Polarized issue
Text 
No Comments [ Add Comment ]By Amy K. Stewart
Standard-Examiner staff
Plenty of rhetoric cast about in television ads, fliers, debates
As judgment day for Referendum No. 1 draws closer, Utahns continue to wade through the rhetoric of debates, television ads and fliers offered by proponents and opponents of the voucher program.
Voters must make up their minds by Election Day, Nov. 6.
The proposed voucher program would allow $500 to $3,000 per child, depending on family size and income, to be used for private school tuition. Funding would come from the state's general fund.
In February, the Legislature passed House Bill 148 to implement the voucher program. The Legislature also passed House Bill 174, which contained amendments to the voucher program.
There was some protest of the voucher program during the summer, including from the State Board of Education. The issue went to the Utah Supreme Court, which ruled that if a majority of voters approve implementing the voucher program, it will be established under HB 148 and HB 174.
From that moment, voucher proponents and opponents have been busy trying to get voters to see it their way.
Gov. Jon Huntsman and Lt. Gov. Gary Herbert campaigned on the voucher issue.
Herbert said, in an interview with the Standard-Examiner, "Of course we will support vouchers.
"Is it perfect? No. But it's a step in the right direction."
Kim Burningham, chairman of the State Board of Education, said he believes the bill is poorly written.
"It allows public money to be spent on private schools that have little accountability," he said. "I find that troubling."
TV ads have popped up by Parents for Choice in Education (pro-voucher) and Utahns for Public Schools (anti-voucher).
The Parents for Choice in Education ad is what has become known as the "Oreo cookie commercial."
By using cookies, the ad explains how the voucher funding would work. Basically, the ad contends while students leave the classroom, there will be that much more education funding to spread to students left behind as class sizes decrease.
"It breaks it down to a simple common denominator. The opposition is trying to make this complicated," said Leah Barker, spokeswoman for Parents for Choice in Education.
Voucher opponents say it is true the education money will continue to fund the public school, even though there is an empty seat in the classroom after a student switches to a private school.
But, according to the voucher bill, the funding the school receives for the missing student would cease after five years.
Heaping helping
The ad by Utahns for Public Schools spotlights Joan Heap, Weber School District's 2006 Teacher of the Year. She teaches at North Ogden Junior High.
The ad tells viewers that vouchers won't help low-income families because parents would still have to make up the difference between the voucher and the private school tuition.
Other voucher opponents agree.
"There are a lot of costs that need to be made up," said Lisa Johnson, spokeswoman for Utahns for Public Schools (anti-voucher).
However, voucher proponents say parents will find a way to get the extra funding to make up the difference between the voucher and the private school tuition. Plus, scholarships for private schools are available.
Making the grade
A common argument during voucher debates is whether public schools are failing.
Voucher proponents say the program will mean more funding for public education so it can improve.
"This measure will only help public education achieve its mission," said voucher proponent Sen. Greg Bell,R-Fruit Heights.
Pro-voucher advocate Barker points to the State Office of Education's own data: 26 percent of Utah high school graduates failed the Utah Basic Skills Competency Test in 2007.
"We have got to do something different," Barker said.
She also points to recent fraud and embezzlement in Davis and Weber school districts.
In addition, she paints a gloomy picture of statewide high school dropout rates.
"Maybe public education doesn't have the right accountability measures," Barker said, referring to anti-voucher folks who continually harp on the lack of accountability of private schools.
Cherry-picking?
Rick Palmer, executive director of the Ogden and Weber education associations, said it's easy to point fingers when private schools can cherry-pick high-academic students and refuse children with disabilities.
"It's not a level playing field. We (public schools) accept every child," he said, adding that 96 percent of Utah students attend public schools.
According to the State Office of Education, Utah students tout scores above the national average on its National Assessment of Educational Progress testing.
NAEP, also known as the Nation's Report Card, tests a sampling of fourth- and eighth-grade students in each state to gauge state and national trends in academic achievement.
Utah teens also score above the national average year after year on the ACT college entrance exam.
Doing better?
Palmer said public education is making improvements and reforms. Some of this has come about because of the federal mandate No Child Left Behind.
"There has been new and improved research and methodology," he said.
"Scores are coming up. Our teachers are better trained. They are taking workshops."
Every teacher in Ogden has to have an English as a Second Language Endorsement, and many Ogden elementary teachers must have a reading endorsement.
These requirements take extra schooling and extra time -- much of it paid for by teachers themselves, Palmer said.
"To say we are doing it the same way as we have done it forever is ridiculous," he said.
Barker, however, is unconvinced.
"A lot of kids in our public school system are not having their needs met."
Add Your Comment
