Rep. Litvack Also Is Invited
Some years, the Legislature has surpluses of money. Other years, it doesn't. But, it always has a surplus of empty rhetoric.
Regarding my voucher bill, the Tribune reports:
Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, doubted assertions by sponsor Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, that public schools would not be hurt because they get to keep some of the money for kids who leave with vouchers. "The problem with that is the math has never added up . . . public school still loses."
As I have done in previous entries, I again invite people to abandon the rhetoric and join the debate. If Rep. Litvack can back up his statement with data, if he wants to show me his math, I'll fix the bill to address it. Until I see the math he refers to, I'll assume he was making stuff up.
Regarding my voucher bill, the Tribune reports:
Rep. David Litvack, D-Salt Lake City, doubted assertions by sponsor Rep. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George, that public schools would not be hurt because they get to keep some of the money for kids who leave with vouchers. "The problem with that is the math has never added up . . . public school still loses."
As I have done in previous entries, I again invite people to abandon the rhetoric and join the debate. If Rep. Litvack can back up his statement with data, if he wants to show me his math, I'll fix the bill to address it. Until I see the math he refers to, I'll assume he was making stuff up.
posted by steve u. at 1/23/2007
Subscribe
12 Comments:
I maybe be naive but maybe after he sees your math he might change his mind. It sounds like the verbage of the voucher bill is not availabe (according to the DNew article).
BTW I think your Politicopia idea is great.
It's often been the case that when the student leaves the system, the school district gets no funding for that student. Under normal circumstances, even though the voucher is not for the full amount of the WPU (in most cases), a voucher would not result in any "extra" money being left over for the public schools as some allege. I am waiting to see what the next round brings. A factor to be considered also is when money starts being used to cover students that are not currently or wouldn't be currently covered under by taxes. That takes additional money out which wouldn't be lost otherwise.
I favor other solutions first, myself actually. I would like to see schools become more community and neighborhood based. Then bey working together we could ALL have a stake in "our" schools and the tax money spent there. There are a whole host of things we could do instead. Vouchers sort of defeats the purpose for me in a lot of ways. I don't want any more politically-heated solutions. I want us to allow ALL schools to become "choice" schools. We haven't tried what we REALLY could here.
I hope this is the year that we can finally work together cooperatively and not combatively or competively.
I can also work on my spelling. :)
Don't worry about it. This is a spelling optional site.
As I've mentioned several times before, the Legislature and the State School Board are working collaboratively in many areas. For the most part the dialogue is very good -- and our citizens are reaping the benefits of that.
However, education really matters. Therefore, people of goodwill are going to disagree strongly about some policy decisions.
We shouldn't shy away from topics just because there is strong disagreement. That would prevent us from every moving away from the status quo on anything. Rather, we should run those strong opinions through the democratic process that was designed to handle tough issues. The process can handle it. The public can handle it.
But, one thing the process requires, in order to work well, is good information. I have plenty of patience for passion and disagreement. I have very little patience for dishonesty in the process. That is why I'm working to flush out the disinformation that is being spread about this bill financially harming public education. It simply is not true, and is being thrown out to muddy the dialogue.
The math is simple:
You take away money and you lose money.
What's so hard to understand about Litvack's math? Duh.
Richard Watson,
Simple, yes. Correct, no. I'd again go over fixed costs, variable costs and general fund, education fund issues again. But I don't sense you truly want to engage in the conversation.
The math is simple for any NEWLY enrolled students. What Rep. Urquhart is omitting, not accidentally, is the thousands of children who are already enrolled in private schools. Their parents will be lining up to take the tax break that will be offered under this bill. These parents have already made their choice - private school. A voucher will be just another tax break for those already well off enough to afford private school. Since Rep. Urquhart likes to challenge people on their numbers, I would ask that he show how his bill would benefit lower income students. He says they will now have a choice when he knows this to be untrue.
Nope. Take a breath. I'm not omitting anything. You simply have not read the bill. The bill states that students currently enrolled in private schools are not eligible, unless they are poor.
That's what the current bill says, but of course, it after the NEW students become enrolled in the private schools, the parents aren't going to assume that vouchers is a one-shot thing. THEN the next year, you WILL see them want to still continue the voucher so in that regard legishater is right.
Lots of disinformation about public schools gets spread around too, Steve. We can change the status quo by changing our attitudes and working together AND not having so many politics involved. Vouchers don't promote that to me. If there must be vouchers, I'd rathe have the private sector provide it anyways. The voucher groups seem pretty awash with money already. They don't seem to need more government money.
You are right, we can't shy away from topics just because there is strong disagreement, but we don't need to work to suppress that disagreement either. Getting away the two extremes on this issue and working together would be a good start.
Again, let's be cooperative instead of combative. It's not just limited to ONE side either, it's BOTH sides.
Can I have a portion of the tax exemptions those with kids get if they want me who has no kids to pay for their voucher? After all, I do want to have the "choice" to be able to raise a child. I'm sure they might have some money left over so that I can have my personal choice subsidized too.
Geez, more spelling errors, I need glasses. :)
Post a Comment
<< Home