The Final Word
UPDATE 04/11/2007: This post has been bumped up due to recent comment activity. Thanks to Dan, Emily, and Craig for the new and useful information and discussion!
For me this article by Emily Bingham Hollingshead is the final word on vouchers in Utah. Long story short: We don’t need subsidies for private schools in Utah because there is substantial doubt it would do any good and because Utah’s public school system is succeeding anyway. Vouchers are a waste of money in Utah…PCE should take their money and invest it in some other state’s Republican politicians.
Hat Tip: Utah Amicus
17 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
what is it that makes you think that Utah’s public schools are succeeding? That any public schools in America are succeeding, for that matter? Who is it succeeding for? minorities? Nope. Kids from low income areas? Nope. Kids from middle class areas? Nope. Kids in America? Not really. We’re still way, way behind. And maybe, just maybe, something like vouchers will create a competitive spirit in the school systems that might provide motivation to streamline spending towards areas that provide a more quality education. And maybe that would motivate those who educate teachers to provide them with a better background for teaching. And maybe it would help parents feel motivated to become more involved in the system itself– if they saw it as something that they chose and could somehow change, for their own situation and their own child.
Sorry. (Whew). Lecture over.
Comment by Sare — March 28, 2007 @ 6:06 pm
Do minorities and kids from low income areas get a raw deal because of Utah’s public education system? Let’s look at the best example of a Utah public school with kids from both minority and poor backgrounds. How about West High School in Salt Lake City?
(From West High School’s Website: http://www.slc.k12.ut.us/schools/high/west.html)
* West High School ranks as the top Utah school according to Newsweek Magazine. West came in at 163 among 1139 schools that made the national rankings.
* Over 265 scholarships were offered to West High School students totaling over $1.1 million dollars in scholarship monies for our graduating seniors.
* West High students achieve high honors in competitions such as the State Math Contest, Brigham Young University Science Bowl, State and National History Fairs, American High School Math Exam, and Utah Academic Decathlon.
* West High has a very active Alumni Association, which raises $40,000-$50,000 annually for scholarships for West High graduating seniors.
Sorry Sare…Utah’s schools are even succeeding for minorities and poor families. Spending taxpayer money on private schools with no garantee that it will provide any real benefit is a waste in Utah where the system is working…an could work even better if it were adequately funded.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — March 29, 2007 @ 9:26 am
I think Jeremy just “schooled” Miss Sare.
Comment by Part of the Plan — March 29, 2007 @ 11:06 am
I think The Utah Amicus made a great point by pointing out that the republican-led legislature has put a “stangle-hold” on public education spending over the last 20 years. Our Utah teachers do a damn good job considering.
Isn’t it funny that the same lawmakers who have starved the system want to develop a new one because they claim, “it’s broken.
Before we should even consider vouchers we should hold those responsible who have ignored what is in the best interest for all of or children.
Comment by Truth in Politics — March 30, 2007 @ 6:03 pm
Sounds like I’m in agreement with Jeremy and the gang on this one. Let’s get classroom size down below the national average before we start new peripheral programs with taxpayer money.
Comment by cody — March 30, 2007 @ 8:37 pm
Well, yes. But see, that kind of makes my point for me. Not all schools are west high school. Why should a certain child be relegated to an inferior high school, just because of some demographic? And it does tend to happen that minorities and other traditionally economically disadvantaged group has less ability to move to an area or to move their kids to private school, for example.
And America still falls far behind other countries when it comes to quality education. And teachers are horribly underpaid, and a lot of parents are only minimally involved in their child’s education. Maybe there’s a better answer out there than vouches, but don’t you think vouchers might maybe address some of those?
Comment by nosurfgirl — March 31, 2007 @ 6:30 pm
sorry for the spelling mishaps– I’m multitasking too much.
Or maybe it could be chalked up to my public school experience
Comment by nosurfgirl — March 31, 2007 @ 6:33 pm
You can’t have it both ways Sare.
You argued that public schools are failing the poor and minority students in Utah. There is no area in the state with more poor and minority students than the area where West High is and it is thriving. Not because of vouchers or private school competition…it is thriving because our system works. Utah’s schools work.
Vouchers or other school choice methods (I prefer tuition tax credits) are a great idea in areas where schools really are broken. They will work wonders in DC and if they could get them in Chicago/Detroit/NYC/LA they would be valuable there too. There is no evidence that government subsidized private schools are going to benefit kids in Utah. Why waste taxpayer money on them?
Comment by Jeremy Manning — March 31, 2007 @ 9:47 pm
OK– I admit I’m not well versed in Utah’s particular schooling situation. So you may be right, there. Although I doubt that every student who goes to west high has the advantages you described, and that there aren’t high schools in Utah that provide problems.
What about my other points, though? Parental involvement, and getting schools to compete (admittedly, with the universities cranking out hundreds of el-ed graduates every year, the market is saturated with talent, but teachers just aren’t paid enough right now?)
Comment by Sare — April 1, 2007 @ 6:40 pm
I’ve been meaning on comment on this for a while, but over the past couple weeks I had biggest fish to fry.
I’m a supporter of vouchers because I think to give us a way to make education better. I’m mostly the product of Utah public schools. I went to Utah public schools for 1st and 2nd grade, Fairfax County, Virginia schools for 3rd and 4th grade, and then Utah schools from 5th grade though my bachelor’s degree. My personal experience was that my Utah schools were pretty good. I had a number of really good teachers, especially in High School, and I also had not-so-good teachers. But most of my teachers are pretty good. In my experience there’s no doubt that Fairfax County schools were better than Cache County’s.
Utah, outside of Summit County, is never going to be like Fairfax. Fairfax has the 2nd highest median household income in the country at $81,000 a year. Cache County’s median household income is $39,730 which puts it in 2369th place. Money matters, but it isn’t all money.
Utah schools perform better you would expect from looking at Utah’s low per pupil spending. This is because Utah parents are more involved and instill a better work ethic than in other states. The reason for Utah’s school success is the parents. Utah’s teachers are committed (I know because both of my parents are Utah public school educators) but the biggest reason Utah’s children perform is Utah’s parents.
Vouchers in Utah are not going to rescue failing schools in Utah because Utah doesn’t have a lot of failing schools (but that all depends on how you define “failing). But they will improve schools. My experience tells me that Utah schools have room to improve, and we aren’t going to have the money that rich counties and state do. The state legislature can increase per-pupil spending, but there isn’t a strong correlation between per-pupil spending and student achievement. Vouchers are a good way to create educational choices and market forces without reducing school per-pupil spending.
Here are some of the reasons I support vouchers:
Vouchers help give people educational choices for their children. I don’t see how this is a bad thing. Cedar City might only have 1 small private school right now, but where’s the incentive to have a larger one? Where’s the incentive to have a private school that just isn’t for at risk children. Vouchers can help provide that incentive.
Vouchers increase school per pupil spending. This is because the amount of the voucher is lower than per pupil spending.
Monopolies are not efficient. Public schools are a monopoly. I’m not sure why we want to work so hard to protect a monopoly.
Vouchers aren’t subsidies for public schools. Vouchers give people the discretion to spend some of their tax dollars in some way that they see fit. How is that bad? And if we are concerned about vouchers being subsidies, then why aren’t we concerned that public schools are by definition 100% subsidized.
Hollingshead’s argument that we shouldn’t have vouchers because we don’t have enough private schools is quite bizarre. If there aren’t private schools, then people won’t be using vouchers, so the voucher law doesn’t matter. Is she worried that vouchers might help create the demand for more private schools? Does she fear market forces?
Hollingshead also argues that the median tuition for private school is $14,000 and Utah’s voucher is only $3,000. Again, what’s the problem here? Vouchers could help spur greater opportunities for low-priced private school, or not. And if not, what’s the big deal—not many people could afford to use vouchers, but they at least have a choice—and the public school is left with more money per pupil. How’s that a bad deal?
Hollingshead also argues, “Many Southern Utah parents have nothing but praise for their public schools, using words like “wonderful” and “excellent” when they describe their children’s teachers.” To paraphrase Hollingshead, parents and children don’t deserve the opportunity to have some education choice because “many Southern Utah parents” think the schools are good. How is that a convincing argument? What about the parents that aren’t satisfied?
I don’t understand the opposition to vouchers. We don’t accept the government provisions of other necessities, like food. We know that communal grocery stores would be a bad idea. So why are we so afraid of some market forces in schools?
Utah doesn’t have bad schools, but there is substantial room for improvement. The most effective way for there to be improvement is through market forces. Vouchers don’t reduce per pupil expenditures are school and it isn’t a subsidy for private school. If I were a Utah parent, I’d like to be able to choose for myself how some of my tax dollars are spent.
Comment by Daniel — April 10, 2007 @ 8:29 am
Dan,
You list some good philisophical reasons for supporting vouchers in a market with ineffective schools but like most voucher supporters in Utah you haven’t given any actual measurable evidence that vouchers are going to provide any real benefit in Utah. What evidence do you have to support your optimistic appraisal of the effect vouchers will have for Utah’s schools?
You argue that competition is going to help but do you really think vouchers are going to bring competition to Utah? Why? The most generous voucher to be offered still isn’t going to cover even half of the cost of tuition in 90% of Utah’s currently existing private schools. It will be a nice subsidy for families with children already going to private schools but I don’t see how that will help improve our system.
Vouchers are needed in areas with schools that are failing. Vouchers will clearly be a benefit in DC. There is no evidence that they will be anything but a waste of money in Utah. Emily’s column still stands out to me as the best assessment of a voucher program’s potential for Utah.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — April 10, 2007 @ 9:34 am
Daniel,
Thanks for checking in on my post at the Utah Amicus.
Just a few thoughts. First, my article was responding to an Iron County resident regarding Iron County schools. In counties like ours, vouchers will have no impact and will also not solve our education problems … here is why.
The current voucher law will do nothing to reduce Iron County classroom sizes - with no private schools, we do not receive the promised benefit of “lower classroom size and more money into the system.” However, we are one of the fastest growing counties in the state… we’re going to get more kids very quick. Our middle schools are already overflowing. To reduce the impact on the schools, we’d need a LOT of students to leave the public school system. Trouble is, we do not have one private school in our entire county.
I doubt very seriously that private schools will start cropping up in Iron County… Iron County wages are among the lowest in the state and even with a voucher it is my contention that parents won’t be able to afford them.
On that note, if I am going to send my sons to a private school, I’m going to send them to the best school I can find, not some start up fly by night operation that has no proven track record of success. Unless the very best private schools in Salt Lake City were to open branches in our Southern Utah neighborhoods, we will not have the caliber of a school that would be acceptable to me or that would justify me paying tuition.
In fact, 21 of Utah’s 29 counties have no private schools at all. While I agree that the free market will probably fill this void, I am concerned that the schools that come along will be business start ups… and statistics prove that the majority of new start ups fail within three years.
Finally, although the voucher money doesn’t come out of the “education” fund, it *does* come out of the general fund… some say to the tune of $425 million. Over the course of time, this amount is going to grow and grow and grow. With the current voucher legislation, the state of Utah and the board of education has to buy a staff and fund a program to oversee the whole thing. This takes even more tax payer dollars and puts government in the business of private schools. My larger concern is that if we head down the road to privatizing *all* education, then education really no longer is private… it becomes state-funded business models that can succeed or fail, that is concerned with profits more than educating children, and that are really just public schools with a “private” label. And because this is all done with tax payer money, citizens will start asking for oversite of private schools … and then we will have created TWO public school systems in our state instead of working hard to make our current public system the very best that it can be.
I have always said that I would rather see Utah do a form of tuition tax credits instead of creating *another* education system. I also have always been a cheerleader for charter schools and wish we had more charter school options in Cedar City.
Make no mistake, I have no problem with private schools and believe that parents should be able to choose where they send their children to school. I also believe that parental participation is KEY to a kid’s success. We have already established a long tradition of parental involvement in our state and I believe that is why our kids do so well, even with lower resources. Having said that, until we really give our public education system a shot at becoming the best in the nation, I think it is irresponsible to start diverting resources from it.
Of course, this is all my opinion and I respect that there are many parents who feel differently than I do. But as I look at my own community, I would hate to see rural communities and other fundamental state systems “starved” because we are so convinced that public education is “broken” when really it is not.
Best,
Emily
Comment by Emily — April 10, 2007 @ 9:42 am
Jeremy,
Studies show that the parents of voucher students are very happy with their experience. I can find the studies if you want. Here are a couple other thoughts:
1. If there’s no benefit, there will be no difference, so what’s the problem? What’s wrong with trying?
2. Why does competition work? Competition lowers the price, increases the quality of goods, and provides a wider array of goods and services. Competition works in all other markets, why won’t it work in education?
3. Increased competition will be helpful. A $3000 voucher is better than nothing. Demand curves are downward sloping and there are some people who will avail themselves of the vouchers that don’t currently. It doesn’t create a pure market open market. Is that what you what—complete vouchers for all students and complete choice for all students?
4. I agree that vouchers are needed for schools that are failing, but why do schools have to be failing before we try these reforms? I’m not disappointed with my education from Utah public schools, but it could have been better. If voucher can help kids in DC, why can’t they help kids in Utah?
5. I’m optimistic because I can’t see a downside to vouchers in Utah. Some people that send their children to private school will get $3000 to spend toward education. That’s the only thing I could see that could be defined as a problem by anyone. The upside is that more people will be able to afford educational choices for their children. That’s an unambiguous plus in my book. These vouchers aren’t the end all be all, but they are a worthwhile reform.
6. Vouchers and their potential is forward looking. We can’t say this is a bad reform just because there aren’t enough budget private schools today. Today, public schools are crowding out some of the competition for budget private schools. Give more people the ability to choose and there will be more choices. When airlines were deregulated in the 1970s, Congressmen didn’t say, “we need to his reform because of Southwest and Jet Blue.” They didn’t have a clue that Southwest or Jet Blue would arise. Deregulation created the opportunity for increased competition and the increased competition made budget airlines a possibility. And the budget airlines have put pressure on the bigger airlines to reduce fairs. Now almost anyone can afford to fly on some vacations or business trips.
In sum, I can’t see a downside to Utah’s voucher program. Just because Utah’s schools aren’t horrible, doesn’t mean that they can’t be improved. Some people will receive $3000 to spend on their children’s education, but I fail to see how this is a bad deal. Why isn’t it fair for the public to pay for some of their children’s education? Taxpayers pay 100% of other children’s education. More importantly, it will allow access to school choice to people who don’t currently have it.
I don’t have a crystal ball so I can’t say that in 2015 the voucher program will result in X number of private schools that charge Y price and have Z number of students. I can say that competition works and we should work towards improving competition in the education market.
Comment by Daniel — April 10, 2007 @ 12:07 pm
Dan,
1. If there is no benefit then the costs of administering the voucher program are completely wasted. The costs of deciding the legality of vouchers will also be completely wasted. Did you read Emily’s response to your comment?
2. The issues of competition in public education are similar to those involved with competition in roads and public transportation systems. In areas with crappy disorganized road systems private toll roads can be a good alternative. In places where the roads are as reasonably functional as possible toll roads are pointless. In Utah subsidies for private education are of little benefit since Utah’s public education system is reasonably effective.
3. We’ll see…I have my doubts. I researched private schools before putting my kid in kindergarten at our excellent local public school. The cost benefit just wasn’t there and my kid and her class are doing better than many of the kids we saw in the private kindergartens we checked out.
4. The costs of providing vouchers in areas with failing schools can be justified because education needs are not being filled. In areas where that isn’t the case the argument for vouchers is far more difficult.
5. Emily’s claim (which I haven’t verified but trust) that vouchers will cost the general fund $425 million dollars seems like a pretty significant downside to me. Why waste that on a program we don’t even know for sure will benefit anyone?
6. You might be right…but it is still a gamble. I could argue that the funds which will go to pay for vouchers and their legal defense could provide huge benefits for public school students over the next 10 to 15 years if invested in public education just as easily as you can argue that subsidizing private schools will provide a benefit. Who knows? Utah’s public schools are a proven commodity. Your future “budget” private schools?…not so much.
I look forward to getting more information on the real costs of Utah’s voucher program. If Emily is right this costing in the range of $425 million than I’m even more militantly anti-vouchers than I was before.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — April 10, 2007 @ 12:39 pm
Hi Jeremy,
Craig Johnson at the Amicus goes through the numbers today here:
http://utahamicus.blogspot.com/2007/04/voucher-funding-sham.html
I will get other sources for you. For one, when I was visiting the Utah Senate this past session, it was Senator Jones who brought up the $425,000,000 number for the first time. I have since read numerous opinions on this and will gather those for you… and even post them here for all to see.
Comment by Emily — April 10, 2007 @ 2:03 pm
Hi Folks!!!
Emily mentioned the great discussion you were having over here and I couldn’t resist stopping by
The $425,000,000 figure is from the Office of the Legislative Fiscal Analyst. Normally “fiscal notes” on bills are projected out no more than two years. The long-term funding effect of vouchers is not told in the two year note so some folks asked for a more far-reaching analysis and this was their result.
Hope it helps!
Craig.
Comment by Craig Johnson — April 11, 2007 @ 6:07 am
Vouchers will have yet unforeseen negative circumstances (unforeseen by many anyway). Both education and healthcare are examples of systems that cannot be equally distributed to all income levels, rich and poor, without government intervention. If you’d like to slowly return to America before public education, then let’s just speed things up and send all the poor kids back to the cotton mills and give those who can afford extra education expenses more ‘vouchers’.
Let me explain to you why I believe this is a problem. I have a deaf daughter. The families of the majority of deaf students in Utah choose to mainstream their deaf children in public schools, many of those left behind are those deaf students who have little option because of multiple impairments or handicaps like autism, mobility or cognitive reasoning issues. So where does this leave things? Well, the state public school (USDB) is now left to pick up the tab. USDB has a large proportion of children with multiple special needs. Many days after diapers, wheelchairs, medical gear, oxygen tanks etc, there is little class time for education. See the problem? When a choice is given to some, whether by class distinction, education, ability to move etc, those who cannot are left in the hands of the state. This has done 2 things to USDB that I believe vouchers will do to Utah’s public education system. 1) Resource loss. The more students you have in a school, the more you can pool resources, offer more diverse education and raise standards. 2) The state gets the problems. Private schools can have different means of acceptance, the most common of which is that they are not bound by law to educate all kids who walk through their doors. This creates an environment in which all of the problems are siphoned to the state public schools, along with the poor kids, thus aggravating the problem of educational disparity. It doesn’t matter where the money comes from. In the end it’s taxpayer dollars coming from across the board, being pumped into a choice for those who have an option to choose, in an inequitable fashion. Better for some, worse for others
So when a private school kicks out a kid because his grades/behavior is too low, does the public school have to take him back? Yes. And herein lies the problem.
Comment by cody — April 11, 2007 @ 9:22 pm