 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

dblagent007,

Had you been in Utah your best option was to use Utah's Open Enrollment Act, and simply moved your child to a different school.

Have you checked out tuition prices for Private schools in Utah? I just did. I was stunned by the costs of Private schools for troubled teens (a year for 44K at White River Academy) which were the highest. I found none that a full voucher would cover, with the closest cost of $3,800 at NewTyme. If you are poor, are you going to be able to afford $800 per child to send them there?

Steven Jarvis | 5:52 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Utah has had many failed educational experiments in the past. I went to SJES in Jordan, one of several campuses built with the open classroom concept in mind. This meant there were no walls dividing classes of the same grade level.

Utah went with the idea buying it from California who at the time was abandoning it. It was a colossal blunder.

We narrowly avoided year-round secondary schools that had the potential to wreck havoc on graduating Seniors getting off to college. Fortunately my parents and others got involved and stopped that mistake before it happened. Sadly, this grand idea has re-emerged in the past few weeks here.

The Schemers are those who will be building the schools. We have had a few politicians run out of office for that already.

The Voucher program reeks of potential problems:

First Audit after five years

Lack of Teacher Certification requirement

Value gap between Voucher and actual tuition leaves poor and middle class excluded

When a student returns from a Private school no funds follow that child

Will Religious schools be allowed to accept Vouchers?

Thanks but... | 6:07 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Steve,

If you think private school tuition will be too high and people won't find the vouchers useful, then what are you worried about? Let's try it and just prove it.

If this is the case, the program will be unpopular, less money will be "stolen" from public schools and it will eventually wither on the vine and die, right? Anti voucher people can say ï¿½I told you soï¿½ and the topic would be dead.

The thing is, what will likely happen is that private schools will start up with lower overhead and better business plans and will charge less than current schools which have been developed under a completely different business plan ï¿½ focus on the very wealthy. Odds are the market will create a bunch of efficient, affordable schools that can operate profitably. This will also relieve the pressure to have mostly religious schools as options. Religious orgs has been sponsors of private schools in America because churches (with their cash) subsidize the cost of setting up and operating. A flatter playing field may help this go away.

Just a thought!

Steven Jarvis | 6:07 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

dblagent007,

Parents won't control education with Vouchers, Private Schools will.

In our Utah schools Parents as part of the PTA or governing School boards have a great deal of say. What voice do parents have in a private school? Simply walking away withdrawing the child? That is the choice that parents already have at any existing school and vouchers won't change that.

Let's not forget that the Private schools can exclude based on behavior, academic achievement, or gender beyond the simple costs of paying tuition. Again, what choice does Vouchers bring that currently do not exist?

My friend's daughter was enrolled in a private school. She didn't make the grade and so was expelled. Her father would rather have had her in the Private school, but the choice wasn't his.

Thanks but... | 6:16 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

So, would you put your child in a school that has not been audited in more than the standard (whatever that actually is)? Maybe not. So you'd ask the question and then move on to the one that does, right? (BTW ï¿½ can you answer if your current public school is audited and if so do they passs?)

Would you check to see if the teachers at the school are properly certified? Of course! and if the school doesn't then you move on.

The discussion needs to be pulled out of current monopolistic context where your only option is lengthy debate with the "professional" educators in district offices, not voting with your feet (and your dollar).

Schools would have to compete for your business. They would advertise and say - we are audited annually and all our teachers are board certified to differentiate them from others. Other schools then one up them - We do monthly audits and recertify teachers annually (or whatever).

This works in the market - it is proven in all other businesses.

Thanks but... | 6:25 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Steve you said:
"Let's not forget that the Private schools can exclude based on behavior, academic achievement, or gender"

Yep, and ain't it great! just like an insurance company can drop drunk drivers and a restaurant can throw out a unruley guests. But keep in mind, it is a last resort because it doesn't make economic sense on a mass level. You'd be out of business!

Once again, the invisible hand delivers.

BTW - I don't think many private schools throw people out because of gender :)

BTW 2 - Public schools can and do throw students out for discpline (to special schools) as well.

James | 8:10 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Steve, one of the bigger problems in public education is that of misunderstanding special education. In many cases so called behavior problems are in fact children that need an IEP. I have also seen plenty of cases where children with IEPs should not. It cuts both ways but often that is an issue. That doesn't argue for or against vouchers, other than with a proper IEP most cases can be handled. And while private schools do not have IEPs they certain do counseling.

If you follow public education much, which you may, I am sure you will acknowledge the truth of that.

This being the case, it may be a bit presumptuous to think that all private schools will botch these students; certainly that all students will be summarily expelled. Private schools will make mistakes in this area just as public schools do.

And throw in that private schools generally seek to create a more disciplined environment. This is one reason for the proliferation of charter schools: Parents seeking a more disciplined environment.

And in the end SOME older kids just need to be removed. Sadly, they have turned some of our high schools into minimum security correction facilities.

Steven Jarvis | 8:17 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I only mentioned gender because one of the schools in Utah is an all-girl school. I am sure many teenage guys would like to be admitted to one of those.

It isn't great. My friend's daughter was not a discipline problem, merely a child who needed a lot of help and structure. Her father thought it best to put her in a private school, paying for it out of his pocket. The school wanting to look good gave her a little time then gave up on her and kicked them out the door. They were paying customers!!! This was a case where the school cared more about looking good than the child.

The competition created by vouchers will harm as children unable to make the grade are ejected back into the Public system which has no money for them. That is a double-whammy. This is one of those reasons the NAACP issued concerns of educational segregation as predominantly white kids leave to exclusive schools.

Steven Jarvis | 8:30 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I have followed Utah's educational trends as both a student and a teacher. I agree with your assessment with special needs children. They often have behavior that disrupts simply due to confusion or frustration.

Private schools are not required to offer special education services, and often have parents sign away those rights in order to be admitted.

Waterford is an example of a solid private school that does not admit special needs students. They suspect something is wrong, they have the child tested at the local public school and then dismiss the child at an appropriate time if they need an IEP. Not every private school is going to be as responsible as Waterford. Other schools will gladly ask parents to sign away children's rights to services in order to get the money. This is another strong argument against vouchers.

unfixable | 9:05 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

I am tired of huge school districts that ignore the parents who care and are involved and instead cater to the needs of "disadvantaged" children who's parents aren't involved.
I am tired of overpaid administrators that get paid $120,000 + to play psychology games and work 4 hours a day.
I am tired of the wasted money in the public school system with no accountability. And I am tired of teachers getting paid nothing, making it so many who would love to teach and are good but have to choose a different occupation with enough income to support a family.
My brother (an educator) told me vouchers wouldn't fix the system. Frankly I don't think it is fixable. Too many groups with their hands in the pot.
Just a wake up call for any who think the 30,000 local teachers control the agenda of the union. Its a National Union with mandates from the large organization, not local control.
Instead of vouchers we need to split up the districts, make one high school and its feeders one district and equalize by pooling state taxes and sending funding per student ($7,500) to the school the student attends. No more poor schools.

shecky | 9:59 p.m. Oct. 4, 2007

Don't be so sure that the school that you send your child to has a staff with certified teachers, attention to special education requirements, or expertise in specific subject areas.
Accountability? What is the percentage of nonpubic schools that has to put up with the NCLB requirements? These arguments about all of the wasted money, splitting of school districts, etc. are based on unfounded assumptions about how schools really operate.
And the 4 hour-per day $120,000 administrator? If you split the districts, you'll just get a few more of those, if in fact any really exist.
More disciplined schools? Just choose who attends your school, and you can have it. Public schools have no such privilege.
Go ahead...support nonpublic schools. But the grass may not be so green as you think.

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.