Here's the Voucher Bill
A draft of the voucher bill is available at Politicopia. I wanted the public to have a look at it before I lock it in.
A commentor to a previous post asked some good questions regarding the bill. Here they are:
Would the Private Schools that accept these vouchers be required to have state-certified and highly qualified teachers? No. Teacher qualifications are outlined in lines 155 - 161. The element of control in this area is parents. They can look at the credentials and determine whether to send their kids there.
Would these Private Schools have to accept all who apply and do a "lottery enrollment" like Charter Schools? No. The eligibility criteria for private schools to receive vouchers start on line 133. The requirement on student admission criteria is that the schools can't discrimate.
Would these Private Schools have to adhere to NCLB and meet AYP yearly? No.
Would these Private Schools have to use the same tests that District and Charter Schools have to use, i.e. Iowa Basic, U-PASS, CRT, etc.? Lines 145 -154 address testing. (a norm-referenced test).
What happens when a student returns to the District School mid-year? Does the unused voucher money come back with them? How about the money that the District has received for that student? Lines 271 - 275 specify that money is paid quarterly, to better address transfers back and forth.
What about Charter Schools that lose students to vouchers, will they receive money like the District Schools? No. Charter schools philosophically don't have problems with giving parents choice.
What about transportation, will the Private Schools have to provide transportation for the poor students who's parents are unable to take time to run their children across town to the Private Schools? No. There are private school costs that are not covered by this bill, such as transportation, school construction, and in some cases amounts of tuition greater than the voucher amount. Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. These costs will be picked up by the private sector, including scholarship granting organizations. This public/private partnership means more money to education, along with the taxpayer money that already flows to educating our children.
A commentor to a previous post asked some good questions regarding the bill. Here they are:
Would the Private Schools that accept these vouchers be required to have state-certified and highly qualified teachers? No. Teacher qualifications are outlined in lines 155 - 161. The element of control in this area is parents. They can look at the credentials and determine whether to send their kids there.
Would these Private Schools have to accept all who apply and do a "lottery enrollment" like Charter Schools? No. The eligibility criteria for private schools to receive vouchers start on line 133. The requirement on student admission criteria is that the schools can't discrimate.
Would these Private Schools have to adhere to NCLB and meet AYP yearly? No.
Would these Private Schools have to use the same tests that District and Charter Schools have to use, i.e. Iowa Basic, U-PASS, CRT, etc.? Lines 145 -154 address testing. (a norm-referenced test).
What happens when a student returns to the District School mid-year? Does the unused voucher money come back with them? How about the money that the District has received for that student? Lines 271 - 275 specify that money is paid quarterly, to better address transfers back and forth.
What about Charter Schools that lose students to vouchers, will they receive money like the District Schools? No. Charter schools philosophically don't have problems with giving parents choice.
What about transportation, will the Private Schools have to provide transportation for the poor students who's parents are unable to take time to run their children across town to the Private Schools? No. There are private school costs that are not covered by this bill, such as transportation, school construction, and in some cases amounts of tuition greater than the voucher amount. Whether this is good or bad depends on your perspective. These costs will be picked up by the private sector, including scholarship granting organizations. This public/private partnership means more money to education, along with the taxpayer money that already flows to educating our children.
posted by steve u. at 1/23/2007
Subscribe
52 Comments:
What will the fiscal note be on your bill? As rules Chair will you allow it to to committee?
The fiscal note won't be prepared until the language is locked in. I'm pretty sure it will get out of Rules.
So, basically what you are telling us is that there will now be TWO types of PUBLIC schools. One type of PUBLIC school will receive taxpayer money and will be regulated up the wazoo with teacher qualifications, transportation requirements, testing through the nose, and no ability to turn even the most difficult students away. The other type of PUBLIC school will receive taxpayer money but have virtually no regulation placed upon it. This dichotomy makes me wonder what it is you are actually trying to accomplish.
I am the one who asked the questions, thank you for answering.
My concern is that Private Schools are able to pick and choose their students, and they have that right as a Private School. But, when they start accepting State money to help educated some students, they should be required to take all students. There should not be discrimination because one child does not have the same GPA as another. By not taking all students, the Private Schools are not able to be accurately compared with the District Schools.
If the Private Schools are not required to have certified and highly qualified teachers, what criteria are they using for their teachers? Not everyone who has a math-based degree can teach algebra or calculus effectively. It seems that leaving it up to the Private Schools to set their criteria will make a wide variation in the quality and quantity of teaching knowledge.
By not requiring the same norm-referenced tests, the Private Schools and the District Schools cannot be accurately compared.
You keep saying that this will open Private Schools to the "poorest students of the State", but unless this voucher covers all tuition, books, transportation, uniforms, lunch, and waves the mandatory volunteer hours, there are many parents who still would not be able to afford a Private School. And if you are going to cover all those costs for the Private Schools, you better cover them for the District Schools, too.
I am also tired of hearing that vouchers will give parents "school choice". "School choice" exists in this State. At this time any parent can send their child to any District School in the State, any Charter School, any Private School, or they can Home School. That is a lot of "school choice". Many Private Schools already offer scholorships for those in need, so why is it the responsibility of the State to fund part of the tuition for Private Schools?
Tim,
You obviously don’t like vouchers. Beyond that, you seem to be arguing that public schools are too burdened w/ bureaucratic silliness. I agree with that sentiment. Most of the bureaucratic loads come from two impulses – the public wanting increased accountability and the union wanting protectionist barriers. If you’ve been following school choice issues nationally, you might have seen how choice mitigates those impulses and tends to “free” public education from the burdens you seem to dislike.
I actually am somewhat ambivalent on the issue of vouchers. I see the issue as primarily a distraction from the critical problems that schools face. The vast majority of people in Utah want their public schools improved and, in my mind, that is where the focus should be. If and when the voucher bill passes, it may actually be a blessing. With that distraction taken off the table (and the few people out of public education that want out) we can all turn our attention to the real problems facing our schools.
Inexplicably, you readily admit the over burdensome regulatory nightmare our teachers and administrators face each and every day and yet, your bill does nothing to change that. See what I mean by a distraction.
For those of us who are concerned with the problem of rewarding illegal immigration, how do we reconcile our support of HB 224, which would repeal in-state tuition for undocumented college students, with supporting this voucher bill which would give a tax funded private school voucher to our neediest K-12 students who might be undocumented students?
Tim,
The reason I started this blog and Politicopia is exactly for exchanges like this.
You and I agree; vouchers will not be the panacea for public education. Yes, there are more pressing issues. However, you are a bit off the mark alleging that I've been sitting on my hands when it comes to trying to improve public education in other ways.
First, financially. You won't find a single person to say that I have ever done anything other than fight (successfully) for MORE money for public education.
Second, reform. One of the main reasons I am running the voucher legislation is so that we can better get at some of the bureaucracy issues. As I said in the previous post, vouchers help mitigate accountability and union concerns.
Though they complain about the status quo more than any other area of government, the education establishment will fight any meaningful reform effort; they cling tightly to that stauts quo that they hate. When I sponsored SB 154 (2003) (core curriculum and alternative licensing for teachers) and ran HB 181 (2006) (a math initiative with an incentive pay component and remediation measures and money for students failing the UBSCT) the education establishment argued that they sounded the end of the world. They didn't. They advanced the ball.
An op-ed today argues that plenty of choice exists in public education. That is true, and that is good. But plenty of choice also exists on the any restaurant's menu; it is the fact that other restaurants exist that each restaurant works to be better and more consumer friendly. When citizens have more public and private options, everyone seems to be more willing to consider reform.
I'm interested in your response to the comment on the Politicopia site regarding the difference in cost between individual students. Not all students have the same needs. The per pupil figures so often cited are averages, right? So if the majority of students who go "elsewhere" for their education (thanks to vouchers) are those who are the cheapest to educate, then that leaves the most expensive students for the existing "public" schools to deal with. So I think $3000 would be way too much. I'm thinking more like $500.
I guess I missed the part on the "refund vouchers" for people like me who have paid into the system their whole adult life and , gasp!, have never had any children. If those that have them don't have to contribute to the general education fund because they don't want to send them to public school then I should be afforded the same opportunity. Childless taxpayers have really had enough of this. We are tired of supporting YOUR children and this just adds to our burden. Paying one's share is one thing, this is too much. Shame on you.
Three are several issues about vouchers that concern me.
1. When the money for vouchers leave a district with the student attending private school, will there be enough money in the block grant to heat all the district's buildings, pay the electric bill or water and sewer costs? These expenses may not be covered in the amount "left over" to public schools.
2. What happens to the voucher money if a voucher student is kicked out of the private school? Does the voucher money go back to the district that must by law take the student back (see Utah's compulsory education law).
3. Why sponsor a bill that does not apply to multiple areas of the state? Are there private schools in Daggett, Wayne, Piute, San Juan, Emery or Juab Districts? Why must they take a hit in the finances to fund private school for the Wasatch front?
4. Will Daggett, Wayne, Piute, San Juan, Emery or Juab Districts be able to keep the lights and heat on when this voucher system goes into effect?
5. Parents along the Wasatch Front already have a choice in education. They can send their child/children to private school.
6. If private schools get public school money, they should have to play by the same accountability rules as public schools (teacher certification, NCLB regulations, etc.) Once private schools take public education money, they are public schools!!
Since education is all about the future, I'm thinking five years from now, when the hold harmless clause in your bill expires. St. George schools are already seeing a decline in enrollment which resulted in a loss of funding, not a drop in class size if they keep the same student to teacher ratio. We want to encourage more students to leave public education? We want our tax money going to enable the instruction of Koran based Sharia, which is believed to trump our U.S. Constitution, when more private schools come into existence due to an increase in funding? This rhetoric is indeed alarming and should be.
If only a few students will be taking advantage of vouchers, maybe private entities or individuals could help these promising children, and not place this financial burden on their public school classmates.
Educational Management Organizations and our local developers should look elsewhere to make a buck, not at our children. My view of the future with your bill signed into law is a Pandora's Box of extremist private schools, and one of profit oriented political action contributors defining how to best prepare our children for life.
Steve I appreciate your concern for public education and improving the quality of education for Utah students. Vouchers are not the way to go for several reasons. One the best private schools in the state cost way more than the voucher you would be giving. Two private schools and for the more part charter schools have the tendency to create a class system within the state. They divide familys. They separate the haves and the have nots... even vouchers will do that. A great example of this is in Hawaii where public schools have been left with the have nots and society shuns those kids who are in public schools. I am a community council president in my local elementary. I have the cash to send my kids to private school. I have the cash to live anywhere I want within the state but choose to live in my 4 bedroom home with my 3 kids. I live in a normal neigborhood with normal middle class people. I want my children to attend school with a great diversity of thought, expression, and income. I am afraid that your bill would hurt the ability for our public schools to provide this type of education. Charter schools should be used by the stat to explore new and innovative ways of teaching and learning which when positive can then be returned to the respective public school system. I also feel that the competition should be between individual schools within districts and districts within the state. I don't feel we need vouchers. If people want to send their kids so private schools they can do it out of their own cash and not out of money which the Utah constitution says should go to the public school system. Once again thank you for serving.
Thanks,
Brad
To the 6 points raised by the 5:50 anon:
1. Yes. In fact, even after those costs are paid, the bonus money gives them money to spend on other things. Financially, they come out ahead.
2. The money is paid out quarterly. If the student returns during the first quarter, the district gets the money for the second, third, and fourth quaters.
3. The voucher is available everywhere, and it is funded with general fund money. Whose to say that private schools won't start in rural areas of that some rural families won't deem it best to send their children to private schools in other areas of the state.
4. Yes. The bill doesn't affect them. But, if they were to have students use the voucher, they'd get even more money by virtue of the bonus.
5. You are simply wrong on this point. Some families can go to private schools. Other families woud like to but can't afford it. Vouchers would help them seek opportunity, while financially helping public education.
6. Are Westminster and BYU private because they accept Pell Grant money? No.
Why sponsor a bill that does not require teacher certification? It is foolish to think the so called 'teachers' will be 'highly qualified'. Some may be. But in general they will not be. Just look at the charter schools. My sister enrolled her daughter in a charter school. Three months into the process, she discovered the 'English teacher' was not highly qualified as he required 7th graders to read "War and Peace". He was simply a successful businessman with the belief that today's youth were on drugs, dysfunctional, and uneducated. My sister didn't know if this was appropriate teaching or not. She is not educated and needed a solution to her rebellious child's behaviour. The teacher obtrusively ranted and raved each day and tore the kids emotionally apart. Do you think my neice learned anything? Do you think he is still there? A YEAR later, he is. Even after numerous complaints and withdraws from the charter school he remains. The point is, he was not a certified teacher and this bill underestimates the significance of having a teaching credential. It diminishes the significant amount of training and skill that today's certified educators have. It opens the door for anyone to teach.
You say parents will monitor this system. How? There is no required testing to compare to public school. There are many norm referenced tests. They can choose any test. You can not compare one test to another and therefore you can not compare them to the success in public school. I'm sure the public schools could find a test to prove success if given the liberty. If private and charter schools are going to be given public monies, they should be required to fulfill the same requirements as other institutions who receive public money.
Would you allow someone to practice law without having passed the bar exam?
Our young family resides in Tooele County where the only private school is K-1st grade only. Our oldest child, who is gifted, attends kindergarten at his local public school, which does not have a gifted program. He is a child who COULD benefit from a private education, if we were to choose that path; however, no matter how we figure our finances, we cannot afford it. Even with vouchers, the cost of gas alone eliminates that option for us-- the cost of additional tuition, uniforms and other incidental fees is unthinkable. Other posts and comments elsewhere have discussed the hypothetical "poor family." We ARE an actual low-income family with a child whose educational needs are not being met. We HAVE researched private schools and looked into the costs. Sure, a scholarship would be nice (I attended the U of U on a full-ride academic scholarship, so I know it's possible), but would not be guaranteed and our receiving one would mean someone else wouldn't. Additionally, we have younger children who also show signs of being gifted-- what if private school is the "best" option for them? Budgeting for one child is one thing-- budgeting for mutiples is quite another.
That considered, claiming that voucher programs give every parent a "choice" is a load of hogwash. Rural parents won't have that choice. Most low-income families, like my own, STILL won't have that choice. Only a select few who are on the brink of being able to afford it anyway would have an additional choice. If you want to argue that vouchers boost competition, fine, but do NOT claim that it's about parental "choice!"
I love this idea and being able to respond.
Steve U.,
Thank you for being willing to cary the voucher bill this year. All comon sense points to the fact that vouchers leave a portion of the money in the system without the overhead of educating that child there. This is a net gain of monies for the school district. Also vouchers reduce class sizes as well. Thanks for taking on this issue on behalf of the parents and those who wish to have more control of our childrens education. You have my best wishes on withstanding all the rhetoric from those who wish to keep the status quo and will fight against you. Voucher are a truly good thing. Thanks,
Charles Davis
There will not be a net gain since it is likely the students who receive vouchers will be the "cheapest" to educate. So even the $3000 left at the public school will not cover the cost of the students on the "high side." It will be a net loss for the public schools since the most costly students will likely remain in public school and the "cheapest" students will take with them funding that would have been used to meet the needs of those "costly" students.
I believe in Charter schools. My son is a great success story. My son went to 7th grade in a public Junior High school. He got C's and D's and maybe a B. His teachers were not always good to work with. They had an attitude like they were doing us a favor and him a favor if we were to ask for their assistance with my sons progress in his studies. If any of the teachers communicated back to me it would be a miracle. Very few teachers would comminucate back to my e-mails or calls regarding my sons grades, homework etc. Now he is in a Charter school, he is getting all A's ond one B. He is on the honor role and his teachers are HUGELY responsive. That is not coincidence, it is a testiment to the success of Charter schools.
The monies comes out of the Uniform School Fund. The uniform school fund doesn't discriminate based on class. The only relevence to your comment is that wealthier households would get a smaller voucher than poor households, basewd on income. The rest $3,000 or more would stay in the school fund. The overhead of educating that child that left would no longer be required. So, if $3,000 were left behind in the school fund, with the overhead of educating that child no longer there. That is a $3,000 net gain. It is simple economics.
It's not so simple. You are assuming it costs the school district the same to educate each student, $6000. That's simply not the case.
i'm wondering why we are trying to help fund a choice and taking funds away from the real problem. it seems as though everyone wants to avoid the main issue of the public schools being underfunded in the first place. Is 3000 really enough for the new student and the school to do its job for that student? who pays the rest of the bill and if this flies what happens in five years to the public schools?
Certain issues are being repeated (e.g., financial impacts). If I've addressed concerns in this post or some of the posts and comments from the past 2 weeks, I'm not replowing that ground. I'd invite readers to take a minute or two and go through the previous posts and comments. Also, a robust discussion (with links to references) is taking place at www.politicopia.com.
Though I've addressed the issue of teacher qualifications, I'll again point out that parents have more say in hiring/firing in private schools. If they don't like the faculty, they can leave. What do parents do, if they don't think the teacher in a public school (highly-qualified or otherwise) isn't getting the job done for their kid?
Someone commented about a bad charter school teacher. Charter schools are public. You argue in favor of giving parents other options.
To the commentor who asked if I'd allow legal services to be provided by someone who hadn't passed the bar (e.g., like an accountant, real estate agent or title company), you didn't quite land the blow you had intended. If you give me your address, I'll send you a description of my efforts to make legal services more available to average people and an advance copy of Razing the Bar when I get it finished. Even in (especially in) my own profession, I see that protectionism hurts the public.
Steve,
I get the feeling your are avoiding my question about how schools will be losing funding because the students who likely will accept vouchers will be the "cheapest" to educate. Therefore, public schools will be left with the most expensive students and the $3000 will still not cover. This is likely to happen and you seem to be avoiding this issue. Also, a letter to the editor in yesterday's SL Trib had a good comment regarding students who are already in private schools. Vouchers will pull dollars away from public schools in that circumstance as well. Hope to hear your response, please don't delete my comment.
If a parent in a public school does not like the faculty, they too can leave. If a teacher is not getting the job done, a parent can put their child in another class. It is the parent's job to police public education. Too often parents are apathetic or unaware of their rights and ability to make change in the public schools.
Nope. Not avoiding anything. But I do appreciate you keeping after me. I answered it in detail in the previous post. Briefly, districts keep the students ("cheap" or "expensive") on their rolls for 5 years.
I'm not sure what the letter to the Trib said about students already in private schools. Students already in private schools aren't eligible, unless they are poor.
Rep. Urquhart
I'm not very happy with my local police department. So I was thinking about hiring a private security company. But I can't afford it. I'm already paying for the police department that I'm not happy with. I was hoping that someone would run some legislation that would give me a voucher for the tax dollars that I'm currently paying to support my local police depatment. Then I could afford to hire the private security company that I think would suit my needs better. Would you be the sponsor?
Rep. Urquhart
I'm not very happy with my local police department. So I was thinking about hiring a private security company. But I can't afford it. I'm already paying taxes for the police department that I'm not happy with. I was hoping that someone would run some legislation that would give me a voucher for the tax dollars that I'm currently paying to support my local police department. Then I could afford to hire the private security company that I think would suit my needs better. Will you sponsor this bill?
Steve,
Since I only have one child, the state is paying about 12,000 to 18,000 less per year to educate my family than the "average" Utah family. Would you sponsor a bill that would give me a voucher for the difference?
Steve,
Your voucher bill will increase education options for many Utah families and will help inject competition and results-improving incentives into the field of education. These things are sorely lacking and Utah is long overdue for these types of innovative and transformative changes.
A number of commentators here have complained about vouchers being a "distraction" from our real education problems. However, what they don't seem to take into account is the fact that the state education bureaucracy has been trying to address those education problems in basically the same fashion for decades. Clearly, the status quo solutions being offered by many in the education establishment have not been successful. Their familiar calls for more money for teachers, higher standards, smaller class sizes, etc., etc. simply have not worked. Isn't there an old saying about the insanity of doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results?
Let's be honest here: we've tried the traditional education "reforms" long enough. Most Utahns still find their education system lacking. Given that, what's the harm in trying something new and innovative? Let's see if a little competition, flexibility and educational choice can't achieve better results. If your bill passes and 5-7 years from now we don't see a marked improvement in education and if parents aren't delighted with their new found options than I'll be the first one to say it didn't work. Until a true voucher system has been implemented and tried I for one am sick and tired of hearing people propose the same "solutions" to the same problems without ever seeing any positive results.
Thank you again for sponsoring a reasonable and well-thought out piece of education reform legislation. I applaud your courageous leadership on this issue.
Rep. Urquart,
I really appreciate this blog and the opportunity it presents to openly dialog regarding this heavily debated topic.
Having said that, as one who believes in the Book of Mormon and the lessons we learn from dozes of failed civilizations in it, I feel compelled to voice my concern over this idea of vouchers.
From 3rd Nephi 6 it reads:
9. And thus passed away the twenty and eighth year, and the people had continual peace.
10. But it came to pass in the twenty and ninth year there began to be some disputings among the people; and some were lifted up unto pride and boastings because of their exceedingly great riches, yea, even unto great persecutions;
11. For there were many merchants in the land, and also many lawyers, and many officers.
12. And the people began to be distinguished by ranks, according to their riches and their chances for learning; yea, some were ignorant because of their poverty, and others did receive great learning because of their riches.
13. Some were lifted up in pride, and others were exceedingly humble; some did return railing for railing, while others would receive railing and persecution and all manner of afflictions, and would not turn and revile again, but were humble and penitent before God.
I understand that you are also a fellow believer in this Book and I would urge you to prayerfully rethink what you are fighting for.
Not like you asked for it, but in my opinion if you really want to fix education I would suggest you explore what it would take to make teaching a desired profession again. It's no mystery that we are losing talent to other professions.
My brother teaches Jr. High and has to compensate for his meager salary by working another job on Saturdays and evenings. I'm not sure that having tired teachers are really that good for their students.
Does this also mean we are moving towards a system where those who are "white and delightsome" learn at one school and the others are in public school?
As a number of commentors have addressed there are many situations where we might like our tax dollars to go to some private company instead of to the program that the government has set up to fullfil that need. Soon we'll be requesting vouchers for the tax dollars that go to our National Parks because we would like to spend our vacation in Hawaii. It's great if you want to vacation in Hawwii. But that's your choice. Do it on your dime. Hire a private security company (comment 29), wonderul from your bank accout. It's not about should private schools be a choice, they are a choice. But it's about where our tax dollars should rightly be going. the tax dollars you are spending on supporting the private school sector may be holding the schools & the education fund harmless for 5 years, but only because they are now coming out of the general fund. You are now taking tax dollars away from our police, our medical services, health & human services, roads, community and economic development and many other needed programs. The Fiscal note on this bill would go a long way in raising us from dead last of all the states in per pupil funding. Which is where our tax dollars should be going.
Dear Rep. Urquhart,
As much as I would like to see this voucher bill fail, I would like to acknowledge your courage and innovation in sharing this controversial bill with the public. As a parent who doesn't live in your district, I appreciate being able to give input on a bill that could affect the entire state, not just St. George. Please keep up the good work of serving all of Utah's kids (aside from that voucher thing) and thanks for modeling the bravery it takes to try something new.
Could we try somehow to get parents more involved in their kids' schools instead of encouraging them to leave as a replacement solution for vouchers?
I am frustrated that the voucher bill requires "a contract with an independant certified public accountant to perform the agreed upon procedures" but the bill does not require educators to be certified. This seems to be a step backwards to me.
My husband and I make $80,000 together. We will not qualify for a scholarship nor will I be able to pay for my child to go to a private school. I also can not afford to save for my children to go to college. I am a teacher. Why can you not fix the problems in public ed before you start a secondary system. 28 kids in my daughter's kindergarten class is too much. 32 5th graders in my son's class is insane. There is not a teacher on earth who can effectively teach children under these circumstances. In those classes are special ed kids, boys with mothers in jail, hungry kids, beaten kids, children with deported fathers who don't speak English, and many more with different issues. These kids will not go to a private or charter school. The issue lies in the funding of our public schools. It's deplorable and frankly embarassing. The problem in not rooted in the teacher,s abilityor qualifications to teach. I'm a very good, highly skilled teacher who has been very successful reaching kids. Every May I struggle with the decision to quit because I can not afford to save for my children's education or allow them to participate in dance and sports, or buy them heely's to skate with. I feel undervalued and overworked. I will not reccomend my children to be teachers. I will encourage them to choose careers that will help them care for their children financially. And this breaks my heart because I love my job and the children I teach. But is it fair to my own? I would respect this bill much more Steve, if you would also devote equal attention to public ed. I know you say this bill with help public ed. This bill takes the focus away from public ed.
11:06 anon,
If you are an above-average teacher, you are underpaid. It is difficult to impossible to pay you the money you deserve, because the Union insists that below average teachers get the money that should be going to you. Without the more evolved dialogue that competition would allow, it is tough to even get the discussion going on differential pay.
I'm not sure what you mean about me devoting equal attention to public ed. Again, no one has argued more or more successfully than I have to improve public education; this includes increased funding AND reform that empowers parents.
Mr. Urquhart,
I look forward to your next voucher bill that could be of use to me.
I am currently a student at WSU, but the program I really need is taught at Wesminster College. This program is the bext educational choice for me and my future. However, I cannot afford the increased tuition at Westminster.
As I was reading your bill, I found it to be the perfect solution for me. After all, who knows better than I do what is the best choice for me. Since your bill makes publicly-funded vouchers avaible for use at private schools, I look forward to you advancing your idea to the next level.
Steve,
You said," Most of the bureaucratic loads come from two impulses – the public wanting increased accountability and the union wanting protectionist barriers. If you’ve been following school choice issues nationally, you might have seen how choice mitigates those impulses and tends to “free” public education from the burdens you seem to dislike."
You are wrong in this. The loads come because people, usually from the extremes, make additional demands that politicians seek to give without realizing the cost in time and resources. Unions seek to protect the teachers from the results of these demands.
It has been said that we have doubled what we pay for public ed. after inflation. That is probably true, but we have more than quadrupled what we are demanding the schools to do. I have watched it my whole career. The courts mandate without compensation. Board members also mandate. The politicians offer some compensation for extra things initially. Then the amount gets cut down or dropped later, but the educators have to continue or even expand.
"Choice" nationally or internationally does nothing to "mitigate those impulses". It merely adds them to the private schools. Look at Belgium and the Netherlands. Their private schools have all the regulations of the public ones and look identical. All the regulations you exempt the private schools from WILL come, probably sooner than later. No one can stop that. The unions, for all their power, weren't able to stop it for the public schools. You won't be able to either.
The private schools lose the most from "choice" legislation. Public schools will too. The only ones who will ultimately gain are those funding the hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions to pass this. Walmart is first on the list. They will create Walmart schools. They will not care about the student or the parents, only about the tax money they can skim. There won't be competition. Who else will be able to come up with the money to build all these private schools? Then they will drive out the others for the most part, just as they have done to our home town businesses. They are currently trying to get into banking too. They are already trying to create a monopoly by undercutting other businesses until they go under. Then they raise prices with much less choice and service for the customer.
If you are successful with this legislation, you will one day wish your name were not attached to this. I promise you this.
That this is labeled as a "choice and competition" issue is a farce, just as the pro-abortion push as "choice" was a farce. It is about taking what we want and to heck with the consequences or anyone else affected. The choice is already there. What you want is some of the money we all put in to provide a universal education program, regardless of whether we have kids, so you can go to some elitist, expensive school. And yes, even the poor get greedy when a fad tempts them.
Oh how aptly 3 Nephi 6:9-11 applies, as the previous blogger mentioned! It describes where we are as a society. Read on to see what happens to those people!
David N. Cox
My comments are in response to the artice in The Spectrum, 1/25/07. Quoting Rep. Urquhart, "I'm invinting everyone...who wants to argue that public education loses anything financially from this bill to lay out their numbers, to show me their math." According to federal guidelines (www.health.utah.gov/chip for lunch info.), for a family of four to qualify for free/reduced lunch, household income cannot exceed $37,000. For that same family to qualify for a fee waiver [consult Utah State Office of Education], household income cannot exceed $26,000. So let me get this straight: If a child in a public school has a family that qualifies for a free or reduced lunch (which also means that, in the majority of cases, the family qualifies for fee waivers), they will forgo their free/reduced lunch, waiver of fees, transportation costs and special services for the educationally challenged [at no additional cost to the families] in order to receive a $3,000 annual educational voucher to use at a school of their choice? While using said voucher, these qualified families have the "privilege" of absorbing additional family expenditures by transporting their child/children to and from school, paying for books and supplies, paying yearly tuition ($4,600 at Montessori, $4,200 at Valor Hall, or $3,200 at Trinity Lutheran) and PROVIDE THEIR OWN LUNCH! None of the local private schools which I contacted offered ANY special education services. Esesentially, those schools accept only the students that they want to. And, although I am sure that there are many private school teachers who are quite good at what they do, NONE of the teachers have been credentialed by either a national board or a state board of teaching competency. I find it rather ludicrous to presume that there is a belief that a voucher would actually benefit a low income family! What it does do is inflict ADDITIONAL COSTS to poor families! I can, however, find it extremely plausible to believe that wealthier families would like to use a voucher for a school of their choice without having to pay for the entire amount out of their pocket! I can also see where, after five years, the idea of vouchers will begin to become so commonplace that many people will be lulled into a false sense of security and forget the inequalities of this ridiculous proposal. Furthermore, once a voucher is used at a religious school (i.e. Catholic, LDS, Lutheran, etc., all of which qualify as "private" schools), there is a violation of the Constitutional design of separation of church and state. That is, in theory, public tax dollars could be used to pay for religious schools of choice -- even schools with deviant philosophies (e.g., Hezbollah)! Please forgive my frankness, but let's call this proposal what it really is: a way to ease the "burden" of being wealthy! Come on, Steve! I thought that you were in favor of strengthening public education -- not dismantling it!!
Glenn
One of your other commented correctly the "state education bureaucracy has been trying to address those education problems in basically the same fashion for decades". That is to say without funding!
Two issues keep arising in this dialogue that, to me, aren't really issues.
First, at least one anonymous poster wants to know why teacher certification isn't mandated by this legislation, and proceeds to ask if you would hire a lawyer who had not passed the bar exam. My question is, when is the body of knowledge required by a teacher nearly as extensive as that of a lawyer. No offense intended, although I'm sure some will be taken, but I did teach for 13 years before changing careers. I taught at a private secondary school in Salt Lake (considered one of the best) and a considerable number of teachers did not hold a state credential. Oh, yes, many had PhDs in their subject areas, but no state "certification." Sorry, but that emperor has no clothes.
Second, a concern was expressed regarding violating church-state separation. Sorry, but this battle was fought and determined in the 60s and 70s in the Supreme Court. someone more ambitious than I can look up the case law, but I went to school in Pennsylvania. I rode the public school buses to Catholic school everyday, and all books except for religion class were paid for with school board funds. I believe the decision rested on the idea that children are going to school, period. A county doesn't get to NOT transport children to school simply because they don't like the school.
Steve, I like what you're doing here. Please get your staff involved in researching how this has been handled in other places. Utah's own constitution may be unconstitutional on this point.
Stephanie
I believe you underestimate the educational level of today's teachers. In order to move up the payscale we gather additonal training from a university. Very few of the teachers at my school do not have their masters. All have their English as a Second Language endorsements and a significant number have reading endorsements. Three have all of the above education including administrative endorsements. 1 has reading recovery also. This faculty also has had and is still having extensive reading and math training weekly.
I have a 4 year degree in elementary ed, an english as a second language endorsement, and a reading endorsement. I am a highly trained reading recovery teacher- who has chosen to take the training twice-that's two years more of education. I am also about to begin studying to become a reading recovery trainer-another years training away from my home.
The body of knowledge required to teach a learning disabled first grader to read-on grade level is significant. I realize this more and more as I become more educated.
It isn't state certification that I am concerned about. I concerned about situations such as a collegue's friend who just graduated with a bachelor's in journalism and is teaching 2nd grade. She does not have the skills that a college educated teacher has. There are numerous people in positions such as these in private schools. People teaching in private schools certainly do not have PhD's outside of SLC county and possibly Utah County.
You underestimate the body of knowlege required by a teacher.
I agree with you that public school teachers are highly skilled and that those skills produce good results for most students. But it seems that voucher opponents are arguing both sides of the quality issue.
On the one hand, voucher opponents argue that private schools are guaranteed to better educate students because the schools are free from bureaucratic requirements that public schools have. On the other hand, voucher opponents argue that private schools will not adequately educate students because teachers do not have to adhere to bureaucratic requirements regarding licensing.
So why can't vouchers have a separate fund or be from the private sector? Why does it have to use funds earmarked for public ed? And actually, the person receiving the voucher will not be footing the bill, the REST of us will. Where's our say in the matter of subsidizing someone else's personal choice? Should not we too, have a say in where the child goes since we will be paying for it?
I use bottled water, can I have a voucher for that too?
I don't have streetlights on my street and yet I pay for them too, can I have a voucher for that too?
Can those who don't support the war in Iraq have a voucher for money of theirs that is being spent on the war? (I DO support the troops in Iraq so it's not me)
I've got a better idea--let's have vouchers in elections. Often, one candidate from one party spends MUCH more money than the other. Maybe we could equal out things with a voucher given to secondary and third party candidates. The people from the personal choice party could administer the program to avoid any confusion. Then thaty way, we could have real choice in our elected candidates and we could create a real free market and break up the government monopoly of "government" politicians. More competition could result and the majority party would be more responsive to our concerns and not so bureaucratic and ambivalent towards others. Not a bad idea really.
"On the one hand, voucher opponents argue that private schools are guaranteed to better educate students because the schools are free from bureaucratic requirements that public schools have. On the other hand, voucher opponents argue that private schools will not adequately educate students because teachers do not have to adhere to bureaucratic requirements regarding licensing. "
So then, can't we reduce some of the regulations that are on public schools now and the amount of influence that the state and federal government have on it?
The argument comes from schools receiveing public funds. If it does receive public funds, it should have to adhere to certain requirements. We, who will be responsible for picking up the cost of the voucher, should demand that. We should also have some say or representation in the form of an elected representative as well with that school.
Nonetheless, I prefer that private schools remain private and that we don't spread big government through things like having them accept public money.
To charles--NO money is usually "left" behind because the funding is PER student. Thus, if the student goes, so does all the funding. Even if some is "left" behind, is there any guarantee it goes towards education? It doesn't seem like it with current sentiment.
I'd really like to see some reform proposals other than what special interest groups propose. I don't believe vouchers or just spending more money are reform. One is cut and run and the other is gimmeee, gimmeee, gimmee. The truth is, we've never tried what we really could do here in Utah (which is different than other places)--to make every school a "choice" school. We need cooperative efforts, not those that promote combativeness.
To be honest, I was surprised to see that you were the one sponsoring the voucher bill this time. Usually, it's someone less sensible like Sanator Buttars. :)
We need to get schools down more to the level of community and neighborhood involvement and free from excessive federal government regulation, legislature micromanagement, excessive school district regulation, and so on. Vouchers don't promote this in my book, but seek to lesson public support for neighborhood schools and are a measure of diffraction and division rather than coming and working together.
The reason the "education" establishment doesn't support so-called "reform" proposals often is that they are often supported by groups who do not support public education and work against it. Imagine LDS Church policy being decided by disgruntled members and/or anti-LDS people. Do you think THEY would want to work for the Church's benefit? Hardly.
Some of the "reforms" seem to chip away at public education, making it just a little weaker in some way. Let's forget the political arguments about public education and work towards some real solutions for ALL students. And let's not depend on special interest groups from EITHER side for policy making.
Vouchers don't do much for the problems in some schools right now--e.g. empowering teachers, class sizes, increased diversification, and so on. Saying something like some say in the realm of "vouchers will facilitate those changes" is too ambiguous and does nothing to address the real problems.
As for "increased competition" loading one side up with regulation and with very few on the others doesn't create more, it creates far less.
I would like to say, "Yeah, Yeah!" Every act that strives to put parents in charge of their child's education is a plus! Are there those that will refuse to get involved? Yes, but for those who have always tried to be actively involved in their child's education the more choices the better.
My children were able to attend a private school in Florida for a couple of years through a corporately sponsored scholarship fund before we moved to another state. It was a marvelous thing to watch my children get excited about going to school.
The charter school option was not a good option for them because transportaion would have put them on busess for several hours a day and it was just too difficult to wait the years and years before getting to the top of the list.
The money designated for each child's education should be allocated to that child and follow them wherever their education is administered. If it is deemed that the cost to educate a child in any given district is a certain amount per year then it certainly should be up to the parent to determine where that money would be best suited! They are the one's who know their child the best and know whether they are or will excel in any given environment! They are also ususally the first to recognize when something isn't working.
The unions have such a stronghold on the education system and it is a detriment to each of our children!
I had a child who always had a hard time adjusting to change. I remember his regular teacher was adsent several days. He struggled so hard during those days because his routine was messed up. When she returned I told her how much she was missed and I hoped she was feeling better. She told me she had not been sick, she had days the unions are faught hard to get for them and they were required to take them. I was flabbergasted! The unions have left off caring about what is best for the students and are only focused on what will promote themselves. They need reasons to be in check to realign to their intended purpose and I think the more school choices available the more chances each individual child will have to reach their full potential.
We have to remember this isn't about failiing schools. This is about students who have failed to receive an education that will prepare them for the future laid before them! This is about educating the next generation to compete in this huge new world market where everyday something new is expanding!
Education is about children and parents are the only one's qualified to make those choices! Give parents back their rights, responsibilities, and resources to move the next generation where America wants them to go! And where we can again be the wonderful land that our parents left us with!
I'm 15, and writing a research paper to argue whether this bill is constitutional or not. Utah (because of its nature)has a stricter constitution regarding giving money to non-public schools than the federal constitution. So it is possible that this bill, while being constitutional under federal law, isn't constitutional under utah law.
However, I would appreciate it if someone could either give me a link to the corresponding sections of both Utah's constitution and the Federal constitution, (also a professional review of my basic paper idea) would help me a lot.
I realize that there is a lot of emotional and political heat going around this topic (just look at a few of the other posts), and my purpose in the paper is simply to decide whether the bill is constitutional or not, as opposed to deciding whether it is fair or not.
Thanks,
-Matt
Also, this paper idea is based on what my dad (an attorney) told me (I haven't actually looked up both constitutions yet) and so I may actually find out my assumptions (based on what my dad remembered) about the corresponding sections of both Utah and Federal constitution may be wrong.
Post a Comment
<< Home