This doesn't make any sense whatsoever... a universal voucher system would spend the same amount of money per student, it would just allow the parents and students to decide where the money goes, rather than forcing students to attend their designated public school.
You forget that the voucher would eventually go to all private school students -- even those who normally choose to attend private school without a state subsidy. Hence, the state will end up paying for students that it wouldn't otherwise have had to pay for.
You're right, but the cost would not go up significantly. There are around 20,000 private school students in utah, including ones that wouldn't be paid for, such as pre-school students. Compare that to the 523,000 public school students who are already using state money. That's only about a 3% increase, which I can live with. It is even less when you consider that a voucher system would be less wasteful and more competitive, possibly lowering school costs for everyone simultaneously.
KSL is ANTI-VOUCHER, and even they admit that your claim is not true. Think again about public schools "losing money"
And you really think our teachers are getting paid well? Why are all the good teachers going to private schools? And since I can't post URLs, go to google and search US Teacher Salaries and click the first link. Ranking 38th in the nation doesn't sound very good to me.
The UBSCT was put into place for the class of 2006 (my graduating class) BECAUSE of NCLB.
SEC. 1503. ASSESSMENT EVALUATION. (a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall conduct an independent study of assessments used for State accountability purposes and for making decisions about the promotion and graduation of students.
This came directly from the NCLB text, along with much more that supports my debate, but in the interest of time and limited text, I invite you to read it yourself.
Private schools have been competing with public schools for over a century. What has competition done for them? What new, innovative educational strategies and techniques have they created? Why can private schools only attract 3% of Utah's children?
I got into a good University because of my own intelligence, not because of teachers who taught me nothing. I know far too many students in my university who dropped out and went to an easier college because they weren't prepared for the difficult coursework.
The difference between private schools and public schools, is private schools pass the NCLB test the first time. Public schools generally have an average of 2 attempts before PASSING, doesn't mean they have a good score.
I'm not going to discuss this with someone who is so uninformed that they don't understand that there is no such thing as an NCLB test and that private schools are not subject to NCLB.
The only test you have to pass in Utah to graduate is called the Utah Basic Skills Competency Test (UBSCT)it is part of the Utah Performance and Assessment System for Students (U-PASS). Did you pass?
Unfortunately half the students in my class had to take at least 1 portion of the test more than once. And it was the easiest standardized test I've ever taken. Our public schools are really teaching our students, eh?
So stop whining that the voucher budget could potentially become a shocking 2% of the education budget. I'll gladly give my tax money to parents who are going to give their parents a real education.
You have to be a enrolled in a public school the previous year in order to receive a voucher for the coming year, so it doesn't help those who would've gone to private schools anyway.
The public school system will lose NO money because the voucher money comes directly from the general fund. Your crap education system gets 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS. What does that even get spent on? Definitely not quality education, considering the fact that tests scores are constantly dropping. Public schools don't need more money, they need responsible spending (sports programs, sorry, time to go)and good teachers.
General Fund money could be used to improve public education. Instead, it will go toward small peculiar academies that will further separate and splinter society.
hey UtahVouchers, have you even read the actual text of the bill for the voucher program? Or are you just coming up with your own ideas of what you think will happen?
And I have to say that I am very anti-union when it comes to education. We should not have anyone protecting the jobs of BAD TEACHERS. I sure as hell did not get into a good university because of my public school teachers, I had to work my ass off teaching myself because the public school system failed me.
And I got into a great university because of good public schools and great teachers. The difference between you and me is that I don't blame my performance on someone else.
You don't trust parents to spend $3000 of our tax dollars on pure education but you trust the school boards to spend $7500 of our tax dollars on sports teams, new facilities (gyms, auditoriums, etc.), equipment, but NOT the teachers. When I went to school, I definitely learned a lot more from good teachers than a computer or fancy learning equipment.
Where do you come up with this stuff? Utah spends a greater percentage of its funds on teachers and instruction than most other states. We have fewer computers per student than any other state.
And you're not going to discuss this because you know you're wrong. If teachers spend a greater amount of its funds on teacher and instruction than other states, than why do other states have a smaller education budget but higher teacher salaries?
The key point of their ads are false, schools will be accountable.... to parents who have a much better chance of fixing problems in private schools the public, teachers are require to be qualified, if your argument is based on lies then you are on the wwrong side.
I think most teachers want what is best for kids, but the leadership knows that the more kids not in union schools the less influence they will have, so despite the fact that voucher clearly will lower class sizes and increase per pupil spending, and help kids that don't fit in to public schools the union launches a campain of half-truths, deceptions, and downright lies to scare voters.
You remove a child from public school but the cost remains. Sure, per pupil spending increases because costs don't go down but the number of students do. There is no more money because it has to be used to pay for the costs left behind when the student leaves.
What costs are left behind when a student leaves? Currently, public schools receive their funding based on the number of students. With Referendum 1, you keep your funding even if students leave; You never had that before. Why would you deny that opportunity?
You take a student out of classroom you still have to pay for the teacher, janitor, electricity, heating, principal, counselor, debt, etc. Tens of thousands of students will have to leave public schools before any real savings are realized. No one who understands vouchers and price/demand believes that will happen.
the quality of its members. I hated school despite the fact I had a lot of good teachers, I think a lot of children would be better served by alternatives, but often times thats not an option, and so we allow the one size fits all mold of public schools to crush those few, vouchers could help these kids.
I don't fear unions, they can be a force for good, unfortunatly like most things unions started with the best intentions often end up prioritizing the good of the union over the good of the members and over the quoted goals of their members. NEA is a good example of a union gone wrong, a union that protects mediocre and substandard performers which hurts good teachers, and often times uses its influence to promote the agenda of its leadership rather than helping to innovate and improve...
I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time understanding this. Your fear of unions, your lack of understanding of education and governmental finance, and finally, your desire to see the world in simplistic terms makes it difficult to carry on a rational dialog with you.
It has been easily shown vouchers will increase per pupil spending and lower class size, something the teachers unions insist is desperately needed, and yet they are fighting this, why? Because it will send money and kids to schools that are not likely to have union teachers, which weakens their control and power. Screw if it is good for kids, it is bad for the union and that is what is important to them.
The argument that current private schools students getting vouchers is somehow unfair is laughable, their parents are paying taxes, most likely at a higher percentage rate, the taxes are taken in part for education of minor children, shouldn't they get at least a crumb of that for their kids? Why is it so wrong for the education tax dollars they spend to actually go to educating their own kids???
This isn't additional money on top of what the government spends, this is part of what is already spent, 7/7 = 3/7 + 4/7, simple math buddy. If I can buy a ham and cheese sandwich for $3, or I can buy a ham sandwich for $2 and add cheese for $1 then yes I just spent an extra $1 on cheese but the total cost is the same, since the money for the voucher is coming out of the amount we pay now it doesn't cost more it is just spent different.
"In 13 years, every private school student will qualify for a one." With this being the quality of grammar our public school system is teaching it is small wonder that people want private schools. And saying this is going to be expensive is misleading at best, this will take part of tax dollars that are ALREADY collected and spent and allow parents to have the option to use them to get a private school education.
With the passing of Vouchers, MORE students will have the opportunity to switch to private schools. This is wonderful -the fact that we will have more options because money won't be the issue. And, since the private schools are required to post their testing results in comparison to the nation, and public schools post test results from the NCLB act, I'll just have to choose which school will give me the better education.
I am a current student of a Public School, and if I have the chance to choose a better school, be it public or private, money really shouldn't be an option.
I think that the video stated that the voucher program will be the most expensive entitlement program in Utah. Why is it bad to spend that money where I want to be educated?
What does entitlement mean? A scholarship is an entitlement, but do kindergarten and those other programs on the list fall under entitlement?
Economic fact: Competition leads to better services and increased efficiency. Monopoly promotes inefficiency and inferior services. This applies to public education as well as anything else. Those arguing against vouchers do not want to have to compete and want to preserve their monopoly.
Private schools have been competing with public schools for over a century. What has competition done for them? What new, innovative educational strategies and techniques have they created? Why can private schools only attract 3% of Utah's children?
Because far too many families can't afford $4000 tuition. But $1000, that is much more likely for someone to afford.
And you want to know what competition has done for them? Provided high quality education. If they aren't performing up to the parents expectations, the school will be closed down. There is no teachers' union to protect bad teachers. It is up to the quality of education to keep the school running. An excellent system if you ask me.
Money can't be the reason. Utahns make about the same as the rest of the country. Most Utahns don't won't to send their children to private schools. With vouchers, taxpayers will end up paying the bill for those who would have gone private anyway.
I would say it is an insignificant amount in two ways. It is insignificant compared to what we could spend in the public schools on the same children ($7,500 v. $2,000 (average voucher)). It is also an insignificant cost to put parents back in the drivers seat of their child's education.
So let's give complete "ownership and control" of education to the central government (community as a whole).
If you had done real research you would know that vouchers will save taxpayers money. If you had done real research you would also know this will increase per pupil spending in public schools (something they cry about all time).
Wow, Wikipedia?!! I think I'll go in there and edit what Wikipedia says about it. That's how reliable they are.
Here is the definition:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
No. Calling you a capitalist, conservative, libertarian or moderate would be irrational, because you are not these things. The ideaology you subscribe to in this matter is socialist. There is no getting around it. Don't take it as an insult. I am pretty sure you are proud of your stance.
Government control of education and big central government is as socialist as you can get. Don't be irrational and deny that.
Just to make sure that the definition of socialism hadn't taken some strange turn, I looked it up. Imagine my surprise when I found a picture of avoucher proponent! From Wikipedia: "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation." Sounds like a voucher to me.
Are you freaking kidding me? Somebody doesn't understand political theory. Your definition of socialism is more or less correct. As you think about it you will discover that this explains the current public education system. Socialism is subject to control by the COMMUNITY. Vouchers are subject to control by the INDIVIDUAL.
Nice response. I bring in some empirical evidence that proves your argument moot and you call me irrational.
You want to take choice away from parents. You can argue for government control of education all you want, but smart people want choice and won't fall for your propaganda.
In response to my statement that we increased spending by $267M from '99-'04 you said "It merely pays for additional students".
The fact of the matter is they increased per pupil spending by over $400. I just multiplied that by the number of students and came up with $267M. So you see all of that spending was allocated specifically to increase spending per student. Not to accommodate new students.
You are a socialist. The last thing we want is parents to have choice, right? Or for taxpayers to get a little bit of their money back and use it how they deem fit, right? We want the central government to have all power over education, that way they can teach our kids that FDR was the best president ever, and that Columbus killed more Indians than Hitler did Jews. That's exactly what we want!
I don't know why there is concern that $71M from public education will be spent on private education. It's all education.
What's more alarming is that in 2003 we spent over $2.3 Billion on K-12 education in Utah. $71M is only 3% of that. From 1999-2003 spending increased by $267M. Test scores aren't improving people.
Why are people who support public education all of a sudden concerned about spending tax dollars when it comes to superior education? Isn't that our goal?
Thank you for the comment. Most of the $71 million will not go to private schools because of vouchers. It will go to fund students who never intended to go to public schools. Taxpayers will now have to pay for private school students.
Very little of the new money allocated for public education goes toward improving education. It merely pays for additional students and covers increased costs.
Private education is not superior to public education. Recent studies show that when dealing with similar populations, private schools do no better than public schools.
I am concerned about unaccountable individuals spending our tax dollars. I am opposed to paying for someone's personal preferences with public dollars.
Your argument could make sense if FY2008 were the ONLY budget with one-time funding. But FY2009, FY2010, will have one-time funding.But practically EVERY budget has one-time funding. Since one-time funding is an annual fact of budgetary life, this funding should be counted.
You make it sound like funding will decrease in FY2009 because the one-time funding will disappear, which of course is in accurate.
Are you saying that FY2009 spending will DECREASE from FY2008 because FY08 has "one-time" funding? IOW, there won't be one-time funding in FY2009 and/or the increase in ongoing funding won't offset the disappearance of the one-time funding?
How many times in the past twenty years has per student spending decreased because the previous year's budget had a lot of one time spending that wasn't replaced? I think it's been once, and the legislature made up for that once the economy rebounded.
Just curious. Why did you say that UTA speculated on a federal growth rate? I haven't seen that in any of their publications. On their blog, they said they assumed a 0% growth rate in "non MSP" funding. Do you have access to information that the rest of us don't, PO?
You've been a busy angel, Moroni. Apparently, even managed a minor miracle in getting UTA to disclose its $7,500 calculation. Good job. My bad in assuming UTA included federal growth. Thought it had to be the case to get to such a high number. Makes it that much more unrealistic.
Good point. It does not for two reasons: 1. those costs are borne primarily by districts -- not the state 2. those costs will only be avoided (saved) if a sufficient number of students in any single district, opt for a more expensive private education over a public education. The analysis does not show sufficient numbers of students, even over time, leaving to justify a reduction in building costs.
Local tax dollars are still tax dollars and should be counted as savings. Same with federal tax dollars.
If the fiscal note is $71 million, that means tens of thousands of students are switching, especially if you assume that all current private school students are rich and are only getting a $500 voucher.
When tens of thousands of students switching, taxpyers can spend less on facility construction costs
You can't get to $71 million WITHOUT assuming tens of thousands of switchers. Again, here's the math: (17,000 existing private school students all of whom are rich) x ($500 per student) = $8.5 million. To get to $71 million, you have to assume switchers, which means you have to include savings.
Maybe you can't but the fiscal analyst did. Try to remember that we are talking about when vouchers are fully implemented -- 13 years from now. The price of the vouchers will increase (by law) and the number of non-switching students will increase at about the same rate as public school enrollment will increase. And, you are the only one I know who claims all existing privates are rich.
My calculation assumed that ALL current private school students would be eligible NOW. That's why I multiplied 17,000 (current private school enrollment) by $500.
Your last statement must be joke, right? The drum beat of the anti-vocucher crowd is that private schools are for the rich.
You seem to have lost the thread of the discussion. We are not talking about NOW. We are talking about 13 years from now. We are also not talking about the "anti-voucher" crowd. We are talking about the legislature's financial staff's long term outlook for the cost of vouchers.
2. By assuming all 17,000 private school students would be eligible for a $500 voucher NOW, that illustrates how your $71 million "cost" must assume that tens of thousands of students must be switching after 13 years (which requires that savings must be accounted for), especially since opponents argue that private schools won't grow in response to increased demand.
Only the Taxpayers Association uses the $7,000+ per pupil expenditure. It is a poor projection at best of what might be spent this year. Finally, if we can't rely on legislative staff to provide unbiased expert analysis of financial issues we should stop using them.
UTA included nearly $250 million of one time expenditures; included federal expenditures (which won't be saved merely "lost" to other states; speculated on a growth rate of federal funds; included adult education, school lunch, students-in-custody programs. Those expenditures won't be "saved" if a student leaves for private school.
Again, not accurate. Most federal dollars will not be "lost" to other states. Federal dollar are primarily based on local poverty rates, not enrollment.
Besides, aren't we federal taxpayers? Since when should we not include federal savings?
If we are not "losing" federal funds, how can we "save" them? You can't have it both ways. Taxpayers won't save federal funds if federal funds are not reduced. UTA shouldn't include federal grants in its calculation of "savings."
They are saved within the existing public education system, just like the rest of the savings. If we are currently spending $7,500 in the existing system but divert some students at $2,000, the $5,500 is a savings that stay in the public system.
You seem to ignore that students have more than just funding attached to them. They have costs attached to them also. Since the voucher funding is LESS than the student COSTS, savings result.
Federal dollars is mainly driven by low income students. Your fears of losing this money contradicts your claim that low income students won't use vouchers.
First you want to exclude facility construction and interest. Then you want to exclude one time expenditures. Why should one-time expenditures be excluded? Are these not tax dollars?
One time funds are not an anomaly that occur only every once in a while. During good years, previous years surpluses are "one-time" funds. During bad years, transfers from rainy day and working rainy day funds are sources of one-time funds.
You say that one-time expenditures should be excluded, but nearly every budget has one time expenditures. In the long run, these one time expenditures are either rolled into ongoing expenditures or replaced by new "one time" expenditures
Adult education is about $10 million in FY08, or about 0.2% of the total education budget, including local expenditures. UTA's conservative assumptions (no growth in per student non-MSP funds from 06 to 08) more than offset this.
The Fawson-Herzberg study to which you refer was independently reviewed by 9 university (mostly from BYU and UofU) and other professional economists. Their review of the study concluded that it was simply too flawed to be used in making any kind of public policy decision. This panel specifically concluded that the study overstated the price elasticity of demand for private education and that a more defensible price demand rate would be the study's own 0.0 or the national figure.
Also, UtahVouchers you lack a basic grasp of how vouchers work. The "switch rate" is the very mechanism even the USOE agrees saves the state money. For each child who opts for a voucher ($3000 or less) instead of the $7000+ required to educate him in our public schools, the state saves the difference. Thus, the higher the switch rate, the higher the savings to the state. So, what you're calling a "new" entitlement program is really just a discount to taxpayers of the current one.
4. If you believe the switch rate is greater than that projected by legislative staff then you have to acknowledge even greater costs.
5. You have not denied that the State of Utah paying $71 million or more a year for an entirely new entitlement program -- a far greater amount now spent on many, many other programs. Utah taxpayers cannot afford vouchers.
Nobody "trashed" with any credibility the study that showed a huge savings to the state from the proposed school choice program. As an independent study by neutral economists who both sides approved beforehand -- researchers from TWO universities, USU and SUU -- it cost considerable money and resources and it still stands. By comparison, the politically-motivated *letter* you're referring to was the result of no comparable investment of resources and was requested by activist opponents.
The fiscal analyst told my state representative that his analysis did NOT include any savings to taxpayers or to public education. His analysis included only the COST of providing the voucher, not the savings.
The analyst showed the savings for the first two years but did not show any savings when the program is fully implemented (13 years.) Ask the analyst or your representative why savings were not included and what, if any, savings there will be.
Actually, the study commissioned by the state a couple years ago concluded that a voucher or tuition tax credit program would save the state over a billion dollars over that time. Why? Because the state saves several thousand dollars for each student who switches from public to private, which offsets by many times the small cost of those who would have gone to private school anyway. Oops!
Legislative fiscal staff failed to take into account any new interest in private schools by the public and the savings that result from students switching.
When independent researchers from Utah State University and SUU ran the numbers on a similar program, they projected a 13 year savings to the state of between $343 million and $1.9 billion.
This doesn't make any sense whatsoever... a universal voucher system would spend the same amount of money per student, it would just allow the parents and students to decide where the money goes, rather than forcing students to attend their designated public school.
jetboyJ22 2 years ago
You forget that the voucher would eventually go to all private school students -- even those who normally choose to attend private school without a state subsidy. Hence, the state will end up paying for students that it wouldn't otherwise have had to pay for.
SLCPRO 2 years ago
You're right, but the cost would not go up significantly. There are around 20,000 private school students in utah, including ones that wouldn't be paid for, such as pre-school students. Compare that to the 523,000 public school students who are already using state money. That's only about a 3% increase, which I can live with. It is even less when you consider that a voucher system would be less wasteful and more competitive, possibly lowering school costs for everyone simultaneously.
jetboyJ22 2 years ago
Have you seen the KSL truth test video?
KSL is ANTI-VOUCHER, and even they admit that your claim is not true. Think again about public schools "losing money"
And you really think our teachers are getting paid well? Why are all the good teachers going to private schools? And since I can't post URLs, go to google and search US Teacher Salaries and click the first link. Ranking 38th in the nation doesn't sound very good to me.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
The UBSCT was put into place for the class of 2006 (my graduating class) BECAUSE of NCLB.
SEC. 1503. ASSESSMENT EVALUATION. (a) IN GENERAL- The Secretary shall conduct an independent study of assessments used for State accountability purposes and for making decisions about the promotion and graduation of students.
This came directly from the NCLB text, along with much more that supports my debate, but in the interest of time and limited text, I invite you to read it yourself.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
Wrong. UBSCT was required by the state legislature before NCLB. NCLB does not require a graduation test.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Have you looked at the impartial analysis in the voter information pamphlet?
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
UtahVouchers (1 week ago)
Private schools have been competing with public schools for over a century. What has competition done for them? What new, innovative educational strategies and techniques have they created? Why can private schools only attract 3% of Utah's children?
thebridgetface 4 years ago
Check the research from the pro-voucher Bush Administration: when comparing the same demographic, private schools do no better than public schools.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
I got into a good University because of my own intelligence, not because of teachers who taught me nothing. I know far too many students in my university who dropped out and went to an easier college because they weren't prepared for the difficult coursework.
The difference between private schools and public schools, is private schools pass the NCLB test the first time. Public schools generally have an average of 2 attempts before PASSING, doesn't mean they have a good score.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
I'm not going to discuss this with someone who is so uninformed that they don't understand that there is no such thing as an NCLB test and that private schools are not subject to NCLB.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
i took the test sophomore year, idiot.
you have to pass it to graduate.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
The only test you have to pass in Utah to graduate is called the Utah Basic Skills Competency Test (UBSCT)it is part of the Utah Performance and Assessment System for Students (U-PASS). Did you pass?
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
And no, I didn't pass but I graduated.
Next time think before you ask a question.
Unfortunately half the students in my class had to take at least 1 portion of the test more than once. And it was the easiest standardized test I've ever taken. Our public schools are really teaching our students, eh?
thebridgetface 4 years ago
Are you trying to be sarcastic?
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
So stop whining that the voucher budget could potentially become a shocking 2% of the education budget. I'll gladly give my tax money to parents who are going to give their parents a real education.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
And I won't. I don't trust parents to spend our tax dollars. There is no accountability.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Did you read the bill my dear?
You have to be a enrolled in a public school the previous year in order to receive a voucher for the coming year, so it doesn't help those who would've gone to private schools anyway.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
Do you understand the bill? In 13 years, ALL private students will be eligible for a voucher.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
The public school system will lose NO money because the voucher money comes directly from the general fund. Your crap education system gets 3.5 BILLION DOLLARS. What does that even get spent on? Definitely not quality education, considering the fact that tests scores are constantly dropping. Public schools don't need more money, they need responsible spending (sports programs, sorry, time to go)and good teachers.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
General Fund money could be used to improve public education. Instead, it will go toward small peculiar academies that will further separate and splinter society.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
hey UtahVouchers, have you even read the actual text of the bill for the voucher program? Or are you just coming up with your own ideas of what you think will happen?
And I have to say that I am very anti-union when it comes to education. We should not have anyone protecting the jobs of BAD TEACHERS. I sure as hell did not get into a good university because of my public school teachers, I had to work my ass off teaching myself because the public school system failed me.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
And I got into a great university because of good public schools and great teachers. The difference between you and me is that I don't blame my performance on someone else.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
You don't trust parents to spend $3000 of our tax dollars on pure education but you trust the school boards to spend $7500 of our tax dollars on sports teams, new facilities (gyms, auditoriums, etc.), equipment, but NOT the teachers. When I went to school, I definitely learned a lot more from good teachers than a computer or fancy learning equipment.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
Where do you come up with this stuff? Utah spends a greater percentage of its funds on teachers and instruction than most other states. We have fewer computers per student than any other state.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
And you're not going to discuss this because you know you're wrong. If teachers spend a greater amount of its funds on teacher and instruction than other states, than why do other states have a smaller education budget but higher teacher salaries?
You are useless.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
They don't.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
The key point of their ads are false, schools will be accountable.... to parents who have a much better chance of fixing problems in private schools the public, teachers are require to be qualified, if your argument is based on lies then you are on the wwrong side.
drm31415 4 years ago
I think most teachers want what is best for kids, but the leadership knows that the more kids not in union schools the less influence they will have, so despite the fact that voucher clearly will lower class sizes and increase per pupil spending, and help kids that don't fit in to public schools the union launches a campain of half-truths, deceptions, and downright lies to scare voters.
drm31415 4 years ago
You remove a child from public school but the cost remains. Sure, per pupil spending increases because costs don't go down but the number of students do. There is no more money because it has to be used to pay for the costs left behind when the student leaves.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
What costs are left behind when a student leaves? Currently, public schools receive their funding based on the number of students. With Referendum 1, you keep your funding even if students leave; You never had that before. Why would you deny that opportunity?
thebridgetface 4 years ago
You take a student out of classroom you still have to pay for the teacher, janitor, electricity, heating, principal, counselor, debt, etc. Tens of thousands of students will have to leave public schools before any real savings are realized. No one who understands vouchers and price/demand believes that will happen.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
the quality of its members. I hated school despite the fact I had a lot of good teachers, I think a lot of children would be better served by alternatives, but often times thats not an option, and so we allow the one size fits all mold of public schools to crush those few, vouchers could help these kids.
drm31415 4 years ago
I don't fear unions, they can be a force for good, unfortunatly like most things unions started with the best intentions often end up prioritizing the good of the union over the good of the members and over the quoted goals of their members. NEA is a good example of a union gone wrong, a union that protects mediocre and substandard performers which hurts good teachers, and often times uses its influence to promote the agenda of its leadership rather than helping to innovate and improve...
drm31415 4 years ago
If you watch the ads you can tell which are presenting facts and which ones are presenting fear, always a good indicator of truth.
drm31415 4 years ago
I'm sorry that you're having such a hard time understanding this. Your fear of unions, your lack of understanding of education and governmental finance, and finally, your desire to see the world in simplistic terms makes it difficult to carry on a rational dialog with you.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
It has been easily shown vouchers will increase per pupil spending and lower class size, something the teachers unions insist is desperately needed, and yet they are fighting this, why? Because it will send money and kids to schools that are not likely to have union teachers, which weakens their control and power. Screw if it is good for kids, it is bad for the union and that is what is important to them.
drm31415 4 years ago
The argument that current private schools students getting vouchers is somehow unfair is laughable, their parents are paying taxes, most likely at a higher percentage rate, the taxes are taken in part for education of minor children, shouldn't they get at least a crumb of that for their kids? Why is it so wrong for the education tax dollars they spend to actually go to educating their own kids???
drm31415 4 years ago
This isn't additional money on top of what the government spends, this is part of what is already spent, 7/7 = 3/7 + 4/7, simple math buddy. If I can buy a ham and cheese sandwich for $3, or I can buy a ham sandwich for $2 and add cheese for $1 then yes I just spent an extra $1 on cheese but the total cost is the same, since the money for the voucher is coming out of the amount we pay now it doesn't cost more it is just spent different.
drm31415 4 years ago
"In 13 years, every private school student will qualify for a one." With this being the quality of grammar our public school system is teaching it is small wonder that people want private schools. And saying this is going to be expensive is misleading at best, this will take part of tax dollars that are ALREADY collected and spent and allow parents to have the option to use them to get a private school education.
drm31415 4 years ago
With the passing of Vouchers, MORE students will have the opportunity to switch to private schools. This is wonderful -the fact that we will have more options because money won't be the issue. And, since the private schools are required to post their testing results in comparison to the nation, and public schools post test results from the NCLB act, I'll just have to choose which school will give me the better education.
digirumba 4 years ago
I am a current student of a Public School, and if I have the chance to choose a better school, be it public or private, money really shouldn't be an option.
I think that the video stated that the voucher program will be the most expensive entitlement program in Utah. Why is it bad to spend that money where I want to be educated?
What does entitlement mean? A scholarship is an entitlement, but do kindergarten and those other programs on the list fall under entitlement?
digirumba 4 years ago
When I said option, I meant object. (At the end of my first sentence, I said option.)
digirumba 4 years ago
Economic fact: Competition leads to better services and increased efficiency. Monopoly promotes inefficiency and inferior services. This applies to public education as well as anything else. Those arguing against vouchers do not want to have to compete and want to preserve their monopoly.
pandrus23 4 years ago
Private schools have been competing with public schools for over a century. What has competition done for them? What new, innovative educational strategies and techniques have they created? Why can private schools only attract 3% of Utah's children?
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Because far too many families can't afford $4000 tuition. But $1000, that is much more likely for someone to afford.
And you want to know what competition has done for them? Provided high quality education. If they aren't performing up to the parents expectations, the school will be closed down. There is no teachers' union to protect bad teachers. It is up to the quality of education to keep the school running. An excellent system if you ask me.
thebridgetface 4 years ago
Money can't be the reason. Utahns make about the same as the rest of the country. Most Utahns don't won't to send their children to private schools. With vouchers, taxpayers will end up paying the bill for those who would have gone private anyway.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Ummmm.... whoever made this is obviously oblivious to the actual State Education budget of more that $4.1 Billion.
alliholmes 4 years ago
What an insightful comment! May I infer from what you wrote that you believe $71 million is an insignificant amount? Vouchers at any cost?
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
I would say it is an insignificant amount in two ways. It is insignificant compared to what we could spend in the public schools on the same children ($7,500 v. $2,000 (average voucher)). It is also an insignificant cost to put parents back in the drivers seat of their child's education.
alliholmes 4 years ago
Moron
pandrus23 4 years ago
So let's give complete "ownership and control" of education to the central government (community as a whole).
If you had done real research you would know that vouchers will save taxpayers money. If you had done real research you would also know this will increase per pupil spending in public schools (something they cry about all time).
Do you work in public education?
nbakerld 4 years ago
Wow, Wikipedia?!! I think I'll go in there and edit what Wikipedia says about it. That's how reliable they are.
Here is the definition:
1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
nbakerld 4 years ago
No. Calling you a capitalist, conservative, libertarian or moderate would be irrational, because you are not these things. The ideaology you subscribe to in this matter is socialist. There is no getting around it. Don't take it as an insult. I am pretty sure you are proud of your stance.
Government control of education and big central government is as socialist as you can get. Don't be irrational and deny that.
nbakerld 4 years ago
Just to make sure that the definition of socialism hadn't taken some strange turn, I looked it up. Imagine my surprise when I found a picture of avoucher proponent! From Wikipedia: "Socialism refers to a broad array of doctrines or political movements that envisage a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community[1] for the purposes of increasing social and economic equality and cooperation." Sounds like a voucher to me.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Are you freaking kidding me? Somebody doesn't understand political theory. Your definition of socialism is more or less correct. As you think about it you will discover that this explains the current public education system. Socialism is subject to control by the COMMUNITY. Vouchers are subject to control by the INDIVIDUAL.
dasoccerplayaf0s 4 years ago
Nice response. I bring in some empirical evidence that proves your argument moot and you call me irrational.
You want to take choice away from parents. You can argue for government control of education all you want, but smart people want choice and won't fall for your propaganda.
nbakerld 4 years ago
Calling me a socialist is irrational.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
In response to my statement that we increased spending by $267M from '99-'04 you said "It merely pays for additional students".
The fact of the matter is they increased per pupil spending by over $400. I just multiplied that by the number of students and came up with $267M. So you see all of that spending was allocated specifically to increase spending per student. Not to accommodate new students.
nbakerld 4 years ago
You are a socialist. The last thing we want is parents to have choice, right? Or for taxpayers to get a little bit of their money back and use it how they deem fit, right? We want the central government to have all power over education, that way they can teach our kids that FDR was the best president ever, and that Columbus killed more Indians than Hitler did Jews. That's exactly what we want!
nbakerld 4 years ago
Sorry. I mistook you for someone who wanted to rationally discuss this issue. My mistake.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
I don't know why there is concern that $71M from public education will be spent on private education. It's all education.
What's more alarming is that in 2003 we spent over $2.3 Billion on K-12 education in Utah. $71M is only 3% of that. From 1999-2003 spending increased by $267M. Test scores aren't improving people.
Why are people who support public education all of a sudden concerned about spending tax dollars when it comes to superior education? Isn't that our goal?
nbakerld 4 years ago
Thank you for the comment. Most of the $71 million will not go to private schools because of vouchers. It will go to fund students who never intended to go to public schools. Taxpayers will now have to pay for private school students.
Very little of the new money allocated for public education goes toward improving education. It merely pays for additional students and covers increased costs.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Private education is not superior to public education. Recent studies show that when dealing with similar populations, private schools do no better than public schools.
I am concerned about unaccountable individuals spending our tax dollars. I am opposed to paying for someone's personal preferences with public dollars.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
If the Legislature were less conservative on revenue estimates, the surplus-driven one-time funding would automatically change into ongoing revenues.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Maybe, maybe not. The fact is these funds are considered one-time and can't be considered as future savings.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Your argument could make sense if FY2008 were the ONLY budget with one-time funding. But FY2009, FY2010, will have one-time funding.But practically EVERY budget has one-time funding. Since one-time funding is an annual fact of budgetary life, this funding should be counted.
You make it sound like funding will decrease in FY2009 because the one-time funding will disappear, which of course is in accurate.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
sorry, inaccurate, not in accurate
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Are you saying that FY2009 spending will DECREASE from FY2008 because FY08 has "one-time" funding? IOW, there won't be one-time funding in FY2009 and/or the increase in ongoing funding won't offset the disappearance of the one-time funding?
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
How many times in the past twenty years has per student spending decreased because the previous year's budget had a lot of one time spending that wasn't replaced? I think it's been once, and the legislature made up for that once the economy rebounded.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Just curious. Why did you say that UTA speculated on a federal growth rate? I haven't seen that in any of their publications. On their blog, they said they assumed a 0% growth rate in "non MSP" funding. Do you have access to information that the rest of us don't, PO?
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
You've been a busy angel, Moroni. Apparently, even managed a minor miracle in getting UTA to disclose its $7,500 calculation. Good job. My bad in assuming UTA included federal growth. Thought it had to be the case to get to such a high number. Makes it that much more unrealistic.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
It only apppears high because the government has been intentionally understating per pupil spending all of these years.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
I won't discuss government conspiracies.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Good point. It does not for two reasons: 1. those costs are borne primarily by districts -- not the state 2. those costs will only be avoided (saved) if a sufficient number of students in any single district, opt for a more expensive private education over a public education. The analysis does not show sufficient numbers of students, even over time, leaving to justify a reduction in building costs.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Local tax dollars are still tax dollars and should be counted as savings. Same with federal tax dollars.
If the fiscal note is $71 million, that means tens of thousands of students are switching, especially if you assume that all current private school students are rich and are only getting a $500 voucher.
When tens of thousands of students switching, taxpyers can spend less on facility construction costs
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Tens of thousands? You need to spend less time on Kolob and more time on planet earth. The $71 million is based on very few switchers.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
You can't get to $71 million WITHOUT assuming tens of thousands of switchers. Again, here's the math: (17,000 existing private school students all of whom are rich) x ($500 per student) = $8.5 million. To get to $71 million, you have to assume switchers, which means you have to include savings.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Maybe you can't but the fiscal analyst did. Try to remember that we are talking about when vouchers are fully implemented -- 13 years from now. The price of the vouchers will increase (by law) and the number of non-switching students will increase at about the same rate as public school enrollment will increase. And, you are the only one I know who claims all existing privates are rich.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
My calculation assumed that ALL current private school students would be eligible NOW. That's why I multiplied 17,000 (current private school enrollment) by $500.
Your last statement must be joke, right? The drum beat of the anti-vocucher crowd is that private schools are for the rich.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
You seem to have lost the thread of the discussion. We are not talking about NOW. We are talking about 13 years from now. We are also not talking about the "anti-voucher" crowd. We are talking about the legislature's financial staff's long term outlook for the cost of vouchers.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
1. The $7,500, which you dispute, is now.
2. By assuming all 17,000 private school students would be eligible for a $500 voucher NOW, that illustrates how your $71 million "cost" must assume that tens of thousands of students must be switching after 13 years (which requires that savings must be accounted for), especially since opponents argue that private schools won't grow in response to increased demand.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Only the Taxpayers Association uses the $7,000+ per pupil expenditure. It is a poor projection at best of what might be spent this year. Finally, if we can't rely on legislative staff to provide unbiased expert analysis of financial issues we should stop using them.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Why is the Utah Taxpayers Association's projection a "poor" projection?
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
UTA included nearly $250 million of one time expenditures; included federal expenditures (which won't be saved merely "lost" to other states; speculated on a growth rate of federal funds; included adult education, school lunch, students-in-custody programs. Those expenditures won't be "saved" if a student leaves for private school.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Again, not accurate. Most federal dollars will not be "lost" to other states. Federal dollar are primarily based on local poverty rates, not enrollment.
Besides, aren't we federal taxpayers? Since when should we not include federal savings?
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
If we are not "losing" federal funds, how can we "save" them? You can't have it both ways. Taxpayers won't save federal funds if federal funds are not reduced. UTA shouldn't include federal grants in its calculation of "savings."
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
You're not making sense. Not "losing" is the same as saving. The funds stay in Utah. Therefore, not losing this money is the same as saving it.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
So, they stay in Utah; we continue to spend them; and the taxpayers save how? If they are spent you can't claim them as savings.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
They are saved within the existing public education system, just like the rest of the savings. If we are currently spending $7,500 in the existing system but divert some students at $2,000, the $5,500 is a savings that stay in the public system.
You seem to ignore that students have more than just funding attached to them. They have costs attached to them also. Since the voucher funding is LESS than the student COSTS, savings result.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Federal dollars is mainly driven by low income students. Your fears of losing this money contradicts your claim that low income students won't use vouchers.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
First you want to exclude facility construction and interest. Then you want to exclude one time expenditures. Why should one-time expenditures be excluded? Are these not tax dollars?
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
UTA included two years of record high one-time funding in its calculations. There is a reason they are called one-time.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
One time funds are not an anomaly that occur only every once in a while. During good years, previous years surpluses are "one-time" funds. During bad years, transfers from rainy day and working rainy day funds are sources of one-time funds.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
They are called "one-time" for a reason.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Of course, if these one-time funds were spent transportation, you would be screaming "look at all the money transportation is getting".
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
I see no reason why I would do that. Are you tapping into my subconscience?
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
UTA excluded non k12 programs.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
They speculated a 0% growth rate in federal funds. See their August 8th blog post at utahtaxpayer dot blogspot dot com
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
You say that one-time expenditures should be excluded, but nearly every budget has one time expenditures. In the long run, these one time expenditures are either rolled into ongoing expenditures or replaced by new "one time" expenditures
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Adult education is about $10 million in FY08, or about 0.2% of the total education budget, including local expenditures. UTA's conservative assumptions (no growth in per student non-MSP funds from 06 to 08) more than offset this.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Does the "unbiased expert analysis" of legislative staff include facility costs and interest when calculating per student expenditures?
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
The Fawson-Herzberg study to which you refer was independently reviewed by 9 university (mostly from BYU and UofU) and other professional economists. Their review of the study concluded that it was simply too flawed to be used in making any kind of public policy decision. This panel specifically concluded that the study overstated the price elasticity of demand for private education and that a more defensible price demand rate would be the study's own 0.0 or the national figure.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Also, UtahVouchers you lack a basic grasp of how vouchers work. The "switch rate" is the very mechanism even the USOE agrees saves the state money. For each child who opts for a voucher ($3000 or less) instead of the $7000+ required to educate him in our public schools, the state saves the difference. Thus, the higher the switch rate, the higher the savings to the state. So, what you're calling a "new" entitlement program is really just a discount to taxpayers of the current one.
arationalguy 4 years ago
4. If you believe the switch rate is greater than that projected by legislative staff then you have to acknowledge even greater costs.
5. You have not denied that the State of Utah paying $71 million or more a year for an entirely new entitlement program -- a far greater amount now spent on many, many other programs. Utah taxpayers cannot afford vouchers.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Nobody "trashed" with any credibility the study that showed a huge savings to the state from the proposed school choice program. As an independent study by neutral economists who both sides approved beforehand -- researchers from TWO universities, USU and SUU -- it cost considerable money and resources and it still stands. By comparison, the politically-motivated *letter* you're referring to was the result of no comparable investment of resources and was requested by activist opponents.
arationalguy 4 years ago
The fiscal analyst told my state representative that his analysis did NOT include any savings to taxpayers or to public education. His analysis included only the COST of providing the voucher, not the savings.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
The analyst showed the savings for the first two years but did not show any savings when the program is fully implemented (13 years.) Ask the analyst or your representative why savings were not included and what, if any, savings there will be.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
This is not accurate. I verified that the fiscal analyst included no savings for any year.
ltcolmoroni 4 years ago
Incorrect on several points
1. The fiscal analyst used a national demand rate (far greater than Utah's will ever be)in calculating the switch rate.
2. The study you mentioned was trashed by an independent group of academic and professional economists.
3. The "savings" you mention is accumulated over 13 years and can't compared to annual cost.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Actually, the study commissioned by the state a couple years ago concluded that a voucher or tuition tax credit program would save the state over a billion dollars over that time. Why? Because the state saves several thousand dollars for each student who switches from public to private, which offsets by many times the small cost of those who would have gone to private school anyway. Oops!
arationalguy 4 years ago
No oops. Check with legislative fiscal staff. Their analysis shows cost of $71 million in 13 years.
UtahVouchers 4 years ago
Legislative fiscal staff failed to take into account any new interest in private schools by the public and the savings that result from students switching.
When independent researchers from Utah State University and SUU ran the numbers on a similar program, they projected a 13 year savings to the state of between $343 million and $1.9 billion.
arationalguy 4 years ago