Deseret News | Reader comments: Vouchers could save schools money

Reader comments
My view: Vouchers could save schools money

GDC | 3:52 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Howard, your fuzzy oreo math does a disservice to the public. Your math has so many holes, if's and assumptions. Way to many for me. VOTE NO!

Wow | 5:59 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

I really wish my classes only had 22 students in them!!

I have English classes with over 40 students! I have a friend with health classes of almost 50!

You need to realize that in order to get the number of 22, they account for every class at the school. Regular classes, honors and AP classes, special ed classes, ELL classes, etc.

To say that 22 is actually the average in our schools, at least in high schools, is a little off and unfair to the public to advertise as truth.

Turk | 6:08 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

But if kids go to private schools, how will we properly indoctrinate them?

Comments continue below

Kevin | 6:57 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Sorry, no. Raise taxes (or start with that surplus). Raise taxes more on people who have more kids. Tax money should not go to religious schools. Private schools cannot be held accountable to the taxpayer, so they shouldn't get tax dollars.

TRK | 7:18 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Howard, you and I both know that saving money is not a good thing in the eyes of the educational establishment. A blank check, both financial and accountability is the only thing that will satisfy them.

Chuck | 7:31 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Howard, you only care about public schools in relation to how fast you can privatize them. The only thing you have done for public schools in 20 years is hurt them. It is hard to believe you care for them now.

Gwilly | 7:36 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

I would challenge GDC to actually describe some of the loopholes he proclaims rahter than just dismiss the commentary. Howard seems to have put a whole lot more behind his words than GDC is willing to attempt.

Wow, you focus on a class size that was presented as part of an average in what seems to be an effort to discredit the commentary provided by 'Howard'. You have missed the point of the article all together. Howard's proposing to actually get the class size down in the public schools.

And Turk's sarcasm is funny but again has nothing to do with the commentary.

I am still deciding on my vote but I dare say that the close mindedness and unwillingness of the Anti-Voucher group to actually look at the facts or wisk them to the side is disturbing.

Deena | 8:25 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

So exclude religious private schools if you are so worried about constitutional issues. Or fix the state constitution so it doesn't matter - the U.S. Supreme Court has held that federal money can go to some religious based social services. If the parents choose a religious school, it's the parents, not the state who are choosing their child's moral training. As is their fundamental right, see Pierce vs. Society of Sisters, or Wisconsin vs. Yoder.

The state hires private road contractors, private building contractors, social services are a mix of state and private providers, we give people food stamps, rent help, we even have private prison services. Having public money go to private providers is NORMAL - except in education. Why is that? What is it about education that makes people think that only the government can do it? What is it about the government's performance in this area that makes people think that the government does it better??? That's a major head scratcher!!! lol

bob | 8:47 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

I do not have children in public education. I sent my children to private schools and paid for it. I want a voucher that gives me back the money I now pay into public schools. I should have choice also. If one (elite) group gets to pick where their tax dollars go I should have the same right. The politicians was bought and paid for on this one. It is not what the people who elected them want. Quit taking deductions for all those kids and pay for them yourselves. Lets elect people who represent us and not themselves.

21 per class? Where is funding? | 8:48 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

To get that 21 per class average they also count counselors, administration, nurses, etc.

I would really like someone to do a study that actually goes to the schools and counts how many kids are in each class, each period. That should be the only number that makes its way into these reports.

Here we just read that we are going to have another $400,000,000 surplus but Stephenson is saying we can't pay for $198 million to fund schools. Guess what? We could. We could not only cover it but we could cover it twice!

We could get out of 50th place in education spending. We could pay teachers a good salary not just a "get by " salary. We could be the education example for the world to follow.

If it just wasn't for our legislators.

Bill | 9:01 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Howard says, "I will not sit idly by, just hoping that a solution for this tidal wave of students will just materialize."

And after 16 years of "sitting idly by" in the Legislature, THIS is the best you can come up with?

You're a legislator. Your job is to come up with actual solutions. THIS AIN'T IT!

Surplus again | 9:41 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

In the very same section we see legislators taking about more tax cuts on top of the ones already enacted last session. If the legislature would take even half of the surplus and use it in education funding it would help. The tax revenues are there because of growth and should be used to fund the growth in public education.

State Constitution | 10:47 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Deena,

Here is what our State Constitution says:

"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." Article I, Section 4

How can you just flippantly call for a change in our state constitution? Just so your precious little voucher vote will go your way? How selfish. How short sighted.

Many private, religious based schools in Utah have said that even if vouchers pass they won't accept them. I wouldn't either. Our state consitution is VERY clear about this issue (except to most of our State Legislators and Attorney General). However, the Utah Supreme Court has shown in the previous voucher battle that they will uphold our Constitution over the out of state special interest group PCE.

jackhp | 11:02 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Howard's math is pure fantasy! HB148/174 will not convince anywhere near 12500 students to switch. The Legislature's own impartial analysis is estimating the number of switchers to be less than 2500. That's less than .5% of the current public school student population.

Even if we double the Legislature's own estimates, taxpayers will still be paying $15.1 million more for vouchers once they are fully implemented.

Any pro-voucher math that predicts taxpayer savings is a scam and a boondoggle.

jackhp | 11:06 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Gwilly,
If you truly are still trying to decide, please be aware that the pro-voucher side uses distorted math to try to sell the program. There may be some benefits to vouchers, but saving taxpayers money, increasing funding for public education or reducing class sizes in public schools are NOT among them.

Whatever benefits there MAY be for vouchers, please realize that taxpayers will ultimately be paying MORE for them once the program is fully implemented.

not stupid | 11:43 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Prediction: if enough people fall for Stephenson's twisted logic and math and $2000 vouchers pass, within a year the tuition at already-established private schools will go up approximately $2000.

It's free money, the private schools would be crazy not to. Since the legislature didn't put any sort of cap on private tuition, there's nothing any of us could do about it, either.

I'm all about school choice. Create magnet schools, schools with themes (school of the arts, language immersion, tech schools, etc.) but do it in connection with the existing framework. School districts across the country are having great success and since the schools are public, all students have access and can benefit.

Vouchers don't increase choice. They'll just make rich people even richer at the expense of kids.

Oh, and run for school board everyone. Throw the current bums out and get some innovative programs going. It's worth it.

Amen | 11:58 a.m. Oct. 17, 2007

To everyone who disagrees with Howard. If he truly wanted education to improve for everyone he would help put the state surplus to work before it is too late.

Facts? | 12:03 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Gwilly,

The group that is ignoring the "facts" and trying to sweep information aside is clearly not the anti-voucher crowd.

Ever since the non-partisan voter information pamphlet on Referendum 1 was published and distributed the PCE crowd has been in a complete panic. Even a quick look at the FACTS contained in the pamphlet are enough to support the FACT that vouchers will cost money and not save money. I would strongly suggest that you take the time to read this pamphlet.

Isn't it sad (yet typical) that legislators like Tilton and Bramble are out there trying to discredit this non-partisan information (commissioned by a Republican controlled legislature) and presenting their own fuzzy math "facts" about how much money Utah will save with vouchers. Shame on them. Is the PCE money they received worth selling out their moral principles for?

jeremykidd | 12:13 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

The constitutional argument just doesn't work against vouchers like opponents would like. The U.S. Supreme Court has stated that, as far as the U.S. Constitution is concerned, voucher money going to religious schools is not a violation of the establishment clause, because the money is given to the parents, and the parents decide where it is being spent. Thus, the government has not made a decision to fund religious schools, the parents have, and they have that right. Even knowing that the vast majority of private schools are religious has not been sufficient to infer an unconstitutional intent by legislatures to fund religious schools by providing vouchers.

The Utah Constitution would likely be interpreted the same way, because the funding goes to the parents, and they (not the government) make the choice about where the funds are spent.

Finally, to exclude religious schools from funding could (I repeat could) be seen as a violation of the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment, which has been interpreted to require that government show no hostility to religion. A specific exclusion from vouchers could be seen as hostility, and therefore be unconstitutional.

Deena | 12:23 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

It's not flippant - it brings our state constitution into line with what the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled on numerous issues - including vouchers in other states which have been used at religious schools. You can always specify that if a religious school takes it, they have to show that they don't advocate illegal activities - like polygamy or jihad. If it's too much for Utahns to swallow, like I said, exclude the religious schools.

As for selfish and short-sighted, I'm not planning on using the vouchers. I'm happily homeschooling - but most people aren't in a position to do that. In my perfect world, we'd do like the Belgians and several other countries (who routinely trounce our kids in international testing, btw), and give ALL kids vouchers that can be used at any public or private school of the family's choice.

Cap'n Bob | 12:37 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

The "anti's: assertion: ***Voucher schools do NOT have to report to the public the results of any annual tests of students, nor do the schools have to meet the standards established for public schools for student progress toward basic and higher level skills.***

The LAW:(iii) upon request, make test results available to other persons, in a manner that does not reveal the identity of any student;

The assertion: ***Unaccountable private, voucher schools do not have to hire teachers with college degrees or a license to teach. This puts our children at risk of being exposed to individuals who are not qualified to teach. Additionally, these unaccountable schools could hire teachers who even have criminal records.***

THE LAW(g) employ or contract with teachers who have completed a criminal background check that complies with the requirements of Section 53A-3-410 and:

(i) hold baccalaureate or higher degrees; or

(ii) have special skills, knowledge, or expertise that qualifies them to provide instruction in the subjects taught;

(h) provide to parents the teaching credentials of the school's teachers; and

(i) provide, upon request to any person, a statement indicating which, if any, organizations have accredited the private school.

Buck Beaver | 12:58 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Let me get this straight, I put my child in private school, make room for another and would get $2K for my childs private tuition. What brand of Tahitian Noni Juice is this person drinking? Nowhere in this desert can anyone send a kid to private school for $2000. Where do these people come from?

Re: facts? | 1:03 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

"Is the PCE money they received worth selling out their moral principles for?"

Youï¿½re going on a pretty big assumption here, that they had any to start with!

Constitution | 1:05 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Jeremykidd,

You are trying to make vouchers seem like a "done deal" with the US Supreme Court and of course you know that you are being very misleading.

Yes, the "Zelman" ruling would seem to support your contention. But, you must know that the Florida Supreme Court rejected the application of Zelman to their voucher program.

Courts are looking closely at the "Locke v. Davey" decision and the implications of that ruling.

Even if the US Supreme Court decides to hear the Florida appeal, that would only apply (directly) to the language of the Florida State Constitution.

If Referendum 1 were to pass in Utah, there will be a court challenge. Hopefully, the implementation of the program will be set aside (like in Florida) while the case or cases make their way through the courts. The US Supreme Court has surprised us before, and surely will do so again.

Please don't assume that you know how the US Supreme Court will rule. You don't.

Richard | 2:29 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

There is a lot of fuzzy math coming from both sides of this issue.

Howard says we will get a lot of new students in the future and it will cost more to educate them - TRUE. He also says we will have to raise income and property taxes to pay for them - MAYBE. He neglects to mention that a lot of those new kids will come from new parents who either move into the state or graduate from college and get real jobs and buy homes. Those new parents will be paying income and property taxes which may be enough to cover the additional funds needed to educate their children. So we may be able to pay for the increased student population without raising tax rates.

I am in favor of vouchers but I don't want them passed by voters who have been given incomplete information. I think vouchers have enough positive arguments without claiming that taxes will surely rise if they don't pass.

Utah Tax Payer | 2:43 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

A question that Mr. Stephenson failed to address is how the tax base will change over this time period. If the increase in the number of kids is proportional to the increase in the tax base, then the extra costs could be funded by the new tax payers.

To the extent that the problem is being caused by new families, then the tax structure should be changed so that the people who chose to have more kids will need to take some responsibility for their education and pay for them. If the child tax deduction was removed, then the state would have more money for education, and people would have an incentive to have fewer kids. In aggregate, this would increase revenue and minimize the problem.

Mark | 3:22 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

So if the tidal wave of new students is coming and this is just an program to make sure all students are covered, then the "competition among schools to bring improvement" argument is just a red herring?

I really wish the pro-voucher folks would make up their minds as to why we should adopt vouchers.

Chuck | 4:29 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Regarding that tidal wave of new students coming, Howard is conveniently "forgetting" the other side of the data. The same forecasts that predict increased numbers of kids show a corresponding increase in numbers of taxpaying adults. In fact the ratio of adults to kids will be better than it was in the 1980's during the last influx of kids. Look, the state surplus growth is paralleling the increase in kids, if we just don't give it away in more tax cuts! We'll be fine. We don't need vouchers to save us from our kids!

Vote NO!!

Bountiful GOP | 4:58 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Howard:

If vouchers are going to be such a boon to low-income families, you must be assuming they can cough up the remaining $1,000 - $14,000 per year to put their child in private school.

Well, if that the case, let's start a $1,000/year head tax for public education. In your world, everyone could affort it, even the poor.

Even better, why doesn't every state legislator who thinks they know so much about education spend a week volunteering in their local public school. They won't be treated to $10,000 worth of food like they are used to, but they will come away with a greater appreciation of what teachers are up against. Then maybe they will be able to find the funds that our schools so desperately need. How about in late August when it is over 95 and there is no air?

Last year, I spent over 200 hours volunteering in my daughter's class. I know first hand how hard her teacher worked and how much of her own money she spend providing what should be considered basic supplies for the classroom.

Kevin | 5:07 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

This mantra of "funding goes to the parents, not religion" is hogwash. The schools cash the voucher, and the government gives the school the money. Knock it off.

Deena | 6:37 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

To Kevin: Knock it off??? Who are we - your kids?

Facts:
1. Parents have the fundamental right to direct the upbringing and education of their children. The government cannot dictate to parents how to educate their children, whether or not that includes religious training.
2. The state constitution and federal law guarantee to all children an appropriate education. In some cases, the public schools are providing an inadequate education, in others some children need something different, and finally the value system of some families is violated by the secular humanism in public schools.
3. Only the state constitution has anything in it about education, not the federal one. First amendment prohibits a state religion - there is no wall of separation in the Constitution.
4. In Wisconsin, vouchers send children to private schools, including religious ones, and the Supreme Court has said it's ok - because the funding goes to the parents, and they pick the school. The Supreme Court's reasoning, which has been quoted here. Tell them to knock it off if you want to lecture someone.

QOTU | 8:48 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

It scares me that Sen. Stephenson is part of the group trying to oversee the schools' math curriculum. His math is not just "fuzzy" math, it's delusional math! First of all, I'd like to find a teacher in any public school 4th grade and above who has 22 students. When was the last time Mr. Stephenson visited a school and saw 22 students in a classroom? Second, what "pie-in-the-sky" dreamer thinks that 12,000 or so kids are actually going to leave public school to attend private school? Also, what kind of math does it take to figure out that funding a three-tiered system of education (public, charter, private) is an unwise use of public money?

Drummer | 9:28 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Has anybody thought that some of the voucher proponents are motivated by racism because they are overly concerned with the growing diversity in the public schools? Maybe they don't want their kids to associate with "other people's kids".

Kevin | 9:52 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

Deena,

Your fact #1 has absolutely nothing to do with the debate over vouchers. Parents have that right. The voucher issue is only over the allocation of tax dollars to private schools. No rights are affected at all.

If the public schools are not performing well, they have to answer to tax payers and the government. Though it's perhaps a complicated road to improving public schools, private schools would not have to answer to anyone except the parents who send their kids there. The problem is, that's my tax dollars too. You and I as taxpayers have more power to change the public schools than I do to change a private school.

I disagree with the Supreme Courts ruling. Curious how people who were bellyaching in 2004 about "unelected, activist judges" and "judicial fiat" are now in love with the courts.

Teacher/Mom | 11:27 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

The student to teacher ratio is determined by the number of licensed full-time employees and enrolled students. After all the licensed personnel are added to the equation: media, reading, and math specialists, resource teachers, and administration, a school with 700 students (100/grade K-6), and 4 classes per grade level would not average to 25 students/class. This could add a dozen teachers to the 28 already listed: 700 students divided by 40 teachers is now 17.5 students/class. The class average is NOT equal to the actual class size.

Teacher/Mom | 11:30 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

The FTE (full-time equivalent) is determined by the number of enrolled students in a school (this year's deadline was October 1). If even just a few students leave from two or three classes (eat your oreos) so that the FTE needs to be reduced, a teacher is surplussed (loses his/her assignment/job). Now, what happens to that class? The students that were in that class are distributed to the other classes in that grade level (they do not get extra oreos added to their stack). Instead of 4 classes with 30 students you now have 3 classes with a possible class size of 35 (assuming five from that grade level left the school.)

Funding for schools is based on enrollment and attendance. However, if a student enrolls in a school after the fall funding deadline, there is no wpu money attached to that student.

See how the oreo simplicity is harmful when describing the fluid dynamics of class size, enrollment, and funding?

Teacher/Mom | 11:43 p.m. Oct. 17, 2007

I am concerned, as well, about Mr. Stephenson's concern regarding our children when he promotes a plan for educating our students in schools that may or may not be accredited, by teachers that may or may not be licensed, without a uniform curriculum or public accountability.

I am also concerned that the public will have no say concerning the matters of private schools when our public money is involved. As it stands, those who choose to opt out of public education are able (and rightly so, they do pay taxes) to vote regarding the schoolboard, and be members of the community councils and PTA. This is where democracy is threatened -- public tax dollars used (without oversight) to fund private enterprise.

Regarding vouchers and private colleges: this is a completely different subject. Private colleges that accept public funding (Pell grants) must comply with federal government regulations. Private schools in Utah would be required to comply with only a few standards.

As to charter schools: they are PUBLIC schools, NOT private schools. The only part they play in the voucher debate is that they are one of the many choices of education from which parents may choose for their student.

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.