By Megan Risbon
A few weeks ago, as I was standing in line for a Sundance film, I began talking to a couple of volunteers. They recognized my name as being the Chair of the county party and began to talk politics with me.
“2006 was the first non-Presidential election I’ve ever voted in,” said one.
“Do you think Democrats have a chance in ’08 or should we just give up now?” asked the other.
I replied that the 2008 elections will be the most important elections in our lifetime and that 2006 was only the beginning of great things to come for our party—around the nation and here in Utah. As a Democrat, I have felt the utter sadness of loss and more loss and even more loss. I joke that my election as Chair was the first winning campaign I had ever worked on and as Democrats in Utah, we face that a lot. It’s easy to become discouraged; I have felt it many times and I can not even imagine how our elected Democrats in the state legislature and in Salt Lake County feel.
I understand that because of this discouragement, many young people (including many of my friends), leave politics and everything to do with it behind. I have never understood apathy and my mind still boggles at one who was so deeply involved one day and is completely gone the next. It’s the constant losing that eventually breaks you and makes you say, “No more.”
2004 was a very discouraging year for Utah Democrats. Our losses were many and the cuts ran deep. Many of us wondered if the same would happen in 2006. Some say it did.
I am not one of them.
2006 was the best year for Utah Democrats in a very long time. There are reporters, Republicans, pundits, and political gurus who laugh at this statement as, prima facie; we didn’t pick up very many seats. We picked up one legislative seat and won the Salt Lake County Sheriff and Auditor seats. Not exactly the sweep that the rest of the country experienced. The political columnist of the Deseret Morning News wrote a column shortly after the elections stating that the Democratic sweep skipped Utah entirely! I laughed at his column.
I laughed because I know what our Democrats did this year. I know that they will do it even better in 2008. The Democratic sweep didn’t skip Utah—we just didn’t feel it as much. Many of our incumbent legislators had so-called “tough” races against not just well-known and wealthy opponents, but the entire Republican Party. But every single one of them won; some even by the largest percentage they have ever had. In many more races, although the Democrat did not win, the margin of loss was much smaller in 2006 than in previous years. It all had to do with hard work and dedication.
Our Utah Democrats did better than anyone expected. The absolute corruption and complete lack of integrity by the Republican Party reverberated all the way down from our nation’s Capital to the largest county in the reddest of red states. Voters began to see what Republicans are truly like and they used their vote as their voice.
We may not have swept every election in the state but as Utah Democrats, we held our own. We worked harder than ever before. We raised more money than ever before. And, most importantly, we showed the voters what life under Republican control has done to our country and that we will not stand for it any longer.
I am excited to continue to work toward progress and an eventual Democratic takeover in Utah politics. I realize that much work still needs to be done and I am more excited than ever to be a part of it.
I told the volunteers I met at Sundance to remember that even though we did not take over here in Utah, we did some amazing work and it is important to keep on working. We must vote. We must get our friends to vote. We must be outspoken about our beliefs and why we will not stand for Republican rule any longer. We must not give up and lose hope. We must stay the course. Our hard work will pay off in 2008 and our losses will become a thing of the past.
I say let the Republicans think they have complete control over politics in Utah!
This way, they won’t see us when we hit ‘em. 2008 will be a very good year for Utah Democrats.
A few weeks ago, as I was standing in line for a Sundance film, I began talking to a couple of volunteers. They recognized my name as being the Chair of the county party and began to talk politics with me.
“2006 was the first non-Presidential election I’ve ever voted in,” said one.
“Do you think Democrats have a chance in ’08 or should we just give up now?” asked the other.
I replied that the 2008 elections will be the most important elections in our lifetime and that 2006 was only the beginning of great things to come for our party—around the nation and here in Utah. As a Democrat, I have felt the utter sadness of loss and more loss and even more loss. I joke that my election as Chair was the first winning campaign I had ever worked on and as Democrats in Utah, we face that a lot. It’s easy to become discouraged; I have felt it many times and I can not even imagine how our elected Democrats in the state legislature and in Salt Lake County feel.
I understand that because of this discouragement, many young people (including many of my friends), leave politics and everything to do with it behind. I have never understood apathy and my mind still boggles at one who was so deeply involved one day and is completely gone the next. It’s the constant losing that eventually breaks you and makes you say, “No more.”
2004 was a very discouraging year for Utah Democrats. Our losses were many and the cuts ran deep. Many of us wondered if the same would happen in 2006. Some say it did.
I am not one of them.
2006 was the best year for Utah Democrats in a very long time. There are reporters, Republicans, pundits, and political gurus who laugh at this statement as, prima facie; we didn’t pick up very many seats. We picked up one legislative seat and won the Salt Lake County Sheriff and Auditor seats. Not exactly the sweep that the rest of the country experienced. The political columnist of the Deseret Morning News wrote a column shortly after the elections stating that the Democratic sweep skipped Utah entirely! I laughed at his column.
I laughed because I know what our Democrats did this year. I know that they will do it even better in 2008. The Democratic sweep didn’t skip Utah—we just didn’t feel it as much. Many of our incumbent legislators had so-called “tough” races against not just well-known and wealthy opponents, but the entire Republican Party. But every single one of them won; some even by the largest percentage they have ever had. In many more races, although the Democrat did not win, the margin of loss was much smaller in 2006 than in previous years. It all had to do with hard work and dedication.
Our Utah Democrats did better than anyone expected. The absolute corruption and complete lack of integrity by the Republican Party reverberated all the way down from our nation’s Capital to the largest county in the reddest of red states. Voters began to see what Republicans are truly like and they used their vote as their voice.
We may not have swept every election in the state but as Utah Democrats, we held our own. We worked harder than ever before. We raised more money than ever before. And, most importantly, we showed the voters what life under Republican control has done to our country and that we will not stand for it any longer.
I am excited to continue to work toward progress and an eventual Democratic takeover in Utah politics. I realize that much work still needs to be done and I am more excited than ever to be a part of it.
I told the volunteers I met at Sundance to remember that even though we did not take over here in Utah, we did some amazing work and it is important to keep on working. We must vote. We must get our friends to vote. We must be outspoken about our beliefs and why we will not stand for Republican rule any longer. We must not give up and lose hope. We must stay the course. Our hard work will pay off in 2008 and our losses will become a thing of the past.
I say let the Republicans think they have complete control over politics in Utah!
This way, they won’t see us when we hit ‘em. 2008 will be a very good year for Utah Democrats.
30 comments:
Megan,
I totally agree with you. Now is not the time for Democrats in Utah to drop out. Yes, this past year was frustrating for Democrats outside the Salt Lake area. But, there is an interesting trend among Republicans that Democrats should be aware of. For the past two election cycles, they have taken the General Elections for granted. They feel that once the Primary Election is over, the Election is over. As County Chair and as a candidate in 2006, I saw first hand how Republicans do not campaign after June(at least they don't in Davis County). In 2004, it was the same story. Let's hope in 2008 they continue to be lazy and we catch them looking past their enormous egos.
But, we need to be more aggressive and question the Republicans more than we have.
If democrats couldn’t win in 2006 with all of the turmoil in the Republican Party, then I doubt things will change in 2008.
I’ve been a delegate to the last 3 democratic state conventions and nothing really ever gets done outside of the rah-rah speeches.
Democrats need to accept we live in a conservative state that while changing, isn’t changing to the left anytime; a majority of people moving into the state our more likely to vote republican than democrat.
We need to move closer to the middle and the right, as President Clinton did during his tem where we aligned himself with republicans to get his agenda past.
We as a party need to show the voters we believe in school choice (say yes to voucher)
We believe in traditional families (say no to gay marriage)
Only by choosing this path will we be effective politically.
Look at the results of the last election; for the people who volunteered and for all the money spent – the balance of the house and senate stayed the same.
In order to change our course we need to change our message.
I disagree with anonymous -- 2006 was the beginning, 2008 will be step two. We probably won't win big, especially if the Republicans have a man named Romney on ticket. But 2010 can be our year.
In 2006, Utah Democrats worked hard to show voters that we are more like them, that we have something to say, and that we can govern. But many of our candidates were at it for the first time, were underfunded, and ran in races where voter apathy runs strong. But as our chairman Wayne Holland reminds us, this was our apprentice year - this was the year that we learned how to campaign and how to go out there and ask for contributions, the year we got to know our voters and the year we learned about the intricacies of running a campaign for public office. So many of our districts never even HAD a democrat running before, and many of our candidates were unknown... and yet they still pulled upwards of 30 percent in their races.
This is an excellent start. In Iron County, for example, I received 32 percent of the vote for State Senate. That's 1/3 of the voters. That's not chump change. In 2002, Congressman Matheson received about 32 percent of the vote in Iron County, and he was a well-known politician running in a nasty race. For unknown candidates to receive the same number is a huge step in the right direction. In Iron county, Matheson's numbers go up by 6 or 8 points every election cycle. It just takes time, patience, planning, and a willingness to keep going.
With that.. we have work to do. County parties need to continue to mobilize and have active and strong organizations. Candidates who ran in 2006 need to be encouraged to do it again in 2008 and 2010.
We will not win by rolling over and whining about our defeats - we have to keep going, keep playing our message, continue to be involved in the process.
That's how we win. For too many years Utah Democrats have been quiet. I have committed to no longer be quiet and to fight the good fight. I do hope my fellow Utah Democrats will join me.
To Anon:
Say yes to vouchers?
Change our message?
I seriously doubt you are a Democrat.
Richard,
Richard,
I am a democrat.
I’ve been a delegate 3 times at county and state conventions.
I’ve contributed money to democratic candidates
You Richard are what is wrong with the party, with your intolerance on views and your refusal to move to the center.
There are a number of democrats in SLC who send there kids to private schools who are rooting for vouchers.
Republican Party leadership may have been bought off by Pro-Voucher advocates, but the voucher issue is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue.
I have been working with people from both parties on this issue, and I am sure that there are Democrats who are for it and Republicans that are against it.
Anonymous is just intolerant of Richard's intolerance.
:)
(sometimes we forget that it's okay to disagree with people without resorting to name calling or labeling)
To Anon:
I'm more center than you think. But because I support Public Schools, that doesn't make me "left-wing" whacko. I suggest you run as a candidate and spend some time in an elementary school classroom. In the classroom, more eyes have been opened when volunteers have spent time with public-school teachers.
The reason I question your party affiliation, is because you keep using the "anonymous" name. I'm not afraid of telling everyone I'm a Democrat. I think more Democrats should stand up and become more active. Also, I work with Republicans on many issues in Davis County because I believe in communities working together in uniting, not dividing.
I have spent time in public schools and to be honest, I don’t think that things are that bad. Teachers have it pretty good in Utah. At same time, I understand the frustrations of my neighbors who send their children to private school in Salt Lake City and not only pay property and income taxes for public schools but also pay private school tuition and fees.
All voucher parents are asking for is a little freedom and tax break; what they are asking for is not unreasonable and will not harm public schools in Utah.
On last thing Richard, I have been approached by Democrats about running for office.
Anon:
I guess that is where we really disagree. That's fine that you agree with vouchers and but I never will agree to vouchers until we help our schools first.
And we definitely disagree about teachers "having it good". I have no idea if you have a college degree or not, but try to imagine someone that went through 4 years of college and then having to compete with salaries of unskilled workers. Meanwhile, their college buddies are making 2-3 times as much. Then, not receive any pay raises, have a state government that believes you should receive less money to live on, reduce your medical insurance coverage, and threaten to cancel retirement pensions. Furthermore, in my kids school, teachers have 30 or more kids in their classes and are always begging for help. Not to mention, they are in constant need of everyday supplies and have to have parents help them out. Items like paper towels and kleenex. In addition, during the next few years, we will have a teacher shortage because of retiring teachers and not enough college grads to fill the teaching positions.
As far as having a "tax break" for sending kids to private school, that is their choice. With your logic, why should I pay taxes to help those who already have the resources to pay for private school tuition? And what about senior citizens? why should they have to pay taxes for public schools if they don't have kids in school? This arguement is getting old.
finally,
I can't believe I'm being called "intolerant".
Just because I'm standing up for Public Education, that doesn't make me "intolerant".
Ask Rob. Tell 'em Rob!
By the way, being a County Chair, I have developed alot of tolerance in our party.
You would not believe the things I've have had to put up with and solve over the past few years.
I love Utah, I love the Democratic Party.
I do have a college degree; in fact I’m a university professor.
There will be no shortage of teachers in the future, all of colleges of education at private and state schools are bursting at seems, with new students and individuals seeking second careers.
We all had to put with wage freezes during the recent recession, but that is one benefit to being a teacher, tenure you are not laid off.
Teachers have it good for the following reason:
10 month work schedule plus numerous break and holidays. No other profession has so much time off and since teachers work for 10 months their salaries should be adjusted. In addition teachers have tenure (i.e. jobs for life), excellent insurance and 14% contribution to a retirement plan. Maybe we should take a private sector approach to this and ask teachers which benefit would they give up for higher pay?
I’ve been in public schools and fail to see the problem with 30 kids in a classroom, that’s way it was when I was in school; it encourages socialization and competition among students. I can understand small classes for those with learning disabilities.
As to vouchers, parents feel it is time for change, they want options, education will continue to evolve at all levels and vouchers are part of that change.
Teachers are only paid for 9 months. They are not paid for their "time-off". Depending on the district they work in, they usually have the option of receiving their salary for the nine months or having it stretched out to 12 month periods. Are you aware that many teachers have to have second jobs? So much for all that time off.
And, since teachers used to have aids, they spend more time at school preparing, correcting papers and grading.
Yes, I'm sure there is a large group of education majors in college right now, but they are not pursuing teaching careers in Utah. Last year, Jordan School District cut their teacher pensions, forcing a lot of early retirements. They still haven't filled all of those teaching positions. In Granite School District, where my wife teaches, they are threatening to do the same. Since you are a professor, imagine if your pension was to disappear. How would you feel?
Also, for more than 20 years, the State Legislature has promised to fund public education and every year they break their promise.
Do you remember Ted Wilson's campaign slogan 20 years ago when he ran for governor? It was "Utah Teaches Cheap and Stacks 'Em Deep". It still rings true today.
Imagine if we had the best public schools in the nation with the best paid teachers and great classrooms; we would be the envy of the country. Yeah, we do pretty good for little money the state puts into public education, but I would rather have the best than have mediocrity.
Also,
then you do agree then that children with learning disabilities should be in smaller classrooms. That is also a growing problem with schools. Fewer aides with a growing student population means that more kids will be left behind.
I promise, there are alot of problems in public education right now, including a teacher shortage(it is real). And to ignore it or put a "band-aid" on it, will not solve any of the growing problems. My only fear is that more and more will become apathic to our education problems, just like they do with politics and voting.
Why should I pay taxes to help those who already have the resources to pay for private school tuition?
Because part of the money that is in school budget comes from people sending their children to private school, and those people want a choice with their money, it’s their money, not the governments.
NH Study Indicates Significant Savings From School Vouchers
CONCORD, NH - A study of the fiscal impact of school choice in New Hampshire shows that a state school choice program could save communities more than $8.7 million each year.
Released today by The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy and the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, the study provides credible evidence that no local community would suffer a net loss of funds as a result of the introduction of a school voucher program; identifies the potential additional savings from school vouchers for each community throughout the state and suggests that as the percentage of children using vouchers increases education expenditures and tax rates decline.
"The detailed analysis completed by Brian Gottlob of PolEcon Research shows that a statewide choice program won't hurt schools financially. In fact, quite the contrary. Local schools would receive more money to educate fewer students," Charlie Arlinghaus, president of The Josiah Bartlett Center, said.
Key findings of the study include:
The net impact on communities under full implementation in 2004 would be a net gain of $8,791,057. If a choice plan similar to those proposed were in effect for 2004, communities would have received $4,933,914 less in state adequacy grants (the state would make those payments to parents), but communities would also have avoided costs of $13,724,991, as a result of 2,000 fewer students.
Research estimates the variable cost of educating each elementary student in New Hampshire to be in a range of $5,900 to $7,200 - between 73 percent and 87 percent of total elementary expenditures - while the estimated value of the proposed voucher is $2,700.
As the percentage of students in private schools increases in a community, education expenditures and tax rates decline. For every 10 percent increase in the percentage of children enrolled in private schools in a community (say going from 10% to 11%), total education expenditures are 1.75 percent lower and local education tax rates are 1.5 percent lower. By 2010, a school choice program similar to the one proposed this year would result in education expenditures that are 8.5 percent lower and local education tax rates that are 7.2 percent lower.
"School vouchers will be a net gain for New Hampshire public schools, New Hampshire taxpayers and New Hampshire children," said Robert Enlow, executive director of the Friedman Foundation, said. "Now we have research that proves it."
For a copy of the study's results, methodology and conclusions visit: http://www.friedmanfoundation.org/NHstudy.pdf
About the Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy http://www.jbartlett.org
The Josiah Bartlett Center for Public Policy is a non-profit, non-partisan, independent think tank focused on state and local public policy issues that affect the quality of life for New Hampshire's citizens. The Center has as its core beliefs individual freedom and responsibility, limited and accountable government, and an appreciation of the role of the free enterprise system. The Center seeks to promote policy that supports these beliefs by providing information, research and analysis.
About the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation http://www.friedmanfoundation.org
The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, dubbed "the nation's leading voucher advocates" by the Wall Street Journal, is a non-profit organization established in 1996. The origins of the foundation lie in the Friedman's long-standing concern about the serious deficiencies in America's elementary and secondary public schools. The best way to improve the quality of education, they believe, is to enable all parents to have a truly free choice of the schools that their children attend. The Friedman Foundation works to build upon this vision clarify its meaning to the general public and amplify the national call for true education reform through school choice.
Read the studies on the Milwaukee vouchers by Arizona State University. It shows the problems associated with vouchers. Vouchers cause more problems than they solve. Friedman is also the economist with the "supply side" economics theory of the "trickle down" effect, which didn't work in the Reagan years. (voo-doo economics) since supply side usually help the wealthy and not the middle clase...the same would be true with vouchers.
The biggest reason I am a Democrat is because the Middle Class is what drives this country. We need to pay more attention to the middle class. The wealthy have enough tax breaks.
More and more parents are willing to make big sacrifices to send their children to private schools. And the schools are coming up with ways to help them pay. David Rood and Chee Chee Leung explain how - and why - they do it.
It has been 28 years since Diana Mason had an overseas holiday. The Pakenham mother of three doesn't drive a fancy car, or dine frequently at upmarket restaurants. As a single parent who survives on a pension and casual jobs, such pleasures are beyond her reach.
The one thing she does spend thousands of dollars a year on is sending her children to a private school. "I've really struggled to get them through it," she says. "But I really wanted my children to have a really good education and I believe that basically you get what you pay for."
Whether or not her view is objectively true - there are many fine government schools that remain essentially free - the determination of people like Mason to make sacrifices to send their children to private schools is now more common.
Two of her children, Marcus and Nicole, have already finished at Beaconhills College, in south-eastern Melbourne. Her youngest, Brittany, is in year 10, and hopes to complete her VCE at the school.
Over the past decade, the number of students attending private schools has grown by more than 22 per cent. Within five years, more than one in three Victorian students is expected to be studying at a Catholic or independent schools - and they are not all from wealthy families.
It is not just the gates of "old school tie" institutions like Scotch College or Melbourne Girls Grammar that are opening. The move away from public schools is also being driven by the popularity of Catholic and low-fee independent schools in Melbourne's growth corridors. Enrolments at small independent schools have grown by an average of 6.7 per cent over the past decade. With fees often below $5000 a year, these schools are attracting families who previously could not afford private-school education.
The debate over why parents choose to send their children to non-government schools is muddled, with perceptions often as important as facts. Research suggests parents choose private schools because of their perceived discipline, religious or moral values and uniforms.
Private schools have also been boosted by record federal funding. In the current four-year funding deal, the Commonwealth is providing $1.5 billion to independent schools in Victoria and $3.6 billion to Catholic schools. Government schools argue that public institutions need to be all things to all people, whereas independent schools can be academically and socially selective.
A survey of last year's VCE graduates showed that while university enrolments by government school students are growing at a faster rate than their private school counterparts, 37.6 per cent of public school students enrolled at university, compared with 57.4 per cent of those from non-government schools. What is clear is that despite the costs, parents are willing to pay.
"Half the cost of a house" - that's the simple way Yarra Valley Grammar principal Neville Lyngcoln describes the education bill for parents who put two or three children through his school. At almost $16,000 for year 12, the outlay is substantial, suggesting few families can afford it. But Lyngcoln says that families are finding a way.
"These are hard-working people who make choices. They do without things and they decide to invest their discretionary income on the education of their kids. It's been a high priority for a low percentage of families for a long time. Clearly it is becoming a high priority for a broader range of families."
At the prestigious and expensive Methodist Ladies College in Kew, principal Rosa Storelli says she has noticed a growing diversity in the cultural and economic background of students.
There are more postcodes in the school's database, with girls travelling across town to the eastern suburbs school from places like Keilor and Taylors Lakes. "Our schools are maybe attracting families who wouldn't have considered a private school before," Storelli says. "Our client base isn't just Kew or Hawthorn."
Within two years, the Finnins will have put all three of their children through Wesley College - from prep to year 12. Karen Finnin, who carefully describes the family as "towards the upper end of middle class", says it has been far from easy paying the fees, which reach $17,000 in year 12.
Last year they cancelled their theatre subscription, family holidays have been booked on frequent-flyer points and spending on clothes and restaurants reined in. She says that people outside looking in would think that all private school parents are wealthy, "but that's not the case".
Independent schools contacted by The Age reported that both parents were working in up to 80 per cent of families, with the second salary often spent entirely on school fees.
In turn, schools are rethinking how they bill parents. Schools now offer weekly, fortnightly or monthly direct debit payments. Many allow parents to pay tuition fees long after a child has finished their education. At regional schools, the effects of nature are considered.
Many schools, particularly religious institutions, offer substantial assistance to disadvantaged families and discounts for second and third children. At Jewish school Bialik College, principal Genia Janover says one in six families are on means-tested fee relief.
While educating her three children at Beaconhills, Diana Mason has worked as a pharmacy technician and a beautician. She also breeds golden retrievers to help pay the cost of the school fees she shares with the children's father. At $5000 to $10,000 a litter, the dogs make a significant contribution.
The school has recognised this, allowing Ms Mason to settle her account around her dogs' breeding cycles. "I would go in there and say: ‘I'm unable to pay this now, but I've got a litter of pups due and in eight weeks I'll have this amount of money."
Even then, the single mother finds it tough at times to meet the cost. Her father, Tony Sonnberger, has bailed her out many times, and now pays about $800 a year for granddaughter Brittany's singing and piano lessons at school. Poring over the finances of his clients, tax expert Paul Hockridge can see the importance they place on education. The best example, he says, is watching how parents react in an economic downturn. "They'll downgrade the car, move to a smaller house, refinance the house before they take their kids out of school," the partner at finance firm William Buck says.
The savings options Hockridge recommends include salary sacrificing a computer and establishing family and testamentary trusts that allow limited distributions to children. These paths, he says, are more accessible to the wealthy rather than parents paying school fees out of their salaries, but there are other financial options. Banks and investment houses such as ING and AMP recommend measures such as making additional mortgage payments, investing in managed funds and insurance bonds to help build up an education fund. The Australian Scholarships Group was established as an education saving provider and the Commonwealth Bank recently launched its own education option.
One option - used largely by expensive private schools - sees ASG paying school fees for parents in a lump sum. Parents repay the money in monthly instalments, with an administrative fee charged.
As Elise Wald has investigated where to educate her children, the private schools she has visited have thrown various options at her. They have recommended she extend the mortgage or take out a personal loan.
The Walds have a daughter in year 9 at the private King David School, and two sons starting high school and prep next year. Where they educate their children is a complex decision. Their East Bentleigh home is outside the zone for what they consider to be a good public school, McKinnon Secondary College. And having arrived from South Africa seven years ago, the family are establishing themselves financially.
"It would be cheaper to put the children into private school, rather than move house into the McKinnon zone," Wald says. "We are not looking for hand-outs or for private schools to reduce their fees. We just want to work with them in a way that allows us to send our children there and pay the fees at a manageable rate."
As head of the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals, Andrew Blair has seen the march of students to private schools.
Rather than seeing it as a reflection on government schools, he says there is a pervasive social pressure on parents to send their children to independent schools "to be doing the right thing".
"It is neatly packaged by parents when they are challenged by saying the local school has a terrible reputation," Blair says. "Frankly, there aren't that many secondary schools with a terrible reputation."
The proportion of students attending state schools has slipped from 70 to 67.1 per cent nationally in the past decade, although in Victoria, the drift has slowed, with a growth rate of 1.7 per cent in public school enrolments in the same period. Yet the growth in independent schools, particularly smaller, low-fee institutions, fills a perceived education void for many parents. "The sharper competition end is between lower fee independent schools and the government sector," Blair says.
Beaconhills, which has almost 2400 students, is among the increasingly popular lower-fee schools. Rather than the fees that approach $20,000 at some of the elite Melbourne schools, at Beaconhills fees are several thousand dollars a year.
Headmaster Tony Sheumack says the lower rates mean parents are choosing between Beaconhills and a state school. "Nearly anyone could afford to come to our school, as long as they are earning income and they prioritise education."
But he recognises that most of the parents - who include small-business operators and tradespeople - do find the fees expensive.
A consequence of the parental sacrifices is a greater expectation that schools deliver on what they promise. As Simon Gipson, head of St Michael's Grammar in St Kilda describes it, parents want to be sure they get value for the considerable sum of money they are paying.
"We have a contractual relationship with our parents," he says. "We say this is what we are providing, and they are saying this is what we want."
The Walds have sent all of their children to public primary schools. It's at high school - where they consider the difference between government and private schools to be greater - that the decision becomes harder.
"Our decision is not based on a belief that private schools are the best," Ms Wald says. "It is really what is best for our children."
More and more parents are willing to make big sacrifices to send their children to private schools. And the schools are coming up with ways to help them pay. David Rood and Chee Chee Leung explain how - and why - they do it.
It has been 28 years since Diana Mason had an overseas holiday. The Pakenham mother of three doesn't drive a fancy car, or dine frequently at upmarket restaurants. As a single parent who survives on a pension and casual jobs, such pleasures are beyond her reach.
The one thing she does spend thousands of dollars a year on is sending her children to a private school. "I've really struggled to get them through it," she says. "But I really wanted my children to have a really good education and I believe that basically you get what you pay for."
Whether or not her view is objectively true - there are many fine government schools that remain essentially free - the determination of people like Mason to make sacrifices to send their children to private schools is now more common.
Two of her children, Marcus and Nicole, have already finished at Beaconhills College, in south-eastern Melbourne. Her youngest, Brittany, is in year 10, and hopes to complete her VCE at the school.
Over the past decade, the number of students attending private schools has grown by more than 22 per cent. Within five years, more than one in three Victorian students is expected to be studying at a Catholic or independent schools - and they are not all from wealthy families.
It is not just the gates of "old school tie" institutions like Scotch College or Melbourne Girls Grammar that are opening. The move away from public schools is also being driven by the popularity of Catholic and low-fee independent schools in Melbourne's growth corridors. Enrolments at small independent schools have grown by an average of 6.7 per cent over the past decade. With fees often below $5000 a year, these schools are attracting families who previously could not afford private-school education.
The debate over why parents choose to send their children to non-government schools is muddled, with perceptions often as important as facts. Research suggests parents choose private schools because of their perceived discipline, religious or moral values and uniforms.
Private schools have also been boosted by record federal funding. In the current four-year funding deal, the Commonwealth is providing $1.5 billion to independent schools in Victoria and $3.6 billion to Catholic schools. Government schools argue that public institutions need to be all things to all people, whereas independent schools can be academically and socially selective.
A survey of last year's VCE graduates showed that while university enrolments by government school students are growing at a faster rate than their private school counterparts, 37.6 per cent of public school students enrolled at university, compared with 57.4 per cent of those from non-government schools. What is clear is that despite the costs, parents are willing to pay.
"Half the cost of a house" - that's the simple way Yarra Valley Grammar principal Neville Lyngcoln describes the education bill for parents who put two or three children through his school. At almost $16,000 for year 12, the outlay is substantial, suggesting few families can afford it. But Lyngcoln says that families are finding a way.
"These are hard-working people who make choices. They do without things and they decide to invest their discretionary income on the education of their kids. It's been a high priority for a low percentage of families for a long time. Clearly it is becoming a high priority for a broader range of families."
At the prestigious and expensive Methodist Ladies College in Kew, principal Rosa Storelli says she has noticed a growing diversity in the cultural and economic background of students.
There are more postcodes in the school's database, with girls travelling across town to the eastern suburbs school from places like Keilor and Taylors Lakes. "Our schools are maybe attracting families who wouldn't have considered a private school before," Storelli says. "Our client base isn't just Kew or Hawthorn."
Within two years, the Finnins will have put all three of their children through Wesley College - from prep to year 12. Karen Finnin, who carefully describes the family as "towards the upper end of middle class", says it has been far from easy paying the fees, which reach $17,000 in year 12.
Last year they cancelled their theatre subscription, family holidays have been booked on frequent-flyer points and spending on clothes and restaurants reined in. She says that people outside looking in would think that all private school parents are wealthy, "but that's not the case".
Independent schools contacted by The Age reported that both parents were working in up to 80 per cent of families, with the second salary often spent entirely on school fees.
In turn, schools are rethinking how they bill parents. Schools now offer weekly, fortnightly or monthly direct debit payments. Many allow parents to pay tuition fees long after a child has finished their education. At regional schools, the effects of nature are considered.
Many schools, particularly religious institutions, offer substantial assistance to disadvantaged families and discounts for second and third children. At Jewish school Bialik College, principal Genia Janover says one in six families are on means-tested fee relief.
While educating her three children at Beaconhills, Diana Mason has worked as a pharmacy technician and a beautician. She also breeds golden retrievers to help pay the cost of the school fees she shares with the children's father. At $5000 to $10,000 a litter, the dogs make a significant contribution.
The school has recognised this, allowing Ms Mason to settle her account around her dogs' breeding cycles. "I would go in there and say: ‘I'm unable to pay this now, but I've got a litter of pups due and in eight weeks I'll have this amount of money."
Even then, the single mother finds it tough at times to meet the cost. Her father, Tony Sonnberger, has bailed her out many times, and now pays about $800 a year for granddaughter Brittany's singing and piano lessons at school. Poring over the finances of his clients, tax expert Paul Hockridge can see the importance they place on education. The best example, he says, is watching how parents react in an economic downturn. "They'll downgrade the car, move to a smaller house, refinance the house before they take their kids out of school," the partner at finance firm William Buck says.
The savings options Hockridge recommends include salary sacrificing a computer and establishing family and testamentary trusts that allow limited distributions to children. These paths, he says, are more accessible to the wealthy rather than parents paying school fees out of their salaries, but there are other financial options. Banks and investment houses such as ING and AMP recommend measures such as making additional mortgage payments, investing in managed funds and insurance bonds to help build up an education fund. The Australian Scholarships Group was established as an education saving provider and the Commonwealth Bank recently launched its own education option.
One option - used largely by expensive private schools - sees ASG paying school fees for parents in a lump sum. Parents repay the money in monthly instalments, with an administrative fee charged.
As Elise Wald has investigated where to educate her children, the private schools she has visited have thrown various options at her. They have recommended she extend the mortgage or take out a personal loan.
The Walds have a daughter in year 9 at the private King David School, and two sons starting high school and prep next year. Where they educate their children is a complex decision. Their East Bentleigh home is outside the zone for what they consider to be a good public school, McKinnon Secondary College. And having arrived from South Africa seven years ago, the family are establishing themselves financially.
"It would be cheaper to put the children into private school, rather than move house into the McKinnon zone," Wald says. "We are not looking for hand-outs or for private schools to reduce their fees. We just want to work with them in a way that allows us to send our children there and pay the fees at a manageable rate."
As head of the Victorian Association of State Secondary Principals, Andrew Blair has seen the march of students to private schools.
Rather than seeing it as a reflection on government schools, he says there is a pervasive social pressure on parents to send their children to independent schools "to be doing the right thing".
"It is neatly packaged by parents when they are challenged by saying the local school has a terrible reputation," Blair says. "Frankly, there aren't that many secondary schools with a terrible reputation."
The proportion of students attending state schools has slipped from 70 to 67.1 per cent nationally in the past decade, although in Victoria, the drift has slowed, with a growth rate of 1.7 per cent in public school enrolments in the same period. Yet the growth in independent schools, particularly smaller, low-fee institutions, fills a perceived education void for many parents. "The sharper competition end is between lower fee independent schools and the government sector," Blair says.
Beaconhills, which has almost 2400 students, is among the increasingly popular lower-fee schools. Rather than the fees that approach $20,000 at some of the elite Melbourne schools, at Beaconhills fees are several thousand dollars a year.
Headmaster Tony Sheumack says the lower rates mean parents are choosing between Beaconhills and a state school. "Nearly anyone could afford to come to our school, as long as they are earning income and they prioritise education."
But he recognises that most of the parents - who include small-business operators and tradespeople - do find the fees expensive.
A consequence of the parental sacrifices is a greater expectation that schools deliver on what they promise. As Simon Gipson, head of St Michael's Grammar in St Kilda describes it, parents want to be sure they get value for the considerable sum of money they are paying.
"We have a contractual relationship with our parents," he says. "We say this is what we are providing, and they are saying this is what we want."
The Walds have sent all of their children to public primary schools. It's at high school - where they consider the difference between government and private schools to be greater - that the decision becomes harder.
"Our decision is not based on a belief that private schools are the best," Ms Wald says. "It is really what is best for our children."
Let me begin by saying that I appreciate the dialouge that my post has created. I agree with most of what has been said here.
First, as Democrats, our problem lies in the fact that we have been so busy playing defense these past 20 years, we've forgotten what it's like to play offense. We need to be actively saying what is wrong with the right-wing of the Republican party and our opponents. We need to show the public that they are corrupt. Until we start doing that, we are NEVER going to win elections here in Utah.
Second, the 2006 elections have shown us that the moderates in this country DO control it-whether they be on the left or on the right. Jim Matheson wins in Utah because of his moderate-ness.
Many moderate Democrats like the good Congressman won around the nation not because they were just Democrats, but because they are MODERATE democrats who weren't afraid to hold their Republican opponents' feet to the fire.
There are a lot of lessons to learn from the 2006 elections and as long as I'm involved in the party, I am going to listen to them.
As for vouchers (THIS IS MY PERSONAL BELIEF--NOT THE PARTY'S), I'm a single mom and they wouldn't help me that much. Looking at the chart that was in the paper last week, I'd only be eligible for about $2000 per year. That means I'd have to come up with the remaining $10-15,000 per year. Since I make less than $25,000 per year, it's hardly worth my while. Besides, my daughter's public school is the best. She's learning much more and on a higher level than I was at her age.
Megan,
Thanks for checking in. I agree with everything you have said. Everything. Even the part about vouchers.
And as far as vouchers go... I don't have a choice because there are no private schools here in Southern Utah, and as i have said, even if there were, we'd never be able to afford it on my husband's state salary, even *with* a voucher. So, I'm kind of like "eh" to the whole thing.. will be interesting to see what hppens over the next few years.
I think comments should be limited to 500 words, especially when it comes to vouchers. We were sold out by our legislature since they are, for the most part, elected by PACs and special interest groups.
We need clean elections laws and campaign limits. This would be something that reasonable R's and all Democrats could work on. It might eventually change the challenged system we have presently.
I think anon doesn't get it. Oh well.
Megan, you hit on a point that alot of "choice" people do not understand. Even with a voucher, you still have to find a way to pay the high tuition payments. This whole voucher obsession is about giving breaks to those who already have the resources to send their children to a private school. For example(I'm not picking on the governor): Gov. Huntsman currently has his children in the public school system. Under the guidelines of HB148, Huntsman would qualify to receive $500 per child if he sends them to a private school. This a family who has the resources to pay for a private school tuition payment and does not need the tuition credits from a voucher.
Richard,
The voucher will help many parents who struggle to send their kids to private schools.
I'd like see the voucher level higher...say $2500 per student ; that would really help
Private Schools Better Promote Civic Values
School choice programs would strengthen democratic education
Written By: School Reform News staff
Published In: School Reform News
Publication Date: November 1, 1998
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do you think private or church-related schools that accept government tuition payments should or should not be required to accept students from a wider range of backgrounds and academic ability than is now generally the case?”
Question asked in the annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll
The 30th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll assumes what many people imagine to be true of private schools--that, unlike public schools, they are elite and separatist institutions populated by predominantly white students.
A common objection to taxpayer funded school choice programs is that--whatever other merits they might have--such programs would undermine civic values by allowing more children to choose education in environments that do not advance racial integration, tolerance, and commitment to community.
But a new study of US Department of Education data shows that private schools are not what most people imagine them to be. In fact, private schools are more racially integrated than public schools, and they do a better job promoting racial tolerance and fostering public spiritedness.
"While the surveys did not focus on questions of civic values, information was collected that showed how wrong common impressions of values in public and private schools really are," said Jay P. Greene, assistant professor of government at the University of Texas at Austin. Greene's findings are reported in "Civic Values in Public and Private Schools," one chapter in a new book from the Brookings Institution, Learning from School Choice. Greene evaluated data from the Department of Education’s 1992 National Education Longitudinal Study, which is based on a sample of twelfth-grade students, their teachers, parents, and school administrators.
Racial Integration
Private schools are more integrated than public schools. While 41 percent of private school students are in segregated classrooms--those with more than 90 percent or less than 10 percent minority students--over half (55 percent) of public school students are in such classrooms.
Also, if a well-integrated classroom is defined as one that has within 10 percent of the national average of minority students in the public schools (26 percent), then 37 percent of private school students are in well-integrated classrooms, compared to only 18 percent of public school students.
Racial Tolerance
Private schools produce more racial tolerance than do public schools. When asked whether students at their schools made friends with students from other racial and ethnic backgrounds, 31 percent of respondents at private schools strongly agreed. Only 18 percent of public school students strongly agreed with that statement.
When asked about fights between racial groups at their school, 64 percent of private schools students strongly disagreed that such fights occur often in their school, while only 29 percent of public school students strongly disagreed. Responses from teachers and school administrators at both public and private schools support the conclusion that private schools produce more positive race relations.
Public-Spiritedness
Compared to students in public schools, students in private schools are more likely to report that it is important to help others in the community and that it is very important to volunteer. Private schools students are more likely to volunteer often and to report that they have actually volunteered in the past two years.
Teaching Democratic Values
Greene notes that the people who actually run the schools agree that private schools offer an education in democratic values superior to that provided in public schools. For example, when asked to rate how well their schools promoted certain goals compared to other schools, 29 percent of administrators in private schools rated their schools as outstanding in promoting citizenship, compared to only 17 percent of public school administrators.
Similarly, 26 percent of private school administrators rated their schools as outstanding in promoting awareness of contemporary and social issues, compared to only 17 percent of public school administrators. Most striking, nearly three-quarters (71 percent) of private school administrators rated their school outstanding in teaching values and morals, compared to only 11 percent of public school administrators.
"Advancing public goals, like integration, tolerance, and a commitment to community, does not require the direct operation of schools by the government," concludes Greene. "In fact, the evidence suggests that private individuals, left to their own devices, are more successful at achieving these public goals than is the government."
Tuition at Judge Memorial High School: $8,255
Ideal Tuition Voucher: $2,500
Tuition for a middle class tax payer: $6,000
Freedom to pick the right school for my child and move my tax dollars to a school where I know they will be applied for me – Priceless.
Anon and Richard,
How about some comments from a teacher for once? It's always interesting for me to read how much some people outside of teaching "know" about my job.
Richard, you are much more accurate.
1st question--Anon, why should I and other people who have not been able to have kids have to subsidize your child in a private school or in other words subsidize your private choice which you already have? You CHOSE to go to a private school--you are NOT paying double, but you would like the REST of us to pay for YOUR child. Hmmm....
Can I have some of your tax exemptions so I can help pay to adopt a child?
I "work" for 10 months? Wow! I wonder where the extra 1700 hours + I put in per year fit in (unpaid by the way and they should be that way).
I don't support vouchers for many reasons (too many to list here). If you're using Canada as an example, it doesn't seem to make them any more conservative.
What some people don't realize is that the negative attitude put out by some IS part of the problem. I often have to correct someone because so and so has heard something and the like. It seems like there's some who don't want to have anything positive happen in public education. I DO and I see a lot in my own classroom.
Vouchers to me are liberal actually--growing government, subsidizing private businesses, promoting divisiveness, fragmenting communities, subsidizing personal choices, another welfare program, bringing in government money to private schools, the list goes on and on.
I think it's time to end all the "playing politics" and start working together.
A change in attitude would be our BIGGEST education reform yet.
MORE later
More:
Anonymous--The tax dollars being used aren't yours. When you ask for a tuition subsidy, it is WE who pick up the cost for YOUR personal choice.
But does having your child in a private school make you more deserving than other parents? Do not some parents who have their children in public education work just as hard at raising or for their children or spend just as much time helping them? I know many of them that see that as part of the job. Just because you chose a different choice other than what is offered, does that mean others have to subsidize your choice? Does choosign that choice make you any better a parent than others who don't?
What about me as a teacher? I put in a LOT of extra time that I don't get paid for. To me it's paret of the job.
And then what about those of us like me who aren't able to have children. Do you deserve to have your personal choice subsidized above others like us? Why do you expect us to pay for your personal choice? I DON'T want my personal choice subsidized because I will pay and work towards it myself, as I have for 13 years. Do you not have more of a personal choice for your children more than people who can't have any children anyways? What is your "lack" of choice as compared to those who have no children at all?
Then again, what about those who have terminally ill children or who have lost a child? Do you not have more of a choice than they do regarding their children? Should they have to pay for your "lack" of a choice?
in the end it's about freedom to do what's best - vouchers ensure that I can tailor a childens education as needed when public schools can't meet that need
Anon:
You still don't get it.
"in the end it's about freedom to do what's best - vouchers ensure that I can tailor a childens education as needed when public schools can't meet that need "
Anon--don't you have the freedom to to that already? My parents did as do my brothers and sisters with their children. They find plenty of ways to supplement their children's curriculums. My most common way was to go to the public library and find books about things I was interested in and wanted to know more about. Nowadays, you have more resources than ever to do so. In short, if our "needs" weren't met, my parents taught us how to meet our own.
Why do you need a voucher to do so? For YOUR freedom? Shouldn't we paying for the voucher have the freedom to say something about it too?
And WHY depend of public schools to "meet that need?" Actually, why should one have to depend on ANY school to "meet that need?"
If one has to, maybe one should look in the mirror instead.
We got a basic education at school, but the teaching of values, religion, satisfying our needs, and so on was up to our parents as it should be. Even our primary and Sunday school teachers were not depended upon by my parents to be the sources for religious education.
The bottom line is--we HAVE a lot of freedom to do what we want already. We EACH come here with the freeagency to choose how we want to live our life and be responsible for our choices. That is a gift given to us without any type of voucher already.
Vouchers seems more than just being about "freedom" actually, especially with the political rhetoric.
Post a Comment