Reasoned thoughts against vouchers

Good folks in Utah have been blasted by arguments for and against school vouchers. I've been in search of some good, reasoned arguments and have found these that I commend to readers.

The first is an editorial by KSL-TV that argues against vouchers based on some solid thinking about re-directing tax dollars:

The KSL Editorial Board has thoughtfully considered the views presented by opponents and proponents of school vouchers, and has come to the conclusion that a broad taxpayer supported voucher system should not be implemented in Utah.

Our opposition to vouchers boils down to a fundamental question: Is Utah's public school system broken and in such disarray that doing something as radical and unproven as directing precious tax dollars toward private schools, many of them parochial, the answer?

We think not!

It is not a question of school choice since parents already have a variety of options in Utah. Any parent who so chooses can send a child to a private school, or a charter school, or a different public school! School choice is not the issue!

A vote against vouchers must not be interpreted as a vote for the status quo. Make no mistake about it, there's plenty of room for improvement. Still, contemplate what could be accomplished if the energy that has been directed at vouchers could be redirected toward implementing reasoned, effective and adequately funded reforms in the tried and tested public school system.

In KSL's view, that's where the focus of Utahns ought to be. Let's reject vouchers and work toward making changes that will benefit all Utah children for generations to come.


Here is a link to the editorial.

The second informational thinking I came across was from a blog. This rationale posits that the arguments that voucher supporters are using simply isn't logical, especially when one really sits down to do the math.

I quote here from just part of the blog by a Tim Panogos, but strongly recommend you read it in its entirety here.

"Benefits from vouchers, for the public and the taxpayer, accrue only after a significant portion of students transfer out of public schools, and then only if they do it in the next five years. That’s not going to happen. In the 30-second “Oreo” commercial, there is talk of two or three students transferring to private schools from one class. That’s only 10 percent of a 30-pupil class. Projections are that much less than 10% of students will move.

"If we got a 10% transfer, the additional money available to the public school is too small to do much good — certainly it will never prevent a tax increase — and the class size reduction takes the class size from unmanageable to slightly less unmanageable. Education Department studies done in the 1980s showed achievement in classrooms increasing measurably only when class size got below 18 students per class, and significantly improving only when class size got below 15 students per class.

"To get classroom size reductions enough to help out, then, we’d have to get half the students in public schools to move to private schools. An exodus of 275,000 students is simply not in the cards.

"And if that many students tried to move, it would bust the bank for vouchers. But of course, there are not enough private schools in the state to accommodate even 27,000 new students, let alone ten times that many.

"So benefits from vouchers only obtain with an impossibly large transfer of students out of the public schools, far more than budgeted for, far more than possible under any rational projection.

"This referendum is a lot of clucking for so small an egg.

"More likely, public schools along Utah’s Wasatch Front — and nowhere else in the state, because private schools are simply not available — will see less than a 1% transfer for vouchers. Poor students may try, but they will be unable to enroll in private schools without significant scholarships to make up the shortfall between the voucher and the actual tuition and fees, which are significantly more than vouchers in almost every case.

"School crowding will continue to be a crisis, as will teacher recruitment and retention. But the public, tired of these fruitless shouting matches, will not stand for the tax increases necessary to raise teacher salaries and recruit more teachers."

Vouchers increase taxes

The "fuzzy math" being used to convince Utahns to support Referendum 1 is enough to make anyone's head spin!

Now, the Utah Taxpayer's Association (an organization that has publicly supported vouchers all along) is trying to tell taxpayers that if vouchers are rejected, then there will be a tax increase because there will be more children to educate. Huh?

Well, let's break this down without their "fuzzy math" and rely instead on data that has REAL sources.

For one, yes, there is a huge enrollment increase anticipated. This is not news. The Utah State Office of Education projects that today's estimated 540,189 students in public schools will swell to 616,227 by 2012, and grow to 681,484 by 2016. (See the chart here.)

That is growth of 26%.

HOWEVER, the Legislative Fiscal Analysts, as reported here in the Deseret News, estimate that about 2% of Utah students will switch from public schools to voucher schools (the rest of the students who receive vouchers will be those entering kindergarten this year, or those already in private schools).

That won't make a significant difference in public school enrollment and certainly not enough to avoid figuring out how to pay for the increasing number of kids.

It is far more logical to conclude that if APPROVED vouchers will lead to a tax increase. Why?

Two reasons:

1) In five years, public schools will lose the little money they receive for voucher students. Yes, that's right. The so-called "extra money" for public schools GOES AWAY in five years. At that time, Utah's public schools could lose $46 million in state revenue. Where do you think they will turn to make up that lost revenue?

It's happened before. The Milwaukee voucher program has forced the local school board to INCREASE property taxes. Yes, that is INCREASE taxes, not decrease taxes. To pay for voucher students.

"For city property taxpayers, it is a lousy deal. For each child in MPS, the city taxpayer provides $1,954; for each child in a choice school, city taxpayers pay up to $2,925 - or $971 more for a child in a choice school than an MPS school." -- from Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's report here.

2) Vouchers will cause a tax increase because state taxpayers will be paying an average $2,000 for voucher students who previously cost the state $0. Yes, that's right. Currently the state pays $0 for every student who attends private school. By the time the voucher program is fully phased in, every student in private school will be getting a voucher (this according to the impartial analysis in the Utah Voter Guide). Even those students who NEVER would have gone to public school will get a voucher.

This will cost Utah taxpayers $429 million between now and 2020. In 2020, the ANNUAL cost to educate voucher students will be $71 million, as reported in the Voter Guide:

"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."

That is $71 million paid in ONE YEAR to educate voucher students who previously cost taxpayers $0 because they were in private school. And the state does NOT currently pay for all the students in private schools.

Plus, the costs will mount year after year as taxpayers bear the burden for students who, without vouchers, cost $0.

Taxpayers get it in the end because they will be paying for public schools and for voucher schools. Two systems. Two payments. More money from taxpayers.

Now that is NOT "fuzzy math."