http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=157&sid=1993872
Terror high as it is nicknamed by conservative politicians, an Islamic academy which teaches jihad. Would oversight under the publicly rejected voucher law have prevented public funding of such an academy? This was one of the questions I posed during that debate. I still have never been really satisfied. On what basis would you provide vouchers for a Mormon academy and not an Islamic one?
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Education. Show all posts
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Thursday, November 8, 2007
Post Voucher-Vote Concerns and Optimism
So the ugly campaign is over. The lies and distortions will hopefully be but a fading memory. What I'm concerned about is retaliation by the legislature against public education and against teachers in particular. Reading Steve Urquhart's blog, I feel atleast some optimism that this issue will not result in a decimation of teacher salaries and benefits and to a decision to take money from schools and redirect them to other priorities.
We as citizens made a statement that I think was pretty loud and clear, that we value our public schools, and don't want our hard-earned tax dollars going to private schools. But I also hope that a concern for public education resonates with the public in general, to be willing to make a commitment to be a partner in the process, not just a bystander.
For those of us in the private sector, we can ask ourselves, does our local schools have needs that we can help meet? Can we partner with schools for mutual benefit? And to the public education establishment, we should also ask hard questions to ensure that we are getting our money's worth out of the heavy tax burden our child/heavy population demands.
The vote on Tuesday shows that to Utahns, public education matters. Let's back that opinion with commitment. Let's back that commitment with respect for the many teachers who deserve it. Let's look as objectively as possible at legislation that seeks to reform public education for the better. But let us also hold legislators accountable if their legislation appears punitive. Our children are too important to be pawns in a political struggle and I for one am committed to let legislators know, that I am watching. But I'm also encouraging as well. We all have a stake in having the best public education possible. We should all commit to help make that happen.
We as citizens made a statement that I think was pretty loud and clear, that we value our public schools, and don't want our hard-earned tax dollars going to private schools. But I also hope that a concern for public education resonates with the public in general, to be willing to make a commitment to be a partner in the process, not just a bystander.
For those of us in the private sector, we can ask ourselves, does our local schools have needs that we can help meet? Can we partner with schools for mutual benefit? And to the public education establishment, we should also ask hard questions to ensure that we are getting our money's worth out of the heavy tax burden our child/heavy population demands.
The vote on Tuesday shows that to Utahns, public education matters. Let's back that opinion with commitment. Let's back that commitment with respect for the many teachers who deserve it. Let's look as objectively as possible at legislation that seeks to reform public education for the better. But let us also hold legislators accountable if their legislation appears punitive. Our children are too important to be pawns in a political struggle and I for one am committed to let legislators know, that I am watching. But I'm also encouraging as well. We all have a stake in having the best public education possible. We should all commit to help make that happen.
Monday, October 29, 2007
PCE and Huntsman
Like every other Utahn, I witnessed PCE's last gasp in an efforts at making vouchers a reality. You've got Rob Bishop, a Congressman who as a teacher and a legislator undermined public education during his tenure at the capitol using that status as a former teacher coming out for vouchers. Having spent enough time up at the hill, I can guarantee you that Bishop wasn't a teacher legislator, but a legislator teacher looking to get out of the teaching career for higher office. His support for public education was always conditional and tepid at best.
Now, PCE also has an ad using Jon Huntsman jr., calling him a "champion of public education." Listen PCE, let us be the judge of who's a champion of public education, not you. In his tenure as Governor, I can't think of a single innovation regarding public education coming from the Governor's office, nor can I think of a single tangible accomplishment in any realm by his administration. Huntsman's adminstration appears to me to be even more obsessed with image over substance than the high fallutant Leavitt administration, which is saying something. Huntsman's endorsement is irrelevant, because frankly, Huntsman himself is irrelevant as a Governor. Ask Huntsman to give a speech, cut a ribbon or kiss a baby and he's in his element. Ask Huntsman to make a principled and reasoned policy decision and you'd might as well listen to the crickets chirp.
Huntsman's allowing his name to be used by PCE because frankly, he fears the crazies in his own party and is doing so for purely political purposes. In that regard I don't blame him. If I was a Republican Governor in Utah, the only worry I would have politically is a primary challenge. Too many voters in this state would vote for any Republican for Governor because they feel that is their duty. This reality creates alot of power to the fringe element of the Republican party. Gayle Ruzika and her fanatical fringe may make up only 10% of the population, but they represent 35% of the effective political power in Utah due to Utah's single party dominance. That is why PCE has picked Utah as their test case. Utah is to be the guineau pig for this right-wing gambit and our school children are the ones being injected.
Disclaimer: I normally don't like to sound as strident as I do in this post. However, I have to admit, that PCE has a way of getting under my skin. The dark side of the force is indeed strong with them.
Now, PCE also has an ad using Jon Huntsman jr., calling him a "champion of public education." Listen PCE, let us be the judge of who's a champion of public education, not you. In his tenure as Governor, I can't think of a single innovation regarding public education coming from the Governor's office, nor can I think of a single tangible accomplishment in any realm by his administration. Huntsman's adminstration appears to me to be even more obsessed with image over substance than the high fallutant Leavitt administration, which is saying something. Huntsman's endorsement is irrelevant, because frankly, Huntsman himself is irrelevant as a Governor. Ask Huntsman to give a speech, cut a ribbon or kiss a baby and he's in his element. Ask Huntsman to make a principled and reasoned policy decision and you'd might as well listen to the crickets chirp.
Huntsman's allowing his name to be used by PCE because frankly, he fears the crazies in his own party and is doing so for purely political purposes. In that regard I don't blame him. If I was a Republican Governor in Utah, the only worry I would have politically is a primary challenge. Too many voters in this state would vote for any Republican for Governor because they feel that is their duty. This reality creates alot of power to the fringe element of the Republican party. Gayle Ruzika and her fanatical fringe may make up only 10% of the population, but they represent 35% of the effective political power in Utah due to Utah's single party dominance. That is why PCE has picked Utah as their test case. Utah is to be the guineau pig for this right-wing gambit and our school children are the ones being injected.
Disclaimer: I normally don't like to sound as strident as I do in this post. However, I have to admit, that PCE has a way of getting under my skin. The dark side of the force is indeed strong with them.
Sunday, September 30, 2007
Monday, September 3, 2007
Why I Oppose Vouchers
In this post, I will outline my reasons for opposing the use of publicly funded vouchers for private school education.
1- I am opposed to using public money to promote a religious agenda. When you look who is supporting vouchers and why, it is apparent to me that one of the driving forces behind this movement is to provide public funding to Christian or Mormon schools. Supporters may counter that not allowing vouchers means the government is funding a secular or atheistic agenda. I disagree. Nothing I ever saw in the public schools promoted atheism or secularism. I just don't buy the argument that failure to fund someone's religious agenda is by default a funding of someone else's agenda.
2- Public funding in my view requires that there be public control. Right now, I vote for members of my school board. I have influence over how they prioritize both the placements of schools as well s the curriculum used. The degree to which I or other taxpayers would have control over private schools which receive public funding is questionable and indirect. I also question whether private schools want any degree of oversight. I also question whether or not our state education establishment is prepared to develop auditing programs to ensure that private schools are following public guidelines that should be inherent in public funding.
3- Those who will gain the most immediate benefit from vouchers are those who can already afford to send their kids to private schools. Given Utah's generally regressive tax structure, how can you justify giving out a payout from public funds to those in the highest income brackets from middle to low-income taxpayers? Frankly, you can't.
4- Vouchers will generally only provide people with considerable funds available to consider private schooling as an option. For those in lower income situations, the voucher will never be enough to provide a true choice to send their kids to private schools.
5- Competition between private and public schools is over-rated and has many drawbacks to the public objective of having a well-educated citizenry. Private schools will have several advantages in this "competition" that very well may undermine public education as a whole. Private schools can deny kids on the basis of academics, whereas public schools cannot. Would private schools be required to accept kids with disabilities such as mild autism, ADHD, or kids with other problems? What will this mean for public funding for kids with various disabilities? If public schools find themselves losing the competition, what options will be available to them to make up the difference? Private schools can go to the capital markets to obtain new resources. What if legislators are unwilling to fund the needs of public schools in order to allow them to be competitive?
6- On what basis would a voucher be denied to students who enroll in a school. Example, let's say an Islamic fundamentalist group establishes a private school for their children to teach them jihad against the west, weapons and explosives training, and terrorist tactics? Without proper overshights, have we as a country just funded our own demise?
7- I find it interesting that so many Utahns who find socialism in every government program, fail to see it when there becomes public funding of private enterprise. I think we as a society should always be cautious about providing public funding for private businesses. Competition between the private and public sectors can have good results. FEDEX, UPS and other delivery companies directly compete with the United States Postal Service. However, public funding is not, and should not, be used to fund UPS or FEDEX. The same is true for private schools.
8- Why should public funds go to a private school that may in fact be discriminatory? Getting back to religious schools, is it reasonable to assume that a Mormon school would require some sort of approval process in order for a student to matriculate there? Same with a Christian, Muslim or Jewish school. What if a Christian school right accross the street from an atheist denies a child's application on the basis of the child's parents outspoken belief that Christianity is bogus?
9- My final concern deals with the social consequences of dividing ourselves on the basis of one critieria or another. If Christians only deal with Christians, Mormons with Mormons, the rich with the rich, will we be able to empathize and appreciate others. Public schools bring together a cross-section of kids and place them together. If someone wants to exclude their kids from association with the wider world, that is their prerogative, but I don't believe that exclusion should be publicly funded.
10- Because I believe the most important priority we as a society should be making is ensuring we have as high a quality education as possible that is available to everyone. I believe vouchers have more of a down-side to this objective and it takes away the focus all of us should have on making public schools better. To me it is a punt on second down when we should be devising the right play and the right execution, we are kicking the ball to the opposition and hoping they do something with it.
1- I am opposed to using public money to promote a religious agenda. When you look who is supporting vouchers and why, it is apparent to me that one of the driving forces behind this movement is to provide public funding to Christian or Mormon schools. Supporters may counter that not allowing vouchers means the government is funding a secular or atheistic agenda. I disagree. Nothing I ever saw in the public schools promoted atheism or secularism. I just don't buy the argument that failure to fund someone's religious agenda is by default a funding of someone else's agenda.
2- Public funding in my view requires that there be public control. Right now, I vote for members of my school board. I have influence over how they prioritize both the placements of schools as well s the curriculum used. The degree to which I or other taxpayers would have control over private schools which receive public funding is questionable and indirect. I also question whether private schools want any degree of oversight. I also question whether or not our state education establishment is prepared to develop auditing programs to ensure that private schools are following public guidelines that should be inherent in public funding.
3- Those who will gain the most immediate benefit from vouchers are those who can already afford to send their kids to private schools. Given Utah's generally regressive tax structure, how can you justify giving out a payout from public funds to those in the highest income brackets from middle to low-income taxpayers? Frankly, you can't.
4- Vouchers will generally only provide people with considerable funds available to consider private schooling as an option. For those in lower income situations, the voucher will never be enough to provide a true choice to send their kids to private schools.
5- Competition between private and public schools is over-rated and has many drawbacks to the public objective of having a well-educated citizenry. Private schools will have several advantages in this "competition" that very well may undermine public education as a whole. Private schools can deny kids on the basis of academics, whereas public schools cannot. Would private schools be required to accept kids with disabilities such as mild autism, ADHD, or kids with other problems? What will this mean for public funding for kids with various disabilities? If public schools find themselves losing the competition, what options will be available to them to make up the difference? Private schools can go to the capital markets to obtain new resources. What if legislators are unwilling to fund the needs of public schools in order to allow them to be competitive?
6- On what basis would a voucher be denied to students who enroll in a school. Example, let's say an Islamic fundamentalist group establishes a private school for their children to teach them jihad against the west, weapons and explosives training, and terrorist tactics? Without proper overshights, have we as a country just funded our own demise?
7- I find it interesting that so many Utahns who find socialism in every government program, fail to see it when there becomes public funding of private enterprise. I think we as a society should always be cautious about providing public funding for private businesses. Competition between the private and public sectors can have good results. FEDEX, UPS and other delivery companies directly compete with the United States Postal Service. However, public funding is not, and should not, be used to fund UPS or FEDEX. The same is true for private schools.
8- Why should public funds go to a private school that may in fact be discriminatory? Getting back to religious schools, is it reasonable to assume that a Mormon school would require some sort of approval process in order for a student to matriculate there? Same with a Christian, Muslim or Jewish school. What if a Christian school right accross the street from an atheist denies a child's application on the basis of the child's parents outspoken belief that Christianity is bogus?
9- My final concern deals with the social consequences of dividing ourselves on the basis of one critieria or another. If Christians only deal with Christians, Mormons with Mormons, the rich with the rich, will we be able to empathize and appreciate others. Public schools bring together a cross-section of kids and place them together. If someone wants to exclude their kids from association with the wider world, that is their prerogative, but I don't believe that exclusion should be publicly funded.
10- Because I believe the most important priority we as a society should be making is ensuring we have as high a quality education as possible that is available to everyone. I believe vouchers have more of a down-side to this objective and it takes away the focus all of us should have on making public schools better. To me it is a punt on second down when we should be devising the right play and the right execution, we are kicking the ball to the opposition and hoping they do something with it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
