Impartial Analysis: Voucher Plan Won’t Save Taxpayer Money And Will Result In A Lawsuit
In a comment on their own blog The Senate Site linked to this analysis done by “non-partisan staffers” in the legislature. It provides a good summary of what the proposed voucher plan does, what its costs will be and what legal problems may be encountered.
Here are some important clips. The first describes fiscal analysis of the plan the second discusses legal issues:
Based on certain assumptions, the Legislative Fiscal Analyst estimates that the Parent Choice in Education Program will cost the state:
• $5,500,000 during the Program’s first year; and
• $71,000,000 during the Program’s 13th year, after all private school students in Utah have become eligible for a scholarship.
These costs will be paid from general state tax revenues.
These costs far exceed projected estimated savings for school districts listed in the same document. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst very clearly anticipates that this program is a new entitlement the taxpayers are being saddled with…not an opportunity for saving taxpayer money.
Under the Parent Choice in Education Program, public funds will be used to provide scholarships for students who attend private schools, including private religious schools. The use of public money for students attending private religious schools may conflict with federal or state constitutional provisions that prohibit the use of public money for religious purposes. In addition, other aspects of the Program may conflict with equal protection provisions of the federal or state constitution or with state constitutional provisions relating to the State Board of Education’s authority or the scope of the public education program. Because of the Program’s unique characteristics and the lack of a directly applicable court ruling, it is unclear how a court would rule on any of these issues.
Not enough mention has been made in the voucher debate about the strict restrictions on the use of public funds for religious education that have been written into Utah’s constitution. It seems pretty clear that the current voucher law likely violates those restrictions. Any cost estimates for the voucher program we’ve heard up to this point don’t include the millions of dollars the state will end up spending trying to defend the program in court.
Kudos to Ric at The Senate Site for publicizing this document. Too bad he stuck it into a comment on a post criticizing the teacher union instead of giving it its own headline. This document is worth more to voters than any points made in a post about political sniping.
9 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>
Their entire analysis is, as they describe it, “based on certain assumptions.” So what are these assumptions? Why not describes them? It is impossible to evaluate the validity of their analysis if they don’t describe the most important assumptions they used.
Unless I’m missing something (the assumptions), this document is worthless to voters.
Comment by Daniel — September 1, 2007 @ 8:40 am
The lawsuit to prevent vouchers will likely fail, as “your side” has laredy lost at the Federal Level. That is why the education monopoly decided not to use the courts this time.
The fact is that the US Sup. Ct. is more conservative now than it was when it allowed Cleveland’s voucher plan to go forward.
I don’t know the make up of the Utah Ct. but they could a) easily override the bigoted “Blaine” language, using the Cleveland case, or b) simply be overturned, if an appeal goes up to the US Sup. Ct.
As for “saving money…” every one knows that no “voucher plan” yet allowed wil “save money” because no plan has yet been written that REALLY drains money from where it desperately needs draining - failing public schools.
The Monopoly Lobby retains the clout to make sure that every voucher plan uses “fresh dollars” to fund vouchers, and then effectively lobbies against them by arguing that they don’t save money.
I’ve never understood the cowardly nature of the School Choice movement. When accused of ‘draining money from public schools,” the proper (and intellectually honest) answer should be, “That’s the idea, numbnuts.”
Why ANYONE would want to continue funding a SCHOOL that some people want to get out of is beyond me. After all folks, if it’s about “the children,” then why not simply fund the children, and not worthless concepts like Districts, Bureaucracies, and the massive featherbedding and payroll bloat that goes with them?
I realize that Utah has much less waste than my state (IL), where district corruption is a legalized parlor game and the taxpayer is the rube. You all should be proud that your spending is “last in the nation.” (according ot an article linked here) Your results seem to be right at the national average - meaning that you are quite productive with your dollars.
Look folks, “funding schools” is a distraction that has gotten too expensive. We should stop worrying about detritus like “funding formulas,” “teacher pay” and “class size mandates.”
We should funding children, not bureaucracies Utah’s plan may be imperfect (I’ve looked ALL MORNING and can’t find ONE DECENT “balanced” DESCIRIPTION of the actaul LAW!!!!), but at the end of the day, there is no intellectually sound argument against school choice. (Assuming, of course, your goal is an educated populace. If your goal is the continued existence of an monopoly controlling $500,000,000,000 of taxpayer dollars without any accountability for results, then choice is your death knell.)
Comment by Bruno Behrend — September 1, 2007 @ 10:03 am
Dan,
I’d agree with you but this is coming directly from the legislature and as you and every other good Republican knows…everything they give us smells like roses.
Comment by Jeremy — September 1, 2007 @ 11:24 am
Dan:
Unless someone has a crystal ball, you have to make assumptions when you predict the future. How much the voucher program will cost, for example, depends on how many families sign up for it at what income levels. We make a scientific estimate based on logic and the available facts. Usually we’re close.
Anytime questions like this come up, just E-mail me and I’ll dig up an answer for you.
Jeremy:
You call it “a new entitlement”, I call it more money for education and more bang for the buck. The program will cost about $327 Million over 13 years (K-12), but educating those students in public schools would cost us $1.4 Billion.
You’re right that the Impartial Analysis deserves it’s own headline. I’ll do it next week. It’s been on the front of the Legislative Website (www.le.utah.gov) for about 10 days but that doesn’t mean anyone has seen it.
Comment by Ric Cantrell — September 1, 2007 @ 1:00 pm
Ric,
Thanks for the response. I just wanted to know what assumptions were used. For example, what percentage of people used the vouchers, what percentage were used in each income group, and how those changed over time.
I know that these analyzes involve a large amount of educated guesses, I just wanted to know what those guesses were.
Thanks.
Comment by Daniel — September 1, 2007 @ 11:58 pm
Mr. Behrend said:
Utah’s Constitution says:
You’ll notice that the language in Utah’s constitution is far more specific than the truly bigoted “Blaine” language in many other constitutions. It also has a more benign and sensible history than most “Blaine amendments”. When Utah joined the union our state founders went out of their way to convince the rest of the U.S. that we wouldn’t be a theocracy. This language was a specific part of our efforts to ensure we couldn’t become one. I have a hard time seeing how it will be overturned except by the most extreme judicial activists.
I agree with Mr. Behrend that the court is more conservative than it has been in a long time but I doubt that they could justify re-writing Utah’s clear and fair constitutional language.
Mr. Behrend don’t most conservative talk show hosts spend lots of time whining about judicial activism? Does it only bother you when it results in policies you are opposed to?
The rest of your comment shows you don’t know much about Utah’s education system. Our schools do a great job educating kids. Thats why mine is enrolled in one. We are a bad test subject for a universal voucher program. You should agitate for one in your state instead since it seems pretty clear (at least it would if you had actually read my post) that the one in Utah isn’t likely to benefit anyone.
If you want a “balanced” description of the plan you could google “HB 148″ and Utah to read the text of the law. Or you could click on the link in this very post to get what our legislature refers to as an “Impartial Analysis” describing the terms of the law and its proposed benefits/detriments. I suspect…since you’re a radio talk show host…that you don’t really want something balanced though. In that case you should spend some time at Steve Urquhart’s blog or probably the Utah Taxpayer Association’s blog.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — September 2, 2007 @ 7:54 am
Ric,
Thanks for your comment…and again major props for publicizing that document. I guess I need to visit the legislature site more often!
How do you figure we’re getting a “good bang for the buck”? Currently we’re paying 0$ to the typical private school student. Under this plan we’ll be paying from $500 - $3000 (with virtually guaranteed future increases) to each private school student. It seems to me we’re better off without this.
If Utah were a market where the public schools are failing I’d probably support vouchers. Fortunately our schools are doing a pretty good job educating our kids and there doesn’t seem to be any demand from enough actual Utahns to make this seem like a good idea.
Comment by Jeremy Manning — September 2, 2007 @ 3:22 pm
Jeremy - you nailed it! Ric is wrong. The $1.4B argument is silly. How can we possibly be saving money by paying an average of $2000 of private school tuition when we’re currently paying $0? The number of students transferring from public schools to private schools does not come close to offsetting the cost of subsidizing existing private school students.
And everyone knows that should PCE get their way they would agitate the homeschoolers to get in on the take. Then, they would fight to increase the amounts of the voucher. All without a shred of comparison data being collected or even an audit of the program for 5 full years!
PCE does not want anyone to see this document.
Thanks…Craig.
Comment by Craig Johnson — September 3, 2007 @ 4:08 pm
Is it just me, or has anybody else noticed voucher supporters’ not so subtle attempt to disparage public education by referring to it as a monopoly? Do they consider our national interstate system a “highway monopoly” or our armed forces a “national defense monopoly?” Come to think of it, maybe things would have gone better in Iraq if instead of going to war with the army we had we had we sent a corporate army that pays a “competitive” salary and benefits. (Doubt it.) I’m tired of the “free market” model held out as the panacea for all society’s woes. Voucher supporters should rely on facts and merits of their arguments and refrain from negative labeling.
Comment by Steve — September 4, 2007 @ 11:44 am