Lonsberry’s Admirable Anti-Voucher Screed
I caught the tale end of Scott Fisher’s broadcast today as he substituted for Bob Lonsberry on KNRS. I don’t know what the context was within the program but Fisher read an entire commentary that Lonsberry wrote in 2005 describing his opposition to tuition tax credits. Everything Lonsberry wrote two and a half years ago applies equally to the currently debated voucher plan.
Here’s a clip:
A great many people don’t like the public school system. That is their prerogative. They generally feel that it isn’t safe or is academically inferior or isn’t respectful of their religion or values.
And so they will choose to send their children to private school. That is their right.
Where they go wrong is when they start inventing reasons for the government to pay for it.
Some make their stand on the issue of “school choice.” They claim for themselves the “freedom” to put their child in any school they choose.
Which they absolutely have.
As long as they pay for it.
You have the freedom to choose your child’s education, and you have the responsibility to pay for it. You have no claim whatsoever on your fellow taxpayers to pick up the bill.
Read the whole thing…there are many excellent points. I’m normally not a big fan of his but in this case Mr. Lonsberry is absolutely correct.
8 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>
Great find!
Comment by Craig Johnson — August 30, 2007 @ 9:27 am
This is the pro - voucher argument I have heard the most from people.
“Some people say that inasmuch as their children are not going to public school – and using resources there – that they should be able to transfer those resources to a private school of their choice. They argue that, as school-tax payers who are not using that school tax, they should be able to move it to where they can use it.
That argument betrays a fundamental lack of understanding about public education in America. Using that rationale, people whose children have graduated, or people with no children, shouldn’t have to pay school tax.
But they do.
Because the return on our school tax is not the education of our children, it is the education of society.
The belief is that we are better off as a society and as individuals if a basic education is available to all children. Even the childless are benefited by the education of their neighbors’ children.”
I love it! pefectlly said!
Comment by Dignin — August 30, 2007 @ 2:17 pm
At the end of the day, the question is if the education spending is attached to the child or attached to the school. While I think Mr. Lonsberry has a very rational argument, we will disagree on that very fundamental point.
Comment by Jesse Harris — August 30, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Jesse, how can education spending money be attached to every child? I thought it was appropriated to every district, who then appropriates it to each individual school on a “needs” basis. I didn’t think every school got XX amount of dollars per student.
Comment by Dignin — August 31, 2007 @ 8:53 am
Geez Jesse,
Why be so nice? Lonsberry’s point is nonsense. Why should any citizen be forced to pay twice for a service ostensibly offered by the government?
Your point about funding children directly is far more insightfull than anything Lonsberry stated?
Dignin asked: “how can education spending money be attached to every child?”
The answer is obvious Dig, simply attach it to every child..
A District educates exactly no one, and a Superintendent (and the class of administrative minions under him) perform exactly no educational function. They merely drain dollars from children.
Your question is a good one, in that most states have 100s of people creating, debating, and churning ideas like ‘funding’ formulas. Utah probably DOES have some formula for $XX per student at each school (Illinois does), but at the base of it, such things take a backseat to the awful “district based” system that creates education apartheid, along with scads of waste.
The plan I linked above is seemingly radical, but it offers many benefits over the current system.
It is what Utah SHOULD have done.
BTW, I’m radio host in IL, and salivate at the opportunity to debate any other radio host on this issue. Set something up, and I’ll fly out.
Comment by Bruno Behrend — September 1, 2007 @ 10:34 am
As far as I understand it, “needs” are primarily assessed based on student enrollment, are they not? Given that, it would seem that the funding follows the enrollments. It doesn’t take much to extend that to mean that for every child enrolled, X amount of money comes in.
Comment by Jesse Harris — September 1, 2007 @ 11:00 pm
Mr. Behrend,
I’d welcome you to come to Utah and make the argument that we need to abolish public schools. Please come!!!
The vast majority of residents in Utah appreciate our public school system and recognize its importance. You’d marginalize yourself as soon as you opened your mouth in support of eliminating them.
Please come! You’ll help us get rid of this foul law more effectively than my humble anti-voucher advocacy ever could!
Comment by Jeremy Manning — September 2, 2007 @ 8:01 am
Jeremy,
Who said anything about abolishing public schools? I merely want to make more education “public” by allowing the public to choose schools, curricula, processes, etc etc.
Currently, those decisions are made by a bureaucracy that - though not quite private - certainly isn’t “public.”
As I’ve stated, Utah is probably not as far gone as Illinois in terms of school corruption, waste, and taxpayer abuse.
Comment by Bruno Behrend — September 3, 2007 @ 7:06 pm