Guest commentary: Pro-voucher columns fail to sway Ogden voter
Friday, October 12, 2007
By Telitha Greiner
Guest commentary
Click here for the rest of the story!Paul Mero's Sept. 6 guest commentary ("School vouchers have worked for those who have needed them most") attempted to create the illusion that voucher programs work and that Utah students will, across the board, benefit from a voucher program here. Mr. Mero and his friends would also have you and I believe that vouchers, being funded by General Fund taxpayer dollars, are about parental choice.
* Vouchers create choice for private schools, not for disadvantaged parents and students. Private schools can and will discriminate with their student enrollment. Vouchers are public dollars that will pay for partial tuition at private schools. The majority of private schools in Utah are of a secular or religious origin. Vouchers are not new to the educational environment; they have been around at least since 1991. They are, at best, a social experiment mixed with a sense of improvement by competition with government. The potential winner or loser would be the gamble created with the education of our youth and the financial cost of trying.
* The Utah Constitution Article 1, Section 4 of 1896 says, "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship exercise or instruction or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment." By omission, Mero also failed to inform voters about the Florida voucher program that he claims has worked. In fact, most of the Florida voucher program no longer exists, as it was deemed unconstitutional by the state's Supreme Court (2006), as were similar cases in Colorado and other states.
Unfortunately for Mr. Mero, the few truly objective studies that have been done reach an entirely different conclusion. In fact, independent studies of Milwaukee, Cleveland and Florida demonstrate that students using vouchers to attend private schools do not do better academically than their peers in public school.
Greiner is president-elect and an executive board member of the Ogden City School Foundation. She lives in Ogden, and is married to Sen. Jon Greiner [R], who represents Senate District 18 in the Legislature.
Post edited by Rob
6 comments:
We'll all learn much in this debate. In this case, and others similar where "facts" seem to be confused or confusing, we have a case of spin.
(Quite naturally, every anti-voucher person will accuse me of spin. While I am certainly an effective rhetoritician, I am not a spin-meister...Okay, I can hear you already...yeah right, Mero doesn't spin anything!...Yes, it's true...look into my eyes...you are getting sleepy, sleepy...I am actually spinning you right now!!)
Ms. Greiner positions herself to tell "the rest of the story." And that's a nice position to be in...the truth-seeker standing up to the charlatan trying to deceive the good people of Utah (i.e. anti-voucher people).
Here's the deal...all of us can dicker over studies, their facts, and whose studies are more correct and credible. That happens all the time, and it will not stop happening. We're used to it.
But what she does in this rebuttal is to NOT tell the rest of the story... she simply writes that the first part of the story isn't factual... IOW, that the "rest of the story" is simply stating that the first part isn't true. Very disingenuous.
Isn't it remarkable that both sides can be factual and yet incomplete in their information?
That's why I wrote what I did in the original Standard-Examiner piece she cites. If you remember, my piece was a response to that math geek (and God Bless the math geeks!)who questioned the references and conclusions of our work at Sutherland.
He was a glass half-empty. And so is Ms. Greiner. They hate the idea of vouchers so much that they cannot even see the benefit that even simple "hope" gives to struggling low-income, minority students. And so they reference how voucher studies haven't really helped anyone (a falsehood). They (Ms. Greiner in this case) can't even admit that many students ARE helped and that there has been NO downside...The most awful thing anyone can say from any of these studies is that there have been no differences for some students.
So, to all of my Utah Amicus friends...and in the true spirit of the Democratic Party...I ask...do you really want to be the people of the glass half-empty?
Do you really worship a system so much that you can't see people in need and then try something, anything, other than regurgitate the liturgy of the church of public schooling, or worse?
And before you all begin, again, to stereotype me in whatever ways you deem clever in response, you should actually read the essays in our (Sutherland) Defining Conservatism series. It will save you some embarrassment and a good portion of crow-eating by reading what authentic conservatives actually believe..what I believe.
You might be surprised.
So, I too am learning through all of this. In Ms. Greiner's case I have learned (hopefully truly learned)that there is a difference between "spin" and "the rest of the story"...that much of what continues to drive the confusion for voters is the incompleteness (not intentional) that occurs when we have limited space and time to dialogue and/or debate.
This is a compliment, actually, to blogs such as Utah Amicus, that can allow over time a full vetting of an idea...(as long as the parties involved are civil!).
Best, PTM
But of course you're not campaigning :-)
I am educating. You understand the law, don't you? :)
PTM
That's very funny.
I don't even why there's a debate on this subject, in our uber conservative state.
This "voucher business" is simply an expasion of the big government welfare state, and an ill-disguised attempt to re-distribute taxpayer resources.
Hopefully the conservative voters of Utah will have the good sense to drive a stake through the heart of this ridiculous statist measure.
If you like private schools, indeed enroll your children. But puh-lease don't ask Utah taxpayers to pick up your tab.
To Rudizink:
We already pick up the tab for public school kids? In fact, from our "impartial" Fiscal Analyst (that's for you Craig) the average voucher would be $1,900. The average public school subsidy is $2,100...more than subsidizing the average voucher amount.
The government monopoly school program is already redistributing wealth into education. The voucher just does it more efficiently for kids who need it most (i.e. low-income minority students trapped in their failing government schools).
Set them free. Give them hope.
PTM
Post a Comment