Utah House speaker unveils ambitious, high-priced education plan

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 18, 2014 9:35 a.m.

    Schools do not raise children. In most cases, we don't judge the fitness of parents.

    We need to improve society with moral values.

    Unfortunately, we can"t seem to define or agree on proper values.

  • Fred44 Salt Lake City, Utah
    Feb. 16, 2014 4:42 p.m.


    As a teacher I would be happy to teach year round. But you see as a teacher I don't get that option, politicians make that decision for me. They have decided that I will only teach school 180 days. Now I am sure you would also agree to pay for two weeks vacation a year as well as pay me for holidays like most many employees. If you don't want to do that I am ok with that as long as you will pay me time and half for the hours I work behind my forty hours a week. If you can make that happen sign me up.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 15, 2014 11:43 a.m.

    In my youth, I paid for & took my own lunches to school, paid a fee for riding the school bus, and bought my own school supplies.

    I mowed lawns, did some small jobs, and spared my parents the expenses. I was a fourth grader.

    I paid my way through college 100%.

    Education comes from work, and motivation. Not from ambitious, high-priced education plans.

    If students, and parents took a little more responsibility,--annual increases in funding can be minimized.

    Motivation has transformed to dependency, and it's hurting our country.

  • bandersen Saint George, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 10:14 p.m.

    Wrong, wrong, wrong! As a teacher I will unequivocally say no, no, no! It will get her votes, which is what she is most interested! What is it about Utah trying to emulate the failed policies of our Federal government, which goes something like this: If we just " invest" in education by throwing more money at it, our students will be prepared for the future. It is a lie, one that those in power love to throw out there! Wrong, wrong, wrong! Fail, fail, fail! Wake up Utah! Power hungry politicians don't all reside in Washington!

  • Chuck E. Racer Lehi, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 8:03 p.m.

    Many of technology's top gurus put their kids in elementary schools that don't allow these, saying that they can learn that later. The most important thing is a good classical education first they say.

    We haven't even built enough decent-sized schools for our kids yet. Why spend money on something that will be outdated in 3 years, when we haven't done the basics yet?

    Spending on technology doesn't cover lack of spending in more important areas. (This sounds so much like past Governor's proposals to overhaul education, which didn't improve things, but left a lot more things for educators to do more expensively.)

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 14, 2014 1:03 p.m.

    Parents should bear some the financial/educational load of their children.

    Slowing down the free-loading, will make people much more frugal.

    How much funding is enough funding?

    Good ole America! We're spending our way to poverty, and Barry is having a good laugh.

  • utahreader CENTERVILLE, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 11:06 a.m.

    What will you do about kids who are naughty with the technology and are restricted from using it for several months?

    I'd rather put my money into smaller class sizes,funding reading and math specialists,and having more computer programming classes in high schools. Its a shame that Utah is becoming a little silicon valley but those fundamental programming skills are not being taught in most of our schools.

  • Spangs Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 10:02 a.m.

    Echoing previous comments, I think anyone who reads this proposal by Becky Lockhart realizes that hiring more teachers to decrease class size is the evidence-based means to improving education in Utah.

    I suspect that the drifting toward wasting money on a bunch of electronic devices is a way to spend money on education without increasing the number of government employees (a.k.a. teachers). Why else would we be trying to spend this kind of money on fancy gadgets when we have classrooms with 34 kids?

  • Al Vernal, UT
    Feb. 14, 2014 12:03 a.m.

    As I have tried to incorporate more technology in my classroom by allowing more use of the students' own devices, I have had a problem of my students secretly texting friends, parents, or others instead of doing their school work.

    Two things:

    One: I am a fan of promoting and using technology in the classroom but it needs to be strictly regulated by the teacher.
    Two: As far as the cost goes, a great majority of my students already have smart phones or tablets. I don't think that it would cost as much as they are saying if we just made some available at school for those few who don't already have access.

    If the money to increase the technology comes at the expense of fewer underpaid teacher and larger class sizes, I don't want any part of it. Without a caring, competent teacher the technology is worthless.

    But of course Lockhart is looking only to build her own portfolio as she plans to run for governor, she doesn't have what's best for Utah students in mind.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 11:58 p.m.

    So we see that education reform is frowned upon by those who should support it most. If you want smaller class sizes and to reduce the need for more school buildings, go to a 12-month education year. Teachers can work 12 months, just like everyone else, and get a 33% increase for the extra productivity. While air conditioning is expensive to retrofit existing schools, it pales in comparison to the cost of new buildings. Those who want to see more spent out of their own pocket for education are free to just send the money to the school district. They'll accept it, I'm sure.

  • worf Mcallen, TX
    Feb. 13, 2014 9:50 p.m.

    We already have the highest priced education in the world.

    Very evil, when a leader carelessly spends other peoples hard earned money.

  • birder Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 9:32 p.m.

    My district has tried to bring more technology into our schools. It is a mixed bag, and in my opinion not worth the tremendous cost. There is never enough time or money to train the teachers in effective use of the technology, to say nothing of the money and personnel required to keep all of those digital devices up and running. Stuff always goes wrong. Also, the replacement costs about every 3 years are very high. The money will have to come from somewhere, and I haven't had a raise in 7 years as a teacher. Technology doesn't magically teach kids good reading, writing, and math skills.

    Feb. 13, 2014 9:01 p.m.


    How about they just PAY teachers MORE and hire MORE teachers.
    Sad how large my 1st grader's class size is. *frown*

  • ToddCohen Salt Lake City, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 9:00 p.m.

    35 kids in a crowded classroom with 35 iPads is still 35 kids in a crowded classroom--and lots more distractions that the lone teacher won't be able to handle. Let's call it the Boondocks Education Bill.

  • Tennor Orem, UT
    Feb. 13, 2014 7:59 p.m.

    I do like to see better use of technology in schools. I'm not really against this.

    However, I do wonder what class sizes would be if we were to put $200 million to hire more teachers and build more classrooms to get smaller class sizes.

    I'd rather pay more taxes for smaller classrooms and more individualized attention first, and then worry about a tablet for every kid.

    And is it accurate that in 2014 every school doesn't already have wifi?