Standard -Examiner: Pro-voucher columns fail to sway Ogden voter

Guest commentary: Pro-voucher columns fail to sway Ogden voter
Friday, October 12, 2007

By Telitha Greiner
Guest commentary

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.

Click here for the rest of the story!

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

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.

A Utah Republican House Representative on Vouchers

I remain convinced that school vouchers are a bad idea for Utah
Standard-Examiner
Wednesday, April 11, 2007

By Rep. Kay L. McIff
Guest commentary

It now appears that vouchers will have to stand the ultimate test -- a vote of the people. Good for us! Such will be determinative of the issue notwithstanding the problem of the two bills and any legal opinions to the contrary.

The governor agrees. Courts should agree. If push comes to shove, legislators will also likely agree by a wide margin. Most will recognize that this is not a game, and that the will of the people cannot be disregarded. Here are 10 reasons why I voted against the legislation and remain of the view that it is not sound public policy:

1. Unconstitutional: Utah entered the Union under suspicion that religion would dominate public schools. The Congressional Enabling Act of 1894 and the Utah Constitution of 1896 prohibited what the voucher bill now authorizes. The first Legislature could not have funded the parochial schools (mostly Mormon) then in existence. The constitutional barrier remains unchanged.

2. Unlike Utah: Subsidization of private industry has never been Utah's style. If you want your own country club, fund it. Otherwise, play on the public courses. By a strange twist, the opponents of vouchers are being labeled as "liberals" with the subsidization proponents calling themselves "conservatives." They have it backward.


3. Unequal treatment: Vouchers are not available for students now enrolled in private schools. Consequently, two neighbors living side-by-side who send their children to the same private school could be treated unequally. One may have children ages 1, 2, 3 and 4 while the other's children are ages 5, 6, 7 and 8. The latter will never qualify for a dime while the four children in the first family will be subsidized up to $3,000 each for a total of 13 years. The potential subsidy disparity -- $156,000.

4. No legislative guarantee: Any restraint is only good until the next Legislature convenes. The unequal treatment identified could become the springboard for accelerated funding of all 18,000 students now enrolled in private schools. The potential cost -- a sobering $50 million. Moreover, the same logic used to justify $3,000 can as easily be employed to justify a higher amount. Why not? Partial subsidization does more to whet the appetite than to satisfy it.

5. Escape and abandon: First and foremost vouchers are vehicles to escape from schools deemed unacceptable, and not instruments for reformation and improvement. The transferring students will be those whose parents are more highly invested in their children's education. They naturally want to leave behind students with problems. If there is a significant student exodus, it will likely leave some schools worse than before. "Out of sight, out of mind" won't work for lawmakers or educators.

6. Unlevel playing field: Proponents envision a competitive free market in which "producers would be free to enter or leave the industry and to compete for students." The model doesn't work for public schools because they are not free to enter or leave, and necessarily retain constitutional and statutory duties of "universal education" with "no child left behind." The simple truth is that after the competition for students is over, public education will be left to pick up the pieces.

7. Stratification: The free market produces winners and losers. If you want a model, look at college football which produces teams that are ranked from No. 1 to No. 112. The formula is simple. You "high-grade" the talent pool and pump in extra money. The result is enormous disparity and stratification because the talent and resource distribution is so skewed.

8. A platitude is not enough: Proponents seek to quell the troubled water and instill confidence with a high sounding platitude, "A rising tide lifts all boats." It is clever and soothing, but camouflages the truth. A rising tide swamps some boats and lifts others unequally. Arguments to the contrary lie somewhere between sheer speculation and wishful thinking.

9. A human industry: Education is all about human beings. They constitute both the raw material and the finished product. The road to excellence in the industrial world is strewn with "bone piles," bankruptcies and liquidation sales. Inferior components are freely rejected and discarded. Where in education is there room for bone piles and liquidation sales?

10. A venture into the unknown: Utah does not have a "broken" education system. There is simply no way of predicting the ultimate composition of the system that will result from Utah's venture into the unknown and untested. The free market can produce great uncertainty and volatility. The precious commodities of our educational system deserve more.

McIff, a Republican, serves Emery, Sanpete and Sevier counties (District 70), and is a former district court judge and member of the Utah State Board of Regents.

Hat tip: Education in Utah