This is an archived article that was published on sltrib.com in 2007, and information in the article may be outdated. It is provided only for personal research purposes and may not be reprinted.
With Utah's school voucher referendum election less than four months away, the language for voter information pamphlets was set Friday, the deadline for supporters and opponents to submit rebuttals to pro and con arguments filed last month.
Each side got 250 words to respond to the 500-word arguments for and against Utah's Parent Choice in Education Act, which awards private school tuition assistance to most Utah families. All low-income students qualify, as do public school families of any income.
The legislation made it through the House by a single vote and voucher opponents immediately challenged it. They mounted a successful referendum petition drive and collected more than 124,000 signatures to let the public vote vouchers up or down.
Utah code requires leaders of the House and Senate to choose legislators on each side of the vote to write the pro and con arguments for voter information pamphlets.
Rep. Steve Urquhart, R-St. George, and Senate Majority Leader Curt Bramble - the House and Senate sponsors of the bill - wrote the pro-voucher argument. Rep. Kory Holdaway, R-Taylorsville, a special-education teacher, and Sen. Jon Greiner, Ogden City police chief, authored the case against vouchers.
The Office of Legislative Research has until Aug. 20 to submit an impartial analysis of the voucher program for the pamphlets, which will be put in newspapers and mailers across the state sometime between Sept. 27 and Oct. 22.
for vouchers:
* Reasonable Choices Are Available
Utah already offers many good choices through "open enrollment" and charter schools. Taxpayers can't fund every choice.
* Proposed Voucher Laws are Inadequate
Even with last-minute legislative "patch work," voucher laws authorize schools with too little oversight, no real coursework or attendance requirements, lax standards for teachers and minimal accountability to taxpayers. Risk of inadequate and unstable schools is high.
* Whom Would Vouchers Help?
Probably not the disadvantaged. Even with vouchers, parents with a modest income couldn't afford to send their children to good private schools.
* Is There "Additional Money" For Public Schools?
No. For five years, transferring students would be double funded by taxpayers - in the private schools and the public schools they left behind. Thereafter, public school funding would be cut to reflect lost enrollment.
* Would Vouchers Prevent Tax Increases?
Unlikely. Subsidizing students now privately funded creates a projected deficit of almost a half billion dollars. These dollars would come from other worthy projects like health care, public safety and roads. If we have extra taxpayer money, it would be better spent reducing class sizes and improving Utah's public schools.
* "Bureaucrats and Liberals"?
Who are they? Not the 29,000 dedicated, caring and underpaid teachers in our neighborhood schools; also not Utah's commonsense conservative citizens who oppose another entitlement program. The real "bureaucrats and liberals" are the subsidy advocates and out-of-state voucher pushers looking for Utah to save their faltering national movement.
VOTE NO ON VOUCHERS
It's simple. A vote for vouchers is a vote to improve education.
If you vote "Yes,"
* school funding will improve
* children's options and opportunities will increase
* academic achievement will go up
* parents will gain a stronger voice within the system
Why is there such a fuss over 0.0025% of the education budget?
Because some people think the status quo is good enough.
Let's do better. Vote FOR Vouchers to improve education.
Sincerely,
Steve Urquhart
Utah State Representative