Utah Vouchers: Oreo cookie ad exposed?

Sure, it’s more accurate than the original oreo ad. But this one (and most of them) leave out one crucial point: who does the money belong to?

The person in this video, and those who believe likewise, feel that the taxpayer’s money belongs to the school and district, to distribute as they see fit, and manage all the programs and classes that they provide for the other students.

The issue here is one of fiscal morality: who owns the money funding these programs? Should parents who wish to educate their children in a private school be required to fund the programs and administration for their neighbor’s children?

This ad does accurately reflect the monetary dissemination in public schools: $7,000 is not applied directly to each individual student. Instead, that money is divvied up among all those involved in the process.

But what of it?

Pro-voucher ads have it right when they state that competition should be introduced into schooling, allowing a person’s money to be spent according to whoever they feel can best provide the services they desire.

If money has to be taken from gym teachers, the library, and the computer lab, so what? Obviously, if a significant number of students leave the school, less resources will be required to administer to the leftover students, and thus programs can be downsized, teachers can be let go, and less classes offered. Basic supply and demand.

But unions like their job security. They don’t want anybody “let go” simply because the services they provide don’t meet up to the expectations of the customer (parents). And so, you see teachers vigorously opposing vouchers, simply because it would mean downsizing, restructuring, and fiscal hardship. They like being funded by every taxpayer in the city. Who wouldn’t?

Proponents of the voucher try to make this seem so simple, I mean it is “Basic supply and demand”. That comment alone just makes me laugh.

Then please rebut it with an argument, not a vague statement that there is “so much more” to it.

I can just flat out say comments like this drive people away from supporting the vouchers.

Some people, perhaps. Others agree. Guess it all depends on your paradigm, and what you choose to believe. I’m not expecting to convince any teachers or public school sympathizers, because they demand the taxpayers’ money to fund their salary and programs regardless of the quality of their output.

THEY don’t “demand” the taxpayers’ money

Sure they do. How else do their salaries get paid? This very ad shows that the money is necessary to fund the programs for all the students. Therefore, public schools claim as necessary the right to taxpayer’s money to fund their operations.

You seem to know little to nothing of the amount of work teachers are required to put in at a public school.

I’m well aware of the long hours teachers put in for their job. You can thank the Feds for that – the No Child Left Behind Act is a burden all teachers now pay for, unnecessarily increasing their workload to satisfy the demands of a few bureaucrats.

In fact, the school systems have a huge pressure on them right now to have master degree level or higher teachers and are getting rid of those that don’t meet certain criteria.

That’s great. But a large part of the problem is not the personal qualification of the instructor, but the curriculum they are mandated to follow.

Additionally, in Salt Lake county students are pretty flexible in which public school they can attend, so there is competition.

What’s the point in going to a different public school if it’s the same system, with a highly similar curriculum? That’s like saying you can drink soda, but you have to choose between Sprite and 7-UP. They’re basically the same. Where’s the variety?

Regarding the constitutionality of vouchers, I suggest this op-ed piece (linked to google cache, since SLTrib took it down).

If a private school voucher program was found to severely impact the public system then we have a constitutional responsibility to not pass it.

Not necessarily… Utah’s constitution specifies that the legislature must fund the maintenance of the public schools, but a “severe impact” might or might not affect the government’s ability to maintain the school itself. This statement will no doubt be challenged in court, and it will be interesting to see how the judge interprets the “maintenance” clause for public schools, but simply allowing children to leave and take some of their own tax money with them in no way precludes the state from continuing to sufficiently maintain the school they left.