OCR Text |
Show ommunity lews A2 • WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2007 - N E W S - Spanish Fork 280 North Main St. Spanish Fork, UT 84660 Lane Henderson Namon Bills Publisher Editor The Spanish Fork News is published each Wednesday for 537.50 per year in area and S41.50 out of area by j-Mart, 280 North Main St., Spanish Fork Utah 84660. Email stories to editor@spforknews.com Email ads to ads@spforknews.com Call us at 794-4964 POSTMASTER Send address changes to Spanish Fork News 280 North Main St. Spanish Fork, Utah 84660 The entire content of this newspaper is Copyright© 2007 Spanish Fork News. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced in any form without the written permission of the editor or publisher. DEADLINES Weddings, anniversaries, missionaries, 1st birthdays, articles photos, letters to the editor Friday, 12 p m. Display advertising and classify d advertising Friday, 12 p m. Letters to the Editor do not necessarily reflect the opinions of The Spanish Fork News. Covering what matters most School Vouchers: For and Against Editor's note: In light of the upcoming vote on Referendum 1,1 invited Susan Morris and Rita Bills to write guest editorials this week and next week to represent the two sides of the school voucher issue, Susan Morris is the director of American Heritage School of Spanish Fork, a pritvate school with an LDSbased curriculum. Rita Bills is my mother; she's done extensive research on the history and results of vouchers in other states. Vouchers provide choice 2. Parents choosing public schools win with increased per-pupil funding The primary principle behind and smaller class sizes when voucher private school vouchers is set forth recipients leave. (Utah's annual in the legislation itself, The Parent per-pupil expenditure in public Choice in Education Act: "Parents schools is $7,500. A child leaving a are presumed best informed to make neighborhood school with an average decisions for their children, including $2,000 scholarship will also leave the educational setting that will best behind the difference, or $5,500, in suit their children's interests and that school for five years. Meanwhile, Utah's exploding population will educational needs." assure that public schools have more Simple. Vouchers are about empowering than sufficient incoming student parents to make decisions in their populations.) natural stewardship over their 3. Utah taxpayers win because more children's education. If you agree with money flows into education without the principle of parental choice, vote increasing taxes. Remember, all parents for Referendum 1. On the other hand, who accept vouchers supplement the if you really believe that some teacher, scholarships with their own money. principal, school board, teachers' Our record population growth will union or federal agency knows better otherwise require huge increases in than parents what is best for their teacher salaries, construction costs children, then by all means vote and other expenses. Without school against Referendum 1. choice, increased taxation is the only Utah's voucher law is not about way to meet these fiscal challenges. private vs. public education. It is about 4. Diversity — not uniformity — in improving education for all children, no education best serves the increasing matter what school they attend. Because diversity and competitiveness of a it is based on correct principle, Utah's complex, global economy. School voucher law is truly a pioneering piece choice is a winning investment in our of legislation that creates a win-win children's economic future. situation for everyone. I'm confident that once citizens 1. Parents choosing private schools understand the principles behind and win because they receive a scholarship the benefits of school choice, they will from $500-$3,000 per child, based on whole-heartedly support Referendum 1. their income and family size. They To learn more, go to www.utahvouchers. must pay the remaining tuition and com and www.voteforl.org. Or come other costs with their own funds, but to a voucher open house at American many will be enabled and willing to Heritage School of Spanish Fork, 185 do so to receive the type of education E. 400 North, on Thursday, Nov. 1, from that works best for their child. 3-7 p.m. Vouchers = higher taxes Rita Bills Susan Morris "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana, 1905 One of the beauties of the public education system in Utah is that it is research-based — it uses principles that have been tested and proven. Government vouchers for private education are not an experiment waiting to be tried; they have been in place in this country in Milwaukee since 1990 and Cleveland since 1996. Forget the theoretical; let's examine the arguments in terms of historical fact. Who wants change, and why? In the voucher camp, we have Parents for Choice in Education — whose name identifies their goal — and many of our state legislators, whose professed interest is reducing taxes by getting certain parents to assume more of the financial burden of education. This is a revolutionary reason for voucher support, and we might well question those legislators on two levels: 1) Will vouchers really bring the state any significant reduction in costs? And 2) shouldn't quality of education be our number one concern? In Milwaukee and Cleveland, vouchers were accompanied by tax increases and higher per-pupil spending, although their prevoucher per-pupil expenditures were already greater than ours today. According to the impartial analysis, in the first year vouchers may cost the state $3.1 million or save it $6 million, or anything in between. However, by the 13th year, when the program is fully implemented, it is projected to cost $71 million, with a savings of $11-28 million, for a net loss of $43-$60 million. Therefore, if our goal is to save money, we must reject vouchers. The issue of choice in education is intriguing. The real issue here is not choice, but choice on someone else's dime. This welfare mentality begs a subsidy for the rich and middle-class, since no truly poor person could afford to pay the extra $2000 (or three or more times that) for private school tuition. Some have speculated that private schools will lower their tuition to the voucher amount. In Milwaukee and Cleveland, the law required private schools to accept the voucher as full tuition; our Utah law would not. Private schools in the state now service only two to three percent of the school-age children. If they were to reduce their tuition, they would either have to reduce their costs and services, or they would go out of business. In terms of tax reduction and personal choice, vouchers are more likely to raise than reduce our taxes. Utah parents have always supported their children, and we will continue to do so. Letters to the Editor Let's talk about vouchers What is happening in Utah with the voucher debate? Here, in a state where so many of the people are of the same faith, and where most of the people believe in "loving your neighbor," this debate has brought out the worst in many of us. It's good to have a healthy debate about issues that face us as a people, but debate has been growing very ugly and destructive. While the public is just now being exposed to this debate, it has been going on at the legislature for many years. During my service as a school board member I' ve learned a little about the difficulties faced in creating and implementing sound policy. Because of human inability to have 20/20 foresight, unintended consequences sometimes result from decisions. The process of establishing laws or policies naturally places people in situations where it is necessary to try to see into the future to discern all possible outcomes of those policies. This is especially true for the legislature. This voucher bill introduces a program that has never been completely and successfully implemented in the United States. The outcome is largely unclear. Each side sees different results or consequences based on what they want to have happen. No one really knows what the results will truly be — it's a bit of a guessing game. Just because people see the future differently does not mean that anyone is "evil," "un-Christian", stupid or a bad person. We just see things differently based on our past experience. However, I'd like to suggest some reasons people (including our legislature) may find themselves in support of vouchers, because some of those reasons may be unclear or Break" rather than "UEA". These even left undefined. And they're bills are not necessarily bad, but not all entirely bad. just an example of the power First, some support vouchers struggle between the legislature because they truly believe that they and the UEA. I find it possible this need them for the good of their undeclared war could be another children. Then there are those who "undefined" reason why some truly believe it will help public there support this legislation. education by providing teachers In the opposite camp, many fewer students and smaller classes. disagree with vouchers because Some business people support they believe that while it may be vouchers because they believe that good for some children, it will it will save tax dollars in the future. not be good for the majority or Some also believe that privatization for society as a whole. One of of education will be the route to a the "unforeseen" consequences world-class system, and vouchers of vouchers could be a greater will open that door to privatization. segregation of society based on Remember, this law, if passed, can race, religion or socioeconomics. always be amended or expanded. As many of you, I am aware of Another possibility affects parents who have removed their primarily lawmakers and has to children from public schools and do with their relationship to the put them into charter schools teachers' union, the Utah Education because of the racial mix in their Association (UEA). According to public school. Also, while charter Senator Valentine in his remarks schools willingly serve all children, to the Utah School Boards it seems unless they are set up in Association in August, there has specific neighborhoods with the been a rift between the UEA and purpose of serving economically the legislature since 1989. That disadvantaged students, those year nearly 20,000 Utah teachers parents who choose charters are boycotted classrooms for a day those who have the means to after the legislature approved a transport them to another area, as $38.4 million tax cut because of there is no busing. This will likely the existence of an $80 million happen with vouchers as well, so surplus, but provided no newthey may fail to serve those who money for education. Since that cannot bus their own children time, the legislature has continued around town. to introduce and pass legislation Although the idea of more monthat has attempted to remove ey and smaller class sizes is appower from the teachers union. pealing, there are many authorities Although many, three examples who believe that will simply not of such legislation are the 2001 happen, including public schools' "Voluntary Contributions Act" business administrators (those who (which the Supreme Court struck crunch the numbers) and the fiscal down), charter schools, and this analyst's office. The information year's SB 56 which made strange semantic changes to all public See Vouchers • A3 school calendars creating a "Fall Kids these days I have had several conversations with my colleagues around Spanish Fork Jr. High this year that started something like this, "Where are all of the problem students at?" Somebody pinch me. I'm not saying that we haven't had an incident now and then. After all, this is a junior high school and students do tend to act their age occasionally. Sometimes I hear parents comment about how scary the halls must be in the school. When I tell them I am the assistant principal at the junior high, they give me that "I'm so sorry look" and offer the name and number of their therapist. Personally, I think that my job is one of the best kept secrets in the school district. Recently, I received the results from a survey that was conducted with our eighth graders over the past two years. The nationwide survey, "Monitoring the Future," conducted by the University of Michigan and funded by the National Institutes of Health, is a long-term study that looks at youths' attitudes, opinions and behaviors. The data revealed some interesting trends. More than 74 percent of our eighth grade students never or seldom have a friend try to influence them to do something their teachers wouldn't like. This compared to almost 67 percent nationally. Almost 34 percent of students nationally said that they had had one alcoholic drink or more during the past year. Ten percent of our students responded positively. Eighty-one percent of our surveyed students indicated that they had never tried any form of illicit drug in their life. Nationally, 69 percent of the students said this was the case. Less than six percent of our students said that they had been pressured by friends or classmates to smoke. The national percentage was more than double that at 15 percent. Of our students, 3.6 percent watch five or more hours of TV on an average weekday. Nationally that number came in at a whopping 18 percent. When I observe our students at school, church and around town, I get the strong feeling that the future of our great community is in good hands. Maybe we all ought to give ourselves a good pinch in the arm or pat on the back. If it takes a community to raise a child, I think that we are doing a darned good job. Scott Carson Assistant Principal Spanish Fork Junior High |