Vouchers -- Democracy in Action
The Tribune ran my op ed on the passage of vouchers. I greatly appreciate the Trib's willingness to use its space to run a piece that criticizes the role of intermediaries (including the media) in filtering political information in order to achieve certain outcomes. What better acquittal could it give itself than to run the piece? Thanks, Trib, for pushing the dialogue along.
In the op ed, I opine that the voucher bill passed this year, when it had failed in previous years, because the Internet is allowing citizens to obtain more unfiltered information. Though the UEA never abandoned false arguments regarding the fiscal impact of vouchers, other more responsible intermediaries did -- but only after the arguments were broadly discussed on this site, Politicopia, and many other great sites that took up the issue.
UPDATE (2/12/07): Eugene Volokh and Pete Ashdown share their thoughts.
In the op ed, I opine that the voucher bill passed this year, when it had failed in previous years, because the Internet is allowing citizens to obtain more unfiltered information. Though the UEA never abandoned false arguments regarding the fiscal impact of vouchers, other more responsible intermediaries did -- but only after the arguments were broadly discussed on this site, Politicopia, and many other great sites that took up the issue.
UPDATE (2/12/07): Eugene Volokh and Pete Ashdown share their thoughts.
posted by steve u. at 2/11/2007
Subscribe
14 Comments:
The people have spoken?
Hmmmmm, By the polls I have seen if vouchers were put to the test on a ballot they would lose.
Way to go Steve, you lie is now complete.
See, if you had gone to private school you could spell your correctly.
Of course you probably would not have been enrolled.
Finally, I can educate my children at a school that does not have a liberal/socialist agenda.
Since the vast majority of the public does not attend private schools perhaps next election that majority will hold you responsibile for your bill and vote to kick your elitist special interest beholding butt out of office. Your name along with the other thirty seven members of the House who voted for this gift to the priviliged will be remembered.
Frank,
You don't get it do you...
This voucher bill will do more for public ed than most any other bill passed this session.
First, no one has yet shown evidence that vouchers hurt student performance. Every academic study done on vouchers has shown that students using vouchers do as well as or better than their counterparts who stay in the public schools.
That being said, what if doctors came up with a treatment for cancer that in every case did as well as or better than the current treatments but cost 1/3 as much? You'd be estatic.
Well, that's what we have with vouchers. The average voucher will be $2,000. That's a third of what we spend per student in the public school. Even if every student currently in private school got a $2,000 voucher, it would still only take a small percentage of students to switch from public to private schools (who otherwise would not have done so without a voucher) to see savings to the state...
Those savings will then be avialbe for the state to increase it's per student spending in the public schools.
If you could think of a better way to educate more children while at the same time increase per student spending in the public schools without raising taxes, I would love to see it.
I agree that the Internet can be an important tool in furthering dialogue. But is anyone really listening? Even on this pro-voucher blog hosted by the bill's own sponsor, the majority of comments oppose school vouchers.
Also, Rep. Urquhart, from my point of view, this issue has drastically split neighborhoods, communities and even the Legislature as demonstrated by the 38-37 vote. But you got what you wanted, so now can we just drop the subject. Dialoguing is a two-way street and if one side isn't willing to listen to the other, then what's the point? Continuing to shove vouchers down our throat isn't going to make us feel any better about them.
Save for next election:
YEAS - 38
Andersen Fowlke Kiser Sumsion
Barrus Frank Last Tilton
Buxton Froerer Lockhart Urquhart
Clark, D. Garn Morley Walker
Clark, S. Gibson Neuenschwander Wheeler
Daw Grover Newbold Wimmer
Dee Harper Noel Wyatt
Donnelson Herrod Oda Curtis
Dougall Hughes Painter
Draxler Hutchings, E. Sandstrom
YEAS 19
Bell Eastman Knudson Stowell
Bramble Hickman Madsen Waddoups
Buttars Hillyard Niederhauser Walker
Christensen Jenkins Peterson Valentine
Dayton Killpack Stephenson
Lt. Gov. Herbert, Gov. Huntsman
Steve,
The people have spoken? My eye. Polls still show a split decision on the bill. I like the fact that you blog and the wiki, but when people try to disagree with your voucher plan, you quickly demean them. Let the people speak.
You can celebrate all you want over a 38-37 vote, but vouchers are not the magic solution to the educational woes in this state. Lo siento Steve-o.
This post has been removed by the author.
"The Meathead has Spoken!"
Now there's a title!
Tuesday, February 06, 2007
The Parent requires the child to attend school if the child is present at beginning of the day!
The Parent fails to require the child to attend school if the child fails to arrive at the school
TEXAS EDUCATION CODE
Sec. 25.094. FAILURE TO ATTEND SCHOOL
The fallacy of this law is that it does not differentiate between a student that is absent and a student that is skipping or tardy.
An absent student is one who does not arrive at school in the morning and is absent for the WHOLE Day. The student was never on campus. The Parent is responsible for the student getting to school (requiring the student to attend school). If the student does not get to school it is the Parent’s responsibility not necessarily the Parent’s fault. There are circumstances where the student will walk in the front door and out the back door without attending a single class. This is where the attendance officers need to improve their due diligence like the old days.
Once the student is counted present in the morning; the Parent has required the student (child) to attend school. Once the student is verified in attendance at the beginning of the school day the student is in the custody of the School.
If the student is tardy or skips class (on campus or off campus) this happens on the watch of the school. The Parent if informed should cooperate and communicate with the School Counselors Administrators and the Attendance Officer to correct the behavior. The Security and Attendance officer should take notice and tighten the belt. This is a security issue as well; there is no excuse for students coming and going outside of the lunch period and it is imperative that attendance irregularities be dealt with within 24 hours. This is easily done with our modern technology.
Instead, what we are seeing is the Attendance Officers documenting the absences as they accumulate and filing on the Parent and student when the number of absences are achieved.
Another fallacy resides in the Parental notification outreach process. There are parts of the law that dictate certain steps be taken,
A warning is issued as required by Section 25.095(a)
25.095(a) refers to the Issuance of student handbook at the beginning of the school year that informs the reader of the Non Attendance law and the student's parent is subject to prosecution under Section 25.093 and the student is subject to prosecution under Section 25.094 if the student is absent from school on 10 or more days or parts of days within a six-month period in the same school year or on three or more days or parts of days within a four-week period.
(b) A school district shall notify a student's parent if the student has been absent from school, without excuse under Section 25.087, on three days or parts of days within a four-week period. The notice must:
(1) inform the parent that:
(A) it is the parent's duty to monitor the student's school attendance and require the student to attend school; and
(B) the parent is subject to prosecution under Section 25.093; and
(2) request a conference between school officials and the parent to discuss the absences.
But if these steps required (by the very same law) for the School under 25.095 (a) or (b) are disregarded by the School this is not a defense to the prosecution.
(c) The fact that a parent did not receive a notice under Subsection (a) or (b) does not create a defense to prosecution under Section 25.093 or 25.094.
So the Parent is prosecuted regardless of whether the rules applying to the school responsibilities are followed or not.
The School has no responsibility.
http://ccisd-kenedeno-edu.blogspot.com/2007/02/parent-requires-child-to-attend-school.html
Democracy in action?! Please!
There was no public outcry in Utah for vouchers. Even the most pro-voucher poll ever taken showed a split vote at best. This wasn't democracy in action. This was a few powerful lawmakers, a handful of parents and an endless supply of money from out of state pushing their thoughts and opinions on others.
You want to see the real Utah Legislature in action? Look at Paul Rolly's blog about how certain key votes on vouchers were rewarded by having their bills finally passed out of House Rule, which Mr. Urquhart controls.
You want to know how the Legislature really works? Ask Mr. Urquhart what he meant as he testified before the House Education committee on vouchers. His final comments were very telling. He said any constitutional concerns were silly, and then he said the best statement of all. He said, "this is part of the package."
Exactly what package is that Mr. Urquhart? What back room deals did you make to ensure passage of vouchers?
I am still waiting to see democracy in action.
I'm a first year law student at the University of Chicago, until recently of Taylorsville, Utah.
I read about your voucher bill on Volokh and have been very impressed with your well-thought out views here. I was especially pleased that the law has a sliding scale for income, which should help address the biggest complaint people have about it being a giveaway to the rich. In either case it won't be a catastrophic change, and the state (and observers from around the coutry) will be able to make more informed decisions on education policy going forward.
I'm also amazed that you've maintained a blog for longer than many of my 20-something blogging friends. I'm prejudiced not to expect these kinds of things from a Utah Republican legislator.
Theocracy in Action, this is just a clever backdoor bill to get the Utah taxpayers to subsidize religious indoctrination. I'll bet you can get private schools to teach intelligent design because they are only answerable to their stockholders.
The first anonymous must not be in Utah schools. I've been a teacher for 11 years and have yet to see this alleged socialist agenda. In fact, most teachers I know aren't even political. Do I think there is some? Yes, especially in areas like California. Is is everywhere with every teacher? Not a bit. In fact, every teacher I know spends more time on reading, writing, math, grammar, science, and so on than any so-called diversity training classes or socialist agendas.
That's what bothers me so much about the voucher bill. It ferments attitudes and statements like this. What people don't realize is that such is PART OF THE PROBLEM. When negativity is spread and disrespect shown like that, it does trickle down. I love dealing with my students' parents, but even I am getting overwhelmed by the negativity and disrespect. How about volunteering and spending a little time rather than just complaining for once? And I'll say that to some teachers too.
AND besides, my parents knew they already HAD the choice on how their children were educated, how to raise them, and so on. They taught us how to deal with the so-called liberal agenda and other things that might come up. We also had a thing called personal responsibility, meaning that WE were responsible for our own efforts and learning and didn't blame it on someone else. Homework came before things like TV and friends. It was a simple matter of priorities and parenting. My parents didn't need a voucher to know or do these things, they did it themselves and the same notion has been put into place by my siblings and cousins who now have cildren.
We EACH are responsible for our own actions and choices and have many already. How we live our lives, how we approach it, and our attitudes in life are up to us already. Why should some institution have to tell us that?
Post a Comment
<< Home