Reader comments
Financing voucher fight
170 comments | Read story
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
Rose Lehi | 11:19 a.m. Nov. 2, 2007
VOTE NO! Why should we subsidize the private Catholic schools?
Attach money to kids no schools | 1:00 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
The US has arguably the best higher education system in the world. The same
cannot be said for our primary education system. What's the difference?
At the higher level we have a good mixture of private and public schools. Students at either can get money from the government in the form of a Pell grant, subsidized loan, GI bill, etc...
Should we not try to emulate the better system? The voucher program is simply a step in this direction. Let the money go to where the parent feels it will best be used for their child.
At the higher level we have a good mixture of private and public schools. Students at either can get money from the government in the form of a Pell grant, subsidized loan, GI bill, etc...
Should we not try to emulate the better system? The voucher program is simply a step in this direction. Let the money go to where the parent feels it will best be used for their child.
Anonymous | 1:31 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
We can't fill our private schools without vouchers. I read on the Daily
Herald are private schools are 1/3 short on kids. We must pump as much money
into these so they don't fail.
Comments continue below
Becky | 2:03 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
Parents have a choice. They can put their child in ANY school they choose. The
point here is these parents DON�T WANT TO PAY for private
schools. They want the rest of us topay for THEIR choice. So where is MY
choice? It is in my NO vote on Tuesday. This does not take the choice away
from parents; it makes them pay for THEIR choice. I am not a teacher nor am I
part of any Union.
Passing Ref 1 takes away my right as a Utah tax payer. In looking at the pro-voucher newsletter in Sunday's paper it shows that families with a household income considered "wealthy" by our federal government are eligible for voucher money. Families who make significantly MORE than I are eligible for voucher money, and yet they can't afford private school tuition? My comment to you parents is it's time to sell the ATVs snow mobiles, and boat and put your child's education above your egos. Work a second or third job if you want your child to attend private school. Why are you asking me to give you more of my money to fund your choice? YOU make the sacrifice for YOUR choice.
Passing Ref 1 takes away my right as a Utah tax payer. In looking at the pro-voucher newsletter in Sunday's paper it shows that families with a household income considered "wealthy" by our federal government are eligible for voucher money. Families who make significantly MORE than I are eligible for voucher money, and yet they can't afford private school tuition? My comment to you parents is it's time to sell the ATVs snow mobiles, and boat and put your child's education above your egos. Work a second or third job if you want your child to attend private school. Why are you asking me to give you more of my money to fund your choice? YOU make the sacrifice for YOUR choice.
Not so | 2:27 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
Attach...
Correction: The US does not have the best higher education system because there are too many, including myself, who cannot afford university tuition. Believe me, if there were a completely paid higher education system in this country equal to that of our public primary education system, I, among many others would have taken advantage of it long ago. If this were the case, I would have a PhD from a university now (and a higher paying job) instead of an Associates Degree from a community college. Contrary to your remarks, there aren't any true public schools in the higher system. What you are referring to as public, I assume, are state colleges and universities such as the U. These still require tuition and can be very costly.
Comparing higher education to primary education is the perfect example of what would happen to our society if our public education system collapsed due to lack of support. University tuition is outrageous and is out of reach for most. Thus, there is an alarming number of people who don't get university degrees. The same would happen on the primary and secondary level without continued support of public schools.
Correction: The US does not have the best higher education system because there are too many, including myself, who cannot afford university tuition. Believe me, if there were a completely paid higher education system in this country equal to that of our public primary education system, I, among many others would have taken advantage of it long ago. If this were the case, I would have a PhD from a university now (and a higher paying job) instead of an Associates Degree from a community college. Contrary to your remarks, there aren't any true public schools in the higher system. What you are referring to as public, I assume, are state colleges and universities such as the U. These still require tuition and can be very costly.
Comparing higher education to primary education is the perfect example of what would happen to our society if our public education system collapsed due to lack of support. University tuition is outrageous and is out of reach for most. Thus, there is an alarming number of people who don't get university degrees. The same would happen on the primary and secondary level without continued support of public schools.
US Higher Ed Model | 4:13 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
Not so...
The point is that our mix of public/private higher learning institutions in general offers a lot of options to meet various students needs and opportunities. This is what happens in a free market environment; the organizations change to meet demand. It works well because the student can choose where to spend their money; whether that money is their own or comes from government assistance.
We've already decided that taxpayers will pay for primary education for everyone; that is not the point.
The voucher program is about loosening the grip of our taxpayer funded public education monopoly and opening up the market so that more needs can be met for less money per student.
The money for the voucher program is really just a drop in the bucket when compared to the full public ed fund. Why is there so much fighting against a low cost trial to see if it doesn't improve things just a little?
The point is that our mix of public/private higher learning institutions in general offers a lot of options to meet various students needs and opportunities. This is what happens in a free market environment; the organizations change to meet demand. It works well because the student can choose where to spend their money; whether that money is their own or comes from government assistance.
We've already decided that taxpayers will pay for primary education for everyone; that is not the point.
The voucher program is about loosening the grip of our taxpayer funded public education monopoly and opening up the market so that more needs can be met for less money per student.
The money for the voucher program is really just a drop in the bucket when compared to the full public ed fund. Why is there so much fighting against a low cost trial to see if it doesn't improve things just a little?
Becky | 4:26 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
US Higher Ed Model - There is no such thing as a 'trial' when it comes
to taxes. They are NEVER repealed/reversed if they don't work.
This Referendum will not fix the problem, it will just add to the cost of the problem and I will be one of the few paying for that cost.
NO on Ref 1
This Referendum will not fix the problem, it will just add to the cost of the problem and I will be one of the few paying for that cost.
NO on Ref 1
More Not so | 5:14 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
US Higher Ed Model | 4:13 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
Your point isn't accurate. You claim higher learning institutions meet "various students needs" when the correct wording would be it meets "select" students needs, leaving the remaining people without options. Only those with sufficient funds have any choice of where to spend their money. Those lacking funds have no choice at all, not even a choice to be educated. The government assistance you speak of isn't nearly adequate to pay the rediculous cost of college tuition without going into unreasonable debts from student loans.
Further, this isn't about any education monopoly. It is about education opportunity, for everyone. Again, comparing higher education to primary education is perfect, thank you! Higher education institutions whether state run or independent are, themselves, a monopoly as a group. There really isn't any true competition between them because they're on the same team. As a result, university tuitions are out of reach and rising. Compare that to the primary system where competition currently exists between public and private schools driving the private tuitions down.
Opposition to vouchers exists because it's not a "drop in the bucket" and it's a gamble, not an experiment.
Your point isn't accurate. You claim higher learning institutions meet "various students needs" when the correct wording would be it meets "select" students needs, leaving the remaining people without options. Only those with sufficient funds have any choice of where to spend their money. Those lacking funds have no choice at all, not even a choice to be educated. The government assistance you speak of isn't nearly adequate to pay the rediculous cost of college tuition without going into unreasonable debts from student loans.
Further, this isn't about any education monopoly. It is about education opportunity, for everyone. Again, comparing higher education to primary education is perfect, thank you! Higher education institutions whether state run or independent are, themselves, a monopoly as a group. There really isn't any true competition between them because they're on the same team. As a result, university tuitions are out of reach and rising. Compare that to the primary system where competition currently exists between public and private schools driving the private tuitions down.
Opposition to vouchers exists because it's not a "drop in the bucket" and it's a gamble, not an experiment.
dcc | 9:23 p.m. Nov. 2, 2007
Voted early.
Voted NO.
MY choice.
Voted NO.
MY choice.
Higher Ed, last attempt | 10:11 a.m. Nov. 3, 2007
My point has been completely missed, again. Probably due to my unclear writing.
Let me try again.
I'm not talking about accessibility, I'm not talking about who should be able to attend higher ed.
I am talking about how the systems function. Which is more effective and efficient at providing a quality education.
Currently a higher ed student takes their money (whether earned, borrowed, inherited, stolen, whatever) and decides which school best meets their needs. This includes a whole range of things like field of study, getting done quick, being friendly to working students, prestige, and of course affordability. If the student has taxpayer money the government doesn't dictate that it be used on only on a government funded school. This system provides a quality education for it's students.
For primary education taxpayers foot the bill for all students, whether the taxpayer has children who attend school or not, by building and administrating public schools. If a parent decides the public school doesn't work for their child they can pursue other options; but they will still pay taxes to support the public schools plus paying for the alternative option. Instead we should attach the money to the kids.
I'm not talking about accessibility, I'm not talking about who should be able to attend higher ed.
I am talking about how the systems function. Which is more effective and efficient at providing a quality education.
Currently a higher ed student takes their money (whether earned, borrowed, inherited, stolen, whatever) and decides which school best meets their needs. This includes a whole range of things like field of study, getting done quick, being friendly to working students, prestige, and of course affordability. If the student has taxpayer money the government doesn't dictate that it be used on only on a government funded school. This system provides a quality education for it's students.
For primary education taxpayers foot the bill for all students, whether the taxpayer has children who attend school or not, by building and administrating public schools. If a parent decides the public school doesn't work for their child they can pursue other options; but they will still pay taxes to support the public schools plus paying for the alternative option. Instead we should attach the money to the kids.
Linda | 5:26 p.m. Nov. 3, 2007
In response to a mailer from Informed Voter Project, Do I think Huntsman &
legislature would pass a school voucher law that hurts public school? YES--if
it takes that to keep the money that supports them. This whole mess is about
power, not families, not even education. Public educators care about ALL
children, not just the children of a few.
ATC is right... | 6:20 p.m. Nov. 4, 2007
...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.
...and to be fair to those of us without kids, we should get a tax break when their kids are not in the public school system.
Apparently all of these years I've been paying taxes to benefit you and your children but I really should have been getting a break. I'll take the
money in one lump sum, thanks.
...and to be fair to those of us without kids, we should get a tax break when their kids are not in the public school system.
Apparently all of these years I've been paying taxes to benefit you and your children but I really should have been getting a break. I'll take the
money in one lump sum, thanks.
Pro Voucher is Already a Winner | 3:57 a.m. Nov. 5, 2007
No matter the results, pro vouchers already won the battle.
Very simple teachers from Public Schools knows the can't compete with Private Schools's education system, because simply they are better.
Also,with some exception of course most public teachers are terrible teachers.
Very simple teachers from Public Schools knows the can't compete with Private Schools's education system, because simply they are better.
Also,with some exception of course most public teachers are terrible teachers.
Not so...last attempt | 9:09 a.m. Nov. 5, 2007
Higher Ed, last attempt | 10:11 a.m. Nov. 3, 2007
No need for further discussion. You summed up my point precisely. I couldn't have said it better myself. You had written: "I'm not talking about accessibility, I'm not talking about who should be able to attend higher ed." Of course, your entire point isn't about higher ed specifically. Instead, you are suggesting higher ed as a model for primary and secondary systems.
The reason education (whether primary, secondary or higher) being accessible to everyone isn't a priority for you is simple: For those of sufficient means, funding isn't an issue. It doesn't matter to you if other, lower income, children can't attend school due to lack of funding as long as the wealthy can get an education.
The anti-voucher side, on the other hand, care very much about accessibility, for everyone. I'm not concerned about choice because I am very pleased with the array of choices already available. Once education is accessible, the rest is up to individual effort.
Our society has fallen into this trap of thinking that the more something cost, the better it must be. Just because public education carries no financial burden doesn't mean it's inferior.
No need for further discussion. You summed up my point precisely. I couldn't have said it better myself. You had written: "I'm not talking about accessibility, I'm not talking about who should be able to attend higher ed." Of course, your entire point isn't about higher ed specifically. Instead, you are suggesting higher ed as a model for primary and secondary systems.
The reason education (whether primary, secondary or higher) being accessible to everyone isn't a priority for you is simple: For those of sufficient means, funding isn't an issue. It doesn't matter to you if other, lower income, children can't attend school due to lack of funding as long as the wealthy can get an education.
The anti-voucher side, on the other hand, care very much about accessibility, for everyone. I'm not concerned about choice because I am very pleased with the array of choices already available. Once education is accessible, the rest is up to individual effort.
Our society has fallen into this trap of thinking that the more something cost, the better it must be. Just because public education carries no financial burden doesn't mean it's inferior.
UEA Fear | 12:17 p.m. Nov. 5, 2007
Why wouldn't you want a parent to send his kid along with the $500 to a
private school. Doing this leaves $6,500 in the public system to disperse and
educate the remaining children. How does this not benefit all parties involved?
Parents want a choice and the public system wants more funding per student. The
voucher system accomplishes this for all.
It's a win-win scenario. Even if a low income family takes the voucher option and sends their kid with the $3,000 to a private school, this still leaves $4,000 in the public system!
Parents deserve a choice of how their children are educated. If they choose the send their children to a school that teaches a specific doctrine, that should be their choice. If they want their kids to have prayers in school and attend an LDS, Catholic or Baptist school it should be their choice.
The voucher system is similar to the Federal Financial aid Pell Grant system. These funds can be used at private religious institutions. Students and parents can choose the philosophies and doctrines taught at the school they choose to attend.
Vouchers make sense. Say YES to vouchers!
It's a win-win scenario. Even if a low income family takes the voucher option and sends their kid with the $3,000 to a private school, this still leaves $4,000 in the public system!
Parents deserve a choice of how their children are educated. If they choose the send their children to a school that teaches a specific doctrine, that should be their choice. If they want their kids to have prayers in school and attend an LDS, Catholic or Baptist school it should be their choice.
The voucher system is similar to the Federal Financial aid Pell Grant system. These funds can be used at private religious institutions. Students and parents can choose the philosophies and doctrines taught at the school they choose to attend.
Vouchers make sense. Say YES to vouchers!
Anonymous | 2:03 p.m. Nov. 5, 2007
hey this is going to mess up all the schools on the west side
Ted | 4:30 p.m. Nov. 5, 2007
Aren't the rich people already sending their kids to private schools? If I
have no discretionary income to pay for a private school, how does $3,000 help
me? Seems like vouchers are of no use to the rich, and of no use to the poor.
Tomorrow | 6:24 p.m. Nov. 5, 2007
Now that we vote tomorrow, I wonder if anything will have been learned from all
this. Will those of you who seek choice, go find a solution that is available
even if the vouchers don't pass? Will you go to school and see what you can
do to support your child's school and teacher? Go into the typical first
grade classroom with 28 students from a variety of backgrounds and PRETEND the
unions just want money for themselves and not to lower class sizes and new
programs. PRETEND that those poor students who can't get to their
neighborhood school on time, in clean clothes, with breakfast, and qualify for
free lunch can really afford to go to a school that is further away, charges
fees, and requires a uniform to attend, will actually benefit from partial
vouchers. Then look up Patrick Byrne, Sutherland Institute, and several others
and PRETEND that they're not interesting in privatizing our schools as a
way to make money. Then go ahead and come visit me at home, a paying UEA member,
working on school related business for half the night and try to tell me I
don't care about kids. Then get real.
A Utah Teacher/Devil | 7:43 p.m. Nov. 5, 2007
...But voucher supporters say at least Byrne is actually from Utah with a vested
interest.
"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....
...sure he has a vested interest. He stands to make money at his private schools. Education is business for Mr. Byrne. Just one more money-making enterprise.
Can any of you understand that the teachers in Utah are hardworking, and for the most part great at their jobs? You've satanized school teachers and used name-calling instead of facts to show where you stand. When did it become okay to slander an entire group of mostly hard-working, well-meaning people? The NEA/UEA doesn't make money when class sizes are low or high. As an educated group, we know that students learn best in groups of 15-20. The fact that our elementary schools have 20+ more than that number. Our legislature is who is reponsible for that high number not the NEA.
"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....
...sure he has a vested interest. He stands to make money at his private schools. Education is business for Mr. Byrne. Just one more money-making enterprise.
Can any of you understand that the teachers in Utah are hardworking, and for the most part great at their jobs? You've satanized school teachers and used name-calling instead of facts to show where you stand. When did it become okay to slander an entire group of mostly hard-working, well-meaning people? The NEA/UEA doesn't make money when class sizes are low or high. As an educated group, we know that students learn best in groups of 15-20. The fact that our elementary schools have 20+ more than that number. Our legislature is who is reponsible for that high number not the NEA.
A Utah Teacher/Devil | 7:46 p.m. Nov. 5, 2007
My apololgies. I meant 10+ not 20+. The first and second grade classes in my
school are at 25-28. I'm just trying to get my facts right.
- Page:
- < Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
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.
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling 1:19 a.m.
- Brems outlasts 2nd round of votes 1:04 a.m.
- 2 families divided over slaying 1:04 a.m.
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper 1:03 a.m.
- Nature's Way leaving Utah County 1:03 a.m.
- 'Grandfamilies' a growing trend 12:31 a.m.
- 'Cyber Monday' sales top records 12:29 a.m.
- 2 citations issued at Y.-U. game 12:26 a.m.
- No drugs in driver of Am.F. band bus 12:15 a.m.
- Governor Mansion to begin free tours 12:14 a.m.
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal
- Y. student vanished in China
- Max Hall issues apology
- Utes won't respond to Hall
- Hall reprimanded by MWC
- Cougs begin bowl preparations
- Teen shot in scuffle with trooper
- Mitchell called intelligent, controlling
- Matthews passes new Jazz tests
- Daughter: Mitchell fed me my pet
- Hall mouths off about hate of Utah
898 - Cougars beat Utes in overtime481
- Max Hall issues apology379
- Hall reprimanded by MWC370
- Hall's pain reflects self-betrayal316
- Utes won't respond to Hall257
- BYU is champion of the state140
- Man trapped in Nutty Putty cave dies121
- Cave to be sealed with body inside120
- Religion in politics is tiresome110
Live 'Twittologue' Dec. 2, 4:00 p.m. with Jason Chaffetz. Click for more.
I wanted to tell them not to go. I dropped subtle hints. "My money is on...
When I was a kid, I worshipped my grandpa. He was undoubtedly my hero....
Latest comments
There are some games I love not on your list. Arkham Asylum for one.
Our parents made my brothers help kill and clean our rabbits before we ate...
Why would you keep it open? I would understand if there was a lot of amazing...
The government will run our health care well? Read Reader's Digest, November...
TCU stomped on the MWC so they are naturally ready to crush Florida, Alabama...
could you understand Dave Locke any more than my mom does and she is not even...
Attending the ND/BYU game 3 years ago in south bend, a couple of things stuck...
I missed the game, actually i heard a little bit of Locke on the radio (man...
quotes were good: Article was dumb and unnecessary.
I believe the art depicting Joseph looking at the plates may possibly be...
Advertisements