Wimmer won't run voucher bill

SLTrib: Wimmer won’t run sponsor-a-student bill

Who got to him?  Madame Speaker? 

They're BAAAACK...

Is Representative Carl Wimmer's latest bill private education funding and tax credit bill actually a voucher bill in disguise? He says no...

But I think this is one of those slippery slope things that changes the game for Utah's schools. I especially hate the Representative's justification for this bill... he says it is needed so that we can help failing students and failing schools. First, show me which "failing" schools this will help... and second, why doesn't the legislature actually do something that is helpful for teachers and school children... more money into the classroom, perhaps?

Tonight, Representative Wimmer asked the Utah Amicus if we support "allowing kids to fail," and said it is "morally reprehensible to oppose legislation that helps children." To answer your question, Representative: The answer is no. We absolutely do not support allowing kids to fail, and your "spin" to characterize us as people who don't care about Utah's school children is low, indeed. The truth is, we believe that anything short of helping teachers to help kids succeed in the classroom is what really fails them.

The bottom line is that we don't like the sounds of your bill. We don't like slippery slope policies that will take money out of the pockets of kids. Period. At the Amicus, we believe that Utah needs a world class education system, not a second rate afterthought. We also believe that it is not government's job to elevate private enterprise. From the looks of it, we don't get the impression that this will help kids as much as it helps private schools with public money. You can call it a tax credit all you want, but we both know where this is going.

Here we go again..., VOUCHERS!

ABC 4 EXCLUSIVE: New Utah school voucher bill being drafted

SALT LAKE CITY ( ABC 4 News) - ABC 4 News has learned Utah is headed for another potentially bruising debate over school vouchers.

A key republican state legislator is now drafting a new bill which would create a voucher program for some Utah students.

In early 2007, the Utah legislature approved a school voucher program.

But later that same year, voters rejected it.

Now, however, the school voucher debate is back.

Under the the new voucher idea, students from failing Utah schools could be given scholarships.

These scholarships could then be used at private schools.

Rep. Carl Wimmer, the bill’s sponsor says,

“There are students who are simply falling through the cracks. Probably more than we actually care to mention."

Wimmer also says he has an interesting way to pay for this.

He wants the legislature to let individuals or businesses donate money to pay for the vouchers or scholarships.

In return, the donors would get tax credits.

Wimmer told ABC 4,

"A non-refundable tax credit is the least the state can do to help that individual donate that money."

But then Wimmer said something unexpected.

Given how high profile this voucher bill may be (and how controversial), ABC 4 wanted to know what the incoming speaker, Becky Lockhart, thought about it.

ABC 4: “Does the Speaker know what you are up to?”

Wimmer: “Not yet. She will tonight after she sees the news."

Wimmer says it may take two bills and two legislative sessions to get his scholarship plan passed.

The Utah legislature begins its 2011 session in one month.

From Lisa Johnson's Blog: Think the voucher fight is over? Think again!

If you’re like most people, you probably assume that elections for the state school board are run pretty much like other elections, minus the partisan element. Most Utahns aren’t aware of the complicated process by which state school board candidates are selected—and how easily that process can be manipulated by anti-public education activists. The events of this week are a strong reminder of the reasons that the citizens who oppose vouchers—62% of Utah voters—cannot let their guard down.

MORE...

What might be the vehicle Republican legislators use to re-legalize vouchers in 2009?

The OMNIBUS

To Steve Olsen: You've Hit The Nail On the Head

Once again, the fabulous Steve Olsen has encapsulated my thoughts perfectly (see his excellent post, here.)

I only have a few things to add, and then I'm putting my fight against vouchers to rest for awhile...

I have been following a post over at Coolest Family Ever, where Jesse is talking about why the pro-voucher camp (to which he belongs) may benefit by looking at why they lost. It's a thoughtful and honest post, and I have to say that I agree with his assessements.

See here: http://www.coolestfamilyever.com/2007/11/06/to-fellow-voucher-supporters/

One comment that has been with me throughout the day comes from "That One Guy" who says that "while the public education system may be broken, voting for the first shabbily-conceived solution isn’t the answer."

Several days back I had a conversation with a home school parent who was pro-voucher and pro referendum 1 because 1. he believed he would be getting some tax dollars back if it passed and 2. when i explained to him that he had to have his kids enrolled in some private school with 41 or more students in order to qualify for a voucher, he was surprised that he had been mislead. But he also said "well, its just that this bill finally gives parents a choice." He sincerely believes that public schools are not the answer for his children. He is a good friend of mine and I have always respected his choice to educate his children at home. I also believe that he sincerely feels that he has no other "choice" than to do so.

Over the next several months I am going to work very hard at understanding what this means -- to give parents a choice in how their kids are educated. To me, the choice has always existed, and I don't understand what a new law does that suddenly empowers parents to make choices for their children. I asked my friend if the voucher law somehow justified his position to educate his children at home, or if there were public school officials at his door every day with a gun to his head, forcing his kids back to school and therefore eliminating his choice. Of course he laughed out loud with me at the very picture of such a thing.

This light hearted conversation with my friend has reaffirmed my commitment to bridge the political divide that exists in our state. One blessing of the whole voucher fight was that I saw people from all walks of life and political persuasions joining together to fight the thing because they just felt it was not the right answer. Some voucher fighters believe in the free market, but believe that a free market shouldn't be subsidized with tax dollars. Other voucher fighters, like me, want to make public schools in utah the best in the nation, if not the world. And still others are the true conservatives who don't want government meddling in private enterprise (the thought of private schools having to be accountable to the government made them turn green).

As citizens of Utah and more importantly as human beings, we know that education of our children is the most important thing we can do for our country. I believe more than ever that crusaders on both sides of this debate have one common goal: to provide the best possible education for our children. I hope the voucher debate has brought us together, instead of pull us apart.

I would like to echo a comment by Rob on "Coolest Family Ever" where he says "there is too much work to do." He's absolutely right. If we want stellar education- whether it be public or private - well, then it's time to get down to business and make it happen. No more us vs. them. No more political discussion. Let's just get to work and find real answers to make our education dreams for our children come true. I am not going to give up on that.

Emily

$429 million over the next thirteen years?

Ok. Anybody who is against higher taxes ought to really seriously consider how they vote on the voucher issue on November 6.

The voucher program, if passed, is expected to cost Utah Taxpayers $429 million over the next thirteen years. And yes, pro-voucher people, you are correct when you say that this money is not coming from the Education fund... it is coming from the General fund.. the very fund which pays for things like my husband's salary and our family's health insurance and other important things like road maintenance and prisons. It makes my hair stand on end when I see Utah Lawmakers willing to pour $429 million dollars into a secondary education system when many of Utah's state employees and teachers are making lower wages than their counterparts in other states. But I digress.

Utah has been forunate to be in a "time of plenty" the past few years, with unforseen budget surplusses that have given our lawmakers opportunities to really do the right thing for a lot of Utah public services. Utah's economy has been *booming* and our population is growing, which has contributed to Utah's coffers being brimming with bucks. We can only hope this trend continues for many years to come.

But what if it doesn't? What happens if the recent downturn in the real estate market and the mortgage lending industry starts to affect our economy here in Utah? What happens if in places like Iron County, wages don't keep up with national trends and people decide to leave Utah instead of come here?

Heaven forbid such a thing... but what if does? What happens to all of the families in Utah who use a voucher to pay for their kids private schools? If indeed this government program is supposed to help them, it wouldn't be in the best interest of the state of Utah to discontinue a voucher program, no matter how tight things get. In such a scenario, the only answers would be to raise taxes or watch our lawmakers make major cuts to other vital programs in our state so that the voucher program could be sustained.

And to those who think they are getting some "Credit" in their taxes by sending their kids to a private school with the use of a voucher also need to take a look at what it really means -- they won't see any decrease in their income taxes or their property taxes, which all goes to support public education. So your income taxes will remain the same, your property taxes will continue to rise, and you will be forced to pay for vouchers through the other taxes that you pay just because you live in the state. And those of us in rural Utah will continue paying for other people's kids to go to private schools and we'll never have the benefit of doing the same.

So think very carefully. Do the taxpayers really want to sustain a two-tiered education program? Are we willing to do the hard thing if times get tough?

I think Utah ought to do the conservative thing and be leary of paying for a government-sponsored, tax-payer funded private education system that may not be able to sustain itself through the long haul.

SLTrib: Sutherland Institute's historical argument full of holes

By Thomas G. Alexander

If I were an officer in the Sutherland Institute, I would raise questions over the historical research in "Vouchers, Vows, and Vexations: The Historic Dilemma Over Utah's Education Identity," (Paul Mero, Sutherland Institute, 2007) that purports to relate the history of Utah's public and private schools in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

Had the author bothered to read some of the secondary literature on the topic, he would have come to a much different conclusion.

Click here for the holes.

* THOMAS G. ALEXANDER is the Lemuel Hardison Redd Jr. Professor of Western American History at Brigham Young University, emeritus, where he taught for 40 years. He is the author of numerous books and articles on Utah, Western, Mormon and environmental history.

How do you really feel, anonymous???

"Politizing the state school board is one of the best things that the legislature can do for the state Utah.

By having candidates accountable to political parties and to voters, we can be assured of a school board that is accountable and law abiding, i.e. Listening to the attorney general.

Rather than having these hipping thinking, granola eating, al gore eco nut sun worshipers – who support educrats and unions sitting on the state school board – we can have a proactive citizens who obey the law, and respect the wishes of the voters of this state and the political parties that they represent and support parents – not those ingrained in the educational bureaucracy."

- Posted by anonymous on the Utah Amicus

nuf said.

Voucher Vote is a question for General Election--not for Presidential Primary Election

At every turn the Utah Republican Legislature, Governor Huntsman, and Lt. Governor Gary Herbert have tried to squeeze the system to ram an unpopular and class segregationist program on the people of Utah. First, it was Speaker Curtis' arm-twisting in the legislature and the Governor's complicity with Parent's for Choice--the Amway and Walmart heirs. Then it was the gaffe from Gary Herbert's office when they tried to intervene in the voucher referendum procedure with hyper-technical and legally wrong scrutiny of the notary stamp color on the original Petition for Referendum. Now, rumors are circling that they want to skip the municipal elections and have the up or down voucher vote during the February, 2008 Presidential Primary. Why? Because they want every political advantage in circumventing the political process. Instead of having the vote during a general election during the municipal elections in fall of 2007 or during the general election of 2008, they want to hold the final question on vouchers at the same time as a national primary.

The Presidential Primary is geared toward national issues and partisan questions. It is not an election designed for final general and local questions, but national partisan questions. It is time for Governor Huntsman to stand up and let every voter--Republican, Democrat and Independent to resolve the local general question of vouchers during a general election--not during an election deciding a national partisan question.

From Natalie's Blog

My Rant
From Education in Utah

"It is infuriating that the Lt. Governor and certain senators are so quick to dismiss the voucher referendum (I must admit, I knew there was a problem with Mr. Herbert during the nomination process. As a state delegate, I attended a meet & eat with him, and heard him laughingly agree with a delegate that said, "The biggest mistake this state ever made was in providing free public education." Nice.)"

Check out Natalie's labels.

It's Not About Money

I read a fantastic blog today by T.A. Barnhart of Blue Oregon. His premise? Education is the goal; Money is just a means to that goal. And when we allow ourselves to sink to the level of making Education only about the money and the educational budget, we have lost the argument. He writes:

As progressives, the moment we let any debate become about money, we have lost. We may win the argument over the money, but we've given up the real issue. Our country was founded upon three solid goals: "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The Revolution was not fought nor the Constitution crafted to found a capitalist empire where every value was reduced to market prices. One of the greatest sources of strife in the early days of our nation was on just that issue: How important would the making of money be in regard to all other national values? Whose vision would dominate: Hamilton's or Jefferson's? But even Hamilton would be shocked, I think, by the role of money in our society. There is little worth doing that does not have a price tag attached. For many things, this is fine: a day's work, household items, luxuries, the food we eat, rewards for doing something other people enjoy. Money is a convenient way for us to share our resources with each other. It is, however, an odious means by which to value people or judge our schools.

In my opinion, he has said it perfectly and sums up my frustration over the whole "education funding" argument that I have found myself in for the last year. As we enter a new era where Utah has just passed private school voucher legislation, I think his arguments hold some merit, especially for those of us on the progressive side of the aisle who don't agree that vouchers are the panacea that everyone thinks they will be. But it has passed and it's our own darn fault. Why? Because, for too long we have heard the argument that public education is broken beyond repair, that we have failing educational standards, that too many students don't succeed because we hold them back.

As I watch my own children in school, I wonder if the system is really broken, or if we just quit caring about it? While campaigning for the Utah Senate, I heard people say on many ocassions that "you can't just throw money at education to fix the problem." And that frustrated me beyond belief because that was never what I was advocating. But as I go back and read my blogs, go over my emails and my speeches - maybe that's what it sounded like I was advocating.

I talked about "funding" and "per pupil spending" so much that I began to sound like a broken record. But my biggest downfall, I think, was that I didn't talk about what my vision was for a quality education. And believe me, I have thousands of ideas - I have children in the public school system and there are lots of things that I believe we could change for the better. But instead, I made the mistake of focusing on the "financing" instead of the "fundamentals."

What is stopping us from going after every single thing that we think will benefit our children? I think there is some perceived notion of a "big brother" who says we cannot "do" whatever it is we think needs to be "done" and so therefore we just sit and whine about the problems with public education.

So, I don't think the problem lies so much within the system but within our attitude. We keep saying that the problem is about money. Don't get me wrong - our teachers are grossly underpaid in Utah (even with the recent salary increase granted by the legislature) and our per pupil spending isn't near where it should be. That all deserves discussion. But if some parents are willing to spend upwards of $8000 a year per student for the private education of their children, then the issue is not about money. The issue is that we have failed to talk about quality education. Advocates of school choice are not upset about paying for public education - they are upset because they *perceive* that they are paying for something that they feel isn't working or effective. As Barnhart states, "I think we must make our discussions about education be about education, not the funding of education. We'll decide what a quality education is, what each child needs, what the future is demanding that kids learn -- and then we'll write a damn check to pay for it. " Why is this so hard for us to figure out? I truly believe that if we changed our focus away from the money, we would get the education system that we all want. Because it's not about money. It's about the best education we can provide for our children.

Finally, I think Bernart's final premise sums it up: He says:

"If we care about education, we'll set aside the money issues. We'll focus instead on what really matters: the kids, the teachers, the curriculum, the outcomes. We'll focus on education, not a stinking budget. Jesus said, in one of his many treatises on democratic theory, "For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also." What do we treasure, and what does that say about our hearts -- our humanity? Do we treasure the education we give our children, or do we value what it takes from our wallets?"

School Choice Inconsistencies

By Emily Hollingshead

I don’t understand some of these senators and representatives up on Capitol Hill. Last week we heard a stirring debate regarding school choice… proponents said that giving parents more choices to educate their children is a good thing. While I may disagree with the idea that “choice” will be available to all Utah families, I agree that giving parents more choices in educating their children can be positive, especially when those choices can be made available to them in a public school.

I was puzzled this morning when the funding for all day kindergarten was debated in the Senate Education committee. Opponents of all day kindergarten had several arguments against it… Senator Dayton said that it would give parents with special needs children “false hope” and that maybe “school” isn’t the best place for tiny children to be.

I’m scratching my head because, I don’t understand this argument, especially since Senator Dayton is an outspoken advocate of parental choice. Isn’t the whole idea to give parents more OPTIONS to educate their child? If a kid would benefit from all day kindergarten, shouldn’t a parent be given a choice to do that for their child? If a parent feels that all day kindergarten would help a little person with learning disabilities, wouldn’t it seem right that a parent have a choice to opt for it?

When my youngest son Sam started kindergarten, Iron County School District was offering all day kindergarten as pilot program. A very dedicated kindergarten teacher called and asked me if we would be interested in sending Sam to all day kindergarten, because she felt that he was a bright kid who would benefit from the extra stimulation and learning. Now, Sam is not someone who could be classified as a special needs child, nor does he have any learning disabilities. But Sam’s education experience from that point has been remarkable. He is an excellent student who does well in all subjects, who loves to read, who has a high retention level for the things he is learning, and he is a child who absolutely loves going to school. Would he have been any different without all day kindergarten? I don’t know, I have no way to judge that. If I were to ever have more children, I would hope that all day kindergarten would be an available choice, because I found it to be a very positive and worthwhile experience for Sam.

Senators Dayton, Bell and Stephenson voted NO on all day kindergarten funding. The bill passed out of committee, but it makes me wonder what will happen when this one hits the floor of the Senate chambers? Will the same advocates of parental choice in education jump to the support of this bill which allows for parental choice in kindergarten?

Thank you Senator Hillyard for bringing this bill to the table, and thank you Senator Jones, Senator Romero and Senator Peterson for voting in favor of it.