Deseret News | Voucher funds limited

Reader comments
Voucher funds limited

187 comments | Read story

Page:
1
2
3
4
Next >

Tom | 12:34 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

If so few people can afford to use vouchers, why is it such a threat to the public schools? The fact is that public schools in Utah are very mediocre in spite of having so many families that really care about education. Don't we rank 23rd in the nation in skills of graduating seniors? Why can't our educators stop worrying about being in control and become more concerned with educating our children. Yes, even if that means vouchers for private schools and home education. Too many teachers want to be paid for seniority and not for teaching performance. Wake up people! We don't get quality education for our children. It is time to forget tenure and insist that teachers perform in a quality fashion. Or stop moaning when a plan comes for choices.

Mark | 12:44 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

So 36 of the 62 schools had tuition fitting the range given by the pro voucher group, and they only counted K-8. Their figures therefore aren't as suspect as this article would suggest. But I do wish they'd been more up front about their not including high school tuition.

Kay | 1:47 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

DesNews included Boarding Schools. Not exactly what most parents are looking for. That drives up the average. What is meaningful is the median cost, which is closer to the PCE number, not the weighted average, which puts emphasis on elite well-established schools, that are more expensive and have more students than small less expensive schools. What is important is what vouchers will do to the private school landscape: the less expensive smaller schools have room to grow and they will. And new schools will open up to meet demand.

Comments continue below

goosegone | 2:34 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Du???????????
If so few people can afford to use vouchers, why is it such a threat to the public schools? The fact is that public schools in Utah are very mediocre in spite of having so many families that really care about education

Clark | 3:14 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I'm tired of hearing the argument from the anti-voucher crowd that only the wealthy will benefit. The fact is that the wealthy will only get $500, so what do they care? With a large number of schools priced under $4500/year, this is truly a plan that will make private school an option for the average family. By the way, does anyone else see the irony in that public schools use $7500/student and are whining about not being able to make ends meet?

There are a large number of low income families that will indeed take advantage of this program and sacrifice in order to give their children a higher quality education. Don't believe me? There's an organization called Children First Utah that offers 50% scholarships to private schools for those that meet the free and reduced lunch guidelines. The families are responsible for the other 50%. Last I heard, they have hundreds of low income students on a 50% scholarship and 1000s on a waiting list.

It's about time we the people take a little control out of the hands of the UEA and put a little more pressure on the public school system to deliver a quality product.

Anthony | 4:02 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I read this article three times and I still end up asking: ï¿½so what?ï¿½ I grew up in a poor household. My parents made tremendous sacrifices to send me to a private school when the public school in our neighborhood was failing. My mom had to get a job. We made due with less than usual. We had one car and it was a clunker. Like the car, my clothes were also previously owned. I am certain, my parents would have been thrilled to get a voucher covering a third of the tuition.

Camille | 4:17 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

message to Tom: You just said everything that I wanted too say. Thank you for your remarks. I totally agree with you.

Al Merrill | 4:54 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I called Mount Vernon Academy and the monthly tuition for my three kids would be $1,100. That means $9,900 per year. With $9,000 coming from the vouchers that only leaves $900 for me to cover. My tax return will cover that.

Why They Are a Threat | 5:50 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

If the 62,000 students already in private school utilized the vouchers (assuming they get the minimum amount of $500 per child) the cost to the public schoool system would be $31,000,000 annually and not one student would have left the public school.
Vote No on Vouchers

Rick | 6:13 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I'm not entirely faulting the article, since it is based on current factual information, but the quote from the rep for Utahns for Public School definitely gives it the feel that The Deseret News oppose vouchers (I don't know the paper's actual stance). To say that XYZ *would* happen is a little short-sighted. As much as some people want to make everyone believe it, we can't predict the future. As Tom said above, if the money's not "enough", then what's the harm? What it means is that the poor families that can't fill the gap between their voucher and the required tuition will continue sending their children to public schools. So who gets hurt? No one.

This seems like a non-story to me. Once vouchers are an option, the market will step up to meet the need. This is a simple concept that short-sight articles like this fail to mention. The facts are that those who oppose vouchers are either a) part of a small, self-interested group that aren't truly concerned about what's best for Utah's families, or b) don't really understand the issue.

What's the threat? | 6:21 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

My children went to private school--we are an average income family. The tuition payment procluded us from having big vacations or a boat. The reward was a QUALITY education. Believe me we could have used the vouchers. If so few families could aford private education, even with the vouchers, what is threat to the public school system? What not help the few families who will sacrifice "frills" for the sake of a better education have a break? The users will still be contributing more tax money to the public system that they take out.

Mother of Two | 6:35 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I agree with Tom's comments. I would like to add, if the people against vouchers put 1/2 the amount of energy into assisting in public schools as they have fighting vouchers the children of UT would be better served. Like wise instead of paying for advertising donate that money to the public schools and really show UT children you care. I think it's safe to say if people donated the amount of money spent on advertising against vouchers this year's budget would probably have doubled- talk about wasted resources. If people truly want to help public schools go volunteer your precious time to a local school. This is a great way to lower teacher to pupil ratio without actually cutting class sizes. More one on one or small groups help teachers tremendously. Everyone- stop fighting battles and get into the schools and start helping our future. You don't need a degree to assist a teacher most teachers welcome someone Volunteers, you don't have to be a parent, just someone who cares to help our children succeed in life. GET IN THE SCHOOLS AND VOLUNTEER OR GIVE $$$ INSTEAD OF FIGHTING OVER WHAT WAS ALREADY DECIDED BY THE LEGISLATURE!!

Brad | 6:37 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

The only way your opening sentence would be accurate is if parents with a $3,000 voucher were as likely to choose a school with $62,000 tuition as they were to choose a school with $3,000 tuition. The headline would have been much more honest had it said that over half of private schools are affordable. After all over half the schools you surveyed were $5,000 or less and a $3,000 voucher makes them very affordable. You have heard of objective journalism haven't you?

TW | 6:58 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

This article provides something of a "before" picture. The number of schools, number of seats, and average tuition costs reflect the current, non-voucher market. Even so, it still neglects other avenues, such as scholarships, private aid, and tiered tuition that can be used to make tuition less for those who can't afford full price.

Before there was a public school system, when all school were private, it was common for the wealthy to pay a bit more in tuition in order to subsidize the less affluent. It was also common for people to donate to schools.

If vouchers pass, the supply and demand curve changes. The market will adjust to the new demand. Innovative entreprenuers will find ways to fill the demand. There will be new schools and new business models. Private charity will fill in where public subsidy falls off.

Bobby | 7:02 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

This article highlights the main reason that I am not voting for vouchers...

Normal people like me are supposedly given a choice with the voucher option, but I couldn't possibly afford to send my kids to private school on my $50K Salary, even with the voucher option in place. It simply gives rich people a break on their choice. Normal people still don't have that option, even though this supposedly gives them that choice...

The Legislature and Governor keep trying to sell the voucher idea as giving lower income families a choice... As a person with a lower income, I'm telling you straight up, this would still not provide a choice. I flat out could not come up with an additional $5,000 per child per year to send them to a private school!!! Have you seen the price of housing, gas, food, etc?

The "choice reasoning" is flawed! I'm voting NO, and hope others do to...

Dallin | 7:04 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

They said that a $3000 voucher would only fully cover the tuition in 9 of the 62 schools providing data.
The point of the article is clear: vouchers are not likely to help lower income students - they can't pay the difference. The answer to the next question is important: Who cares? So what? Will that really cause a detrimental separation between upper and lower class in Utah? Is that so bad? What's the priority - providing solutions to education or keeping upper class students as role models for lower class students?
A second point is also well made in the article in the last paragraph:
If private schools are smart, they won't accept vouchers because they don't want any government control in their schools. That spoils the principle of being private.
Good article.

Deena | 7:24 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Tom, vouchers are not for home education - nor do any home educators want them. If they want help, they can use an online public school program that provides free curriculum and a teacher who oversees them, but most home schoolers are happily (some FIERCELY!) independent. Otherwise, I agree completely with your post. :-)

Steve | 7:31 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Hmmm... I think that the current private schools tend to cater to the wealthy, and that is the problem. I think that 4,000 is more the right number for a decent alternative education. Money does not equal better education. The school that I had my kids in befor I moved was 3000 per year, and it was a great experience, great school.

Thanks to the News for sticking in this subtly anti voucher article and calling it science. The numbers tell us nothing. Look at the number of parents who will jump at this chance. That will tell you something, at least.

Control | 7:32 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

The Challenger Schools have figured out what many other private schools will soon be faced with should vouchers become law. With government money ALWAYS comes government control. Ask any private business that currently does business with the government (roads, prisons, construction, etc.) and they will tell horror stories about navigating the layers of governmental mandates and regulations. The only way for a private school to remain completely private is by not accepting any government money. Pro-voucher supporters try many ways to hide this fact. They call them "tax credits" in some cases. In other cases they try to convince themselves that the money is "theirs" and that "they" are giving "their" money to the private school. Nice try but it won't fool the government regulators in the long run. Thank goodness the Challenger Schools have figured this out.

Alan | 7:42 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Even with these numbers, the vouchers plan cuts the tuition cost by almost half. That's something, and it's nothing to sneeze at. It is actually immoral for a government to tax a person who is footing the bill for his or her child's education at the same rate as a person who is contributing nothing. What people forget is that before tax revenue was tax revenue, it was earned by the taxpayers. It's THEIR money. Anti-voucher activists are behaving as if it was always their money. They need to show a whole lot more appreciation for the source of their funding. (And I am a teacher and union member.)

That said, referendum 1 is not good law because there is not enough accountability. Private schools are not held to the same standard as public schools as far as accreditation and teacher credentials (none). The state does have every right and reason to expect high standards of schools receiving voucher funds, so I'll have to vote NO until appropriate academic standards are set for all schools, public and private.

Curious | 7:48 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

The pro-voucher people argue that the vouchers are for poor people to help them have more school choice--then the truth comes out that poorer families still can't afford it. Strike that argument from the debate. Let's put the truth forward--it's wealthy families that will benefit from vouchers if they choose to go to private school. (Does that include any of our legislators children or grandchildren?) However, public schools do a great job educating "all" students. Congratulations for the job they do. Why don't you visit a local public school and see what they're doing. Talk is cheap--but when you actually see the dedicated teachers teaching students and making a difference in their lives, you'll be impressed.

Private School Busses | 7:49 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

No private school provides transportation. This must be taken into account as well. Even if low-income families could afford the tuition, most don't have means to get their children to these schools.

JML | 7:51 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

You still don't seem to get it. The point is not that kids who want to enroll in private schools will be able to enroll in the existing schools. The point is that new schools will be created to fill the demand. That demand exists now but lower income families can't afford to choose which school their kids go to. The new schools will structure their tuition costs around what the vouchers will provide to the families. Comparing current tuition to the amount of the voucher benefit isn't the most accurate way to measure the effectiveness of the program. It only considers current options. In a few short years there will be abundant choices and options.

This issue is not about educating our children. It is about who controls the education of our children. Whenever I see the NEA weigh in and support an issue I have to take a close look. The NEA is a lobor union whose primary interest is in preserving the jobs and benefits of it's members, with little regard to the actual impact on the quality of education. The quality of the education those union members provide is a secondary issue at best.

Not according to Eyre's | 7:53 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I just watched the "cookie" video on you tube and they say that the AVERAGE cost of private school in Utah is $3,800 so even the "poor" family could send their kid to a private school if vouchers pass.

I have yet to find any school that is less than $8,000 a year.

Could someone with more knowledge than me please share the costs of some of our local private schools?

RE: Tom | 7:55 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

We are last in spending but 23rd in performance. THat sounds like a GREAT public education system to me. Just think what it could be if we even raised our spending to just the national AVERAGE!

Kudos to all involved with education in Utah...teachers, parents, and students.

See what you want: | 7:58 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

You will see what you want and not see logic. Pro-voucher supporters will argue to the end. If the really wanted to make a difference they would have become educators instead of bashing them. Every argument turns to bashing the educators.
Even if you go with the provoucher numbers of 4500 you are still short 1500? Who is going to provide those Oreos? The wealthy Eyers?Huntsmans? or the poor who it was targeted for? 10 years from now all the wealthy well have more money at the expense of the public because all private school students will be getting part of the dole.
Many of the same people that lead this fight made the same arguments about Charter schools. Many of the arguments have not come about, there are hidden agendas by many people here.

Schools are not mediocre | 8:00 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Who says "public schools in Utah are very mediocre in spite of having so many families that really care about education?" I happen to think my schools are great. The only thing mediocre about schools is their funding.

Dave | 8:10 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I cannot understand the argument that since the voucher can't cover all the tuition it won't help for it to cover SOME or MOST of it.

And, by the way, what would be wrong with giving the poor family the whole $7,500? This might hurt PUBLIC SCHOOLS, but it would benefit PUBLIC EDUCATION. The goal is for government to use taxes to guarantee a quality education. Why do we tip-toe around the idea that puplic schools should lose ALL the money if they don't do the job?

But private schools aren't held to the same accountablility measures, right? Exaclty--and those measure are far less effective than the best accountabilty there is--INTELLIGENT PARENTS.

Correction... | 8:14 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Merrill...if I'm correct, the voucher is NOT a per child thing!! It's actually a per FAMILY thing. That would mean that your family could decide to send one child (if finances were tight) or you would need a lot more than $900 to cover the remainder cost involved for the remaining children. Just an FYI

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

I thought the article was interesting. The comments though seem to be pushing the same point or giving excuses for PCE. PCE got it right for 36 schools but missed on 26 schools. They weren't honest about high schools. Was it because they cost more so they didn't want it to mess up their low average? How about over estimating how much public schools spend. Yesterday Education Week, a national education newspaper reports Utah as spending $5400 per student, lowest in the nation. Where did PCE come up with their number. It doesn't really matter though because it seems all the people commenting believe it inspite of the facts. What matters to me though is not cost, it's choice. Utahan's already have choice and only 3% have chosen private education. Why, because public schools in Utah are a good value. I don't feel it's right to use a government voucher to build up a private school industry in Utah when it's not really wanted by the majority of Utahans. I'm voting NO on referendum 1. It's the wrong way to use our tax dollars. I don't want to pay for someones choice that they already have.

Excellent | 8:23 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Obviously vouchers won't make private schools affordable for everyone, but it will make it possible for quite a few middle-class families. Helping those who can't quite afford it now is a step in the right direction.

Say no to the status quo - vote yes on 1.

Bad statistics | 8:24 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

As usual, the pro voucher folks play games with numbers. Utah is in the top five for graduation rates, Tom. Bogus figures were reported and later corrected with a petty good media blast. It's about time the D-News printed some facts so you could all attack them.

????? | 8:28 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I thought that state law forbid the use of public money for perochial school tuition.....that gets rid of half of the schools....vouchers are a joke.

stuart | 8:29 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

1) private schools do NOT score better than public schools on standardized tests. The fallacy that many of you are following is that the education children get in private schools is better...this is simply not true 2) even if a kid gets a voucher, it is not a guarantee the kid will get into the school of "choice"--private schools are allowed the right to discriminate against anyone they choose. In other words, if a kid has not performed satisfactory, the school doesn't have to accept the voucher 3) voucher laws authorize schools with too little oversight, no real coursework or attendance requirements, lax standards for teachers and minimal accountability to taxpayers...the risk of indadequate and unstable schools is high 4) For five years, transferring students would be double funded by taxpayers--in the private schools and the public schools they left behind. Thereafter, public school funding would be cut to reflect lost enrollment 5) Vouchers would not prevent tax increases...subsidizing students now privately funded creates a projected deficit of almost a half billion dollars. these dollars would come from other worthy projects like health care, public safety, and roads. Taxpayer money would be better spent on public schools!

Rich | 8:30 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I make a good living, so I get five hundred bucks for free if I want to send my kids to private school. Poor families, and I grew up poor, will get three thousand bucks that they either won't use, or give to the Pope World Catholic Academy, The Family Tree that Doesn't Fork FLDS School, or some other heaviy subsizdized religious school. This is why it's a giveaway to the rich and to the churches, forced down our throats by the usual bought-out legislators and out-of-staters. A definite no.

Ryan | 8:32 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

As I read the article, I had a few things go through my mind.
As a business owner, I understand free enterprise, and what competition does for the consumer. It creates a higher quality product at a reasonable price.
The public education system has had a monopoly on this market. Have we seen the quality of education go up?
If parents have more freedom and choice on where they send their children to school, the UEA will have to make their schools more attractive to the "consumer". This makes sense to me. Nothing like a little competition to bring the cream to the top.
If its $500 or $3000 of extra freedom to parents, does it matter? Every little bit helps.

No Threat | 8:33 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

posted by Why They Are A Threat

"If the 62,000 students already in private school utilized the vouchers (assuming they get the minimum amount of $500 per child) the cost to the public schoool system would be $31,000,000 annually and not one student would have left the public school."

Sorry, your assumption is bad. Students already in private school are not eligible for vouchers.

The scarcity of actual knowledge on this subject is astounding. I blame to a large degree the inaccurate "advertising" on both sides but it does seem the anti-voucher crowd are particularly disingenuous. $0.02.

fr1nk | 8:36 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

If the out of state intrests that bought out legislature would have put their money into scholarships instead of trying to subvert the Utah constitution they could have helped many of those who want help.
Vouchers are going down and I am happy about that.

DBM | 8:38 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

There are several issues with vouchers. I'm sure that nearly all of Utah's residents want the best for all of Utah's children. I don't believe for a moment that those on either side want our kids to go without a quality education. The primary issue is whether or not HB0148 accomplishes that. I say it doesn't, that it's throwing away good money at an ineffective attempt to provide the best education for Utah's kids. It's not a matter of special interest groups selfishly protecting their agenda, for either side. It's a matter of whether or not HB0148 improves education in Utah. We have the opportunity to vote on that on Nov 6. That right to choose how this tax money is allocated for education is and should be up to the voting public.

The anti-voucher side, such as myself, not only feel it ineffective but it creates additional problems; not the least of which is demonstrating blantant disregard for the Utah Constitution by allowing public money to go to sectarian schools. If our politicians can, at will, ignore the Constitution then of what value is it? Having looked at the actual copy of HB0148, I just see too many flaws.

Richard | 8:39 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

So, let me get this straight, according to Leah Barker: The public school system is a complete mess, from K - 8. But, says Leah, that same public school system suddenly - and magically - transforms itself at the 9 - 12 grade level into a perfectly wonderful system where students' "...needs would be met just fine." Right on, Leah. And you wonder why we look at your cause and your logic as deeply and seriously flawed.

Interesting Items | 8:41 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I think the article made several interesting points. The lack of capacity is one point. People believe that schools will just spring up to meet the new demand that vouchers will supposedly produce. What kind of schools will they be? What kind of solid financial foundation will there be? Can they fail and leave parents out their money and without the school? This has happened in Milwaukee. Oh, wait, Utah doesn't have any unscrupulous operators. Sorry, we aren't the scam capital of the US for nothing.

The other item is choice. So only 9 out of 62 would be covered by the $3000 voucher for the lower income families. Will those 9 allow all comers to enroll in their schools? People are dreaming if they think that all private schools take every student who shows up and then if he or she becomes a problem, out you go! Who really has the control of the choice? Not the parent, but the school.

Vote NO on Referendum 1.

Public School teacher | 8:45 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

The arguments for voting in favor in Vouchers far outweigh the reasons not too.

Public ed. needs to realize that they are not some organization immune to change, scrutiny, and they are certainly not this high and mighty organization that can be shielded from the public eye and control. The UEA would lead you to believe otherwise. What is best for Utah's students? A system that produces the best education possible. Competition creates just such a system. I really believe that is the issue here. Public schools would love to keep competition to a minimum in order to provide securtiy.

Shouldn't I as a tax payer be able to say where some of the money I pay to the school system in Utah goes?

Students in both the public and private sector would benefit by lower class sizes, increased funds for classroom use, and competition that will indeed bring about a better education system. I am tired of having to teach to the lower levels in the classroom. That is what all the emphasis is on; minimal achievement. Raise the bar and make Utah the leader in education in the United States.

Reality | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I went to a private school back east and half the kids there were from the inner city. Their parents probably worked several jobs to pay for their tuition. Im voting YES for the vouchers. It DEFINATELY helps the lower middle class and working poor.

Adam Smith | 8:44 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Then why is the union threatened? Maybe if the Utah Teacher's Union took the 3 million from the NEA and put it in the classrooms for kids...their case might be more compelling...if they truly needed it.

Fact is, the elementary average tuition cost is $3800 per year. Challenger cost $6,400 roughly per year..I'll take the voucher and make up the difference...and I'm not rich!

Do the math...take $7500 X 30 kids..= $225,000 minus the teacher's ave. salary $38,000 = $187,000..where does the money go???

Fact, you can create a school for $3,000 per child. With 25 students = 75K-30K for a teacher = 45K left. The 650 sq. ft.x $6 per sq. ft=4K..now you have 41K left. Take 10K toward admn....now you have 31K..take another $600 for classroom supplies...then a share toward utilities...see the picture..you CAN run an elem. school on 3K per pupil

They have more than enough for vouchers folks. Truth is, they simply wish to continue with their grip/monopoly/control over our kids...

Send them the message on election day....tell them to pound sand, vote for the voucher and assume what is rightfully ours to have...

Sam | 8:46 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Bobby,

I respect your right to vote against vouchers and you have explained well your reasons for not utilizing them. But you said you not only are voting against vouchers, but "hope others do to". Why?

Even if only the rich utilize the vouchers, it would benefit us normal people. They would get their $500 and we would get an extra $7000 to spend on our children.

But I really think that if you look objectively, many more than the rich will be able to utilize the vouchers, even though you may choose not to. I don't plan on using the vouchers, but I think my child will be better off with the lower class sizes that will result.

JR | 8:47 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

I'd like to bring up a point that I don't think is being discussed enough. The pro-voucher camp says that vouchers will leave more money in public education. That is false.
Let's say that there are 6 students in 5th grade that choose to leave and use their voucher. At my childrens school they would get $3,000, 75% of the population recieves free lunch. So those 6 leave taking with them $18,000. The school then has $18,000 less to run on.

When a student leaves the school the cost to run the school is relatively unchanged. 85% of a schoold budget is in employees. The only way that the school could come out ahead would be if enough students left from the same grade to be able to relocate or release a teacher. The pro-voucher people say that only 2% of students will use the vouchers. At my school families school that is only 6 students, enough to take money away without changing the cost.

If enough students left to eliminate teaching positions, then it would save money but nobody is saying that is going to happen.

David Linford | 8:54 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Why did it take until 2/3 of the way through this article for it to mention that a $3000 voucher allotment would FULLY cover 15% of existing private schools.

Also there is no discussion on market forces. School capacities and prices will evolve as market forces dictate.

It is interesting that the average Private School education cost is roughly the same as the average cost per student that the state spends. In other words, if our voucher program, instead of less than half funding each student would fully fund, and empower, all students to take there money where they see fit, public or private, most of us could fully fund any education we wanted.

randy | 8:55 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

so now maybe people can realize that the 97% of those paying for public education .. dont want 3% of those going private school NOT to receive a portion of the 97%'s money (dont care what fund it comes out of)
i am really getting tried of all the media hype on who is funding this ad or that ad ...
120,000 plus utah registered voters signed a petition in weeks (only 90 something thousand signatures required) .. not a union , an outside agency, get off the who is paying / backing this and who is paying backing that ...
the numbers would suggest that vouchers dont have a chance somehow i dont get the idea that there are a 120,001 for voucher parents politics as usual has offered to a few a benefit paid for by the many
there is a silver lining in this voucher thing ,, it has gotten utahns familiar with the petition idea/concept and soon it will be time for this signatory initiative state to do this same petition signing again .. this time to limit the property assessment tax to 1% of your original purchase price totally by-passing our capitol hill gang

BJ | 8:59 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

Let's face it,this whole discussion really centers on the fact that public schools just don't satisfy a lot of parents. Parents want more control over curriculum and societal atmosphere in their kids schools. It seems that this truth is never brought out for fear of offending . Vouchers give parents more choice and public schools more competition. Of course monopolies are afraid of competition but that's how improvements come about.

Dave | 9:00 a.m. Oct. 25, 2007

The threat vouchers have to public schools is simple. Utah ranks in the bottom five of all states when it comes to teacher salaries. The reason we are losing quality teachers is because they are either leaving Utah for higher paying teacher jobs or they are staying in Utah but changing careers. Although I'm not a teacher, I make the average teacher's salary. I know how hard it is to get by in today's tight economy. Thus, the threat is, by allocating money away from public schools, we are in a very real sense, sending the message that we don't care to keep quality teachers in Utah. Making quality education available for every school age child benefits everyone. Private schools cannot do that because they have the right to reject students. Those without that education will someday likely become a burden on the rest of society. Thus, those of us anti-voucher voters, feel more priority should be placed on allocating already available funding for public education. We would all like a pay raise and get a little envious when we find out that other's make more than we do. But we each benefit in the end by prioritizing public education.

Page:
1
2
3
4
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.