The issue of school vouchers and students is deeper than a stack of Oreos

There are no comments for this page [ Add Comment ]

I feel compelled to respond to Richard Eyre's Sept. 28 guest commentary "Why vouchers will make public schools better." As a parent of six children successfully educated in Utah's public school system, Mr. Eyre's cookie cutter approach to pushing private school vouchers is disappointing at best. How simple it all seems when you open one package of Oreos and stack up identical cookies to represent each student. The first problem with this analogy is that not all students stack up the same. The second is some of the cookies on the plate have already been reserved for someone else.

While each public school student generates a certain amount of money for schools, not every student is equally expensive to educate. To be realistic about the costs, Mr. Eyre would have to create some stacks with three cookies and some stacks with 20. Then, he could take away his taxpayer-subsidized cookies. But before telling me how much money I'm going to have left over, he would have to remove cookies already reserved for things like buildings, maintenance, utilities, salaries, debt service and more. In order to be sure that there were enough cookies to go around, he -- no, taxpayers -- would have to go and buy another package of Oreos.

Mr. Eyre sees himself as an advocate for parents and families. As a teacher for 30 years, I see myself as an advocate, too, not only for the parents and families that I have served, but for the selfless teachers who have been my mentors and friends. They deserve so much more than being depersonalized by referring to them with stale teachers' union slurs.

Teachers aren't cookies, either, and we don't all stack up the same. But to attack all of us with his union-bashing rhetoric should be beneath a man of his stature. That kind of tactic isn't about the value or cost of taxpayer-subsidized vouchers, it's about creating an enemy, and trying to instill fear and mistrust of educators. Why? Because we're telling you Referendum No. 1 isn't good for kids.

Here is what I know: Teachers are hired every year based on the number of students in a building, not in the system. Fewer students in a building will mean fewer teachers, not smaller class sizes. My textbook and supply budgets are based on the number of students I teach each year. Fewer students will mean less money in my classroom budget, not more. I have never received a dime for a student I didn't teach.

The impartial analysis in the voter guide that we all received from the lieutenant governor's office says that Referendum No. 1 will cost us millions of dollars more. Read it, and decide for yourself.

Not every child has a wonderful parent like Mr. Eyre. For many of our students, we, their teachers, are the adults most actively engaged with them. They come to us with their problems. They look to us for help.

Who will advocate for them, and for getting the "cookies" it will take to educate them, if the public schools become the default system? Vouchers are not about more parental choice. They are about who will pay for those choices. Public, private and home schools have educated children for generations.

But, until vouchers became our only answer to school reform, at least we were amicable and focused on our students. Now, Mr. Eyre's words and those of well-meaning people on both sides of this issue have pitted us against each other in a battle of ideologies that has nothing to do with what we know will help students succeed. Whether you choose private, public, or home schooling for your children isn't the issue. Whether we should allow a poorly written law that gives our tax dollars to unaccredited, unaccountable private schools when 96 percent of our students choose public schools that are still funded lowest in the nation is the issue.

If vouchers are really about helping low-income students, let's invest in the public schools in our local neighborhoods. Let's assure that we attract quality teachers and have adequate resources to meet student needs. I sent my own children down the street to a public school and they got everything they needed. Making sacrifices is noble, but I don't think we should expect other families to make personal sacrifices for their children's education when Mr. Eyre and I didn't have to.

This is America. We educate everyone.

Vouchers are an empty promise.

Rusk is a school teacher and former president of the Utah Education Association. She lives in West Jordan.

Comments

Add a comment...

Name:
Comment:
Security Code:	Type the characters to the left in the box exactly as they appear.
Your IP:	38.103.63.60 This address is recorded for security purposes.