(c) the student shall meet one or more of the following
criteria:
(i) the student was born after September 1,
2001;
(ii) the student was enrolled as a full-time student in a Utah public
school on January 1, 2007;
(iii) the individual was not a Utah resident on January 1, 2007;
or
(iv) the student's parents had an annual income less than or equal to 100%
of the income eligibility guideline in the calendar year immediately
preceding the school year for which a scholarship is sought;
and (d) the student may not be a recipient of a
scholarship awarded under Chapter 1a, Part 7, Carson Smith Scholarships for
Students with Special Needs Act.
So if your child was in a Utah Private school on January 1, 2007, and your income doesn't qualify you for reduced school lunches, you don't get a voucher. Plus schools like Challenger won't be honoring the vouchers. Who knows how many other schools are going to take the same position as Challenger. So if you are thinking you want this voucher law because your kid is private school now--you may want to reconsider because you can't use it.
6 comments:
The logic you are employing is that since an individual cannot take advantage of a specific program, he should reconsider his support of said program?
Works for me. Let's kill WIC, I'm neither a woman, nor an infant, nor a child. Let's get rid of homeless services, I've got a pad. VA? Screw the vets, I dodged serving my country.
It's faulty logic like this that gets Dem's accused of class warfare.
Whether or not you are for or against a program should be based on sound reasoning, not on the fact that you can't necessarily feed at the trough.
The point I think is that many parents of private school children have no idea that they are ineligible for a voucher.
By contrast, some people do know and are unhappy. I've even heard of some folks in private schools who are trying to circumvent this by enrolling in the public school just long enough to be eligible, then bail and get their $$$.
If we are going to kill vouchers, I want the following done away with:
The right to an education for children of illegal immigrant
The right for teachers to unionize
The abolition of tenure
The abolition of affirmative action in college admissions
The abolition of welfare, food stamps and WIC
The abolition of Medicaid
The privatization of all non-essential governmental services
The right for women to vote
The abolition of birth control
Censorship of the internet
That should even things out.
The reason the bill was written this way was to keep the initial cost down so it would pass.
If everyone who attends private school was eligible the sticker shock would have killed the bill.
True the sticker shock would have been just that. We would have gone from $0 in tax supports for certain kids to a lot more. I thought this was supposed to save money.
When such is employed to those with kids already in private schools, it requires additional money, not less.
to steve--not as faulty logic of people saying they want to decide where their tax dollars are spent and then using other people's to do it
Post a Comment