The Internet Battles Disinformation on Vouchers
Some of the most informative exchanges of political information occur in correspondence that typically is never seen by the public. I’d like Politicopia to reveal some of that information to the public.
I'll start with an email exchange I had Thursday with Kim Burningham, Chair of the Utah State School Board, concerning vouchers. [At the top of the Politicopia page I link to, click on "voucherletterjan25.pdf"].
You can look at the emails and make up your own mind. From my perspective, Chairman Burningham's financial arguments seem vacuous. If there are no adverse financial impacts, that issue should be conceded, so that the debate can focus more keenly on the other issues that are being raised. Unless, of course, those issues also are vacuous and the point of voucher opponents is to blur the debate rather than focus the debate.
I'll start with an email exchange I had Thursday with Kim Burningham, Chair of the Utah State School Board, concerning vouchers. [At the top of the Politicopia page I link to, click on "voucherletterjan25.pdf"].
You can look at the emails and make up your own mind. From my perspective, Chairman Burningham's financial arguments seem vacuous. If there are no adverse financial impacts, that issue should be conceded, so that the debate can focus more keenly on the other issues that are being raised. Unless, of course, those issues also are vacuous and the point of voucher opponents is to blur the debate rather than focus the debate.
posted by steve u. at 1/27/2007
Subscribe
19 Comments:
As a teacher I've seen a lot of disinformation put out by others about teachers and schools too. Often I have to clarify to people what I see myself, though I don't assume what is true in my circumstances is true in ALL of them.
I will share some of my own solutions with you shortly. They don't include vouchers. I think we can do things without having to resort to agendas and politics. The current debate over vouchers doesn't help, but hinders.
My own solutions don't include the ones you normally hear.
Each day we are seeing more bills introduced that are hostile to public education and the teachers' union. The e-mail exchange appears to reflect this same intention.
When Milton Friedman,the father of the voucher movement, states that vouchers are simply the first step toward privatizing public education, and we see a succession of bills that seek to undermine public education and the strength of the teachers' union, we shouldn't be surprised when public ed starts circling the wagons. You might describe it as defending the status quo, we see it as protecting the ability of local communities to determine the future of our schools and our children.
After a few years now of following the Lege and their involvement with public education, I am becoming downright suspicious of who is indirectly funding campaigns and Parents for Choice in Education. Why is it so important for WalMart, Amway and Overstock.com to be so concerned with the privatization of public education? I just do not believe they are out to help a few kids who are not finding success with their public schools. I sure hope our children as well as our lawmakers are not being led down a dangerous path.
anonymous, I too feel the undercurrent. Making school board races into party-based ones is just one step. There ARE other things involved here other than just helping kids. Otherwise, the attitude would be different. Often it seems the teachers' union in Utah gets a lot more credit for the downfall of society than they should get.
We DO need to get things down more to a community level and to ALL get involved. If we all realized we had a stake in things, would not everyone be more accountable?
I have to wonder why those against public education so much like Patrick Byrne should be the ones we listen to to determine policy for it. I'm not going to listen to Planned Parenthood to determine my policy on abortion or Code Pink to determine my policy on the Iraq War or Rocky Anderson to determine my policy on guns or anti-Mormons on the Mormon Church.
After all it is US who will pay for the vouchers. We have a right to know what the real intentions are. What I often hear and see in public and private are two different things, almost like the one biblical phrase.
In fact, when I first heard about vouchers, my thoughts were--oh boy, another liberal agenda.
I've frankly been amazed at some of the tactics used, it's really soured me on special interest groups. I've never been a big fan of teachers' unions either, but I'm not a fan at all of some of the voucher groups.
Why in this state of Utah is there such vindictiveness going on? We should be working with each other rather than not. And no, it's BOTH sides not working together, not just one.
I have a hard time understanding how a true conservative can support vouchers. It must just be the neo-conservatives, because the old, real conservatives don't believe in government subsidies for private businesses. They don't support measures that will eventually tie down private businesses with more regulation.
Vouchers are not a reform. They are the beginning of the end for private, independent schools. They are also the beginning of the tearing apart of public education.
David N. Cox
It is an odd leap to conclude that this bill is hostile to public education. Along with helping families seek educational options that they believe are best for their children, the bill pushes increased money to public education, which will be accompanied by historic levels of overall funding. Hardly the barbarians at the gate.
I look forward to the proposals the first commentor promised. Public education officials seem to be spending far too much time looking over the fence at the way 3 to 7% of Utah children will be educated elsewhere and not nearly enough time on the 93 to 97% of Utah children for which they have direct responsibility. If Chairman Burningham has innovative ideas for improving public education – other than guarding the status quo and fighting against anyone leaving the system – I’d like to hear them.
"the bill pushes increased money to public education"
Sounds like bait in the trap to me.
I agree with ho-hum. With all the adverse and deceitful information that has been put out there on public education and public educators by PFC and other supposedly pro-choice supporters (like Dr. Christopher Barden) might make one wonder what the true motivation is for jackhammering vouchers through the legislature.
Hi Steve, thanks for dropping by The Utah Amicus.
"Beginning of the end."
"Bait in the trap."
"Jackhammering vouchers through the legislature."
Oh my.
Hey David N Cox,
How can conservatives support vouchers and be opposed to public schools having all the power? Because they are not Marxist that's why.
Read The Commuinist manifesto, look at the ten pillars and see for yourself what Karl Marx says to do to promote communism....
Derek Philcott-Lehi
Derek,
You might have something there if it were true that public schools had all the power. The fact is they are at the whim of every court, Congress, legislature, and board. They are a reflection of society.
You want what you want and you won't let any logic or facts interfere.
Government subsidies to businesses or individuals are socialistic. They will lead to chains for private schools.
David
Please post the deceitful information produced by school choice supporters.
Is it the study from Harvard? Or the one from Princeton? Or is it the one by Utah State? Or maybe, it's the one by Marquette University. Or perhaps, it's the one by the Hoover Institution at Stanford. Or maybe, it's by those think tanks that employ PhD's to do scholarly research on school reforms who then discover that lo and behold, giving parents a true say in whether or not a school is educating their child sufficiently improves schools, lowers costs, increases innovation and customization, and puts parental satisfaction through the roof!
Are these studies the deceitful information that you are talking about?
Please let us school choice supporters know so that we can correct ourselves if we've been wrong.
Mr. Anonymous,
I believe that government control of the means of production is socialism. Our current system, where the government is the producer of education (the good we're giving to our children) is socialism. A voucher, which is a subsidy to the consumer (the parents and the children) is far superior to our current system which is a subsidy to the producer, regardless of how well that producer produces.
To the anonymous who thinks that our current education system is about "protecting the ability of local communities to determine the future of our schools and our children," I think vouchers are still one step up from your utopian view of our school district system.
Rather than give the power to the community, which often means giving the power to the local school board who is more often than not elected by the school employees and not so much by the public at large, vouchers give the power to the FAMILY. What vouchers do is CREATE the ability of FAMILIES to determine the future of THEIR schools and THEIR children.
The more we can empower the individual, the better off the community will be. This is one of the founding principles of our democratic-republic, individual and not community rights.
To the previous post: More often than not, non-school district employees comprise a greater amount of voters in a school district than employee voters. School board members are elected by the community, not employees.
Regarding safeguarding the rights of the individual from the needs of the community, vouchers are a vehicle for others to pay for the private school tuition of an individual family.
Individual rights bring individual responsibility. Individuals can't sing the praises of self determination while they've got their hands out taking the community's money.
I wish to express my thanks to the many parents, teachers and legislators trying to reform Utah schoos. For decades, hard working Utah students, parents, and teachers have struggled with an ineffective, inefficient, wasteful, corrupt, and mediocre education system. Although many trusting, misinformed parents still believe our schools are doing well, actual test data have long demonstrated that Utah’s students have fallen behind students in other states and nations. The depth of this alarming crisis is apparent to virtually all independent national experts who have carefully examined our education system including businessmen like Bill Gates and Steven Jobs, historians like David McCollough, legal experts like Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, political analysts like Newt Gingrich and academic researchers and education experts from Harvard, Stanford and other fine universities. We need to apply world class expertise and correct management principles to solve such important problems.
Despite the obvious nature of Utah’s education crisis, what we continue to receive from too many of our timid state leaders is a profoundly ignorant debate lacking in national expertise and devoid of competent scientific analysis. Reliable information on how to improve our schools is cast aside while our children suffer year after year in a failing system. Failure to enact school reform legislation will continue and extend the ongoing damage to our students. Effective reform legislation, at a minimum, should enable greater support for charter schools, voucher programs, pay for performance for gifted educators, the firing of incompetent educators, making the best teachers available to all students via online video classes, and other essential reforms that are ALL necessary to pull Utah schools out the current 1930’s socialist-style factory system that is so clearly failing to provide our children with the world-class education they will need to compete and thrive in the 21st Century. Pouring more tax dollars into an unreformed, incompetently organized, mismanaged system is an ignorant folly that will long be noted by history.
There is simply too much at stake for Utah’s ineffective, factory model school system to continue without significant reform. As Mitt Romney has noted, “Students around the world are racing ahead of ours. If we don't move [and reform our school systems], we'll become the France of the 21st century, starting as a superpower and exiting as something far less.” (Wash. Times, April 10, 2006). Together, we can create a world-class school system in Utah. Let’s make it happen!
Sincerely, R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D.
Dear Legislator,
Please VOTE NO on Senate Bill 184, Revisions to Child Support sponsored by Senator Lyle Hillyard.
This bill aims to include in the definition of 'child support' attorney fees associated with obtaining a 'child support order'. It is important to read the proposed legislation to better understand the implications. There is a definition for 'child support' which is an elenment in the defining of a 'child support order'. It is important to read and understand the nuances in the definitions of both. This bill represents the interests of attorneys and ORS, not the best interest of the child. VOTE NO on this bill.
Here is the concern.
This bill (as proposed) will benefit attorneys that represent the custodial parent in child support disputes and works against a losing party if attorney fees are assessed as included in the definition of 'child support' as oppossed as only a 'debt' owed. Support diputes regularly result in a new 'child support order'. Currently, In a 'child support order' there will be terms addressing attorney fees as separate from 'child support' monetary payments. (See the definitions of both) This is proper as ORS has a duty only to address monies associated directly with 'child support', including health insurance, monetary support from calculated tables, arrears, and unfortunately any 'alimony' ordered. [I disagree that 'alimony' should have been included in the definition of 'child support' as alimony is completely separate from 'child support' calcuations.] The changes in this bill would allow an attorney to join the gravy train by perhaps justifying that since alimony can be included in the definition of 'child support' then attorney's fees should as well. The motive for this move is clear. It is to avail the attorney to the collection services of ORS. This is a clear erroneous and a misconstruction of intention of 'child support' monetary payment and collection.
Case history in other states has shown a concern that attempts to attach attorney fees to 'chid support' collection methods have the propensity to cause serious consequences. For example, Texas law supports that attorney fees may only be awarded as costs enforceable by debt and further prohibits the imprisoning of a person for private debt. This is signifcant because If attorney fees are awaded as 'child support', those fees are then not viewable as 'debt' any longer by statutory definition and are not subject to the laws govening debt, but by the laws governing 'child support'. In this scenario the 'attorney fees' would then be enforced by 'contempt orders' - including possible imprisonment for the 'child support' owed (which now contains the attorney's fees). The characterization of attorney fees as 'child support' will permit the court in a contempt hearing to issue an order withholding earnings for such 'attorney fees' through the use of ORS and its remedies up to and and possibly including imprisonment. Finley v. May, 154 S.W.3d 196 [Tex.App.-2004]. This would be an erroneous application of the intent of 'child support' definitions and way to circumvent current debt processes and legal remedies of such.
There must be a distinction between assessment of 'attorney fees' to be levied as included in 'child support' when seeking to 'enforcing an order' (This is more akin to a contempt of court charge and related fee) and assessing 'attorney fees' when seeking modification suits' where the obligor has not yet been found in contempt. In many 'child support' cases, the issue is over a controversy of calculation of earnings - these cases would fall under 'modification suits'. However, under the proposed legislation, a 'modification suit' that awards 'attorney fees' could easily be misconstued as a suit seeking to 'establish a new support order'. In the latter case, attorney fees would automatically be assessed as 'child support' obligations that ORS would then be engaged to collect.
Vote NO on this proposal. (see proposed bill below)
See: www.mf4j.org for more information.
Cordially,
Jeff Rifleman
Director of Communications
Men and Fathers for Justice
www.menandfathersforjustice.org
www.mf4j.org
801-510-0503
S.B. 184
1
REVISIONS TO CHILD SUPPORT
2
DEFINITIONS
3
2007 GENERAL SESSION
4
STATE OF UTAH
5
Chief Sponsor: Lyle W. Hillyard
6
House Sponsor: ____________
7
8 LONG TITLE
9 General Description:
10 This bill adds attorney fees incurred in obtaining a child support award to the
11 definitions of child support.
12 Highlighted Provisions:
13 This bill:
14 . adds attorney fees incurred in obtaining a child support award to the definitions of
15 child support.
16 Monies Appropriated in this Bill:
17 None
18 Other Special Clauses:
19 None
20 Utah Code Sections Affected:
21 AMENDS:
22 62A-11-401, as last amended by Chapter 161, Laws of Utah 2000
23
24 Be it enacted by the Legislature of the state of Utah:
25 Section 1. Section 62A-11-401 is amended to read:
26 62A-11-401. Definitions.
27 As used in this part and in Part 5:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
28 (1) "Business day" means a day on which state offices are open for regular business.
29 (2) "Child" is defined in Section 62A-11-303 .
30 (3) "Child support" means a base child support award as defined in Subsection
31 78-45-2 (4), or a financial award for uninsured monthly medical expenses, ordered by a tribunal
32 for the support of a child, including current periodic payments, all arrearages which accrue
33 under an order for current periodic payments, and sum certain judgments awarded for
34 arrearages, medical expenses, and child care costs. Child support includes:
35 (a) obligations ordered by a tribunal for the support of a spouse or former spouse with
36 whom the child resides if the spousal support is collected with the child support[.]; and
37 (b) attorney fees incurred in establishing a child support order.
38 (4) "Child support order" or "support order" means a judgment, decree, or order,
39 whether temporary, final, or subject to modification, issued by a tribunal for child support and
40 related costs and fees, interest and penalties, income withholding, [ attorneys'] attorney fees, and
41 other relief.
42 (5) "Child support services" is defined in Section 62A-11-103 .
43 (6) "Delinquent" or "delinquency" means that child support in an amount at least equal
44 to current child support payable for one month is overdue.
45 (7) "Immediate income withholding" means income withholding without regard to
46 whether a delinquency has occurred.
47 (8) "Income" is defined in Section 62A-11-103 .
48 (9) "Jurisdiction" means a state or political subdivision of the United States, a territory
49 or possession of the United States, the District of Columbia , the Commonwealth of Puerto
50 Rico, an Indian tribe or tribal organization, or any comparable foreign nation or political
51 subdivision.
52 (10) "Obligee" is defined in Section 62A-11-303 .
53 (11) "Obligor" is defined in Section 62A-11-303 .
54 (12) "Office" is defined in Section 62A-11-103 .
55 (13) "Payor" means an employer or any person who is a source of income to an obligor.
Dave, you mean those "think tanks" like the Cato Institute and such with a decided agenda against public education?
Would you trust a study on vouchers from the NEA or PFAW?
I don't trust any study from a biased group from either side.
So anyone with PHD is therefore more educated and superior to others. I guess we need to tell Ward Churchhill and the rest of the liberal elite that. It would cheer them up.
I do wonder which side their surveys or studies will take regarding schools.
The Utah State assumed quite a bit too and if I remember right, the amounts went up and down quite a bit.
People of both sides try to use their special surveys to justify their opinions which kind of leads me to disregard them. I believe BOTH the Desnews and Trib ones were flawed.
Dave, that's why I want to bring education back to the community level. We can do so without having to have another big government program like vouchers. It will require time and effort and WORKING TOGETHER by us all.
We need to have LESS micromanaging by the legislature, LESS federal government involvement, MUCH LESS political things like vouchers and political agendas such and MORE dialogue and working together.
wish to express my thanks to the many parents, teachers and legislators trying to reform Utah schoos. For decades, hard working Utah students, parents, and teachers have struggled with an ineffective, inefficient, wasteful, corrupt, and mediocre education system. Although many trusting, misinformed parents still believe our schools are doing well, actual test data have long demonstrated that Utah’s students have fallen behind students in other states and nations. The depth of this alarming crisis is apparent to virtually all independent national experts who have carefully examined our education system including businessmen like Bill Gates and Steven Jobs, historians like David McCollough, legal experts like Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, political analysts like Newt Gingrich and academic researchers and education experts from Harvard, Stanford and other fine universities. We need to apply world class expertise and correct management principles to solve such important problems.
Despite the obvious nature of Utah’s education crisis, what we continue to receive from too many of our timid state leaders is a profoundly ignorant debate lacking in national expertise and devoid of competent scientific analysis. Reliable information on how to improve our schools is cast aside while our children suffer year after year in a failing system. Failure to enact school reform legislation will continue and extend the ongoing damage to our students. Effective reform legislation, at a minimum, should enable greater support for charter schools, voucher programs, pay for performance for gifted educators, the firing of incompetent educators, making the best teachers available to all students via online video classes, and other essential reforms that are ALL necessary to pull Utah schools out the current 1930’s socialist-style factory system that is so clearly failing to provide our children with the world-class education they will need to compete and thrive in the 21st Century. Pouring more tax dollars into an "unreformed, incompetently organized, mismanaged system is an ignorant folly that will long be noted by history.
There is simply too much at stake for Utah’s ineffective, factory model school system to continue without significant reform. As Mitt Romney has noted, “Students around the world are racing ahead of ours. If we don't move [and reform our school systems], we'll become the France of the 21st century.... Together, we can create a world-class school system in Utah. Let’s make it happen!
Sincerely, R. Christopher Barden, Ph.D., J.D.
Now here's a non-biased opinion if there ever was any replete with all the standard labels and the sky is falling analogies that that BOTH sides employ. His definition of "effective" reform does not include ways to improve ALL schools.
Having spent some time in Korea, we could become more like them I suppose--often in high school, many go from early in the morning until late at night to school AND often on weekends and vacations too. The kids get "separated" when they are younger as to who should go to what kind of school and that becomes their lot in life.
One thing that is missed here is that we educate a wider variety of students and count a wider variety of scores than a LOT of countries do.
Nonetheless, yes, let's work for REAL reform, not politically-motivated reform.
TOGETHER, we CAN work to make our system better, but not through employing contentious labels like above.
Post a Comment
<< Home