Deseret News | Yay or nay to vouchers? I vote ...

Reader comments
Lee Benson: Yay or nay to vouchers? I vote ...

Enough said | 4:17 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Vouchers are going down!

Steve Romero | 5:36 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Mr Benson's arguments are well thought out, but he seems to be voting no to vouchers because of tradition.
An educated Population is essential to democracy, otherwise only the elete are educated, leading to dictatorships, and elete classes.

Vouchers favor subsidation of the rich at the expense of everyone else. Very Bad Idea is my opinion.

wasting time | 7:17 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

"If this is really about the free market ...why are we offering government subsidies to open the free market?

That argument is specious, at best.

If you and I both grow sugar beets for a living and the government gives you a subsidy to grow them but does not give me the same subsidy, how am I expected to compete with that?

If we are to subsidize an industry then the entire industry must be subsidized at the same rate for all. There is no way that vouchers would allow equal funding for private schools, but its a step in the right direction.

Comments continue below

by the way | 7:18 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Why does this article deserve a place in the news section? It belongs on the opinion page.

dyc | 9:19 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

I agree with Mr. Benson when he says the government should not subsidize private education. America is great because ALL children have the right to a public education. In our country we don't tell a child at 14 or 16 that he or she is not good enough to go on. We need to continue with our strong, public education.

veedub | 9:23 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Mr. Benson's decision and self-argument is based in part upon a faulty assumption: that vouchers will lead to an education system dominated by private schools. The same argument might be made that UPS never should have begun, or Federal Express, since that would lead to the end of our postal system. Well, the US postal system is still going strong and has been forced to improve to compete. I usually use the US post office now for my personal mailings because the prices are very competitive, I can track them just about as well, and in many ways it is more convenient for me. This is a great improvement over just a few years ago when I would send any package UPS over the USPS. I credit competition in part for this improvement.

Some people act as if the majority of parents are just waiting to put their kids in private schools. I strongly doubt that. But many parents are unhappy with the direction many public schools are going, and the increasing occurrence of crimes committed by teachers against students. Some competition would most likely force the system to improve and keep more students there.

Appreciative | 10:51 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Thanks for sharing your well-thought out opinion, Mr. Benson. You convinced me!

Jilly | 11:15 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

I have always been impressed with Lee Benson's insight. As a result, I was interested and relieved to read his Sunday article. Education is, and should be, a right to all young citizens, regardless of the power, prestige, and productivity of their parents. Our responsibility should be to strengthen public education.

St. Thomas | 11:19 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Government doesn't pay for education. Taxpayers do.

St. Thomas | 11:25 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Vouchers merely allow taxpayers to redirect their own dollars to whichever education best suits their specific needs. Falling for the logic that vouchers INCREASE government involvement demonstrates Benson's shallow understading of the issue. Voting yes to vouchers is a step in the right direction to putting more power into the hands of taxpayers.

Anonymous | 11:50 a.m. Oct. 21, 2007

If we don't want to subsidize private education, then let's get rid of all the federal and state college scholarships because, as we all know, they can be used to pay for private education.

Don't base your decision on this matter whether vouchers are a subsidy of private education because it is already happening.

Instereo | 1:00 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

First of all, the founding fathers didn't really think about public education. For them schooling was a private affair. Public education didn't start until 1848 in Mass. and in 1912 Mississippi became the last state to offer free public schools. They all did it promoting the general welfare of the people and to implement Jefferson's ideal of an educated citizenary. Public Education didn't fail either. Our country became a world power after we had an educated citizenary. Education for the elites would weaken us. We need to invest in public schools and we need to get involved with them as parents, volunteers, and school board members. We need to solve problems, not run away from them. I'm voting NO on referendum 1 because I believe in public community schools. I know that all of Utah from the children to the schools to the local merchant who gets the teachers wages will benefit. Vouchers are a step backwards into a society I don't want to live in anymore. I believe in justice (and education) for all. Private education is already a choice in our free society. Like I said, I'm voting NO on referendum 1.

Batman | 1:09 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

The first person, in America, to introduce the idea of a public school system was Thomas Jefferson. He wanted all to have the opportunity to an education because he had friends who were uneducated and he saw how that hindered them. I think Jefferson would support vouchers because it will force public schools to be better and private schools will also have to compete.
I think both sides of this issue have the same objective: they both want children to get the best education possible. Then I ask, why not allow those who believe that private schools are best for their children be allowed to use their tax dollars to pay for the education? To deny these people the option to choose where the tax money goes is absurd. This would cause public education to provide a better education, which inevitably raise the level of education in America.
I conclude with this, the word education. The word education derives from the root "educe," which means "to draw out." Most tax payers put a lot more in the system than they will ever draw out. On vouchers, put me down as a yes!

DonM | 2:51 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Lee Benson writes:

"One [Eyre] speaks for the parents, one [Rusk] speaks for the kids."

Did anyone else catch what this really says? - The school teachers represent the kids, not the parents.

Scarry.

Chuck | 3:09 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Thank you Lee!! Your comments are excellent. Those last two questions show the hypocrisy of supposed conservatives asking for a subsidy!
"If this is really about the free market, if that's what's going to make things better, then why are we offering government subsidies to open the free market? If you don't like government programs, why would you want to start this new government program of vouchers?" Thanks Pat Rusk!

JDrake | 5:43 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Lee, I don't think you get it! You quoted Pat Rusk's questions "If this is really about the free market, if that's what's going to make things better, then why are we offering government subsidies to open the free market? If you don't like government programs, why would you want to start this new government program of vouchers?"

I have been thinking about all the goods and services that government entities purchase from businesses in America. There is quite a complicated system of submitting bids and contracting for these goods and services. The government entities have established many procedures to give equal opportunity to our free market businesses. Essentially those who provide the best value will win the business. At the present time in the education business there is no opportunity for a private school to get a "government contract." The public schools get all the government's money. I do not see that providing vouchers would be a government subsidy. Vouchers would be a payment for goods and services.

With regard to Ms. Rusk's second question, there is no new government program! Public education is already the government program. The voucher system is a move towards privatization.

Question. | 5:50 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

How is Utah public education funded right now?

I have to admit, I consider public education a monopoly. Not because there are no alternatives but because my tax money is "automatically" funneled to public education. I have limited say in how my education dollars are spent.

The education free market is limited as long as the government taxes me to provide the education service. For a free market to truly work the government must get out of the market. So Pat Rusk's question leaves me in a quandary: Don't ask the government to subsidize the free market, BUT the government will keep taking my education dollars and using them where it wants?

Personally, vouchers sound like a good compromise to me. But I'm still considering the referendum...

QOTU | 6:03 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Excellent comments, Mr. Benson. You mentioned one thing that has particularly bothered my about this whole issue --- that compromising what is already in place is subversive. For a long time now, pro-voucher folks have tried to falsely convince us that our public schools are failing. By passing the voucher bill, legislators appear to be willing to sabotage public education instead of working to make it better. Governor Huntsman has said that he doesn't know of another state that is more committed to public education. If you look at our funding, I can think of 49 other states that are more committed to education. It's time to make a commitment to our public schools. I'll be joining Mr. Benson in voting NO on Referendum 1!

Realist | 6:57 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

Mr. Benson's opposition to vouchers is based on a very common misunderstanding. For the first 100 years of this nation's history, almost all education was private, not public. The US Constitution does not even mention public education for good reason. The Founding Fathers had just put their lives on the line to support a very painful and costly revolution; simply put, education is not a primary responsibility of our government. Certainly an educated population is necessary, but the public education establishment clearly has shortcomings.

Whether or not a public school system is failing is a very personal measurement. If the local public schools are not educating my children in a satisfactory manner based on my standards as a parent, they are failing. Why should I be forced to send my children and my tax dollars to a failing school?

I will absolutely vote in favor of vouchers.

Best Education | 8:51 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

I don't understand why parents think they can take tax dollars that WE ALL PAY and use them the way they seem fit. I would like a voucher that would help me better landscape my yard, I have no children in school and I already pay tax for public schools. Why can't I get some of my tax dollar back to do what I please.

It seems to me that all the voucher program does is provide private schools funding. I am not for more government but for less which this voucher program does do.

What the voucher program doesn't do is provide better education--just another choice that we can't afford.

Disappointed parent | 9:19 p.m. Oct. 21, 2007

While Ms. Rusk's position was well-reasoned and compelling, it's surprising that Mr. Benson did not see that it is based on the fear (not guarantee) of what might go wrong in the future. The pro-voucher position is based on addressing what has already gone wrong.

Let us take corrective action now, while it can help today's children. Then, if adjustments are required in the future, we can take corrective action for tomorrow's children, as well. Forcing our children to suffer now because of an unrealized fear of what might happen in the future is needlessly cruel.

And please, Mr. Benson, don't insult parents by suggesting that they care less about their children than public educators do. If public educators were putting our kids first, we would be singing their praises, and this issue would never have surfaced.

UT voter | 2:22 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Educators do put our kids first. The legislators are putting their own interests first before that of any voter or child. Check the state web site to see how many legislators that voted for Vouchers had contributions from pro-voucher groups.

I feel this referendum is also about showing our arrogant legislators that the voters should tell them how to vote and NOT the opposite.

I think the legislators who do commericals, dvds and travel around to dictate how to vote are doing a disserve to the process. The legislators have had their say, it is time for the public to speak.

It is an insult that the legislators think they are such experts in education and what is best for anyone's child. Some of us have been studying this bill and issue since before the vote in the legislature and they studied it during the session before their vote. The public has the right to speak without being OVERPOWERED by an all powerful Utah County Republican party and Republican legislators. It's "We the people" not legislators.

I pay taxes to educate everyone's child for the benefit of all society. An eduated society is better functioning society.

Obviously Confused | 11:09 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Benson's comment that Eyre represents parents, while Rusk represents the kids is where his premise has gone wrong. With all respect to Mrs. Rusk what she represents is the union - not the teachers, but the union as an organization and lobbying power not to be trifled with. Make no question the upcoming election on vouchers is a vote on control of education - do you trust government and the union to teach your child or do you trust yourself to put them in the school that fits their learning style and ability.

Parents will always know best what is for their child. Mrs. Rusk will never know my child like I do, and I refuse to let her tell me so!!

Concerned | 11:28 a.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Years ago I had a teacher in the public system who decided to fail me. This teacher refused to teach me the math skills needed to pass the grade. I had missed school for several weeks due to a serious leg injury. My poor (just above the poverty level)parents went to the principle who backed the teacher.

My parents ended up putting me in a private school (took out backruptcy) where I wasn't refused an education by some public teacher.

I ended up going on to higher education, mastering in math and the sciences. It's personal to me that I was refused an education and my public school teacher was going to put me and my parents in our place. How dare we buck the establishment?

So I'm for choice and parents sometimes really do know best!

Disguisted | 12:52 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Parents for Choice are part of a large organization whose head quarters are in Virginia. They have funding from big companies such as Walmart, Amyway and Overstock.com. They have put millions of dollars in the last couple of years in our legislators campaigns to "buy" our legislators so they will vote their way. HB 148 passed in the House by 1 vote. Not all our legislators were for this bill. They twisted the arms of legislators who wouldn't go to their side on vouchers and threatened to put money in other candidates campaign funds to elect legislators who would vote their way. We think this is a Utah issue but it began by a group who were not part of Utah and have targeted us to get vouchers going and thus in the long run hurt our public schools. Go to the state web site and see how many legislators have collected funds from PCE or their supporters. I am glad we can vote on this issue because some of our Legislators were "paid" through contributions to pass the voucher bill and didn't represent their constituents. Let's continue to build our education system not undermine it with vouchers. Vote NO!

Joe | 2:51 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

My problem with the voucher proposal is that it punts on the question of how to dela with schools. Unfortunately, to truly improve Utah schools, the teacher's union has to be sent packing. As long as the current teacher certification and tenure exists, the schools will not be fixed and this voucher proposal will end up being a joke.

Rex Ripplinger | 3:51 p.m. Oct. 22, 2007

Lee Benson comes down in opposition to school vouchers based on the apparent incongruent concept of government subsidy of privatization. Regardless of the merits of such an argument, his conclusion begs the real question, the provision of expanded school choice which vouchers will provide.

One need only to follow the money to expose the real opponents to vouchers. The NEA is bankrolling much of the voucher opposition. This group is largely made up of social engineers who would minimize (or eliminate) the influence of the traditional family in education and then pursue a classroom agenda of sexual deviation and revisionist history. These people mostly lament the loss of power that may come with vouchers.

Voucher opponents will advocate choice (i.e., abortion) unless such a choice will dilute their power. Such is the case with vouchers and the NEA's monopoly that is public school system.

SLC gal | 10:05 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Mr. Benson, very well put!!!!! As usual, an excellently written colum.

I myself am anti voucher becuase of a school down the street from where I live. This particular school has stricter requirements for the students that THEY will choose to enroll (Note: PRIVATE SCHOOLS CAN REJECT YOUR LITTLE DARLINGS, ALL YOU PROVOUCHER PEOPLE) then they do the teachers they hire to teach.

My concern is that vouchers have the capability of completely shutting down the public school system, so where is that going to leave little kid average that doesn't want to speak another language, is intelligent but not supersmart, but just wants to learn reading, writing, and 'rithmatic, and play (like most normal children do).

Curtis | 11:51 a.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Lee, you should have stayed with the sports columnist gig. I don't live in UT, but am watching the voucher debate closely.

The true 'free market' approach would be interesting, but probably not practical. Let's do a rough approximation by taking all the federal/state/local tax dollars spent on education and allocate them to schools based on enrollment. Then the people will 'vote with their feet' to reward schools that provide (empirically, not anecdotally) quality education.

Steve | 12:55 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

Mr. Rusk's comment on the free market is misleading. To make education truly free market, let parents (the customer) keep the TAX DOLLARS that SUSIDIZE public education and support the school (vendor) of their choice. It's called voting with you pocketbook. Our 6 kids got a public education. We found it to be a massive, unresponsive bureaucracy with a liberal social agenda. They are quick to want to dispense birth control information, and apply the latest social engineering fad, but don't permit Christmas or Easter decorations in classrooms or the cafeteria. How "free market" is that????

randy | 4:16 p.m. Oct. 23, 2007

public school has to take the special education child, private school doesnt, public school has to take the suspended student, private doesnt, public school cant discipline the child (chances are the child doesnt have a mother or a father to help with the discipline), the private school doesnt have a child discipline problem cause the child has two parents who pay the private tutition or the child doesnt go, secondly the private school can kick the problem student out and give the problem child to the public school ...
give some authority and some clout back to schools, keep the suspended child out of public school, keep the special education children in their own grouping away from mainstream public education, give the teachers some clout and respect and some authority and maybe ,just maybe the public school system will regain what it used to have before a hug became a jailtime event

SLC gal | 11:24 a.m. Oct. 24, 2007

Randy, were you educated at a private school? Becuase the public schools I attended didn't teach you to be so scared of people who are different.

Wilkey | 1:10 p.m. Oct. 28, 2007

"One speaks for the parents, one speaks for the kids"

Sorry, no. One - Eyre - speaks for the parents AND the kids. The other speaks for self-interested teachers' unions, whose two primary motives are their own financial bottom line and maintaining, for political purposes, their control of the schools.

pr0le | 7:07 p.m. Nov. 3, 2007

Randy - I just want to make sure you understand it's the Utah Legislature that won't allow Christmas or Easter decorations in the schools. I know it's more fun to think that those evil liberal teachers are responsible for suppressing what you believe is your right to impose your religion on unassuming students, but they're not.

And why is information on birth control a bad thing?

Brian | 4:37 p.m. Nov. 5, 2007

The Founding Fathers were also negative about large unaccountable governments who didn't play fair.

The question to me isn't about if government schools are essential - of course they are. The question is more about how we are going to make schools better and meet the educational demands of an increasing population?

In a free market environment, companies that provide bad products, bad service, or have overly expensive products either change or are put out of business. Even then someone else may figure out a simpler way and you still go out of business. The market goes to where there is the best return on investment.

A company with no competition is a monopoly. Monopolies are bad. Witness the advancement in phone service since that monopoly was broken. None of that exists in government schools. They are a tax funded monopoly. (Iï¿½d encourage you to watch John Stosselï¿½s "Stupid in America" on youtube.)

The government does not provide the best return on investment. Let's allow a little fair competition. $500 is a small portion of what I pay to the school district. It would be nice to have the choice of how that small portion is used.

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.