Last week I heard a different perspective on the voucher debate and would like to share it and get people’s insights.
Several years ago, the legislature was challenged by Governor Leavitt to find a solution to a projected increase in enrollment of 150,000 students over the next decade or so. A big problem for a system already screaming for more money. I don’t know what all the proposals are/were but one of them was vouchers.
Top level statistics drove to the voucher approach. We have big families. We are financially strapped (top in per-person tax burden, bottom in per-pupil spending). And we have very high enrollment in public schools (low enrollment in private schools). The first issue isn’t going to be touched. I will argue in the next paragraph why pushing financing options is tough. So they looked at what they could do to provide incentives to increase private school usage by a few percentage points. Vola—vouchers. (Please note—for all who think that vouchers are some vast right wing conspiracy, such is not the case.)
If the voucher bills are repelled this fall, the problem doesn’t go away but the options are narrowed. Basically, legislative leaders say ‘get ready for big tax increases’. Taxes on services will probably be first (medical bills, dental bills, repair bills, the price of labor in homes, etc.). Maybe it will work. Maybe Utah can handle some big tax increases. But my observation is that such moves generally result in backlash, ie taxpayer revolt. (Think California’s tax revolts of years gone by.) If you want teachers and administrators backed into a corner, have the populace remove their funding. Who do you demonize then?
We can argue over certification, curriculum, religion or any other sub-topic. It is a great debate. But there is an elephant in the room. Perhaps Tom and Ryan can get some legislators familiar with the problem (Senater Hillyard?) to discuss this on the show. And please, for all future posts wanting to kill vouchers, would you state your solution to this huge problem. Thanks.
David James
if the state can take money from the general fund to finance vouchers, why can’t the state move the SAME money to the education budget instead of giving vouchers to anyone of any income level?
why don’t parents choose to have a number of children that they can actually afford? i think i know why…it’s not their problem! the government will come in, provide health insurance, grants for recreational programs, free school lunch and an education.
i’m philosophically opposed to taking money from the general fund and giving it to people of any income range to spend in the unregulated private school arena when our public schools are so poorly underfunded. THAT is why i’m voting against vouchers and THAT is why i am encouraging others to do so as well.
don’t ask people to vote for vouchers because there are no other options if they don’t vote yes for referendum one. that’s simply NOT true.
here’s a solution: move the general fund money we’d spend on vouchers to the education fund. pay our teachers a competitive salary…hopefully more than they could earn working at a local factory.
i fail to see how vouchers make our public schools better. a significant decrease in public school attendance is not predicted…so then explain to me how that means more money will be spent on my kids. i just don’t get it.
vote NO for referendum 1!!!
I have detailed my reasons to vote against vouchers on my blog. I have also detailed why I think we are in the situation we are in today: a lack of political courage among our elected officials, especially Governors Bangerter, Leavitt, and Huntsman. Today, for the past two years and maybe next year, we have had huge state budget surplus. We have also had numerous polls which indicate clear public mandates for one thing: more money for education. What does the Governor and legislature do, though? Cut taxes for the rich and install a regressive flat tax system.
My solution: first, elect more Democrats who can at the very least be depended upon to say yes to more education funding before tax cuts, no to vouchers, and run state government effectively. One need only look to Cal Rampton and Scott Matheson to justify that statement. Second, we need to push our legislature to invest in education, especially teacher pay, so that we aren’t scraping the bottom of the labor market barrel to fill our shortages. Raising teacher pay to compete with Nevada, New Mexico, Wyoming, and Arizona (who each pay teachers more) can do a great deal to bring more and better teachers to Utah. There are many great ideas out there, such as mentoring programs, year-round schools (but I would suggest that would cost more if we have to a/c those schools as well), etc.
I wholeheartedly agree with Jess’ statement that just because our legislature lacks the courage to implement the most basic funding solutions we should vote for vouchers. There are many reasons why vouchers haven’t work/can’t tell if they do work, and Utahns would do well to reject them.
Jess, vouchers are cheaper than public schools, because most private schools can educate a kid for less money than public schools do (why this is the case is a question worth asking, too). So it’s not exactly the same money. Also, there’s no correlation between increased funding and improved results (see Washington, DC).
Enough of the “all we need is more money for education” caca del toro. American taxpayers have been steadily increasing per pupil spending even after adjusting for inflation and grade 12 NAEP scores are still FLAT.
“Teachers, like all workers, deserve a salary that enables them to comfortably support themselves and their families.” (www.aft.org) The only possible way for this to actually come into being is to change “public” education from tax based to demand based. After years of underfunding teachers (I teach Engineering Graphics at USU) we should have learned that, in order to properly reward teachers they must be in demand by the public. By constantly keeping teacher salary tied to the tax structure of our state we guarantee teachers will never take their place among the other professions.
jess, Davis:
I was hoping to broaden the discussion but it appears that\’s not on the agenda. How do we solve the problem of financing the increases in enrollment? Just raise taxes until we drive people out of the state? That doesn\’t make sense (ok, it may if you are a teacher). jess, you said there were other options. What you are proposing is more of the same. And the current system, by your own admission, is failing. And remember–150K new students.
On state budgets: The surpluses of the past couple years have been shown by history to be notoriously temporary. And much of those surpluses did in fact go to education. The governor\’s tax reform is to attract businesses and build the economy. That increases taxes. That helps pay for schools. Increasing taxes drives people and businesses out. Decreases tax revenue. Starves schools.
I wish they had put some general restrictions on the teacher qualification and student testing. Not because those actually do any good as far as I can tell but just to get the financing aspects in place.
\’How do vouchers make [public] schools better?\’ Here\’s the math (approximately)–
$8000 Cost to educate a student in public school per year
- $3000 Cost of voucher
+$1000 Paid to school losing student to voucher
———
+$6000 Net increase to school for each student leaving with voucher.
What we need is the parents of 6-8% of the students in public schools to step up, take the incentive, and put their kids in private school.