From the Mind of Splittfinger » School Vouchers - (Updated!)

School Vouchers - (Updated!)

The debate on school vouchers, I think, is an important enough issue that it needs more attention. Everyone i talk to seems to have a different opinion on the issue.  People i respect on both sides of the issue have made great points.  The commercials and information booklets are not doing it justice, so i have contacted serveral people with more insight on the subject to address the issue for us.

One is a Principal from a public school, and the other, is the Utah Senate Rep, for my area.

I have attached the written view of the Principle to this post, and am awaiting the response for our Utah Representative.

Enjoy.

 

Posted Oct 31 2007, 01:10 PM by Splittfinger
Attachment: Voucher.doc

Comments

Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad?
on 10-18-2007 4:15 PM
The commercials opposing school vouchers drive me crazy. They are filmed in a school room (paid by us by tax money) with our kids sitting in the background. I wonder what would happen if proponents for school vouchers did the same thing???

They say that Referendum 1 is full of loop holes. I would like them to explain these loop holes during the commercials.

They say that stong public schools need to be the goal. We've been fighting for stronger and more effective public schools since the 70's (and even earlier) in Utah. It's not happening. Maybe creating more competition in education will increase strength and effectiveness.

They say that this will take away money from public schools. Proponents have explained how this can create smaller class rooms and more money per capita within school districts.

They talk about non-certified, non-educated teachers teaching at private/charter schools. Let the system take care of itself. Those schools that don't cut the mustard will go out of business. If people had more of a choice, they would be able to do their homework and select schools that have excellent, well trained teachers.
Splittfinger wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad?
on 10-18-2007 4:37 PM
KSL surprisingly just ran a truth check on the commercials for and against the school vouchers program.  They totally debunked the adds that have been running against the program.  They just listed the facts, they were non-bias.  It was good to see them catch those who oppose vouchers in the lies i hear a lot.  I hope Goose get in to state his points.
Rcougar wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad?
on 10-18-2007 4:50 PM
I am a moron as well because I will be voting for Vouchers. I think parents having a choice in education is good. I hope the compition will make the public schools better. I have two kids in the public schools now and one has had great teachers each year, the other on the other hand has had poor teachers. If the schools had to be competitive teachers like those my child has had would not be teaching any more.
Jack Russell wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad?
on 10-18-2007 6:59 PM
First, if one cannot express an opinion which is different from that which another holds without drawing a ad hominem attack then this site might as well shut down because it will be of negligible value in our little marketplace of ideas.

The subject of school vouchers is an answer to the feeling of many parents that their children are not being taught values that the parent believes are important.  These values may be academic, moral, social , civic, or any combination of these.

Many of the arguments that are raised from opponents of Ref. 1 are red herrings at best, and outright prevarications at worst.  The KSL investigation probably caught the most egregious and obvious ones but there are others.

For instance, do children need smaller classes?  My contention is that a teacher who is skilled in the subject they are teaching and in classroom management will be able to teach a class that is considered by "conventional wisdom" to be unmanageable because most of the kids will need little individual attention.  The teacher's time will be divided between presenting the lesson and helping the few kids that didn't understand her presentation.  Smaller classes mean more teachers, which means - potentially -  more members of the teacher's association or union, with their blatantly political agendas.

This referendum is touted as an experiment that Utah families cannot afford.  Our nation has achieved its greatness, in all facets of our history where that greatness has existed, because of experimentation.  The marketplace has been one of the greatest purveyors of achievement the world has ever known.  And anyone who has been able to distill the public educational system's purpose from its rhetoric understands that it is engaged in a struggle for mediocrity; hold back the brightest until the class catches up to them and bring the slowest up to where the middle of the class is.  It is the reason for grading on the curve.

And speaking of the Bell curve:  Utah schools claim to be improving and what statistics there are seems to bear out that in spite of being at or near the bottom of the per-student spending list, Utah schools perform at just above the national average.  This argument is used to give justification for keeping Utah schools intact.
But why must we grade on the curve.  Either our students are the best in the nation, regardless of how much is spent per child, or we are not.  Weighted scoring does not make our next generation of workers more competitive in the global marketplace.

Being competitive in the global marketplace is one of the two reasons for our children to get an education and it is the second reason that I believe is where our school system is, as a whole, more of a failure - creating proud American citizens who understand, cherish, and are capable of perpetuating the national greatness that is the net benefit of the Founders' and Framers' legacy.  This one this is worth it, in my mind, to provide some means for The People of Utah to compete with the entrenched, largely unaccountable public school system.

This referendum is expensive.  It adds to the cost of education for each student that leaves the public system but it is a good start to breaking the stranglehold (for those who cannot afford existing alternatives) have on the development of our next generation of Americans.

Remember one thing - the opponents of Referendum 1 have offered nothing in response the the challenge of their funding monopoly except sophistry.  They have yet to address the concerns which are causing a normally docile electorate to oppose their authority.  Vouchers just might change all that, and if for only that reason Referendum 1 is worth voting for.

Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad?
on 10-19-2007 8:17 AM
Here here. I love reading JR.

I think about why the UEA opposes Ref 1 and come to one conclusion... they don't want to give up any power they have over education in Utah.
Goosedyou wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad?
on 10-19-2007 9:03 AM
I agreed with Jack up until his last two paragraphs.  Here is the main reason that vouchers, even if voted for, will not work.  Florida, and other states, have already voted for voucher systems and they failed.  Utah is laging behind, again, because we're just following the leader.  

So let's say that vouchers pass.  Parents from all over the west side (I'll use the Salt Lake Valley for an example) now want to enroll their children in private schools that, in the past, were only available to wealthier people on the east side.  Private schools don't have to accept anybody that they don't want.  And that's exactly what is going to happen.  

Challenger Schools have already said that they will not except ANY student who wants to be enrolled using a voucher. (This is exactly what happened to Florida, by the way)  Parents will sue the schools and more tax payer money will be WASTED and eventually the State Supreme court will overturn vouchers and it will have all been for nothing.  If other States that tried this failed, why can't we learn from them rather than follow them into the same mess?!

I agree that education is important and that Utah is lacking in that capacity.  The last statistic that I'd read was that the State is spending more on education but that administrative spending had gone up 60% so that money is not getting passed onto the kids.
Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad?
on 10-19-2007 9:35 AM
It seems that each year Charter schools are being created and waiting lists grow even larger for enrollment. Charter schools already use tax money and are not expensive and ruin the argument that the UEA has that teachers outside the public school arena don't have to have an education. They also depend on their stats to stay in business (unlike public schools). One example in the "west side" is Monticello Academy. Great school with very talented teachers and a great curriculum. Their web site is being redesigned so at the moment you cannot see the credentials of their faculty and so on, but after they are done, take a look. Very impressive.
http://www.monticelloacademy.net/index.php

The problem we have now is that too many parents don't know what the options are for education except public schools, private schools (too expensive in most cases) or home taught. This debate about school vouchers is opening up information about the options and exposing the UEA for what they really are.
Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad? (Revisited)
on 10-30-2007 8:26 AM
Whether your for or against, get out and vote for this. It's too important to let pass in the wind.
Melchor wrote re: School Vouchers - Good or Bad? (Revisited)
on 10-30-2007 9:40 AM
this will give those who can afford a private school (cost from 10 to 15 thousand a year) the means to get a tax break for education. in no way will this help those who cannot afford that kind of tuition assistance. even after the tax break, we would need to afford from 5 to 10 k and most cannot do this.
Splittfinger wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 10-30-2007 11:27 AM
please note: I have changed information in the main body of this post and added an attachment.  See the top for details.
Splittfinger wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 10-30-2007 11:27 AM
Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 10-30-2007 12:14 PM
The Principle gives a great argument for why we shouldn't have vouchers in a socialistic state. She used the word "democratic". The bottom line is that she thinks everybody needs to be the same. As I read her words, it seemed she was giving an argument against charter and public schools more than whether or not we should have vouchers.

The numbers she uses for demographics will change once more parents know what their options are and the options are opened up to them. I live in West Valley, an area that has a low number of private and charter school students. Since Monticello Academy started emrollment a couple years ago, enrollment in charter schools has increasing in my area because of easier access and an increased knowledge of other educational systems other than public school. It is true that a lottery type system is used for enrollment. However, with these waiting lists growing longer and longer, this will open the door to more charter schools opening and giving more choice and opportunity for education.

The Principle said :
"Voucher schools will not have to follow the state curriculum which means that all kinds of fringe ideas can be taught with our tax money. The bill only says that no illegal “activities” may take place at voucher school."
I've found that these "activities" that don't follow state curriculum are things like requiring ALL students to learn music (either learn to play an instrument or be part of a choir). They require students to take a foreign language every year starting at the elementary ages (such as Mandarin, French, Spanish, German and so forth). Some private schools are so terrible (not following state curriculum) that they have mandatory religion classes (heaven forbid).

One again I assert my opinion that vouchers may be the best option at this time.
Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 10-30-2007 12:19 PM
Don't let people like Melkor fool you. Charter schools are not included in the high cost associated with private schools. As the Principle pointed out, the cost is not that much more than public schools. It includes transportation to and from school (I provide this to my kids going to public school because there is no bus service where I live), lunch & breakfast (I provide this because my wife and I make too much money to have the state take care of our kids for us), and uniform (I think public schools should require them too). Some Charter and private schools require parents to donate time to the school (something school districts are trying to get parents to do all the time be serving as teachers aides).
Rcougar wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 10-30-2007 1:35 PM
I find the uniform argument interesting, My kids attended a local public school that required a uniform. I don't like uniforms! I think the vouchers are worth a shot here. Not all schools are bad but enough are and we need to fix it. I think teachers deserve better pay unfortunately to much money goes to the administrators and not the teachers. We continue to through money at the problem and it hasn't gotten any better. Look at the U-Pass results this is the Utah standards and many schools don't pass. We continue to cut programs from schools, arts & physical education are the first to go. Yet there is not the needed improvement, but our children are getting fatter from the lack of P.E. and have no concept of the arts. We can continue down the road we are going or we can try the new road and see where it takes us.
Splittfinger wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 10-31-2007 1:05 PM
Comment recieved via email:

I have listened to both sides and decided to support vouchers even though I am not interested in private schools at the moment for my own kids.
I have a degree in Elem. Ed. and have always cared about kids.  I think most kids do fine in the public schools, but there are some kids that don't thrive in public schools.  I think their parents should be able to use the money they have put into the system, in the form of taxes, to help find a school that suits their needs. The legislature also added a hold harmless clause in the bill.  This means that  if a student leaves the school district for a private school, the district gets to keep the money for that student for 5 years.  
Some have argued that they don't think public money should go to private schools, but how many of us benefited from government pell grants when we attended BYU.  I know I did.

more from same person:
.     I have been told from a few sources that the per pupil spending in Utah is 7,500 a year not 4,500 that I have seen in anti-voucher ads.  Our state education budget is very large.  We are at the bottom of the list, because we have so many more kids than other states. We actually spend quite a bit more than many other states when you look at the total budgets.  Not to say we couldn't use more, but that is what I have learned.  Also, many talk about money for vouchers coming out of the education "pot".  That is not accurate.    The money for vouchers is coming out of the State general fund NOT the education fund!   Education just got a fairly large increase during the last Legislative session and hopefully they will get another increase during the next session.  I keep hearing that the vouchers will take money away from education.  It does not. The state general fund money that will be used for vouchers was never allocated to public education.  
Rep. John Dougall also told me in person, that the private schools that decide to accept voucher will be required to follow certain criteria, such as testing etc..... My sister and I are teachers.  She taught at the same school where her son attended.  He has downs syndrome and was not thriving at the public school.  She put him in a private school and he is doing great.  Her family didn't necessarily have extra money to do that, but they made it a priority, because they felt he really needed it.  I am voting for vouchers because I care about all kids, and If only a few parents decide to use the vouchers because their child is not thriving in the public school system, than more power to them.  I personally want to stay in the public school system and I think vouchers will make our schools even better and here's why.   I have known quite a few awesome principles over the years and it puzzled me why they never stayed at our school for very long.  I realize now that many great principles leave the schools for district or other administrative positions in order to increase their salary.    I have also known teachers that were burned out (one resorted to throwing a chair at the students), but they are kept in the classroom because they can't be fired because of tenure.  Something is wrong with these scenarios.  Certain teachers and principles should be paid more based on effectiveness and difficulty of the subject they teach.  Other teachers who can't handle being in the classroom should be given other options where they aren't teaching children.   I think that vouchers will give the teacher's unions and school districts the incentives they need to change some things for the better.

more from same user:


I don't know if you have read David Rodeback's blogs on vouchers, but here is a really good one that you should read.  

www.localcommentary.com/davidblog/2007/20071019b.htm



Jack Russell wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 10-31-2007 9:46 PM
I am perfectly willing to agree to disagree with someone who is making an honest argument in support of their view.  Unfortunately the principle whose dissertation began with a personal security analogy made a summation that was rife with false inferences which reflect the false arguments found on the anti-voucher commercials.

To whit:  it is reasonable to expect to be returned some (all would be more equitable) of the tax money allocated for publicly funded protection if that protection was not sufficient to meet the citizen's need.  It is not reasonable to expect that private protection service to skirt existing laws in pursuit of their client's welfare, nor would they if the analogy parallels the voucher issue.

The voucher bill does not skirt existing requirements for accountability (standardized tests are required).  Teachers are not necessarily required to be certified but they must have at least a BA degree and be subject matter experts.  Curriculum is not specified but the results, as measured by nationally-recognized standardized testing, are.
(By the way, my understanding of the facts of this issue come, in part, from having attended a Town Hall meeting conducted by the chairman of the legislative committee for education).

I once read that when wrestling a bear, don't try to pin it, just go for a win on points.  Public education is a very large bear.  If we can get this voucher through we will be awarded a point.  If there was not some significant disquiet with the current system we would not even be in the ring with this bear.

There is one other potential benefit of winning this round, according to a piece I read in Human Interest - a weekly political newspaper.  If graded on the curve, Utah schools do fairly well.  However, there are places where the disquiet over the public system has risen to a roar.  If we can succeed in getting more choices in our education system it will also be a point in favor of parents and students against a bigger, stronger bear that is the education establishment in other states.  Call it Utah's gift to the nation.

I consider the voucher bill to be weak and find the economic arguments to be screwy, at least as presented.  (If it was up to me each family would be given a voucher for the amount the legislature allocates per student and the schools could all compete on an equal footing). But I will absolutely vote for it, if for no other reason than the fact that the most oft-run commercials against it are filled with  prevarications.  (There are others but this anti-voucher campaign just sets my hair on fire.)  
Melchor wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-01-2007 8:17 AM
reading jack is like reading a military handbook. i agree with him that the voucher program is weak. with this and my strong support of public schools, i will vote against it.
Splittfinger wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-01-2007 9:00 AM
more from previous person:

I thought of one more area of concern with regard to (the Principal's) statement.  He says we don't need vouchers, because the public schools already offer choice, since nearly every school in the district has open enrollment.    I did not find this to be the case.   We lived in the Legacy Elementary boundaries eight years ago.  We loved Legacy and wanted to stay there even when we moved into the house we have now, which is in the Shelley boundary.   I wanted my daughter to go to Kindergarten at Legacy, but when I looked into registering her, I was told that Legacy would be closing their enrollment the following year in anticipation of new growth.  Since I didn't want to have my kids going to two different elementary schools, I took my son out of Legacy and put them both in Shelley.  A few years later, I realized that Shelley Elem. was not fulfilling my children's needs.    (Finding out in 6th grade that my son should have been tested for the gifted and talented program in fourth grade.  Not one teacher mentioned this to us.  He was my first child so I had no clue. We had him tested at the end of 6th, because his grades were not reflecting his ability.  He tested at the college level in math and science at Sylvan Learning Center.  Sylvan told us he must have been so bored, he didn't even try.  The teachers have no incentive to have the children tested for the gifted and talented program, because if they get into the program, they will go to a school that offers a gifted and talented program and the money will go with them to their new school.  If we have vouchers, teachers may have more of an incentive to let the parents know that a child may benefit from a gifted program, because if they don't let the parent know, they could risk losing that child to a private school if the child isn't being challenged.)    

When it became evident that my two children who still attended Shelley Elem. were no longer thriving at their school,  I began calling other schools in the area to see if they had openings.    I called Freedom Elem. and was told they would have closed enrollment the following year, I called Legacy Elem. and was told they still had closed enrollment.  I applied at Forbes Elem. because they said they would have some openings the following year.  I never heard back from Forbes, so I called them right before school started.  They informed me that my children had not been accepted to Forbes and that they were sorry they didn't call to let me know sooner.   As I was reading the paper one day right before Halloween I noticed that Highland Elem. would have open enrollment for the following year.  I called them and was told to fill out an application.   I did and my kids were accepted for the following year.  In the meantime I ended up home schooling one of my children for half the day in order to keep them out of a certain teacher's class. (I seem to remember one of your girls had the same teacher.)
We have loved Highland Elem.  and I am just grateful that they happened to open their enrollment just in the nick of time for my kids.    So, in my estimation, three out of 4 schools in my area having closed enrollment at the same time does not seem to coincide with the claim that "nearly every school in the district has open enrollment".   That doesn't leave many options for parents in our immediate area that want to stay in the public schools when their boundary school doesn't work out.  It also leads people to believe that there are only a few schools in the whole district that have closed enrollment.  That simply isn't the case in our area.
Splittfinger wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-01-2007 9:08 AM
Theler wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-02-2007 9:45 PM
Look at the list of organizations that are against the voucher program. Why do you think they oppose it?
  * Utah State Parent Teacher Association (PTA)
  * Utah School Boards Association (USBA)
  * Utah School Superintendents Association (USSA)
  * Utah School Employees Association (USEA)
  * Utah Education Association (UEA)
  * NAACP - Salt Lake Chapter
  * League of Women Voters
  * Utah Association of Elementary School Principals (UAESP)
  * Utah Association of Secondary School Principals (UASSP)
  * Voices for Utah Children
  * Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities
  * Communities for Quality Education (CQE)
  * American Association of University Women
  * American Civil Liberties Union
  * Utah Family Partnership Network
  * National Council of Jewish Women (NCJW) - Utah Section
  * Utah School Counselor Association (USCA)
  * Americans United for Separation of Church and State
  * Utah Consortium of Educational Leaders (UCEL)
I guess you could say that all of the education ones (about 1/2 if them) are just trying to hold on to the status quo. But if the voucher program will indeed do all it promises to do (like lowering class size, easing the population growth that is stretching schools thin, and giving more money to the schools) why would they oppose it? That makes no sense!! Aren't those things Utah public schools have been  incessantly clamoring for? In addition, there are no teacher salary issues, health benefits, etc. on the negotiation table, so why are "education unions" against vouchers? Also, why are the other organizations so openly opposed?

Could it be that thousands of PTA parents, professional educators, the NAACP, the League of Women Voters, Legislative Coalition for People with Disabilities, the ACLU, and others all see what the "principal" pointed out? Vouchers will create an additional divide between the haves and the have nots, between the cans and cannots, between the wills and the will nots. The more resources a family needs to take advantage of a choice, the less the choice becomes a possibility?

Am I a socialist? Absolutely not. I'm actually a registered Republican. Do I think that everyone should have everything the same? No. However, if we continue to subsidize opportunities that can only realistically be grasped by the middle and upper classes, we will become more polarized, stratified, and "Ramiumptified" (if I can use that expression) than we already are.

I also think it is ironic that so many parents talk about having more choices. Private schools will technically be in charge of the choices regarding vouchers, not us. Parents will have the choice to apply, private schools will have the choice to accept or deny. (Of course, what are we worried about? Most of the people on this blog are exactly what private schools are looking for: educated, motivated, invested in education, home owners, English speakers, willing to do research, passionate, probably middle/upper class, job holders, law abiding, etc.)
Theler wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-03-2007 8:16 AM
As I read Desechado's comments about the "principal" above, I was struck by two things:

First, Desechado says, "The bottom line is that she thinks everybody needs to be the same."

That's funny, as my wife and I read the protracted document, we got the impression that the "principal" thought everyone should have the same opportunities--something we feel vouchers pretends to do.

Second, Desechado then says,  "The numbers she [the principal] uses for demographics will change once more parents know what their options are and the options are opened up to them. I live in West Valley, an area that has a low number of private and charter school students. Since Monticello Academy started enrollment a couple years ago, enrollment in charter schools has increasing [increased] in my area because of easier access and an increased knowledge of other educational systems other than public school."

I went to the Utah State Office of Education and looked up Monticello Academy. Here are its demographics:
Population: 441
Asian: 5
African American: 3
American Indian: 6
Caucasian: 387
Hispanic: 23
Pacific islander: 11
Economically Disadvantaged: 0
Limited English Proficient: 0
Student with Disabilities: 20

Now here are the demographics for West Valley Elementary:
Population: 324
Asian: 14
African American: 2
American Indian: 1
Caucasian: 194
Hispanic: 106
Pacific islander: 7
Economically Disadvantaged: 122
Limited English Proficient: 110
Student with Disabilities: 40

Notice anything different? Monticello Academy does "0" poverty students. Not a single one! West Valley Elementary has 122.  Monticello Academy has "0" LEP students. Not a single one! West Valley Elementary has 110.

I can imagine that when private schools start accepting vouchers, and the people of West Valley learn about all of the wonderful new options available to them (even though this one will likely cost hundreds of dollars per child, per year to take advantage of), the numbers of poverty and LEP students will probably double or triple! (For those that don't get sarcasm, 0 x 2 = 0 and 0 x 3 = 0.)

P.S. If you look at Hunter Elementary, which is also just a few blocks from Monticello Academy, it has 169 poverty and 129 LEP students. I am sure these will also flock to private schools once vouchers cover 60% of the attendant costs.

P.P.S. Jack Russell above states, "If it was up to me each family would be given a voucher for the amount the legislature allocates per student and the schools could all compete on an equal footing." Are you kidding me? It is ludicrous to assume that all adults will intelligently use the allocation. Have you ever seen even just a segment of the Jerry Springer show? Do you think that those adults would use their allocation wisely? Are their children going to to get a similar opportunity to learn as Jack's children? Why don't we just return to the caste system of medieval times? Then again, I guess that is their problem, not mine, or they brought it on themselves, right?
Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-03-2007 9:57 AM
Theler misses the point. Opportunity is the same as given a choice. We all have choices to make in this life. As we go through life we can make good choices that broaden our opportunity. Bad choices lessen our opportunity. The argument I see above says that it is unfair for those who made good choices to have more opportunity. This is the same as saying that all people need to be the same (socialism); no matter the circumstances.

The point I was making about West Valley is that opportunity is presenting itself and growing in areas that traditionally didn't have opportunity years ago. When I was in school 30 years ago, those of us in West Valley looked towards private schools as an "East Side" entity; out of our reach. When Charter Schools started to advertise, I was told they were too expensive and just another form of private school. Now that schools like Monticello Academy are opening west of the I-15 corridor, our eyes are being opened. As this continues, we will continue to see more "west siders" take advantage of this opportunity. You cannot take current stats from West Valley schools to debunk this. You would have to go back 20 or 30 years and compare these stats to the stats of today.

As far as the argument of the organizations you pointed out, they are organizations that have deep roots and influence in public schools. Why would they endorse schools where they have no power? We cannot kid ourselves to think that this is not a fight for power. Parents want the power of choice. Public Schools and those who support and have influence in them want to retain the power.

However, Theler's argument was awesome. I'm sure many will read his words and be convinced. I would love to hear from him again on other issues.  
Theler wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-03-2007 12:21 PM
Desechado, first of all, it is nice to have conversations with people about controversial topics without having anyone foam at the mouth. Thanks for that!

However, I am not sure I understand your point about "having to go back 20 or 30 years" in order for the data I listed to be relevant. We have one year's data about Monticello Academy and it CLEARLY shows that it is not an option being used by the "average" West Valley resident. Rather, it seems to be a gathering place for the more educated, invested, and able West Valley residents. (Just like the 3 charters in the article by the "principal" CLEARLY show that their demographics are also very dissimilar to those of the local public school.) The way I see it, you will have to use future data to prove that the current demographic discrepancy was reduced as the voucher bill gave more at-risk families the opportunity they needed  to exercise the voucher option.

So what kept the "average" West Valley resident from applying to Monticello Academy last year? I contend, as do most of the anti-voucher crowd, that the extra requirements needed to join alternative educational systems effectively filter out the less educated, financially unstable, non-English speaking crowd.  I have heard multiple conversations like, "You make enough money, why aren't you at the charter school," or "I don't want poor people at my kids' private school. They slow everybody down. I have asked the school board to raise tuition so they will not be able to afford it."  In fact, I have heard so many conversations like this that I believe, in many cases, this filtering effect is a primary reason why many of the more able families in a community flock to charters and support vouchers.

Secondly, it is easy for those of us (like me and probably you and most of the other posters on this blog) who grew up in fairly favorable circumstances to say, "I've made good choices. I've earned the good life I have. If you would have made better choices, you would be in better circumstances, too. You get what you deserve."

I am an educator (there I admit it) and one of my students has a father in jail and a mother that will go to court this month to be arraigned for meth distribution. (What's worse, she was arrested several months ago in front of the school when she came to pick up her kids.) I guess my student's bad choices in life have led him to be in the unfortunate circumstances he finds himself. If he would only make better choices now, he would have more opportunities in the future. I could list dozens more cases (I've been an educator for 11 years) of students who had parents that were either unwilling of unable to be supportive of their children, and in some cases, parents who were guilty of much worse than simple neglect.

When we make good choices, it usually follows that more good choices come and we reap benefits from those choices. The lack of a subsidy when we make a good choice does not equate to a punishment. However, finding out that the government is going to give those who already have a fair amount of choices money back for exercising a choice that is beyond your reach must be considered, at the very least, a slap in the face.

Utah charter school demographics already show that when the requirements to exercise an option become harder, even slightly, it is mostly just the cans and haves that use it. The voucher option will require even more of families, so what should we expect will happen to the kind of people who gather there? Remember once again, it is private schools that will have the ultimate choice, not us.
Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-03-2007 6:33 PM
I didn't come from a "favorable circumstance". For many years I was raised by a single mother (my father disappeared when she was pregnant with me) in a very poor part of South Salt Lake (between State and 3rd West). If you know the area, you may understand. After my mother remarried (I was 6), we moved to West Valley. Life was meager at best As I went through High School, I was told by my parents and educators that college may not be an option for me because of finances. I ended upqualifying for a state sponsored scholarship, but I had two years after graduating to take advantage of it. Wanting to go on a mission, I knew that I wouldn't get the scholarship. So after High School, I joined the military. This would allow me to serve a mission and pay for college. This is what I mean by opportunity (choice) for those like me (the poor). The more doors that are opened for choice, the better the chances to change our stars.

Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-03-2007 6:41 PM
Charter schools enroll in a "lottery" style selection. Luck of the draw is what gets the student in when there is an oppening. This lottery does not judge based on "English speaking" skills, whether your caucasian, wealty or come from a prestigeous family. It simply selects random applications with no prior discrimination. When choice is broadened and parents have more knowledge of these choices, we will see more underpriveleged kids being enrolled in these schools because there will be more applications that fit these kinds of demographics. The first obstacle to break before this can happen is the myth that Charter schools are only for the gifted, wealthy, white English speaking students.
Desechado wrote re: School Vouchers - (Updated!)
on 11-03-2007 10:00 PM
KSL aired an editorial stating that it stands against Ref 1. I find this interresting and want all who read this blog to know because of this blog's use of KSL's investigation behind the truth of the Ref 1 commercials.

http://www.ksl.com/?nid=165&sid=2059467
Powered by Community Server (Non-Commercial Edition), by Telligent Systems