We are not opposed to vouchers or, as in bill HB215 it is more palatably worded, “school choice scholarships.” We are opposed to HB215. HB215 was written and presented as an aid for lower-income students in Utah schools. However, the money that is being offered is not enough to meet this goal. The bill offers $8,000 toward private school tuition or homeschooling. The average cost of private schools in Utah is $10,930 per year. If it is truly an aid for lower income families, leaving nearly $3,000 to be covered by low income families is an egregious oversight.
Additionally, there isn’t a solution for transportation for students who wish to use this scholarship money for a private school. Many private schools lack transportation outside of a small boundary, if offered at all. There aren’t many private schools in rural or low income areas in the first place. With no other way to get to school, how do we expect these families to be able to use this program? School administrations have been guided to give priority to applications from lower-income households, but covering the extra nearly $3,000 in tuition on top of managing the transportation issue is not realistic for the families that this bill was supposed to help. In addition it’s insidious to tie a teacher salary increase into a bill that is taking funding away from the schools that the teachers are serving. Teachers’ salary should not be tied to how the rest of the funding is dispersed.
Voucher systems have shown promise in the past. However, their effects appear to be modest. The Moving to Opportunity program in Baltimore showed roughly a 9% increase in school achievement (15th percentile to 24th percentile in their state). The voucher system implemented in D.C. tried to use a “hold-harmless” provision to insulate public schools against reduced funding from students moving to private and charter schools. This is an interesting solution to the issue of unintended consequences from allowing “school choice”.
The Deluca & Rosenblatt (2010) study served the lower income families in particular.
The D.C. voucher program did not require a choice between allowing school choice and maintaining public school funding. HB215 allows a small percentage of students to benefit from a private school while taking funding and hurting the much larger population of low income students who remain in public schools (particularly Title 1 schools). Additionally, HB215 fundamentally does not meet the needs of low income populations in Utah (i.e., covering the basic associated costs).
Vouchers are not inherently bad and can increase school achievement.
However, it is important to recognize the unintended consequences of how they are structured, intentionally or otherwise. We are not opposed to school vouchers for families who need it. We are opposed to “school choice scholarships.” We are opposed to HB215. We urge the state Legislature to increase the allotted amount per family.
Ashley Lake, Becky Madill, Adam Beckstead and Jessica Staley, Salt Lake City
Donate to the newsroom now. The Salt Lake Tribune, Inc. is a 501(c)(3) public charity and contributions are tax deductible