Not content with attacking Utah's public school teachers, voucher supporters now are turning their sights on Utah's parents!
Paul Rolly reported in today's Salt Lake City Tribune that:
"After receiving a number of complaints, the Utah Lieutenant Governor's Office says it is investigating whether the state PTA should register as a Political Issues Committee (PIC) because it apparently is spending money to defeat the voucher law in the November referendum. We're not sure whether the complainants are the same folks who refuse to reveal who is spending money for pro-voucher radio ads."
(BTW: Did that issue with the anonymous client of Crowell Advertising who paid for those radio ads ever get resolved? If so, I didn't see it, so please let me know.)
Parents, especially parents who belong to and lead the PTA, are the most unlikely targets for the continued intimidation tactics of the pro-voucher crowd. I'm not sure who is advising PCE and its friends, but their tactics are crude, ugly and totally unnecessary. Parents and teachers have just as much a right to speak out as say, Paul Mero at the Sutherland Institute does.
Wait! I am sure that with all the flacking that the Sutherland Institute has been doing on the pro voucher side they certainly are registered as a Political Issues Committee (PIC).
After all, the Lt. Governor's site lists this definition of a PIC:
"Political Issues Committees (Utah Code 20A-11-101)
"A Political Issue Committee is an entity, or any group of individuals or entities within or outside this state, that solicits or receives donations from any other person, group, or entity or makes disbursements to influence, or to intend to influence, directly or indirectly, any person to assist in placing a statewide ballot proposition on the ballot, assist in keeping a statewide ballot proposition off the ballot, or refrain from voting or vote for or vote against any statewide ballot proposition; or sign or refuse to sign an incorporation petition or refrain from voting, vote for, or vote against any proposed incorporation in an incorporation election."
Hasn't Sutherland made "disbursements" (i.e. spent money) to try and influence the outcome of Referendum 1? Isn't Paul Mero unabashedly pro-voucher? Haven't all of Sutherland's so-called "research" papers and news releases made private school vouchers sound better than sliced bread?
Then, surely they must be registered as a PIC!
Alas, no. No sign of the Sutherland Institute in the list of PICs. You can check the list here.
Wonder why not???
Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label teachers. Show all posts
Monday, October 8, 2007
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Vouchers create no value
Despite claims from pro-private school voucher advocates, a new study of the Milwaukee voucher program confirms what many previous studies have shown: Students who use vouchers to attend private schools do not show significant increases in academic achievement.
Nor, as the new Economic Policy Institute study reveals, do vouchers create a climate of "competition" that improves public schools.
Today's Salt Lake City Tribune story can be found here, and directly refutes Parents for Choice in Education's (PCE) claim that vouchers will create "competition" that will make Utah's public schools better.
In fact, the only thing Utah's private school voucher system will do is increase what taxpayers pay for education because they'll be called upon to fund two systems - one public and one private.
This sets up a situation where money that could be used for our PUBLIC schools will be diverted to unaccountable private voucher schools.
As the leader of the teachers' association in Milwaukee stated:
"The only competition that we've really seen between public schools and voucher schools in Milwaukee has been competition for resources," said Dennis Oulahan, Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association president. "Public schools lost big time."
About the only thing pro-private school voucher folks can say about this and other studies is: Vouchers don't seem to "hurt" public schools.
Well, yes they do! Vouchers for private schools drain precious resources away from public schools - resources that could be used for textbooks, supplies, teacher aides, and teacher training.
This research isn't the only report verifying that students achieve as well in public schools as they do in private ones. The pro-voucher U.S. Department of Education quietly released a study last summer that came to the same conclusion after examining student performance over time. You can download and read the entire study here (pdf format).
So if Utah's proposed private school vouchers won't help students achieve more but will drain resources from public schools and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, why have private school vouchers at all??
Nor, as the new Economic Policy Institute study reveals, do vouchers create a climate of "competition" that improves public schools.
Today's Salt Lake City Tribune story can be found here, and directly refutes Parents for Choice in Education's (PCE) claim that vouchers will create "competition" that will make Utah's public schools better.
In fact, the only thing Utah's private school voucher system will do is increase what taxpayers pay for education because they'll be called upon to fund two systems - one public and one private.
This sets up a situation where money that could be used for our PUBLIC schools will be diverted to unaccountable private voucher schools.
As the leader of the teachers' association in Milwaukee stated:
"The only competition that we've really seen between public schools and voucher schools in Milwaukee has been competition for resources," said Dennis Oulahan, Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association president. "Public schools lost big time."
About the only thing pro-private school voucher folks can say about this and other studies is: Vouchers don't seem to "hurt" public schools.
Well, yes they do! Vouchers for private schools drain precious resources away from public schools - resources that could be used for textbooks, supplies, teacher aides, and teacher training.
This research isn't the only report verifying that students achieve as well in public schools as they do in private ones. The pro-voucher U.S. Department of Education quietly released a study last summer that came to the same conclusion after examining student performance over time. You can download and read the entire study here (pdf format).
So if Utah's proposed private school vouchers won't help students achieve more but will drain resources from public schools and cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars, why have private school vouchers at all??
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Sutherland's new math
Of course we all know the Sutherland Institute is a purveyor of "information" for Utah citizens and taxpayers.
It describes itself in news releases as:
"The Sutherland Institute is a conservative public policy think tank committed to shaping Utah law and policy based on a core set of governing principles. The Institute strives to make Utah an example of good government for the rest of the nation and a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Sutherland’s role in Utah’s current voucher debate is educational. "
EDUCATIONAL?
PUH-LEEZE, spare me. Sutherland's so-called contribution to the voucher debate is anything but educational. The IRS ought to be looking at the groups 501(c)3 status!
All of the "Institute's" so-called "research" is pro-voucher. Completely pro-voucher. I'd lay odds they are spending beyond their limit on advocacy under IRS regulations.
Today the good folks (and I do not disparage their motives, as we are all good people of good motives) at Sutherland claimed that the average tuition at Utah's private schools is a "mere" $4,530 annually.
Of course, this is AFTER they "threw out" the schools that charged a lot. Like the one they found that charged $52,500 a year.
You can check out their latest release here.
I am pretty sure this is an attempt to counter the Utahns for Public Schools information, and Utah State's survey that demonstrated the average annual tuition is around $8,000. At least they have an independent source for their information and they document it all, too. You can check their website.
But this "new math" from Sutherland has my head spinning.
Sutherland's so-called claims about numbers tell me one thing for sure: this private school voucher law is too flawed. Not only that, but if legislators really have a lot of extra money hanging around, it should go to Glen!
It describes itself in news releases as:
"The Sutherland Institute is a conservative public policy think tank committed to shaping Utah law and policy based on a core set of governing principles. The Institute strives to make Utah an example of good government for the rest of the nation and a great place to live, work, and raise a family. Sutherland’s role in Utah’s current voucher debate is educational. "
EDUCATIONAL?
PUH-LEEZE, spare me. Sutherland's so-called contribution to the voucher debate is anything but educational. The IRS ought to be looking at the groups 501(c)3 status!
All of the "Institute's" so-called "research" is pro-voucher. Completely pro-voucher. I'd lay odds they are spending beyond their limit on advocacy under IRS regulations.
Today the good folks (and I do not disparage their motives, as we are all good people of good motives) at Sutherland claimed that the average tuition at Utah's private schools is a "mere" $4,530 annually.
Of course, this is AFTER they "threw out" the schools that charged a lot. Like the one they found that charged $52,500 a year.
You can check out their latest release here.
I am pretty sure this is an attempt to counter the Utahns for Public Schools information, and Utah State's survey that demonstrated the average annual tuition is around $8,000. At least they have an independent source for their information and they document it all, too. You can check their website.
But this "new math" from Sutherland has my head spinning.
Sutherland's so-called claims about numbers tell me one thing for sure: this private school voucher law is too flawed. Not only that, but if legislators really have a lot of extra money hanging around, it should go to Glen!
Teachers with small dollars vs the millionaires
Yes, let's talk about who funds either side of the current education voucher ballot issue in Utah.
The pro-voucher group(s) don't want to talk about who is funding it(them). That's why Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) received the lion's share of its contributions from two artificially-created entities, the PCE "Foundation" and PCE, INC. (a corporation). Two-thirds of PCE's funding - as last reported - came from these two entities.
See, under Utah's laws, neither a foundation nor a corporation has to report its donors. So, ANONYMOUS people (or an ANONYMOUS person) is funding Utah's pro-voucher movement. You can read more about it here.
But while they hide behind a veil of secrecy as to their donors,they attack public school teachers and the teachers' organization for financially supporting the anti-voucher side.
Why attack public school teachers? My Mom? My Mom's friends? Mrs. Rainman, my favorite 6th grade teacher? Why are they being assaulted?
Maybe because the pro-voucher groups don't want you to know who's funding them. It's a big secret. But I know who is funding the anti-voucher side: Mom and her friends.
So, let's look at who has funded the pro-voucher side before.
I looked back at the 2000 elections in California and Michigan. Both of those states had private school vouchers on the ballot. Guess what? It was millionaires who funded the pro-private school voucher side.
In case you want to check it out, check out this news article. In California, Tim Draper put $24 MILLION of his own money into the pro-voucher campaign, and in Michigan it was Dick DeVos, the Amway heir, who put in at least $5 million.
In fact, in Michigan, the PRO-voucher side spent TWICE what the public school supporters spent, as reported here.
So, come on, a few dollars each from teachers in Utah and throughout the country and you want to complain that TEACHERS are spending too much? Among the teaching ranks there aren't a lot of millionaires who can single-handedly fund a campaign.
But I sure am interested to know what millionaire is hiding behind the skirts of the PCE "Foundation" and PCE, Inc.
The pro-voucher group(s) don't want to talk about who is funding it(them). That's why Parents for Choice in Education (PCE) received the lion's share of its contributions from two artificially-created entities, the PCE "Foundation" and PCE, INC. (a corporation). Two-thirds of PCE's funding - as last reported - came from these two entities.
See, under Utah's laws, neither a foundation nor a corporation has to report its donors. So, ANONYMOUS people (or an ANONYMOUS person) is funding Utah's pro-voucher movement. You can read more about it here.
But while they hide behind a veil of secrecy as to their donors,they attack public school teachers and the teachers' organization for financially supporting the anti-voucher side.
Why attack public school teachers? My Mom? My Mom's friends? Mrs. Rainman, my favorite 6th grade teacher? Why are they being assaulted?
Maybe because the pro-voucher groups don't want you to know who's funding them. It's a big secret. But I know who is funding the anti-voucher side: Mom and her friends.
So, let's look at who has funded the pro-voucher side before.
I looked back at the 2000 elections in California and Michigan. Both of those states had private school vouchers on the ballot. Guess what? It was millionaires who funded the pro-private school voucher side.
In case you want to check it out, check out this news article. In California, Tim Draper put $24 MILLION of his own money into the pro-voucher campaign, and in Michigan it was Dick DeVos, the Amway heir, who put in at least $5 million.
In fact, in Michigan, the PRO-voucher side spent TWICE what the public school supporters spent, as reported here.
So, come on, a few dollars each from teachers in Utah and throughout the country and you want to complain that TEACHERS are spending too much? Among the teaching ranks there aren't a lot of millionaires who can single-handedly fund a campaign.
But I sure am interested to know what millionaire is hiding behind the skirts of the PCE "Foundation" and PCE, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)