Davis County Clipper rejects Utah's Referendum 1 and Parents for Choice in Education's Tactics

In our view
Time, place isn't right for vouchers

Forget almost everything you see on TV commercials about vouchers.

The comparison to Oreos is just propaganda by the pro-voucher folks. .

And the "too many loopholes" rebuttal by the anti-voucher crowd is propaganda as well.

Neither are fully accurate. And neither give us a solid reasons for voting either for or against. Let's start with the Oreos.

Each Oreo represents $1,000 of the $7,000 spent per pupil in the public schools each year. When a student moves from a public to a private school, three Oreos, or $3,000, moves with the student, leaving an additional $4,000 in the school system without having to teach the student.

It looks like the schools will have more money left over to help the rest of the kids. But for each student who leaves to go to private school, the public schools now have $3,000 less to spend. There are no real savings for that student not being in school.

The cost of utilities, custodial services, overhead and even teacher salaries won't change much. The only real savings would be for textbooks and incidental materials.

So, vouchers could send schools into a downward funding spiral,

But even that's not fully accurate. The Oreo theory does hold true if one considers that the population growth will cause one or more students to fill the vacancy left by each student who moves out to private school. That way, Oreos replaced by the new incoming student, plus the four Oreos left behind by the private school student.

But this supposes that growth trends will continue forever and for all school districts. For any district where growth slows, financial woes won't be far behind.

likewise commercials for voucher opponents aren't convincing either. Their charge that the voucher law has "flaws, loopholes and unanswered questions" is probably true, but meaningless. The same can be said for any law passed since the U.S. Congress and the Utah Legislature began, and even for the U.S. Constitution itself. This tactic is just propaganda and virtually meaningless.

What voters should really consider are the following:

• The tactics used by the pro-voucher forces have been suspect, if not down-right ugly, from the start.
• Out-of-state money was used to fund the campaigns of candidates for the legislature without candidates making their stance clear to the voters. Even when we asked some directly, they would not admit it. We take campaigns with hidden agendas very seriously.
• Some of the pro-voucher candidates seemed to lack any real substance other than favoring vouchers.
• Even with all the high pressure tactics to get pro-voucher people into office, it took severe arm twisting to get vouchers to squeak by in the legislature.
• Then pro-voucher forces sought to block Novembers vote by insisting that an "amendment" to the voucher bill could stand on it's own even if people voted down the original voucher law.
• When it became evident that a vote couldn't be stopped, pro-voucher forces then tried to count the results on a district-by-district basis. This "electoral college" approach meant vouchers could conceivably pass even if voted down by the majority.
• Sanity was saved by the Utah Supreme Court when it ended the mess by ordering a binding, up-and-down vote for Nov. 6, with no funny vote counting.
• Aside from the highhanded efforts to subvert the public, a real problem with vouchers is that they are simply the old story of the camel getting its nose in the tent. While vouchers proposals are modest, there is a real risk that demands will soon grow to eat up all the Oreos.
• A push to raise the voucher amounts is likely because the present voucher plan doesn't offer enough for poor families to benefit, and it provides only incidental relief for the rest. We suspect the low amounts were planned to ease opposition, but with intent to raise them later.
• The whole Oreos thing also seems like an obvious bribe: "Let our children go, and we'll leave money behind,"They've always been free to go and leave all the money behind.
• Vouchers also seem to be aimed at fixing what isn't broken. With Utah schools doing generally well, vouchers seem a better idea for inner city schools elsewhere.

Somethings not right with this issue, And with the type of questionable behavior some pro-vouchers folks have already shown, it's highly unlikely they'll change their stripes if vouchers pass.

While we don't want to shut the door forever, all this baggage surrounding this issue leads us to conclude it's time to hold off: Someday maybe -- not here, not now.

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

Two New Voucher Cookie Ads

The TRUE Utah Voucher Cookie Ad

Vote NO on Referendum 1

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?

Homer

There is quite a debate going on over at Emily's Post, $429 million over the next thirteen years? 43 comments so far.

Homer left the following comment:

Well, yeah, we can go on and on about how it isn't about the money but then that's the first thing voucherites throw out. They start talking about savings, and the pretensious oreos start flying around and the money juices start revving up the debate.

It is not about the money. Schools are not a business, and children are not units of production. It isn't about cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit anaysis because we're talking about people, not commodities.

it isn't about choice, either. Parents can and do make choices for their children all the time and no law prevents that.
The debate about whether the public has to pay for someone's personal choice is another matter.

This debate involves a huge shift in the boundaries between the public and private spheres in our society. As Mero did say, Public education is a civic value.

If we value the objectives, place, and role of public education as a social institution then we pay for it. If we don't then, we don't pay for it.

Floating oreos, I mean tax money, into the private sphere is problematic, opening holes in the political boundaries that "we the People" use to maintain individual rights in the face of government power and vice versa.

This move to privatize (because private is better, i.e. Enron, Blackwater, etc.) has been in the news lately as the Bush ideas come to roost. Maybe we can fight a war cheaper and more efficiently without messy checks and balances and other inefficiencies and respecting basic rights, laws, and social decency, but is that the kind of society we want to become.

Because our values will define us a society. Do we want a society where the unfortunate get a welfare school as mero puts it or where the rich get every incentive to leave the larger commmunity, or do create a great system for all, together.

Agree or disagree, but vouchers are more than just a little >4% experiement--they are the beginning of a change. Whether it's a good or bad change in the now--we need to think ahead about what kind of society we would become.Well, yeah, we can go on and on about how it isn't about the money but then that's the first thing voucherites throw out. They start talking about savings, and the pretensious oreos start flying around and the money juices start revving up the debate.

It is not about the money. Schools are not a business, and children are not units of production. It isn't about cost-effectiveness or cost-benefit anaysis because we're talking about people, not commodities.

it isn't about choice, either. Parents can and do make choices for their children all the time and no law prevents that.
The debate about whether the public has to pay for someone's personal choice is another matter.

This debate involves a huge shift in the boundaries between the public and private spheres in our society. As Mero did say, Public education is a civic value.

If we value the objectives, place, and role of public education as a social institution then we pay for it. If we don't then, we don't pay for it.

Floating oreos, I mean tax money, into the private sphere is problematic, opening holes in the political boundaries that "we the People" use to maintain individual rights in the face of government power and vice versa.

This move to privatize (because private is better, i.e. Enron, Blackwater, etc.) has been in the news lately as the Bush ideas come to roost. Maybe we can fight a war cheaper and more efficiently without messy checks and balances and other inefficiencies and respecting basic rights, laws, and social decency, but is that the kind of society we want to become.

Because our values will define us a society. Do we want a society where the unfortunate get a welfare school as mero puts it or where the rich get every incentive to leave the larger commmunity, or do create a great system for all, together.

Agree or disagree, but vouchers are more than just a little >4% experiement--they are the beginning of a change. Whether it's a good or bad change in the now--we need to think ahead about what kind of society we would become.

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...

Does Parents for Choice in Education have any honor?

GenRolly Speaking:
Political insights by columnist Paul Rolly.

By Their Fruits We Shall Know Them?

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!

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

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

Vouchers are a false choice for most Utah families

For too many Utah families vouchers don't offer a real choice. More than half of Utah's counties have NO private schools at all. The average private school tuition is almost $8,000 a year. The average statewide voucher is estimated to be only about $2,000. That means that for a family with four children, the additional $24,000 in tuition puts private school completely out of reach.

From Utahns for Public Schools.

Hat Tip: David

Vote Against Referendum 1, it's full of loopholes