Deseret News | GOP has taken odd stand on vouchers

Reader comments
Bob Bernick Jr.: GOP has taken odd stand on vouchers

Dave | 12:15 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Bob, As usual you understand more about writing than you do about economics. Every student that leaves the public education system at a cost less than the variable cost of educating a student in the public system leaves more money in the public system and helps reduce class size in the public system. Both of these facts should be desirable--even to the economically illiterate.

Ken | 1:32 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Perhaps Dave would also factor in the surprisingly high number of students who at the beginning of the year leave for private or charter schools, thus depriving the local school of funding, but then return to the public school a month or two into the year but bring no funding with them. That situation is likely to increase with vouchers.

Also consider the long-term cost, both economic and otherwise, of students educated in schools where there is no accountability for curriculum or for faculty credentials. I know of a school where the principal had not graduated from college and reports abound of schools using LDS scriptures as the basis for history courses. Do such institutions deserve public funding? Does their "education" meet the needs of a more economically complex and socially diverse Utah? Or does it promote religious fundamentalism and social division?

Legislators eager to dole out vouchers ought first to impose authentic, effective oversight for the schools receiving the funds. They submit public schools to scrutiny. Why should private schools receiving my tax money escape such accountability? What credentials should their teachers have? What curriculum must their students pass to receive a state-accredited diploma? No accountability, no money.

James | 5:02 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Bob is so off on this. For starters, is he still debating HB148? That is not the voucher bill at play here. Bob is about 8 months behind the times.

As for the redistribution of wealth, simple fact that the moment you pay for anything with tax dollars you are redistributing wealth. That is completely 100% true of public education right now. So the regular system is not a redistribtuion program (it clearly is) but this one is?

And as for the rest, why even debate Bob? The absolute fact of the matter, all this talk about rich v poor, class warfare junk is to an exact "T" the same arguements used to stop the creation of charter schools. And I mean to a "T"! Have charter schools killed the system? Yeah, enough so that even several Districts have sponsored their own charter schools.

Bottom line, vouchers are not going to destroy the system. They are not going to bankrupt anything. They are not going to put teachers in the streets. They are not going to do any of the fear mongering that is thrown out. Just as charter schools didn't before them.

They will lower Union enrollment but....

Comments continue below

Well said Bob | 5:49 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

This voucher things is all about their hatred of the teachers union. To show you how blinded these legislators are by their hatred, the very same people who fight to keep undocumented college students from getting a tuition break have created an entitlement that will give $3000.00 to the children of illegal immigrants to attend private school. Their hatred has caused them to abandon their conservatism.

Ray | 6:12 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I strongly support vouchers. We need to change the status quo, and introduce some private competition. Even the private sectors will be competing against each other for quality education; if one fails another could take its place. And the bottom line it will be less costly by reducing the infrastructure of continual building of more schools and may even reduce the tax dollars needed for our present system?

George | 6:59 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

How odd that giving money back that was taken from someone would be called redistribution of wealth. How odd, again, that giving that money back would be labeled an entitlement.

Joe Watts | 7:17 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Mr. Bernick,

Thanks for your column and your insight.

I think your column added a new perspective to the issue, one that I don't think has been expressed anywhere else.

It was thoughtfully done.

Thank you very much.

Joe Watts

Darwin J. STG | 7:38 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

I'm voting for anything that takes away Teacher Union power. Look who is opposing this referendum: the NEA and other unions that support mediocrity. Being a teacher for 35 years, I know how the NEA (and the UTA) supports bad teachers. It's almost impossible to fire a bad one.
This referendum brings accountability to a bad system in need repair by making a teacher sink or swim based on his or her merit.
Teaching used to be a respected profession. It has become unionized and has suffered by this transition.

Bob L | 7:58 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Bob, doesn't the state constitution provide the entitlement to education? Aren't vouchers just an alternative way of providing for that entitlement?

Random | 8:05 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Bob is right on. The other curious aspect for conservatives like me is the claim vouchers would foster competition. That's absurd. When the government is paying to subsidize a business, it's not free-market competition. Competition like that won't make schools better, it just increases the number of organizations feeding at the government trough.

J Kidd | 8:18 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Bob L is right; there is already an entitlement, this simply modifies it in a way that provides parents with additional choices for their children.

In addition, Bernick ignores the fact that those who send their children to private schools pay the same taxes that support public education, and if Bernick is to be believed, and they are the wealthy in society, then they pay a much higher share of the tax base to support education. Right now, they get almost no benefit from that "contribution," and vouchers allow them to get a little of their tax dollars back. Redistrubution occurs every time tax revenues are used for government programs, but when those who pay the most taxes get something back, that would seem to be the exact opposite of redistribution.

Voucher Truths | 8:29 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

"Early voucher bills may move us only slowly toward separation. They may include provisions that temporarily prolong the power of unions, school boards, and other remnants of the socialist regime; limit the number of students who can participate; set voucher amounts too low; and place restrictions on qualifying schools. But once established, those programs will be broadened.

Vouchers offer a halfway house to wean the public from their addiction to government provision of education. By removing institutional barriers to privatization and setting in motion a dynamic that ensures further movement toward competition and choice, vouchers are a necessary step toward complete separation."

Joseph Bast
President, Heartland Institute

fr1nk | 9:34 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Bob is right on and vouchers will fail because THEY ARE A BAD IDEA.

Random | 9:41 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

J Kidd, to say the wealthy "get almost no benefit" from their tax contribution to education is totally incorrect. We pay education taxes, not to educate OUR children, but to have an educated society. That's why everyone contributes.

If you don't like the services provided by our taxes (be it garbage service, police protection, roads, water, parks/recreation or education) you are more than welcome to chose private services, but please don't ask the taxpayers to pay for your every whim.

Reagan Republican | 9:43 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Cut the sales tax instead!

jackhp | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Dave,
As usual, your pro-voucher spin only provides half the story.

Could you please tell us HOW, using real world estimates based on real world statistics, vouchers are going to save taxpayer money or reduce class sizes?

As has been stated MANY times in this forum, vouchers have nothing to do with class sizes. If enough students leave, teachers will be let go. Vouchers could actually INCREASE class sizes in some instances. Their net effect on class size will be negligible.

As for the economics, which you clearly either do not understand or simply wish to ignore, the number of students who would have gone to private schools regardless of receiving a voucher will almost certainly far outnumber, probably at a 3/1 or 4/1 ratio. Therefore any benefit to taxpayers from those who leave public schools for private will be negated. In all likelihood, vouchers will be a net COST to taxpayers in perpetuity.

Bob Bernick is absolutely correct that an entitlement, especially one for those who do not NEED it, which increases costs to taxpayers should be anathema to fiscal conservatives. Anyone who considers themselves a fiscal conservative should be ashamed to support THIS voucher law.

crich | 9:51 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

School vouchers aren't about redistributing wealth, enacting entitlement programs, or hatred of unions. They're about weakening the public education system so that it can ultimately be privatized. Same with No Child Left Behind, which is designed to stick a "failing" label on every public school in the country -- again, so that Republicans can declare our public schools "failing" and do away with the whole system.

swrl | 11:51 a.m. Oct. 5, 2007

As I recall Tommy Tompson of HHS, gave Gov Leavit (current HHS-Birdman) a check for 50 million in 'flexable funding" designed to help in the David C case. The Birdman said thankyou and promptly put it in the Genral Fund stating that the state knows best how to spend federal money

Exhausted | 2:22 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Yes, Bob is correct, it is an entitlement program covering rich and poor (mostly the rich). It is also distribution of wealth since it is using current taxes directed to a new designated class of rich and middle income citizens. The real problems will begin when rural Utah begins to set up private schools which address the religious aspects of the dominant religious majority, Mormon. Wait until Hilsdale Utah a becomes private school system. The legislative leaders should stay out of the Executive branch and quit meddling in issues they no nothing about.

John P. | 3:56 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

This is a very interesting and informative article. I think Bob is right on in his assessment. It demonstrates how the ultra right wing of Utah's Republican Party has way too much power. As a lifelong republican, I am very disillusioned with those in power, such as Curtis, Clark, Bramble, and Stephenson. They demonstrate so much arrogance it is disgusting. Unfortunatly, it is the status quo for the party. We need a moderate voice that won't be crushed by the ultra right.

Greg | 3:59 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Over the next ten years, 160,000 new students will enter Utah's public schools. This compares with only 39,000 over the previous ten years. Aside from the political and philosophic rhetoric surrounding vouchers, the question remains: how will Utahns paid for these new children entering school? By simply accepting the system status quo, we are left with two undesirable propositions: 1) a reduction in Utah's already dismal per pupil expenditures; or 2) over $1 billion in increased taxes just to MAINTAIN existing funding levels. By a show of hands, how many favor the first? And the second? Vouchers are simply an alternative - perhaps not a perfect one but nevertheless a definite improvement over the status quo. Without a program to divert a portion of the inevitable influx of students, Utah's public school system will be worse, not better. I encourage everyone to look behind the hype on both sides and ask yourself, "What happens if vouchers don't pass? Will my school have more or less to spend on my student? Will I be able to afford the property taxes on my home or business?" Whatever, the answers are, VOTE!

Chuck | 5:01 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Greg,
Those students don't come without parents, who pay taxes. The projections actually show there will be a higher ratio of parents to students then than there were in the 1980's. We will survive, and without tax increases, if we just quit CUTTING taxes. We've cut well over a billion dollars in taxes in the last ten years. We DON'T need vouchers to "save" us. They only create a duplicate system that will also require ever more funding and will NEVER go away if approved.

Francis | 6:27 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Hurray for Bob! At last someone's getting a grasp of what the problems with the voucher effort is all about. Now, if just LaVarr Webb and Jay Evensen would also open their eyes, the D-News staff would realize there are some major issues at stake; what Bob has carefully explored, the feud with and arrogance of the Utah legislature in regards to Utah educators; and conveniently forgetting to listen to the Utah public. Oh, and by the way, in regards to some of the stupid advertising, who said and on what authority, that only the Legislature and governor know whats best for Utah families?

Charles H | 9:38 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Jackhp continues to claim vouchers won't affect class size, OR could even make class size worse.

The fact is, when a student leaves the government school a large portion of the money that would have been spent on that student remains behind in the district.

NOW, it is true that this will not automatically reduce class size.. However, it does leave more money per child which the school district could choose to use for reduction of class size. They might also use it for massive pay raises for the part time board.

Of course, we are told so often how responsive school boards are to parental concerns so I have to assume that the school boards will vote to use this extra money for class size reduction, teacher pay raises, needed textbooks or supplies, or other value add items RATHER than wasting it on cheerleader outfits or pay raises for the school board.

SRD | 10:45 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Greg got right. With the large numbers of students expected to flood the system, even if what the voucher supporters say is true, the amount of money that is going to be needed fir education is going to be large. The money that the is "saved" by vouchhers in going to be insignificant compared with the "new" money that will be needed to maintain per pupil spending.

The governor stated that he estimated that maybe another 1%-3% of students might take advantage of vouchers in addition to the 3% that already attend privite schools. That will 94% to 96% of the childern in public schools.

My point. The legisalture and the governor need to get off their collective butts, stop trying to stick it to the teachers, the administrators, or whomever and start figuring out a way to fund the "public" education system in this state. If they can't do that then they need to get out of the way.

If they think this problem will just go away with wishful thinking, they are crazy.

jackhp | 10:53 p.m. Oct. 5, 2007

Charles H,
You continue to mislead with the mitigation money rhetoric. Using the Legislature's own fiscal analysis, mitigation money will amount to less than $25 per student remaining in public schools statewide. This is actually a high estimate based on total per pupil spending of $7500. The mitigation money will actually be based on only the State portion of funding, so it will probably be considerably lower.

$25 per student is hardly enough to help reduce class sizes. It might be enough to keep teachers from having to pay out of their own pockets for needed school supplies however. I applaud you for your generosity.

The other thing you never seem to mention is that the mitigation money only lasts for five years then its gone. Even if we could reduce class sizes with the mitigation money, what happens after five years?

The mitigation money is nothing but a boondoggle inserted to allow voucher supporters to claim that vouchers will help public schools. In all reality, it won't do anything for public schools in the long run.

KC | 9:53 a.m. Oct. 6, 2007

"The sky will fall" alarmists of the anti-voucher side of this argument have failed in their attempt to persuade me that this particular bill will harm the sacred cow of public ed. I plan on voting for this voucher law and hope that other voters will not be scared because of the unsubstantiated logic of the anti-voucher alarmists.
If you are someone who believes the distorted math and twisted logic of the anti-vouchers, you probably believe that the uea helps teachers receive more pay, or even that mandatory attendance in school helps our society.
Please, if you have an opinion to express, try to persude me with facts and data that support your argument. (Bob, you failed, try again if)

Greg | 9:11 a.m. Oct. 8, 2007

Chuck,
The fact is, the overwhelming majority of that growth will come from within, from Utah families whose parents are already paying taxes. Short of an explosion in personal income or federal subsidies - which are almost always less than desirable - it is inevitable that Utah will continue to slip in per pupil expenditures. Vouchers are NOT about taking existing students from EXISTING classrooms. Vouchers are about DIVERTING an admittedly small percentage of students who will enter the system into the private sector, thus avoiding not only the costs of educating those students but also the capital costs of building dozens of new schools, along with the operating costs associated with those facilities. Every dollar NOT spent on new facilities can be spent in higher wages for teachers, better classroom supplies, and more activities. Those who believe Utah can continue with the status quo funding system, absorb the impending influx of new students, and maintain the quality of our educational system are in a state of hopeless denial.

Watch this hand... | 2:45 p.m. Oct. 8, 2007

jackhp:

Please give Charles H a break. I'm sure that he left out these "unimportant" details for the sake of brevity. No one on the pro-voucher side would knowingly leave out information when attempting to have an "honest" debate.

Oh BTW, someone, anyone, please tell me how vouchers are going to "make a teacher sink or swim based on his or her merit". (Darwin J. STG, 7:38 am)

Fact: School districts can hire enough teachers to cover the work load.

Fact: "The governor stated that he estimated that maybe another 1%-3% of students might take advantage of vouchers" (SRD 10:45 pm)

So, if 1 to 3% of students leave public education, and we can't hire enough teachers - how then is it that we will see a mass exodus of these so called "poor teachers"?

Please, anyone?

Pete | 9:13 p.m. Oct. 9, 2007

The article is an excellent description of what is really going on. Our conservative legislators vs the UEA! Curt Bramble and co pushed through the change in how School Board members are elected by saying it was to increase the number of candidates. Phooey--its just a power play, just like they have done in limiting primary elections, etc.

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.