Vouchers
Today in caucus, I presented a discussion draft of voucher legislation. The bill will pay private school tuition of $500 to $3000 (the larger amount going toward tuition for poorer children). A few points:
1. The public school system works well for most children. But, does it work well for 100% of the children? Of course not. Children come in all kinds. And, not all children thrive in a public school setting. But, let's say it works well for 98 or 99% of those children. What about the other 1 or 2% who aren't thriving in public schools and come from families that can't afford to get them out of public schools? Do they want to be there? And, honestly, if they aren't thriving, do we want them to be there?
2. Despite the doomsaying that is sure to come, public schools will come out ahead when a student accepts a voucher under this bill for two reasons. One, the amount of the voucher is less than the cost to the public school system of educating each child, meaning that extra money is left in the system to distribute to remaining students. Two, the bill provides that each student leaving the public system will continue to be enrolled on the public school's books for 5 years; the district will continue to receive money for the student, even though he/she isn't there. Why? Depending on your perspective, you can call it mitigation money, or you can call it politics. But the point is -- public education comes out ahead.
If anyone can show evidence (not just alarmist rhetoric) that public education does not come out financially ahead with this bill, post your arguments and data in the comment section. If they're valid, I'll amend the bill to ensure that public education comes out financially better with this bill.
3. Far and away, the beneficiaries of this bill will be the poor and middle class. Rich people already have school choice. They live in neighborhoods that typically have better schools. And, if they conclude those elitist public schools aren't working for their kids, they can afford private school on their own.
4. Vouchers foster a public/private partnership. Some complain that vouchers are flawed, because they do not pay the full tuition of many private schools. That funding gap is true. The private sector (e.g., the family or a scholarship granting organization) picks up the rest of the tuition, and the private sector also picks up the cost of the building. This collaboration helps fund education in this state.
UPDATE (1/19/07): a few news articles on the bill. D-News and Trib.
1. The public school system works well for most children. But, does it work well for 100% of the children? Of course not. Children come in all kinds. And, not all children thrive in a public school setting. But, let's say it works well for 98 or 99% of those children. What about the other 1 or 2% who aren't thriving in public schools and come from families that can't afford to get them out of public schools? Do they want to be there? And, honestly, if they aren't thriving, do we want them to be there?
2. Despite the doomsaying that is sure to come, public schools will come out ahead when a student accepts a voucher under this bill for two reasons. One, the amount of the voucher is less than the cost to the public school system of educating each child, meaning that extra money is left in the system to distribute to remaining students. Two, the bill provides that each student leaving the public system will continue to be enrolled on the public school's books for 5 years; the district will continue to receive money for the student, even though he/she isn't there. Why? Depending on your perspective, you can call it mitigation money, or you can call it politics. But the point is -- public education comes out ahead.
If anyone can show evidence (not just alarmist rhetoric) that public education does not come out financially ahead with this bill, post your arguments and data in the comment section. If they're valid, I'll amend the bill to ensure that public education comes out financially better with this bill.
3. Far and away, the beneficiaries of this bill will be the poor and middle class. Rich people already have school choice. They live in neighborhoods that typically have better schools. And, if they conclude those elitist public schools aren't working for their kids, they can afford private school on their own.
4. Vouchers foster a public/private partnership. Some complain that vouchers are flawed, because they do not pay the full tuition of many private schools. That funding gap is true. The private sector (e.g., the family or a scholarship granting organization) picks up the rest of the tuition, and the private sector also picks up the cost of the building. This collaboration helps fund education in this state.
UPDATE (1/19/07): a few news articles on the bill. D-News and Trib.
posted by steve u. at 1/18/2007
Subscribe
21 Comments:
Mr. Urquhart,
A naive question that I will ask anyway. What are the possibilities or consequences of switching to 2 or 3 unified school districts in the state? We run a small business and it seems k-12 education is top-heavy. Just something that has been bugging me enough that I'm willing to look you up, sign up an account and post a comment on your website. I agree my children are having a great educational experience. However, I'm tired of hearing the "not enough money" story and then see the seeming size of administration.(This seems very expensive). Is there a better way to reward the best teachers and keep them in the classroom, teaching? Instead of promoting them to administration and away from teaching students.
Thank you for your work in the government and your service to us.
A Santa Clara Mom
Welcome, Sportsmom!
Utah school districts do better than most when it comes to the administrative load. My understanding is that a good goal to shoot for is 65% of the money going to non-administrative functions. Our districts are somewhere around 63%. Pretty good, but, yes, room for improvement.
A real (but under-reported) part of the story on teacher pay is that so much of the money that should go to teacher pay gets eaten up by benefits. When that is discussed, it is discussed as if the flow of money to benefits is an inevitability. It is not. To a large degree it is a choice. The unions bargain to trade dollars in pockets for dollars in health and retirement benefits -- both of which greatly exceed benefits from other professions.
On the issue of district size, I'd disagree with having even larger districts. We see no favorable economies of scale in our huge Utah districts. But, as is the case with Jordan and Alpine, many citizens in the larger districts seem to feel very disenfranchised. In Washington County, if a parent wants to meet with Superintendent Rose, that will happen quickly.
Steve,
To me the bill sounds like a win/win for both public education and those who wish to send their children to private school. I personally have been thinking about this a lot lately. My wife and I are expecting our first child next month; the discussion of education has come up a number of times. Our local community has all stressed concerns about the local elementary, because of class size, etc. But we live a few blocks from a private school. A voucher like this could help a lot of us with our decisions.
Thanks for a great bill! I will be calling my local reps and senators to support this.
BenJoe,
Thanks. And congrats! I alway like to point out that Steve and Stevie are fine names.
As I see it, the arguments against vouchers have been three-fold:
1) They are not constitutional because the money could potentially go to a religious organization.
2) They will/may take money away from already strapped public schools.
3) Private schools are not regulated so the taxpayer would not be able to know that their tax money was being spent appropriately.
I like your thinking on this because you seem to be addressing 2 and 3 to a certain extent. The constitutional question, in all likelihood can not be answered until a bill is passed and signed by a governor. Nobody really knows how that one will go.
I do have a couple suggestions for you to think about. Rather than have the mitigation money go to the school district, I would like to see it go to THE SCHOOL. My thinking here is that some of the students who leave the public school will be doing so because their local neighborhood school is struggling. If the mitigation money goes to the district, it wouldn’t necessarily help that school improve. I would love to see you find a way to give that money to the Community Council of the school where the voucher student would have otherwise attended. They could then use the resources directly for tutoring and other school improvement ideas.
Secondly, Utah has a very powerful accountability system called UPASS. Problem number 3 (above) could be very easily solved by having voucher students participate in UPASS. They could take the exams and be lumped together as a group or separated into private school systems. Either way, the taxpayer will be able to see what their money is going toward.
Finally, I must say, you confuse me when you say that private school parents will vote with their feet. Don’t public school parents have feet? If minimal accountability is okay for private schools, why isn’t it sufficient for public schools? Give them the same requirements (by this I mean take a hatchet to the state public education regulation nightmare) and make the playing field level.
You need to first be concerned that Utah is in last place. That means you can pick any state in the country and they care about kids than you and the rest of the legislator. So let say we move up to 40 th even 45 th then we could maybe talk about something that will only effect 3% of the students.
Dear Rep. Urquhart,
Would you give us a teaser on your bill entitled School Volunteer Amendments? I am guessing it is to encourage parent involvement which research proves to have great impact on student achievement. Would it be better to encourage parents to become involved advocates for their children rather than encourage them to abandon their neighborhood schools? It seems helping people learn to change an inadequate (for them) system is of higher value to society than paying them to leave and hope for better elsewhere.
Our district has poor hardworking parents who still make time to be involved at their children's schools and make sure their needs are being met. It makes for a better and more supportive community with strong schools when we all stay to help each other.
Utahns don't want a voucher system.
Enough said.
Steve,
Would all who send their kids to private schools recieve vouchers, the rich who already do and the middle class who would with vouchers?
Also, it would seem to me that the increased money going into private schooling would tend to pull the better teachers away from the public schools. What am I missing?
Anonymous,
Do you have a source for your statement? Just making a statement is not "enough said" for me. I would be happy to agree with you if your statement is founded on something other than one persons opinion.
Thanks for the interest!
Tim, the first amendment precludes spending money to advance religion. With this bill, all schools must meet the same criteria to qualify. Thus, it is neutral on religion.
Some anons suggested vouchers aren't compatible with our low per student funding. Okay. Beyond the $500,000,000 increase in public ed. funding the Legislature has provided over the last 3 years, what are your solutions to increase funding? You propose we find the money where? I propose we find some of the money in the private sector -- which under this bill will pick up part of the tuition and the full cost of the buildings.
I'm not running the school volunteer bill. It would have had schools and districts inventory available volunteer resources, assess whether they were being used to the fullest and lay out a plan to better utilize these non-monetary resources.
One anon is pretty sure Utahns don't want vouchers. We disagree.
Salem, the program is phased in. Kids already in private schools wouldn't qualify, unless they're poor.
Rep. Urquhart,
Would the Private Schools that accept these vouchers be required to have state-certified and highly qualified teachers? Would these Private Schools have to accept all who apply and do a "lottery enrollment" like Charter Schools? Would these Private Schools have to adhere to NCLB and meet AYP yearly? 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.? 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? What about Charter Schools that lose students to vouchers, will they receive money like the District Schools? 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?
Last anon.,
Good questions. I'm taking them to a main page for people to ponder. Once I get the bill up on www.politicopia.com where people can see it and I can refer to specific lines (I'm shooting for tonight), I'll address them.
I would love to see school vouchers finally come to pass. This current system is completely unfair to parents who actually want to have a better education and headstart for their children than what the pathetic schools in my area turn out. Since I am not one of the 'Elite' class that people like to say are the only ones with children in private school I have to make a choice between buying my own home or renting and using the money difference to be able to have my kids in a great school. Needless to say, I rent and drive around vehicles that most people would turn their nose up at so I can afford the $700+ a month for my kids' tuition.
Go Vouchers!
Steve, thank you so much for addressing the pressing issue of School Vouchers here in Utah.
One problem I have noticed with the bill is that it only allows me to spend $500-$3000 of MY TAX DOLLARS on my childrens' education; remember, as a legal citizen taxpayer, that money belongs to my childrens' education, NOT to the wasteful, corrupt, inept public school system.
The public school system in America is a failure; while Utah is far better than most states, all we hear is whining that there is never enough money for education. We are bombarded by whining about money, yet EVERY single income tax dollar is spent (unwisely) on PUBLIC education.
The problem are teachers uions and the public school system itself.
The unions are even more greedy and godless than they were when I was a child; now they are absolutely unbearable. And government-run education will never stack up to private education, where parents vote for the best schools with their dollars.
And by the way, how much money was spent on public education here in Utah in the year 2006?
Back when I was a kid, teachers in the public schools I attended would brainwash us into telling our parents that teachers aren't paid enough, that not enough money goes to education, etc. etc.
Will it ever end? OF COURSE NOT!! Public education officials, teachers' unions, and the leftist Utah media will only continue to caterwaul about taxpayer cash for education until the end of live as we know it.
Each year, education quality goes down, pedophilia and other child abuse increases, bullying is rampant, and my children are as likely to learn about evolution, paris hilton, sex, and drugs as science, math, and English grammar.
Those school districts only deserve to receive the money if they give my child an acceptable education. Their repeated, dismal failure year in and year out (while spending mroe and more tax dollars each year) is only matched by their greed for more taxpayer cash.
If your bill might finally pass, but it refuses to give me all that was paid into the system by myself and others on behalf of my child, then my children are being discriminated against, and this is unacceptable. Who is more important, the school district and the ridiculous inefficiencies of public education bureaucracies, or my children? Public education isn't the solution to our problems. Public education IS the problem.
Public schools will never be what we are trying to make them unless there is real competition. Letting the public system keep more than half the money is so amazingly dysfunctional, I can't believe your bill is allowing an illogical mistake of this magnitude. Clearly you are trying to do what's best, but you have to choose between a REAL voucher program and a compromise, which will please neither side. Give us real vouchers; give us choice; give us control of our tax dollars. PLEASE!
Hi Mr. Urquhart,
I really appreciate you pushing for Choice in Eduaction. This is a war we need to win, for the sake of our children, and for our countries future. If everyone could watch 20/20's Stupid in America,( http://youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA ) I believe this would really educate folks on the battle we are facing ! Thanks Again And Please Stay the Course !
The last anonymous justifications and labels are what makes me against vouchers in the first place.
Sometimes I wonder if some put forth as much effort to help out the situation as they complained, what it would really be like.
He misses the notion that he is being reimbursed for his tax dollars. The REST of us will pay for his personal choice. Then, he wants more it seems. Such happens often when one receives a government subsidy--they want more and more and feel "entitled" to it. Do not other parents work just as hard as him at raising their children? Why should they have to subsidize HIS personal choice? Isn't that discrimination? And what about childless couples who have wanted children? Doesn't he already have MUCH more CHOICE than they do? They already pay for public education and now he expects them to pay for HIS personal choice. Who's browbeating who here?
This paragraph alone provides much to consider:
Each year, education quality goes down, pedophilia and other child abuse increases, bullying is rampant, and my children are as likely to learn about evolution, paris hilton, sex, and drugs as science, math, and English grammar.
This indicates he doesn't spend much time in schools (though yes, there are some problems with bullying and such--that is not JUST the fault of teachers and such) and seems blame many SOCIETAL problems onto ONE entity.
He says "if it fails to give my child all that I have paid into the system..." Meeting the needs of children is up to the parents.
They ALREADY have the choice of how to raise their child, how they are educated, what values they follow, and so on. THEY are, or at least should be, the biggest influence in their child's life. Public education's purpose is to provide a basic education. If someone wants something extra, he or she usually pays for it.
If anonymous has such a problem with education, has he been in the classrooms volunteering? Has he asked teachers how he can help? Has he helped with reading tutoring programs? Has he offered to assist on projects? Has he offered his own expertise on something? Has he offered to come in and share a talent? Has he talked with educators and others to find out their perceptions and how he could help out the situation?
That's what I see--too much justification, entitlement, and complaining. I'm tired of hearing from the two extremes (teachers' unions and voucher groups). Maybe us average joes need to be the ones to talk to.
Steve, you bring up the 65% solution. I have problems with that too--there are actually many locations in Utah that exceed that already. If it is 63%, that is pretty good already I think.
One problem I have with it is that it is put out by Patrick Byrne, a well-known opponent of public education. Why should HE be regarded as the expert on this? Does it not have a political agenda behind it?
The other one is in regards to elementaries. Many in Utah don't have the same levels of support staff that they do in other countries. My local school does not have specialist, in-classroom aides, and such. The "solution" would take affect what is already a thin staff. Under this, many of them are not counted as "instruction." Lunch workers, custodians, secretaries, and others help greatly in the school being able to function. Taking away more of an already short staff (okay no height jokes here) doesn't make sense. That's where this affects Utah much more differently than other areas of the country who have much more support staff at schools.
Also, it should be pointed out that often the support staff are people from the community or neighborhood surrounding the school. Such helps provide a more community feel to the school and help the community feel more a part of it. Taking away much of that does not make sense either.
This is a politically motivated agenda that could adversely affect schools. Since, the percentages in Utah often exceed or are clase to it, it is not needed.
anthony said it is a "war we must win" and then uses John Stossel's piece for support.
Would he use a Michael Moore report on the War in Iraq as a reference too? I wouldn't because it is biased and politically motivated. Same with John Stossel's report. Do we just regard the parts of the M M that agree with us as valid and disregard that that does not? Stossel is just another media person with his own agenda. That it agrees with some others does not make any more valid or worthy to be considered.
As a teacher, I also see a "war" and it is a war on teachers. Growing up, we were taught to respect teachers and to do our best to learn in the classroom. I never thought I'd see the hostility I see today towards teachers sometimes. In fact some of that "climate of disrespect" that some people perpetuate and emphasize, doesn't do very much to help out things. I'm not going to blame all of the problem in schools on such, but it certainly does not help.
Yes, I realize that some teachers mess up. Do you not think that the rest of us teachers get upset at that? We see such situations often used as fodder by groups and others against public education as justification for their agendas and applied to ALL of us. I certainly heard that while attending voucher rallies a couple of years ago--I remember one group of voucher supporters who were in a group talking about how stupid and "bad" the public education teachers were. It made me sad to thnk that they "had" to do that.
Again, such don't make me want to support vouchers any more. There is indeed a hostility factor, even more hostile than the teachers' unions it seems with SOME of them.
Every year I see public education get chipped away bit by bit by the legislature. Yes, that is even with the increased funding. It is the ATTITUDE that is just as or more important to me anyways.
I don't see anything with vouchers that increases the support and respect for teachers. I see it creating more hostility. I don't see anything in them that addresses the concerns many of us have and experience. I don't see it promoting people working together, but pulling them further apart and dividing them. Yes, I see the new buzz phrases, "creates more competion," "benefits everyone," "choice," and so on. Fancy phrases are not SPECIFIC solutions. In fact, I don't see them as the underlying reason for beign put forth as to help out public schools, actually I should say I don't see language in them to say how they will adress public school issues and help them improve. Promoting better public schools is not their agenda for sure.
Let's look at some of the POSITIVE things that are happening in Utah schools too and work to deal with and solve the negative things. Often, it seems we hear just the latter.
With several Republicans or voucher supporters, I try to bring up vouchers or that I'm a teacher and immediately they go into shutoff mode, not wanting to listen to me (and yes I am a Republican).
I work pretty hard like many teachers do in this state to teach my class the best I can. It doesn't help when there are special interest groups, politics, and others working to undermine that.
Let's meet halfway without all the politics, special interests, and so on.
I often hear "let's just try vouchers."
I say, let's try something new that really has NOT been tried--completely change our attitude and work together.
Like I said, I will share just SOME of my solutions soon (it's a long list).
Regarding your smaller school districts notion, I DO think it is possible to create smaller entities WITHIN the larger school districts without having to expend all of the costs and redundancy of setting up a new one. Gaining more local control without having to increase the costs significantly should be the goal and approach we should take.
For example, in the Jordan School District, the East side is getting tired of paying for the West side buildings with some of their own schools closing down (an unfortunate thing in my book). Many west side housedholds, however, would be severely impacted where the East side to pull away, particularly in the southwest portion of the district. Should not they have an equal say rather than just the communities who want to pull away? If there is to be division, should it not be along a line that more equitably impacts people?
Should not everyone have a vote in the matter? Are there not other solutions we can look at with the notion of creating more local control and avoiding the costs?
I love the idea of vouchers but I think the criteria of who recieves these are wrong. I am a home owner who pays property taxes of which part go to fund public schools. My husband and I both work hard to live in a normal moderate neighborhood. Because of our two incomes we do not qualify for free or reduced lunch so therefore do not qualify for the vouchers. We are by no means rich. We do what we have to to be able to live in a middle class neighborhood. What makes it right for the lower income who possibly rent without paying property taxes to get the break when my tax dollars go for public schools and I still have to pay for private education. It is always the same. Those of us who are working 2 or 3 jobs to provide a decent life for our families get the shaft.
Post a Comment
<< Home