Reader comments
Nuances of vouchers elude many
171 comments | Read story
Larry | 5:28 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
There are so many school teachers being controlled by their union, and they have
so many relatives each who have been exposed to these prejudices, that it will
be difficult in deed to over come this, and do the right thing.
Go Ahead | 5:45 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Insert impassioned pro/anti voucher rhetoric here. We haven't beaten this
thing to death yet. Feel free to use this forum for your own personal
battleground.
Comments continue below
Nichol Draper | 6:00 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
My mother taught me at home for part of a year to take me out of a class with an
abusive teacher 35 years ago. In my ward the teenagers go to five different
high schools. Most changed schools to avoid gangs. Parents need choice. I
can't understand the mentality of saying one school system fits all. It
doesn't.
Florien Wineriter | 6:49 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
From reading the web sites of the two major national organizations supporting
school vouchers I have concluded the major objective of those organizations are
two fold: 1-eliminate government controls of public education. 2-use government
dollars to support Christian religious indoctrination in our education system. I
strongly oppose school vouchers. Florien Wineriter
Steve | 7:02 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
One of the "nuances" that has escaped scrutiny is the fact that some
of these vouchers will be used by illegal immigrants. Wait until people realize
that is happening.
Concerned voter | 7:05 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
This is exactly why referendums are a terrible way to govern. We elect people
to representate us. They participate in debates and hearings. They study the
issues and cast their votes. Sometime their choices do not always make sens to
us and often that is because we have not seen the full debate.
In the end, we can elect others to take their place if they don't represent us.
In the end, we can elect others to take their place if they don't represent us.
Dave | 7:23 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I say no. Parents already have a choice, now they are just asking me to pay for
them to have a choice. I cannot support this measure. Why we do always feel that
government and tax payers have an obligation to pay for everything. If parents
are not satisfied with the public schools then they should foot the bill
themselves for something else. I shouldn't have to do it for them. And for
those who truly can't afford a private school this measure is not going to
provide enough money to give them the opportunity. This is just another tax
break for the rich. My vote is no.
Dave | 7:25 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
The problem with vouches is if you use public funds to fund a private school
does it not become a public school. What's to say future legislators will
not include this fact in some later years. If private schools want to exist then
they need to find alternative was to fund there schools. PRIVATE MEANS PRIVATE.
Teacher Family | 7:27 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
It's not the nuances that cause the problem.
The voters don't know the BASICS.
Both sides and the media have done a poor job of explaining the voucher bill. All that most reporters tell us over and over, is how big the fight is, not what the fight is about.
It has turned into a group of paid education employees just defending their turf, versus a small group of teachers and a few involved parents who want to offer an alternative to families.
Some kids learn differently, and their families are willing to sacrifice more out of pocket to put them in a school environment where they can thrive.
Let them go. Leave more money and more time in our 'public' classrooms.
�
The voters don't know the BASICS.
Both sides and the media have done a poor job of explaining the voucher bill. All that most reporters tell us over and over, is how big the fight is, not what the fight is about.
It has turned into a group of paid education employees just defending their turf, versus a small group of teachers and a few involved parents who want to offer an alternative to families.
Some kids learn differently, and their families are willing to sacrifice more out of pocket to put them in a school environment where they can thrive.
Let them go. Leave more money and more time in our 'public' classrooms.
�
Richard G. | 7:27 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
What nuances? Vouchers are Satan's handiwork, plain and simple.
Thomas Jefferson | 7:39 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
What a 'Nauance' a little more freedom is? When too many people
can't understand a fairly straight forward bill, then those who oppose it
are achieveing their goal. The Media hasn't provided any clarity to the
debate except perpetuating the disinformation that is intentionally being
spread. Hopefully there will be enough of us that understand the benefits of
more freedom are worth the risks.
Anonymous | 7:51 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Vouchers violate the Utah Constitution and I would vote against them based
solely on this if for no other reason. The Constitution clearly states that
"No public money or property shall be APPROPRIATED FOR or APPLIED TO any
religious worship, exercise or INSTRUCTION, or for the support of any
ecclesiastical establishment." Those who support vouchers attempt to get
around this but even if we put this aside we can not ignore their desire to deny
us a direct vote in how our tax money is used. I will not pay for their
children's education without a say in how my tax money is used. The only
nuance I intend to understand is the desire of the pro-voucher groups to deprive
me of a vote in their children's education while retaining their right to a
vote in my children's education. I give them two options: GIVE ME A VOTE IN
PRIVATE SCHOOL BOARD ELECTIONS OR RENOUNCE THEIR RIGHT TO VOTE IN PUBLIC SCHOOL
ELECTIONS.
M.M. | 8:06 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
For me the Eyre's 30 seconds T.V. spot
(with the cookies) gives an excellent explanation of why we should vote for vouchers.
On the other hand, the teacher's T.V. spots are clouded with suggestions, but no answers.
(except unansered questions).
I WILL VOTE FOR VOUCHERS!
(with the cookies) gives an excellent explanation of why we should vote for vouchers.
On the other hand, the teacher's T.V. spots are clouded with suggestions, but no answers.
(except unansered questions).
I WILL VOTE FOR VOUCHERS!
Looking | 8:08 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I'm afraid that the newspaper accounts have not provided much more detailed
analysis than the horrible 30-second spots from both sides that are polluting
the airwaves. Last night I actually took the time to read the proposed law and
I'm still a bit confused about how it will work. The fiscal note attached
to law estimates that millions of dollars will be appropriated to support the
program. I don't think that's consistent with what I've heard
from the pro-voucher folks. I thought we were going to take a portion of the
per-pupil funding and move it to a private school, not appropriate new money
from the budget. Can someone explain in plain English, or point me to a source
that can, exactly how the money flow works with the voucher program?
Marv | 8:14 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I find it ironic that a news article about how the "nuances of vouchers
elude many" contained almost no information on what the voucher debate is
all about, at its most basic level. I actually clicked on the article hoping to
learn more about the issue, because I'm a little sketchy on details. The
nuances of vouchers STILL elude me, and will elude many, after reading the
article.
The Maestro | 8:14 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I guess it boils down to who is more dangerous to this state: the teachers union
or the state legislature. I say the legislature is more dangerous because they
have more power, and little diversity of thought. Most of the lawmakers,
particularly leadership, think they are the smartest people in any room they
happen to be in. Therefore, anything they do, particularly behind closed doors,
should be scrutinized closely. The idea of vouchers is good, this particular
use of vouchers is flawed.
Unfortunate | 8:15 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
that this issue was put up for public vote. Most of us do not have the time to
study this as carefully as we should to warrant voting on it. I attended a
meeting in South Jordan last night where this was discussed at city hall. And
no, not all the voters of South Jordan showed up to become educated -- there as
a large handful.
As far as I can tell, the educators are against the idea of vouchers because they feel it is a vote of "no confidence" in them personally. I don't believe that is the case. It is simply a way to provide an option for a few people who feel that they have a special need. And I learned last night, that it is a way to provide extra money to schools, which is desperately needed.
But because most voters in Utah will not take time to thoroughly study and learn about this, the issue will be decided on emotion. What an awful way to decide an important issue!
As far as I can tell, the educators are against the idea of vouchers because they feel it is a vote of "no confidence" in them personally. I don't believe that is the case. It is simply a way to provide an option for a few people who feel that they have a special need. And I learned last night, that it is a way to provide extra money to schools, which is desperately needed.
But because most voters in Utah will not take time to thoroughly study and learn about this, the issue will be decided on emotion. What an awful way to decide an important issue!
FreedomFighter | 8:23 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
With the current challenges attacking our freedoms, some funny characteristics
of Utahn's are emerging. Utah, a predominantly Republican state, will soon
vote against freedom and kill the voucher law. I find it funny how many against
vouchers claim to support a free enterprise, yet argue vouchers from a
liberal-socialist perspective.
Utah, with its majority LDS population, should understand the importance of being able to teach your children what you want them to learn rather than what some tiny group of "progressive" thinking liberals tell you is best for your child. How many of you would like to see your children attend a school where prayer is encouraged and the Pledge of Allegiance is recited every day?
Vouchers will help restore these freedoms which government schools, influenced by out-of-state liberals, have stripped from Utahns.
Some of you need to ask your grandfather about what freedom truly is. You may learn a lot. Our soldiers are fighting for our freedoms, so don't let their deaths go in vain.
Utah, with its majority LDS population, should understand the importance of being able to teach your children what you want them to learn rather than what some tiny group of "progressive" thinking liberals tell you is best for your child. How many of you would like to see your children attend a school where prayer is encouraged and the Pledge of Allegiance is recited every day?
Vouchers will help restore these freedoms which government schools, influenced by out-of-state liberals, have stripped from Utahns.
Some of you need to ask your grandfather about what freedom truly is. You may learn a lot. Our soldiers are fighting for our freedoms, so don't let their deaths go in vain.
St. George | 8:28 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I agree with the confusion. Confusion every way I turn. Too bad this article
didn't make any attempt to alleviate the confusion or to point us all in
the direction to find clear information. Please . . . a link or something!?
Desperation | 8:48 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
So they are so far behind that they resort to dirty tricks, like the latest
e-mails offering to pay voters (see SL Trib--Rolly). Their advertising is
misleading at best. Oh well. No is a good friend of mine, too.
Rich | 8:56 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
It�s my understanding that the voucher program will not be
available to children currently enrolled in a private school. The only
exception is for the low income. And if the majority of people will not get
close to the $3000 bucks that is available, what is everyone worried about.
Utah is last in school funding. That being the case and if the public school is
unable to sufficiently educate a child for this why not give a private school a
chance. Remember very few people will get the $3000. As for the background
checks of the private school teachers this is one area that needs to be
addressed. If a private school wants to accept vouchers it needs to ensure that
the teachers are aligned with state standards. I believe that everyone has the
best interest of the children in mind. If we let some of the private schools
take some of the children out of the public system for $1000 per child this
would bring down the class size of the public system and increase the monies put
into the remaining children. As a private school operator/owner I support the
public school and always will.
Anonymous | 8:59 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I am glad to know MM that you intend to vote to take away my right to vote. The
only question I will answer for you is this one: "What do I intend to do to
prevent you from depriving me of a vote in how my tax money is used?" The
answer is to vote against vouchers and thus to defend my right to vote. This
issue comes down to one of freedom and I intend to defend it by voting against
vouchers.
Dan B. | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Another article informing us of the fight but doing nothing to relieve the
confusion. I have heard all the adds and frankly I'm more confused. Each
side claims that either the public schools will get less money or that the
public schools will get more money - it can't be both ways. Either more of
our tax dollars will be earmarked for the vouchers or less will go to public
schools or our taxes will be raised or more of our tax dollars will be allocated
to education. I for one just want information so I can make an informed
decision. How about if the media provides a valuable function and helps provide
that information with informative articles?
Response to Dave | 9:13 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Dave, in your two posts above you mentioned that you don't want to pay to
fund private schools.
What about the private school parents who are paying for their kids education at the private school AND are paying taxes to support YOUR kids at public school?
I am going to vote yes.
By the way, the family that I know that has their kids attend a private school are not rich...they are hard working people who care about education and want to provide the best educational experience they can for their kids.
What about the private school parents who are paying for their kids education at the private school AND are paying taxes to support YOUR kids at public school?
I am going to vote yes.
By the way, the family that I know that has their kids attend a private school are not rich...they are hard working people who care about education and want to provide the best educational experience they can for their kids.
D. L. | 9:18 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I've got an insight into this volatile issue. I have been a high school
teacher here along the Wasatch Front for 20 years. Over the past 6 or 7 years
I've seen several parents pull their students out of our public schools and
put them into, what they feel are, "superior" charter or private
schools. It is interesting how, after a year or two, these students invariably
end up back in my already-crowded classroom. The parents of these students
become disillusioned with the charter/private schools for various reasons (poor
instructional quality, lack of structure, etc.) and they come running back to us
to make things better for them.
Under this proposed voucher law, these same kinds of parents would take desperately-needed money from our schools to fund their voucher experiment, yet, in a year or two, I will most likely see 80-90% of these same kids back in my classroom MINUS the money their parents already took from our school. Mr. and Mrs. Eyre don't tell you this in their "cookie" commercial, because I'm sure they don't have an understanding of how the system really works.
Please, be informed and vote AGAINST vouchers.
Under this proposed voucher law, these same kinds of parents would take desperately-needed money from our schools to fund their voucher experiment, yet, in a year or two, I will most likely see 80-90% of these same kids back in my classroom MINUS the money their parents already took from our school. Mr. and Mrs. Eyre don't tell you this in their "cookie" commercial, because I'm sure they don't have an understanding of how the system really works.
Please, be informed and vote AGAINST vouchers.
Alan G. | 9:19 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Vouchers are not a parental choice issue, nor are they a conservative verses
liberal issue. If you choose to send your little darling to private school.
You pay for this decision. There will not be large number of students moving
from public to private schools because of vouchers, average people simply cannot
afford it. This will all be to the benefit of the rich and that gap between the
rich and poor will continue to grow to the detriment of this country just like
Alan Greenspan has suggested. I WILL VOTE NO TO VOUCHERS!!!!!!
Mahershalalhashbaz | 9:22 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
To Dave: Legislators can vote to get rid of private schools and make them
public in the future, regardless of whether or not vouchers pass. That's a
lame excuse to not vote for vouchers. Furthermore, like I say time and again,
public school costs WAY to much, because there is no competition. $7500 a
student a year? Are you crazy? Don't you see competition is what drives
down prices, improves the product? (in this case education). Why wouldn't
you want more bang for your buck? Do you really think a rich person gives a
rats *Z%$ about $500. I'm not rich and that is not worth my time. The
poor get $3,000 bucks. And since private school IS by far cheaper than public
~3500 on average a year, the poor will be empowered to go to public school.
By the way, Dan Jones and his wife are shameful for publishing a poll they did when there is obvious bias (they both strongly oppose vouchers). Very unprofessional. They lost a lot of credibility on that one.
By the way, Dan Jones and his wife are shameful for publishing a poll they did when there is obvious bias (they both strongly oppose vouchers). Very unprofessional. They lost a lot of credibility on that one.
Henry Drummond | 9:25 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Hi Rich:
I suggest you read the bill. We have no idea which students enrolling in kindergarten next year would have gone to your school at no expense to the taxpayer anyway. Every year more and more students who would have gone to private school anyway will now be eligible for public funds until we are paying for all of them. This allows proponents of this bill to say with a straight face that the money only goes to those who would not have gone to private school. Yeah, that will be true for one year.
If the goal was to move students from public schools to private schools they could have put a cap on who is eligible according to income. They didn't do that.
I suggest you read the bill. We have no idea which students enrolling in kindergarten next year would have gone to your school at no expense to the taxpayer anyway. Every year more and more students who would have gone to private school anyway will now be eligible for public funds until we are paying for all of them. This allows proponents of this bill to say with a straight face that the money only goes to those who would not have gone to private school. Yeah, that will be true for one year.
If the goal was to move students from public schools to private schools they could have put a cap on who is eligible according to income. They didn't do that.
justpassinthru | 9:24 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Several years ago this same issue came up in Washington state. Paul allen of
Microsoft fame paid for the ballot measure out of his own pocket.Of course this
raised questions about why he was so interested in having this passed. Semms
that he had a big financial interest in the schools that would be benefitting
from this.A lot of similarities here with legislators spending a lot of money
promoting this.Maybe it's just another Republican push to privatize
everything. Whatever it is it smells.
So what"s your point? | 9:26 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
This is the status quo!
This story could have been written about any political race or referendum debate. Most people just don't get involved. They may see (or hear) a few ads from either side, and maybe read an article or two in the newspaper. But how many really research the issues?
Most people spend their days short-sightedly only thinking of ME ME ME ME ME - NOW! They�re too busy doing �ME� things, that it�s just not worth the time to get involved with issues that will end up affecting them directly. Why should they? They can always complain about it later!
This story could have been written about any political race or referendum debate. Most people just don't get involved. They may see (or hear) a few ads from either side, and maybe read an article or two in the newspaper. But how many really research the issues?
Most people spend their days short-sightedly only thinking of ME ME ME ME ME - NOW! They�re too busy doing �ME� things, that it�s just not worth the time to get involved with issues that will end up affecting them directly. Why should they? They can always complain about it later!
Alan Jeppesen | 9:28 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Why doesn't the Des News run some articles in which supporters of both
sides express their positions? That is what I am looking for. Will the issue
be addressed in a voters' pamphlet?
Questioning?? | 9:31 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
The three fundamental problems with vouchers are these:
1. No $'s should be funneled from tax payers to religious schools. Just fund non-affiliated private schools.
2. There currently is choice in the education system now. There are regular public schools, charter schools and private schools currently that all provide good options.
3. There should be a reasonable earning "limit" that should be set where no money goes to the parents of a c child going to private school. Whay should someone making millions get a subsidy?? Use that extra $500 to help subsidize a truely "poor" child into the private schools system.
Even though I am against vouchers, I think that these changes would net more votes in favor then they are currently going to get. The problem is these changes wouldn't get at the heart of what the vouchers supports want to achieve. You figure out the rest of the story.
1. No $'s should be funneled from tax payers to religious schools. Just fund non-affiliated private schools.
2. There currently is choice in the education system now. There are regular public schools, charter schools and private schools currently that all provide good options.
3. There should be a reasonable earning "limit" that should be set where no money goes to the parents of a c child going to private school. Whay should someone making millions get a subsidy?? Use that extra $500 to help subsidize a truely "poor" child into the private schools system.
Even though I am against vouchers, I think that these changes would net more votes in favor then they are currently going to get. The problem is these changes wouldn't get at the heart of what the vouchers supports want to achieve. You figure out the rest of the story.
Re: M.M. 8:06am | 9:32 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I'm glad to know that the voter information pamphlet sent out by the state
and available online (leaveyourprint) with a summary of the bill and arguments
for and against it are not just a waste of paper, time, and energy. I'm
glad to know that you attended debates, visited websites, and even read house
bill 142 online to garner enough information to make an informed decision.
I'm glad that you have personally debated the merits of the program with
friends and family that are equally concerned about the welfare of our
state's children.
I'm glad to know that you're not one of "those" that base your opinion on a 30 second tv commercial.
Way to prove this article wrong.
I'm glad to know that you're not one of "those" that base your opinion on a 30 second tv commercial.
Way to prove this article wrong.
JJ | 9:34 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
M.M. said:
"On the other hand, the teacher's T.V. spots are clouded with suggestions, but no answers.
(except unansered questions)."
First of all unanswered has a "w" in it. Secondly, if it were as easy as the commercial says it was, there would be more people pushing for vouchers. The commercials fails to recognize the $30,000+ dollars that the school just lost from those three students going to a private school. How come they don't mention that? It is called a weighted pupil unit. Every school has money coming in based on the students that attend. When they leave, they lose that money that can be used for the betterment of the school.
"On the other hand, the teacher's T.V. spots are clouded with suggestions, but no answers.
(except unansered questions)."
First of all unanswered has a "w" in it. Secondly, if it were as easy as the commercial says it was, there would be more people pushing for vouchers. The commercials fails to recognize the $30,000+ dollars that the school just lost from those three students going to a private school. How come they don't mention that? It is called a weighted pupil unit. Every school has money coming in based on the students that attend. When they leave, they lose that money that can be used for the betterment of the school.
reason | 9:35 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Private schools are not competition as one side has rules and the other does
not. Private schools can choose their students and exclude other and can hire
anyone they choose to teach. If private schools are helped by the government
they can take are best students and best teachers and leave public schools with
the rest. How would this help public schools, where most our children will get
their education, do their job? It will harm them! Further more in all private
business there are those companies only after the dollar. When those private
schools are done getting there money who gets to clean up the mess, public
schools and they have to do while educating the children who never left, while
following all the rules and without $3000.00 per child. One other fact, both
sides are funded mostly out of state as this is an experiment where nobody is
sure how it would work and would like to see the results using someone elses
money and children.
Anonymous | 9:39 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Dan B., This issue shouldn't be about how much tax money would go to
voucher and how much would go to public schools and should be about one
question. That question is "do we want to give up our right to elect school
board officials and have a direct say in how our taxes our used in terms of
public education or do we want to retain that right by opposing vouchers?"
If we want to give up our right to vote and to allow individual parents to
decide how to use our tax dollars than we should support vouchers and forget
about having any control over public monies appropriated for education. If we
want to keep our right than we should oppose vouchers and seek to preserve our
right to vote in school board elections. Those who claim that without the media
no body can understand the law simply ignores their responsibility to know what
they are voting on. It isn't the media's job to provide you with the
information you need. It is your civic duty just like it is with the school
board elections to know what you are voting on. Where is parental
accountability?
Choice? | 9:44 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I really am exhausted by those supporters of vouchers suggesting that they have
no choice if this referendum does not pass. The choice is there and will
continue to be there. Voting no means I do not have to pay for your choice. It
is just that plain and simple. I have to pay for public schools and I do so
without complaining (though I have no kids in the system) but I should not have
to pay for private schools. They are private, not public, but you have the full
right and CHOICE to put your child in them if you choose to. No one is denying
this. Please stop whinning about your choice or freedon being denied. This is a
ridiculous claim.
C.T. | 9:45 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
It is my understanding that the money the schools get is based on the number of
kids that attend that school. So if we give vouchers and kids attend private
schools, this will only decrease the funding for the public schools while giving
money to the kids that will attend the private schools. Can someone let me know
if this is right. I am so confused.
tongue in Cheek | 9:45 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Private schools can't survive the current competition with Public schools
when parents alone are paying for them. They have too many openings to remain
fiscally responsible, and it is our responsibility to save our Private school
system before it folds.
If only the people realized this and saved Enron before it collapsed.
:P
If only the people realized this and saved Enron before it collapsed.
:P
Anonymous | 9:49 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Response to Dave, in response to your question "what about the private
school parents who are paying for their kids education at the private school AND
are paying taxes to support YOUR kids at public school?" They can vote in
public school elections whereas those with children in public schools (and
without children) cannot vote on private school board officials. We all pay
taxes and we all get a vote. If you want us to pay for your child's
education than we have rights too otherwise pay for it yourself. Why should
those who want to enroll their children in private school be treated any
differently than Utahns with no children who also have to pay taxes and who will
be paying for their children's private education while not benefiting from
it directly. Apparently those Utahns should just pay for their children's
education in private schools. You want to tax the rest of us and then try to
deny us a vote. You talk as if you care about us but your vote "yes"
is a violation of my rights and I condemn you for it. So go vote yes because I
intend to defend my rights against you.
To Allan | 9:51 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
There is a voters pamphlet out to read. A lot of it is the same old rhetoric
from the two sides but the "impartial" review is helpful.
Perceived Competition | 9:56 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
To: Mahershalalhashbaz
You make an impassioned plea for vouchers and their effect on competition. I agree that competition is fine when there is a level playing field. Unfortunately, that is not the case with vouchers. There are two glaring reasons for this.
First, public schools are saddled with restrictions and accountability standards that private schools simply do not have. Public schools have a limited pool of educators (those that are certified), while private schools can hire whom they will. Public schools are required to accept all students and provide services for them (speech, resource, psychology, transportation, etc.). Private schools have no such responsibility. Public schools are required to administer standardized tests. Private schools are not. etc.
Second, since the voucher program provides almost no discriminating factors for the institution receiving the funds, religious-based schools are eligible. The Utah constitution does not allow for public funding of religious education, and rightly so. We live in a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed. Therefore, is it right that public funds support a religious school? Is it right that taxpayer money funds religious indocrination of any kind? You can answer these questions however you will, but the state constitution says, "no."
You make an impassioned plea for vouchers and their effect on competition. I agree that competition is fine when there is a level playing field. Unfortunately, that is not the case with vouchers. There are two glaring reasons for this.
First, public schools are saddled with restrictions and accountability standards that private schools simply do not have. Public schools have a limited pool of educators (those that are certified), while private schools can hire whom they will. Public schools are required to accept all students and provide services for them (speech, resource, psychology, transportation, etc.). Private schools have no such responsibility. Public schools are required to administer standardized tests. Private schools are not. etc.
Second, since the voucher program provides almost no discriminating factors for the institution receiving the funds, religious-based schools are eligible. The Utah constitution does not allow for public funding of religious education, and rightly so. We live in a country where freedom of religion is guaranteed. Therefore, is it right that public funds support a religious school? Is it right that taxpayer money funds religious indocrination of any kind? You can answer these questions however you will, but the state constitution says, "no."
Even Keel | 10:06 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
First, I would like to second the opinion as to how effective the Richard Eyre
add is. There is however one flaw. If they really wanted to accurately depict
what the vouchers will do, they would lick the frosting out of the middle of the
oreo's and then put them back on the stack.
Second, the referendum has a very important purpose, that is to hold the legislature accountable to their constituents. Perhaps you have forgotton that the voucher proposal was criticized from the beginning. In fact, there has never been even close to a majority of voters who approved of this proposal. Now if only they had "listened" to their constituents we would not be having this discussion in the first place. As my daddy always said "It's better to keep the poop in the horse, than try and put the poop back in the horse.
Second, the referendum has a very important purpose, that is to hold the legislature accountable to their constituents. Perhaps you have forgotton that the voucher proposal was criticized from the beginning. In fact, there has never been even close to a majority of voters who approved of this proposal. Now if only they had "listened" to their constituents we would not be having this discussion in the first place. As my daddy always said "It's better to keep the poop in the horse, than try and put the poop back in the horse.
HT | 10:10 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
As an educator of thirty-plus years, I see, smell, hear the lies of the
proponents for Vouchers. What a sad story for our public education system.
Although flawed, our system will not improve with Vouchers. Why is it that some
people think "competition" saves any money situation? There is not a
profit loss statement, true. But go into classrooms and find out what is needed
without listening to greedy political followers. See what we truly need. Talk to
teachers, educators. Fix the system; don't discard it. I'm for kids!
Steven Jarvis | 10:09 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
CT,
You are mostly correct.
District schools get funding from multiple sources. The State kicks in the WPU (Weighted Pupil Unit) which is about 4,500. If the child is not enrolled at the school on October 1st, then the State does not allocate the funds.
Districts also collect property taxes, which is where I believe is used primarily to pay off debt from building projects. That is where the other close to 3K comes from that is often quoted.
Simply, if we approve Vouchers the school never gets the WPU. To hold schools harmless, the first five years after a child leaves the Public system, a mitigation fund of the unused average portion is split up evenly among the public schools that lost students. That average is expected to be between 2,000-2,500 because most who will use vouchers are on the highest two income brackets.
In the end the mitigation money will not cover the loss of a student. With fewer students at the school, a Full-Time-Educator is not hired for every twenty-five students or so.
You are mostly correct.
District schools get funding from multiple sources. The State kicks in the WPU (Weighted Pupil Unit) which is about 4,500. If the child is not enrolled at the school on October 1st, then the State does not allocate the funds.
Districts also collect property taxes, which is where I believe is used primarily to pay off debt from building projects. That is where the other close to 3K comes from that is often quoted.
Simply, if we approve Vouchers the school never gets the WPU. To hold schools harmless, the first five years after a child leaves the Public system, a mitigation fund of the unused average portion is split up evenly among the public schools that lost students. That average is expected to be between 2,000-2,500 because most who will use vouchers are on the highest two income brackets.
In the end the mitigation money will not cover the loss of a student. With fewer students at the school, a Full-Time-Educator is not hired for every twenty-five students or so.
Thanks! | 10:13 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Response to Dave | 9:13 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007 says,
�By the way, the family that I know that has their kids attend a private school are not rich...they are hard working people who care about education and want to provide the best educational experience they can for their kids.�
Thank you!
That is exactly the way it should happen. If you think a private education is best for your kids � pay for it yourself. You�ll be in good company.
There is no need for vouchers. Those who truly find private education to be valuable for their children will find a way to make it happen without groveling for money from the state.
�By the way, the family that I know that has their kids attend a private school are not rich...they are hard working people who care about education and want to provide the best educational experience they can for their kids.�
Thank you!
That is exactly the way it should happen. If you think a private education is best for your kids � pay for it yourself. You�ll be in good company.
There is no need for vouchers. Those who truly find private education to be valuable for their children will find a way to make it happen without groveling for money from the state.
JIM P. | 10:15 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
If private schools chose to accept goverment funding it seems obvious that more
& more goverment regulation will follow in the future. No group will be more
hysterical than voucher supporters. In fact it sounds like a great way to
eventually sneak the camel right into the tent. Best to maybe keep private
schools private?
Northern Utah County Citizen | 10:23 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
My first question is why do we continue to have school bonding issues,
initiatives, propositions, etc. on obscure off-year elections? I know this is
part of the game that is being played; and it is just plain wrong. A very small
part of the electorate, in this case the UEA dominated portion will have their
way again. What about the media being forth right and telling us about who are
the principals big interest groups behind the "for" and
"against" sides? This entire election issue is totally unfair! How
much is it costing us? What about the fact that our elected officials who wrote
this law, and the governor who signed the legislation are being overturned? It
the legislation was such a problem to the opposition, why don't they go to
the court? What about the issue that Utah is about 98% public school while many
other states have 10% to 15% parochial or private schools as alternatives to
public schools? The fact that the ACLU is supporting the anti-voucher movement
is reason enough to question what is going on here. The facts and money figures
going into public education is another gray area that needs airing.
To M.M. | 10:26 a.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Don't be fooled by the cookie commercials. Public schools will only retain
the money from students transfering to private schools during the first 5
yearsof the program. After the first 5 years all of those cookies will be gone
from the public schools and the only schools with cookies will be private.
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.
Related content
- Mumbai observes anniversary 10:12 p.m.
- Fight over ex leads to man's death 10:04 p.m.
- West Virginia downs Long Beach St. 10:00 p.m.
- China vows to slow pollution 9:52 p.m.
- Dubai 'standstill' request felt globally 9:51 p.m.
- Energy cuts likely to go unnoticed 9:49 p.m.
- Blackwater lawyers accuse gov't 9:48 p.m.
- Linehan's success at WSU no accident 9:32 p.m.
- RSL spoiled ESPN's wish for L.A. win 9:12 p.m.
- BYU's old uniforms? 9:09 p.m.
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies
- Rivalry has had some 'turkeys'
- Cave rescuers committed to free man
- Holiday television program listings
- Highland players make special friend
- Temple Square to use LEDs
- Matt Reynolds vs. Koa Misi
- Missions teach players perseverance
- Salt Lake City woman shot
- Provo star leads Bulldogs to win
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
262 - Protests against Phoenix LDS temple210
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- BYU records with win133
- Thunder rolls by Jazz133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin131
- Boys basketball rankings116
- Editorial: Poor welcome for Palin112
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
Latest comments
Just do it. USU blue is not BYU blue.
Another private city army to satisfy a Mayor and Councils ego, that is not...
re:Unbelievable Sorry mate but with a losing record in the playoffs, this...
Is it me, or did this article take a 180 degree directional sporting change...
Another evidence of style over substance. His lack of talent is shining...
We have been overdoing it for a really long time. We need to think about...
It seems that every time someone gets trapped in that cave there is a...
BYU's current uniform color is actually closer to the team's original color...
Too bad he didn't pledge to cut methane gas in half by the year 2012, the...
The only thing that matters is emotion. Throw the game plan out the window...
Advertisements
It is only natural they would fight for any change. Competition is what has made America unique.