Acid Voucher Reflux

It is so easy to criticize the thousand votes of an incumbent, and to forget that their opponent has not been so scrutinized, nor can be.

In a race between Representative Paul Neuenschwander, and Becky Edwards, Edwards might as well be wonder woman. She has, however, no record of which to speak, which speaks to why some have questioned just where she is rooted. I disavow those who question her Republican bonifides. I renounce those who will not accept her as a fellow Republican. But I will not ignore her experience gap, or the fact that I do not know, save on one dead issue, her viewpoints.

She's running against the incumbent because he along with the majority of legislators in this state voted for vouchers twice!

Of course, even voucher opponents in the house voted for vouchers once when the voted for the amendments to the original bill.

The voucher debate victors are exorcised in the manner of Captain Ahab only because they won. Now they want to further divide the state by raising a battle cry against an opponent that is not there. Legislative leadership has said that they have no plans to resurrect the voucher debate, and former voucher supporters have vowed to not vote for the legislation if it were to manifest.

So, what is the problem?

Let The Real Debate Begin

I seem to feel a new vitality for blogging that has been somewhat missing of late. Not because I won anything in last nights vote, but precisely because I lost.

Now that vouchers have expired, I can finally get some serious answers from folks who support education. That includes people from both camps that supported, or opposed vouchers. Sure the rhetoric won't completely vanish, but those who are sincere will re-emerge into the political light and, hopefully, start hammering out some real solutions. I think there are a lot of serious folks who retreated from the heated debate these last few months, that will now open up some good discussions.

If Not Vouchers, Then What?

Faced with the prospect of a defeat of vouchers at the polls next Tuesday, I ask the question. If not vouchers, then what?

Vouchers were implemented by a majority of the legislature, and signed by a Governor who say that vouchers will help public schools. If we take them at their word--and we must unless they have proven themselves untrustworthy on this point, then we should examine the future of public education without vouchers.

Even without the implementation of vouchers, the numbers of entrants into public schools will grow exponentially. The Utah Taxpayer Association estimates that by 2015, we will have 150,000 more students enrolled in public schools than presently.

Voucher opponents accept these numbers, although they would otherwise burn the Taxpayer Association heads at the stake for opposing them on vouchers.

Accepting the legislative fiscal analysts worst guess to be true, and only 12,000 students leave public schools with a voucher. Assuming that they take the maximum possible voucher dollar of $3,000, the general fund will have $36,000,000 subtracted from it. Utahn's for public schools say we spend $5,397 per student (lower than the estimate of $7,500). Using that number, Public Schools will have $5,397 per student in left their coffers because schools keep the money per student for five years. This comes to $64,764,000 dollars more available for public education to use per year for five years. That's 64 million that was already going to be spent on education for an investment of 36 million that would not have been spent on education.

Of course, of the 2% of students that we think may take advantage of vouchers, how many get the full $3,000? Not 100%, so my 36 million figure is somewhere between 0 and 6 million dollars higher than what will be required.

The question implicit in this is could we spend 36 million more dollars on education and get as much? Doubtful, because the savings for public schools is less when students stay in the program than if they leave, or never show up at all.

What will we do about 150,000 more students in seven years without vouchers?

We may have to find out if vouchers fail next Tuesday.

Liberal or Progressive, Same Old Nonsense

George Will has weighed in on Utah's voucher vote next Tuesday.

Liberal or Progressive, Same Old Nonsense

Utahns Can Vote For School Choice Tuesday

FYI, John Stossel weighs in on Utah's voucher vote.

Utahns Can Vote for School Choice Tuesday

Vouchers: On Out-Of-State Money

I'm seeing a lot of anti-voucher ads on television. You might be asking, where is all this money coming from? You see, some months ago, criticisms of Parents for Choice were prolific about out-of-state money going into the organizations coffers.

Now, it is Utahn's for Public Education (anti-voucher) getting all of the out-of-state funds. (i.e. 1.5 million dollars from the National Education Association.)

Where are those critics now?

A Response To Three Anti-Voucher Facts

Let me respond to three arguments that are coming out of the anti-voucher camp that are factually based.

Vouchers are a subsidy.

True, vouchers would be money applied by the government to the private sector that benefits the public. Voucher supporters usually respond that this is a lot like what the government currently does with public education. There are differences, however. Public education is not only funded by the government, it is also administered by the government. Usually, fiscal conservatives oppose subsidies because it puts the government in the position to choose which private ventures will succeed or fail. In the case of education, however, the government is already doing this. Private schools are at a disadvantage to public schools, because of the government, in that they can fail if the money dries up. Public education funding does not fail. It may come short of expectations, but accounts remain stocked with taxpayer dollars.

Can you imagine a circumstance under which public education fails to get any funding?

Voucher money will go to religious schools

Voucher money will go to some non-secular schools as well as secular schools. This falls short of an endorsement of one religion over another by the government because it is parents that will choose where the dollars go, not the government. If vouchers pass in November, voucher opponents may choose to use the courts to argue this point. The courts will have to decide whether having parents as the intermediary between the government and private schools is enough to leave vouchers in place.

Vouchers will not create diversity

Let me tell you two other things that tend toward greater homogeneity. Where we live, and with whom we live. People of certain socio-economic classes tend to live in the same neighborhoods, and people generally choose to marry those of the same age, race, and status. The children born to us tend to be genetically, and ideologically like us. There is nothing inherently wrong with this, unless you can think of a reason that children should not look like their parents.

There is an interesting side-effect of all of this. Public school boundaries are generally drawn to enclose an area, as opposed to cherry-picking children from different areas. As a result public schools lack the very diversity that voucher opponents value so highly. Private schools, on the other hand, draw their students from larger geographical areas--an effect of their being fewer public, than private schools. Even middle, and lower, class students can attend private school if their families will make the requisite sacrifices (think of the big screen T.V. housed within a mobile home).

This is good. The State School Board has their organization. Now legislators have one too.

A Voucher Proponents Playbook

The Coolest Family Ever picked up on my voucher end-game post and elaborated on some key ideas pertinent to vouchers.

I point you to this, not because I have proven to be the fastest draw in the west on the Jonah Goldberg piece, but because Jesse has been extremely thoughtful and detailed in his post.

It's a good read.

Voucher Supporters: Court Ruling Could Have Been Worse

Freshman Legislator, Kay McIff(R) isn't off to the most conservative start at the Utah House of Representatives. McIff is lockstep with another Republican of questionable conservative credentials, Sheryl Allen, and ranks under the top three most conservative Democrats.

Before I'm accused of breaking the eleventh commandment, I'll take a divergent course and talk about vouchers and which tactics are intellectually honest. McIff had suggested, before the Supreme Court offered clarification, that the legislature ought to take care of the voucher issue by forgetting that they ever had passed an amendment.

Reasonable people, have, and will disagree about this idea. The ultimate result of the court decision accomplished nearly what McIff had suggested. I say nearly, because the amendment comes back if the voters support the primary voucher law in November. Under McIff's proposal it would not. But, the court's motives and purpose were also different than McIff and his cohorts. The court argued that the amendment could not stand alone due to a question of process, not a question of outcome. The Supreme Court did not, or should not, care whether or not vouchers are ultimately passed. The court ought not to consider whether the law is nice, but only whether it is constitutional.

McIff, it appears, had a different idea about why the second amendment bill should be eliminated. His reason, it seems clear, was to make the voucher law a better target for those who wish to kill it.

I have two reasons that support the above assertion. One, the amendment bill was passed to satisfy the demands of those now opposed to the voucher law. (Suddenly they want to get rid of it?) Two, under McIff's plan, the voucher law would have been less palatable then it is now under the courts ruling. McIff is openly opposed to the voucher law, and wants its repeal.

So, despite what some might say, the supreme court decision was not a clear win for voucher opponents. The next battle will be decided, very clearly, at the ballot box in November.

Note: I have previously praised McIff for taking the high road, and I'm open to the possibility of praising him once again.

Do Away With Public Schools?

Of all places, I found a conservative article in the L.A. Times, and by noted columnist Jonah Goldberg to boot!

That being said, what Goldberg is suggesting may not make it into your particular medicine bag. I give it here as food for thought, without commentary. (Though, you've had much commentary from me on the subject before, so you might...might guess my view. But, then again, you've been wrong before.)

L.A. Times: Do away with public schools

Vouchers: Back To The Nitty Gritty

Now that we know the effect of an up or down vote on Vouchers, it's back to the Pro's and Con's.

Representative Dougall has a nice rebuttal of some common anti-voucher arguments. Although, his parenthetical comments on number five shed more heat than light.

Keeping Tabs On Vouchers

How many of you are reeling, as I am, from the slings and arrows cast in the last week on the voucher imbroglio?

This is the problem with the 24 hour news cycle. There is often no time to sort things out. Well, consider this moment, an eddy on the river of the news from which you can rest your paddles, and long for the days of yore when the news blackened your fingers instead of your thoughts.

The Players

• Steve Urquhart -- Legislator, Attorney, and Sponsor of the Voucher Bills/Laws
• Kim Burningham --Not only the Chairman of the State School Board, but a founding member of Utahns for Public Schools. Burningham presided over the board on a controversial decision to hold the Voucher law implementation until answers could be given to the board.
• Parents For Choice in Education--Non-profit, funded from outside of Utah, but founded by two Utah entrepreneurs, and heavy contributer to the campaigns of voucher supporters. Most notably, Kim Burningham's opponent in this last election. Clearly, if they are conspiring, they were not very good at ousting the entrenched Burningham, although they have waxed the proverbial floor with others.
• Utah Supreme Court (less Chief Justice Christine Durham) will hear arguments from both sides on June 8th.
• Democratic Legislature--A group unanimously opposed, not only to vouchers, but to those who promote them.
• The Senate Site--Not the Republicans majority caucus-proper, but the anonymous version of the same. Supporters of all things voucher.
• Mark Shurtleff --Attorney General of Utah, and advisor to the State School Board and Governors Office. The A.G. has advised the State School Board to implement HB.174.
  

The Timeline

2/12/2007: HB148-Voucher Bill narrowly passed by one vote, exposing it to the threat of a referendum, is signed by the Governor.
3/6/07 : HB174-Bill intended to "fix" the first voucher bill passes by a much larger margin, 2/3rds majority, and signed into law making it "referendum-proof".
4/30/07: Voucher Referendum Certified by the Lt. Governor
5/15/07: Ballot language written and mailed to the Lt. Governor. Language has HB148 in the title.

Summary

Before you ask, I can't say that Governor Huntsman is a player, although he's jumped in and out on this issue. He just hasn't demonstrated strong leadership, one way or another. He doesn't seem to like to play 'hot potato'. Neither am I trying to be predictive about if, or when we do get to vote on this, or another bill. It seems that we might have a special session to clarify, and we might just leave this for the courts to sort out.

Update: My apologies. I neglected to mention Mark Shurtleff as a player in the voucher dispute. Although this list was never intended to be comprehensive, it was to include the 'major' players. For the same reason that I leave off the Governor, I must remember to include the A.G. Shurtleff has been a stand up guy in all of this. Giving his views, and sticking by them. Some will call him 'arrogant' for this, but he is taking a legal viewpoint, which is his job. The news today reveals that he has fired two Attorneys for misrepresenting the view of the Attorney Generals Office, and giving contrary advice.

Voucher Peace Offerings And Infighting

Steve Urquhart has offered a peace offering in the whole voucher mess and suggested that we hold a special session to repeal both 148 and 174 and replace them with one voucher law that is subject to a vote of the people.

Reasonable right?

Not to everyone. Jeremy, a voucher opponent likes it, but the Davis Didjeridu is standing firm against it!

Nothing is simple in voucher-land.

Check the comments of Urquhart's post to see Jeremy's reply to the Didj.

The Cost For Educating Non-English Speakers

A Review submitted to the Utah State Legislature shows that the cost for education non-English speaker in poverty is between $100-$500 more than native speakers.

Unfortunately, they were asked to specify what it costs to educate an undocumented immigrant. This audit raises more questions than it answers. The only criterion they have used to determine costs appears to be whether English is a second language, and the poverty level of the student. This doesn't answer costs of educating for me, because we should assume from this report that it costs the same to educate a documented immigrant child. That is, unless it can be proven that legal immigrants are less likely to live in poverty than illegal immigrants.

Is poverty the lot of all illegal immigrants? Certainly not always relative to their country of origin. Living here in the worst of circumstances is still remarkably better than third-world poverty. But, does living here as an illegal immigrant condemn one to live below our poverty line? Is a Social Security Number and a job, likely to move one above the poverty line? How many illegal immigrants with children are going to work here without a Social Security Number(belonging to whom?), really? Relative to one another, do illegal immigrants have a advantage over legal immigrants because of what it cost to come here legally?

The question that should be answered, but cannot with such a narrow study as this is 'what is the real cost of illegal immigration to the migrant child'?

Hat Tip: SL Tribune

State School Board: Above The Law?

Lately, I get indignant about very few things, but this weekend I saw something that was maddening.

First, some background. The State Board has refused to implement the voucher law until their twenty questions are answered by the Attorney General. Kim Burningham, the Chairman of the State School Board was on with Rod Decker saying how surprised he was that the School Board had not been sued to prevent them from implementing vouchers before the deadline. I could see that it would have been politically advantages for Burningham to have the board be the target of a lawsuit. Then it would be easy for him to say, 'we can't implement vouchers until the courts give us permission'. The fact is that nobody sued, and now Burningham is trying to justify not following the law.

Burningham appears to be getting away with it.

Mr. Burningham, oppose vouchers if you will. Speak publicly against them. Devote your political clout to their ultimate demise, but follow the law! Just follow the law!

Voucher Impropriety

Randy Smith, of Davisparents.org fame, has dirt on this whole voucher fiasco. He's been keeping his mouth shut about it, which makes me wonder what reason there is to wait?

C'mon Randy, let those allegations fly. It isn't libel when you're aiming at a public figure, and you're doing a public service by making this known.

Speak up before it's too late!

I'm calling you out.

Voucher Referendum Lunacy

One more time into the breach that is the 'voucher war'. KSL is reporting that, despite the recent opinion offered by the AG that a referendum will do nothing to end vouchers, that referendum supporters are forging ahead to collect signatures. As such, the following becomes the 'quote of the day'.

"I don't think it suggests a huge endorsement of vouchers or against vouchers. I think what it suggests is they've got abilities to collect the signatures and will likely do that."

Doug Holmes-Utahns for Choice in Education

This essentially creates a new category of people known respectively as pro-referendum, and anti-referendum. Do you, A support the referendum just to prove to the Lege that you have a 'voice'. Or do you, B, not sign the referendum. Are we even worried about vouchers anymore, or is this becoming a spitting contest?

Another point. The AG points out in his legal opinion(pdf) that the Voucher program could yet be challenged in court on Constitutional grounds, yet the pro-voucher (or is it pro-referendum) folks couldn't care less. They are too busy decrying the AG for being obtuse to the fact that we can, in fact, collect 90,000 signatures.

Well, we can collect that many signatures. And, we must because we are referendum people!

Public Vs Private Education Conspiracies

Katie Christensen, of the Sutherland Institute, commented on my post "Schools in your area", in response to a theory that suggested that Sutherland wants us to think that private schools are geographical closer than public schools.

...We get our school addresses from the State Board of Education website. We have noticed that some of the addresses listed on that site are wrong...

Now Sutherland had been accused of being biased, which all organizations larger than zero people are. Katie doesn't not seem to be denying that fact. Qualitatively, however, the information that Sutherland has mashed together, in their School locater tool, is not influenced by Sutherland's distinct bias. Sutherland merely runs their calculations against the State Board of Education data.

So, maybe the State Board of Education wants us to think that private schools are more accessible than public schools?

School's In Your Area

I just came across this excellent school locator on the Sutherland Institute Website. You type in your zip code and it provides you with a list of schools, and their distance.

Salt Lake Sites, done by the same person as y-intercept, has made a list of Salt Lake Area Schools with descriptions, which is useful as well.