Ogden Standard Examiner

The arguments for vouchers are overwhelming

November 1 , 2007

By Eric Buhler

Guest commentary

http://www.standard.net/live/opinion/topofutahvoices/117565/

Web only: Recently I received a very disturbing piece of propaganda in the mail from Utahns for Public Schools. In large letters it screamed, "Utah is Last in Per Pupil Spending. Isn't it Time to Make Utah Public Schools Our First Priority?" Inside, it showed a handy list proving that Utah indeed spends less per pupil than other states; $5,257 per student in 2004-05, compared to $14,119 spent on students in New York over the same period.

Of course, Utahns for Public Schools didn't make mention that Utah has the highest birthrate of all the states, the most children per household and the youngest population. Why should we be surprised that Utah spends proportionally less per student, given that such a large percentage of our population is too young to pay taxes?

This bit of junk mail simply failed to tell the whole truth. It cited the Census Bureau's Web site as the source of its information, but some other numbers on the same site reveal a different picture. Utah spends 28.78 percent of its revenue on education, placing it at 22nd of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, behind Pennsylvania and ahead of North Carolina. It spends 16.23 percent of its revue on elementary and secondary education, placing it at 44th among the same group, and tying with California. Forty-fourth is better than last, and 22nd is above the median.

People say our educational system is broken, often without illustrative examples. Let me provide a few from personal observation. My wife tried taking home gym in high school to free up her schedule for study hall, and her gym teacher told the principal that athletics was more important than math and science; he did not argue the point. My sister was a very creative and artistic child until her interests were stifled by her elementary school teachers; she didn't recover from that until her late teens. My older brother spent years unlearning bad spelling habits gained from poor first-grade curriculum. Bullies put my younger brother through hell. A co-worker had a peer who was "dumb as a bag of rocks," but became valedictorian thanks to her dad's influence as an official in city government. Another co-worker's wife teaches elementary school, but is pursuing a master's degree so she can earn more as an administrator. A friend of my wife couldn't teach her class about the planets when Pluto was demoted, because it interfered with teaching them how to pass standardized tests. My own high school counselor told my parents that earning a high school diploma didn't mean a student had learned anything, it simply meant they had jumped through the right hoops.

It's a good thing for public education that these vouchers are only offered to students who opt for private schools instead of homeschooling, because if I could spend $3,000 teaching my son at home, no institution could compete with the quality of his education. With that kind of money, we could afford all the books he could read in a year, an annual field trip to anywhere in the world, a musical instrument one year, science equipment in other years, and tutors who could teach whatever subject my wife and I might not know. If I had $5,257 at my disposal, the comparison would be even more unfair, and yet some people claim that public education is efficient!

If public schools don't want to lose students, they should compete for them. They can stop talking the talk of smaller class sizes and actually do it by hiring more teachers and less pencil-pushing administrators. They can put students in classes based on interest and aptitude, rather than such arbitrary criteria as what time of year they were born. They can take a harder line against bullies. They can keep politics out of science and other subjects with all the vigor they use in keeping out God. They can abandon the oxymoron of "values neutral" education and find the courage to teach absolutes. They can stop wasting money and space for school sports, which only help a few of the most physically gifted, turn most of those into losers, and exclude the rest. They can increase safety by allowing faculty their Second Amendment rights. They can foster patriotism among students and allow them all their rights guaranteed in the Constitution.

Accreditation doesn't guarantee an educator knows how to teach their subject. Some worry that private schools will take no responsibility with the money they receive from vouchers. But a school's customers will judge its value. Those customers include businesses, government, higher education, and most importantly, students and their parents. If a private school doesn't satisfy students and their parents, they will simply look for another school that does. It's in a private school's best interest to give its customers the graduates they want, whereas public schools are beholden first to the UEA and demands of lawmakers in Washington.

People have asked where the money will come from for vouchers. As I have understood, it will come from the state's general fund, which is separate from the education fund the state uses to pay for public schools. Let me restate it: Money for vouchers comes from the general fund, not the education fund. It will make no difference to public education's income whether vouchers stand or fall, but it will hurt the egos of administrators in the UEA if parents decide public education isn't the panacea their children need to overcome ignorance. Unless vouchers are upheld, money reserved for it from the general fund will not go to education.

As to worries about violating the separation of church and state, I urge those with such doubts to read the Constitution and show me where that phrase can be found. It cannot, though the last clause in Article VI can be construed to apply to teachers who receive government money. But the poor quality of civics classes in public schools notwithstanding, there's already a precedent for government money going to students who attend private schools, as any student who attended BYU, Westminster College, or other private schools on a Pell Grant or Subsidized Stafford Loan should be able to attest.

A vote for vouchers is a vote for competition, for challenging the status quo, for innovation, and for more parental control of education. A vote against vouchers is a vote in favor of a state monopoly on education, of socialism, of maintenance of the status quo, of educational stagnation, and the best bureaucracy our taxpayers' money can buy. Voting against vouchers won't help public schools. If it's time to make Utah public schools our top priority, let's give them a challenge they can't refuse, and see if they're smart enough to compete.

Buhler attended home, private, and public schools while growing up in Salt Lake County. He and his family live in Ogden