Deseret News | Financing voucher fight

Reader comments
Financing voucher fight

170 comments | Read story

Nezr | 9:47 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Why should I pay MY tax dollars to send YOUR child to public school? Why should I not be able to spend my money (and tax money is STILL MY MONEY) to send my child to the school of my choice? People seem to forget that all that "government money" started out in the pockets of private citizens and I believe that we should have a choice as to where that money goes. Even people who do not have children are contributing money out of their pockets to finance a failing school system. I say give everyone a choice as to where they want to invest their money for the future of our children. The only way to get the public school system to improve is to create an atmosphere of healthy competion. You cannot say that we have that now. If school funding were based on perfomance properly then high performance would equal more funding. If a school performed poorly, they would lose their funding and their students because parents would send their children to a school that performed well. If you walked into a grocery store and all the fruit was rotten you would choose a different store.

Is everyone out there nuts?! | 9:50 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I am pro vouchers and here is why. The school education system is broken and controlled by the Unions.. not the governement. The elected governement officials spoke about what it wanted which was vouchers and low and behold the largest stakeholder in the fight.. (the UEA) decided it was going to lose money. I am sickened every time I see the UEA teachers get up on the TV and state how horrible vouchers for the schools would be. Frankly, I am afraid that the teachers know that if the parents who care about thier children's education pull thier kids out of school it will affect how well thier schools do on the testing required for no child left behind. What makes em sick about all of this is the self serving nature of the UEA. disgusting

gary | 9:53 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Nathan writes that this is about choice. Choice has always existed. What I don't understand about the pro voucher people though is why they want the taxpayers money to pay for that choice? No matter where the money for vouchers come from people, it is all tax money. He also says to follow the money. I couldn't agree more. If Ref. 1 is passed, look for a whole new crop of private schools popping up from the Richard Eyres, the Brambles, the Valentines, the Greg Hughes, et al. They will find a way to line their pockets, or the pockets of their cronies. What I would really like to hear though, is a rational explanation from someone about the information in the voter information pamphlet, a neutral analysis, which states that this will cost the state an additional $429 million. It also states that the cost/benefit ratio heavily favors vouchers, that it will cost the state far more than it will save. Where will that money come from people? Increased taxes? Any takers that can rationally explain that to me with facts, and not just rhetoric. How can this be a good deal for everyone?

Comments continue below

Thank you | 9:54 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I've never shopped at Overstock, but will now.

Mr. Byrne has demonstrated it's not about rich people --- they don't need vouchers. He's giving his money to help move other people's kids to where there are motivated teachers.

Our kids have had many good teachers, but waaaay too many our kids have had are just putting in time; their original enthusiasm for teaching has died.

The new law won't fix everything, but it sure will get some kids the kind of education that will let them become employers and create jobs and pay more taxes. Everyone benefits.

hungry minds | 10:01 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I was fortunate enough to attend and graduate from a liberal arts, college prep school in Salt Lake a number of years ago. I also spent many years in the public school system as a youth. The difference in quality was night and day. In general, with notable exceptions, public school teachers are not specialists in their respective disciplines and as a result, are less qualified to fill young minds with the most essential information. Kids are often taught math, english or physics by someone who has a degree in education.
My family was not wealthy and my parents sacrificed to send me to a private school. That education formed the foundation of my adult life. As a parent, I shutter to think of the opportunities my children would miss if we can't provide them with a better education than what is available in public schools. If I had a vote in this matter I would support the voucher initiative. However, the public school system needs to be further disturbed before much progress can be made for the benefit of all involved.

saltlakealright | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Manipulating the words of our forefathers for the sake of making your point (aka supporting vouchers) is pretty sad. Vote NO on vouchers!

tongue in Cheek | 10:03 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

George Bush our current President is a product of private schools where they don't usually offer special education services.

I am voting against proposition 1 because I want future Presidents to be able to speak correctly in public.

Anonymous | 10:10 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Richard C Shipp,

Utah teachers supported the voucher fight in Arizona. But why would read that in a Utah newspaper? That isn't Utah news, it is Arizona news.

To the paid posters,

The ranks of the UEA and the NEA are made up of TEACHERS. Teachers oppose the experimentation with our state's children. Teachers aren't trying to protect their jobs. Besides five of those teaching jobs are already 'shipped' to Mexico. Next year that number will probably be around twenty.

Robert | 10:15 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Why would I vote for something that is just going to give the ACLU another law suit to file. The moment some person enrolls their kid in a private school that has some kind of religious curriculum they'll be slapped with a law suit becuase government funded, even if only in part, private schools are subject the federal government's oversight which includes the so-called (though never mentioned in the constitution) separation of church and state.

to CV at 8:10 am | 10:17 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

To answer your question:
In almost every classroom there are 1-2 kids who are way ahead of the average, and 3-4 who are way behind. Those "5" kids take up half the teacher's time and energy. The other 25 kids get the other half.
Giving a few (even 1 or 2) of the "5" more encouragement to switch schools leaves more teacher for the rest our kids.

And despite the fear-mongers fuzzy thinking, that is not going to close a classroom, nor take money away from the school. The supplementary bill (184) was added to leave compensatory money with the school (for 5 years). And if this test isn't proven by then, the whole thing will revert to the old way.

Thank you for asking! It's an important point that trumps all the speculation and arguing.

At least try a new approach | 10:18 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

From 1990 to 2005 Utah funding for public education has increased 87% on per pupil spending. That is 87% on top of increases to cover inflation and expanding enrollment. Over the same period test results have remained mostly flat with minor improvements in some areas and minor drops in other. Most frustrating of all is that a significant amount of the additional money was spent specifically on reading improvement programs with the result being a drop in reading proficiency test scores. The voucher program is an attempt by the legislature to put money into a different program and see if it doesn't help improve education through parental choice and competitive pressure. This is a reasonable decision since the numbers show that pouring more money into public education does nothing to improve learning.

Why All This National Attention? | 10:20 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

What do New-England Social Democrats (origin of most anti-voucher funding) want and what do Voucher proponents want? Is competition good? Or is our "PC"/Judeo-Christian-taboo system good enough?

A Maine school recently proclaimed responsibility to secretly distribute birth-control pills to 13-year-olds because itï¿½s a public health "need". With that frame of reference you must ask why is all this money coming from back East? Do you think parents in that district want choice in education?

Why such defense of a "system" thatï¿½s government controlled and ultimately captive to fears of repercussions from Socialist-minded PC-militants?

Schoolbooks increasingly disparage American Patriotism and discredit the founding fathers but elevate obscure "PC" figures that contributed to this same foreign ideology.

California's Governor is fighting to mandate his schools teach gay unions are no different than "traditional" marriages and sex-changes are normal and honored. If unaltered, where is public school headed?

Try finding God or anything about our country's Christian roots in school. If you do, that teacher better watch his/her back.

Vouchers just may help schools return to teaching American values not the ideology of New-England Marxists.

Think beyond rhetoric; put control with the community. Vote for Referendum 1.

Anonymous | 10:25 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

oh that is RICH. the UEA was given THREE MILLION DOLLARS and they went and threw it away just to try and make their point about vouchers? what an absolute joke: "oh, the money should go to the kids". If they really cared so much about kids, then why didn't that money go to the kids. the truth is They care about themselves. The UEA has always been about bullying, and it still is. Hooray for Byrne. This whole thing is such a joke without his sane viewpoint and support.

Steven Jarvis | 10:29 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Anonymous | 8:40 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007,

I guess you aren't very current on what presently exists for education in our great State of Utah. We have the most diverse choices in eduction available.

First the Utah Open Enrollment Act from the seventies is what true Choice is. A child may go to any public school so long as space exists for them, and they provide the transportation. I am not aware of how many other states have such a law for choice.

We like most states have a diverse Charter School system. These public schools are free of charge and can be quite similar to the offerings of the private schools while still abiding by the requirements set by the State Board of Education.

Home Schooling is allowed by law as is private schooling.

Vouchers do not change the educational offerings. If any it takes focus away from Charter schools and will see a few convert to private schools because a voucher exceeds the state WPU funding that the Charter receives.

Earnest | 10:32 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

FRANK,
We're tired of the lies and distortions put forth by the anti-voucher misleaders. Anyone who is familiar with their ads knows that the arguments against vouchers are based on distorted assumptions.

It's unfortunate that there has been so much obfuscation of the laws that were passed.

This _tiny_ fraction of 1 percent of the actual education budget gives incentive to get kids out of our classrooms who will do better in a school they chose.

Most of the teachers we talk to are voting for vouchers, (but don't want us to tell the union.)

HMMM | 10:40 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Patrick Byrne could have provided 1,000 children with a $3,000 voucher for private school.

The NEA could have provided 1,000 children with an additional $3,000 for a quality education in a public school.

HMMM

Investigator | 10:40 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I see many who value Byrne's large pocketbook approach to forcing vouchers on Utah. This is the same man who last week said anyone who voted against vouchers were bigoted. He has quite an emotional investment and a likely a financial one behind this fight. He could be behind one of the building contracting companies that will profit off the bill, be a part owner of a private school or own a lot of land he plans to build schools on. In some form or other he expects to make back more than his three-million investment. Anyone know which of these things he is up to?

Eyre, another big Utah supporter and man behind the Oreo cookie ad, was touted as only being in it for the children. He has two private schools that he is connected to in Utah county. They are not full, and Eyre's schools need more money to be a worthwhile investment. The more I look into these things and ask questions, the more I am finding out what type of scheme each of these individuals behind the voucher program is involved in.

Earnest | 10:45 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Frank,

What I really meant to say is:

We're tired of the lies and distortions put forth by the Pro-voucher misleaders. Anyone who is familiar with their ads knows that the arguments for vouchers are based on distorted assumptions.

It's unfortunate that there has been so much obfuscation of the laws that were passed.

Anonymous | 10:46 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

California's governor is a REPUBLICAN. If the Ahrnold is really trying to force such an agenda through, the party should disown him.

Wasted? | 10:48 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Seeing the money in just this fight is shortsighted.
Seeing current tax dollars paying for "your own kids" is missing the big picture.

Our personal trip through the education system was paid for by others who may not even have had kids, and we pay now for everybody's kids - because we want ALL kids to finish school, then be too busy on a job to get into trouble, and to pay taxes!

Both the ed. budget and the separate appropriation to try vouchers (and see if eligible people will even use them) is money for a VITAL cause.

Give vouchers this tiny drop of money to show they can serve our society better.
The old system is not serving everyone now.

swrl | 10:48 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

If he's spending 6mil for the kids how much did he pay the AG to endorse an illegal act to verify?

Robert | 10:50 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The voucher bill is fundamentally flawed. This is not really an argument about "choice." Choice in education already exists. The money increase in public school argument is deceptive.

The great flaw is that public tax dollars should not be used to fund private education. If someone choses to pull their child from the public system, they should be required to foot the bill of their choice. If they and their child contribute as part of the public system, they should be publicly funded. It is simple.

The vouchers are not large enough to really allow a private school option for those that cannot afford it now. Thus, only those that are already wealthy will benefit, as they will see their current out-of-pocket tuition go down. Folks in the lower or middle class brackets will not suddenly have the funds to put their child in private school.

The "increase" in funds to the public system would be ther for five years and then, BANG! it is gone. Five years in the big picture is a short moment before those funds are ripped away from where they are so desparately needed.

Vote "NO" on Ref. 1.

Steven Jarvis | 10:54 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

After voting out this awful program we need to start voting out of office the leaders behind this. Bramble, Stephenson, and Curtis have been anti-education their entire terms, cutting funding, vouchers, and other laws designed to get pay back against teachers. Their true stripes have been shown and it is time to rid Utah politics of the bad eggs.

CT Utahn | 11:01 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Vouchers are the best way to send a message to the public education system that they need to start competing for the students. How is that a bad thing? If vouchers exist, the schools will start to ask themselves ï¿½what do we need to do to make the parents want to keep their children here?ï¿½

They arenï¿½t currently asking themselves this question ï¿½ and that is why vouchers seem so appealing to the parents.

BTW ï¿½ conservative Utahns ï¿½ do some research on the NEA ï¿½ you wonï¿½t be pleased.

real concern | 11:04 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I am most concerned with the quality of my child's education. And while this article and the ensuing discussions are focused (for the most part) on the voucher initiative, the root of the problem is the lack of quality in our public school system. And by the way, parents who send their children to private schools are also subsidizing public education. The voucher doesn't subsidize their private school fees, it simply re-imburses them for not using the public school system. But I am digressing. Teachers who love what they teach, don't complain about their wages. They have advanced degrees in their discipline of choice and relish the opportunity to propagate that passion and knowledge among a few children in their classes who discover a similar love for that discipline. I wish our public school system embraced these kinds of teachers. It doesn't. Instead, the focus is on teachers who have advanced through education training that really teaches little about education. So while we are talking about choice, I choose teachers who love what they teach and are well versed in that area over M Ed.'s anyday.

Another underpaid teacher | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Just because someone is a teacher doesn't make them an expert. (Look at the distorted reasoning of the teacher who posted on YouTube his reply to the Oreo ad.)
We signed up for this job mostly because we love to teach and love kids. We knew it wouldn't pay well. We hate all the babysitting and the legal mandates we have to follow and the reluctance of school administrators to be creative, but we still do it. No one is holding a gun to our heads to sign on for each new year.
What is embarrassing is the use of nice-looking old teachers who are made to appear to represent the rest of us in opposing the voucher laws.
Most teachers who have read the two bills resent the UEA/PTA twisting of the supposed costs, and their fear that somehow the failures among us will be exposed.
Count us as teachers who will be glad to have the voucher system in effect because it's a win for the schools.

David B | 11:13 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

There is a significant problem with the school vouchers as the legislation is presently written. The problem is that the vouchers do not give enough money for parents to actually make a choice. There is not enough money in the vouchers to allow families who can not already afford to send their children to a private school, to do so if the vouchers are approved. That is the fallacy of the law as it is presently written.

The result of this legislation passing would be that the class sizes within the public school system would not be significantly reduced, while the amount of funding for those same large classes would be reduced.

Utah is already among the states in the country that spend the least amount per child for education. This legislation would just further exacerbate our under funding of the schools that the vast majority of Utahans send their children too. The last thing that we need to do right now is to decrease the amount of funding per child in our public school systems.

Accountability | 11:23 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The most absurd scare tactic used by the NEA and UEA against voucher bill is that it requires "no accountability" from private schools. Here is an excerpt straight from the voucher bill:

"To be eligible to enroll a scholarship student, a private school shall annually assess the achievement of each student by administering a norm-referenced test scored by an independent party that provides a comparison of the student's performance to other students on a national basis"

(Public schools are only required to do this kind of testing in three grades. The voucher bill requires private schools to test in every grade!)

Supply and demand is a great motivator. Parents who want to send their kids to private school will do their research. Private schools that want to stay in business will hire great teachers and listen to parents' requests.

Tim | 11:24 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

If the Private schools can't compete without a voucher they shouldn't be around.

I am voting against private school vouchers.

What WORKS | 11:27 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The ads, both for and against vouchers, are irrelevant. They all focus on which outcome will cost more money. Let's figure out what WORKS! The reason several European and Asian countries are raising smarter kids is because the alloted monies for education follow each individual student to the school of their choice. So the students work harder to be in the schools they choose, the parents are more involved, the teachers and schools are more accountable (in order to attract students), and they are "cleaning our clocks" on international tests.

Heather | 11:28 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

No one seems to be mentioning the "competition" angle. I'm voting for vouchers in part because I'm hoping that it will encourage public schools to improve if they have more competition with private schools, etc.

My husband looked into being a teacher for awhile, and learned that most teachers that are trained here in Utah (because of the excellent colleges and universities) leave the state to actually work because they can get a better situation elsewhere. I thought that was interesting.

As to the argument that you can just switch schools if you don't like the one in your area: The amount of red tape involved is prohibitive, plus switching to a different school in your district wouldn't solve the problem if your problem stems from district policies.

I'm sure that if this passes, my family (low-income) still wouldn't be able to afford to send the kids to private school. But some could, and that's worth it to me - I still think it's worth a shot. The one thing we all agree on is that the system we have now isn't going to cut it.

And I think the John Adams analogy was a good one.

Tax Money | 11:29 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

It has been said that people are pro-choice but not in favor of their tax money going to private schools. Well, my children will most likely never attend public school and yet my tax money is paying for public schools. What is wrong with me getting some of my tax money to go toward my children's education in the form of vouchers?

What WORKS | 11:31 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Unfortunately, we have a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to developing a quality educational system in America, which is, ironically, the NEA! Their platform is that vouchers are anti-public education. They are a union, and their purpose is to protect teachers. However, as parents we need to be about the business of giving our kids the very best education possible. Our current system doesn't do that. Instead, it breeds and promotes mediocrity in students, teachers, and schools. I believe school choice breeds excellence in education. That, in my mind, is the real issue and argument behind school vouchers or any other system of education that promotes school choice.

Steven Jarvis | 11:35 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Another underpaid teacher | 11:12 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007,

Funny how you should be teaching right now but have the time to post while class is on. These posts are currently about twenty minutes delayed, so I am calling you out as a PCE rep. not a real teacher.

The correct cookie ad probably didn't have the fixed costs correct. They are higher than that, especially for the cost of the building. But the numbers we here being quoted from the Public schools group came from the state and were unbiased. The LFA has shown that the costs of the program are double the savings when the program is fully implemented in year thirteen. PCE doesn't have a leg to stand on in this argument and will continue to pump out propaganda to get votes.

TC | 11:50 a.m. Nov. 1, 2007

A new government program to consume tax dollars by giving a very small minority of people a tax break?

And this is being pushed by Republicans?!

Just hilarious how stupid this argument is.

lynn | 12:03 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

ditto KWB! I'm voting YES! Show me ONE government
program that doesn't need the pork trimmed and when admin. and teachers are telling me a kindergartner needs sex education that's when they need the boot! I want a school where moms and dads still have influence!

Pell Grants? | 12:14 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

While at a private university, I received financial assistance in the form of a Federal Pell Grant, paid for by none other than the U.S. tax payer! Was that wrong? After all, this was a church sponsored university! (Where I was taught religion--GASP!) But, give me a break. I believe my PRIVATE education has made me a good PUBLIC citizen. And isn't that the end goal here? A well-prepared citizenry? Which surprises me why the NEA and UEA is so alarmed. Leads me to believe their real agenda is more about turf, tenure, and job security, less about cranking out good citizens. Fact: U.S. public schools are doing a great disservice to our kids, who are way behind other developed countries in math, science, and languages. We are losing our competitive edge. U.S. companies are hiring foreigners because they are better prepared. Is this what we want?

P.S. Thank goodness John Adams Sr. had the sense--and the CHOICE--to change his son's teacher. Otherwise our Constitution might look a lot different today!

Less Government | 12:15 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Yes the voucher referendum is flawed, but so too is the UEA / NEA!

I trust myself to be able to select the best education possible more than I trust Jesse Jackson, the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, Amnesty International, AIDS Walk Washington and dozens of other such advocacy groups that the NEA has given more that $65 million to last year alone!

As stated before, without competition, "The public (school) sector feels no such pressure to innovate or provide a good service because they are shielded from the economic effects of providing a poor product. For years they have provided a product ever lessening in quality and asking for more money to solve the problem. The mere existence of vouchers and the school choice movement is creating some political pressure to change the public school system. This is all for the good. This is evolution. Change or die."

True competition in education will only exist when parents are refunded all of their money (not a measly voucher) used by public schools, so that they may choose how best to educate their child.

Take a stand for less Government and Vote FOR 1.

Have been trying this for years | 12:17 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

People who prefer sending their children to private schools have been trying to get something like this voucher thing for many years now. Their complaint has always been that some of their property taxes go to public schools yet they don't even send their kids there. If this passes it will primarily only benefit parents who already have their kids in private schools and will immediately suck a bunch of money out of the public school system. And then there are hardly any openings available for new entrants so not many kids are going to be able to leave public schools anyway. I agree the public school system needs to be improved in many ways but this is not the answer.

layton rad supporting vouchers | 12:19 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

I agree that it would have been great to have the 8 million dollars spent on the voucher debate used for educating our children. It is too bad the UEA and the NEA are spending so much money fighting the voucher law. If it wasn't for the UEA gathering signitures at parent teacher conferences, it would already be a law and there would be no need to rehash all this.

I am sincerely grateful to my Byrne and his resources to help counter the attack from the UEA and NEA unions. It is the UEA's fault that this enormous outlay of money is being spent. They are not in it for the education but for power. They do not prize the opportunity to teach my 5 children, but take it for granted. When it passes there will be an increase in private schools throughout the state over time and significantly impact the ability of the government sponsored public system from being the dominate bully it currently is.

WJ

A card carrying NEA Republican | 12:23 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Where does the NEA money come from? Here's a rundown -

About 19,000 of Utah's 24,000 teachers belong to
the education association.

Association dues are about $400.00 per year.

That means Utah teachers give the association about 7.6 million per year. Some of that money gets spent at the local level, and some gets sent to the national level. State associations can ask the national association for targeted funds.

We did and national sent the money. That's where it came from. It's not money from some shadowy "east coast" union. That money was pooled as a shared resource. It also gets used for other worthy in state causes, like UEN (uen.org) and similar projects.

Every month, ten months a year, I send in my $40. This year Utah got a little back. Our kids deserve to be protected from the oligarchs.

jtm | 12:24 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

If private schools are so great than they can do just fine without the publics money!.

El Pasoan for School Choice | 12:27 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Public School as it is run now IS welfare for the rich. Why? Many individuals that otherwise would go to private school are able to send their kids to public schools that are good enough at no monetary cost such as Skyline, Brighton, etc. The result is they get to buy their kids nice cars with money that otherwise would have been spent on schooling. What people don't understand, is that the poor stand to benefit the most from this. The rich already have the choice to go to private school, but it is more economical to move to a wealthy area where property taxes will provide them with a good school. The poor have no such choice. I can't understand the opposition to vouchers. Europe has been doing it for years and we always talk about the better education they receive over there. It's because parents choose where their children attend and therefore teachers are held accountable. Personally, for most people I think there is no reason for them to use the voucher because public schools provide them what they need. The goal is not to replace public education, but to place a check on a government monopoly.

How can you say that? | 12:27 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

David B,
How can you possibly say what other parents will do? We (like the vast majority) aren't low income enough to get a Child First Utah scholarship, nor high income enough to afford the private school I want my children to attend. If vouchers pass, we WILL be able to do so.

Bob J | 12:32 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

RE: Robert | 10:50

Your arguments are fundamentally flawed.

True choice in education in Utah absolutely doesnï¿½t exist! If true choice existed then the current public school system would attempt to improve their product for fear of losing my business. There is no such fear because there is no real alternative unless I want to pay two schools.

The government doesnï¿½t own my money! The great flaw is that they currently can keep my money regardless of where I choose to place my child.

You say the vouchers arenï¿½t large enough to pay for private school. I have a very good private school within 5 minutes of my house that costs between $2,700 and $4,500 per year depending on my childï¿½s age.

You say this is for the wealthy. The wealthy will not waste their time to get $500 per year per child. This voucher referendum truly helps those that are in ï¿½bad schoolsï¿½ get out and get into a better school.

If I choose to place my child in a private school then my tax money should go BANG and go to the school of my choice!

Vote Yes on One!

Anonymous | 12:35 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Ok wait but it is ok for MY money to go pay for YOUR child in the public education system. And as for choice parents do not have that option. If the school is not designated as an open enrollment school they will NOT let you in. Get your facts straight Anti crowd.

Bryan | 12:39 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Article 10 section 9 of the state constitution specifies that the state government will not spend public funds on sectarian schools. Paragraph 53A-1a-802 of HB148 specifies that public funds can be used to fund sectarian schools.

This law is unconstitutional and a vote in support of this bill will only waste more tax dollars defending a losing bill in court.

Send these "representatives" a clue, they are not above the laws of the land, stop wasting tax dollars and uphold your oaths to adhere to the state constitution. Vote against this DOA law.

A choice of schools already exists, but in some cases it must be on your own dime. That is your choice.

Plowboy | 12:47 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

The people who run the international tests told us, "the biggest predictor of student success is choice." Nations that "attach the money to the kids" and thereby allow parents to choose between different public and private schools have higher test scores. This should be no surprise; competition makes us better.

John Stossel, co-anchor, 20/20, ABC News.

The Real Earnest | 12:52 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Someone (10:45) used my name as if to deceive the readers. (See 10:32)

Looks like you can't enjoy a fair fight.

Utah County Mom | 1:03 p.m. Nov. 1, 2007

Just a thought - it seems it is about power of the union control or the principle of parental choice for family members.

I choose Families First!

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.