Published: Wednesday, April 10 2013 12:00 a.m. MDT
Vouchers help add an added element of competition. Private enterprise, inspired
by the freedom of the marketplace has proven to be vastly superior to the
government monopoly of an industry. This is not to say that government
shouldn't have a role in our society. We are in a state of denial to the
poor state of our national public school system. Our children deserve better.
Even private schools need to meet state and federal education standards in most
states. I can't speak for Utah. I have heard that Utah's home
schools laws are some of the most liberal, and least enforced out of any state.
But most states required schools to still meet state academic standards -
regardless if they are private, charter or public. So perhaps in
Utah what you say is true, but in much of the rest of the nation, vouchers would
not change what you are describing.I personally, even though my wife
is a public school teacher, an very pro voucher. Nothing makes a service
provider more responsive than knowing they can loose your business.
WestGranger:Private enterprise and competition are the bedrock of
our economy and must always be. Competition is good when deciding on buying a
new car, a houseboat, or a soda. However, there are some things that must not
left to the market place. If we were to privatize the fire department, people
who could only afford the cheapest response team would likely be dead along with
many of their neighbors. If we were to privatize education, there would
necessarily be both winners and losers. What does society then do with the
losers? Early in our county's founding the decision was made to educate all
citizens. That was partly to avoid the European-style stratification of society.
Do we really want to further deepen the gulf between the rich and the poor?
That's not the America I grew up in.Education is simply too important
to be left to the dog-eat-dog-world of competition. The stakes are simply too
Can some one who is pro voucher explain something to me? How is taking a portion
of MY hard earned taxes to put YOUR child through private school a conservative
The only time private enterprise provides better products and services is when
it is catering to the rich. There is no case on record where private enterprise
provides products and services at less cost that when our national government
does it. Competition is good for some products and services, things
that you buy, use and buy again. If you don’t like the product you can
take it back and not buy it again. Education is not that sort of
thing. If the product is faulty, it is usually too late to do anything about
it. And there is no guarantees or warranties that you can fall back on. The first phase of education, that of learning how to learn, starts with
the parent and continues through the lower grades, may be the most flexible and
lend itself to local and even private methods. Starting with the
upper grades a person should start to practice the skill of learning and be
exposed to the widest ranger of knowledge possible. This is the case for
schools governed by the national government as opposed to the restricted
curriculum of local or private schools.
stevo123: "Can some one who is pro voucher explain something to me? How is
taking a portion of MY hard earned taxes to put YOUR child through private
school a conservative principle?"As a conservative and voucher
supporter, I'll give it a shot.We already take a portion of
YOUR and MY hard earned money to educate EVERY child in the state. The real
question is why you are completely comfortable if Johnny is educated via the
public school system with your money, but abhor the thought that Johnny might
receive the same (or even better) education via a private school?The
conservative principle at work here is that Johnny receives the best education
possible while keeping costs down. I just want him to learn the most for every
dollar of my tax dollars spent. I don't care if it comes from a public
school or a private school.Voucher supporters think that the voucher
mechanism itself will help spur competition and like everything else in the free
market, drive up quality when schools know that the competition will steal away
your students (and the money that goes with them) if you don't do it right.
The current libertarian/conservative claque in Utah wants to ultimately
eliminate all public involvement with education. That's the curve
we're on, as the legislature gradually starves the current system, forcing
it to fail and thus fulfilling a self-fulfilling prophecy.Vouchers are only a
step toward their real goal, which is to privatize everything. Then rich parents
would be able to enrich the likes of Howard Stephenson and his ed-for-profit
No matter what else you call it, a private school is a private business and has
different motives and goals than a public school. Government should not
subsidize business operations. The competition is in the
salesmanship of the promised results, and not in the success or failure of the
students. Education should not be a commercially competitive commodity. The curriculum even when complying with government standards will be
aimed at the private goals of the owner/sponsor. So if you pay for private
schooling, you will be paying for private goals whether you want to or not.
Unlike taxes you have the right to be very selective about which private
entities you support. As for costs to you, private schools will
cost you more and you have guarantee that the education is better.
I guess some people do not read the results. Vouchers can reduce our school
expenses, and improve our children's scores not only the private school,
but also the public school scores. However they have not had a whole state using
them as yet. Let's wait and see how they do. Common Core may not be so
hot. Why is the Meridian School using Singapore math? Can't the public
schools use it? So far as I can tell vouchers are doing better for children than
sticking all children into public schools.
We already have proven how successful a voucher program would be. Where
government money is given to individuals and then they have the choice of where
to spend that money. They can pick the school that they want, no matter whether
it is private or state sponsored, or even religious. The GI bill has proven
that you can let people choose which school to go to, and schools will compete
for their "customers."The current monopoly public K-12 are
failing to educate our children. Teachers even admit they can't help
students without parents help. We need to break up this monopoly
establishment.There is also a market clearing price for labor, and
you can't escape the laws of supply and demand. If there are more people
able to be teachers, then that will push the price of that labor down. When
there are more teachers than the market demands, wages fall. Any profession is
subject to these basic economics. If there are fewer ditch diggers, then they
could demand higher wages.
“How is taking a portion of MY hard earned taxes to put YOUR child through
private school a conservative principle?”Because your cash is being
taken to educate a child: Period. The only question is who will do it best.
Some think public school; others think private; and yet others think competition
improves both optionsFurthermore the cash value of a voucher is often
cheaper than the cost to the public school.I used to oppose vouchers
– but have come to agree that freedom to place a child where they will do
best. is the best choice for society at large
Vouchers won't provide freedom as more and more private schools will be
forced through simple economics to accept them or close their doors. Its the
same principle that applies to pell grants and how eventaully all private
institutions were forced to accept them and the strings attached to them in
order to survive economically.Vouchers will likely bring all
schooling anywhere under the governance and regulation of the federal government
and therefore everyones choice will be taken away. Vouchers have never been
conservative they are a liberal idea that disguises itself in the robes of
The voucher supporters here have failed to address the main point of the letter
to the editor: That vouchers will bring private schools under MORE government
influence, not less. Is that what you really want?"He who pays
the piper calls the tune". If government is paying for the education,
government has control of the education. Instead of bringing more schools under
government supervision, we should be trying to find ways to improve the schools
that are already under government supervision.
"No matter what else you call it, a private school is a private business and
has different motives and goals than a public school. Government should not
subsidize business operations."Kind of like hospitals.... right?
We used to have lots of government and charity owned, and now we have privately
corporate owned hospitals. And we prevented public dollars being spent there?
Re: "Vouchers are only a step toward their real goal, which is to privatize
everything."Yeah. So?Why wouldn't we want to do
what's best for our kids?
@UtahBlueDevil:"Nothing makes a service provider more responsive than
knowing they can loose your business."The service provider,
namely public schools, needn't worry. There will always be public schools
since there will generally be a limited number of private schools which students
can select to attend. Furthermore, private schools tend to select students they
will accept to attend... the rest being relegated to public schools.
@JoeCapitalist2:"The real question is why you are completely
comfortable if Johnny is educated via the public school system with your money,
but abhor the thought that Johnny might receive the same (or even better)
education via a private school?"The reason Johnny's parents
would pick a private school is because they feel it would be a better education
than provided by a public school, else why do it?The rub is, every
kid deserves the best education, and there's not enough private schools for
all kids to participate. So, some kids, those not selected by a public school,
are relegated to public schools where they get comparatively a less desirable
education. We cannot condone government funding where some kids getting a
better education than others."Voucher supporters think that the
voucher mechanism itself will help spur competition..."That's a ruse to help support their point to get public money to fund
their private school selection. If parents wish a private education for their
kids, let them take private money and fund it.
Have we not "seen this movie before?"If memory serves me
correctly, about five or so years ago the legislature passed legislation that
set up something like a voucher program. Then a significant number of citizens
in our State (lots of them were conservatives) put together a petition that made
it to the ballot. The petition soundly overthrew the legislatively passed
program.To me, I think we have been there – done that –
do not need to do it again. So far, the Legislators in Utah have refused to
pursue it again for obvious reasons – the like to be re-elected.
@What in Tucket?:"So far as I can tell vouchers are doing better for
children than sticking all children into public schools."Probably true... but not all students can get into private schools for a
number of reasons, including (1) not enough private school space to handle all
kids, and (2) private school student selection procedures. Public funding
should not be used in a discriminatory way to provide a better education for
some and not for all.@Counter Intelligence:"I ... have
come to agree that freedom to place a child where they will do best is the best
choice for society at large."That would be nice... but all kids
can't be placed where they will do best because there is limited space in
private schools... where they could do best.@procuradorfiscal:"Why wouldn't we want to do what's best for our kids?"Would that be ALL kids... including those who would not be selected by
private schools for whatever reason?
Vouchers Would Make Schools More Receptive to Parents Concerns.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments