Reader comments
Nuances of vouchers elude many
171 comments | Read story
Karen Eddy | 3:46 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
VOUCHERS, as I see it, will create a new public school system without forcing
the old one to accept such American ideals as prayer or the pledge of
allegiance.
.
OLD PUBLIC SCHOOLS who denied freedoms and safety to our children (there is safety in prayer and freedom in choosing to enforce order and high standards) will indeed loose students, monies, teachers, and will hopefully disappear altogether.
.
But, consider:
.
PRIVATE SCHOOLS who accept vouchers will, by accepting state funds, become Public schools and thrive with restored freedoms such as a daily pledge of allegiance, prayer allowed, and authorizing our teachers to enforce high standards of behavior.
.
VOUCHER SCHOOLS will eventually have to abide by State and Federal guidelines for excellance (background cks, teaching certificates, and student testing).
.
OLD PUBLIC SCHOOLS where prayer is not allowed, where teachers can't punish students, where classes are crowded, where teachers are over-worked and underpaid, and where students are facing dangerous situations, will disappear.
.
PRIVATE SCHOOLS who refuse state funded vouchers will remain completely private.
.
Life will go on after a YES VOTE FOR VOUCHERS, even better than before.
.
OLD PUBLIC SCHOOLS who denied freedoms and safety to our children (there is safety in prayer and freedom in choosing to enforce order and high standards) will indeed loose students, monies, teachers, and will hopefully disappear altogether.
.
But, consider:
.
PRIVATE SCHOOLS who accept vouchers will, by accepting state funds, become Public schools and thrive with restored freedoms such as a daily pledge of allegiance, prayer allowed, and authorizing our teachers to enforce high standards of behavior.
.
VOUCHER SCHOOLS will eventually have to abide by State and Federal guidelines for excellance (background cks, teaching certificates, and student testing).
.
OLD PUBLIC SCHOOLS where prayer is not allowed, where teachers can't punish students, where classes are crowded, where teachers are over-worked and underpaid, and where students are facing dangerous situations, will disappear.
.
PRIVATE SCHOOLS who refuse state funded vouchers will remain completely private.
.
Life will go on after a YES VOTE FOR VOUCHERS, even better than before.
Mike - Lehi | 3:53 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I would like to know the fixed, variable, and step expenses associated with
students in a school; then I will decide.
Mike - Lehi
Mike - Lehi
Comments continue below
Cleetorn | 3:56 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Sam,
I already have the choice (and exercize it) to send my kids where I want to - without vouchers. That still does not negate the problem with the private sector not requiring an actual teaching degree to teach or their option to reject any application they choose to. There needs to be an alternative to the present system but there are too many weaknesses in the voucher initiative as it it currently written to make it the right choice. Regardless of the situation, it is not good to enact bad legislation as a stop-gap measure and hope to make it right later.
I already have the choice (and exercize it) to send my kids where I want to - without vouchers. That still does not negate the problem with the private sector not requiring an actual teaching degree to teach or their option to reject any application they choose to. There needs to be an alternative to the present system but there are too many weaknesses in the voucher initiative as it it currently written to make it the right choice. Regardless of the situation, it is not good to enact bad legislation as a stop-gap measure and hope to make it right later.
The American Way | 3:58 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Why has public education been singled out to somehow be immune to the power of
the the free-market and competition? Since the A.T.& T. monopoly was broken
up, the service we receive from the diverse communications market has
dramatically improved. Gratefully, we don't have to choose exclusively from
ATT phones and services. Besides, public schools still receive money from the
departed students for years, with less students. Nationwide studies have shown
that increased funds has not corrected the outdated public school system that
teachers are tied to by powerful influences inside education.
Ralph P. | 4:07 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Why doesn't the Deseret News research what the intend of the legislature is
on the vouchers and compare this with both sides of the issue and tell us the
real story!
Craig | 4:33 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Watching the tv adds The last couple of days, you get the feeling the people in
favor to this passing feel the voter is to dumb to see and make the decision.
Why do i feel this, THEIR COOKIE ADD, worst add in this century.
Bret | 4:33 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
The public education system is bloated at the top. If a private business was
run the same as public education it would go bankrupt fast. Vouchers are the
best way to force eficiency back into the system.
BeFree | 4:38 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
WHY ARE YOU ALL ACTING LIKE A BUNCH OF COMMUNIST/SOCIALISTS AND SUPPORTING
GOVERNMENT INVOLVEMENT IN SCHOOLS ANYWAY? Under our unique system, the
government has no business meddling in our education, hands down. Support our
constitution and say "no" to ALL social programs. If you do not then
you are against freedom. You are a socialist who wants some elite group to
decide what is best for you. Support freedom.
By the way, why is it that all the anti-voucherists try to slander and play the political game where the pro-voucherians explain there points and use reason? Hmmm, sounds a little fishy when one side only starts in with the politics game.
By the way, why is it that all the anti-voucherists try to slander and play the political game where the pro-voucherians explain there points and use reason? Hmmm, sounds a little fishy when one side only starts in with the politics game.
Confused | 5:12 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
So if I take my children out of public school and put them in private school and
the public school no longer gets the money from the state for that student and I
still pay my taxes then where does that money go?
To BeFree | 5:20 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Pro-voucherians say you are a liberal if you vote against vouchers.
Pro-vouchererist make you feel stupid (here we will show you with cookies even
you dumbies should understand this)if you are going to vote against vouchers.
Who is playing the politics game? Be honest.
Ron in Draper | 5:31 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
The Eyre's ad is misleading in that they move the cookies to other piles,
as though the tax funds saved were reallocated to the remaining students. In
fact, each school district is reimbursed by the state based on each
school's attendance. The savings will be realized by the state (more money
for the legislature to play with) and the districts will be left short of funds
to educate our children.
Steve Jarvis | 5:39 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Joe in Murray,
You should read a bit more and not believe in the misleading cookie equation commercial. Cookies will be eaten by other education goals and not given to the Public schools when children leave, so the Public system will never see those dollars that could have gone to educate the child.
The full amount of 7.5 K is also misleading as well. A large portion goes to paying off bond debt and even if all the kids left the Public system, we'd still be paying that till it has been paid off.
You should read a bit more and not believe in the misleading cookie equation commercial. Cookies will be eaten by other education goals and not given to the Public schools when children leave, so the Public system will never see those dollars that could have gone to educate the child.
The full amount of 7.5 K is also misleading as well. A large portion goes to paying off bond debt and even if all the kids left the Public system, we'd still be paying that till it has been paid off.
"Not for or against vouchers" | 6:07 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Example
$7000.00 per student X 200,000 students = $1,400,000,000 Total.
5% (10,000) of students leave public education and given on average $2000 = a total of $20,000,000 taken away from public education.
$1,380,000,000 left for the 180,000 students still in public education. This would now = $7,263.16 per student after those students leave with the voucher money. This would then be a 4% increase per student left in public education.
That is one of the positives of voting yes for vouchers. Another choice would also be a positive.
A couple of negitives would be that the enrollment in some schools would go down and could cost schools to have to be closed. Even if they do not have to be closed they still use up the same amound of money to run the physical building as before.
This also allows less choices in those school for what classes could be offered.
One last thing about charter schools/privite schools, some are real good and some are real bad. Sound a lot like public schools.
It is all in how you look at it, that is the question.
This is only my understanding of the issue, good luck with your understanding.
$7000.00 per student X 200,000 students = $1,400,000,000 Total.
5% (10,000) of students leave public education and given on average $2000 = a total of $20,000,000 taken away from public education.
$1,380,000,000 left for the 180,000 students still in public education. This would now = $7,263.16 per student after those students leave with the voucher money. This would then be a 4% increase per student left in public education.
That is one of the positives of voting yes for vouchers. Another choice would also be a positive.
A couple of negitives would be that the enrollment in some schools would go down and could cost schools to have to be closed. Even if they do not have to be closed they still use up the same amound of money to run the physical building as before.
This also allows less choices in those school for what classes could be offered.
One last thing about charter schools/privite schools, some are real good and some are real bad. Sound a lot like public schools.
It is all in how you look at it, that is the question.
This is only my understanding of the issue, good luck with your understanding.
Karen Eddy | 7:05 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
REFERENDUM VOTING, in my opinion, is volatile. It allows anyone (including
questionable characters) to write something (to become law) to be voted upon
without option to change or improve or fully consider the consequences.
People vote on popularity, rather than legal matter, and are easily swayed by
media in the few weeks before an election. When referendums pass, they become
law -- not easily changed.
.
However, REPRESENTATIVES are elected by the people for short terms, because of their skill as lawyers, or advanced education, and their attention to the people's welfare. REPRESENTATIVES take time to study legal matters and obtain key input from other lawyers as well as from their constituents. Each document is improved upon over long periods of time before being presented to be made into law, if it ever reaches that stage.
.
Why not elect honest Representatives, educated lawyers, who study the issues, and make wise decisions, whom we can hold accountable? We used to have a REPUBLIC form of government where REPRESENTATION was key to American protection. But, in recent years REFERENDUM VOTING has become popular. Maybe the internet makes people feel smarter. Guys write referendums and we vote. Volatile. Very Volatile.
.
However, REPRESENTATIVES are elected by the people for short terms, because of their skill as lawyers, or advanced education, and their attention to the people's welfare. REPRESENTATIVES take time to study legal matters and obtain key input from other lawyers as well as from their constituents. Each document is improved upon over long periods of time before being presented to be made into law, if it ever reaches that stage.
.
Why not elect honest Representatives, educated lawyers, who study the issues, and make wise decisions, whom we can hold accountable? We used to have a REPUBLIC form of government where REPRESENTATION was key to American protection. But, in recent years REFERENDUM VOTING has become popular. Maybe the internet makes people feel smarter. Guys write referendums and we vote. Volatile. Very Volatile.
Anonymous | 8:18 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Kevin, it is the rich kids that cost the most to educate because their
parent's push them to do sports, theatre, band etc; If they really are the
ones to leave and go to the private schools, then the public schools would save
money.
Several states have done vouchers. Maybe some of us could look at their success (or failure). I think Michigan has an extensive version of it.
Public, mandatory education makes kids take school for granted. If they saw it as a privilege rather than a right (or duty) they might be more motivated to go.
Also, read about Milton Friedman on wikipedia to see some good rationales for vouchers.
Several states have done vouchers. Maybe some of us could look at their success (or failure). I think Michigan has an extensive version of it.
Public, mandatory education makes kids take school for granted. If they saw it as a privilege rather than a right (or duty) they might be more motivated to go.
Also, read about Milton Friedman on wikipedia to see some good rationales for vouchers.
Adam Smith | 8:28 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
The people against vouchers say they are for the kids..Yet, the voucher is for
the child, so how can they be for kids?
Most district schools are the same. They use the same textbooks, publishers, etc.so how can individual needs/interests be met? They can't.
The issue is not vouchers supporting private schools, it is vouchers supporting kids. Another thing, what's with the rhetoric implying that private is a bad thing. Everything we purchase is made by private companies. In fact, government is typically useless, except for the military. If you want to look at public money, count all the $$ the democrats are spending on PORK. For the last 30 plus years the quality of public education is falling and failing.
Adam Smith has it right. If you want the best product/service, let the market forces create it. Heck, Belgium has choice,why can't we?
Plus, the voucher will save Utah taxpayers money!
And, why is the NEA, AKA..liberal-leftist and out-of-state communistic entity butting into our business? I'd vote for vouchers just on this alone.
Be wise...Vote for Choice. The rich folk have it, now it is our turn.
Most district schools are the same. They use the same textbooks, publishers, etc.so how can individual needs/interests be met? They can't.
The issue is not vouchers supporting private schools, it is vouchers supporting kids. Another thing, what's with the rhetoric implying that private is a bad thing. Everything we purchase is made by private companies. In fact, government is typically useless, except for the military. If you want to look at public money, count all the $$ the democrats are spending on PORK. For the last 30 plus years the quality of public education is falling and failing.
Adam Smith has it right. If you want the best product/service, let the market forces create it. Heck, Belgium has choice,why can't we?
Plus, the voucher will save Utah taxpayers money!
And, why is the NEA, AKA..liberal-leftist and out-of-state communistic entity butting into our business? I'd vote for vouchers just on this alone.
Be wise...Vote for Choice. The rich folk have it, now it is our turn.
Rodney Rex | 8:31 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
The government forcibly taxes us for the education of our own children, then
they dictate what school we can send them to and dictate where, how and what
they will learn. The money is mine to begin with, not the government's! If
I'm forcibly taxed to pay for education, I should at the very least have
the right to take my child to the school that will be the best for them.
Unionized monopolies, like the NEA an UEA do not want the competition. Monopolies never serve the best interests of the people, they serve their own interests. If schools had to compete for students to stay open, they would have to innovate and hire the best teachers. The best teachers would get rewarded with more pay and benefits. Our current system encourages mediocrity. Whether you are a good teacher or a bad teacher you get paid the same-that's not right.
Anywhere people have been given freedom and choice in education things have improved. People fear change, even when it's for the best. The NEA and UEA are spending millions to defeat vouchers and maintain their stranglehold on our children's education. It's time for change!
Unionized monopolies, like the NEA an UEA do not want the competition. Monopolies never serve the best interests of the people, they serve their own interests. If schools had to compete for students to stay open, they would have to innovate and hire the best teachers. The best teachers would get rewarded with more pay and benefits. Our current system encourages mediocrity. Whether you are a good teacher or a bad teacher you get paid the same-that's not right.
Anywhere people have been given freedom and choice in education things have improved. People fear change, even when it's for the best. The NEA and UEA are spending millions to defeat vouchers and maintain their stranglehold on our children's education. It's time for change!
Steven Jarvis | 9:23 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Karen Eddy,
The questionable characters in Utah's referendum case was a legislature that went against what those who had voted them into office wanted. The PTA believing that parents know what is better for education than politicians do, collected enough signatures to put the Voucher law on hold to be voted on by the people.
This may seem strange to those outside of Utah. But our State has a safety net whenever a law passes narrowly in the legislature for the citizens to stop it from becoming law, and that is why Parents for Choice has to put in more money than they thought trying to keep this expensive entitlement program on the books.
The questionable characters in Utah's referendum case was a legislature that went against what those who had voted them into office wanted. The PTA believing that parents know what is better for education than politicians do, collected enough signatures to put the Voucher law on hold to be voted on by the people.
This may seem strange to those outside of Utah. But our State has a safety net whenever a law passes narrowly in the legislature for the citizens to stop it from becoming law, and that is why Parents for Choice has to put in more money than they thought trying to keep this expensive entitlement program on the books.
Confused | 9:32 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Hmmm... a white pages search for Lane Meyer doesn't turn up anybody in
Utah. Ashamed of your identity? Paid to foul the waters? Who are you really?
Wolfgang | 9:58 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
It seems no one sees the real problem with the proposed voucher program.
$3,000.00 per year does not get anyone private education. At $12,000.00 and up
for one student per year a $3,000.00 voucher still leaves the parents with a
$9,000.00 bill. If the qualifications for these vouchers are anything like what
it takes to be eligible for public assistance a family of four may not have more
than $900.00 per month in income. No family subsiding on $900.00 per month will
have the $9,000.00 per year to send their child to private school. If the
guidelines for school vouchers are loosend it will only marginally increase the
class of those who can afford private education on the back of public education.
My vote is clear on this one "NO" to referendum one. Let's bag it
while we have a say.
wrz | 10:27 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Some blame teachers unions for poor Utah schools. In the first place, Utah
schools are not poor. They are not the best in the nation, but not the poorest
by far. Secondly, private schools are not immune from unionization in the
future.
Person | 10:47 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I am a non-UEA-member Utah educator.
1. Parents have loads of power in the public school system, and teachers have very little. Parents who become involved or who complain can get what they want, especially if they are persistent. School districts want to avoid litigation, so they will grant parental requests more often than not.
2. The cookie commerical is not telling the real story. As kids are pulled from public to private schools, class sizes will likely increase. Class sizes are based on the total number of students in the school, and as students leave, the remaining students would be squeezed into fewer classes.
3. For all parents who say their children are "contaminated" by public schools, I say, "Teach your kids to be strong enough to survive in the real world. They will be spending the rest of their lives there." Contrary too what is often reported, there are many excellent public schools and many people of character who choose to teach in them.
4. Taxpayers should absolutely not be required to support the private education of a few privileged individuals.
1. Parents have loads of power in the public school system, and teachers have very little. Parents who become involved or who complain can get what they want, especially if they are persistent. School districts want to avoid litigation, so they will grant parental requests more often than not.
2. The cookie commerical is not telling the real story. As kids are pulled from public to private schools, class sizes will likely increase. Class sizes are based on the total number of students in the school, and as students leave, the remaining students would be squeezed into fewer classes.
3. For all parents who say their children are "contaminated" by public schools, I say, "Teach your kids to be strong enough to survive in the real world. They will be spending the rest of their lives there." Contrary too what is often reported, there are many excellent public schools and many people of character who choose to teach in them.
4. Taxpayers should absolutely not be required to support the private education of a few privileged individuals.
The Oreos Lie | 11:42 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
The pro-voucher Oreo ad doesn't really show how the government funds
anything. If you take away the funding for one student the remaining funds per
capita doesn't go back into some magical pot devoted to education; rather
it goes into the state's tax surplus. It's rare that the surplus
money goes back into education, with the great exception being last year.
Maybe, we really have state politicians that want to do something about our
underfunded education system, but I think that's just not the case. While I
applaud the idea of vouchers, the bill in question is filled with flaws. I wish
that the legislature would see the outrage, (both for and against the measure)
and take the opportunity to address the problems in the bill. Compromise is a
great thing and our country needs more of it. This issue has been turned into a
Yes or No decision. Awful leaders, awful laws! It would be nice to have
foresight and compromise in leadership.
Apparently common sense is dead | 11:47 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
I'm a survivor of Michigan public education. Worst tax money that was ever
forcibly taken from my parents. In response to "Person":
1.) "Loads" of power?! Have you ever been to a PTA meeting? My mother had to spearhead a 200 parent protest to remove what she deemed offensive literature from our required reading list.
2.) This logic is a bunch of garbage. "The remaining students would be squeezed into fewer classes?!" Does the school building magically shrink as students leave? As far as I'm aware this is physically impossible. Had you said, "as students leave, faculty is reduced disproportionate to the student decrease," I might have bought it.
3.) This goes hand in hand with point 1. Since your logic is that parents have loads of power in the public school system, shouldn't the schools teach the kids what parents want them to learn? I agree that children need to be prepared for the world, but why is it necessarily the federal government's job to do that? What renders a private school incapable of preparing kids for the real world?
4) Absolutely right, but taxpayers should also have the right to determine where their tax money is spent.
1.) "Loads" of power?! Have you ever been to a PTA meeting? My mother had to spearhead a 200 parent protest to remove what she deemed offensive literature from our required reading list.
2.) This logic is a bunch of garbage. "The remaining students would be squeezed into fewer classes?!" Does the school building magically shrink as students leave? As far as I'm aware this is physically impossible. Had you said, "as students leave, faculty is reduced disproportionate to the student decrease," I might have bought it.
3.) This goes hand in hand with point 1. Since your logic is that parents have loads of power in the public school system, shouldn't the schools teach the kids what parents want them to learn? I agree that children need to be prepared for the world, but why is it necessarily the federal government's job to do that? What renders a private school incapable of preparing kids for the real world?
4) Absolutely right, but taxpayers should also have the right to determine where their tax money is spent.
dcc | 11:51 p.m. Oct. 12, 2007
Rodney Rex:
The government also forcibly taxes me to pay when I have no children. Why don't I get a voucher? It's my money too.
Take your kids to whatever school you like but quit asking me to pay for it-AGAIN.
The government also forcibly taxes me to pay when I have no children. Why don't I get a voucher? It's my money too.
Take your kids to whatever school you like but quit asking me to pay for it-AGAIN.
CB | 12:06 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
The TV commercials are at least a little more enlightening than this article.
What I learned from watching the pro-voucher ad on TV is that the pro-voucher
camp INSULTS OUR INTELLIGENCE as voters and then expects us to vote for them!
There is NOT ONE reason mentioned in the ad I saw that explains WHY I should
vote for vouchers. NOT ONE!!! The enitre ad was taken up with scare tactics
and by-words, such as "liberal', "union", and
"Washington, D.C." in an attempt to appeal to the emotions and
"conservative" leaning of Utah voters. What they seem to assume is
that we will all be so horrified at the thought of "liberals", etc.,
that we will run right out and vote for vouchers without pausing to THINK
through the issue. They hope to slip the many flaws of their voucher system
past us all while we focus on the "unions" and "liberals".
I'm sorry, but that is an insult to my intelligence as a voter. If
vouchers were such a good idea, the pro-voucher camp would spend their
advertising dollar telling us WHY instead of trying to scare us into voting
their way. Let's ALL stand up and vote NO!!!
Citizen | 12:17 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
For me the Eyre's spot is explains one thing...money is being taken away
from the public schools...period. As for the Huntsman's, their children
were in private schools until he decided to run for Governor...no wonder
he's for vouchers. My children are out of high school and some have
graduated from college. Who is paying for their education...they are, they work
and get student loans that THEY have to pay back. What's my point...my
children wanted a better education...so they are paying for it, with a little
help from Mom and Dad...no one else pays for their education but us.
Teacher | 12:34 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
Karen Eddy,
Where did you get the mistaken idea that we aren't "allowed" to say the Pledge of Allegiance (yes, it IS capitalized--did you miss capitalization of proper nouns in your "superior" private school?) in public school? In fact, we are not only allowed to say it, we are required to say it. Oh, by the way, it still contains the words, "under God." And just so you don't lump me with the communists and liberals, I support and believe in both the Pledge and God. Perhaps before you vote on Referendum 1, you should go back to public school and find out what is actually taking place there.
Where did you get the mistaken idea that we aren't "allowed" to say the Pledge of Allegiance (yes, it IS capitalized--did you miss capitalization of proper nouns in your "superior" private school?) in public school? In fact, we are not only allowed to say it, we are required to say it. Oh, by the way, it still contains the words, "under God." And just so you don't lump me with the communists and liberals, I support and believe in both the Pledge and God. Perhaps before you vote on Referendum 1, you should go back to public school and find out what is actually taking place there.
Steven Jarvis | 12:42 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
If the Pro Voucher Camp had put all the money they had invested in politicians,
ads and campaigning to support the program into a PRIVATE Voucher fund for these
needy Utah children, we'd have Voucher scholarships currently available to
our students and no one would be complaining.
If they cared about kids, that'd be the way they would have brought Vouchers into the state, and that is the only way it should have been. What they have said is that they believe in the free market enterprise as long as we are using 'your' money to make it work.
I challenge Parents for Choice to fund the Voucher program privately (without the mitigation money) for all four-thousand applicants this year. Prove to us that you care about the children, and choice by offering this from your private funds. We'd appreciate this more than the back-door approach to raid the public coffers to fund your noble cause.
If they cared about kids, that'd be the way they would have brought Vouchers into the state, and that is the only way it should have been. What they have said is that they believe in the free market enterprise as long as we are using 'your' money to make it work.
I challenge Parents for Choice to fund the Voucher program privately (without the mitigation money) for all four-thousand applicants this year. Prove to us that you care about the children, and choice by offering this from your private funds. We'd appreciate this more than the back-door approach to raid the public coffers to fund your noble cause.
CB | 1:12 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
Bob, you are EXACTLY RIGHT!!!
C'mon, folks, let's be smart and vote NO to vouchers!!!
C'mon, folks, let's be smart and vote NO to vouchers!!!
CB | 1:27 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
Steven Jarvis, you're beautiful! And you, along with Bob, are exactly
right! I wish everyone, and I mean every voter in the state of Utah, could read
or hear what you just said.
It really does come down to this: Don't take my hard-earned tax dollars to pay for the education of a few elite. You already have the choice to send your kids to private school. By all means, do it--no one is stopping you. But in this "republic", we understand that personal freedom is inseparably tied to personal responsibility. That simply means, if you choose it, YOU pay for it.
Again, vote NO on Referendum 1. It is simply dishonest to expect someone else to pay for your "individual choice."
It really does come down to this: Don't take my hard-earned tax dollars to pay for the education of a few elite. You already have the choice to send your kids to private school. By all means, do it--no one is stopping you. But in this "republic", we understand that personal freedom is inseparably tied to personal responsibility. That simply means, if you choose it, YOU pay for it.
Again, vote NO on Referendum 1. It is simply dishonest to expect someone else to pay for your "individual choice."
Interested | 8:05 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
Citizen:
I believe the Huntsmans are sufficiently wealthy that a $3,000 voucher isn't a temptation. Check out Arizona. They have charter schools. My grandchildren are receiving a much better education in a charter school than they were receiving in public schools.
I believe the Huntsmans are sufficiently wealthy that a $3,000 voucher isn't a temptation. Check out Arizona. They have charter schools. My grandchildren are receiving a much better education in a charter school than they were receiving in public schools.
Mahershalalhashbaz | 8:30 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
People keep saying there isn't a level playing field. That's right.
That's why we want vouchers. Private schools don't have any
restrictions on educating a child, that's why they will do better. You
people are like crabs pulling the other crab down. Cut it out.
C Perkins | 10:48 a.m. Oct. 13, 2007
I am still undecided, but I am certainly confused by those who use the concept
of "government money" to defend their point against vouchers.
Ideally, their should be a tax break instead of vouchers so that it would never
be "government money". There is no such thing as "government
money". It is OUR money, the citizens. Those who support vouchers are not
trying to make everyone else pay for their children. They are just trying to
keep their own money that would otherwise go to taxes. Just as our country
should be "governed by the people", shouldn't the tax money
remain "the peoples". Government does many good and necessary things
with our money, but if a large portion of us feel it is not being used to our
best advantage, should it not be our right to demand some of it back? For those
so afraid of "government money" supporting religion, remember that
others fear that "government money" is already supporting their own
loss of freedom to teach their children what they want... namely religious
morals. Remember it goes both ways.
Joe in Murray | 12:01 p.m. Oct. 13, 2007
Steve Jarvis:
I haven't seen any "Cookie Ads"? I have only studied the voucher issue based upon the models established throughout the world.
And my argument isn't flawed. The brick-and-mortar equation to pubic schools is a very real-world cost of educating students, and it is fair to include this in the $7,500 per student education estimate.
You know as well as I do that if 5 percent of students leave public schools... the public education system would either (1) sell off 5% of the schools for re-development (possibly to a private school?)... or (2) the public school system would bond 5% less on new buildings. Either way the cost-savings still applies over time. If you look at voucher systems in other developed countries, this is exactly what happened!
But why am I trying to convince you? Based upon your forum comments it's fairly obvious that you must have some direct, monetary connection to our current system. Are you a teacher or administrator?
As a parent of three pre-k children, I would like to have choice. After all, my wife and I will pay taxes into education our entire life. So why should a SOCIALIST decide how I educate my children?
I haven't seen any "Cookie Ads"? I have only studied the voucher issue based upon the models established throughout the world.
And my argument isn't flawed. The brick-and-mortar equation to pubic schools is a very real-world cost of educating students, and it is fair to include this in the $7,500 per student education estimate.
You know as well as I do that if 5 percent of students leave public schools... the public education system would either (1) sell off 5% of the schools for re-development (possibly to a private school?)... or (2) the public school system would bond 5% less on new buildings. Either way the cost-savings still applies over time. If you look at voucher systems in other developed countries, this is exactly what happened!
But why am I trying to convince you? Based upon your forum comments it's fairly obvious that you must have some direct, monetary connection to our current system. Are you a teacher or administrator?
As a parent of three pre-k children, I would like to have choice. After all, my wife and I will pay taxes into education our entire life. So why should a SOCIALIST decide how I educate my children?
Steven Jarvis | 3:09 p.m. Oct. 13, 2007
The Public system is still stuck with the bond even if all the children left the
system, and the WPU is a more accurate assessment of what we use to fund Public
education. You cannot simply reduce the bond by 5 percent because this is
borrowed money.
My elementary school is now owned by a private school--the old South Jordan Elementary building, so I expect that will happen to several schools over time. The original SJES building was condemned and bulldozed, the school playground subdivided while the main building remained.
The school changed names (and ownership) three times the first year. I guess that meant three schools failed. The building still is an eyesore and the kids lost the nearest public park when the school was sold.
You should check out the 'cookie ads.' They are on YouTube. They misrepresent how funds are spent on public ed.
My elementary school is now owned by a private school--the old South Jordan Elementary building, so I expect that will happen to several schools over time. The original SJES building was condemned and bulldozed, the school playground subdivided while the main building remained.
The school changed names (and ownership) three times the first year. I guess that meant three schools failed. The building still is an eyesore and the kids lost the nearest public park when the school was sold.
You should check out the 'cookie ads.' They are on YouTube. They misrepresent how funds are spent on public ed.
Steven Jarvis | 3:35 p.m. Oct. 13, 2007
Joe in Murray,
Teachers are not socialists. It is sad you have such low opinion of those who serve children, but I'd rather do what is right then be popular in your eyes.
In Utah, we have choice in how we want our children educated, and more importantly. This Voucher thing isn't a choice issue, it is rather an issue in who should fund a parent's choice. Should Utah taxpayers fund private education?
As a tax payer I see no benefit to funding Private education. I can't have representation on your school board. I can be refused entry on to private property where the school is located. I don't even know if what I'd be paying for (the education of your children) is even being addressed. Essentially you want our tax money we no responsibility.
What you are asking myself and other taxpayers to do is rather irresponsible and foolish and is why the Voters will shoot down this special interest legislation.
Teachers are not socialists. It is sad you have such low opinion of those who serve children, but I'd rather do what is right then be popular in your eyes.
In Utah, we have choice in how we want our children educated, and more importantly. This Voucher thing isn't a choice issue, it is rather an issue in who should fund a parent's choice. Should Utah taxpayers fund private education?
As a tax payer I see no benefit to funding Private education. I can't have representation on your school board. I can be refused entry on to private property where the school is located. I don't even know if what I'd be paying for (the education of your children) is even being addressed. Essentially you want our tax money we no responsibility.
What you are asking myself and other taxpayers to do is rather irresponsible and foolish and is why the Voters will shoot down this special interest legislation.
Blinded by the Light | 5:41 p.m. Oct. 13, 2007
Way to hit the nail right on the head Steve Jarvis!
Blinded by the Light | 5:45 p.m. Oct. 13, 2007
Interested,
Charter schools ARE public schools.
Charter schools ARE public schools.
Steven Jarvis | 12:27 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007
Having taught in Two Charter Schools, I can confirm they are Public schools,
with the same State and Federal requirements of all Public schools.
Carol | 9:48 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007
Rick and Linda Eyre should be embarrassed. Their nine(!!!) children were
successfully educated in the public schools. "Are we not all
beggars?" Despite the source (most recently), it does "take a village
to raise a child." All of the children in the public education system--all
children at least in our state--are "our children." We should feel
privileged to contribute to their education, their health care, their dental
care and the air they breathe. And, yes, because we ALL have made a cultural
decision to value children and to encourage our "children" to have
children, the cost will be hugely disproportionate. Would we recall our choice?
Not me. Two facts: (1) class size will NOT be reduced by vouchers. As
previously mentioned, class sizes are determined by numbers of students in the
school (not even solely the age group). 3 classes of 30 (lucky school!) that
lose 15 students will become 2 classes of 37 and 38. (2) What guarantee is there
that the "mitigation $$" will stay in the program? One legislature
cannot bind the next. Angry,spiteful legislators will remove the $$ in
subsequent years. Eyres: 2 thoughts--is the PCE salary/payment enough?
dcc | 11:03 a.m. Oct. 14, 2007
Dear confused,
Your tax money goes the same place mine goes. I don't have children and I still pay. You are not entitled to opt out of the tax system any more than I am. So make your choice but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.
Your tax money goes the same place mine goes. I don't have children and I still pay. You are not entitled to opt out of the tax system any more than I am. So make your choice but don't expect the rest of us to pay for it.
mark | 5:01 p.m. Oct. 14, 2007
C Perkins, you state that you have lost the freedom to teach your children what
you want, namely religious morals. I was just wondering how have you, or anyone
else, lost your freedoms to teach your children religious morals, or anything
else about religion?
How and when did that happen? I sure know I can teach my kids all day long about religion if I want to. I know I can take my kids to church and religious class every day if I want to. I can put my kids in religious schools if I wanted to, any day of the week. I also know that I can teach them how misguided religion and religious people can be, if I choose to. And nobody, nobody C Perkins, will or can stop me teaching them what I choose to about religion, not the courts, not the police, not the public school system, and definitely not you or those like you.
Who is it, may I ask, that is trying to stop you?
Please tell me you are not trying to claim that because I will not pay for the religious education of your children that you are loosing your freedoms.
How and when did that happen? I sure know I can teach my kids all day long about religion if I want to. I know I can take my kids to church and religious class every day if I want to. I can put my kids in religious schools if I wanted to, any day of the week. I also know that I can teach them how misguided religion and religious people can be, if I choose to. And nobody, nobody C Perkins, will or can stop me teaching them what I choose to about religion, not the courts, not the police, not the public school system, and definitely not you or those like you.
Who is it, may I ask, that is trying to stop you?
Please tell me you are not trying to claim that because I will not pay for the religious education of your children that you are loosing your freedoms.
Raymond Takashi Swenson | 1:52 a.m. Oct. 15, 2007
Voucher opponents seem to think there is a magic tree of "education
manna" that grows in the public school fund. But it really comes from
taxpayers, including parents of kids in private schools. As taxpayers, why
aren't they entitled to have their kids benefit from the tax money that
THEY pay in? The school boards and teacher unions have no moral right to
control all that money. The students of all families have claim on it. The
funds do not exist to give school boards and unions monopoly power over
education. That is a pure side effect of the system. "Public schools"
are no more morally worthy than private ones. As soon as they spend a dollar
for teaching services, books or electricity, it goes into private pockets, just
like in a private school. How about just rebating to a parent with kids in
private schools the amount he pays in taxes to support education? It will be
like BOTH he and his kids are not in the state. We can ignore them. But the
unions want the money, they don't care about teaching the kids.
Steven Jarvis | 9:51 a.m. Oct. 15, 2007
Swenson,
School boards are given their power through election by the people giving citizens say in how schools are governed. I cannot vote for those who manage a Private school. This is akin to taxation without representation in its most simplest form. I cannot enter the private property of the school and the playgrounds are off limits too. I don't even get proof that my tax monies are actually educating the child I am sharing in paying for.
I get all these benefits with the Public system. That is why the Voucher program attempt in Utah is pork legislation, taking away accountability to the taxpayer.
School boards are given their power through election by the people giving citizens say in how schools are governed. I cannot vote for those who manage a Private school. This is akin to taxation without representation in its most simplest form. I cannot enter the private property of the school and the playgrounds are off limits too. I don't even get proof that my tax monies are actually educating the child I am sharing in paying for.
I get all these benefits with the Public system. That is why the Voucher program attempt in Utah is pork legislation, taking away accountability to the taxpayer.
Carlos Adams | 9:57 a.m. Oct. 15, 2007
Opposition to this program is primarily because vouchers will provide
competition in education: competition for the best teachers, competition for the
dollars, competition for the students and mostly, competition for control of the
curriculum. The NEA and UEA can't stand to loose their control. How else
will they imbue the children with the need to experiment with values and
lifestyles that the parents oppose.
Steven Jarvis | 10:50 a.m. Oct. 15, 2007
Carlos Adams,
Competition runs rampant for the best teachers, and they are leaving the state because we fund education and salaries so low. Besides, Private schools do hire certified teachers (at least the best do), so that sort of competition already exists.
Vouchers do compete for dollars in education, and that is why parents are up in arms against them. We don't fund our Public system adequately and throwing money to something else that has no accountability to the tax payers gives Private schools a monopoly that will only suck up more funds from an already depleted Public system.
Competition runs rampant for the best teachers, and they are leaving the state because we fund education and salaries so low. Besides, Private schools do hire certified teachers (at least the best do), so that sort of competition already exists.
Vouchers do compete for dollars in education, and that is why parents are up in arms against them. We don't fund our Public system adequately and throwing money to something else that has no accountability to the tax payers gives Private schools a monopoly that will only suck up more funds from an already depleted Public system.
Dollar Bill | 11:52 a.m. Oct. 15, 2007
If vouchers do NOT complete for dollars in education, then the claims in favor
of vouchers are unfounded! They claim that vouchers will SAVE dollars and reduce
class sizes. It is only possible to save dollars if vouchers actually have an
effect on dollars, and the only way they can really affect dollars is by
"competing" for dollars. Perhaps the voucher advocates could have paid
some more attention in their math classes!
mark | 11:53 a.m. Oct. 15, 2007
You know, Steven Jarvis, I keep wanting to say something about the voucher
argument, but what more needs to be said after your posts?
I have no idea how anyone could make the argument better then you have.
You are good. You make your argument with reason and clarity. You are a stud. :-)
Thank you.
I have no idea how anyone could make the argument better then you have.
You are good. You make your argument with reason and clarity. You are a stud. :-)
Thank you.
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
- National news briefs 10:02 p.m.
- Dale has fond memories of Bowl 9:57 p.m.
- McClanahan didn't sing theme song 9:54 p.m.
- Van Gundy marvels over Sloan 9:24 p.m.
- TV hero Gene Barry dies at 90 9:23 p.m.
- Eric Church nurses broken foot 9:23 p.m.
- Court to rule on Polanski appearance 9:23 p.m.
- Cuomo leaving ABC morning show 9:23 p.m.
- Gervais says stars in for teasing 9:23 p.m.
- Charges dropped in 'Moon' taping 9:23 p.m.
- Letters: Global warming a lie
277 - BYU football: Bronco weighs in on Hall195
- Palin signs books, chats with fans169
- Andersen apologizes for Jordan hoax143
- Nude bathers cited for lewdness138
- Max Hall wants to look ahead130
- Jazz fall apart late at L.A.110
- LDS to emphasize helping needy106
- Revive full food tax?106
- Panel passes BCS playoff bill105
David Rankin, one of Utah's youngest and ablest astrophotographers has...
There was a time when free shipping was rare. This holiday season, you...
Can you tell I just got out of a budget meeting with Gov Gary Herbert?
Latest comments
Jerry- we've had some great times, the highs and lows and the bitter...
The education budget is staying the same, but there will be 11,000 more kids...
L-3 Communications in Salt Lake is hiring good people; Engineers, Project...
"Documentaries are great IF and only IF they are made from a completely...
I hope they develop a "green" organism to eat all the CO2 they are putting...
utah state already has claim to the dark blue. be original. stick with the...
To "Stalwart Sentinel | 1:53 p.m." apparently you are the one with the...
I can say that Riverton out defensed us. They played a complete game. They...
Where are the rest of them? Like region 7?
Mike Davis you are the man, defense, offense you have it all way to go booyah!
Advertisements
Several of the worlds best educated country's use voucher systems. In many cases (Belgium is a good example) the voucher is valued at the actual cost of a public education ($7,500, not $2,500).
Here is what we can learn from these other countries. VOUCHER'S ALWAYS IMPROVE PUBLIC EDUCATION. It is free enterprise at work. For public schools to survive in these countries, they had to improve. And they did.
We also learn that parochial schools are no more common than other traditional private schools. REGARDLESS, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO SEND A CHILD TO A RELIGIOUS SCHOOL, HOW IS THAT YOUR CONCERN? Don't say it's a Constitutional Religion/State issue because the Supreme Court has already ruled several times THAT IT IS NOT.
Finally, if it cost $7,500(ish) to educate a student in public schools, and the average voucher only removes $2,500 from the public school system, schools achieve a NET GAIN IN FUNDING when a student leaves public schools for a private option. Funny that UEA always ignores this in their literature!
**** CHOICE IS ALWAY'S BEST, especially in education! ****