Deseret News | GOP voucher foes speak out

Reader comments
GOP voucher foes speak out

Page:
1
2
Next >

Stuart | 3:32 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Camden Hubbard, Poor parents are not going to be able to make the difference between the $3000 voucher and a $4000 and up school. Just the rich benefit again. As for the deficient teachers, as stated before, the rich are the only beneficiaries and the problem is not fixed, the teacher is still teaching the poor kids.

AWB | 4:47 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I am a teacher in a Utah public school. People who don't work in the school do not have a clear understanding of how the attendance of students affects our funding. If students leave the school, the law (as currently written) decreases our funding for teachers. Plain and simple: less student = less funding = less teachers. Vouchers will NOT reduce class size! This lie gets to me the most.

The other thing that really chaps me is the idea of using public money for private enterprise. If UPS wanted your tax dollars so it could 'compete' with the US Postal System, would you be okay with that? Tax money is for public programs, NOT private businesses.

Voucher Opponent | 5:59 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

"Cluff did say that after five years that money will no longer be in the schools...' and then what? The money won't be there but the needs will continue. The so-called extra money is a teaser rate.

What about the family making $30,000/year that will get $3000 back for sending their child to private school. Are they really going to be able to send their child to private school on such an income? You can promote the $3000 benefit but left unanswered is how such a family can pay the difference between the voucher and the total cost.

Comments continue below

Paul Venturella | 7:15 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

It's not just Teacher's Unions tha are against vouchers. Polls show MOST Utahans are AGAINST tax payer money paying to send children to private schools.

Because some costs at the schools are FIXED and do not change as you reduce student count, much of the "savings" are smoke and mirrors. Items like the cost to heat and light the school do not go down if there are fewer students in a class or school. So when that money leaves for a voucher the costs do not go down.

In 5 years when the fully dollars leave the fixed expenses are still there.

The voucher bill is a wolf in sheeps clothing.

Parents already have choice. Send your kids to any school you want. But don't reach into my pocket to pay for it. This is not about choice, it's about money. People wanting to use our money to send thier kids to private schools.

Huh? | 7:57 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

The main opponent of vouchers in Utah is not the NEA. The opponents are responsible Utah citizens who are concerned about funding quality public education in Utah. The NEA has donated to voice their opinion as any other political group would do on issues that concern them. The fact that the NEA sees this as such a huge issue should alert each of us of the magnitude of the situation. Utah is dead last, by a long way, in education funding. A first year teacher in our neighbor Wyoming earns more than a teacher with 10 years experience in Utah.

Bot | 8:00 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Let's look beyond Utah to the larger issue. Don't you want moral parents in California to have the option of opting out of the homosexual propaganda (outlawing "mom" and "dad"), which the California Democratic legislature has foised on the children of that state?

Let's lead the way on vouchers !

Lew Jeppson | 8:22 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

What drives lawmakers like Sheryl Allen nuts is that the vouhcer proposal represents the first crack in the public education monopoly, and THAT must not be allowed to happen.

VoucherAgnostic | 8:26 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Will no one make the point that Rep. Sheryl Allen is up to her eyeballs in conflicts of interest here? Not only is she one of UEA's "own" Republican legislators, but she works for the Davis School District. She is entitled to speak her mind, I'm just surprised when no one points out the conflict.

At least Rep. Allen acknowledges that the $429 million is over 13 years (i.e., about $33 million per year). She also admits that this will be offset by some savingss to the schools, but she doesn't give those figures.

Even these large numbers are a tiny fraction of the state school budget (about $3 billion dollars this fiscal year alone). Even without counting savings, the expenditures represent about 1% of the total public education budget.

Concerned CPA | 8:28 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I looked and tuiton at Judge Memorial High School is $8,630 plus fees and at Juan Diego it is $8,522 plus fees. Honestly, if a parent can not find a way to come up with $8,500 plus fees now, how can they come up with $5,500 plus fees with the voucher? As the Legislative Fiscal Analysts have said in their report, there might be up to 3 students per school take advance of the voucher program and that would only be in the Wasatch Front where private schools are available. That will not reduce a teacher at the school only take away the money that the students that do leave would have generated for the District. For the most part, the vouchers will benefit those parents who are already sending their children to private schools. And no I do not work for public education and my wife does not work for public education either, but I do understand finance.

Instereo | 8:35 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

It's nice to see a voice of reason in the republican party speak out. Old time Goldwater Conservatives wouldn't support vouchers, they'd support the funding of public schools. These same conservatives wouldn't want to see government reaching its fingers into private schools with money or the controls that would eventually come with the money. They'd recognize that people already have the "Choice" of sending their children to any type of school they want to in Utah including home schools. They would know that giving a tax credit would be the same as an entitlement and they'd be against the entitlement. As a Goldwater Conservative who has been saddened by the republican party moving away from those values, I'm glad to see people who have the strength to stand up to the party as it is today and speak reason. I'm voting NO on referendum 1. It doesn't represent true conservative values.

Rob | 8:48 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

The main opponant is the NEA, it's Parents and teachers, who also happen to be parents.

Half a billion dollars is a lot of cookies.

swrl | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

We know that the legislature is in another world that identifies with a clique' of business men that think they know how to collect and spend money. I doubt there is an economics degree throughout the bunch, if there is he thinks like Karl Marx.

Jeff | 9:03 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

All of you teachers that are complaining about losing students: Why is that when enrollment increases you say that you need more money too? Whether you lose or gain students shouldn't make an appreciable difference. You get more money for more students and less money for fewer students. Yet you cry poverty either way.

As far as public money going for private enterpriseï¿½where do you think public money come from? The public. Us. So right now someone who sends their kid to a private school still has to pay for public education. I send my kids to public schools and even I don't understand that?

Finally there is this whole thing about how this is only going to benefit the rich. Are you saying you would approve of this if it was for $5,000 or $10,000, so the poor could use it to? Many poor and middle class are scraping to send their kids to private schools because the schools their kids live close to are so bad. The rich are the ones that live in school districts with plenty of resources.

Be against 1 if you want, but be honest about why.

Wondering | 9:07 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I am wondering about the voucher debate and the fact that no one questions why the legislative leadership and governor are not concerned that public tax money will be going to private schools and many of them have a religious affiliation. Is it even constitutional to allow tax money to be used to support religious instruction?

TBW | 9:11 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

The objective of having public funding for education is to provide an educated citizenry, it is not to prop up any particular institution. The current system isn't getting the job done for a lot of families. A close examination of the structure and history of our current system indicates that conditions will continue to deteriorate and no matter what "accountability" measures we institute, very little can be done to improve the system.

The one accountability measure that might have an effect is forcing the publicly funded Socialist system to compete in a free market. Yes, dollars will leave the system if students leave the system! If you want to keep the dollars in your school, make the school's product attractive to its patrons so they won't want to leave!

But stop taking money our of my pocket to pay for a broken system that isn't educating my children.

The Truth | 9:11 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Stuart: Children First Utah is a voucher program in Utah funded by private enterprise that only families that qualify for reduced lunch can use. Average income in less than 30k yet all 375 scholarships are being used and 1625 families are on the waiting list.

AWB and Voucher Opponent: All state income tax dollars must go to education it cannot go anywhere else (even after the five years). So with less kids in the school system, what will the school boards do with that extra money?

Paul: I don't have kids but I'd rather you reach into my pocket and pull out $3000 for a private school than $8000 for a public one.

RA | 9:11 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I live in an area that has no private schools within 25 miles and my grandkids are in an overcrowded school. How do taxpayers in rural or semi-rural areas fair? Not very well I believe. I doubt anyone who knows anything about business is going to start a new private school just because a handful of parents want to use vouchers, they'll need a base of well-heeled citizens to support the necessary capital investment. Try finding that kind of widespread wealth in a rural town. This is a plan to support rich kids on the Wasatch Front.

Double Huh? | 9:21 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Bot, How does Utah's vouchers benefit California? Also, why should we be concerned with the way California runs its schools when their local representatives are responsible for their programs? Sounds like someone only likes "locally controlled" schools when the controls support their views and beliefs.

PG Suggested | 9:35 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Bot...nice scare tactics!! Let's jeopardize Utah education to save California children from the "homosexual propaganda"? What? My family lived in the Bay Area and I can assure you the only place "homosexual propaganda" exists is in your mind.

Low Income | 9:47 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I think it is personally insulting to assume that because one is poor that I do not have the ability or care enough about my kids, that if they are failing in the public school I will not do everything I can to help them. Even if that means working an extra job to make up an extra $1,000 in tuition. I know that education is the escape from poverty. Don't tell me what I am capable of! I will do anything for my kids to have a good education!!

Bot-hater | 9:52 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Are you kidding me? Homosexual propaganda? First of all that is the most ridiculous thing I have ever read. Second don't you think a private school could be created that touts tolerance for gay individuals and their children? And then your tax dollars, bot, and everyone else will be paying for that.

Even though I think that'd be a great use of a private school I still think vouchers are a bad idea. However if they do pass I think I might look into starting a pro-gay school.

BreakUpTheEduMonopoly | 9:55 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Voucher opponents appear to be complaining that Referendum One would authorize more money to educate children in Utah, just not in the government schools.

How could someone who is for taxpayer-supported education oppose spending more money on education -- which Referendum One will accomplish?

Concerned CPA, many parents can make up the difference between the tuition cost and voucher with a scholarship. These scholarships for K-12 independent schools are already in place and being utilized, and many college students have experience with scholarships based on financial need or academic performance.

Layton | 9:57 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

AWB: You are mislead by the union you probably belong to. If the government (and taxpayers) only has to pay $500 - $3000 to educate a child, then the excess becomes available to educate the rest of the students. The school boards etc can decide how they want to spend that excess money. On average this excess is $5500 per child who opts out of the public school system. If 20000 students opted out that would save the government 110 million dollars per year. Over 13 years that equates to about 1.5 billion dollars.

Also, when is the last time you were able to send a letter for free. You donï¿½t, but education is free. That is quite hard to compete with if you are a middle class utah family. In reality the public school system is a monopoly and we are really interested in educating our children. If someone besides the public school system can do it better for less, why should the government not use them instead. I am certain that the government uses UPS and Fed Ex to either save money or get better quality of service, rather than always use the USPS.

The third party | 9:58 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

The RINO's (Republicans in name only) rear their ugly heads once again! Have you ever looked at the voting records of these representatives! They never vote along party lines - unless of course the vote in unanimous!!

Only the rich? | 9:58 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I'm tired of hearing, "ony the rich can afford to send their kids to private schools." Get a second job. Change careers. Work harder and learn to manage your money correctly. Do what you have to do to get your kids into the schools you think are best for them. You can do all those things without seeking a "hand out" in the guise of "helping low-income households." It saddens me that these people want to "shift" tax payer money to private businesses because they can't be responsible to stay out of debt and save money for their kids schooling.

PG Suggested | 10:03 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Concerned CPA, good comments. Also...students who already receive tuition help, which both of the schools you mentioned give, would only be able to receive voucher money. Parents must sign that they alone are responsible for the balance beyond the voucher money. And...many private schools have said that they would not accept vouchers. Leaving us with what schools?

Anonymous | 10:06 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Fallacies in the above arguments: 1. Don't give public money to private enterprises. The government does that all the time, everyday. Think about Medicare payments to private physicians and private construction companies building city buildings and roads. 2. "Parents already have choice. Don't reach into my pocket to pay for your private school." The reality is, if my child attends a private school, MY tax dollars are going to send most children but mine to school. Don't reach into my pocket and tell me where I have to spend my money. 3. "Don't you want moral parents opting out of homosexual propoganda?" Very little of that is in Utah yet, but when it arrives, many parents will be glad that a mechanism already exists that will help them find a different place to educate their children. This is one of the most compelling reasons for vouchers: let parents have a real choice if there is something in the public school they don't want taught to their child.

Vote for 1 | 10:05 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

My wife and I both graduated from Utah public schools.

We support choice.

We believe that competition and free choices will improve quality. Where choice exists, students do better both in public and private school.

It will save the taxpayers money. It currently costs $7500 to educate each child in public school. The average voucher is estimated to be $2000. That saves on average $5500 per student.

The vouchers will help the poor and middle class. The average private education is $4000. A $3000 voucher will completely cover the tuition in many private schools in economically disadvantaged areas.

Fourth, the public school system has become a monopoly. The Davis school district recently realigned the entire school boundaries. They treated students as numbers. If there were viable options, then the District would be forced to treat each student as a prized possession rather than taking it for granted that a child will attend their school.

Vote to keep the well thought out Voucher system in place. The legislature approved it, the governor signed it, and now powerful unions want to overturn it. Vouchers will increase the quality of education for all students, both private and public due to increased competition.

What public education monopoly? | 10:12 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

How can there be a public school monopoly when there are so many choices in education? You can send your kid to any one of the public schools, or one of the many private schools in the state. You can keep your kid home and do it yourself. Within a school, you can have your kid take a class with a certain teacher, or not. Schools are run by the elected boards of education and funded by elected legislatures, not the teachers, or the NEA, or anyone else you despise. If your schools aren't meeting your expectations, do something positive to change them rather than forcing us all to pay for private schools. And if you want to help public schools compete with private schools, give us the budget per kid that they get! Pay our teachers what they get! Give us the facilities they have! And make them take the same tests we have to!

Darren | 10:16 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I make $55,000 a year and have a 1st grader in a private school. Our in-laws pay his tuition which is $5,500. Since he is already in a private school we would not qualify for a voucher. However, if we were to send our other child to this school, we would qualify for a $500 voucher. We would still need to come up with the remaining $5,000 in tuition. We could never afford to send either of our kids to a private school even with vouchers. If you can add, you can see that this voucher system will only reimburse people who can already afford to send their kids to private school.

Entitlement | 10:25 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

The issue is entitlement. I work for the public school system and send my kid to a private school. I am not rich, nor am I poor. Don't I have a right to educate my kids in the manner I see fit? Both sides of the issue have been deceptive. In the voter's pamphlet, public education (page 7, paragraph 1) states that "parents may choose to send there children to any public school in the local district without charge" Lie: review special permit procedures - they are not very accommodating nor readily available to EVERYONE. Voucher proponents, on the other hand, KNOW that this will not benefit the poor. For middle class families, it is about choice and how we CHOOSE to spend our money. We are all a part of this community (rich, middle, poor) and all deserve EQUAL rights. Frankly, public education needs new vision and change - before more money. Secondly, education needs to focus on education. Period. The institution is becoming to socialized and is extending beyond its realm. It should work closely with parents and not just invite them along for the ride.

Steve | 10:25 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

And NEA said " I will teach all the children and leave no one behind and none shall be lost if thou wilt give us thy power, and surely we will do it, therefore reward us with thy money and glory!
But someone wise said, " let parents and students have a choice and let there be alternative schools and we shall reward those schools that teach well and those who chooses wisely shall be saved from ignorance and mediocracy thereby obtaining a better inheritance in their future estate."

Sam Primavera | 10:25 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I do have an economics degree and there is no question that vouchers make sense. I also have 8 children who have all been in both the Utah public school system and private schools. Private schools are miles better than the public schools. The current public school system embraces mediocrity as a standard. This needs to change.

Yes, there are fixed and variable costs. Both of which are regularly managed by businesses as demand rises and falls and requirements change. Educational system are just as capable of managing these costs within the framework of the available demand as any other organization.

Remember American cars before Japanese competition? At 50,000 miles they were junk. Competition in the car industry forced GM and Ford to vastly improve their products. The public education monopoly is desperately in need of some competition.

I do understand the opposition of public school teachers and administrators to vouchers. If I produces a product as mediocre as public schools do, I would fight tooth and nail to prevent competition as well.

Vouchers are a great idea whose time has come.

matt | 10:32 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Just for comparison, tuition at American Heritage School (which is a very nice school) is $3120 to $3500 per year depending on the child's grade.

RIchard | 10:33 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

The idea that this will "cost" us $400+ million is pure bunk! Look, either we agree to pay for educating our children, or we don't. Just because someone else (in this case, a private school teacher) is willing to educate a child for less than the government schools will do it, does not mean that anything we pay that person, costs us more.

Imagine for a moment, that there was an army of private tutors available (willing and able to do a great job for very cheap), so that every child in the state could have their own private tutor for $1000 per year. If we have half a million students in the state, then according to this argument we should reject such an offer because it would "cost" us $500 million dollars even though it would mean we could completely eliminate the public school system and save $3.5 billion.

Voucher supporter | 10:44 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

If our education system is so great, why does the U.S. rank #15 in the world economic forum research in overall education behind finland, singapore, iceland, switzerland, denmark, ireland, hong kong, belgium, taiwan, malaysia, tunisia, australia, austria, and canada. Why do we rank #42 in math and sciences. We rank #4 in percent of GDP spent on education. Something is wrong with the overall way we educate. I believe it is in the monopolistic system of the NEA and locally the UEA. They try, but I believe they would try a whole lot harder if there were competition and viable choices for the majority, i.e. the middle class. Vouchers will do this.

Phone service for example is a whole lot better and cheaper than it used to be when it was a monopoly. All aspects of our great society improve their quality and usually their price when there is competition. Lets add competition in the way we teach our children.

The UEA doesn't reward great teachers. There needs to be a better way.

Hello, earthlings! | 10:52 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Flaws? The flaw is in your thinking, or else your blind faith in the fears of a few!

Even if a school lost the money from 3 kids,
-which it won't-
how can you fear the school would lose a teacher?
They still have the other 300-400 kids to teach.

How can you say only the rich will benefit?
READ the Referendum!
- Students who were in a private school last year are INELIGIBLE for a voucher!

And, the 'rich' don't NEED vouchers.
The ones who will benefit directly from this encouragement to use the alternative schools so many of the kids need, are average families who are willing to sacrifice and find a way.

WE ARE ALL BENEFICIARIES BECAUSE ALL OUR KIDS WILL GET A BETTER CHANCE IN THE CLASSROOM. THE KIDS WHO WILL LEAVE THE MASS EDUCATION SYSTEM ARE RIGHT NOW USING MORE THAN THEIR SHARE OF THE ONE TEACHER'S ENERGY AND TIME.

Thanks to VoucherAgnostic for the reminder of Rep. Allen blatant conflict of interest. Remember Kim Burningham's and Ray Briscoe's similar hypocrisy.

Quoting Alfie Kohn | 10:54 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

PHI DELTA KAPPAN

April 2004
Test Today, Privatize Tomorrow

Using Accountability to "Reform" Public Schools to Death

By Alfie Kohn

"Bushï¿½s Department of Education has taken other steps to pursue its agenda, such as allocating money hand over fist to private groups that share its agenda. A few months ago, People for the American Way reported that the administration has funneled more than $75 million in taxpayer funds to pro-voucher groups and miscellaneous for-profit entities. Among them is William Bennettï¿½s latest gamble, known as K12 -- a company specializing in on-line education for homeschoolers. (Finn sits on the board of directors). ï¿½Standardsï¿½ plus ï¿½freedomï¿½ may eventually add up to considerable revenue, then. In the meantime, the Department of Education is happy to ease the transition: A school choice pilot program in Arkansas received $11.5 million to buy a curriculum from Bennettï¿½s outfit, and a virtual charter school in Pennsylvania affiliated with K12 got $2.5 million."

Trout-P | 10:58 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Ah, you good people of ZION are now going to help pay for the Catholic Schools, Judge Memorial, Juan Diego,
etc.,etc., Thank you so much for this generous gift!

Now just don't tell your BYU whom is a private Mormon school, or they will want some of their share also!

I thought I was getting out of Utah in 6 years, but now I might stay if you good Zion people are going to pay for private religious schools......yep, Urine Utah!

granitegrad | 11:01 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Yes, as a graduate from Granite High a few years ago, no one would argue that our school was struggling in many areas of academia. And my parents were clueless as to what I did as far as doing my school work, participating in extra-curricular activities, taking the ACT or applying for scholarships. But even in the "worst" schools, help IS there for students who want it. STUDENTS can and do rise to the top if they believe they HAVE to.

Vouchers are a bad idea. There will be abuses of the system. I mean just who can open a school and call it a school? Many home-schoolers group school and call it good. They would be collecting these tax funds and doing who-knows-what with them.

To The Truth | 11:10 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

The real truth is that that money goes into 'surplus'. Did you not read the article this week where the State anticipates a 400 million surplus in the education and general fund?

Our leadership has ways of making surplus dollars never make its way into Public schools. That is partly why we are second in the nation for Higher Education spending and dead last by a fair amount in K-12 spending.

Boo-hoo | 11:12 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Name one governmental system that meets the needs of EVERYONE. Public Education is trying to lay claim that if given the opportunity (resources, money, etc) it can do just that. Get real. People, realize that EVERYONE has rights - rich, poor, middle class. Let's take your argument (although I don't agree): Vouchers only benefit the rich. The rich pay taxes and contribute to our community. Don't they have rights? Are they reduced rights because they have been more financially successful than others? A little competition will not be bad for public education. Yes, public education has been an entitlement. Think about the word, "entitlement" and the message it is sending to society. By the way, I am not rich and I work for a local (public) school district.

To Sam Primavera | 11:21 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Japanese Cars are superior to American Cars. They still are. If not for Tariffs and other government controls and subsidies our auto makers would have been sunk.

I see your point. If we don't start subsidizing Private schools, people are going to still be attending Public schools because it is cheaper, close by and offers the preferred product.

But I prefer competition and the free market. If Private schools cannot compete without government kick-backs as the subsidized Voucher system, they shouldn't be in business.

Now that I see your point Primavera I am definitely opposing Vouchers because I believe in America's free market system.

mightyhunterhaha | 11:24 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Finally we have a Legislator with the courage to speak out, regardless of the scare tactics the State and other Legislators have used to silence opponents. The ultraconservative legislators do not want to have anyone disagree with them. So hats off to Rep. Allen keep the other legislators honest.

This is bad legislation. It may help a few lower income families but it is designed for the higher income families.

If you want fairness in education then lets set a base tax across the board and then tax for the use of the service above the base. In other words a head tax would have those paying for the services they use. If you have 4 kids in public school you would pay more than the family that has zero kids in public school. If I use a service I pay for it. I don't expect others to pay my fair share.

Choosing what to learn? Huh? | 11:30 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Responding to "anonymous", you can dictate what your kids learn just as well regardless of what institution teaches them.

And while I suppose it's your prerogative to determine what you want your kids to know, choosing to have your kid go to a school where history or philosophy is squeaky-clean for any topic you choose, it doesn't change the fact that it does exist. At a religious school, if the attitude is instilled that homosexuals are immoral or lesser human beings, that will have an adverse effect when they leave school.

Instead of giving parents "more choice", why don't parents just take a bigger presence in their child's public education?

enough said | 11:34 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

vouchers are going down!

Fence Sitter | 11:48 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

I hope every one who has posted here or who is reading here has read the 2007 Utah voter information packet. Seriously, google it (with "2007" so you get the right one) and read it. It is much more informative than the ridiculous statements some on both sides are making.

I've been sitting on the fence for a while looking closely at all of the arguments. I am now leaning toward voting no, not because I am against the goals of the law: 1) parental choice, 2) smaller class size, 3) larger per-student spending, and (to me most importantly) 4) free-market competition. It is just that I don't think that the law will bring this about.

Points 1,4) I personally doubt that the vouchers will enable a large number of parents to move their students to a private school.

Points 2,3) Look at the voter info packet, once the law is fully implemented (year 13) it is estimated that it will save the state $11,000,000 (the state's portion of per-student funding) and will cost the state $71,000,000. Thus the state will have to spend more to maintain the same per-student funding in public schools.

Rae | 11:49 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

To those saying yes to vouchers because their kids go to private school and their tax dollars go to fund public schools:

Education is and should be a fundamental right. That's why public schools are funded with tax money, because every child deserves an education. It's the same as tax money going to fund public transportation. Would you complain that you shouldn't have to pay for public transportation because you own a car? Does it sound reasonable to ask that people's tax money go to fund your car because you help fund their public transportation? No, so don't expect that already scarce public funds should go to help send your children to private school.

Todd | 11:54 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

Both my sons were "home schooler". My oldest son took his GED for graduation. How many high school graduates could pass a GED exam. Less than 50%!

My youngest son decided to enter High school and leave the home school program. He is light years ahead of the kids in his grade. I get so tired of those who slander home schoolers.

Prop 1 gives a small choice in how your tax dollars are spent. Its your money it should be your choice! If you like public education then use it. If you want to use other options you should have the choice.

bob | 11:54 a.m. Oct. 19, 2007

You have them you pay for them. I have no children in the public school system and want a voucher to refund my taxes for schools. Cant have it both ways can we?

Page:
1
2
Next >

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.