To Vouch, Or Not To Vouch?

In next month's election, one of the most hotly contested issues here in Utah will be school vouchers. I've been seeing and hearing advertisements both for and against the passage of Referendum 1. Both sides are saying lots of nasty things about the other. Surprise, surprise.

The issue is a little complicated. Earlier this year, the Utah Legislature passed, and Governor Huntsman signed, a law authorizing the use of public money to subsidize vouchers for private schools. Under the program, any student in Utah would be able to get a yearly stipend of between $500 and $3000, based on income, to be applied against tuition at any private elementary or secondary school. The law was written to try to assure that such stipends would not reduce the amount of money that public schools get from the state for at least five years. So families would get state assistance to send their kids to private schools if they wished, and public schools would continue to receive the same funding as if those students were still there. It was, supporters said, a win-win scenario.

The issue was hotly debated in the Legislature before it was finally passed by a narrow margin. Even then, both sides were running "Call your legislator and tell them to vote For (or Against) House Bill 148" ad campaigns. And almost immediately after the law was passed, legal challenges were raised and a petition drive was started to delay implementation of the law until it could be voted upon by the public. The petition was successful, and Citizens' State Referendum Number 1 was born.

School funding here has always been a hot topic. Among the states, Utah traditionally ranks at or near the bottom in annual per capita education spending. Because of our tradition of large families, we have a disproportionately high number of children compared to the number of adults paying the taxes necessary to educate them. Nonetheless, Utah students typically score above the national average on most standardized tests, including traditional college-entry exams like the ACT and SAT. So we seem to be doing more with less. It would sure be nice to have more resources available for teachers and classrooms, though.

Anyway, the text of the Referendum reads as follows:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Citizens' State Referendum Number 1
Ballot Title

In February 2007, the Utah Legislature passed H.B. 148, Education Vouchers. This bill will take effect only if approved by voters. The bill:

• establishes a scholarship program for:
  • qualifying school-age children who newly enroll in eligible private schools; and
    
  • lower income school-age children who continue their enrollment in eligible private schools;
• provides for scholarships within that program of $500 to $3,000, depending on family size and income, increasing those scholarship amounts in future years; and
  
• allows school districts to retain some per-student funding for scholarship students who transfer to private schools.

Are you for or against H.B. 148 taking effect?
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

The Lieutenant Governor's office has a web site with information on the Referendum, including a PDF version of the 2007 Voter Information Pamphlet, the arguments for and against the proposal (including rebuttals to the arguments), and the full text of the original House bill. I've spent about an hour at the site today, reading over everything and trying to get all the issues straight in my head.

I'm a little conflicted on this one. On the one hand, I'm not a big fan of the idea of vouchers to fund private schools. Public schools are the backbone of education in America. With dedicated teachers and community involvement—especially parents who take their children's education as seriously as the teachers do—public schools can meet the needs of the most diverse and demanding student population more than adequately. I've seen it happen. And without parental involvement, private schools wouldn't meet the needs of students any better than public schools do. (With private schools, of course, there is inherently an extra level of parental involvement: They're the ones paying the tuition.)

Traditionally, private schools are also supposed to have more and better teachers, smaller classes, and better resources than public schools. That may be true. But if we have money for vouchers, why don't we have money for improvements in the existing public school system? To me, it would make a lot more sense to put that voucher money into the public schools instead. That way, public schools could, at least in theory, also have more and better teachers, smaller classes, and better resources than they do now.

It should also be noted that many of the private schools these vouchers would go to fund are faith-based. Personally, that doesn't bother me too much. If a family's Catholic, it makes sense they'd want to send their child to Catholic school if they could afford it. Vouchers could help with that. But legally, it's hard to see it working. Of course, the money goes to the families and not to the schools directly, so the State isn't really paying the school. But ultimately, it comes down to public money going to religious schools. And that raises Separation of Church and State issues. There will be lawsuits. Bet on it.

So the voucher program is problematic for me, for several reasons. On the other hand, I'm also not a big fan of Ballot Initiatives and Referendums, generally speaking. In most cases, they strike me as an attempt by a special-interest group to circumvent the Legislature. The fact that the UEA and the NEA have made such a big deal about this makes me a little nervous. Yes, I know that sounds strange coming from a future educator. But I've never been entirely convinced that the teacher's unions genuinely have anyone's best interests at heart except their own—not the kids, not the communities, and not necessarily even the individual teachers. My observations have led me to conclude that the union exists to promulgate its own existence; all other concerns are secondary to that. So in many ways, this Referendum seems like a typical strategy to sidestep the Legislature and get what the unions want.

On yet another hand (You didn't know I had three hands, did you?), I wonder how much difference my vote is really going to make. The last polls I saw showed the "For" crowd with a comfortable lead. If the measure passes, I imagine there will be more legal maneuvering and injunctions and NEA/UEA lawsuits to follow. And if the measure fails, I guarantee it'll show up in next year's Legislative session—just like it has for the past six years. One way or another, I'm afraid this issue is going to be with us for a long, long time.

In the end, however, I think it comes down to one question for me: Will the use of public money to fund scholarships for private school students ultimately improve education in the state? At the present time, I'm not entirely convinced that it will. But I may be wrong.

What to do, what to do?