Let Free Market Principles Work for Utah Kids
I wish everyone in Utah would watch this phenomenal 20/20 video to get a real understanding of the free market principles that would make the voucher system work. It really is a must see.
It’s also enlightening to get a glimpse at the out-of-state union interests that are pouring millions into Utah to try to get this referendum killed. They’ve used the same tactics and the same flawed (or deceptive) arguments in other states with tremendous success, much to the detriment of America’s children and thus to society as a whole.Please watch the video and share it with anyone who may still be unsure about the merits of vouchers.
If you liked this post, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!
Choice in Education | 
October 30, 2007 12:59 am
By Laura Moncur, October 30, 2007 @ 12:26 pm
Free market?! How come I still have to pay even though I don’t have any children? That’s not a FREE market as far as I’m concerned.
If rich people want to send their children to private school, they can, but they don’t get opt out of paying for the public school system.
By Jordy, October 30, 2007 @ 1:57 pm
@ Laura
The voucher system is not a totally free market –I never said it was– but it employs many more free market principles than the status quo. That much at least is undeniable.
And again, this issue is NOT about rich people wanting to get out of paying for education. There’s no tax cut even implied in this legislation. What is implied is a more efficient use of monies already coming into the system.
By Gary, October 30, 2007 @ 10:43 pm
I haven’t written about vouchers on my site thus far, and I think I’d rather not, but there are several problems that would keep me from supporting Referendum 1.
Much of the argument from both sides seems to be about the money. That’s unfortunate, because the money really isn’t the major issue. Certainly it’s not being advertised as a tax break (if anything, it will amount to an increase in some tax that feeds into the general fund), and it’s not taking and probably can’t legally take any money out of the education-specific funds of the state.
The whole concept of public education is that education is a benefit to all of the public — including those who don’t have children of their own — and that it is therefore justifiable to pay for education with tax money, provided there is a level of oversight to ensure that the taxpayers are getting their money’s worth. The Utah voucher proposal offers too many loopholes to avoid that oversight. It also breaks down the Jeffersionian “wall of separation between Church and State” in an unprecedented and probably unconstitutional way: even the proponents of the law admit that a large portion of the voucher money will end up going to Catholic schools, and there’s nothing that prevents, just as an example, Warren Jeffs’ group from deciding to educate their children in their own religious private school and pay for it with state money. They wouldn’t even have to hire accredited teachers: the voucher bill provides an out with the term “or special training” (the nature of which training isn’t defined).
I have no problem with people sending their kids to private schools. I’m fine with home schooling, too, although it would seem that the writers of the voucher law aren’t — at least, home schoolers aren’t eligible for funds. But pay for private school with private money, and keep the use of tax money for the public good.
By Jordy, October 31, 2007 @ 11:26 am
@ Gary
I don’t mind money going to religious schools so long as they’re not doing or teaching anything illegal. Since voucher-eligible schools must be approved by the Utah State Office of Education, a school that promoted polygamy (or any other illegal practice) would not be allowed to receive voucher students. The bill contains protections against schools that encourage illegal activities.
By Gary, November 1, 2007 @ 7:15 pm
@Jordy
Anytime there’s tax money going directly to religious schools, there’s the likelihood of a court challenge on Constitutional grounds, and the state gets to spend more tax money defending against the lawsuit (and probably losing). The only reason the Pell grant system hasn’t gotten into trouble that way is that the grant money doesn’t go to the school: it goes to the student.
Supposing, though, that the voucher law somehow managed to get past that challenge, then the polygamist groups and any number of other religious groups have a chance to ask for state money on the grounds that the state can’t discriminate between one church and another.
Either way, we lose.
By Jordy, November 2, 2007 @ 10:20 am
@ Gary
1. This program is set up the same way that Pell grants are in that it give money directly to the parents. It’s perfectly legal.
2. If polygamist schools teach polygamy they won’t qualify for voucher funding. Schools that promote illegal activity do not qualify.
3. If there is a lawsuit brought forth, I’m happy to fund it. Parent’s choice in education is too big a deal be threatened by bullies like the NEA.
By Gary, November 2, 2007 @ 6:58 pm
@Jordy
1. No, it gives vouchers to the parents. The actual check, when it’s finally written, goes directly to the school. Pell checks, on the other hand, are written directly to the student, who can then spend them on tuition, or on books, or on fees, or whatever other expense qualifies as “educational”.
2. Then they don’t teach polygamy. That doesn’t stop them from setting up a school, designating one of their members as “specially trained” to teach and paying her peanuts, and pocketing the rest of the voucher money.
3. I doubt the NEA would be the party to bring a suit. They don’t have standing. Instead, you’d get either an atheist parent upset that tax money was going to the Catholic schools, or a fringe religious school upset that the Catholics were getting money and they weren’t.
Since you bring up the NEA, though: that “out of state money” that the NEA is bringing in comes, I’m told, from a fund that Utah teachers have been paying into for many years for just this sort of purpose. As opposed to, say, the money coming in from the Walton and DeVos families.