Need Help on Utah's Referendum 1
I'm having some problems understanding the ramifications of Referendum 1. I'm a conservative capitalist, so the idea of empowering people to choose the school their children go to and put their tax money toward that school. However, I see the value of educating all children in our society and I worry the vouchers will ultimately be bad for public schools. I read this article on KSL and still don't really understand the issues. (I even spent some time readyting through the 350+ comments)
Please, if anyone reading this has a position on this referendum, will you please help me understand how I should vote.
Please, if anyone reading this has a position on this referendum, will you please help me understand how I should vote.
6 Comments:
If they would take three Oreos for private schools and give the other four Oreos to me, I'd vote for the Referendum :-)
Steve
I have read a great deal of the con side and quite frankly cannot find a single compelling argument. The main arguments amount to the opinion that we should take the money (from the General Fund) and put it into the public school system and everything will be just fine. Perhaps, but likely no.
The biggest risk to the public schools comes at the end of the 5 years. What will the legislature do? Most fear the "extra" funds will be taken away and secondarily they fear vouchers will increase the likelihood that new public school bonds will be voted down.
For those of us in Utah County and those in the smaller counties where private schools may not exist or exist in fewer number and the poor may have a stronger interest in voting against the measure. Since in Utah state funds are transferred to Charter Schools voters with kids in Charter Schools may also tend to vote against the measure due to the +5 year uncertainty (as of 2005 had not reached parity with public schools [801] per student).
Final thoughts:
If the maximum number or private school slots is 27,000 the vouchers will do little to improve the state's current and projected spending per pupil / overcrowding problem. Voting NO will also do little. We have the lowest spending per pupil in the nation and a $6 billion to keep up with projected growth.
Stop having so many kids: [national average family size 3.14 utah 3.56, and birth rates in utah are the highest in the nation, and utah county being number 1 and 4 in the state] and or raise taxes [tough because we have the 9th highest tax burden in the nation at 10.9% per capita].
I may hold out for a glass of milk.
tom
I popped in to see if there were any more comments and have decided that I should be banned from posting late at night after a hard day's debugging.
I must have been more tired than I realized.
I was looking for feedback like yours, Tom. I've done a little reading on the subject, but I feel I need other opinions. Thanks for posting.
OK, so you didn't like the Oreo comment, I'll try to post something useful this time.
As a disclaimer, I have no assoication with either side of this issue.
First, I have to agree with Tom--I've looked at the con arguments and found little substance. Here's my summary of what I understand their arguments to be:
1) Prop 1 diverts money from schools. What they really mean is that the $5 million from the general fund to implement the voucher program could be used by the public schools instead. Not likely. If they don't fund vouchers, the legislature isn't going to move the $5m into the public schools budget. So in my book the public schools are out nothing. Same budget for the foreseeable future either way.
2) Private school teachers aren't accredited. Some private school teachers are, but not all. My complaint with this is that there are a number of Utah public schools teachers that aren't accredited either. Two anecdotal examples:
a. My son Brian didn't graduate from high school. After his senior year he moved to Monticello for 1 year. While there he was hired as a substitute teacher at the Monticello Elementary. Forget accreditation--HE HADN'T GRADUATED FROM HIGH SCHOOL. (His is a smart guy and later got a GED certificate--after completing his work as a subsititute). OK that was a few years ago and only a substitute.
b. In my local neighborhood this year there are two ladies who were contacted by the junior high principal at a PTA meeeting and both were hired to teach junior high in a split class (one teaches M,W,F the other T, Th). Neither is teacher accredited. If in my limited exposure to public schools (my kids are all out of school now) I am aware of two such incidents, how many must there be state wide?
3) Schools aren't accredited. Some of the schools are accredited by the state--although I don't believe it is the state board of education. The public schools just don't think that the accreditation is sufficient. I fgure it is buyer beware. If you want to pay to send your child to a school, wouldn't you check into the schools credentials?
Now on the pro side, the arguments are that compelling either. The one item I have heard is that the legislature feels this one one possible solution among several that need to be considered. If we do nothing the only option in a few years will be to raise property taxes and still have overcrowded schools.
So I feel its worth the experiment to see if it might help. $5m is a small amount in relation to the overall school budget and the size of the problem.
That's the best I've got.
Tom--if you bring the milk, I'll bring my Oreos (couldn't resist)
Steve
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/11/liberal_or_progressive_same_ol.html
Post a Comment
<< Home