The membership of the PTA are strong supporters of parent involvement, as much as any organization out there if not the most!  We’re also strong proponents of local control.  We also believe in working with our legislators so that the laws that are passed are in the best interest of all children.  It was with great effort that members of the Utah PTA Board met with Senator Bramble to work out a compromise.  Based on the compromise (which took out the anti-PTA language) the voting members cast their vote to support the substitute bill.  The very next day Senator Bramble paraded the PTA leadership on the Senate floor and praised them for their efforts to come to a compromise.

A week went by and we met again as we do on a weekly basis during the Legislative session.  We review the positions we have taken on various bills where the children of Utah are at stake and we discussed SB 199 again.  During the time between the compromise and the next meeting we began to understand some unintended consequences of the bill, even in its new form that we had previously agreed upon.  There was much debate as we discussed the ramifications of changing positions on a bill that we had previously taken a position on.  There were several consequences to consider, including 1) we had worked with legislators and come to an agreement.  2) Legislators were working on “good faith” assumptions. and 3) there were many political reasons why we shouldn’t change our position, despite the unintended consequences of the bill.  But when it came down to it, the voting members of LAC stood up for what was right, regardless of the consequences that might follow. Understanding that if the bill passed and became law, it would be bad law even with good intention (and I have some reservations about the original intent of the bill, especially since it contained “kill-the-PTA” language) because of the position it would put district superintendents and school principals in.  To fully understand the unintended consequences please read the talking points written by Holly Langton, Alison Walker, Sue Carey and other dedicated PTA Officers and Commissioners.

The original bill, SB 199, was opposed by Utah PTA.  PTA members mounted a great lobbying effort to have changes made to the bill.  The result of that effort was 1st Substitute SB 199.  There were still some concerns with portions of the bill, but Utah PTA was supportive of the fact that parental involvement is essential in every child’s education to support student success.  Therefore, Utah PTA took a position of support on the substitute bill.  Since that vote, additional input and information has been received from our attorneys and PTA members, and we have become convinced that 1st Sub SB 199 will not accomplish the goal of increasing parental involvement in our schools and may even have the potential to decrease involvement.

On March 4, Utah PTA’s Legislative Action Committee voted to change the position to on 1st Sub SB 199 to “Support the Concept.”  We appreciate Senator Bramble’s efforts to increase parental involvement in the schools, and we thank him for including Utah PTA in his efforts.  Utah PTA reaffirms its intention of working with all public school groups in an effort to serve the best interests of all children and youth.   However, the overarching concern is that much of the language in the bill takes away the authority of the “School.”  The administrator needs to make decisions based on the best interest of the school and its students.  The language of this bill puts administrators between “a rock and a hard place,”  forced into the position of deciding what is in the best interest of the parent groups, rather than keeping the focus on the students (lines 44-46).  For example, if a school permits a parent group to sponsor an assembly on a specific issue, then the school must allow other parent groups to sponsor an assembly on the issue.  If the administrator feels that one assembly on that topic is all that is necessary or can be justified in taking up class time, then the only recourse for the administrator is to not allow any parent group to sponsor the assembly.  If this becomes a recurring situation for an administrator, it could seriously hamper parental involvement or activities sponsored by parent groups in a school.

Concerns with the bill language:

What is required to be a “legally organized parent or parent/teacher group, association or organization” (lines 29-30)?

What are “patrons of the school” (line 31)?

Why are employees and officers of the entities included in the definition of the “School” (line 35)? Does this language preclude them from joining a group, because they would be seen as endorsing, supporting, sanctioning, or giving approval to one group over another (lines 53-54)?  Can a teacher be assigned to assist only one group and not be seen as endorsing?  Many employees who are parents of children in the school where they work might not be allowed to join one parent group without joining them all.

Individual employees, especially in secondary schools, may have a vested interest in a specific parent group.  For example, the band teacher would want to be involved with the band booster group but not necessarily the basketball parent group.  Would they be required to join all those parent groups in order to support the band group and not favor one over the other (lines 35 and 53-54)?

Would schools now be responsible to ensure that parent groups complete their annual IRS filings and have written fiscal management procedures, conflict of interest policies, and record-retention policies (lines 55-59)?  A school cannot be responsible for all the “applicable laws, rules, regulations, and policies” with which a parent group should comply.  This would take time and energy away from the students.

I couldn’t explain all the complexities of the unintended consequences any better than that.  Unfortunately there are other consequences that we’ll now have to deal with, but they won’t affect the children of Utah nearly as much as this bad law would.  I’m proud to be a member of an organization that will stand up for the children and stay true to their word, first and foremost, that they act in the best interest of all children.  What a noble and great act!  I would be ashamed if they took any other action.  They did the right thing!  No matter how mad Senator Bramble and Representative Lockhart are about the change in course, no matter how badly radio and newspapers spin it, the Utah PTA can be proud that they did the right thing.  Read their mission statement and ask yourself how they could possibly do anything different:

The Mission of the PTA is three-fold:

• To support and speak on behalf of children and youth in the schools, in the community, and before governmental bodies and other organizations that make decisions affecting children;
• To assist parents in developing the skills they need to raise and protect their children; and
• To encourage parent and public involvement in the public schools of this nation.

I rest my case…but you haven’t heard the last of me yet!Similar Posts:

• PTA Parents Know Best – New Referendum 1 Ad  October 23, 2007
• Partisan State School Board discussed at Education Interim Committee meeting.  November 24, 2007
• My Opinion on Vouchers – Referendum 1  August 26, 2007
• Utah School Vouchers- D. Sirmize's Take  September 17, 2007
• Responsible decisions being made in Tooele  January 28, 2009

One comment Heather made during the interview that didn’t go live was about her trust in the board members that we elected to make decisions on our behalf.  I would like to echo that sentiment and thank the Tooele County School Board and Administration for making some really tough decisions about the future of our children.  I have no doubt that they deliberated hard and long and thought about the impact that their judgment would have on our children.   I hope that despite tough times, public school funding will continue as more difficult decisions are made in the 2009 Legislative session.

While it may be prudent to tighten the proverbial belt in uncertain times, it would be irresponsible if we didn’t continue to make education a priority.  It’s the same type of decision that we all make in our own families when the budget is tight.   A responsible family doesn’t spend a lot of money on vacations if they’re not going to have enough money to pay their bills.  If that still doesn’t cut it, a responsible family cancels their cable TV and they figure out other ways they can save money, even when it means  a little discomfort on the part of the parents.  The very last person to suffer (if at all) is the child.

Parents sacrifice a lot to make sure their children are happy, and it shouldn’t be too much different when it comes to our schools.  We all want the best for our children and  Tooele County School District is making the same types of decisions that fall right in line with the decisions a  responsible family would be making.  Of course, with tough decisions comes some tough criticism.  As long as it is constructive and not hostile, I’m sure the Board would love to hear from you.  They meet again on February 3 at 6:30 p.m. at the District Office.

Video Courtesy of KSL.com
(Begins with a short commercial)Similar Posts:

• Tooele County School Board Says Farewell to Superintendent  May 20, 2008
• Blogging about Education Issues Not Popular?  May 3, 2008
• Tooele Six Flags Rumors Squelched, But We Still Have MMP!  June 11, 2006
• PTA Stands Up For Children, Regardless of Consequences  March 6, 2009
• PTA Parents Know Best – New Referendum 1 Ad  October 23, 2007

In the meantime, I thought I’d make one observation about the conservative vs. liberal personality- at least when it comes to Internet media.

I’ll be perfectly honest- when it comes to the blogosphere, the Left all but has the market cornered. For every decent conservative blog in cyberspace, there are several hard-hitting liberal blogs. Lately I’ve filled my spare time commenting on a host of them (because let’s face it, it’s much more convenient to react to somebody’s content than create your own- plus stirring up pots in the Left wing of the blogosphere fills my soul with delight).

Liberals pride themselves on their influence and organization when it comes to the Web. I’ll hand it to them, they’ve utilized the Web very wisely in recent years. But outside the arena of ideas (where we eat their lunch every day), the huge difference between liberals and conservatives on the Web is the former’s utter inability to laugh at themselves and the latter’s irreverent sense of humor (this is also true in the world of stand-up comedy. Other than Mark Marin, I can’t think of a single liberal comedian that’s ever truly made me laugh). The fact that we can laugh at both ourselves and them is a long-term advantage.

What sparked this post was a comment Obama made the other day at a speech in Beaverton, Oregon:

“Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it.”

57 states, huh? Impressive indeed!

Now of course I give the guy a break. He’s got to be exhausted, and when all you do is talk all day you’re bound to say something dumb.

But don’t throw conservatives a softball and expect them not to hit it out of the park.

Suitably Flip has produced and is now selling the official Barack Obama 57 state lapel pin!

This pin is even funnier now that Barack has apparently started wearing a U.S. Flag lapel pin, after dismissing the practice earlier in the campaign as “a substitute for true patriotism.”

The more I learn about Barack Obama, the more I’m convinced that Hillary would make a much better president. But one thing’s for sure, conservatives in cyberspace will have just as much fun flaming him as we’ve had flaming her.Similar Posts:

• Liberal Bias in Mainstream Media  June 1, 2006
• Cindy Sheehan Dreams of Time Travelling to Murder Infant Bush  September 7, 2006
• Utah School Vouchers- D. Sirmize's Take  September 17, 2007
• Looking for “Tooele Jokes”???  May 16, 2006
• My Favorite Political Blogs  May 15, 2006

Yes, this year is an election year.  It would seem that many of the blogs have shifted gears and are talking about the candidates now, but isn’t there still room to talk about and put into action our plans to make education for children in Utah better?  Or did we all just blog about it back then because it was the latest craze?

I don’t think so!  I think that everyone that wrote about it last year can continue to write about it this year!  And they will write because they care!  And they care because they’re outstanding human beings that want to make a difference, not just hear themselves talk.

I was curious to see just how dead the subject had become so I went back to many of the blogs that I read during the voucher debate (not all of them because it took me several weeks just to get to where I am now)  to see how many of you have continued to keep education issues on your front page from time to time.  It would seem that my suspicions are correct because most blogs that wrote about vouchers in 2007 haven’t written one education-based post since last November.  The issues are still there, they’re just not being talked about in the blogosphere anymore.

Utah Educatiton Issues is a blog that, even in title, has determined to keep education on the front page.  It’s written by a teacher and recently has blogged quite a bit about candidates and parties, but continues to keep issues like class size reduction in the mix.  Many of you have participated in the comments there and if we’re serious about making education better the discussion (and more importantly the action) needs to continue.   Which brings up a possible answer to my question; perhaps we haven’t had time for blogging but we’ve been out there fighting hard to make education better.  Why don’t we take an hour and let others know what we’ve done to improve education this month?  By sharing these experiences we can inspire others to do the same.  We can continue to keep the debate alive!

I am not beyond reproach.  I could have posted my experience in participating in public comment at the State Board of Education in April, or attending a “What Counts?” meeting organized by the Tooele County School District Board and giving input as to how they can do better and what they should focus on.  I could (and should) blog more about my involvement with the PTA and our efforts to reduce class size and improve the education of all children in Utah.  Why aren’t we all doing this more?

In hopes that it will get people talking again, I’d like to call a few people out on this.  As bloggers we’re all quite aware of who is linking to us and why and I’m pretty sure that’s how you might have ended up reading this post, but that’s the idea.  Now that you’re here, defend yourself, won’t you?  Tell us all why you cared about education last year but this year you’ve fallen silent.  Express your awesome opinions once again!  Make a commitment today to keep education issues on your front page.  If you’re a political blog, talk about the candidates’ commitment to education.  Don’t permanently die and never post again when you did so much for us last year!  There are a few of you that continue to talk about education and we all thank you!

I hope 2008 will be another banner year for making a difference for our children.  We’d all give up our lives for our children if it ever came to that.  Let’s do them one better and give up our time and energy for them while they’re young and when it counts the most!  Commit today to write at least one post a month on an education related issue.  We can do this!  We have to do this!  If you don’t have a blog, participate in the comments!  We can all make a difference by working together!  I’ve overused exclamation points in this paragraph so it’s time to end!  NOW! Similar Posts:

• My Opinion on Vouchers – Referendum 1  August 26, 2007
• Partisan State School Board discussed at Education Interim Committee meeting.  November 24, 2007
• PTA Parents Know Best – New Referendum 1 Ad  October 23, 2007
• Responsible decisions being made in Tooele  January 28, 2009
• Tooele County School Board Says Farewell to Superintendent  May 20, 2008

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.Similar Posts:

• Tooele County School Board Says Farewell to Superintendent  May 20, 2008
• Blogging about Education Issues Not Popular?  May 3, 2008
• Responsible decisions being made in Tooele  January 28, 2009
• PTA Stands Up For Children, Regardless of Consequences  March 6, 2009
• My Opinion on Vouchers – Referendum 1  August 26, 2007

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
  • Private schools do not have to be accredited, and they can employ teachers without a college degree or a state license. Furthermore, voucher schools aren’t subject to any performance audit requirements, can discriminate based on religion or ability to pay and aren’t required to dismiss teachers for criminal conduct. [source: Utahns for Public Schools]
    • Supporting articles:
      • How many Mark Twains have we had?
      • Where is the accountability?
      • Teachers in New Ad Explain How Referendum 1 Fails Utah Families
• 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?
    • Supporting articles:
      • Is this realistic for Utah families?
      • Who exactly is supposed to benefit from vouchers?
      • Average tuition at Utah’s private schools is $4,520

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.

Similar Posts:

• My Opinion on Vouchers – Referendum 1  August 26, 2007
• Utah School Vouchers- D. Sirmize's Take  September 17, 2007
• Blogging about Education Issues Not Popular?  May 3, 2008
• PTA Stands Up For Children, Regardless of Consequences  March 6, 2009
• Partisan State School Board discussed at Education Interim Committee meeting.  November 24, 2007

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.Similar Posts:

• My Opinion on Vouchers – Referendum 1  August 26, 2007
• PTA Parents Know Best – New Referendum 1 Ad  October 23, 2007
• Blogging about Education Issues Not Popular?  May 3, 2008
• Partisan State School Board discussed at Education Interim Committee meeting.  November 24, 2007
• Tooele County School Board Says Farewell to Superintendent  May 20, 2008

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 BravelySimilar Posts:

• PTA Parents Know Best – New Referendum 1 Ad  October 23, 2007
• Utah School Vouchers- D. Sirmize's Take  September 17, 2007
• Blogging about Education Issues Not Popular?  May 3, 2008
• PTA Stands Up For Children, Regardless of Consequences  March 6, 2009
• Responsible decisions being made in Tooele  January 28, 2009

Do you know who Che Guevara is? Probably not. But you know what he looks like. You know, the t-shirt. The one you see at night clubs, college campuses, and leftist protests across the country. The famous posterized image was even recently spotted on the streets of Baghdad. But I’m willing to bet 300 carbon offsets that outside of Latin America, nobody knows anything about the guy gracing their $30 t-shirts. I’m not going to waste space on the guy. Google him if you care. Better yet, Wikipedia him.

The only thing that bugs me worse than political stupidity is fads. The Atkins diet, beanie babies, Survivor. They hit the pop culture scene, drive hordes to obsession, then disappear as quickly as they came. Ok, so Survivor hasn’t yet been voted off the island, but when was the last time you heard “Sorry, I can’t tonight. Survivor’s on.”

Today it’s myspace, organic food, and “going green.” Of course if I were smart and would have been the guy who invented these things, I’d be on sitting on some beach counting my stacks of green.

Today’s Che Guevara is Al Gore. Who’da thought? Some turds just don’t flush. Seven years ago I would never have believed that Al Gore would lead pop culture’s pantheon of idols. Of course Gore would be nothing if his pet cause hadn’t taken the world by storm. Al Gore has become the face of Global Warming. And he’s recruited quite a cabinet of indoctrination pros- Hollywood, national news media, academia, and education. Musicians like Pearl Jam croon about green living while distinguished climate experts like Sheryl Crow and Leonardo DiCaprio preach about conserving toilet paper and living “carbon neutral” lifestyles. Network news reporters poo-poo even the most intellectual challenges to Global Warming theory and college professors teach it as gospel. Even red state elementary schools have made “An Inconvenient Truth” a curriculum staple (never mind that the premise of this Gore flick is shaky and packed with exaggerations and stretched truths).

Global warming will go down in history as the super fad of modern times. I’m constantly amazed at how it has gripped the country. I recently attended a large educational conference whose keynote speaker was Bill Nye (the Science Guy). The subject of his speech, as stated in the conference program, was “promoting educational technology.” After a few self-serving stories about his various inventions, the lovable geek we all grew up watching on PBS launched a tirade on Global Warming (known nowadays by it’s current fad name, “climate change”). Nye told the several thousand educators present that their main goal should be to raise awareness of the dangers of global warming. He ended with the following:

“We are facing a serious business here on Earth; we are facing a very serious future unless we get on it,” he warned. “This is where we, as educators, must change the world.”

I think I was the only one that didn’t give him a standing ovation. So much for educational technology. Can I get a refund?

Come on, you say. Climate change isn’t a fad. It’s science. Al Gore says so. Well there’s plenty about this “science” that doesn’t sit right with me, which I’ll discuss in subsequent posts. Even if the science is sound and humans are indeed affecting global climate, today’s climate change chic is still a fad. And like all other fads, most of the people wearing the t-shirts don’t have a clue what’s behind the graphic. And also like all other fads, it will be gone once the hype dries up.

Now I consider myself an environmentalist. I love nature and I contribute annually to several conservation organizations. I drive a fuel efficient vehicle, recycle, and actively oppose unwise land development in my county. I believe humans should be good and wise stewards of the earth. Climate change I can believe, but I’m not so quick to believe the change is caused by humans. But even if any of the hype pans out, there are a few things about the hysteria that bug the hell out of me:

1. Al Gore. Ok, you must realize by now that I think Al Gore is a lying, hypocritical, steaming pile. I couldn’t stand him during the Clinton years and I can’t stand him now. The man has no credibility and I’ve never understood his appeal. The best way to convince me of something’s falsity is to have Al Gore promote it.

2. Celebrity activists. First of all, to think your average celebrity has any sense of reality is ridiculous. How much in common with the everyday Joe do actors and musicians have? And they’re telling me how to live my life? Shut up and sing.

3. Carbon offsets. Nothing like buying off guilt.

4. Indoctrination. Despite what Al Gore and Bill Nye say, global warming science is not set in stone. There is a difference between scientific hypothesis and scientific law. I’m no scientist but I’ve read enough to know that there are many, many climate experts who seriously doubt the theory of human-caused global warming. But you’ll never hear them on the news and your kids will never read their side of the story in school. On the other hand, Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” is required viewing in many American schools. It is widely shown in elementary schools. Some students have reported seeing the movie several times in several classes. I do not pay thousands of dollars in taxes for the government to ram these things down my kids’ throat.

5. Purging dissidents. Scientists who have doubts about Global Warming theory face a modern-day witch hunt. Just ask Oregon state climatologist George Taylor, who faces possible removal by Governor Ted Kulongoski because his views aren’t in line with “the consensus.” John Christie, Alabama state climatologist, told Cybercast News Service “It seems if scientists don’t express the views of the political establishment, they will be threatened and that is a discomforting thought.” Read the New York Times or watch a network newscast. Anybody skeptical of man-made global warming is painted as a marginal hack funded by Big Oil, while the fact that global warming alarmists are openly paid by environmentalist groups and far-left foundations goes unscrutinized. I’m no expert on Democracy, but since when was silencing critics a democratic value?

Global warming alarmists may be able to indoctrinate a sizable portion of our kids, but as long as they promote their agenda by fad, they’ll never reach adults with half a brain. I anxiously await the day when celebrities and scientists alike will lament the fact that they tarnished their names with the global warming fad- like an old lady regrets getting that huge tatoo on her back in her younger, more ignorant days. Environmental problems can only be tackled with true open debate, exhaustive peer review, and politics-free analysis.

Thanks to Glenn Beck for the awesome Al Gorevara graphic! Somebody should put that on a t-shirt…
Similar Posts:

• Al Gore and the Profitable Politics of Global Warming  March 15, 2007
• Utah School Vouchers- D. Sirmize's Take  September 17, 2007
• My Opinion on Vouchers – Referendum 1  August 26, 2007
• Liberal Bias in Mainstream Media  June 1, 2006
• Introducing D. Sirmize – Permanent Guest  May 10, 2006

My Pal Rocky’s at it again, bravely leading the charge to impeach President Bush, and Tyler and I were there to snap some pictures. The crowd was notably smaller than at Rocky’s last protest and it seemed not quite as peppy as last year’s party. But it was amusing nonetheless. We recognized the troubled youth bucket brigade from last time, but no sign of the paper mache Bush. There was a nice flag-draped homemade coffin that really impressed. And what would a good left-wing protest be without an abundance of Mercedes Benz peace signs? Enjoy.

al Quaida?

Not to mention the many mixed messages that were shared through various conflicting or misspelled signs; some beautifully decorated (such as another Mercedes Benz peace sign), others a mere scribbling.

I’ve said before that I think protests are just plain stupid. I wonder what a protest rally would be like, sans the press. It seems the only people there are the speakers, the sign-holders, and people like Tyler and I who are simply there for the entertainment value. Then there are the press, who seem to flock to the City-County Building like paparazzi every time Rocky passes gas. Today’s rally will be followed up with a silent candlelight march this evening. Won’t that be special!

UPDATE:  Couldn’t resist popping over for the candlelight march.  There were maybe 50 people in all marching from the Federal Building to City Creek Park.  A lot less yelling, but more colorful protestors.  I snapped a few shots with my phone.

See also: Death to Israel Rally in Salt Lake City, Let’s Talk Some Smack, Shall We?Similar Posts:

• “Death To Israel” Rally in Salt Lake City  August 30, 2006
• Responses to Protester Responses: Let's Talk Some Smack, Shall We?  September 5, 2006
• The Verdict is in: Protesting is Just Plain Dumb  August 31, 2006
• U2 Live Webcast Was Awesome!  October 26, 2009
• Utah's Brett Banford Representin' on “So You Think You Can Dance”  May 28, 2008