Comments about ‘Research indicates they don't improve student performance’

Wouldn't it be wiser to first fund public schools properly, then worry about vouchers? Once that happens, if public money is to be spent, lets at least require that the teachers are knowledgeable in their field. The current voucher law has no standards on teacher ability or education. If public money is to be used, the public has a right to insist that students are getting an education. That goes for public schools too.

Thanks, Kim, for the best explanation I've heard yet. Our public schools are doing a good job and most people recognize that their own public school is doing a fantastic job. There seems to be a rumor out there about other schools. Squelch the rumor. Our schools are educating all students. Congratulations teachers and students!

The is a lot of claims going back and forth but the bottom line is this:

A majority don't want vouchers. We just want the legislatue to fund public schools like we know they can be funded. We are already hearing about a possible $400,000,000 surplus again. We hear this every year and get mad. That is money that should be going straight to the schools. Straight to the teachers. It won't require a tax increase. The money is already there. Stop playing games and give it to the schools.

When voucher go down, get the message. WE DON'T WANT THEM! Don't ressurrect the bill again. Let it die and move on.

Thank you.

Thanks for the thoughtful, informative article. I'm convinced.

What on earth does anyone have against parents getting to choose which school to send their children?
I don't get it!
YES on vouchers!

What: Parents already have a choice of where to send their children to school. This "school choice" argument is invalid. The "choice" is already there.

if the guvernator is supporting the vouchers, then it's a pretty good clue that it is bad for Utah. the proponents argue that class sizes will be reduced...what??? class sizes are not determined in the school districts i know of before those enrolled show up. class sizes are determined by principals who have a budget and a certain number of classrooms and then they need to cram as many kids into a classroom (usually 30+) and then get a teacher to teach them. unless our state legislates/mandates 20 pupil class sizes the voucher system will have NO effect on class size. i am leaning away from supporting vouchers for these reasons.

This is what I've needed. A rational explanation for why teachers and PTA parents can't support vouchers. Now I get it. If vouchers could really live up to the claims being made, they would surely be all in favor. I'm finally sure about voting against referendum 1.

I was a tax paying, working and single parent. My income level would have allowed me to take advantage of the proposed vouchers for my sons. I tried to send them to private school years ago, but it was just too expensive. I drove old beat up cars and lived in small apartments in order to attempt the price of private schools. I was very involved with their education. Both sons have IQ's over 165. I couldn't afford to keep them in private school and I never did win the Charter school lottery for them. My eldest son ended up with a GED, based on the recommendations of his public school counselor, at the "alternative high school" the district recommended he attend "due to his high intelligence". My younger son ended up with a science teacher that taught absurd and unfounded ideas and when I complained; the counselor informed me he was "tenured" and they had been trying to "pawn him off on another school district, because they couldn't fire him". Our tax dollars are being misused now! Sending more money into the corrupt public school system won't help any Utah children or the teachers that deserve a raise.

Wow, I always knew and said voucher schools were not accountable, but I didn't know to that extent. Don't worry, I'm voting no.

I've got a message for you. We could give every dollar in the state to our public schools and they still would not be "fully funded". There isn't a government program invented that ever said "you know, we have plenty of money to do what we are supposed to do, don't send us any more".

As to the subject of choice...Currently my children in public school have a choice, pay for school provided lunches or bring a sack lunch from home. Imagine that this was not the case and every student had to pay (I think it is about $2.50 per day), whether they wanted to eat the school lunch or not. Now imagine that the school lunch was just a bunch of junk food or did not meet the special dietary needs of some students. Some students parents wanted to send a more nutritious lunch or a special diet instead. Should they have to pay for 2 lunches? Or should the ones that send a sack lunch not have to pay for the school lunch?

I'm sure some taxpayers would scream...Don't let my lunch money go to some spoiled kid who wants to eat vegetables (or a chicken sandwich)!

What: Utah has open enrollment. So your comment made no sense. Get it straight and vote NO!
I'm a student and I'm telling everyone to vote No!
Teachers are telling everyone to vote no also! I think we would know best!
Not Amused: It will still be too expensive for people who don't make alot of money. So, not only will it end up being to expensive anyways, no you would be taking money away from the public schools.
Our schools are already poor, we won't be able to do anything if any more money is taken!
We already get the least money for the most kids.

Having been out of state for a decade, and relocating back, I am continually impressed with how often in Utah "pro-choice" is used to promote one's agenda (except in abortion interestingly).

The voucher law is not about Choice -- the choice already exists. This law is about creating another government entitlement program without any accountability.

I will be voting against vouchers.

Vouchers will allow us to entice students out of our crowded schools at a fraction of the cost we now spend to educate them. Successful students will not leave the public system. Those who need a different learning environment will.

This creates a WIN for teachers (I am a public school principal) as they will be teaching students who choose to be in their classes. It is a WIN for the parents who can take more responsibility for their child's education (proven to be very important). It is a WIN for the taxpayer who can pay less to educate a student in our state with many children and few taxpayers. But most importantly, it is a WIN for the students who need a different educational setting to succeed.

I am always surprised at the naivete of some Utahns. The teachers union has a vested interest in this issue. Civics 101 teaches to "beware of a vested interest parading as a moral principle" - in other words, where there is a vested interest, we must see it for what it is. In this case, teachers erringly believe they will benefit from keeping the status quo. They have a vested interest. Beware.

I would like to draw attention to the CHSistheBEST post. This is a public school teacher who has a less than masterful grasp of the English language! Also, I am so sick and tired of OTHER people telling me how much money a poor person has available to spend on education. It is all about priorities. I was about $250/mo short of making this happen for both of them. It would have been nice to use MY tax dollars to pay for MY childrens education. This is not about another entitlement program. This is about education, the best each child can have. This is about change.

I am surprised that a Public School principal would fall into the trap of using the "paternalistic" stereotype that it seems is common in all public policy debates here in Utah as portrayed perfectly in the statement "I am always surprised at the naivete of some Utahns.".

The bottom line is the supporters for vouchers have no answer to the problem of no oversight for private schools. It is not responsible to put public money in a private business without public oversight.

The voucher law needs more work.

As a society we understand that having an educated population is the only way to maintain our freedoms. It is not wise to divert tax dollars our of this public enterprise. The same arguments for vouchers could be used for us to stop paying into the fund for medicare, medicaid and social security so we can us "our" tax dollars for our own interest - these three programs serve an important purpose as does education.

We don't need an "answer" to the problem of no oversight because private schools experience DIRECT oversight - with the consumer as overseer - which is more powerful and effective accountability because they can take their students (which represent dollars) out of the school if they don't like what educational services they receive.

Because the government school system doesn't have this natural, direct accountability they have had to come up with volumes and volumes of regulations to protect children and parents. I know because as a public school principal I spend too much of my time reading these regulations and complying with them instead of focusing on student needs.

"Public" education simply means education of our public. It does not mean "government provided education". Vouchers provide education for our "public" (students) and fulfill the social mandate of providing for a well-educated populace.

Your comparison to medicare would work if medicare required that you only used government-run hospitals to access the medicare benefits. Of course no one would accept that type of limitation on their freedom - neither should we accept the limitation of using our taxpayer dollars to educate students where their parents believe is best.

It's interesting that so many keep saying that there is no accountability in private schools. Are we really so stupid as parents that we can't hold schools accountable ourselves, or have we just become so reliant on government to tell us what is right and what is wrong. It's sad that so many of us have become such puppets. Vouchers will fail, but only because of so many igonorant people who see public school as a holy institution that shouldn't be touched. As has been stated before, it's being supported by taxpayer money. I am a taxpayer, shouldn't I be able to choose where my money goes? But of course I'm forgetting that I shouldn't question our omnipotant wise government. Silly me.