OCR Text |
Show Rebuttal to Arguments Against Initiative C Opponents to Initiative C reflect an arrogant "big government linows best" attitude toward education. They say: parents can't be trusted to look out for the education of their children; "unregulated opportunists" must be controlled; and, a new bureaucracy will be needed to supervise private schools. Claiming an initial expenditure of $3.1 million dollars out of a billion dollar budget would damage the "whole school funding process" is ridiculous. So is the idea that public education is "free." Those already in private schools save the state about $12 million dollars a year. A tax credit would open a window of opportunity for less well-to-do parents and children. Difficult students would not be left in the public schools. Many parents with children with special problems would have the option, with the tax credit, to seek the special help they need. Initiative C is not unconstitutional. President Reagan and the Department of Education have supported similar plans. Minnesota has a similar plan which was judged constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1983. The Utah Attorney General found no unconstitutional aspects in the initiative. Opponents, whose goal is "equality" in education, instead of providing each child the opportunity to reach his or her greatest potential, would use this initiative to justify "supervising" "super-vising" private schools. Utah's private schools have done an exemplary job in the past with minimal state "supervision." Passage of Initiative C should not be a license for increased state involvement. A Vote FOR Initiative C can improve ALL education. Senator Bill Barton 3940 West 4100 South West Valley City, Utah 84120 |