Vote 'against' school vouchers
Text 
No Comments [ Add Comment ]A
fter Tuesday, the public vote regarding school vouchers will be settled. But the arguments will continue, as they have for a decade leading up to this Election Day.
That's OK, as far as we're concerned, because while we urge voters to cast their ballots against Citizen's State Referendum Number 1, we believe the voucher issue is worthy of a continued and robust debate. Our opinion is simply that the law passed earlier this year by a one-vote margin in the Legislature is, among other things, too sweeping, too costly when it comes to the expenditure of taxpayer money and violates the Utah Constitution.
Still, we should give voucher proponents their due: The philosophy of parental choice is a good thing. It should not be ignored, however, that parents already have choice. Within the public schools, they may apply for waivers to send their children to another school they prefer. And, of course, parents in Utah can send their children to private schools just as parents do in other states. Also, parents may teach their children at home.
Vouchers take the private school option already present and inject taxpayer money into the mix. Under the Legislature's plan, depending on a family's income, they may qualify for between $500 and $3,000 per year, per child to be paid to a private school of their choice -- whether secular or religious. While that part of the state's per-pupil funding -- collected from the General Fund, not the Uniform School Fund -- moves with the child to the new school, the rest of the money, for five years, remains in the district where the child went to school. Savings are estimated to be between $2.4 million and $11.5 million the first year.
But that's where the Oreo comparisons crumble, and the reality of the costs to taxpayers begin.
The Legislature's own fiscal analyst has estimated the voucher program, if approved by voters, will cost the state $429 million over 13 years. By way of example, in year 13 of the program, the estimated savings to taxpayers are between $11 million and $28 million, while the cost to taxpayers is $71 million. And part of that debate has to include how this could affect the fixed costs of existing schools if enrollment declines -- will there be sufficient money for water, heat, power, maintenance, etc.?
While we're talking money, it offends us that even top income bracket Utahns will qualify for the minimum $500 voucher.
As one wag put it: They'll still drive their children to and from private schools in their Escalades, but now the taxpayers will be paying for the gasoline.
We are not overly concerned with the whole "these private schools don't have to be accredited" argument. The voucher legislation does require the State Board of Education to certify the schools as meeting basic requirements like anti-discrimination provisions, state health and safety codes, and administering "norm-referenced" tests that can be compared to students' performance on a national basis. If the children want to proceed on to college, they'll need to come from private schools that prepare them adequately and that are recognized as producing students whose diplomas are worth more than the paper they're printed on.
But another aspect of the voucher bill that we're definitely not comfortable with is that private schools don't have to accept children with special needs, and that they may charge them extra if they do. That establishes a state-subsidized school system that is separate and unequal; taxpayer dollars should not subsidize schools that would refuse admittance to those children.
Finally, and arguably most important, we don't see this measure ever passing constitutional muster. Article I, Section 4 of the Utah Constitution reads: "No public money or property shall be appropriated for or applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction, or for the support of any ecclesiastical establishment." The restriction of taxpayer money being used to fund religious schools was a requirement for Utah to earn statehood in 1896, so our state's Constitution is unusually prohibitive in this regard.
So, let the debate continue, but this attempt to create a voucher program requires not only a tune-up, but a complete overhaul to make it worthy of voter support.
Add Your Comment
