Showing posts with label Vouchers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vouchers. Show all posts

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Did Vouchers Fail Because of Lack of Funding?

The Utah Amicus reports an interesting note from the recent voucher war. You may remember during the recent voucher war Greg Hughes (and others) complaining about how they couldn't compete against all the money being poured in to the battle by the NEA and others.

Turns out he was wrong. Latest figures show that Utahns for Public Schools (the anti voucher folks) spent about $2,000,000 LESS than Parents for Choice in Education (the pro voucher folks).

Despite all the extra money, PCE still couldn't convince Utah voters that vouchers was a good idea.

Tuesday, January 8, 2008

The Good Guys!

During the 2007 legislative session, I blogged about Representative Steve Sandstrom's role in the 38-37 vote for vouchers. He had told a constituent that he was voting against vouchers and then suddenly switched on the day of the vote, telling this same constituent that he had no choice but to vote for vouchers because Parents for Choice in Education would heavily target him in the next election if he didn't.

The Salt Lake Tribune, talking about the "good guys in the legislature" now gives additional, but not unexpected, information about Sandstrom's switch:

"...several "good guys" in the Republican leadership - Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert, Valentine and Bramble - threatened freshman Rep. Steve Sandstrom of Orem with loss of any substantive role in the Legislature unless he supported vouchers. So "good guy" Sandstrom reneged on his promise to voters of his district to oppose vouchers. "


Probably not the best way to get re-elected. And adds to the many stories I hear about the arm twisting of Bramble and others.

Wednesday, October 31, 2007

The Real Oreo Cookie Voucher Video

I wanted to make one of these, but this guy did it much better than I could. It shows exactly what I have been claiming all along, that the funding circumstances depicted by the Richard Eyre commercial is simplistic at best and just plain false at worst.

Here is the Real Oreo Cookie Voucher explanation:

Will Parents Really Make the Right Choice?

I want to believe that most parents will make the right choice for their children when making decisions about their education. In general I think they will. However, the Milwaukee voucher program raises troubling issues in this area:

"...parents selecting choice schools for their children sometimes are not making selections based on extensive research. Their choices are based on gut feelings and word-of-mouth. Something clicks for them, and it can be as simple as a uniform requirement, a kind exchange with a school staff person, or the fact that their sister's kids, or the children of their neighbor's brother, attend the school.

Thousands of parents are seeking - and finding - schools they believe are safer, better environments for their kids. But the informal nature of the school search process also means parents are less likely to spot troubled schools, or pull their kids from them immediately. As a result, weaker schools in the choice program manage to survive - in some cases, even thrive.
Even the staunchest advocates of school choice admit today that the marketplace theory, which held that parents would pull their kids out of bad schools, or not choose them to begin with, did not pan out.

"The reality is that it hasn't worked like we thought it would in theory," said Howard Fuller, head of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning, at Marquette University. "I don't think anyone that is truthful can say that has occurred.""

There may be many reasons that parents might make one choice over another. If vouchers are implemented here, I hope that what they saw in Milwaukee is not what happens here.

It's also interesting to note that the marketplace theory (competition benefits everyone) so often touted by voucher supports as a positive is not what seemed to occur in Milwaukee.

Voucher War Causes Memory Loss

Paul Rolly has some interesting information today in the Salt Lake Tribune:

"Voucher supporters have touted projections of a 153,000 net increase of students in the public school system in the decade between 2005 and 2015. But they don't mention the projected increase of wage earning parents whose efforts will naturally expand the tax base. They don't mention a Governor's Office of Planning and Budget projection that there will be 36 students per 100 working adults by 2010, 39 per 100 working adults by 2020 and back to 36 students per 100 working adults by 2030. To put that in context, there were 48 students per 100 working adults in 1990. "

So, compared to 1990, we will have 12 fewer students per 100 working adults by 2030.

It's interesting how everyone conveniently forgets part of the story when trying to make their case.

Bramble Scrambles Again

In what seems like a recurring theme, Senator Bramble scrambled again this week in trying to refute some comments that he made in the voucher war. Paul Rolly, Salt Lake Tribune Columnist, wrote a column called Bramble flubs figures on vouchers where he pointed out some math problems with the percent increase in students that Bramble has claimed in the voucher war. Senator Bramble, refuted Paul Rolly's claims on the Senate Site in a posting called Utah's Increasing Student Population (where in addition to other things, called Paul Rolly one of the Tribune's less accurate writers). Paul Rolly responded in his article entitled Sen. Bramble, I know what you said.

This sounds eerily similar to an exchange I had with Senator Bramble on this site. I heard Senator Bramble claim something that was incorrect regarding the voucher bill (HB148) on KSL's Nightside project. In a comment to my posting called Did I Miss Something? Senator Bramble tried to claim that he had not said the things that he really did say. All you have to do is go back and listen.

Vouchers and Choice

One of the things about vouchers that makes see red is this name that has been attached to it which uses the word "choice". Pro-voucher supporters have used this word to create an implication that without vouchers parents don't have choice. And I think they do it to create an atmosphere of distrust, that somehow there choice is being removed. How dare someone remove their right to choose!


If they mean that they may be financially unable to send their child to any school they desire then they are correct.


But since when does that mean we don't have a choice? The truth is that are choices in virtually anything have always been limited by factors of various kinds.


Do I have a choice in what car I drive? Of course I do. I can't afford a Lexus right now. I suppose if I wanted one bad enough, I could work two jobs, make other sacrifices so that I could purchase that Lexus. I have that choice. Always have, always will.


Do I have the choice to go to whatever doctor I want? Of course. But my health insurance limits what doctors they will pay for me to see. But I can see anyone I like if I am willing to pay for it.


Do I have a choice in what resturant I eat at? Of course.

And so it is with education. There are factors and bounds and limits that are part of the choices that parents have in the education of their children. There always have been. But there has always been the choice. What choices currently exist? They include:
  1. Attendance at your zoned public school
  2. Attendance at a public school other than the one for which you are zoned
  3. Attendance at a charter school
  4. Attendance at a private school
  5. Attendance at a home-based school

If Referendum 1 is passed by the voters, and the voucher program enacted, what education choices will now exist for parents? They include:

  1. Attendance at your zoned public school
  2. Attendance at a public school other than the one for which you are zoned
  3. Attendance at a charter school
  4. Attendance at a private school
  5. Attendance at a home-based school
Hmm...They look suspiciously the same.


PCE claims that those that couldn't afford a private school before will now be able to afford one. Perhaps. But why should that be done with my tax dollars? And it ignores that fact that many still will be unable to afford private schools. Just like I can't afford a Lexus and my son can't afford to attend Stanford.


The truth is that choice existed before vouchers and it will exist after vouchers.

PCE says there are 120 private schools in Utah. The truth is that all but 34 of them are located along the Wasatch front. Andy many of those not along the Wasatch front won't be eligible for vouchers. So what about those that live in rural areas? Should their tax dollars be spent to provide a voucher payment for someone in Utah County that chooses to go to a private school? Those in rural areas won't have that choice.

By they way, if this was truly about choice, why weren't home schoolers included in HB148? If you aren't enrolled in public schools on January 1, 2007 you won't be eligible for vouchers until the program is fully implemented in 13 years.

Choice really won't change with vouchers.

Tuesday, October 30, 2007

Vouchers and Accountability

Those who oppose vouchers complain that there is no accountability in the voucher program, and those that are for vouchers claim that that there is.


The proposed voucher program defined by HB148 and HB174 has some accountability measures in it. But are they enough?
  1. Schools that accept vouchers can only hire teachers that have bachelor degrees, or special skills in the areas that they teach. That seems pretty weak. What constitutes a special skill? If I was a merit badge counselor, would that count? How about if I took a class in that subject in college? Who is deciding? And who is monitoring those decisions? When requirements are put into law, as this requirement was, there should be some means of holding the school accountable for those choices. And there are none.

  2. Schools that accept vouchers have certain financial and attendance requirements that they must meet. These are audited when the school first applies to be eligible for vouchers and then are rechecked every four years thereafter. Four years? That means there is no accountability during that time. Four years seems much too long to me. Some intermediate accountability measures should have been added. There are none.

Some claim that vouchers provide the ultimate accountability: parents. They claim that parents won't send their children where they don't want to spend their money, and that they will hold the schools accountable for how their money is used, and how they educate their children. There is probably some truth to that.

But:

  1. Experiences in the Milwaukee voucher program showed that parents did not always make great choices in choosing schools, nor holding them accountable. So while it may be true that some parents will hold schools accountable, it is equally true that not all of them will.
  2. I believe that it is important for parents to hold their schools accountable for the money that they pay to them to educate their children. But with vouchers, parents will only be paying part of the private school education. There must be accountability for the portion of the cost that they are not paying. And that accountability is to the tax payers, through our state government. It is not enough to relegate accountability to the parents.
  3. Just how do parents hold private schools accountable? By taking their money elsewhere? But if there are others on their waiting list ready to replace those that leave, it isn't like just because you complain and say you are going to leave, that the school will change. They will change only if they want to, or if they can't get enough parents to pay for the way they do things. That is the only way they change. In addition, it isn't like you can just leave one private school and then go to another one down the block (like you might do if you are choosing a different gas station). You have to find another one that is close enough (doesn't do you much good if the only one you can find is in Ogden if you live in Provo). You have to apply. You have to get on the waiting list if they are full. And you may never get into that school, since they can choose whoever they want to attend their school. With that kind of process, it seems more difficult than it might seem to hold your private school accountable.

Some claim that there is no accountability in public schools. I hold my school and district accountable by attending school board meetings, knowing personally my school board member, voting for the school board, serving on the school's community council, attending parent/teacher conference, attending school district community meetings, and knowing personally the principal of each of the schools my children have attended. And the principals know us by name. If we don't like something, we complain. And more often than not, we are listened to and changes are often made.

Why do I do this? Because the education of the children is at stake. And the education of my neighbors' children. And my tax dollars are being used. So I want to hold my schools accountable. Do they always make the changes I want? Of course not. Nor will a private school.

Friday, October 26, 2007

Voucher Supporter Presents Solutions for Education

If you ever wanted to know what should be done with kids that underachieve, Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne will tell you.

Make sure you are sitting down.



This is what one of the biggest financial supporters of vouchers in Utah believes. His comments are so appalling that I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen the video. Do the citizens of Utah really want to vote for a program that is so heavily supported by this man?

I, for one, do not.

Saturday, October 13, 2007

Voucher Advocates Get Desperate

I suspected it was going to happen. Our sign, asking people to vote against Referendum 1, was stolen from our front lawn. Not only ours, but a total of three in our neighborhood were taken. I'm sure there were a number of others.

I guess that some of the people that are advocating for "choice" don't want choice for everyone (as in my choice to express my view on this issue) nor do they believe in the First Amendment.

I suppose it shows desperation. I hope that those are fighting against vouchers aren't taking pro-voucher signs. I know I haven't. I will try and make my points without resorting to criminal acts.

When we get another sign, I am already scheming ways to defeat those that I'm sure will continue to try and steal it again.

UPDATE: We got a new sign, only had it a couple of days, so I hadn't had a chance to exercise my scheming ways, and someone stole it again. That does it. Tonight, I will be working to make it extremely difficult to take again.

Saturday, September 8, 2007

Did I Miss Something?

During the first hour of the The Nightside Project on KSL on August 30, Senator Curt Bramble was a guest for a discussion on the voucher issue. At one point (24:30 into the show) a caller asked the Senator if the voucher laws required the private school teachers to be certified.

And he said yes. Listen here.

Did I miss something? Here is what I read in the bills:

HB148

132 53A-1a-805. Eligible private schools.
133 (1) To be eligible to enroll a scholarship student, a private school shall:
...
154 (g) employ or contract with teachers who:
155 (i) hold baccalaureate or higher degrees; or
156 (ii) have special skills, knowledge, or expertise that qualifies them to provide
157 instruction in the subjects taught;
158 (h) provide to parents the teaching credentials of the school's teachers;

HB174 added a criminal background check requirement.

Since when do they have be certified? Having a degree (or special skills) is not the same as being certified. Whether or not they should be certified is certainly something that one could debate. However, unless there is some wording that I am missing, there is no certification required.

So...either Senator Bramble misspoke on the show, was misinformed, or downright lied. Since he was the Senate floor sponsor for HB148, he probably wasn't misinformed, so maybe it's one of the other two possibilities. Which do you think it was?

Update: Make sure to check out Senator Bramble's response and my counter-response in the comments.

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

What is going on with the Attorney General?

One has to wonder about the intentions of Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff who recently terminated the status of Special Assistant Attorney General to Carol Lear and Jean Hill. His claim is that they were working at cross purposes to his office by offering conflicting advice to the Utah Board of Education and in doing so, fostered an adversarial relationship with his office.

In the termination letter he claimed that they were no longer allowed to give any advice to the Board of Education and that their conversations would not be protected by the attorney-client privileges.

Some have claimed, perhaps correctly, that the Utah Constitution allows only the AG to give legal advice to the state government (with a possible exception being the governor, who, in some circumstances, can seek his own counsel). All this may be true. However, it raises a number of questions that really need answering:


1. Carol Lear has worked in her position advising the Board of Education for over 20 years and Jean Hill for 8 years. The Attorney General graciously bestowed the status of "Special Assistant Attorney General" roughly a month ago, according to Jean Hill. Why was he not worried about Carol and Jean Hill advising the Board prior to that time? It isn't like they just started working for the board recently?

2. If he didn't know that they were acting as legal counsel for the board, why didn't he? Is he so out of touch with the legal needs of government bodies that he would not have wondered why they weren't asking his advice on legal matters? Or more likely, he did know about it and didn't worry about it until it became convenient.

3. Why did he choose, just one month ago, to give Carol and Jean this special status? Surely, during all of this voucher mess created by the Legistlature, he would have know that the Board would have needed legal assistance. The debate on the HB148/HB174 issue has been going on since the session concluded at the end of February. Perhaps he wanted them to be under his thumb so that he could tell them what to do and how to advise the Board?

It would be helpful if the Attorney General would bring clarity to these matters (wishful thinking here).

One also has to wonder about the legal advice that the AG gave the Board of Education regarding HB174. It is obvious that his basis for that decision was very shaky, since a unanimous Utah Supreme Court disagreed with his contention that HB174 could stand on its own.

Whine, Whine, Whine

Representative Frank, obviously unhappy with the Utah Supreme Court's decision regarding the HB148/HB174 mess, feels that the Utah Supreme Court enjoys legislating from the bench. One has to wonder if he even read the opinion. It seemed to me to be well thought out and brought clarity to the mess created by the Legislature.

I have noticed, in recent days, that various senators and representatives have attempted to defuse criticism of their actions, blaming the media, Utahns for Public Education, UEA, and others for creating the confusing state.

We should be absolutely clear. The Legislature has no one to blame but themselves for the mess they are in. They are the ones that created these two bills, that, at the time of passage, were clearly linked together. There is no other explanation for the radically different margins of votes in these two bills. One cannot believe that the HB148, the first voucher bill, would pass by only one vote, and then second, HB174, by more than 2/3, if those who were not in favor of vouchers had not been told that the second bill was absolutely dependent on the first. The only reason most of those representatives voted for HB174 was because they were amendments to HB148.


The Utah Supreme Court has brought clarity, finally. One of the roles of the judicial branch is to interpret the laws passed by the legislative branch. When the legislative branch creates confusion, it is left to the courts to bring clarity. If the legislative branch doesn't like how the courts interpreted their laws, they have every right to attempt to correct and change the law to make it more clear.

Until, then, Representative Frank, stop whining about the Utah Supreme Court doing your work for you.

Saturday, May 19, 2007

It's a Mess

As suspected, the voucher issue continues to get more interesting. After the Utah Attorney General, Mark Shurtleff, ordered the State School Board to implement HB174, the school board dug their heels in and refused to take orders from the Attorney General, and in the process raised questions about whether he was unbiased enough to represent them in court, no matter which direction they went.

And it will end up in court...unless....

After meeting with top state education officials, the Attorney General has asked Governor Hunstman to call a special session to "clear up the mess" between the two voucher bills. Well put.

Republican lawmakers are resisting however (you could spot that a mile away). They created the mess and now are backing away, essentially claiming it's not their mess now. The Deseret News quotes House Speaker Greg Curtis as saying that he... "doesn't see the need for a special session. It's a simple process. If you gather enough signatures, you call an election. That election is five-and-a-half months away. We are all comfortable with that. The law doesn't say if you have a referendum you call a special (legislative) session. It says you have a (citizen) vote. It cannot be any more straightforward." Of course, it doesn't say you can't call a special session either.

It still rankles me when I remember how Rep. Steve Urquhart chastized Democratic lawmakers for voting against HB174 when it contained all those things they wanted, but couldn't get into HB148. If more of them had been on top of things, we might not have had the mess we are currently in, since a less than 2/3 vote on HB174 would have made it eligible to be considered for referendum also.

But then maybe not, because the referendum law says the request to initiate the referendum process must be submitted no later than 5 days after the end of the session, but Governor Huntsman waited until after that period to sign HB174.

I still find it interesting that the Governor signed HB148 almost immediately after passage, but failed to do that with HB174.

Hang on for the ride...

Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Vote on Vouchers

Put your vote in on the Utah Voucher Program at http://www.abc4.com/Default.aspx.

Monday, March 19, 2007

Voucher Referendum Questions

The issue about what will happen to the voucher program if the referendum is able to get enough signatures to put it to a vote and if HB148 is overturned by the voters is an interesting one. And a gamble for the voucher opponents. It seems to be a foregone conclusion by the voucher proponents that it would not dissolve the voucher program because of HB174.
Some questions and thoughts:

  1. HB174 is titled as Education Voucher Amendments and modifies code that was modified by HB148. Normally, I would think that if a bill upon which an amendment as based is not signed into law by the governor, any amendments passed on that bill would also be null and void. However, what happens when the original bill is signed into law and then is 'repealed' in some other manner? For example, what would happen if HB148 was declared unconstitutional (I'm not saying it would be, just playing devil's advocate). Would HB174 stand (assuming no constitutional challenge)? I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't seem like it would. Or would the challenge have to be against the net effect from the legislative session, meaning the combination of HB148 and HB174?
  2. There seems to be a problem with our referendum laws which requires referendums to be filed against laws within 5 days of the end of session, but apparently don't allow for referendums to be filed against bills that haven't been signed into law yet. That prevents referendums from being filed against certain bills that otherwise, if they were passed and signed earlier in the session, would have been eligible.
  3. If everything is how the voucher proponents claim, and the voucher program is here regardless of the referendum, I'm a bit suspicous of what happened in our Legislature. Perhaps I am giving too much credit to our legislators, but it looks like a very carefully devised plan to ensure that the voucher program would survive some of the challenges, as long as they could get the original bill to pass. Think about it. Attempt to pass a bill early in the session. Get the governor to sign it quickly. Pass another bill amending the first one late in the session, late enough so that the governor wouldn't have to sign it until after 5 days passed, making it referendum-proof. Put into the second bill additional provisions that would make it very attractive to voucher opponents, if they assumed that the original bill stood. Get it to pass by greater than 2/3. Done. Door shut. Case closed.
  4. The sponsor of HB148, Representative Urquart couldn't understand why anyone would vote against HB174 when it added provisions that opponents had asked to be added to HB148. He publicly called out the Democratic members of the House to explain their reasoning. Well, Representative Urquart, you have your answer. If the voucher portion is unable to be repealed through referendum because of HB174, then more of the opponents should have followed their lead and voted against HB174. If it had not passed by a 2/3 majority, then it might have been possible to file the referendum against it also (except for that issue listed in #2). Your questioning of their vote makes me think you weren't as smart as I thought you might have been.
  5. Then again, it was asked why you didn't put the HB174 provisions in the original HB148 bill. Several Democratic representatives apparently tried to amend HB148 to add the HB174 provisions, but were denied. This makes me think you might have been as smart as I thought, and this entire thing was planned and intentional but that other representatives were duped and didn't understand the full effect of their vote (probably not the first time that has happened).
  6. This whole mess may require a court challenge to resolve. And that probably wouldn't be able to happen until the referendum successfully repealed HB148 (assuming that happens). A court would have to decide what would happen to HB174 if HB148 was gone. Would the voucher program survive and only the clauses that were not amended by HB174 die? Or is HB174 dependent on HB148 for existence and be gone if HB148 was gone? I would guess that question would make its way to the Utah Supreme Court and no one can know for sure which way would be ruled. The voucher opponents have the "Hold Harmless" money (one of the HB148 sections that was not amended by HB174) at risk if they were to lose the court challenge. So this really is a big gamble by the Utah for Public Education folks. I hope they got lots of solid legal advice before they started this ball rolling.