Let Them Eat School Lunch
The Senate and House minority leaders sent a letter to Governor Huntsman asking him to call a special session to repeal HB 174 – the “clean up” bill for my education voucher legislation (HB 148). As we all know by now, HB 148 is subject to a referendum. HB 174 is not, nor could it be, since it passed by more than two-thirds in each body. HB 148 might or might not become law. HB 174 is law, even if the state school board chooses to ignore it.
So far, we’ve had some good public dialogue on the voucher issue; however, one point seems to be entirely missing: why was HB 174 drafted? Answer: the state school board asked us to run the legislation. That legislation passed; now, they want it to go away.
The tack of the education establishment has been to ignore/oppose the voucher issue, not to ever offer contributions or suggestions to an idea that many of their constituents want. And, no matter what anyone says, the ones who want it the most are the ones who are struggling the most. Remember, rich people already have the option of going to private schools. Poor people don’t have that option – unless, as we heard repeatedly in the testimony, they work 2 or 3 jobs to pay for it. Short of that, their kids are trapped in a situation that is not working for them. While the public school system does a great job, some kids will be lost in a system so big. Maybe the kids are being bullied, maybe they have language issues, maybe they’re way behind or way ahead, etc. For whatever reason, public schools might not be working for some kids. Rich people have options. Poor people don’t.
For me, the committee testimony was revealing. In the line for vouchers were parents, most of them stating that they were struggling to financially do what is best for their children. In the line against vouchers were members of the education establishment, informing those parents that they were fine, no matter what they might experience to the contrary. Also telling was the smugness of the Senator from Holladay, righteously declaring that people in Holladay are against vouchers. Good for them. I’m glad they are rich and have wonderful schools; and, if for some reason the best performing schools in the state don’t meet their elevated needs, I’m glad they already have the money to send their kids to private schools. Life is good in Holladay. But maybe not so much in other areas.
I’m against a special session to repeal HB 174. It is law, and it should be implemented.
However, I would be happy to advocate a special session to consider modifications to HB 174. However, that would require that all sides declare a willingness to truly engage in the process. Though they’re working hard to claim some sort of high ground, it has always been undemocratic for the education establishment to refuse to dialogue on an issue of such obvious consequence to our citizens. Again, the part of the story that is missing is that the only time the education establishment was willing to dialogue was after HB 148 passed. We heard them and immediately ran the changes they requested. One side of this debate has always been willing to engage in democratic process and give the other side fair consideration.
So far, we’ve had some good public dialogue on the voucher issue; however, one point seems to be entirely missing: why was HB 174 drafted? Answer: the state school board asked us to run the legislation. That legislation passed; now, they want it to go away.
The tack of the education establishment has been to ignore/oppose the voucher issue, not to ever offer contributions or suggestions to an idea that many of their constituents want. And, no matter what anyone says, the ones who want it the most are the ones who are struggling the most. Remember, rich people already have the option of going to private schools. Poor people don’t have that option – unless, as we heard repeatedly in the testimony, they work 2 or 3 jobs to pay for it. Short of that, their kids are trapped in a situation that is not working for them. While the public school system does a great job, some kids will be lost in a system so big. Maybe the kids are being bullied, maybe they have language issues, maybe they’re way behind or way ahead, etc. For whatever reason, public schools might not be working for some kids. Rich people have options. Poor people don’t.
For me, the committee testimony was revealing. In the line for vouchers were parents, most of them stating that they were struggling to financially do what is best for their children. In the line against vouchers were members of the education establishment, informing those parents that they were fine, no matter what they might experience to the contrary. Also telling was the smugness of the Senator from Holladay, righteously declaring that people in Holladay are against vouchers. Good for them. I’m glad they are rich and have wonderful schools; and, if for some reason the best performing schools in the state don’t meet their elevated needs, I’m glad they already have the money to send their kids to private schools. Life is good in Holladay. But maybe not so much in other areas.
I’m against a special session to repeal HB 174. It is law, and it should be implemented.
However, I would be happy to advocate a special session to consider modifications to HB 174. However, that would require that all sides declare a willingness to truly engage in the process. Though they’re working hard to claim some sort of high ground, it has always been undemocratic for the education establishment to refuse to dialogue on an issue of such obvious consequence to our citizens. Again, the part of the story that is missing is that the only time the education establishment was willing to dialogue was after HB 148 passed. We heard them and immediately ran the changes they requested. One side of this debate has always been willing to engage in democratic process and give the other side fair consideration.
posted by steve u. at 5/15/2007
Subscribe
16 Comments:
You said:
I’m against a special session to repeal HB 174. It is law, and it should be implemented.
However, I would be happy to advocate a special session to consider modifications to HB 174. However, that would require that all sides declare a willingness to truly engage in the process.
and I read:
...However, that would require that all sides let me have what I want, when I want it, or I'll write up a blog post or an OP/ED about how you're a whiner 'cause you don't like my bill
Too cynical?
Yes.
But you've done that before, so, does this mean you wont be doing it again, you wont do it on this topic, or you just don't feel like examining the fact that you have called people who disagree with you whiners in the past?
So far, we’ve had some good public dialogue on the voucher issue; however, one point seems to be entirely missing: why was HB 174 drafted? Answer: the state school board asked us to run the legislation.
I haven't heard this version of events until now. A newspaper article shortly after the session suggested HB 174 came about because several senators wished to make amendments to HB 148, but were prevented from doing so, as it would have forced the bill to go back to the house where support was tenuous.
And while I appreciate the improvements provided by HB 174, I don't recall asking for them. =) The handful of comments I did make yielded no changes. Sitting on the other side of a table hearing "You'll do what we tell you to do" isn't exactly a strong negotiating position.
You are right in saying UEA, et al should have been more actively involved in crafting a voucher bill. I've mentioned that to several activists a handful of times over the past couple of years and was met with patronizing smiles.
Whose fault is it? The State Board of Education didn't make any overtures to initiate discussion in crafting a responsible voucher bill, but neither did the legislature, the education committees, or bill sponsors.
A bit of healthy respect and cooperation on both "sides" would go a long way.
JMB: I think the point is that the State Educationopoly must respect the rule of law. They don't have to agree with HB 174. They don't have to like it. But the do have to implement it. It's the law. That's how our republic works.
JM,
I don't recall generally calling people who disagree with me "whiners.". If I called you a whiner, it seems to fit.
Tom,
"You'll do what we tell you to do."
That doesn't jibe with what I've experienced in the legislative/school board relationship. If that is the reality, we need to change that. The content of HB 174 is straight from Superintendent Harrington.
Yeah, RU, I get that but, when the "law" (174) is a stack of band-aids for another "law that is current up for a vote from the citizens of Utah," the Board of Ed's position makes a lot of sense.
Look, I realize that a lot of lawmakers are under pressure from their Arkansas donors, but, I don't see 174 as valid when 148 is still out for voter approval.
See? You did it again!
"JM Bell disagrees with me, and, has pointed out that I call folks with different opinions 'whiners', so, *POOF* he's a whiner."
It's that kind of attitude, Rep. U, that made my Dad (who lives in your district" register to vote as a Democrat for the first time his 73 years of life.
The real point is why weren't the voucher amendments included in the original bill instead of having an entirely new bill drafted? The whole situation smacks of ego and manipulation.
Also, Rep. Urquhart, you call upon educators to engage in the process and dialogue on the issue but just two paragraphs before you criticize them for lining up to speak against your bill at a committee hearing. It seems you only want people to engage if they agree with you. (Also, just so you know, I am a parent who was sitting in that very committee hearing on the public education "side" and know several other parents supporting public education who were there as well. I chose not to speak because I found the setting intimidating and already stacked in favor of the pro-voucher group, so what was the point).
You might keep this in mind if you're serious about furthering dialogue: It doesn't work to beckon someone with one hand and then slap them down with the other.
I'm doing things on the rush, so maybe I missed something. But,JM, I didn't see anything substantive in what you wrote. Just snark. Maybe it's not accurate to call it whining. But it doesn't do much to help me guage whether people want to revisit the issue on the merits. Or maybe it does.
12:04 anon.,
Good points. Thank you for attending one of the hearings. Sorry if you felt the process did not encourage your active participation.
There is a big difference between participating in a dialogue and simply repeating that the topic should be off limits. I ran voucher legislation in 2003 and approached the head of the UEA and PTA to ask for changes. I repeatedly asked. Finally, they each told me that.they had no interest in considering the topic. That seems to remain the tack.
Did the legislators who voted for HB174 INTEND it to be implemented independently of HB148? To a person, I believe the answer is "NO" they did not. So why all the bravado about forcing the State Board of Education to spend time and money implementing a law that clearly was not intended to stand on its own?
Wouldn't the more prudent course be to wait until the questions are answered before we start sending students down a road that may not lead anywhere?
Well ... I was being snarky. That much is true. And of course you didn't find anything substantive in what I said because it's the opposite of what you believe.
It's historical behavior, Rep. U., that I was pointing out, in a snarky way.
1:53 anon.,
It's a very slippery slope to start implementing intent over actual text. We clearly are in a situation. Hence, my question whether the issue again should be submitted to legislative process. With the online tools we now possess, it could be the most participatory debate the state has ever seen.
Rep. Urquhart,
Thanks for your reply. It is unfortunate, but I believe "You'll do what we tell you to do." is a rather concise summary of meetings on the voucher issue between USOE/USBE leadership and specific legislators in positions of authority. I do not ascribe such an attitude to the legislature as a whole, but several "movers & shakers" have certainly come across that way in the recent past.
A further example might be recent administrative rules committees hearings on USBE rules that in some cases hadn't yet been drafted, and in more cases had yet to be approved by USBE. The hearings, as related through a third party, were directive in nature rather than collaborative.
I'm certain many legislators desire a strong cooperative relationship. I believe that significant progress has been made toward that end in the past few years. Unfortunately, not all legislators welcome such a relationship, perhaps because they feel it lessens their authority.
It’s really disingenuous to say that Rep. Urquhart is saying, “Do what I tell you to do.” In fact, he’s saying, “Do what THE LAW tells you to do.”
HB 174 says certain things. It enacts a voucher program that parents can use to offset the cost of education they get outside the government school system. If legislators did not want to create such a program, they should not have voted for a bill that created it. Laws mean exactly what they say. It seems silly to now go back and say, “I didn’t INTEND to vote for 174 to create a voucher program,” when the text of the bill explicitly created a voucher program and superseded the one they created with 148.
“I didn’t know what I was voting for” just is not a valid excuse in a representative republic like ours. If supporters of 174 now wish they hadn’t supported it, they should try to work within the law to change it. Ignoring a validly passed law that is constitutionally not subject to a referendum is not legal. The board is constitutionally bound to implement 174.
Post a Comment
<< Home