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.

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?

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

Give Glen His Voucher!

By One Utah's Glenden Brown

I have a cousin who has 8 children, all 8 of whom attended public school. By contrast, I don’t have 8 children.

None of the 8 children I don’t have attended public school. According to Parent’s for Choice in education, every year one of the 8 children I don’t have wasn’t in public school, I saved the school system $5500. By my math, that means I’ve saved State of Utah $572,000. In light of that almost $600,000 in savings, I think I should qualify for $3000 per child voucher to cover the expense of not sending the 8 kids I don’t have to public school. The 8 kids I don’t have have collectively not attended 104 years of public school. A $3000 per child voucher per year comes up to $312,000. To whom should I submit my invoice for my vouchers? Please send my “vouchers” in the form of unmarked, $1o0 bills.

Come to think of it, I have a neighbor with 12 kids all of whom attended public school. I don’t have 12 children either. So maybe, I didn’t send 12 children to the public schools, and should receive vouchers to cover the cost of not sending 12 kids to the public schools. Heck, I could use $468,000 of tax payers money to cover the expense of not sending 12 kids to public school.

You know, actually, my parents know a family with 14 children and I don’t have 14 children . . .

Hat tip: BoB AaGarD

Vote Against Referendum 1, it's full of loopholes

Utah's Voucher Law is Fundamentally Flawed

The flawed voucher law contains too many loopholes, unanswered questions, and little accountability for private voucher academy's.

Private schools are not required to be accredited like public schools.

Unaccountable private voucher schools may hire teachers without a college degree or a state license.

Private voucher schools don't have to meet the same coursework or attendance standards that public schools must meet.

Accountibility

Accountability

A clear-eyed examination of a ballot referendum asking Utahns whether they will approve or disapprove implementation of the first statewide voucher system in America.

Upcoming Voucher Debate

If you are able, please show your support for Utah kids and public education by coming to a debate at the University of Utah next week. Here are the details:

Hinckley Forum Referendum 1 Debate featuring Doug Holmes and Rep.Carol Spackman-Moss .

• Time: Thursday, Sept 6th, 2:15 pm
• Place: The Hinckley Caucus Room, Orson Spencer Hall Rm 253, University of Utah

Vouchers have not helped students learn

Eric Jacobson has done his reserch. What is his conclusion?

Conclusion: Voucher programs have demonstrated almost no academic benefits in other places. Will Utah be different?

Read the Standard Examiner's: Vouchers have not helped students learn

Hat tip: Education in Utah

Special Voucher Report for Ethan and other Utah Voucher Advocates

The Voucher Veneer
The Deeper Agenda to Privatize Public Education
By Ralph G. Neas

"A network of Religious Right groups, free-market economists, ultraconservative columnists and others are using vouchers as a vehicle to achieve their ultimate goal of privatizing education. Their embrace of vouchers reflects their view that to be successful, privatization must be achieved incrementally. The long-term goal is to make all schooling an activity supplied by private sources: for-profit management companies, religious organizations and home schools."

School Vouchers Make Sense?

Desperate school voucher supporters try to link voucher opposition to gay marriage

Parents for Choice in Education already running dirty tricks in voucher campaign

'Dirty' tricks begin in school voucher battle

Pro-Voucher Forces Get Pathetic

When Parents for Choice in Education calls...

Maybe it should be School Vouchers Make Scents!

Speaker Curtis, listen up!

Curtis refuses to listen to the people
By Wayne Holland

In his column (June 5), Doug Robinson refers to House Speaker Greg Curtis as "Mr. Twenty" in reference to the speaker's narrow 20 vote victory last November. Most of the remainder of his column is dedicated to why "Mr. Twenty" is so willing to buck the will of his constituents on issues like vouchers and the Real Salt Lake stadium deal in spite of his obvious growing unpopularity.

Robinson concludes Curtis' willingness to stick his neck out on issues unpopular with the voters, particularly vouchers, is an indication he is attempting "to make someone happy." Otherwise, his actions "make no sense." I respectfully disagree. Curtis' actions make perfect sense when you take into account the arrogance that comes with a long stretch of single-party dominance. This dominance itself, perpetuated through the nation's most egregious example of gerrymandering, institutionalizes arrogance and unaccountability.

Since the voucher referendum received sufficient signatures to be placed before the voters, we have seen more arrogance on display than at any time in recent memory. Within days of telling the State Board of Education they must implement a voucher program "immediately" on the grounds "All legislation is presumed valid until it is stayed or overturned by a court. ...," Attorney General Mark Shurtleff announced he had sent Utah's gasoline retailers "a letter well over two years ago that I wasn't going to enforce (The Motor Fuel Marketing Act)." Apparently our attorney general is of the opinion he gets to decide for himself which laws need to be reviewed by the courts and which ones he just gets to ignore.

Utah Democrats have joined with some Republican legislators to support letting the people have their say on vouchers. In a letter sent to the governor's office on June 6, House Minority Leader Ralph Becker and Senate Minority Leader Mike Dmitrich endorsed a plan offered by two House Republicans to repeal HB174 until the voters have spoken. "In the event that the referendum fails, the Legislature can then re-enact HB174."

This is a fair solution that forces both sides of the controversial voucher question to defer to the voters. Unfortunately, arrogance and ideology continue to trump people power in Utah's Legislature. What the people decide is beside the point for Speaker Curtis, Sen. Bramble and others more committed to vouchers than the citizens of Utah they are sworn to serve.

In signing the referendum petition, Utah voters said "yes" to the democratic process and should demand their leaders do the same. This November Utahns will have the opportunity to say "yes" to public education, and we deserve legislators who are willing to hear us when we do.
Utah's Democratic legislators are willing to set aside their views on the voucher question and allow the people to be heard. Speaker Curtis, Sen. Bramble and others have made it abundantly clear they intend to ignore the will of the people regardless of the outcome of the vote on the voucher question. Utah's Constitution recognizes the people as a co-equal branch of state government. We deserve legislators who are not too arrogant to defer to the people when they exercise their rights through the referendum and initiative process. "Mr. Twenty" would do well to remember that come November 2008 voters will remember his refusal to listen to them.