Mr. Markosian's contention that he coasted through school and then did poorly on his ACTs is hardly an indictment of Utah’s public schooling system rather it is a demonstration of the fact that when parents aren’t involved in their kid’s education it is easy for someone not to get a good education even in the best of schools. Utah's school system is among the top 10 in the nation (number 7 actually) in preparing students for college and university according to the "Measuring Up 2006" report prepared by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education. The Milken Institute ranked Utah’s public school system among the top 10 in the nation in science and math education. Utah's schools are doing a great job preparing students for advanced education and they are doing it more economically than any other state in the country(lowest per pupil spending). Maybe Markosian could have better partaken of the benefits of our state's excellent system if he had chosen to stick with the hard classes even though they didn't have his friends in them. You know...the AP classes Utah's students take in a much higher number per capita than nearly any other state in the nation? Utah has a better pass rate for the AP tests than nearly any other state as well.

In the face of the fact that our schools are doing so well the pro-voucher movement and Markosian argue that we need to provide subsidies for enrollees in private schools. They never argue that private schools are any better than our excellent system…only that they need to be subsidized. They never address the problems which will result if we get stuck with this voucher plan when not enough Utahns see any value in the vouchers (which barely cover a fraction of most private school tuition to say nothing of the other extra fees and costs) because they are happy with Utah's excellent public schools. What happens then? We'll be stuck with a program that is little more than a subsidy for the wealthiest families who never intended to put their kids in public schools in the first place. The vouchers will be a drain on our system, a subsidy for the wealthy and the elite at the expense of taxpayers, not the economic boon promised by our PCE sponsored politicians and think tanks.

In advocating for vouchers based on the idea that public schools have failed him even while admitting that he refused to take advantage of the programs and opportunities Utah’s public school system provides as well as any other in the nation Mr. Markosian effectively demonstrates not that vouchers are a good idea but that the quality of the school a student attends means nothing when a student isn’t motivated to learn. Vouchers can’t help us with that problem.

O.k. - isn't it just a WEE BIT of stereo-typing to assume that NO teachers give challenging and demanding work - because they're lazy and don't want to grade it?

I'm sure there are teachers like that. But lets face it - not all teachers are that way. And some teachers would like to cover deep and thought provoking topics - but cannot because of student apathy.

While I'm generally in favor of school vouchers - I really don't think the way to argue in their favor is to say "we need them because teachers are lazy."

After all - even if vouchers are enacted, those same "lazy" teachers are still going to be the ones teaching the students.

I whole heartedly agree that teachers need to be paid more. Unfortunately, the current system for funding schools is awful. Everybody wants schools and teachers to have more money - but nobody wants to pay more in taxes.

The problem is not so much that we aren't spending enough on education, but rather what we are spending is being spent foolishly. After adjusting for inflation, we've double education spending since 1970 yet teacher salaries in that same period have stayed flat. Has educating children really become that much more expensive? No, but I'll bet that administrators' salaries sure have.

I appreciate all of the feedback that readers have provided, especially those who took the time to read my entire article and follow the links provided.

In response to Jeremy and Flint, I can definitely appreciate that Utah does have some good public schools and some great teachers. However as Rep.
Sumsion pointed out in his argument on the House floor," 94 Utah public schools are failing," under State Board levels for competency. Although Utah is in the higher
echelons in the country for basic competency, I still don't consider this much to boast about. Our public school system is outdated and only caters to students who, motivated by parents, take challenging A.P level courses. Why can't school be challenging for every student? And why can't those who are failing receive the same teacher support that those who succeed? Because teachers don't have a vested interest in keeping students from dropping out. Their own success is not tied to the success of their students. There are many more who fall through the cracks and are completely neglected under the current system because their parents don't care and teachers simply don't care. (see Ute drop-outs case study)

The most conclusive point supporting my argument is that school choice (and similar policies to vouchers) are already enacted all over the rest of the developed world
(Eastern, Western Europe and China), and every country where these policies are in place they consistently outrank the U.S students in competency and skills exams. Why?
because teachers are ultimately rewarded for their hard work and administrators and teachers who don't care about their student's performance fail or go out of business themselves. This initiate
is the best way to tie teacher success to student success; to reward the best schools and to finally do something about the worst schools.

Richard,

You make an interesting point:

"And why can't those who are failing receive the same teacher support that those who succeed? Because teachers don't have a vested interest in keeping students from dropping out. Their own success is not tied to the success of their students."

There's a small problem with that. What do you do as a teacher with a student who has little or no motivation? And how would you feel if your "success" was tied to their performance?

You can't force a student to learn - you can't make them become motivated.

I understand what you are saying - teachers should care about their students. But it's pretty hard to cater to a classroom full of 30 (or more) students - many of whom are at different academic levels. Some students want to be there, some don't. If you teach at too high a level, you'll lose all of those who aren't that high. If you teach at to low of a level - you'll bore those who are at a higher level.

What I'd love to see would be each school specializing in various areas - so that students can pick a school to goto - based upon what sort of courses and programs they offer. Kind of like college - but not quite so intense.

So, if you're interested in audio/video production - you goto one school. If you're really interested in band, or choir - you goto another school, really interested in automotive tech - you goto a third school - and so on.

Flint thank you for the great comment. I can't agree with you more. Students should be able to specialize in the subjects of their interest in say 9th grade.

As I pointed out in my full article, this is exactly how many Eastern, Western European schools do it as well as China. I personally know many who have gone to these specialized high schools (including my wife) and taken on specialized majors.

There is no reason that hard working, motivated students should be lumped together with students who have little or no motivation. School choice and vouchers would be an answer to this problem.

Maybe school choice is not the ultimate answer for all ills current in public education, but it would be a definite step towards separating the wheat from the chaff. We already see many charter schools taking on this specialized curiculum. East Hollywood High school focuses on producing high school students who are interested in the musical, theatrical and film arts. And there are also many science oriented charter schools.

With vouchers there is no doubt private schools and charter schools would start marketing their curiculum to niche students.

Politic2.0 is coordinating an interactive forum event for the Salt Lake City mayoral candidates on August 8. We'd love to extend you an official invitation. Please email me at the address below and I'll forward it on. Thanks!

JD Yates
Politic2.0, Inc.
jd@politic20.com

Students should adopt the subjects of their own choice in which they have interest

Students should adopt the subjects of their own choice in which they have interest

We have a failing public school system which continues to suck down more and more money while delivering less in terms of well educated graduates.

We continue to fall behind the rest of the world in both the quality of our educational output and the quantity.

Tanya Clay House of the ultra-liberal People for the American Way recently declared, "We've never seen a shred of credible evidence that shows school vouchers actually help students learn. While all public schools must demonstrate success under No Child Left Behind, private schools are not held to the same level of accountability for their performance."

But lets ask the question another way, speaking of those same shreds of evidence, we've not seen many that point to those now in charge of that public school system having the ability to turn that around. In fact, there seems to be more evidence than not that they're incapable of doing so.

So the question becomes how competition could be any worse than monopoly? How could allowing the consumer of the education product to choose that which they find to best fill their own childrens needs be any worse than the arbitrary standards and needs of the monopoly?

From the side of the political spectrum which claims to be for "choice" this should be an issue for which they are fighting for the choice vouchers bring, not against.

Jason Bourne

Monday, September 24, 2007
"It's All About the Union Stupid"

As we draw closer to a vote in November of school vouchers here in Utah, it's becoming increasingly clear that this fight has nothing to do with the education of our children, but rather the desperate concern of the teachers Union to maintain a monopoly over education dollars.

http://www.neamb.com/

Here is another report on how teachers are treating parents who question the Teachers Union’s position on Referendum 1.

Vanocur from ABC news has a woman on camera claiming she went in for Parent-Teacher Conference and was asked to donate to Utahns for Public Schools. When she refused and said she supports vouchers, the teacher became hostile. The responses from Utahns for Public Schools, the UEA and SL School District are hilarious.

http://www.abc4.com/news/local/story.aspx?content_id=fa5084ec-90ce-4ee9-908e-9bd0e7a0221a

(ABC 4 News)
SALT LAKE CITY (ABC 4 News) - Is the political battle over school vouchers in Utah starting to interfere with your child's education? Well, that's what one Utah parent is wondering after - according to her - she was asked for an anti-voucher contribution during a recent parent teacher conference. On November 6th, Utah voters will be asked to vote for or against a new voucher plan. That plan would provide up to 3 thousand dollars of state money for parents who want to send children to private school. But now one parent claims those against Referendum One may be crossing a line. Here's what she says happened when she went to a parent teacher conference last week. The parent claims, "We went through about ten minutes of the conference and then she handed me an envelope and asked me if I was interested in donating money to the fund against the voucher system." The parent also says she was stunned when asked to contribute money during the parent teacher conference and then when she refused, says a heated exchange took place. "When I said no I'm not interested, I support the vouchers, she continued to go on and tell me why I was wrong," says the parent.

The State Board of Education has made it clear that fund-raising while on duty is not allowed.

And the anti-voucher group, Utahns for Public Schools, emailed ABC 4 this response: "Our campaign does not comment on anonymous reports. However, it is interesting to note that the claims of this anonymous source would never see the light of day in an unaccountable private voucher school because they aren't held to the same high standards as public schools."

As for the Salt Lake School district and the UEA, they say a teacher at the school was fanning herself with the anti-voucher materials during a parent teacher conference, and when a parent asked what they were, the district and the UEA claim the teacher then jokingly asked for a contribution.

And after we learned of their comments, ABC 4 checked back with the parent who made the original claim.

If the liberals were really "pro-choice," they would be in favor of the voucher system. This enables parents to CHOOSE the best education for their kids. The teacher unions (not teachers, per se) oppose this because that means they will lose their monopoly and power over the education of our kids. The more competition there is, the better the outcome for all. Public schools will need to up their standards to keep their students, thus increasing their funding. If they don't they have no one to blame but themselves for losses.

I'm coming late to this debate, but I was struck by a couple of points Jeremy made in response to the original post. He talked about the importance of parental involvement in education, and I think that is the single point on which everyone in the education debate agrees: it's important to involve the parents.

Use of a voucher by definition involves the parents in the education of the child, and the fact that that $2,000 voucher saves the state $5,500 is just gravy.

Jeremy also defended Utah's schools, and he makes some excellent points. Still a system where 25% of the graduating seniors can't pass the UBSCT has got some problems (and that number would be worse if the dropouts were included).

Clearly, Utah's schools work well for most of Utah's kids. What's wrong with helping the ones they don't work for find something that might work better? Especially when it can be done in such a cost-effective way, leaving millions of dollars in the public schools for class size reduction and/or teacher salary increases.

g

I could not more strongly disagree with the orignal writer of the story.

As a non LDS minority growing up in Utah me cousins and I had a huge disadvantage. That said, all 60 plus of us graduated from high school most went on to college and several have advanced degrees and have worked in the corporate world and government.

Vouchers fail period. I have lived in several states and two countries. One that we tout so much at an advantage of education over the US. The numbers in Europe and other nations like Canada to where tax dollars fund separate educational religous schools fail so many.

Canada has a higher drop out than we do and Japan's is also rising. Many in the aforementioned nations never even have the chance to go to college or university. They have higher often unattainable standards and many young people quite in high school and end up with nothing. The US and Utah system allows even a child who flunks jr high and do mediocre in high school then have the chance to attend college.

I have worked with many engineers who were considered bad students in high school and yet exceled in college and are today some of the best computer chip designers we have. They applied themsleves late in life. From Lee Iaccoca to Bill Gates many of our top business leadrers had no college degree, no private schooling. They had a brain and the drive. That is the American way.

Vouchers smack of nothing more of legal segregation and racism and if vouchers win and the LDS school being built and to be run by Utah's top republican leaders in Utah county, should then be in competiton with Muslim relgious school who may teach hate against the US at tax payers expense. We might as well then just legalize polygamy and close the books on all the laws we currently have.

NO to vouchers.

"Vouchers smack of nothing more of legal segregation and racism and if vouchers win and the LDS school being built and to be run by Utah's top republican leaders in Utah county, should then be in competiton with Muslim relgious school who may teach hate against the US at tax payers expense"

This is the fear that the teacher unions espouse. Vouchers will segregate, divide and ruin our education system.

If vouchers lose based on this tactic, if we are all too afraid to try something new and continue to let the school boards intimidate their way to victory, there will no doubt be more dummies, and more drop-outs who aren't served under the current failing system If they win, the divide in U.S education standards and the rest of the developed world will no doubt continue to increase.

Cathy (above) is afraid of change and reform. She is afriad that this will lead to the "legalization of polygamy." Do you really think we are all so dumb Cathy?

Please debate the issue on reasonable grounds. This has become another rope-a-dope campaign where the opposition is using voter ignorance to intimidate. "Vouchers will take money away from private schools" Is their common rallying cry. This is a blatant lie.

Vouchers will offer public students more money, because of a simple math equation : $7,000 (the current cost of educating a student in Utah) - $2,500 (the most a voucher can be written for) = $4,500 more left in the public education system for every student who chooses to stay.

To the Utah School Board and Union members I say: Please stop insulting our intelligence. Thats not going to fly on an intelligent user forum where people actually understand the issue.