Unofficial Voice of the Utah Senate Majority
Welcome to The Senate Site
Tuesday, April 10, 2007Grist for the Mill
The Daily Herald: The moral case for vouchers
. . . Utah's voucher experiment should be welcomed. It offers a practical answer to some entrenched problems in the public schools, and it doesn't cost any more than we're spending already. The ongoing dollar commitment for administration -- $100,000 per year -- is a drop in a massive bucket. Utah's commitment to education is about $3 billion a year. . . .It's a cerebral piece - great food for thought - but a little long to quote in its entirety. Parent choice advocates will like it. Neither side should ignore it.
posted by The Senate Site at 5:11 PM | Link
|
Radio Free SenateYour Government 2.0 Lab
Keep in TouchCurrent Discussions
Senate Site Feed
|
© 2008. All rights reserved. Designed by Jeremy Wright & His Brother-In-Law
11 Comments:
So, are you also going to be posting articles and editorials that "parent choice" advocates won't like? Otherwise, this could get kinda dull....
The hyperbole is getting perfected but the content really wasn't that good.
Judge for yourself. I thought it was great.
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
The moral case for vouchers
Daily Herald
Opponents of the recently passed school voucher system now say they've got enough signatures to place the measure on a ballot. A vote, they hope, will override the Legislature and kill vouchers in Utah.
Their overreaction is surprising. What are they afraid of? Why would a modest experiment in Utah education engender such weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth?
The answer is, sadly, an old one: Voucher opponents consist primarily of members of a major labor union (teachers) and a corps of professional school administrators, both with a vested interest in the outcome. They fear a loss of power.
This may not surprise anyone, but it's still wrong.
In truth, Utah's voucher experiment should be welcomed. It offers a practical answer to some entrenched problems in the public schools, and it doesn't cost any more than we're spending already. The ongoing dollar commitment for administration -- $100,000 per year -- is a drop in a massive bucket. Utah's commitment to education is about $3 billion a year.
And yet vouchers get violent opposition. The rhetoric includes a full dose of fear, hyperbole and skewed information. You would think vouchers were somehow hastening Armageddon.
They are not.
Opponents would have you believe that it is wrong for the state to pay to accomplish a valid public purpose -- universal education -- if is not accomplished in the particular way they want. They would have you believe that the public purpose is not to educate every child, but to educate every child exclusively in a public school system.
There is a big difference. And the latter distorts the argument.
Look at it this way: The state long ago endorsed universal education because an educated population is more productive. Education was deemed so important, in fact, that the state even made it compulsory by law. In making education compulsory, the state properly accepted the burden of paying for it -- today at a level roughly $5,000 to $7,500 per student per year.
That money is committed whether the public purpose is accomplished by public or private means. The only thing that should matter to taxpayers is that the purpose is accomplished.
Voucher opponents, though, would have you believe that the state has no obligation to fund anything but a public system. We disagree. There is no case, for example, that private schools have failed to accomplish the public purpose of educating students. If anything, they have proved themselves superior to the public system.
The whole issue turns on a single question:
Whose money is it? Or, put another way, do tax dollars properly adhere to the individual student for whom education is compulsory, or does it "belong" to the public school bureaucracy?
Fairness requires that government money follow a student to any institution that can deliver an education at least as good as what the state provides. The logic is simple: Education is a public purpose, and it is compulsory. The state is committed to a dollar value for every child of student age to accomplish that public purpose. If the public purpose that compels compliance can be accomplished through a legal alternative, then refusing to pay for that alternative is inherently unfair. It constitutes a form of theft.
In short, if the state pays for the education of one student, it must pay for all.
The public schools are supposed to provide for individual needs, which include things like substantial one-on-one attention from teachers. They are supposed to address varying levels of student aptitude. They are not supposed to become a melting pot in which "good enough is good enough," where everyone turns out to be the same gray shade of oatmeal.
While Utah's public schools deserve credit for the good work they do, it remains a painful truth that some of our best and brightest students are slowed by large classes, limited resources and government mandates.
Vouchers to support education in private schools are a philosophically sound answer for them.
Do not be taken in by opponents: Paying a private entity to accomplish a public purpose is not a bad idea. In fact, it is done all the time. Highways, for example, are built by private contractors; trash is collected by others; state-funded mental health services are provided by others. The list could go on. Private concerns often do the job better than the state can.
Such is the case with education -- not always, but enough to justify a state-funded alternative to public schools.
Voucher opponents miss the mark when they claim that private education is the sole financial responsibility of parents. The argument is especially unconvincing because the state is currently paying on a per-student basis to accomplish precisely the same purpose in public schools. The argument might hold water if public education were proved generally superior to private, but that is not the case.
Of course, more is at stake than money. Parents have a moral obligation to see that their children rise to their full potential. The state should help them do it -- at least up to the fraction of actual cost that was enacted by the Legislature ($500 to $3,000, depending on income).
If the current misguided effort succeeds in getting vouchers on the ballot, we urge voters to stand behind parental choice. Stand behind education as a public good. Reject public school politics. Cast your vote for human potential.
This story appeared in The Daily Herald on page A5.
If I may, please see, http://www.standard.net/live.php/opinion/topofutahvoices/101674/?printable=story
Does the Senate want to start giving us our money back every time we don't agree with the way the government is spending it or when we don't use the service being provided? Because if not, they need to get off their selective 'moral' high-horse.
I agree with Anona-3, that Representative McIff knows what's what, and with Voice of Utah - post insightful commentary from BOTH sides. Kill two birds with one stone and post McIff's op-ed.
And, by the way, someone needs to call the Herald and tell them that supporting parental choice and opposing vouchers can go hand-in-hand.
I agree. Why isn't the Senate Site posting Rep. McIff's excellent op-ed?
I guess not all Republicans are created equal :-)
Representative McIff's op-ed is on Education in Utah in it's entirety. Stop by, have a read, and post comments.
Thanks!
Thanks Natalie! I'm also posting Rep. McIff's op-ed in my comments since it's clear that the Senate Site won't post a piece that they disagree with, even when it comes from a well-regarded, fellow Republican.
------------------
I remain convinced that school vouchers are a bad idea for Utah
Standard-Examiner
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
By Rep. Kay L. McIff
Guest commentary
It now appears that vouchers will have to stand the ultimate test -- a vote of the people. Good for us! Such will be determinative of the issue notwithstanding the problem of the two bills and any legal opinions to the contrary.
The governor agrees. Courts should agree. If push comes to shove, legislators will also likely agree by a wide margin. Most will recognize that this is not a game, and that the will of the people cannot be disregarded. Here are 10 reasons why I voted against the legislation and remain of the view that it is not sound public policy:
1. Unconstitutional: Utah entered the Union under suspicion that religion would dominate public schools. The Congressional Enabling Act of 1894 and the Utah Constitution of 1896 prohibited what the voucher bill now authorizes. The first Legislature could not have funded the parochial schools (mostly Mormon) then in existence. The constitutional barrier remains unchanged.
2. Unlike Utah: Subsidization of private industry has never been Utah's style. If you want your own country club, fund it. Otherwise, play on the public courses. By a strange twist, the opponents of vouchers are being labeled as "liberals" with the subsidization proponents calling themselves "conservatives." They have it backward.
3. Unequal treatment: Vouchers are not available for students now enrolled in private schools. Consequently, two neighbors living side-by-side who send their children to the same private school could be treated unequally. One may have children ages 1, 2, 3 and 4 while the other's children are ages 5, 6, 7 and 8. The latter will never qualify for a dime while the four children in the first family will be subsidized up to $3,000 each for a total of 13 years. The potential subsidy disparity -- $156,000.
4. No legislative guarantee: Any restraint is only good until the next Legislature convenes. The unequal treatment identified could become the springboard for accelerated funding of all 18,000 students now enrolled in private schools. The potential cost -- a sobering $50 million. Moreover, the same logic used to justify $3,000 can as easily be employed to justify a higher amount. Why not? Partial subsidization does more to whet the appetite than to satisfy it.
5. Escape and abandon: First and foremost vouchers are vehicles to escape from schools deemed unacceptable, and not instruments for reformation and improvement. The transferring students will be those whose parents are more highly invested in their children's education. They naturally want to leave behind students with problems. If there is a significant student exodus, it will likely leave some schools worse than before. "Out of sight, out of mind" won't work for lawmakers or educators.
6. Unlevel playing field: Proponents envision a competitive free market in which "producers would be free to enter or leave the industry and to compete for students." The model doesn't work for public schools because they are not free to enter or leave, and necessarily retain constitutional and statutory duties of "universal education" with "no child left behind." The simple truth is that after the competition for students is over, public education will be left to pick up the pieces.
7. Stratification: The free market produces winners and losers. If you want a model, look at college football which produces teams that are ranked from No. 1 to No. 112. The formula is simple. You "high-grade" the talent pool and pump in extra money. The result is enormous disparity and stratification because the talent and resource distribution is so skewed.
8. A platitude is not enough: Proponents seek to quell the troubled water and instill confidence with a high sounding platitude, "A rising tide lifts all boats." It is clever and soothing, but camouflages the truth. A rising tide swamps some boats and lifts others unequally. Arguments to the contrary lie somewhere between sheer speculation and wishful thinking.
9. A human industry: Education is all about human beings. They constitute both the raw material and the finished product. The road to excellence in the industrial world is strewn with "bone piles," bankruptcies and liquidation sales. Inferior components are freely rejected and discarded. Where in education is there room for bone piles and liquidation sales?
10. A venture into the unknown: Utah does not have a "broken" education system. There is simply no way of predicting the ultimate composition of the system that will result from Utah's venture into the unknown and untested. The free market can produce great uncertainty and volatility. The precious commodities of our educational system deserve more.
McIff, a Republican, serves Emery, Sanpete and Sevier counties (District 70), and is a former district court judge and member of the Utah State Board of Regents.
Wow. Snarked in absentia.
Sorry folks, it was a busy week. Don’t take my lack of return comments as a sign that I don’t truly love each of you. I barely had time to read my E-mail.
P.S. When I finally had time to read Rep. McIff's op-ed (posted above), I thought it was great. Most of us would disagree with all or part, but I love his sincerity, insight and independence.
Post a Comment
<< Home