Public education budget: new kids, new money

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    March 10, 2011 11:09 p.m.

    Have a few comments and questions from this article:

    1. Why do kindergardners need extended days? Anybody see something wrong with that?
    2. Fifteen million for a reading program? Can the system please explain in detail how this added program will improve on the existing reading course? People should demand an explanation.
    3. Do our law makers look at the tax money coming in and become giddy with inventing ways to spend it?
    4. We live in the wealthiest country in history. The financial problems in our federal, state, city, and county governments indicate weak and corrupt leadership. Why do we trust these leaders to take our money and run our schools? Trust them with our children?

  • DBeck Eagle Mountain, UT
    March 9, 2011 3:38 p.m.

    Once again, charter students are funded at even lower rates than district kids. Maybe Governor Herbert wouldn't mind tearing up my Utah tax liability since I often donate hundreds of dollars and many, many hours annually to the schools they attend as well as assisting at others when possible--5 of 6 at charter schools. Talk about taxation without representation. What a crock! So much for a Republican majority. What good does it really amount to? No more sweetheart deals, Gov! That $13 million that was given to a construction company to shut them up would have fit nicely in the education budget. Looking forward to the 2012 election. Maybe people will FINALLY see past the R or the D and elect some true representatives. No special interests other than the people of Utah.

  • Goet Ogden, UT
    March 9, 2011 9:25 a.m.


    When you don't take care of your employees and you basically spit on them year after year, calling them all manner of names, similar to what the state legiscritters do.....

    well, you get what you pay for. Many teachers leave after realizing that their hopes and dreams of making a difference are crashing on the reef of mortgages, growing families, and the usual bills of life.

    Idealism doesn't pay the bills. Veteran teachers only hang in because they see it is worth it in the long run. They usually work 2nd jobs or depend on a spouse to pay the real bills. Keep on keeping with this idea that teachers will keep taking a knife in the back and eventually all you'll have are those that can afford to live on peanuts and not have families. The good ones won't stay.

  • Fred44 Grantsville, Utah
    March 9, 2011 9:20 a.m.

    Mr. Jarvis,

    Decent pay for teachers and caring about children are not mutually exclusive ideas. If we don't want teachers to have a "career" in teaching great,and by the way that is were we are heading. If we want to exclude all people who want to teach, but need teaching to be the primary source of income, that is fine to, that is were we are heading. But please don't imply that because a teacher wants a decent pay check and some benefits that they don't care about kids. You are correct about there being more teachers graduating the last few years than there have been jobs, but lets see if that hold true in five years after the effects of this current legislative session can be truly measured. The legislature has declared career teachers public enemy 1, and again that is fine, but I hope we can live with the results.

  • Steven S Jarvis Orem, UT
    March 9, 2011 6:04 a.m.

    @open minded

    Good people go into teaching for the children not the money. If they went in for the money, they failed to research what education pays and would eventually become bitter and hardened. We don't want that sort of person working with our children do we?

    Education pays what it does and we still graduate an excess of teachers at our Universities beyond what the state can employ. Even with the lowest pay, and diminishing benefits our schools can always find teachers willing to work who care.

    It never should be about the money. It SHOULD be about the children.

  • open minded Lehi, UT
    March 8, 2011 10:23 p.m.

    "about $217 million that was traditionally spent on Social Security and retirement benefits for district employees, into the per pupil amount."

    I know the affects of this decision: teachers will have no retirement in the future. Since teachers make dramatically less than those with an equivalent Bachelor's degree in the private sector, good people will not go into teaching. Retirement is one of the reasons people go into teaching- they know they can make up loss pay they could have in the private sector through a decent retirement plan.

    I guess we don't really want to treat education like the private sector: we don't attract the best talent to education. Instead we make it so no one can afford to teach and pay off their student loans- so no one will go into teaching except the bottom of the talent barrel.

    Isn't this the same reason the Jazz can't win a championship: they want average players for the lowest pay possible instead of paying higher salaries for the best talent.

    I guess our kids aren't worth the few extra dollars to get the best teachers for them- too bad.

  • open minded Lehi, UT
    March 8, 2011 10:16 p.m.

    "Gov. Herbert was pretty adamant that those decisions should be made at the local level," said Christine Kearl, his education director.

    Is this why Herbert signed HB477? Quid-pro-quo? Herbert got his education budget but he signed away transparent government in order to get it from congress?