Reader comments
Financing voucher fight
170 comments | Read story
Nate | 12:45 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Wasted!! All this money is wasted. Why not just put that money into the school
system. If you want some children to go to a private school, use the money that
you wasted in the campaign for Ref. 1 and use it there instead. It's all a
bad idea anyways... personally I plan on voting against Ref. 1. To many flaws,
and in the end it will be wasted money, spend the money in the public school
system. Look at supply and demand, if the demand for private school goes up, the
cost will go up because there is a limited amount of people they can take,when
the cost goes up, once again you will have only families that are well off that
will be able to afford it.
Mac | 12:47 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
And just where do the teacher unions get their money from?
That's an important piece of information needed in the story.
That's an important piece of information needed in the story.
Comments continue below
Big Rock | 1:24 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Let him waste his money.
Founding Fathers | 1:37 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
John Adams, our second president, was a beneficiary of school choice. The rest
of the country benefited from his leadership. He wanted to quit school at 14 and
be a farmer, like his dad. His dad let him quit for one day and then made him go
back to school. After his dad discovered he didn't like school because of
the teacher, he immediately pulled him out and put him in a new school with a
different teacher and his performance went up immediately. He would have been a
farmer rather than our president if it weren't for a father who had the
ability to choose another school, where he excelled and went on to Harvard and
then became a lawyer, a founding father and president.
This bill isn't "perfect". But it's a step in the right direction. And just as "the business of moving the world forward doesn't wait for perfect people"; it also doesn't wait for perfect legislation--there is no such thing.
Parents have the right to choose what is best for their children; not the government, the school board or the teachers and their union. Freedom of choice is American.
This bill isn't "perfect". But it's a step in the right direction. And just as "the business of moving the world forward doesn't wait for perfect people"; it also doesn't wait for perfect legislation--there is no such thing.
Parents have the right to choose what is best for their children; not the government, the school board or the teachers and their union. Freedom of choice is American.
comment | 2:09 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
One is welfare for the rich. The same conservatives fight government
interference in private business. Yet I guess taking government money is ok.
Ed | 5:58 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I am amazed at how much the so-called politicos up on Capitol Hill here are NOT
contributing money to a campaign that they are in favor of...and that is the
voucher movement. They can vote for it up on the Hill but when it comes down to
contributing money to making certain it passes, these men are not willing to put
their money where their votes were/are. I am against vouchers, but at least I
can give Mr. Byrne of Overstock.com the respect he deserves for something he
believes in by putting in a few million of his own dollars. Where is Mr.
Curtis, Mr. Bramble, and the rest of the GOP???
R B | 6:12 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Utahns must realize that this issue transcends Utah's borders. California
parents are being subjected to homosexual propaganda being forced on their
children by the GLBT lobby. If vouchers were readily available in California,
you wouldn't see this, as the lobby knows the public schools would be
decimated, with defections.
I find it ironic how the "pro-choice" people vehemently opposed "choice" for parents, when it comes to their children's education.
The entire country looks to Utah, the bastion of conservative thinking, to validate "choice" when it comes to childrens' education.
I find it ironic how the "pro-choice" people vehemently opposed "choice" for parents, when it comes to their children's education.
The entire country looks to Utah, the bastion of conservative thinking, to validate "choice" when it comes to childrens' education.
Richard C. Shipp | 6:23 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Your article said:
Pro-voucher ads urge voters not to let a national teachers union tell them how to vote next Tuesday, yet the pro-voucher movement itself is receiving three-fourths of its funds from one man � Park City millionaire Patrick Byrne.
What doesn't make sense is your lack of distinction between funds from a Utah citizen, and funds primarily from a liberal union OUTSIDE the state trying to overturn our Utah law!!
It appears that some of the anti-voucher phone banks are also coming from outside our fair state. When was the last time you as a Utahn tried to overturn an Arizona law????? !!!
Pro-voucher ads urge voters not to let a national teachers union tell them how to vote next Tuesday, yet the pro-voucher movement itself is receiving three-fourths of its funds from one man � Park City millionaire Patrick Byrne.
What doesn't make sense is your lack of distinction between funds from a Utah citizen, and funds primarily from a liberal union OUTSIDE the state trying to overturn our Utah law!!
It appears that some of the anti-voucher phone banks are also coming from outside our fair state. When was the last time you as a Utahn tried to overturn an Arizona law????? !!!
Pat | 6:29 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Good for Mr. Byrne! We're grateful he is willing to spend his money
supporting things that are good for society.
The law will help our family get a better education, even though our children won't be attending private school, because some kids from our middle-class neighborhood will.
We hope his donations help people to see that the voucher law is education money well spent.
Thank you.
The law will help our family get a better education, even though our children won't be attending private school, because some kids from our middle-class neighborhood will.
We hope his donations help people to see that the voucher law is education money well spent.
Thank you.
Terri | 6:40 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Imagine if all of that money had been put to better use and given to the schools
to improve the conditions and teacher pay in the state.
Overstock.com | 7:06 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
No more my money for you! I'll shop elsewhere.
JML | 7:22 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Let's see. An out of state labor union (which by its very nature
represents the best interest of teachers) supports one side of an issue. A Utah
philanthropist (who represents the best interest of students) supports the other
side of the same issue. Which causes the most concern? I see red flags all
over the place. Any time the NEA supports an issue I have to take a close look
at it. My support for vouchers is not based solely on the fact that NEA opposes
them. I have taken a close look at the issue and I support vouchers because
they are a good opportunity to give educational options to more students.
I also support our traditional public schools. Two of my children have thrived there and had excellent educational opportunities. I believe that most Utah students can and will be educated effectivly by those schools. But until those schools can offer all students an effective educatinal opportunity to every student (like my 3rd child who was drowning in traditional public school but now thrives in a Charter School) there needs to be options available. There is no way more $ can solve the problems my son faced!
I also support our traditional public schools. Two of my children have thrived there and had excellent educational opportunities. I believe that most Utah students can and will be educated effectivly by those schools. But until those schools can offer all students an effective educatinal opportunity to every student (like my 3rd child who was drowning in traditional public school but now thrives in a Charter School) there needs to be options available. There is no way more $ can solve the problems my son faced!
kdumont | 7:29 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Too bad the money on both sides of this issue couldn't have been spent on
Utah's kids rather than this political match of wills.
Chris | 7:29 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Following the money on the pro-voucher side leads to businessmen (like Byrne,
who is almost singlehandedly trying to convince me to vote for vouchers) who may
see children and parents as merely consumers. How do I know their main
motivation would not become profit? At present, I have trouble trusting
vouchers because I imagine a future with great schools for the rich and terrible
schools for the poor. This is what I've seen in California where private
schools are more prevalent than here. Is that better than what we have now?
Sanity | 7:40 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
This is bad legislation. I will be voting no. The folks behind vouchers are
elitists who want the to see the ultimate destruction of our public schools.
Parents have the right currently to pull their kids out and send them to private schools. There are scholarships for your kids to attend private schools if you cannot afford it. This is just another government program to redistribute wealth. Shame on the conservative Utah legislature for buying into this garbage.
All this would do is increase peoples dependency on the public dole.
Parents have the right currently to pull their kids out and send them to private schools. There are scholarships for your kids to attend private schools if you cannot afford it. This is just another government program to redistribute wealth. Shame on the conservative Utah legislature for buying into this garbage.
All this would do is increase peoples dependency on the public dole.
Clare | 7:49 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
John Adams is totally my hero. I can't believe you used him as an example.
We're talking about education over 200 years ago. There was no public
education. If you don't like a teacher in your school, you can always ask
for another and I know it happens because it happened to me. You can also get
permission to attend another school if you are unhappy with the one in your
neighborhood. You have absolutely no proof that John Adams would not support
our present school system, but you'd have a lot of proof that he
wouldn't support the lack of moral standards many people have today. What
is wrong with our schools is not the teachers. It is the direct result of
families falling apart. I should know, I have personally seen the affects.
Linda | 7:53 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Your story stated: "He's close to it, he's here ... he has a
vested interest in citizens here, he is an employer who employs over 1,000
people and a has vested interest ensuring that he has qualified staff and that
begins with a solid education," PCE spokeswoman Leah Barker said
Yes, but our teachers were also trained here and work here. The public school system employs thousands and provide that solid education. So Leah why don't you think these teachers have a vested interest in the future of the public school system. Why not consider their concerns valid?
Most of our public school teachers have not had a decent salary increase in over a decade.
If the demand for private schools increase, then the tuition will increase making it more difficult for the poor or even middle-class to send their child to private school with tuition ranging from $4,000 to $8,000 a semester! If you cannot afford to buy gasoline to drive them to school or food for their lunches, how will you afford to come up with $3,500 to $5,000 + the voucher to pay the tuition.
Vouchers are a bandaid experiment that will not fix the problem!
Yes, but our teachers were also trained here and work here. The public school system employs thousands and provide that solid education. So Leah why don't you think these teachers have a vested interest in the future of the public school system. Why not consider their concerns valid?
Most of our public school teachers have not had a decent salary increase in over a decade.
If the demand for private schools increase, then the tuition will increase making it more difficult for the poor or even middle-class to send their child to private school with tuition ranging from $4,000 to $8,000 a semester! If you cannot afford to buy gasoline to drive them to school or food for their lunches, how will you afford to come up with $3,500 to $5,000 + the voucher to pay the tuition.
Vouchers are a bandaid experiment that will not fix the problem!
Bottom Line | 7:56 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I am tired of hearing people whine about not having choice. This is not about
choice. Choice has existed, it exists now and it will exist in the future.
I am not a fan of the unions, of teachers, or there constant whinning about how unfairly they are treated. For me this is about taxes!
So what the pro-voucher camp must prove to me is that this plan will not result in a major tax increase.
Here is what I see happening, students moving to private schools, teachers crying that they must have more money to compete, and my taxes going up. There is no way the government is going to hand out money without taking money back!
My plan, shut down the public schools all together and let the funding go to truly needy children so they can get a quality private education.
I am not a fan of the unions, of teachers, or there constant whinning about how unfairly they are treated. For me this is about taxes!
So what the pro-voucher camp must prove to me is that this plan will not result in a major tax increase.
Here is what I see happening, students moving to private schools, teachers crying that they must have more money to compete, and my taxes going up. There is no way the government is going to hand out money without taking money back!
My plan, shut down the public schools all together and let the funding go to truly needy children so they can get a quality private education.
BobH | 7:57 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
This is a scheme for the national educational system (government) to take
control of our schools. With Utah accepting this scam it will prompt other
states to come into the spiders web. Then we will promote a national school
system with strings attached controlling the states school system. I'm
against new government programs. Shame on our governor for signing this scam
without voter approval and now the rich and famous are buying advertisements to
line there own pockets....FOLLOW THE MONEY. How many of them have invested in
private schools for making money and now trying to do it with taxpayers money.
VOTE NO! Have the rich and famous invest in our public school system by
lobbying for better pay for our teachers and system! VOTE NO!
CV | 8:10 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
"The law will help our family get a better education, even though our
children won't be attending private school, because some kids from our
middle-class neighborhood will."
Could you please explain this? I've heard similar comments elsewhere, but have yet to here specifics on exactly how...
Could you please explain this? I've heard similar comments elsewhere, but have yet to here specifics on exactly how...
Rob | 8:13 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Nobody is stopping you and your choice to send your child to the school you
want. This is about taking tax dollars from Public Schools to do it. If it is so
important to you, then leave. You still have a choice. Is your child not worth
$3000 a year? Instead of putting money into the campaign, pay your childs
tuition at the school you want them to go to. This is really no different than
college. If you want to go to an Ivy League school ... you will pay more,
accept the fact and get on with your life.
Ben | 8:15 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Isn't this wonderful. We should have political battles like this every
election. Just look at all of the money that has been injected into the local
economy. Wasn't this almost as much as the Olympics brought in?
An Underpaid Teacher | 8:19 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
A previous comment asked where do the unions get their money: The answer is the
National Education Association gets its money from the membership fees paid by
its 3.2 million members. These members are primarily public school teachers in
the 50 states including the State of Utah.
Why do you think they care about public schools? They represent public school teachers who teach our children. They want to ensure that each state provides quality education for every child regardless of the ability of a parent to buy private education.
Our nation was established on the guiding principles of ensuring the good of the people. Society as a whole. Not just for the wealthy. Our nation guarantees that our children have a right to an education!
The guiding principle is to provide basic public welfare: We have police and fire protection for everyone. We do not provide an option to have the tax payers pay for the homeowner who chooses to buy private security systems to protect their home. If we provide school vouchers to fund Parent's Choice to buy private education, why not security vouchers for those of us that feel we need additional security? Does that make sense?
Why do you think they care about public schools? They represent public school teachers who teach our children. They want to ensure that each state provides quality education for every child regardless of the ability of a parent to buy private education.
Our nation was established on the guiding principles of ensuring the good of the people. Society as a whole. Not just for the wealthy. Our nation guarantees that our children have a right to an education!
The guiding principle is to provide basic public welfare: We have police and fire protection for everyone. We do not provide an option to have the tax payers pay for the homeowner who chooses to buy private security systems to protect their home. If we provide school vouchers to fund Parent's Choice to buy private education, why not security vouchers for those of us that feel we need additional security? Does that make sense?
Frank | 8:20 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I'm tired of the lies and distortions put forth by the pro-voucher
advocates. Anyone who is familiar with school financing and state requirements
knows that the arguments against vouchers are based on factual, verifiable data.
It's unfortunate that there has been so much obfuscation of the basic facts
which are available to anyone who wants to look for them.
Busy | 8:24 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Mr. Bramble et al are busy making threats to certain businesses that if they do
not support vouchers, legislation they think is import will go nowhere.
I personally can't wait until November 7 when this mess is behind us. Of course with the mentality of our legislature, we can't be sure.
I personally can't wait until November 7 when this mess is behind us. Of course with the mentality of our legislature, we can't be sure.
No entitlements | 8:24 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
This shows you why vouchers are losing in the polls 60-40 or worse. no broad
based support, while the anti-vouchers have a lot of grass roots support, and
have given out as astounding number of lawn signs.
Wrong Direction | 8:24 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Founding fathers: This is not a step in the right direction.
Public money going to private enterprise with ambiguous accountability will never be a step in the right direction. Nor will a bill that is readily accessible to those who need it the least and nearly inaccessible to the portion of the society that would benefit from it the most.
A step in the right direction would be to fix shortcomings of the many systems that we are currently employing.
If the contemporary father of John Adams really wants put his son into a different situation there is currently nothing stopping him from doing so. He has, as I see it, at LEAST four options:
First, he can talk to administrators of the school or district he is attending and request a change.
Second, he can get together with like-minded parents and create a "government funded" charter school with little government regulation.
Third, he can take his child out of the public sector and home school the child.
Fourth, he can personally fund his child's private education.
All of these would require work on the part of the parent. (That would be another step in the right direction.)
Public money going to private enterprise with ambiguous accountability will never be a step in the right direction. Nor will a bill that is readily accessible to those who need it the least and nearly inaccessible to the portion of the society that would benefit from it the most.
A step in the right direction would be to fix shortcomings of the many systems that we are currently employing.
If the contemporary father of John Adams really wants put his son into a different situation there is currently nothing stopping him from doing so. He has, as I see it, at LEAST four options:
First, he can talk to administrators of the school or district he is attending and request a change.
Second, he can get together with like-minded parents and create a "government funded" charter school with little government regulation.
Third, he can take his child out of the public sector and home school the child.
Fourth, he can personally fund his child's private education.
All of these would require work on the part of the parent. (That would be another step in the right direction.)
Choice | 8:26 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
People--if we're going to debate, let's at least have an honest
debate. This issue is not about whether parents should have a
"choice." It's about whether tax dollars should subsidize the
decision of a family to pull their kids from public school and place them in
private school. Public schools, quite simply, do not have a monopoly on
education. Nobody is forcing kids to attend public school, so let's keep
focused on the real issue, whether we should expend additional tax dollars (and
the Legislature's own fiscal analysis shows that there would be additional
expenditures) to allow some parents to leave the public education system. I am
pro-choice when it comes to a parent's decision to enroll their child in a
private school, but I don't think we should use tax dollars to subsidize
such decisions. I will be voting against vouchers and will not be supporting
Overstock in the future. I just wonder how Mr. Byrne will feel when he realizes
he just spent over 3 million dollars to be handed a convincing defeat in the
ballot box.
DJ42 | 8:27 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
All of this fuss over "school choice". That is a misrepresentation,
everyone already has a "choice" in education. If you don't like
your local public school go to a private school, or better yet use the
"open enrollment" option and find a better public school. The state
legislators have again ignored their constituents by shoving this law down our
throats, the ease of getting a referendum on the law shopuld show this. The
majority of Utahns do not want vouchers and never have. Hopefully after this is
soundly defeated on Nov. 6th we can quit beating this dead horse, and the
Republican legislature can quit trying to punish the UEA and public educators
for a 1 day walkout years ago and we can find a feasible solution to our
education crisis in Utah.
Tess the teacher | 8:28 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I will no longer be shopping at Overstock.com.
It is sad that Byrne is wasting his money on this campaign. He should have used it to create scholarships to private schools. What a waste of millions of dollars.
Parents have always had a choice when it comes to education. If you want your child to go to private school then make it happen. Make sure you choose a career that will support private education, have fewer children, work two jobs. You have a choice already, don't take my tax dollars to pay for private education.
Also, vouchers WILL NOT lower class size. This is a lie the pro-voucher camp keeps using. The amount of money each public school receives for teacher salaries is based on how many students attend that school. Fewer students means fewer teachers, not smaller class size. If a schools enrollment drops, class size will remain the same, there will just be fewer teachers. For example, 100 fewer students means 3 fewer teachers.
It is sad that Byrne is wasting his money on this campaign. He should have used it to create scholarships to private schools. What a waste of millions of dollars.
Parents have always had a choice when it comes to education. If you want your child to go to private school then make it happen. Make sure you choose a career that will support private education, have fewer children, work two jobs. You have a choice already, don't take my tax dollars to pay for private education.
Also, vouchers WILL NOT lower class size. This is a lie the pro-voucher camp keeps using. The amount of money each public school receives for teacher salaries is based on how many students attend that school. Fewer students means fewer teachers, not smaller class size. If a schools enrollment drops, class size will remain the same, there will just be fewer teachers. For example, 100 fewer students means 3 fewer teachers.
jtm | 8:30 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
That's right Nathan follow the money, private schools which are nothing
more than private business want the money to fund that business. And Founding
Fathers do you really want to compare what public school kids have done in this
country compared to private school kids. Not even close, for every John Adams
you want to tout, I have fifty public school figures that will match it.
Don't even go there. Vote no on vouchers. No one is keeping your kid from
attending private school, go ahead. Just don't make us pay for it.
sob | 8:32 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
two thoughts
if so many people want their children in "private schools" send them,,,,just don't ask for public money
second, when the government tries to do the job of a nations business that is communism, when the countries business tries to do the job of it's government, that is socialism does utah want to be a socialist state
if so many people want their children in "private schools" send them,,,,just don't ask for public money
second, when the government tries to do the job of a nations business that is communism, when the countries business tries to do the job of it's government, that is socialism does utah want to be a socialist state
Education for all Utah children | 8:35 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Nate, you made a really good point, except that you state that once demand for
private schools causes tuition to rise, "once again" we will have only
families that are well off that will be able to afford private schools. I
think, "still" would have been a more accurate phrase. The measly sum
that would be given to students is not enough to allow most families to send
their students to private schools. All it amounts to is a discount for people
like Byrne and Richard Eyre, who can already afford to send their children to
schools like this. The rest of us will be stuck sending our children to schools
in a rapid decline as teachers take off to work in higher-paid jobs. I'm
not as suspicious of teachers as many of you pro-voucher people seem to be. If
they are just in it for their own good, why are they in it at all? It's
not like they're getting rich. You don't become a teacher unless you
believe in trying to help children and want to make the world a better place.
Plus, pro-voucher money is misspent--if I get one more phone call from those
people...
REALITY | 8:35 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
This is one of those arguments that people are fighting just to win, without any
thought of common sense involved...sounds like politics to me. Has anyone read
the bill? Do you realize that when it comes down to it the individuals who
qualify for the scholarships will be children like MINE from poor,free lunch
qualified households. Those currently attending will NOT even qualify! How dumb
is all this then. Do you realize that even if I qualify I don't have access
to additional funds to meet our share of the cost. And If I had those resources
I would probably no longer qualify for free lunch and if those resources
suddenly appeared I would use them to meet other needs in my family, like say
FOOD, CLOTHING, TRANSPORTATION, MEDICAL COSTS! I really think this is a
argument between two sides, neither one willing to look at the real side of
it...because they are driven to WIN! Do you realize that private schools who
chose to accept these vouchers will also chose to report to the state board of
education? Why would they do that? They are private for a reason! This is
pointless and DUMB!
Gang of 4 | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
For those who remember the Gang of 4 from Chinese history (hint=20th century),
the current equivalent are: NEA, Assoc. of Supts., School Boards Association,
and the ACLU. Too many times I have witnessed legislative committee hearings on
school vouchers, rooms packed with parents in favor. Yet, those opposed were
always the Gang of 4, along with the corrupt educrats from the dept. of
education providing their "expert advice."
Mr. Byrne is to be congratulated for putting his money behind his beliefs. At least he lives here, unlike the NEA that is butting their nose into our business.
Fact is this, most parents will vote for vouchers. Let's dispense with the rhetoric of public money and defending the monopolistic public school system. Here is the Real Deal, or the GENUINE ARTICLE..if you want freedom you vote for Vouchers. It is really that simple. If you wish to enable the Gang of 4, then you vote against and yield to those who would take away all of your freedoms and convert this country into a socialistic regime. It is as simple as this.
Vote For Freedom, Vote For Referendum 1
Mr. Byrne is to be congratulated for putting his money behind his beliefs. At least he lives here, unlike the NEA that is butting their nose into our business.
Fact is this, most parents will vote for vouchers. Let's dispense with the rhetoric of public money and defending the monopolistic public school system. Here is the Real Deal, or the GENUINE ARTICLE..if you want freedom you vote for Vouchers. It is really that simple. If you wish to enable the Gang of 4, then you vote against and yield to those who would take away all of your freedoms and convert this country into a socialistic regime. It is as simple as this.
Vote For Freedom, Vote For Referendum 1
Anonymous | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
The education union spends $3,000,000 in money from teachers salaries and a
private citizen spends $3,000,000 of his own money and the union trashes the
private citizen.
A private citizen points out some school districts and their PTAs are breaking laws governing election participation and he gets called Satan.
Private citizens points out lack of achievement in Utah school children and they are called ignorant.
How do we provide a way to create a progressive and diverse educational community in a state with a non-diverse educational system? How do we raise the bar in our schools so children have better educational opportunities? If scholarships to K12 children is not a good idea, give us 10 other progressive ideas that are proven to raise academic excellence in mediocre systems.
All I'm getting from all this media bandwidth is name calling and misdirection.
A private citizen points out some school districts and their PTAs are breaking laws governing election participation and he gets called Satan.
Private citizens points out lack of achievement in Utah school children and they are called ignorant.
How do we provide a way to create a progressive and diverse educational community in a state with a non-diverse educational system? How do we raise the bar in our schools so children have better educational opportunities? If scholarships to K12 children is not a good idea, give us 10 other progressive ideas that are proven to raise academic excellence in mediocre systems.
All I'm getting from all this media bandwidth is name calling and misdirection.
Thank you Mr. Byrne! | 8:44 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
We need these vouchers if we are going to fight back with the social agenda that
our children face in school. If you don't want your children taught values
you don't believe in, then vote yes on the vouchers. If you don't care
what your children are taught, then vote no.
Instereo | 8:49 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Yup follow the money. PCE and Byrne spent a lot of money on vouchers before the
bill was passed with their contributions to voucher friendly canidates. It was
all part of public record but no one has talked about that. In other words the
battle was on before anyone even knew about it. Utahans for Public Schools are
playing catch up and yes money came from the NEA because it was a source for
funding in a national war with the first battle being waged here in Utah. The
PCE and fellow supports have already outspent their competition and we
don't even have the final figures nor has anyone included what happened to
get the bill passed in the first place.
Finally a word about "Choice." It's a great word which is being misused in this campaign. Why, because Utah already has Open School Choice. No one is forbidden by law to attend any school they want to. They can go to school in their neighborhood, the next school, the school across town, a charter school, private school or home school.
I already voted NO on referendum 1, thus cancelling the governor's vote.
Finally a word about "Choice." It's a great word which is being misused in this campaign. Why, because Utah already has Open School Choice. No one is forbidden by law to attend any school they want to. They can go to school in their neighborhood, the next school, the school across town, a charter school, private school or home school.
I already voted NO on referendum 1, thus cancelling the governor's vote.
NEA | 8:55 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I love those commercials of the nice old lady teacher sitting on a desk talking
to us about how bad this would be, and my favorite is the "it fails Utah
families line" come on people, I am yet to make up my mind on the issue,
but if your going to spend all this money give us some facts NEA. Why does it
fail Utah families? Its not like this is an ammendment. If they can't
give me a good reason to not to vote for it, (besides an annooying grey haired
teacher) than I guess we might as well give it a try and see what happens.
KWB | 8:59 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Hurrah for Patrick Byrne...I'm very concerned about the exercise of
overwhelming power the teachers union exercises in Utah. Their influence is
extreme. Their administrative staff is too large and a lot of them are soft
jobs for retirees who do little or nothing but fight the system.
Paul | 9:00 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Parents have a choice NOW to send their kids to private school. Let's not
make the voucher issue sound like not voting for it takes away choice. The
choice is here. The vouchers would just make it less expensive for the
individual who CHOOSES to send kids to a private school. Even with vouchers I
couldn't afford private school for my children. Most if not all parents can
make public school work for their kids if they are willing to get involved.
Attend back to school nights and Parent /Teacher conference, help with homework,
talk to teachers. Success in school involves more than just dropping them off at
the front door.
wait a minute | 9:05 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
No more left wing liberal government handouts!
Vote NO on vouchers.
They are going down!
Vote NO on vouchers.
They are going down!
Richard | 9:12 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I would like to see an advertisement that shows "some poor people"
that are excited about "1". All the people that I see that are for it
are people who could acutally afford to pay the remainder amount for private
schools for their kids...in addition to all the ancillary stuff that a child in
private school would need. If you want a private school..pay for it yourself
and stop trying to dilute our current education budget by suggesting that poor
people could even remotely afford this option. The moneu used in this campaign
is a shameful waste of resources and speaks ill of all who try to promote such
an agenda....shame on the Govenor for using his position on this issue...makes
me wonder what else is wrong. Go back to work everyone and help your child with
his/her homeowrk rather than trying to find a better way to have someone else
help them.
Vouchers bad without options | 9:19 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
My wife is a public school teacher, and we're against vouchers. I do admit
that a voucher program or something similar could be beneficial but only if it
included more provisions to increase teacher pay/lower class sizes,&other
provisions. Some interesting things to me in this debate (which has become very
old) are that: 1) I was called by a computerized Pro-voucher survey and was put
through several leading questions that obviously were meant to lead someone to
say they were Pro-voucher. 2. Months ago, I tried to write anti-voucher letters
to several newspapers outside of Salt Lake/Provo, but was told my comments were
not local issues(whoa,all of the sudden, these are statewide issues, go figure).
3) Months ago, my legislators tried to tell me I was going against so called
"Republican" values by being anti-voucher. But, I think they will have
to rethink their approach when these bills get shot down next week. 4. I hope
that after they fail, that we can work out some compromises. It is obvious to me
that the politicos in power in the state do not like public teachers and the UEA
right now, so it will be interesting.
Darrell | 9:21 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
To Bottom line: Malcontents that make unworkable,illogical, and not well
thought out suggestions do little to enlighten or add to the discussion. Who
are the "truly needy children" and who decides that criteria? Are
those kids that are not "needy" denied an education because there are
no public schools? The true bottom line is that this bill is all about the
people already in private and charter schools. It will not reduce class size
because the percentage of people who will change from public to private school
is extremely small. It's about a SPECIAL INTERST group and does not benefit
the majority. That is why I am completly disgusted by Gov. Huntsman and others
support of this bill.
A Mom | 9:28 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Pouring more and more money on the problem has proven NOT to work. The money
never makes it down to the kids or even to the teachers. Remember the fiasco a
few years ago about the millions that the education system could not account
for? We need to turn our education system into a more business-like system
where the money is accounted for and results are required instead of this
failing bureacracy that produces nothing more than constant whining and endless
excuses why it isn't working. I think the competition the private schools
offer is our best chance to make a change for the better in our public schools.
The fight arises from the fear that they may have to actually start focusing on
production instead of whining and coming up with excuses.
All for Choice | 9:29 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
I agree completely with "CHOICE" in the statement "I am
pro-choice" in dealing with a parents right to choose their own education
for their children, that does not mean I support vouchers. It's just like
the abortion debate - just because a person might consider themselves Pro-Choice
doesn't mean the are FOR abortion. Also to the comment above that public
schools (whether here or in California) promote "homosexual
propaganda" are you referring to concept of tolerance? What I love about
this country is we are all free to believe what we choose, public schools are
supposed to be a safe haven for differing ideas, religions and values -
that's why they are funded by the government. If you choose to educate
your child in a private environment - where the education is more denominational
or structured by a specific personal value, that is your choice and you are
entitled to it. You are not however entitled to having the tax dollars and
government funds from the rest of us pay for it.
This voucher law bad | 9:32 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
My wife is a public school teacher, and we're anti-voucher. I do admit that
a voucher program or something similar could be beneficial but only if it
included more provisions to increase teacher pay/lower class sizes,&other
provisions. Some interesting things to me in this debate (which has become very
old) are that: 1) I was called by a computerized Pro-voucher survey and was put
through several leading questions that obviously were meant to lead someone to
say they were Pro-voucher. 2. Months ago, I tried to write anti-voucher letters
to several newspapers outside of Salt Lake/Provo, but was told my comments were
not local issues(whoa,all of the sudden, these are statewide issues, go figure).
3) Months ago, my legislators tried to tell me I was going against so called
"Republican" values by being anti-voucher. But, I think they will have
to rethink their approach when these bills get shot down next week. 4. I hope
that after they fail, that we can work out some compromises. It is obvious to me
that the politicos in power in the state do not like public teachers and the UEA
right now, so it will be interesting.
ATC | 9:42 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007
Choice:
I am fine with your position, and my kids are in private school, it is out choice. Our family spends more on school tuition than we do for our home, and it is money well spent, well worth it to us as parents. We know our children are better educated, and better prepared to succeed in the world compared to publicly educated children. We have the test results to prove it. We also know our kids are safer, and being taught moral values we support.
Personally I think public schools are better than nothing, but families with kids in private schools shouldn't have to pay taxes so your kids can attend public schools. We may not get vouchers passed, but to be fair families should get a tax break, when their kids are not in the public school system.
I am fine with your position, and my kids are in private school, it is out choice. Our family spends more on school tuition than we do for our home, and it is money well spent, well worth it to us as parents. We know our children are better educated, and better prepared to succeed in the world compared to publicly educated children. We have the test results to prove it. We also know our kids are safer, and being taught moral values we support.
Personally I think public schools are better than nothing, but families with kids in private schools shouldn't have to pay taxes so your kids can attend public schools. We may not get vouchers passed, but to be fair families should get a tax break, when their kids are not in the public school system.
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.
- Provo star leads Bulldogs to win 9:24 p.m.
- Syracuse woman gets 1 year in jail 9:21 p.m.
- Hagman has 2 goals in Toronto win 9:15 p.m.
- Elias scores, Devils beat Senators 9:14 p.m.
- Cave rescue crews must start over 9:13 p.m.
- Bobcats cream Raptors 116-81 9:12 p.m.
- Salvation Army now credit ready 9:08 p.m.
- AIG settles dispute with ex-chairman 9:07 p.m.
- Fed offers credit tips at movies 9:07 p.m.
- Washington Post closes bureaus 9:06 p.m.
- Donny and Kym dance to victory
- Howard made the rivalry a rivalry
- Cave rescue crews must start over
- Cougars cruise past Southern
- Loyal to Cougarettes, Crimson Line
- Twitterati to BCS: 'We hate you.'
- Y. focused on 10-win season
- BYU has slim shot at BCS
- Thunder rolls by Jazz
- Witness describes '99 killing
- BYU would like friendlier rivalry
258 - Glenn Beck to enter politics?227
- Protests against Phoenix LDS temple207
- RSL wins MLS Cup on penalty kicks202
- Bronco, Kyle rubber match139
- BYU records with win133
- Letters: Rushing to judge Palin129
- Boys basketball rankings107
- Thunder rolls by Jazz102
- Hall, Johnson matchup key102
Latest comments
How may sacks did Kruger have against Hall last year? See: 0.
Paul Kruger in check? You have got to be kidding.
re: RE: Utes Obsessed | 11:09 a.m. Nov. 25, 2009 FYI - I believe...
WAY TO GO COACH!! I got spoiled on your football program when you were...
yeah I kept on hoping that movie " THE NEW WORLD" would pick up but every...
We all go through difficult times. Hang in there Jeff and good luck.
Sloan/Johnson need to design about a dozen 3 point plays for this team to...
It's to bad we don't know who these blogs are from. I have read the document...
So funny to have everyone talking smack on Bingham and their coach. Bingham...
Was the card in her name, or just a school district general purchasing card?...
Advertisements
When it reality, they are worried about the union losing power and influence. Perish the though that private schools (non-union) begin hiring the best teachers and paying them for performance rather than seniority. Parents can�t have more options; union dues might decline!