Comments about ‘GOP voucher foes speak out’

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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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 !

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 enterprisewhere 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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!