The Spectrum: Politicians need to represent voters on school vouchers

With public opinion increasingly opposing universal vouchers, I'm having a hard time understanding their continued push in the face of defeat.

I thought that maybe it was because people wanted a chance to choose the morality taught in schools. Morality is a reflection of religious values. From ninth grade forward, students may be excused for one class period per day to study religion.

I thought that it might have to do with eliminating or reducing taxes. However, if the voucher initiative is passed, then Utahns can expect to pay an additional $429 million over the next thirteen years on top of what they are already paying for education.

I looked in the phone book and found only one private school for middle/high schoolers in St. George and with the state-wide average cost of Utah private schools at $8,000, I had a hard time imagining large Utah families jockeying for a chance to spend $5,000 per child to use a voucher.

Next, I considered student performance. Maybe a private school choice will mean higher test scores. Alex Molnar, in 1999, debunked that myth. He found that class size has a stronger correlation to higher test scores than any other factor. In 2005 and again in 2006, Utah schools ranked 3rd in the country in Advanced Placement test results. On the American College Test, for the school year 2007, Utah public schools scored at or above average on their benchmark score - the score necessary to have a 75 percent expectation of receiving a C on a corresponding credit-bearing college course. Additionally, Utah high schools have a graduation rate 10 percent higher than the average for the rest of the country.

Maybe people just don't have confidence in public education. Sorry! Nationwide, public schools have an approval rating (average or above average) of nearly 80 percent (Phi Delta Kappa International).

Interestingly, three news details from the Salt Lake Tribune may shed some light on the matter. First, professional solicitors from out-of-state are being employed to distribute pro-voucher literature. Secondly, an esoteric group of Utah politicians have been meeting with lobbyists from multiple manufacturing and retailing industries at the Utah Board of Realtors office in Salt Lake in an attempt to get their support for the referendum (Aug. 31.) Finally, in a move normally characteristic of those outside of the political process, several Utah lawmakers have broken rank from political objectivity and formed their own ad hoc partisan Political Action Committee to push for vouchers. The Informed Voter Project, most recently with $200,000 in hand, uses voter lists to mail and auto-dial targeted citizens to gather support. (Aug. 31; Oct. 4.)

If this information is true, then it would appear that many of the pro-voucher politicians are largely representing their own agenda, rather than that of their constituents.

Representing voters does not mean organizing and fighting against them!

Vouchers are a costly political gadfly! Vote NO on Referendum 1.

Glenn Mesa is a resident of St. George. He is a member of The Spectrum & Daily News Writers Group.

House Bill 148 represents a clear departure from the voucher program envisioned by Milton Friedman

Guest commentary: Tone of the voucher debate disappoints
Saturday, October 6, 2007

By Dan Liljenquist
Guest commentary

The voucher debate has digressed in recent weeks from the logical to the emotional, with both sides seeking the moral high ground in a state where voters are committed to "do what is right." It is critically important to re-set the debate and attempt to look at vouchers objectively.

The initial case for private school vouchers was articulated by neoclassical economist Milton Friedman in his 1955 article "The Role of Government in Education."

The article was published in an era of broad based regulation and general public distrust of market economies.

In the article, Friedman argues that it is appropriate for government to subsidize education. He wrote that "a stable and democratic society is impossible without widespread acceptance of some common set of values and without a minimum degree of literacy and knowledge on the part of most citizens."

Friedman then argues that it is not necessary for government to administer public education, as long as its educational goals are met. Friedman presents educational vouchers as a market-driven alternative to publicly administered schools.

In the context of the voucher referendum vote this fall, it is important to consider the following:

* Friedman expected governmental oversight of educational curriculum to ensure common, appropriate content.

* Friedman expected extensive financial oversight by government agencies to ensure proper use of funds, citing the possibility of a greater abuse.

* Friedman does not address what forms of education have the greatest social advantage and how much educational funding is appropriate, except to say that these are questions to be decided "by the judgment of the community through its accepted political channels."

House Bill 148 represents a clear departure from the voucher program envisioned by Milton Friedman. First, the bill does not establish curriculum oversight to ensure appropriate use of government funds; this is contrary to Friedman's approach.

Second, the financial oversight provisions of the bill are simplistic and are not adequate enough to prevent fraud; Friedman clearly advocated substantial financial oversight.

Third, the bill explicitly excludes the judgment of the community from educational decisions, preferring to rely exclusively on parental judgment in educational decisions; this is contrary to Friedman's foundational assumption that all society has a vested interest in how our neighbor's children are being educated and what they are being taught.

While I am disappointed with the recent tone of the voucher debate, I am very pleased to see a grassroots movement to challenge our educational paradigms. Our educational system must become more competitive, with greater parental and community involvement, and more educational choices. We must provide increased funding to reduce class sizes and create greater financial freedom to compete for top talent, particularly in the key secondary education fields of math and science.

We must be focused on preparing our children to excel in hyper-competitive, global labor markets where knowledge and intelligence are the coins of the realm.

I am optimistic that this voucher debate will be the spring-board for broad based, positive educational reform.

Liljenquist is president and COO of Focus Services, a contact center outsourcing company with locations in Ogden, Roy and Lehi. He is a member of the Utah Bar Association, and graduated from the University of Chicago Law School.

This guest commentary appeared in the Standard Examiner on October 6, 2007.