Gordon B. Hinckley Left a Legacy of Love

Filed under:Family, Inspiring, Opinion, PTA, Religion — posted by Tyler on January 31, 2008 @ 7:11 pm    

Gordon B. HinckleyI wasn’t planning on attending the viewing of our recently deceased Prophet, but when I found my day cut short at the Capitol where I was lobbying on behalf of our children while representing the PTA, I decided that if I could easily find a parking spot by the Conference Center that I’d go ahead and pay tribute. Others in attendance no doubt had more determination than I and would have stood in line for hours to have this opportunity, but I’m sure glad that the circumstances presented themselves just right because it was a great experience.

The line started at doors 14 and 15 or thereabouts, which is on the east side of the building. There were ushers every so often so that you were sure to stay on course and that led me through the middle level of the auditorium all the way to the west side of the building and then back out into the halls and all the way back to the east side of the building, almost to where I entered. Then up the escalators and finally up to where the busts of the presidents of the church are on display. That’s where the Prophet laid peacefully, surrounded by flowers and mourning members (and likely non-members, as well). As I paid my respects I recited the words Gordon B Hinckley (which has become our own personal family motto and that we’ve all memorized; even Griffin can say it word for word) and felt a profound love for him and the difference he’s made in my life. Our family motto is:

The time has come for us to stand a little taller. This is a season to be strong. It is a time to move forward without hesitation. It is a time to do what is right, regardless of the consequences that might follow. It is a time to be found keeping the commandments. It is a time to be considerate and good, decent and courteous towards one another in all of our relationships. We have nothing to fear. God is at the helm.

Our Prophet was always one to encourage and in a way that made you feel loved and not scorned. He always commended the Saints for doing their best and then encouraged us to do a little better. As I thought about his legacy (many say it’s a legacy of Temples that he left us that he is best known and will be best remembered) but the reoccurring feelings and thoughts that passed through my mind was that of his pure love that he had for everyone. He was truly a charitable and loving man of God. He will be missed.

  

Partisan State School Board discussed at Education Interim Committee meeting.

Filed under:Opinion, PTA, Politics, USOE — posted by Tyler on November 24, 2007 @ 12:39 pm    

I think it’s important to stay on top of important issues that might have an effect on our children. Many times this can be easily accomplished just by staying informed. State School Board Chairman Kim Burningham (who has recently announced that he will step down from his Chairman position but will continue to serve on the State School Board) was kind enough to send out an email to let us know that two such issues would be discussed at an Education Interim Committee meeting. I was unable to attend in person (they didn’t have time for public input anyhow) but I did take the time to listen to the audio. The following is a fairly detailed synopsis of the discussion regarding legislation that would effect the State School Board.

During an Education Interim Committee meeting on November 14, 2007, modifications to the State Board of Education were discussed. These modifications would expand the membership of the State Board of Education from 15 members to 29 members whose districts would then be identical to the State Senate districts and also would change the election procedures to a non-partisan board to a partisan board.

The question to the committee was, “Is there a sponsor for this bill?”

The answer was, “Right now it belongs to the Committee.”

More confusion: “Who do we address the questions to? Who is going to answer the questions?”

The answer - even more confusion: “The Wizard of Oz.”

“Let’s pull the curtain back then!”

They finally determined that Senator Stephenson and Dee Larsen (Associate General Counsel) would be able to answer questions regarding the proposed legislation.

Representative Holdaway asked, “Why are we doing this, number one? Number two, in my mind and in many people’s minds this system is not broken.”

Representative Wimmer’s answer (paraphrased): This dates back to the 2006 election. My wife will kill me for this, but I’m going to use her as an example. With the advent of early voting some people voted several weeks prior to the election day. Finding information about State School Board candidates was nearly impossible because they didn’t hold town hall meetings, that we could see. My wife ended up not voting for a State School Board member because she couldn’t find any information. This bill will make the school board members, who do a good job, and puts them through the process where they will make them more visible. As they go through this process there is much more initiative on their part to hold town hall meetings, to hold debates, to hold Meet the Candidate events so the people can see, so that this will shine a light for the public. I don’t see this as anything but good. They are not required in any way shape or form, to pick a political party. What it does is bring it to the people; bring it to the grass roots level where the citizens will be able to shine a light on the candidates and have more of a view of who they are going to vote for. That’s my reason and purpose for it.

Senator Jones then made a comment (paraphrased): I interview people for a living. People really don’t know who their school board members are and sometimes don’t even know who their Governor is. What the public is clamoring for right now is less partisanship, not more. And in my view this does nothing to improve the current system; nothing whatsoever. And in fact, I think it makes it worse because it would include so much more partisanship in the process. It would be incredibly unfortunate for a very capable person to campaign and have people vote against her just because she has Republican behind her name.

Rep. Hughes asked (paraphrased): How many people are aware of the process we have now? How many people are aware that we have a selection committee? That is a partisan selection committee. You have members of the business coalition and members of the education community and they’re coming together as a committee to decide who gets to put their name on a ballot. We can live and die by that process but I don’t know that everyone is going to see that process as being nonpartisan and free of politics. I think we have a process in place that I think could be revisited. He continued to explain that he thinks that the convention process is a great way to elect officials. Anyone that has to go through that kind of refiners fire make a candidate a better public servant. He thinks that the size of the school board districts are too big for people to have one-on-one conversations with constituents; the numbers are too big. This will help bring the process to the people and have them be more a part of who their State School Board members will be.

Senator Stephenson (paraphrased): I agree with this concept. It would elevate the stature of the State School Board. At the same time I realize that anything we pass in the coming session would not have an effect for the 2008 general session because the process is already in place. Should we consider this legislation in the coming session or put it on the interim study list for the 2008 interim and have a thorough hearing process and then bring it back in the 2009 session so that it would be implemented in time for the 2010 legislature. I don’t think it could currently take affect in the 2008 legislature.

Rep. Wimmer concluded (paraphrased): I’m tremendously supportive of what Senator Stephensen said. This is an issue that cannot go away. That’s the way I view it. I’ve received some emails that accuse me of being a partisan hack in this issue. This has zero to do with partisanship. This has everything to do with shining the light on those who represent us. I’ll bet that less than one half of one percent of the citizens can name their school board members. I understand that most of our citizens can’t name us, but those who go to the caucuses can, those who go to convention can, those who are involved in the processes can; they know who we are and they help dictate the government. Right now our state school board members are way too far away from the people they represent. Being that it could not take effect until 2010 I have no problem with Senator Stephens’ suggestion.

A motion was made to have the item formerly placed on the interim study list and that they direct staff to make sure that that happens.

The motion was not recognized but it was the general consensus that this bill would be studied further and brought up in a future legislative session (not 2008).

Representative Wimmer believes that this issue cannot go away, so we’ll certainly see this revisited in the future.

Stay tuned for a synopsis of the second issue that was discussed that could have an effect on our children.

Before the committee met I wrote a letter to my representative (James Gowans) who sits on the committee and argued that a partisan State School Board would not be in the best interest of our children.  I’m fairly certain he agrees, although I have not received a response to my email.  This is an issue I’ll certainly continue to follow.

  

PTA Parents Know Best - New Referendum 1 Ad

Filed under:Opinion, PTA, Politics — posted by Tyler on October 23, 2007 @ 11:58 pm    

Tonight was the first night that I was seen on TV speaking out against vouchers. Appearing in a commercial about such a hotly contested issue is not something to take lightly. I’m already getting a lot of phone calls, mostly from people who can’t believe they saw me on TV. Frankly, I can’t believe it either. But I did it because I truly believe that House Bill 148 has major flaws and loopholes.

I know by now “flaws and loopholes” sounds like rhetoric; and it would be if I didn’t know what the flaws and loopholes were. Hundreds of articles in as many blogs and newspapers have been written to identify these flaws and loopholes. I would like to concentrate on the two biggest, but before you read further I would suggest that you familiarize yourself with what exactly House Bill 148 [le.utah.gov] says. The following posts from Accountability First do a great job of breaking down the legal lingo.

  1. So, what does House Bill 148 say?
  2. What does House Bill 148 say (Part 2)?
  3. What does House Bill 148 say (Part 3)?
  4. What does House Bill 148 say (Part 4)?

Now that you’re more informed, which is the only way you can really make a good decision anyway, please read on for what I and others perceive to be the flaws and loopholes.

  • Very Little Accountability
  • Does Not Help Most Children
    • With more than 96% of Utah children currently attending a public school, why are we diverting so much money to private schools where there are far fewer children in that category to be helped? Why aren’t we putting the money (and all this effort that we put into fighting for/against vouchers, for goodness sakes) into the public school system to make it better?When talking about money we have to look at the long term, not just the next five years where the districts are held “harmless”. What about when all private school students apply for vouchers in 18 years when the program is completely phased in? That’s when the damage is really done and that’s when it’s probably too late. That’s why the fight is happening now, before the “experiment” goes horribly wrong.By now, hopefully you realize that the way pro-voucher ads describe the money by using Oreo cookies is over-simplified. They look at the classroom and only consider the first five years. They don’t take into account the fixed costs that schools incur; the cost of the school, electricity, the half empty bus that still costs the same to drive and fill with gas, etc. It also doesn’t help that many low-income families couldn’t afford a private school even with a full $3000 “scholarship”. Especially if there is more than one student in the household.I recently attended a Legislative Convention where vouchers were a topic of discussion and a parent that was in attendance admitted that she sent one of her children to a private school and the other to a public school because she couldn’t afford to send both to a private school. However, despite the burden, she admitted that it was her choice (yes, we all have the choice) and as such also her obligation to incur the cost. Why aren’t more people as reasonable?

There are more flaws and loopholes, but those are the biggest ones. I haven’t written anything tonight that 100 other bloggers haven’t already written. Nothing original about this, more of a summary if anything. But the last reason I choose not to support vouchers is not only because of the plain information and facts that are laid out before me, helping me see that it is indeed flawed, but all the other individuals and organizations that are advocating on behalf of our children and hoping Referendum 1 is voted down on November 6.

The latest happens to be one of our wonderful Representatives here in the Tooele area, Rhonda Menlove, who I admire and respect. An article was published today in the Tooele Transcript Bulletin that she authored and it reads as follows:

Utah voters have the unique opportunity to vote either for or against a referendum that would OK the use of state tax dollars to fund vouchers for school-age students to attend private schools.

Ironically, this would be the richest private school voucher program in the nation. In Utah, we pay the lowest amount in the nation per student to fund our public schools. We already have an underfunded public education system and an underfunded charter school system. Now we are being asked to start a new private education system, which will also be competing for tax dollars.

Much has been said about whether or not vouchers would save or cost local school districts. The answer depends upon the number of students who leave. This is a very important issue. However, the larger issue relates to whether or not this will cost taxpayers more. It will.

The state of Utah has two tax funds — the education fund and the general fund. Pro-voucher supporters are proud to say that vouchers will not take money from the education fund. That is true for now. Tax dollars that you pay will be taken from the general fund to pay for the vouchers. It is important to understand that all government functions outside of education are supported by tax dollars from the general fund. These services include transportation, highway patrol officers, senior citizen meals and programs, state agencies, parks and recreation, health and human services — just to mention a few.

The voucher program will grow each year by millions of dollars. Just think what those dollars could be spent on and how much we already invest in a public education system available for all students and funded by tax-payers. My vote is to use our tax dollars to improve what we have and not to start a new private education system. If parents want another choice, that is their option, but they, not the taxpayers, must pay for that choice.

In addition, there are very few private school options in Tooele County. If we choose to spend our tax dollars to send students to private schools, the bulk of the money will be spent along the Wasatch front, not in our county.

More than 95 percent of Utah’s school children attend public schools. We already have a state-funded education system for all students.

I was elected to be a steward of your tax dollars and to use them wisely. I take that job seriously. I will be voting against Referendum 1. I can’t tell you how to vote, but I strongly encourage you to cast your vote so your voice will be heard.

  

Utah School Vouchers- D. Sirmize's Take

Filed under:D. Sirmize, Guest, Opinion, Politics, Web Log (Blog) — posted by D. Sirmize on September 17, 2007 @ 11:07 pm    

Since Tyler’s August 26 post on school vouchers in Utah, several people have asked me to weigh in with my $.02 on the issue. Normally I’m more of a national and international politics kind of guy. But I have kids in public school now, so I should probably start paying better attention to local politics- especially when it could mean big changes for my kids’ schools. So I’ll change the channel for a moment from Headline News to KSL and set the Wall Street Journal aside and pick up (forcing back the dry heaves) the Salt Lake Tribune.

A little context first- just so you know where I’m coming from. Regular readers of this blog may have noticed that I lean a little bit to the Right, politically speaking. Ok, anatomically speaking as well (my right leg is slightly longer than my left, which means I go through pairs of shoes as quick the government goes through my tax dollars). Being conservative, I have an intrinsic distrust of and disdain for government programs of any kind. This is because democratic government, by definition, is inefficient and ineffective. Believe it or not, that’s a good thing. The only efficient and effective governments are dictatorships. Unfortunately, this results in government programs- take welfare for example- that are bloated and misguided.

Government programs also tend to be run by bureaucracies fatally afflicted with Leftist groupthink. Modern American Liberalism (or neo-Marxism) bleeds into most government programs on both federal and state levels. This includes public education. The highest levels of Utah’s public education system are populated and run by social liberals. The school system is heavily influenced by teachers’ unions, which make up a sizable chunk of the Democratic Party. I am employed in a position that has me dealing with a smorgasboard of public education officials, school principals, and teachers intimately on a daily basis. Were I not writing under a pseudonym on this blog, my business relationships would be tense and strained.

The most troubling aspect the whole voucher debate for me is that I’ve met precious few people who actually possesses a clear understanding of the issue. People who lean Right tend to favor vouchers because they see public education as generally lacking and a voucher system theoretically gives the public a greater say in education. Left leaners tend to oppose vouchers because theoretically it amounts to government subsidizing of private enterprise and threatens the established system. Unfortunately, once a theory fits a person’s political framework, that’s usually where the thinking stops.

The heart of the problem is a combination of cultural misunderstanding and dubious politics.

Voucher proponents tend to look at the issue through the prism of business. In the private sector, a competitive atmosphere nets a better product. If something isn’t working, it goes under. It’s scrapped. It gives way to something better. The business world is fluid and ever evolving. Change is the only norm.

The exact opposite is true of government. Bureaucracies are innately resistant to change, and even the smallest financial and policy changes literally require an act of Congress. Because the overall structure and purpose of government is so different from the private sector, the concept of competition doesn’t apply the same way. Voucher opponents tend to approach the issue from a government standpoint.

Since private sector enterprise and public administration overlap in the arena of education, the framework for the debate is flawed. We’re comparing apples to oranges in order to describe grapes. Neither side can understand the other- and neither seems to want to.

Misunderstanding leads to heated debate. And just as a basketball team may resort to throwing elbows and flagrant fouls in a down-to-the-wire fourth quarter, both sides of this political battle have resorted to nasty tactics.

No, I don’t think Utah’s schools are as great as many, including Tyler, think they are. But it doesn’t help the pro-voucher cause that it’s primary media proponents are resorting to religious intimidation and out of state funding from phantom interest groups.

Conversely, Utah’s school system certainly isn’t as bad as many voucher proponents think it is, but it doesn’t help that much of the push to kill the voucher program comes from the decidedly liberal National Education Association, out of state unions, and other liberal activist groups.

The caricatured activists on the front lines of this debate further solidify the unresearched opinions most voters have on this issue. Further aggravating the fight is the issue of precedent. Utah is now the battleground for national education debate. Hence the pervasive involvement of out of state interests. Everybody- not just Utahns- seems to have a dog in this fight.

So where do I stand? I think Utah schools are generally well run. They’re well organized and run by good people with a passion for education. I admire most everybody I deal with in the education establishment. When I send my child to the bus stop every day, I know he is in good hands.

My beef with public education lies only in the politics. I despise the fact that public education is so deeply influenced by Marxist ideology. I was outraged when several Utah school districts refused to mention 9/11 on its six year anniversary. I was very frustrated that my elementary student’s class last year had 32 students in it and total chaos was only avoided when several parents per day volunteered in the classroom. Most of my child’s papers came home having been graded by me or some other parent. I hate that Utopian concepts of multiculturalism and diversity are given higher priority than accountability and individualized instruction.

That said, a voucher system- at this time and in this form- is not the answer. I predict that the referendum will fail (because referendums in Utah have historically failed- even hotly-debated ones) and that the passed voucher legislation will be implemented. But it will be ineffective and inequitable, for the very reasons Tyler mentioned in his post. There is no need to rehash the points he’s articulated.

But let’s consider a heretofore unexplored aspect of the issue. The voucher system will not only hurt public education, it will also be the long term downfall for private schools. Many studies suggest that taxpayer-funded voucher systems will likely increase the cost of private education. One must also consider that no money has ever come from government without strings attached. Many private schools worry that vouchers will effectively turn private schools into de facto public schools, essentially stripping them of the things that made people want to send their kids there in the first place. Private schools will become dependent on public money and will eventually subject to government regulation. That prestigious Catholic private school might someday lose it’s religion.

I’m not sure there’s any way now to clarify the argument this late in the game. It’s unfortunate that the issue is so politically charged. The spin from both sides has clouded the facts, and honest dialogue has given way to malicious rhetoric. It’s sad that neither side is willing to appeal to the other by simply laying out the facts, divorced from politics and ulterior motives.

Brace yourselves, my friends, we’re in the fourth quarter. It’s going to get even more interesting.

  

My Opinion on Vouchers - Referendum 1

Filed under:Opinion, PTA, Politics, Religion — posted by Tyler on August 26, 2007 @ 11:12 pm    

Utahns for Public SchoolsI’ve been meaning to write about my feelings on private school vouchers for quite some time now. This is a hot topic in Utah right now. I don’t want to bother with the history, although the history of the topic plays into the issue quite a bit so if you’d like to educate yourself on the topic, this blog [http://accountabilityfirst.blogspot.com] is a good place to read up on it starting with this post and then read on from there.

My point is to clear up some of the misconceptions that people may have about vouchers. Some misconceptions come from what seem like very reasonable commercials that I originally thought were funded by an organization called “Parents for Choice in Education” or PCE for short. But while researching the commercials for this post I found out that they were produced by Crowell Advertising for a client who wants to remain anonymous.[source: Salt Lake Tribune]

The commercials (I’ve only heard radio spots so far but you’ll no doubt see TV spots as November comes closer) take a single talking point, competition for example, and speak to it in terms of why it will be a good thing to help the students of Utah. I only remember two of the commercials specifically so those are the ones I will speak to, but I hear there were four; now probably just three because one of the spots was pulled, which I was glad to hear.

The first one I heard talked about how vouchers will create competition and competition is a good thing for business, right? Anyone hearing these commercials would naturally agree on the point that competition is good for business so you pretty much get trapped into agreeing with the commercial. Pretty clever. In reality, competition when it comes to public schools in Utah wouldn’t really make them better. They’re already great! Perfect? Of course not…there is always room for improvement. But improvement for our public schools comes not from pumping public money into private schools. How exactly is that going to make our public schools better? One of the biggest complaints I have about our public schools is that our teachers don’t get paid enough for how important their job is. The way this commercial portrays competition just doesn’t apply when it comes to public schools vs. private schools. The ad is misleading.

As I talk to people about vouchers competition is one of the points they bring up the most. Their argument is valid until they start looking at the big picture and realize that it just doesn’t apply in this case. It’s like talking to people about how rain is so good for plants, something we can all agree on, and then trying to apply the argument to pavement. No, I’m not trying to liken public schools unto pavement, but you get the idea. Maybe I’ll come up with a better analogy later.

The other commercial that I remember was one that I was surprised by. It was the one that quoted 3 Nephi 6:12 [lds.org] from the Book of Mormon. I couldn’t believe anyone could get away with that, and apparently they couldn’t because this is the one that they stopped playing. It didn’t seem right for them to use holy scripture for political purposes; something that the LDS church does not condone or allow. Some may have been tricked into thinking that vouchers were the popular opinion among those that believe in or read the Book of Mormon. And why not tailor your propaganda to a large majority of the State of Utah? Another clever and logical, but very sneaky ploy.

The last misconception that I’ll speak to tonight is concerning Charter Schools. It may be news to many of you that Charter Schools are not Private Schools! Yes, that’s right. Charter Schools are in fact Public Schools! So if you thought that parents could apply for a voucher to get their children into the latest Charter School that just opened up down the street, it’s not going to fly. This is a misconception that many people have and if they realized that 96% of Utah children attend public schools they may look at the issue a little different.

I know this is a very controversial subject and I should have left this one up to guest blogger D. Sirmize who has the luxury of posting anonymously on this blog. I don’t have that luxury but I’m the one with the strong opinion on this topic. D. Sirmize is still surmising, but we’ve talked at length on the subject and I welcome his comments.

Certainly my strong involvement in the PTA influences my opinion, but not everyone in the PTA agrees on this issue either, but it is the official stance of PTA that vouchers are not good for ALL of the children of Utah. And how can it be when there isn’t even a private school in all of the counties of Utah?

To set the record straight, I am not against private schools. They’re just not held accountable to the standards of the Utah State Office of Education so in this issue I have to believe that they shouldn’t be getting public tax money since it’s not up to the public as to what is taught. Private schools, especially in the area of Special Education, serve a wonderful role to our children and make a remarkable difference, but that doesn’t mean they deserve our tax dollars in the form of vouchers.

I’m glad the people have the opportunity to decide this issue in November and I hope you’ll join me in voting NO on Referendum 1.

Other informative reading on the subject:

National Education Association
Jeremy’s Jerimiad
The Wall of Separation
Utahns for Public Schools
Singing Bravely

  

previous page · next page


Blog contents copyright © 2008 Tyler Slack