Vouchers will be safety net

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Eastsider
    Oct. 16, 2007 10:15 p.m.

    We plan on letting Herriman worry about that!

  • DonM
    Oct. 16, 2007 9:15 p.m.

    For those planning to vote against vouchers, how do you propose we pay for the projected increase of 150,000 more students than are currently in the public school system?

  • Whatever
    Oct. 16, 2007 5:56 p.m.

    It is unfortunate the "safety net for a very small few" will cost over $400 million dollars between now and 2020.

    This voucher legislation is ridiculous.

  • JBean
    Oct. 16, 2007 4:07 p.m.

    Of course a 40% hike in prop tax is not the same as 40%of income (duh). I was just talking about how taxes are raised through the roof for education every time we turn around. Even over-taxation (the surplus) is given to education!

    Jackhp, you enjoy your argument about those who "would have gone to private school regardless", but you know that is pure speculation. And some of those who are currently choosing private schools are not wealthy families at all (albeit they could not qualify under this law for a voucher anyway). That argument is a betrayal of many families whose children's prospects could really improve through use of a voucher.

    As long as we're talking about public school money woes, maybe you can tell us all where the '04-'08 $1 BILLION dollar increase in ed budget has gone? Seems the complaints about teacher pay and class size failed to be addressed even with such record increases. Hmmmmm.... I wonder when that golden moment of "full funding" would actually be reached?

    It's not an additional 2% cost--it's at most 2% of the existing $3.5 BILLION dollar budget, with parents contributing the rest of the tuition out-of-pocket (while paying taxes)

  • jackhp
    Oct. 16, 2007 2:41 p.m.

    Charles H,
    The simple answers to your questions are, "no" and "no".

    What I am opposed to is voucher supporters using fake numbers in trying to "sell" their boondoggle to the public. And I am most certainly opposed to increasing the budget simply to subsidize those who do not need it. Public schools need it; for the most part, the 3% of students who will go to private schools regardless of receiving a voucher don't.

    I am also opposed to hypocrites such as JBean being willing to increase costs to taxpayers by 2%, yet they are unwilling to offer up 2% of their own income to pay for the darn thing. (Yes, I understand it's not a perfect representation, Mr. (or Miss) Anonymous. It's an analogy. If the entire education budget goes up by 2%, then theoretically, each taxpayer would have to increase his or her contribution by 2%, right?)

  • jackhp
    Oct. 16, 2007 2:20 p.m.

    LOL, JBean. You won't answer the question so you change the subject.

    I never said that 2% would fully fund public education, did I? Listen, there's a very simple premise at work here. Apparently, you are willing to use 2% more of TAXPAYERS money to fund a fully implemented voucher program. If that is the case, you should be willing to put 2% more of YOUR paycheck toward that goal.

    You yourself said it was just a "teeny tiny" bit of the budget. Well, if that is the case, you shouldn't miss a relatively teeny tiny 2% from your OWN budget. Right?

    If you're not willing to agree to such a proposal, then you're nothing but a hypocrite who's blowing smoke just like most voucher supporters.

  • Charles H
    Oct. 16, 2007 2:01 p.m.

    jackhp, so are you opposed to increased funding for schools? Or are you only opposed if some of it goes to a non-government school?

  • JBean & jackhp
    Oct. 16, 2007 1:49 p.m.

    You guys aren't using good numbers.

    For JBean: Just because your property taxes went up 100% doesn't mean it was 1% or 2% of your paycheck. If your salary is 100k a year and your property taxes go from 1500 to 3000 a year (a 100% increase), it amounts to 1.5% of your paycheck or salary, not 100%.

    For jackhp: If the education budget is shortchanged by 2%, that doesn't equate to 2% of the salaries of Utahn's. It equates to 2% of the money that goes to public education in the form of income and property taxes.

  • JBean
    Oct. 16, 2007 1:23 p.m.

    @ jackhp,
    LOL!
    Are you kidding me? have you any idea what kind of property tax hike we all just got slapped with in Davis County? 2% i wish. More like 100% for some people, in my case around 40%. And nearly ALL of it was for the schools.

    Not to mention the over-taxation (ie surplus) in state revenues that was immediatedly forked over to education, rather than back to the over-taxed.

    You are kidding yourself if you think "fully funding" the public system (a myth anyway, since the goalposts will perpetually be moved) would cost less than a 2% level.

    Thanks for the try, though.

  • jackhp
    Oct. 16, 2007 11:28 a.m.

    JBean,
    Are you willing to hand over an extra 2% of YOUR paycheck to help pay for the "teeny tiny" percent increase in costs due to vouchers?

  • Deena
    Oct. 16, 2007 9:58 a.m.

    Nick, you have no idea what you are talking about. I've got one of those kids who was failed by public school. I don't blame the school. My son has a very mild form of epilepsy - with associated brain damage. He has dysgraphia, attention problems (not ADD), focus issues and memory problems), etc. He can't focus in a regular classroom with 30+ kids, he's on overload with far too many distractions. But because he is otherwise so bright, he still manages to be average in public school. So he's not eligible for any services - oh, they are willing to get him a word processor (eventually, when they find an available one - took 5 months last time). They can't do anything about class size, and the teacher doesn't have time to do much of anything else for him. I can't afford private school, but I was able to bring him home again and home school him. Where he once again is doing great.

    People are not nearly as nasty as you think they are - people who pull their kids from public school do so for good reasons.

  • JBean
    Oct. 16, 2007 9:43 a.m.

    The letter writer is right. Those whose kids are doing fine in public school will likely stay there anyway. Those who are not (rich, middle or poor) could more easily find an alternative. Win-win: the public school sheds some of its strugglers, the kids find a better match for thier needs, the taxpayers pay less for that kid's education.

    Saying the $3,000 isn't enough is a lame argument. It's something, and a lot of parents could stand to benefit from it. That number is probably the product of legislative compromise that could be reached. Let's give it a try and let those families decide whether it's adequate help/incentive.

    As for the racial bigotry mentioned by Nick, what a farce. Public schools are extremely segregated simply because the studentbody is determined by real estate. Minorities are often in the poorer neighborhoods, whites in the wealthier ones. If that's not a bigotted system, what is? Private schools are most often much more racially diverse than public ones. This is a demonstrable fact.

    Vouchers figure as a teeny tiny percent of the Ed budget (.16%-%2 at most). They will not harm public schools. They are worth trying, all things considered.

  • Dave
    Oct. 16, 2007 9:27 a.m.

    Sure, if you like your safety nets made with boondoggle!

  • JotaB
    Oct. 16, 2007 8:07 a.m.

    I agree with Dick, and if this is supposed to be a safety net then why do people who make millions qualify? I know it is ONLY $500 for NOW but it really goes against the safety net hypothesis.

  • Dick
    Oct. 16, 2007 7:09 a.m.

    If this is true, why doesn't the law provide full private school tuition for the poor whose children are being failed by the public system? A $3,000 voucher does nothing for these kids as their parents can't afford the rest of the tuition.

    I guess only those that almost can afford it without vouchers matter?

  • Nick
    Oct. 16, 2007 7:05 a.m.

    Just what is it that these parents are supposed to be "desperate" about, and how is it that the public schools are "failing" them? Is it that their kids attend schools with kids with different skin colors or religious backgrounds? That they attend schools that teach them in science classes that life on Earth is the product of biological evolution?

    Let's call a spade a spade - the folks who dreamt up this voucher scheme don't like public schools because they're not white enough and not fundamentalist Christian enough, and they want taxpayers to subsidize their bigotry.