I just received a personal phone call from "PCE's Poster Boy" himself!

It's true!

Governor Waffle Waffle Jr. just called to speak with me.

But when I asked if he was still OK with with my decision to vote against Referendum 1, he simply wouldn't answer.

His message did sound familiar, but kind of different too.

And he was in such a hurry.

Oh well, maybe we can talk later, after the Waffle Police go away.

But until then...

Uncle Don Miller on Utah's Referendum 1: Play The Voucher Winking Game

PLAY THE VOUCHER WINKING GAME

Wink, wink -- vouchers benefit the poor

Our legislative leaders are pushing vouchers out of concern for the poor -- wink, wink. It's just a temporary stroke of bad luck for the poor that for over 5 years our legislative leaders have refused to provide a paltry sum of $164,000 to provide eyeglasses and eye exams to 60,000 of the state's poorest residents. Nevermind that at the same time these business elite first lawmakers were ignoring the state's poorest residents, they nevertheless were eager to hand over $35 million in tax money to build a soccer stadium for a group of millionaires, demonstrating again that the well-healed are their foremost constituency until they discovered how claimed concern for the poor might serve to sell vouchers.

There will be savings -- wink, wink -- even though few of the poor will switch

There will be savings -- wink, wink. Just don't pay any attention to the fact that the impartial legislative fiscal analyst believes that over the first 13 years the program could cost the state a total of $324 million. Nevermind that no savings will occur because the analyst believes that only 0.4 percent of our public school students will want to or be able to switch to private schools. Hence, please ignore the fact that the program will overwhelmingly end up subsidizing private school tuition for the well-healed elite (keep an eye on the favored constituency) who would send their kids to private schools in any case. Consequently, instead of serving the poor and saving taxes as voucher supporters claim, the analyst believes that few will switch and by the 13th year the program's yearly costs will be between $43 and $60 million.

Influx of orphans refuted by the Governor

In addition to winking, voucher supporters are resorting to classic fear tactics with talk of the need to triple taxes due to a large influx of new students which also merits a double wink. Nevermind that this tax increase claim isn't valid unless all the new students also happen to be orphans -- a winking highly unlikely event. The fear claim ignores the fact, readily acknowledged by Governor Jon Huntsman Jr., that the influx of new students will be accompanied by an influx of new parents who will work and naturally expand the tax base.

To provide information on how Utah's tax base supporting students has been expanding, in 1990 there were 48 students per 100 working adults. By 2010 there will be only 36 students per 100 working adults. Clearly, voucher supporter's talk of the need to triple taxes is winking ludicrous, but they were winking when they said that weren't they.

Poor students will have a choice -- wink, wink

Vouchers do give poor parents real choice -- another double wink. Just don't pay any attention to the fact that most private schools in Utah cost more than $8,000, while voucher amounts range from $500 to $3,000 and don't include bus transportation and free hot lunches. Nevermind that is why so few, especially the poor, will be able to or want to switch to private schools

Finally, the coup de grace, voucher won't create Warren Jeff type schools and private school accountability is strong -- wink, wink, wink
-------
The Voucher Winking Game has been trademarked by Don L. Miller

When Truth Prevails

Utah Bloggers Withdrawal Support for Utah Referendum 1

Pursuit of Liberty: Turning A Corner

Between that financial drain and the gutter-politics associated with voucher support I can not support Referendum 1 in good conscience.

Green Jello: Vouchers -- Humble Pie

Judging from the Legislative Fiscal Analyst's Report, from year 13 (and I assume from then on) vouchers will net annual losses between $43,088,978 and $59,492,020.

Homer Too: Vouchers are not an educational issue

Don made the following comment:

"I vote that you put Homer on the front page again. His latest comment is truly remarkable!"

Since the vote was unanimous, here it is.

As this voucher thing is heating up Utah politics and as a public school teacher I want to repeat that this whole thing is not an educational issue. It is squarely a political issue and has been from the beginning. People have been teaching and learning for thousands of years in all different ways and under all different social systems.

The way our system of public education has developed is as uniquely American as, well, as are the values that constitute our society.

We propose the bold idea that as a public we ought to provide for the education of all of us together, attempting to break down the barriers that would deny someone the opportunities that our America envisions.

And then as a public, we pay for it. We want it, we pay for it. Just as we pay for any other public institution or government service or function we may want as a society. We the People means we decide--we also pay.

So, yes, Frank, cost does play a part in this, but when it's only about the cost, it ceases to be about purpose and values. Even in business with cost-benefit analysis becomes the driving force there is a danger that a worker, for example, becomes merely a cost on the balance sheet instead of a human asset to the company.

With all the Oreos and the million dollar memos floating around, I'm afraid the voucher arguments are beginning to sound rather crass and bottom-line oriented.

The danger in privatizing something that is essentially a social institution is that the profit motive and the winners and losers mentality of that all-important voucher icon, competition, will destroy the human side that is the essence of education.

Frank thinks I'm dismissing cost. That's a chicken or the egg argument. Which came first? the cost or the value? If it's cost, then education becomes a commodity--if it's value, then education is a goal, objective, and something that we work to improve and strengthen, and yes, pay for, together as a society.

It's more about priorities and competing values. And where we put our money certainly reflects our values as a society.

Next, are you kidding Frank? No choice in Utah compared to other states? The reality is the complete opposite. Utah's schools are so porous and ill-defined that boundaries don't seem to mean much for our system here. Actually many east-side schools in SL County wouldn't exist otherwise. Parents can and do choose all the time in this state.

Most states have city-wide school districts instead of our large regional mega-districts. Some states are very strict about controlling access to certain neighborhood schools and programs. In upstate New York they will send investigators to an apartment outside of a district even if you're building a house within the school boundaries.

I guess "real" choice for you means the public should pay for our private choices. I'm sorry, I may sound like a crazy liberal with this, but the conservative republican I am resists that kind of whiny, entitled grab of public money. We pay taxes as part of our responsibility in being a member of a larger society and then we live our own lives.

I don't get a tax refund for disagreeing with a war, I don't get a tax refund if I don't need or use police or fire protection, and I don't seek a water voucher if my choice is to use bottled water instead of the tap (sorry Rocky).

This is not about choice, not about money, not about some mythical monopoly (nope, I'm not a member), and not about savings or even cookies. It is about power and control. It is about the boundaries between competing spheres of power in our society--the private and the public. It's about control of the public treasury. It's about the unequal power in a stratified society used by some to further increase their incentives for fleeing the larger society. It's about controlling who our children might be educated with, and by whom, and about what things.

Finally, (I must say this has been quite a release since I'm busy teaching 198 high school students most of the time), I don't think that directing our debate to the larger concerns of the values that make us who we are as a society makes me a "lofty moralizer". I was hoping that considering the consequences of the money and power-driven decision-making we've been seeing in the legislature lately (nukes anyone?) actually makes us seem wise and deliberate.

Survival of the fittest really only works for the fittest. So what kind of society are we if that is our governing value?

United we stand, divided we fall. Why can't we work harder for and more committed to one of our most important institutions?

I hope that we can continue to revisit our wonderfully American governing values as we move our society into the future. I'm sorry if this polemic sounds over-dramatic when looking at the doomed voucher law, but honestly Frank, if it's not about values first, then what is it about?

Two Oreo Voucher Quotes

"The Oreos don't stay in the classroom; Greg Curtis eats them,"

"The Oreo doesn't stay in the classroom, they go into Greg Curtis's gas tank."

Accountability matters

Cautionary tale: Beware of schools with little oversight
Tribune Editorial

The failure of Liberty Academy, a state-chartered and publicly funded school, has been blamed on the inexperience of its founders and directors, mismanagement and a lack of oversight and accountability.

More...

Propaganda eh, Anonymous: Parents for Choice in Education Lies Again!

EXCLUSIVE KVNU Interview: PCE Worker says cash-for-votes program was the brainchild of PCE, to be funded by PCE

I just got off the phone with Brandon Dupuis, the author of the email. He says the cash for votes program was not his brainchild, but that of PCE. He says PCE contacted him with the program and that the cash for the votes was to be provided by PCE.

Click here to listen!

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.

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

KVNU's Tom and Ryan Recap Last Night's Voucher Debate with Paul Mero and Rob Miller

From tonight's KVNU’s For the People…

A recap of last night’s Voucher debate between Rob Miller and Paul Mero.

Mitt is getting pressure to give ‘the speech’.

A scandalous political trifecta: Utah legislators, lobbyists and swanky Boston restaurants.

All of that, your phone calls and more, tonight on KVNU’s For the People!

Listen here!

Photos stolen from, See, Hear, Speak, No Evil . Check out Bridge's Post, Miller vs Mero voucher debate at USU.

30 Pieces of PCE Silver

Is Parents for Choice in Education buying votes?

The following letter was sent out by The Free Capitalist Project:

Help the School Voucher Campaign!

Parents for Choice in Education is conducting a “Friends and Family” campaign during these last few weeks before the Nov. 6 special election. We need you to help us to get as many people as possible out to vote for Referendum 1!

We are looking for the following information/qualifications of each person who signs up:

• Must provide Name, Address, Phone Number(s), and e-mail address
• Must be a registered voter (deadline for mail-in registration is Oct. 9)
• Must be willing to put up a yard sign (or equivalent)
• Must commit to voting for Referendum 1 on Nov. 6 (or prior via absentee ballot)

If you are motivated and have a desire to help this campaign succeed, as well as earn a little money in the process, you can sign up with Parents for Choice in Education to become an “advocate”. As an advocate, you agree to seek out your friends and family and solicit their commitment for this important cause. In addition, if you provide your field manager with a minimum of 25 names of persons who have committed to voting for Referendum 1, and those persons actually vote, you can earn $10 per person. That’s $250 [30 pieces of silver] for the 25 names, plus an additional $10 for every name after that. (Side note: All yard signs will be provided by Parents for Choice in Education through their Field Managers.)

Brandon Dupuis
Field Manager, Northern Utah
Parents for Choice in Education
E-mail: bkdupuis@gmail.com

Jim Speth
Field Manager, Southern Utah
Parents for Choice in Education
E-mail: lovedagny@passport.com

Study: Private schools don't hold edge

Education
Poor, urban students did about as well in public high schools
By Lisa Schencker
The Salt Lake Tribune
Salt Lake Tribune

Poor, urban students with similar family and economic backgrounds generally don't do any better in private high schools than in public ones, according to a Center on Education Policy study released today.

It's a finding Jack Jennings, president of the center, which is pro-public schools, said has implications for debates about voucher programs nationwide.

Utahns will vote in November whether to implement a program that would give voucher money to students who want to transfer from public to private schools, start kindergarten in private schools or low-income students who are already in private schools.

"We may be arguing about the wrong thing," Jennings said. "We should be looking at whether parents are helping kids do well in school."

According to the study, three main factors influence how well a student will do in high school: how well a student does before high school, the income and resources parents provide and parental involvement in school-related activities.

The study looked at achievement data, such as SAT scores and assessment results, for 1,003 low-income, urban students from 1988 to 2000 to reach its conclusions.

Representatives from different sides of Utah's voucher debate said they agree the argument shouldn't be about public versus private schools.

"The campaign has never been focused on one being better than the other," said Parents for Choice spokeswoman Leah Barker. "Our campaign has always been about offering parents the opportunity to choose a good education for their children."

Kim Campbell, president of the Utah Education Association, which is against vouchers, said the findings of the study are no surprise.

"I think this points out what we've been saying all along," Campbell said. "This isn't about public versus private. It's not about school choice. This is about who pays for the choice and who pays for private school enrollment."

According to the study, the only type of private schools that generally show greater achievement than public ones are Catholic holy order schools, meaning schools run by orders such as the Jesuits, but not by a diocese. Only 34 of the 1,003 students studied attended such a school. Also, students who attend independent, private high schools also tended to have higher SAT scores than those in public schools.

That finding suggests that private schools aren't any better at teaching subjects but might give students better test-taking skills or enroll students with higher IQs, according to the study.
Derek Keenan, vice president for academic affairs at the Association of Christian Schools International, said about 400 largely minority schools in his association do perform better on some national tests than students in public schools. Students at those schools are generally 12 to 14 months ahead of their peers on average nationwide, he said.

"The private school advantage is nimbleness," Keenan said. "We can move on things."
The study also found that students who went to private high schools had no more job satisfaction at age 26 than their peers who went to public high schools.

Study author Harold Wenglinsky said his findings show schools and families should focus on getting parents more involved and creating more activities and programs to support students.

"We're arguing about adult issues," Jennings said. "Let's look at kids and see what helps them do well."

lschencker@sltrib.com

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.

D-News: Utah voucher issue appears doomed

60% in poll say they'll likely vote against it on Nov. 6

Voucher opponents have a strong majority of voters' support, according to a new poll.

Sixty percent of Utah voters say they would likely vote against a voucher program, according to a Dan Jones & Associates poll conducted for the Deseret Morning News and KSL-TV. In comparison, 34 percent said they would vote for vouchers, while 7 percent were undecided.

The poll of 409 Utahns was conducted last week and has a margin of error of 5 percent.

Click here to read more.

Uncle Don on Vouchers, "Same Old Broken Record: If you don't do what Utah GOP leaders want, they will raise your taxes!"

By Don Miller

The pro voucher people have changed their argument for wanting vouchers and the new pitch used at city hall this week was powerful and formidable. They started out arguing that vouchers were needed to provide poor folks with a private school choice. Not getting traction with that pro choice pitch -- not too many care about giving choices to poor people -- they came up with the new pitch which instead focuses on fear of the need for huge state income tax increases if we don't embrace vouchers. The story line is that Utah state income taxes are already among the highest in the land (this not exactly true but its truthiness makes little difference) and will have to be raised dramatically higher along with higher property taxes to pay for the expected influx of 150,000 new students needing schooling in the next 10 years.

At the Chamber of Commerce meeting Rep. Clark used 165,000 new students in the coming decade for a 33 percent increase in Utah students. As the estimated number of new students gets larger, the fear factor associated with estimated tax increases also grows.

Their numbers not surprisingly can't be trusted. Clark claimed in one editorial that New Jersey only has 250,000 students in public schools and thus Utah has a much larger percentage of students in public schools. Data from New Jersey shows the state had in fact 1,390,000 public school students or 5.56 times more than Clark reported. So Utah's student population number is 19 percent of the population compared to New Jersey's 17 percent -- a two percent difference.

So the pro voucher pitch continues, the only way to keep our taxes from getting astronomically high and out of hand is to shift a significant number of the 150,000 (or 165,000) new students to private schools where at most the state will only have to contribute $3,000 per student compared to the $7,500 it now costs to educate each student in public schools. So for a subsidy (cost) of no more than $3,000 per student to get them in private schools, we'll save at least $4,500 in taxes for each private school student. If we get 50,000 to go private, saving $4,500 each, we hold taxes down by $225 million annually. On the other hand, if all 165,000 new students attend public schools at $7,500 per student, that will cost Utah taxpayers nearly $1.238 billion more annually. The total cost for all 665,000 Utah K-12 students would be nearly $5 billion.

As you know the real goal for our GOP leaders is to privatize K-12 education, a huge new profit center. And using the fear of huge income tax increases if we don't begin to use vouchers to hold down taxes is powerful and serves them well. If vouchers are approved, especially on this tax savings basis, it will be easy over time to dismantle the public school system in favor of the state merely giving parents a set amount say $5,000 or even $7,500 per student to attend private schools while holding down state income taxes. Who will care, other than a few liberals and progressives, that the amount the state provides will be insufficient in most cases to pay for good schools? Parents who want their kids to get a good education will have to pay extra out of their own pocket. The bulk of the jobs being created in Utah and elsewhere are low paying and don't require good schools anyhow.

And so it goes -- Don

Just in case you missed it

Milwaukee research
Study: Voucher-supported private schools do not improve public counterparts

Megan Risbon Says: Who exactly is supposed to benefit from vouchers? It's sure not me or my family

State Party Treasurer Megan Risbon has a great post on the Utah State Democratic Party Blog titled,Who exactly is supposed to benefit from vouchers? It's sure not me or my family.

I am a single mother. According to voucher proponents, vouchers are supposed to help families like mine. But after quite a bit of digging, I could’t find anything that shows how vouchers would help.

And I would welcome any of the pro-voucher people to sit down with me and do the numbers.

To read Megan's post in its entirety click here.

SL Trib Opinion: Red Flag on Vouchers

Public Forum Letter
Article Last Updated: 09/29/2007 12:33:03 PM MDT

What perfect irony! Part 4 of the Sutherland Institute's pro-voucher "essay" (which was published as paid advertising on Page A18 of the Sept. 23 Tribune) faced another large ad for "$99 Cars."

I hope that all Tribune readers have taken the time to go through the full text of HB148 that was printed in the Sept. 19 Tribune. There are several red flags that we all need to be concerned with. Prominent are: Parents accepting the tuition "scholarship" automatically are refusing services pursuant to the Federal Individuals With Disabilities Act; the State Board of Education must "cross-check enrollment lists of scholarship students, school districts, and youth in custody to ensure that scholarship payments are not erroneously made," and the board must also "investigate complaints and convene administrative hearings for any alleged violation" concerning the board's right to deny a private school permission to enroll "scholarship" students, or its right to interrupt or withhold disbursement of "scholarship" payments.

The last two flags should be neon red, since they will no doubt require the creation of an entirely new bureaucracy to comply.

But what does one expect when one buys a $99 car?

John R. Peterson

Salt Lake City

Poorly drafted voucher law will only benefit lawyers

Only beneficiaries of the voucher law will be the lawyers
John J. Flynn
Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated:09/29/2007 12:33:02 PM MDT

The proposed voucher law promises to generate further divisiveness by obligating all taxpayers whether "nons" or non-"nons" to subsidize religious and other private education they do not abide by and have no control over.

If for no other reason, voters should reject the poorly drafted voucher law to avoid further aggravation of religious divisiveness in the community and substantial violations of the Utah Constitution.

The only beneficiaries of the voucher law will be the lawyers litigating the obvious state and federal constitutional issues raised by a proposal that appears to have no rational purpose justifying such a radical departure from the use of public tax funds to support public education.

Click here for more on Utah's poorly drafted and unconstitutional voucher law.

* JOHN J. FLYNN is professor emeritus at the S.J. Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, where he taught law for 42 years.

Vote Against Referendum 1, Strong Public Schools Ought To Be Our Goal