I just read an update this morning on the budget session. (I was disappointed that I was too busy to listen to the legislature's apologetic show this morning. I still have something to post about from last week though.)
The Utah State Office of Education is also part of the 2-5% cuts necessary because of declining state revenues. I think this is just and fair. I agree with Senator Valentine that the USOE is less important than the classroom elements and agree with State Board of Education President Richard Sadler and board member Richard Moss that the cuts are prudent and not a retaliation measure. I appreciate that the legislature is trying to preserve classroom elements from the cuts this year and agree that classroom money will likely have to be part of the reductions next year.
I also repeat my hope that the legislature will include their own salaries, benefits, and staff as part of the statewide cost cuts.
Showing posts with label legislature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label legislature. Show all posts
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Tuesday, June 3, 2008
Governor Huntsman openly stated that he views most of the omnibus bill as "statutory"...which is clearly prohibited by the Utah State Constitution
From the Utah State Constitution, Article VI, Section 22:
The legislative leadership's argument that the bill address only one subject, education, is laughable on face. (See my last post) And claiming that the title "Minimum School Program Budget Amendments" clearly states the subject is...is...pick an adjective here ...impossible ...absurd ...dishonest ...desperate ......wrong.
You can't come up with a title that clearly states the subject of SB2 precisely because the 12 logrolled bills aren't the same subject. Having something to do with with education is not an acceptable standard to meet an objective constitutional test. That would allow the legislature to use titles like "12 Things That Have To Do With Education" (which would at least be more honest than SB2's current title) or "A Bunch of Immigration Stuff." I'm trying to think of a common sense test we could run with a legislator to help them see beyond the blinders. Maybe we could walk the street in any city of Utah and question people on the street. We'd give them a quick overview of what "Minimum School Program" is, hand them a list of the 12 different programs/budgets/policies established by SB2, and ask them if they thought the title, Minimum School Program Budget Amendments, clearly stated each one. I bet 100% would find the assertion ridiculous.
That the process was non-transparent and dirty is unarguable, and I believe the fact that the bill's subjects and title on-face violate the simple language of the state constitution is obvious too. I don't know what the court will rule, but all should remember the legislature's attitude towards transparency, open debate, and education, regardless of whether they successfully split legal hairs or not.
Anyway, here is the text from the March 22nd Salt Lake Tribune article discussing those who were disappointed Governor Huntsman did not line-item veto portions of SB2. I have underlined Huntsman's rationale for signing the omnibus bill into law and another admission from Senator Stephenson that omnibus bills are usually financially wasteful.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8658959
Critics fail to derail omnibus school bill
SB2 was a fusion of 12 bills, some that didn't pass on their own
By Lisa Schencker
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 03/22/2008 12:58:37 AM MDT
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed a $2.5 billion education bill in its entirety Thursday despite protestations from the Utah Board of Education.
Huntsman signed a second substitute of SB2, which includes $1,700 raises for educators and a 2.5 percent increase in per-pupil spending. It also, however, includes the contents of 12 education bills that were rolled into SB2 late in the session, though several of the bills had already failed in the House.
The school board recently asked the governor to consider using line-item veto power to erase parts of SB2, especially the parts that failed in the House. Board members argued that because the bill appropriates money, Huntsman should have the power to veto parts of it.
They sent the governor a letter recently saying they were "appalled" by the process of passing the omnibus bill. The letter also suggested the process might have been unconstitutional.
Huntsman, however, signed the bill without any line-item vetoes Thursday. The governor's spokeswoman, Lisa Roskelley, said vetoing parts of the bill was not an option.
"Line-item veto only applies to appropriations items, and most of [SB2] was actually statutory," Roskelley said.
Kim Burningham, the state school board member who led the charge to send Huntsman the letter, called Huntsman's signing of the bill without any line-item vetoes "disappointing."
He said it's not fair to roll so many bills, including some that were already defeated, into one. He said that forced legislators to vote for the whole bill even if they didn't like parts of it.
The omnibus bill included the contents of several bills that failed on the House floor, including one to fund an at-home software pilot program for preschool-age children and another that asks school districts to help pay for charter school students. A third bill included in the omnibus, to pay math and science teachers more, didn't pass out of a House committee.
"We ought to be debating each item on its own merit," Burningham said. "That, to me, is the bottom line."
Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, who sponsored the bill, said it was the best way to pass many major education reforms in a coordinated way as the end of the session approached. Stephenson said, however, that he generally doesn't like the idea of passing omnibus bills, and there were several parts of it he didn't like, even though he was the sponsor.
"Overall, I felt the package was good legislation," Stephenson said. "But I would want to avoid omnibus bills in the future. I think they disallow the scalpel approach to precision budgeting."
Except general appropriation bills and bills for the codification and general revision of laws, no bill shall be passed containing more than one subject, which shall be clearly expressed in its title."Appropriation" and "codification" bills can have more than one subject. If a bill addresses more than one subject of statutory change or addition, it is not legal according to the Constitution of the State of Utah. The fact that our National Congress passes pork-laden omnibus bills all the time because our national constitution doesn't explicitly prohibit them is completely irrelevant. In fact, doesn't relying on that argument admit that SB2 is in fact an illegal statutory omnibus bill as defined by the Utah Constitution?
The legislative leadership's argument that the bill address only one subject, education, is laughable on face. (See my last post) And claiming that the title "Minimum School Program Budget Amendments" clearly states the subject is...is...pick an adjective here ...impossible ...absurd ...dishonest ...desperate ......wrong.
You can't come up with a title that clearly states the subject of SB2 precisely because the 12 logrolled bills aren't the same subject. Having something to do with with education is not an acceptable standard to meet an objective constitutional test. That would allow the legislature to use titles like "12 Things That Have To Do With Education" (which would at least be more honest than SB2's current title) or "A Bunch of Immigration Stuff." I'm trying to think of a common sense test we could run with a legislator to help them see beyond the blinders. Maybe we could walk the street in any city of Utah and question people on the street. We'd give them a quick overview of what "Minimum School Program" is, hand them a list of the 12 different programs/budgets/policies established by SB2, and ask them if they thought the title, Minimum School Program Budget Amendments, clearly stated each one. I bet 100% would find the assertion ridiculous.
That the process was non-transparent and dirty is unarguable, and I believe the fact that the bill's subjects and title on-face violate the simple language of the state constitution is obvious too. I don't know what the court will rule, but all should remember the legislature's attitude towards transparency, open debate, and education, regardless of whether they successfully split legal hairs or not.
Anyway, here is the text from the March 22nd Salt Lake Tribune article discussing those who were disappointed Governor Huntsman did not line-item veto portions of SB2. I have underlined Huntsman's rationale for signing the omnibus bill into law and another admission from Senator Stephenson that omnibus bills are usually financially wasteful.
http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_8658959
Critics fail to derail omnibus school bill
SB2 was a fusion of 12 bills, some that didn't pass on their own
By Lisa Schencker
The Salt Lake Tribune
Article Last Updated: 03/22/2008 12:58:37 AM MDT
Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr. signed a $2.5 billion education bill in its entirety Thursday despite protestations from the Utah Board of Education.
Huntsman signed a second substitute of SB2, which includes $1,700 raises for educators and a 2.5 percent increase in per-pupil spending. It also, however, includes the contents of 12 education bills that were rolled into SB2 late in the session, though several of the bills had already failed in the House.
The school board recently asked the governor to consider using line-item veto power to erase parts of SB2, especially the parts that failed in the House. Board members argued that because the bill appropriates money, Huntsman should have the power to veto parts of it.
They sent the governor a letter recently saying they were "appalled" by the process of passing the omnibus bill. The letter also suggested the process might have been unconstitutional.
Huntsman, however, signed the bill without any line-item vetoes Thursday. The governor's spokeswoman, Lisa Roskelley, said vetoing parts of the bill was not an option.
"Line-item veto only applies to appropriations items, and most of [SB2] was actually statutory," Roskelley said.
Kim Burningham, the state school board member who led the charge to send Huntsman the letter, called Huntsman's signing of the bill without any line-item vetoes "disappointing."
He said it's not fair to roll so many bills, including some that were already defeated, into one. He said that forced legislators to vote for the whole bill even if they didn't like parts of it.
The omnibus bill included the contents of several bills that failed on the House floor, including one to fund an at-home software pilot program for preschool-age children and another that asks school districts to help pay for charter school students. A third bill included in the omnibus, to pay math and science teachers more, didn't pass out of a House committee.
"We ought to be debating each item on its own merit," Burningham said. "That, to me, is the bottom line."
Sen. Howard Stephenson, R-Draper, who sponsored the bill, said it was the best way to pass many major education reforms in a coordinated way as the end of the session approached. Stephenson said, however, that he generally doesn't like the idea of passing omnibus bills, and there were several parts of it he didn't like, even though he was the sponsor.
"Overall, I felt the package was good legislation," Stephenson said. "But I would want to avoid omnibus bills in the future. I think they disallow the scalpel approach to precision budgeting."
Monday, February 18, 2008
What do Utah state legislators say to themselves before they go to bed at night? Or legislative mixed messages…
State legislators, to put it mildly, seem to be sending some mixed messages these days. I’m not asking how do they sleep at night, just what they say to themselves. I wonder, from their perspective, what does the world look like? I seriously wonder what goes on inside of their heads. How do they internally reconcile conflicting actions or input? What is truth? These are just some of the recent education-related mixed messages:
1. As I blogged about on Jan. 21, the legislative audit of the classroom size reduction money specifically said that the school districts money were spending the money correctly…but that the legislature hadn’t allocated enough to cover smaller sizes and normal population growth. The lack of reduction was purely about not enough money for too many kids; NOT mismanagement by the districts. Cameron at Magic Valley Mormon explains the findings of the audit even better here and here.
But the Senators I heard speak at a neighborhood meeting claimed the opposite. Senator Stephenson has gone further and said that it’s not the state’s job to reduce classroom size. He wants to take away the classroom size reduction money the districts now receive unless they magically reduce classroom size.
Mixed message to districts: We didn’t assign enough money to reduce classroom sizes, but we’re mad that you didn’t reduce classroom sizes. Now as punishment for not accomplishing what we didn’t assign you enough resources to do, we’re going to take the already insufficient state money away and demand you reduce class size with local money. All of this, even as Rep. Dougall runs a bill eliminating some of the local revenue streams in favor of taxes distributed by the state legislature. (Does this sound like an educational Dilbert comic to anyone else?)
2. The legislators insisted that the voucher bill was not about privatizing the public education system. In fact, vouchers were only going to strengthen public schools.
That assertion is hard to believe when Rep. Frank and Sen. Stephenson are running HB0075 and HB0076. These bills seek to create special “Privatization Commissions” at both the state (both HB0075 and 0076) and local (HB 0076) levels with business interests representing the majority of the commissions. These commissions would have authority to disallow any government service that could be provided privately (with very few exceptions), regardless if that service would be more expensive or of it even would be provided. Local governments would have to comply with large amounts of paperwork to justify their actions to the commission. (Rep. Frank has been correctly zinged for the bills’ effects and for talking out of both sides of his mouth on his blog. He passionately claims that he is ONLY going after state government, citing HB0075, while conveniently ignoring the other bill he is sponsoring, HB0076, that would specifically disallow public pools from “competing” with private pools.)
So the legislators want to privatize public pools, recreation centers, golf courses, garbage collection, etc. but they of course have no interest in privatizing education…or financial stake.
3. Senator Bramble similarly danced around the truth. I asked him at the local meeting if the legislature was going to change what I regard as already tough referendum laws to make it even harder for citizens to vote on a controversial law. (The referendum last November was the first successful state referendum in over 30 years. Not successful as in passing—it was the first state referendum to even get enough signatures to be voted on in that time.) The senator went on for several minutes about why he thought referendums were a bad thing. I thought the arguments didn’t hold a lot of water. But he finally said that they weren’t going to change the requirements, though they might for citizen initiatives. (To the best of my understanding, voter initiatives are bills/proposals/laws written by non-legislators. If a high enough percentage of voters sign a petition, the bill is put on the public ballot, thus bypassing the legislature. Voter referendums involve laws that the legislature has already passed. Afterwards, if a high enough percentage of voters sign a petition, the passed bill is put on the public ballot, thus potentially overriding the vote of the legislature. The legislators I heard speak seem to hate both. Go figure.)
Senator Bramble was misleading. They are leaving State Referendums alone, but SB0054 attempts to change both county and municipal referendums, as well as state, county, and municipal initiatives.
If it passes, the deadlines will be moved up over two months for all of those vehicles of citizen redress, making it even harder for a group to gather the necessary signatures before the arbitrary deadline. They left state referendums out because that move would attract too much attention after the successful referendum last November. Does anyone doubt that within a year or two the requirements of state referendums will also be changed to match all of the other citizen referendum and initiative laws?
4. Last, the legislature has been hit hard in the media and by bloggers this year over the influence of lobbyist gifts and campaign contributions. Speaker Curtis, State Attorney General Shurtleff, and Senator Dmitrich have all publically claimed that these perks do not corrupt or influence the legislative process. Senator Dayton told the Cherry Hills meeting that “The voters should be offended” that the media would make such a claim. Senator Bramble gave one-sided examples where supposedly lobbyist gifts helped the legislative process and childishly asked the attendees to raise their hands if they disagreed with him.
This is where I really wonder. What are they thinking? Really. They can’t see the appearance of impropriety…even if we buy their claims of perfect integrity against all financial temptation? I wish I had been saving articles last year and knew the details of the proposal last legislative session to ban teachers from accepting Christmas gifts from students. I don’t think it ever got anywhere, but can’t they see the disconnect there?
Look at this scenario: I’m a teacher. Let’s suppose that I honestly am a longtime friend of two families. All of our families have honestly spent time as legitimate friends before now. Let’s say the other two families have children of the same age and I end up with both of them in my class at the junior high. The night before an end-of-level test, the other two families just happen to treat my family to a nice dinner followed by a Jazz game with luxury box seats. My family pays for none of this. The test is given the next day and both of those students just happen to get perfect scores.
It is course possible that their scores were legitimate and that these families always give me generous gifts in appreciation for my friendship. But would you believe that was the case? Can you not see how it appears? Would you blame other students and parents for being suspicious or angry if they found out about the situation? Would you perhaps propose rules regulating teacher/student relationships?
Can you see that the public and you are often viewing the issues from conflicting points of view? Is it at least possible that the public is right?
1. As I blogged about on Jan. 21, the legislative audit of the classroom size reduction money specifically said that the school districts money were spending the money correctly…but that the legislature hadn’t allocated enough to cover smaller sizes and normal population growth. The lack of reduction was purely about not enough money for too many kids; NOT mismanagement by the districts. Cameron at Magic Valley Mormon explains the findings of the audit even better here and here.
But the Senators I heard speak at a neighborhood meeting claimed the opposite. Senator Stephenson has gone further and said that it’s not the state’s job to reduce classroom size. He wants to take away the classroom size reduction money the districts now receive unless they magically reduce classroom size.
Mixed message to districts: We didn’t assign enough money to reduce classroom sizes, but we’re mad that you didn’t reduce classroom sizes. Now as punishment for not accomplishing what we didn’t assign you enough resources to do, we’re going to take the already insufficient state money away and demand you reduce class size with local money. All of this, even as Rep. Dougall runs a bill eliminating some of the local revenue streams in favor of taxes distributed by the state legislature. (Does this sound like an educational Dilbert comic to anyone else?)
2. The legislators insisted that the voucher bill was not about privatizing the public education system. In fact, vouchers were only going to strengthen public schools.
That assertion is hard to believe when Rep. Frank and Sen. Stephenson are running HB0075 and HB0076. These bills seek to create special “Privatization Commissions” at both the state (both HB0075 and 0076) and local (HB 0076) levels with business interests representing the majority of the commissions. These commissions would have authority to disallow any government service that could be provided privately (with very few exceptions), regardless if that service would be more expensive or of it even would be provided. Local governments would have to comply with large amounts of paperwork to justify their actions to the commission. (Rep. Frank has been correctly zinged for the bills’ effects and for talking out of both sides of his mouth on his blog. He passionately claims that he is ONLY going after state government, citing HB0075, while conveniently ignoring the other bill he is sponsoring, HB0076, that would specifically disallow public pools from “competing” with private pools.)
So the legislators want to privatize public pools, recreation centers, golf courses, garbage collection, etc. but they of course have no interest in privatizing education…or financial stake.
3. Senator Bramble similarly danced around the truth. I asked him at the local meeting if the legislature was going to change what I regard as already tough referendum laws to make it even harder for citizens to vote on a controversial law. (The referendum last November was the first successful state referendum in over 30 years. Not successful as in passing—it was the first state referendum to even get enough signatures to be voted on in that time.) The senator went on for several minutes about why he thought referendums were a bad thing. I thought the arguments didn’t hold a lot of water. But he finally said that they weren’t going to change the requirements, though they might for citizen initiatives. (To the best of my understanding, voter initiatives are bills/proposals/laws written by non-legislators. If a high enough percentage of voters sign a petition, the bill is put on the public ballot, thus bypassing the legislature. Voter referendums involve laws that the legislature has already passed. Afterwards, if a high enough percentage of voters sign a petition, the passed bill is put on the public ballot, thus potentially overriding the vote of the legislature. The legislators I heard speak seem to hate both. Go figure.)
Senator Bramble was misleading. They are leaving State Referendums alone, but SB0054 attempts to change both county and municipal referendums, as well as state, county, and municipal initiatives.
If it passes, the deadlines will be moved up over two months for all of those vehicles of citizen redress, making it even harder for a group to gather the necessary signatures before the arbitrary deadline. They left state referendums out because that move would attract too much attention after the successful referendum last November. Does anyone doubt that within a year or two the requirements of state referendums will also be changed to match all of the other citizen referendum and initiative laws?
4. Last, the legislature has been hit hard in the media and by bloggers this year over the influence of lobbyist gifts and campaign contributions. Speaker Curtis, State Attorney General Shurtleff, and Senator Dmitrich have all publically claimed that these perks do not corrupt or influence the legislative process. Senator Dayton told the Cherry Hills meeting that “The voters should be offended” that the media would make such a claim. Senator Bramble gave one-sided examples where supposedly lobbyist gifts helped the legislative process and childishly asked the attendees to raise their hands if they disagreed with him.
This is where I really wonder. What are they thinking? Really. They can’t see the appearance of impropriety…even if we buy their claims of perfect integrity against all financial temptation? I wish I had been saving articles last year and knew the details of the proposal last legislative session to ban teachers from accepting Christmas gifts from students. I don’t think it ever got anywhere, but can’t they see the disconnect there?
Look at this scenario: I’m a teacher. Let’s suppose that I honestly am a longtime friend of two families. All of our families have honestly spent time as legitimate friends before now. Let’s say the other two families have children of the same age and I end up with both of them in my class at the junior high. The night before an end-of-level test, the other two families just happen to treat my family to a nice dinner followed by a Jazz game with luxury box seats. My family pays for none of this. The test is given the next day and both of those students just happen to get perfect scores.
It is course possible that their scores were legitimate and that these families always give me generous gifts in appreciation for my friendship. But would you believe that was the case? Can you not see how it appears? Would you blame other students and parents for being suspicious or angry if they found out about the situation? Would you perhaps propose rules regulating teacher/student relationships?
Can you see that the public and you are often viewing the issues from conflicting points of view? Is it at least possible that the public is right?
Friday, November 9, 2007
False FUD Factusations
First, random related musing…I attended the BYU-TCU game tonight. As I enjoyed the game and the atmosphere, I thought about Utah County’s very close split between Referendum 1 supporters and those against the voucher bill, and all of those heated advocates sitting here screaming together at some horned frogs rather than at each other. I wonder if I’ve conversed with any of these people online or seen a sign in their yard as I drove by?
Two voucher supporters, Rep. Steven Urquhart, and Jesse, have written thoughtful commentary on the rejection of Referendum 1, even though I still disagree with many of their base presumptions and hope to influence some of those ideas in the course of discussion. But notice the 11th comment posted below Jesse’s post by Dave Hansen (Who, as best I can find, seems to be the President of The Buckeye Institute, another out-of-state, rightwing think tank trying to use Utah as a national lever for its own agenda and publishing silly propaganda like this. Especially enjoy the comparisons between public school supporters and repressive white leaders in the Old South straight from Patrick Byrne’s election night playbook.) totally attacking Jesse for what Hansen perceives as erroneous departures from the voucher orthodoxy. If Jesse deviates in any degree with PCE’s talking points, then he must be inexperienced, not committed enough like Dave the donor, and must not have read the bill. All this to a vocal voucher supporter who voted for the bill, but was discussing strategy to address opponent concerns after Referendum 1 was voted down 62.2 % to 37.8% in one of the most conservative states in the union. So if this is how some on the voucher side treat their supporters, how must they be justifying their loss to the intellectually inferior public school advocates?
FUD. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This was the only strategy used by voucher opponents (and the Satan worshippers at the UEA) because the benefits of vouchers are inherently truthful. Any “Against” vote was from a lazy teacher interested in preserving his/her union power or someone too stupid to mistrust all of this “out-of-state” influence.
This self-justifying attitude is coming from prominent sources and anonymous comments on the message boards, all of it insulting and arrogant.
The public faces:
Patrick Byrne’s IQ Test http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7392263
Doug Holmes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308936,00.html
Rep. John Dougall http://www.dynamicrange.org/2007/11/were-you-inform.html#comments
Larry Miller?! http://www.senatesite.com/Documents/2007/LarryHMiller1.pdf
(Rep. Dougall wouldn’t agree about his reading the bill being “radical.” The Sidetrack points out some memory differences on the timing of his conversion and ensuing donation.)
Richard Eyre and Senator John Valentine http://www.kcpw.org/article/4780
More from Senator Valentine: http://senatesite.com/blog/ (Nov. 6th entry)
I initially though this quote showed at least some recognition of the validity of public opinion, but when I shared it with friends, they immediately retorted with, “The fact he had to be “reminded” that we aren’t subjects explains this voucher bill perfectly.” And I hope those consequences don’t include politicization of the school board.
The Peanut Gallery:
From this Deseret News Article:
From this Tribune Article:
From the initial KSL report of the referendum’s defeat:
What a bunch of bologna! That is exactly the opposite of my observations and what has been recorded by those willing to share their reasoning. Those thoughtful enough to read the bill were more likely to change their minds from a vote "for" to a vote "against":
Here, here, and here.
Bear in mind, these are people who support vouchers in principle, but found too many flaws in this bill. I never found a similarly reasoned admission from an anti-voucher advocate switching to be pro-voucher.
As far as being informed, I asked my state senator if she had read the USU study used to claim over $1 billion in savings. She hadn’t. I seriously doubt that Speaker Curtis and Senator Valentine have as well. (See as well this “honest and sincere” questioning of the public’s ability to do anything right.) As I researched exactly how the bill funding language worked and read PCE’s own studies, I blogged about it and posted my findings on some other blogs that were pro-voucher. In the heated atmosphere of online debates, these four blog comments, based on the financial details of HB 148, had not been responded to as of early Friday, Nov. 9, 2007. I believe it is because my comments are indisputable on at least these two points of funding:
Utah Politics: http://www.utahpolitics.org/archives/2007/11/educate_dont_brainwash.shtml
A marketing/PR guy with lots of ideas who works for the Utah Jazz on game nights--which I mention because it is cool:
http://www.russpage.net/utah-vouchers-oreo-cookie-ad-exposed/#comments
A nice guy recommended by Rep. Urquhart:
http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2007/10/vouchers.html
Rep. Dougall (I was most nervous about posting to this blog as his replies tend to be caustic, but I definitely read the bill and concluded it was flawed. I've been ignored so far.)
http://www.dynamicrange.org/2007/11/were-you-inform.html#comments
I’ll quote this one because I think it’s the most succinct:
I feel the true financial impacts of the bill have been nailed down fairly well now, besides a few factoids dependent on legislative intent that we may never know…such as whether the MSP withdrawn per student would be a statewide average, a district average (these two would differ by thousands of dollars in some cases), or the actual MSP of that student which would in most cases be only the WPU of $2417, resulting in mitigation refunds of only a couple hundred dollars. I’ve got further things to say about the UEA and my ideas for school improvement in the coming weeks.
Go to any article written in the last few months about vouchers in the Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, or ksl.com. Click on the comments and see for yourself. The only FUD is that being spread by the voucher supporters to counter anti-voucher fact. They use “the status quo” as a buzzword about our “failing,” “broken” school system. They refuse to acknowledge the permanent, historical underfunding of our schools by claiming the state has been “throwing” money into the failing system with no results. The UEA or NEA is the strawman bogeyman that opposes all improvement, and therefore, voucher opposition is about “power and control."
Even voucher supporters mentioned above acknowledge the huge cost and inequality of HB 148 as written. Hundreds of thousands of smart, conscientious Utah voters rejected vouchers because of sincere philosophical objections to an instrument designed to destroy public schools. Regarding tax contributions as individual payments to be distributed back to the individual taxpayer inevitably leads to privatization and exclusion of those unable to pay. We don’t receive individual allotments of roads, police protection, fire service, etc. because the system would break down and exclude large portions of society. Society as a whole, including the wealthy taxpayers ultimately funding these public goods, benefits from an educated, protected populace. It cannot be about “I got mine.” That is not fear; it is principle.
Two voucher supporters, Rep. Steven Urquhart, and Jesse, have written thoughtful commentary on the rejection of Referendum 1, even though I still disagree with many of their base presumptions and hope to influence some of those ideas in the course of discussion. But notice the 11th comment posted below Jesse’s post by Dave Hansen (Who, as best I can find, seems to be the President of The Buckeye Institute, another out-of-state, rightwing think tank trying to use Utah as a national lever for its own agenda and publishing silly propaganda like this. Especially enjoy the comparisons between public school supporters and repressive white leaders in the Old South straight from Patrick Byrne’s election night playbook.) totally attacking Jesse for what Hansen perceives as erroneous departures from the voucher orthodoxy. If Jesse deviates in any degree with PCE’s talking points, then he must be inexperienced, not committed enough like Dave the donor, and must not have read the bill. All this to a vocal voucher supporter who voted for the bill, but was discussing strategy to address opponent concerns after Referendum 1 was voted down 62.2 % to 37.8% in one of the most conservative states in the union. So if this is how some on the voucher side treat their supporters, how must they be justifying their loss to the intellectually inferior public school advocates?
FUD. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. This was the only strategy used by voucher opponents (and the Satan worshippers at the UEA) because the benefits of vouchers are inherently truthful. Any “Against” vote was from a lazy teacher interested in preserving his/her union power or someone too stupid to mistrust all of this “out-of-state” influence.
This self-justifying attitude is coming from prominent sources and anonymous comments on the message boards, all of it insulting and arrogant.
The public faces:
Patrick Byrne’s IQ Test http://www.sltrib.com/ci_7392263
Doug Holmes http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,308936,00.html
Doug Holmes, chairman of Parents for Choice in Education, said opponents used fear to kill vouchers. Prize-winning teachers surrounded by kids appeared in TV ads warning that the program was flawed and a threat to public schools.(As opposed to all those flippant, jolly PTA moms…)
"Serious people who evaluated the policy -- the governor, the Legislature, the business community, etc. -- all support this," Holmes said.
Rep. John Dougall http://www.dynamicrange.org/2007/11/were-you-inform.html#comments
Larry Miller?! http://www.senatesite.com/Documents/2007/LarryHMiller1.pdf
(Rep. Dougall wouldn’t agree about his reading the bill being “radical.” The Sidetrack points out some memory differences on the timing of his conversion and ensuing donation.)
I learned a new term, one that I hadn’t heard before. It was that the F.U.D. method was being used, by design, in the NEA sponsored opposition ads. The F.U.D. method is “Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt.”
Richard Eyre and Senator John Valentine http://www.kcpw.org/article/4780
But pro-voucher spokesman Richard Eyre thinks voters were more confused than they were opposed to vouchers. And Senate President John Valentine still believes Utahns would support vouchers with the right information.
More from Senator Valentine: http://senatesite.com/blog/ (Nov. 6th entry)
No one likes to be served humble pie but, whatever the outcome, I believe it's healthy for government to be reminded that voters are citizens, not subjects. They are the final decision makers on this bill and bear the final responsibility for what occurs as a consequence of their vote.
I initially though this quote showed at least some recognition of the validity of public opinion, but when I shared it with friends, they immediately retorted with, “The fact he had to be “reminded” that we aren’t subjects explains this voucher bill perfectly.” And I hope those consequences don’t include politicization of the school board.
The Peanut Gallery:
From this Deseret News Article:
Concerned | 9:20 p.m. Nov. 6, 2007
GWB Did you actually read the legislation? It's apparent you didn't. Vouchers did not give anything to the rich. It actually helped far more middle and poor class kids. Not to mention the significant increase spent on public schools. I encourage all to read the actual printed law even though it's too late. You will find the Anti-Voucher side LIED!!! And these people teach our kids. It just goes to show that even those who claim they're above the mess will go right into the muck if they feel threatened in anyway.
If the majority is unwilling to sufficiently research their vote where will we end up and what will need to be done when the mess is over our heads?
From this Tribune Article:
Tumbleweed Tom: 11/7/2007 9:35:00 PM
Anything But: You think conservatives aren't united by anything but
greed? We've shown you and will continue to show you how united we are against liberalism, socialism, anti-religionism, porn, crime, gun control, abortion, the UEA and the NEA (because they bash conservatism and embrace and try to indoctrinate about libralism). We don't oppose teachers, only teachers who try to endoctrinate our kids w/ the liberal crap. In that sense most politicians who are endorsed by the UEA or NEA will find that the endorsement is a ball and chain. The best thing the teachers of this state could do is completely cut themselves off from both unions and hire lobbyists who can convince legislators that teachers do not want to attack the core values prevalent here. The defeat of vouchers doesn't mean our values have changed, only that confusion or uncertainty of vouchers prevailed. Our legislatures, most of whom on all other issues, share the core values of the majority here, may indeed blame the UEA for the failure of vouchers. That probably means the two unions will be considered DIRT more now than ever before. Teachers, if you want to make headway w/ the Legislature, get rid of the UEA and NEA and use the money to hire effective lobbyists (who have never had any affiliation w/ either UNION).
From the initial KSL report of the referendum’s defeat:
I agree 100%
by tifflynn @ 11:52 pm - Tue. Nov. 6th, 2007
I really think people just trusted what they heard the most of. When
one side is spending literally 3x as much as the other, as was the
case here, the first is bound to win. Few people were able to look
into this program with an open mind. It was obvious to me (as I spoke with several teachers and PTA members) that someone was persuading most everyone in the public education system to think one way and one way only. I don't think too many teachers or citizens were able to look at the issue head on and read the facts to decide what was best on their own. It's too bad because we should be fighting for better education all around. Competition would have been very good for the public schools, smaller class sizes would have happened, increased funds would have helped. But I believe it just comes down to someone or some group wanting control for themselves. Fear of losing that control is what drove the anti-voucher campaign and somehow a lot of people bought into it all too easily. It's just too bad.
What a bunch of bologna! That is exactly the opposite of my observations and what has been recorded by those willing to share their reasoning. Those thoughtful enough to read the bill were more likely to change their minds from a vote "for" to a vote "against":
Here, here, and here.
Bear in mind, these are people who support vouchers in principle, but found too many flaws in this bill. I never found a similarly reasoned admission from an anti-voucher advocate switching to be pro-voucher.
As far as being informed, I asked my state senator if she had read the USU study used to claim over $1 billion in savings. She hadn’t. I seriously doubt that Speaker Curtis and Senator Valentine have as well. (See as well this “honest and sincere” questioning of the public’s ability to do anything right.) As I researched exactly how the bill funding language worked and read PCE’s own studies, I blogged about it and posted my findings on some other blogs that were pro-voucher. In the heated atmosphere of online debates, these four blog comments, based on the financial details of HB 148, had not been responded to as of early Friday, Nov. 9, 2007. I believe it is because my comments are indisputable on at least these two points of funding:
Utah Politics: http://www.utahpolitics.org/archives/2007/11/educate_dont_brainwash.shtml
A marketing/PR guy with lots of ideas who works for the Utah Jazz on game nights--which I mention because it is cool:
http://www.russpage.net/utah-vouchers-oreo-cookie-ad-exposed/#comments
A nice guy recommended by Rep. Urquhart:
http://magicvalleymormon.blogspot.com/2007/10/vouchers.html
Rep. Dougall (I was most nervous about posting to this blog as his replies tend to be caustic, but I definitely read the bill and concluded it was flawed. I've been ignored so far.)
http://www.dynamicrange.org/2007/11/were-you-inform.html#comments
I’ll quote this one because I think it’s the most succinct:
I personally believe that voucher supporters were more guilty of light reading than voucher opponents. The claims of $1.4 billion in savings were accepted and promulgated without question by PCE and repeated in the last letter to the public from Sen. Valentine and Rep. Curtis. I'm doubting they read even the executive summary of the USU study they cite, let alone the in-depth statistical twisting necessary to save $2675 more on the marginal cost of each student leaving school than total cost put in per student including capital costs.
Lines 309-315 of HB 148 reveal the shell game. When the general fund disperses a $2250 voucher to a school, the district ALSO has to give $2250 back to the Uniform School Fund...where it just sits until rolling back into the funds for the next year. That money is counted in the total student funding which makes the funding statistic look better, even though the local school and district both lost money. And after the five years of mitigation, the district loses the entire MSP.
I feel the true financial impacts of the bill have been nailed down fairly well now, besides a few factoids dependent on legislative intent that we may never know…such as whether the MSP withdrawn per student would be a statewide average, a district average (these two would differ by thousands of dollars in some cases), or the actual MSP of that student which would in most cases be only the WPU of $2417, resulting in mitigation refunds of only a couple hundred dollars. I’ve got further things to say about the UEA and my ideas for school improvement in the coming weeks.
Go to any article written in the last few months about vouchers in the Deseret News, Salt Lake Tribune, or ksl.com. Click on the comments and see for yourself. The only FUD is that being spread by the voucher supporters to counter anti-voucher fact. They use “the status quo” as a buzzword about our “failing,” “broken” school system. They refuse to acknowledge the permanent, historical underfunding of our schools by claiming the state has been “throwing” money into the failing system with no results. The UEA or NEA is the strawman bogeyman that opposes all improvement, and therefore, voucher opposition is about “power and control."
Even voucher supporters mentioned above acknowledge the huge cost and inequality of HB 148 as written. Hundreds of thousands of smart, conscientious Utah voters rejected vouchers because of sincere philosophical objections to an instrument designed to destroy public schools. Regarding tax contributions as individual payments to be distributed back to the individual taxpayer inevitably leads to privatization and exclusion of those unable to pay. We don’t receive individual allotments of roads, police protection, fire service, etc. because the system would break down and exclude large portions of society. Society as a whole, including the wealthy taxpayers ultimately funding these public goods, benefits from an educated, protected populace. It cannot be about “I got mine.” That is not fear; it is principle.
Monday, November 5, 2007
Face-to-face reasoning with invested individuals OR a chance encounter with Senator Margaret Dayton
I'm going to start with a seemingly unrelated item. I got a little board game as a stocking stuffer last Christmas. I tried it out with family members and we just didn't like it. In fact, we thought it was poorly designed. I later posted my opinion of the game on a website that gathers reviews and information and didn't think any more of it. A few months later, I received an email from the designer of the game, apologizing for not meeting my expectations and offering me a free game if I tried his company's products again. I was taken aback. I had never previously felt bad about criticizing Monopoly for example, but now I had received a friendly email from a designer who had laid the results of his creativity and effort bare to the public and was probably trying to earn at least part of his livelihood with the product. The purpose of the site I posted to is to gather useful information so that others can make better-informed decisions, and I felt like my criticism of the game was fair, specific, and accurate...but I still felt uncomfortable with the situation.
It's not quite the same, but I've been pondering if I'm comfortable with what I write in this public forum. I met Senator Margaret Dayton today in her driveway right after taping my personal anti-voucher flyer (see Oct. 30th post) to her door. It was quite a surprise to recognize her there, right in front of me. We had, I guess, a six or seven minute conversation about vouchers. (And for the sake of full disclosure, if you read this Senator, I really don't remember who I voted for in your race last year, but I'm guessing I would have learned your voucher position and voted against you.)
Sen. Dayton was nice and gave me experienced campaign advice on how to best tape flyers to doors so as to not annoy the owner. I was thinking on the way home that it is hard to reconcile my normal neighborly feelings to someone in the neighborhood and my strong negative views of something she firmly believes in. She could be a friend or advisor if we were acquainted under different circumstances. We share a common neighborhood, an interest in kids and schools, and probably the same religion. I get along fine with my voucher-supporting neighbors and have had excellent discussions that gave me a lot to think about (I've convinced at least one, maybe two of my neighbors to come around and see the problems with vouchers now too =). ) But they're not for the most part emotionally attached to the effort, and we can talk rationally about the different issues without feeling attacked.
During our discussion, I saw that we have vastly different perceptions of the UEA, teacher pay, and privatization of services. My experience with unpaid school level reps. and unpaid district level reps. who negotiate things like co-pays on prescriptions, and feeling attacked as a liberal, socialist, and power-hungry lover of the status quo, etc. differs dramatically from hers as a long time capital hill battler, negotiating with the paid UEA people, while journalists, the public, and lobbyists watch your every move. She remembered a specific ad from a couple years ago that took me a minute to recall and was obviously referencing specific bad memories where she felt things were done in bad faith. How do you communicate to someone that is saying they care about your contribution and profession, and apparently even believes they care, the intense disconnect between our perceptions, between what I have felt as attacks and other ideological priorities over education? That we're "not grateful," as explained to me by an Orem city council candidate relating a conversation with Sen. Valentine, because we don't feel that giving the largest education funding increase ever last year, in what was also the year with the largest surplus ever, when public opinion polls heavily favored more money for public ed., was some huge favor. Couldn't it just as easily be seen as a duty to your constituents? Especially because it could easily be perceived as an attempt to guilt trip anti-voucher people in education from speaking out against the voucher bill.
Or how do I communicate the ignored, bad faith feeling of a bunch of teachers over last year's legislative session? We had actually defeated one of the PCE candidates in the Republican primary, Jim Ferrin, who was and is continuing to profit from charter school construction enabled by laws he worked on. I was personally impressed by his successor, Stephen Sandstrom from his even-handed comments while on Orem City Council. He had an intense personal disagreement with the principal of his son's school, but didn't illogically carry that thought over to "public education, or at least this district is broken." He had campaigned as someone from the outside, not a "good ol' boy." Teachers were emailing him frequently as reports of the Republican leadership pressuring all of the new legislators came out. I have a copy of an email he sent in response to a Jr. High teacher, promising to stand with us public education voters, just a few days before the house vote. But then the canceled vote and the extra day of leadership twisting arms happened...and Sandstrom caved to the rest of the Utah Valley delegation and voted for vouchers. We don't know whether to be more frustrated with him or with those who pressured him. We too feel betrayed.
Just while writing this, I think I might have had a stroke of understanding. I think most teachers feel this way--I perceive myself as closer to the people than the legislature. I'm not an elected official, but I feel like I'm in the trenches together with my students and parents fighting for correct principles against a distant, entrenched body with different agendas than ours. (A little stadium with your vouchers?) And I think Senator Dayton, and maybe all of the legislators kind of feel the same way in reverse--democratically elected officials representing the interests of Utah citizens against greedy, protective unions with personal agendas. That could partly explain why our base presumptions are so different.
Anyway, I'm determined to try and express my vigorous disagreement in productive terms, but how do you say something is a lie, purposeful or not, and be respectful?
I have it on very strong neighborly authority that John Valentine is a kind, gentle man who is easy to get along with. But my resolve gets tested when I see this:
http://blog.familynow.net/ President Valentine and and Speaker Curtis again cite the USU study that claims more than $1 billion in savings. This makes it hard to believe they really care about truth over ideology. Have they read this study...even once? A little bit? Are they telling the public that they read the Executive summary, or pgs. 45-47 and actually accept a marginal cost thousands of dollars more than total cost per student because of "Cost Function" estimates? That the state and local district actually save $8675 cumulatively each time a student leaves the district? Really? How can I conclude that they're prepared or honest if I don't believe they've read the fantastical study they use as evidence? I am forced to conclude again that the incomprehensibility of voucher funding is their greatest defense. Thus, this blog.
Or do they really think that they're making a case for understanding when they try to use the "out-of-state" union money as a reason to vote for vouchers? It's like the deep ebony pot calling the grey kettle black. The public knows where the money came from for both sides. Or scheduling a voucher advocacy meeting, but just calling it a "voucher discussion" in the paper and wondering why people don't trust you? The "trust the parents" movement treats the public like they're stupid and it's inconsistent with their stated views.
I'd like to work together with legislators and respect each other's views, but as I explained in all of my Nuts and Bolts posting, I must conclude the entire shell game of funding is a lie, and apparently a purposeful one. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst gave them different information; he or they told the legislature about the best estimates and scenarios, and they chose to believe their agenda rather than their own analyst's estimation of reality. And as Rep. Daw explained at the meeting last Thursday, they go out on a limb with their own assumptions partially because they received 4,000 applications for vouchers. But they simultaneously chose to ignore the fact that many applicants would be ineligible, and that there were over 3,000 eligible kindergarteners and current private school students under the income line who would be applying: http://taxcompanypb.googlepages.com/LegislativeFiscalAnalystsReport.pdf
Senator Dayton, or whomever else reads this, please see that my anger gets stirred up by the conflict of ideas, not personalities. Just like your voice and demeanor stiffen a bit when talking about local rights versus national encroachment, something you feel strongly about, I get riled up when I see what I interpret as deception. Maybe we can have some real discussions of common ground after the vote and furor die down a bit.
(I'll post my thoughts about the union, and about the free market in education over the next couple weeks as I won't have to worry so much about the specifics of this bill.)
It's not quite the same, but I've been pondering if I'm comfortable with what I write in this public forum. I met Senator Margaret Dayton today in her driveway right after taping my personal anti-voucher flyer (see Oct. 30th post) to her door. It was quite a surprise to recognize her there, right in front of me. We had, I guess, a six or seven minute conversation about vouchers. (And for the sake of full disclosure, if you read this Senator, I really don't remember who I voted for in your race last year, but I'm guessing I would have learned your voucher position and voted against you.)
Sen. Dayton was nice and gave me experienced campaign advice on how to best tape flyers to doors so as to not annoy the owner. I was thinking on the way home that it is hard to reconcile my normal neighborly feelings to someone in the neighborhood and my strong negative views of something she firmly believes in. She could be a friend or advisor if we were acquainted under different circumstances. We share a common neighborhood, an interest in kids and schools, and probably the same religion. I get along fine with my voucher-supporting neighbors and have had excellent discussions that gave me a lot to think about (I've convinced at least one, maybe two of my neighbors to come around and see the problems with vouchers now too =). ) But they're not for the most part emotionally attached to the effort, and we can talk rationally about the different issues without feeling attacked.
During our discussion, I saw that we have vastly different perceptions of the UEA, teacher pay, and privatization of services. My experience with unpaid school level reps. and unpaid district level reps. who negotiate things like co-pays on prescriptions, and feeling attacked as a liberal, socialist, and power-hungry lover of the status quo, etc. differs dramatically from hers as a long time capital hill battler, negotiating with the paid UEA people, while journalists, the public, and lobbyists watch your every move. She remembered a specific ad from a couple years ago that took me a minute to recall and was obviously referencing specific bad memories where she felt things were done in bad faith. How do you communicate to someone that is saying they care about your contribution and profession, and apparently even believes they care, the intense disconnect between our perceptions, between what I have felt as attacks and other ideological priorities over education? That we're "not grateful," as explained to me by an Orem city council candidate relating a conversation with Sen. Valentine, because we don't feel that giving the largest education funding increase ever last year, in what was also the year with the largest surplus ever, when public opinion polls heavily favored more money for public ed., was some huge favor. Couldn't it just as easily be seen as a duty to your constituents? Especially because it could easily be perceived as an attempt to guilt trip anti-voucher people in education from speaking out against the voucher bill.
Or how do I communicate the ignored, bad faith feeling of a bunch of teachers over last year's legislative session? We had actually defeated one of the PCE candidates in the Republican primary, Jim Ferrin, who was and is continuing to profit from charter school construction enabled by laws he worked on. I was personally impressed by his successor, Stephen Sandstrom from his even-handed comments while on Orem City Council. He had an intense personal disagreement with the principal of his son's school, but didn't illogically carry that thought over to "public education, or at least this district is broken." He had campaigned as someone from the outside, not a "good ol' boy." Teachers were emailing him frequently as reports of the Republican leadership pressuring all of the new legislators came out. I have a copy of an email he sent in response to a Jr. High teacher, promising to stand with us public education voters, just a few days before the house vote. But then the canceled vote and the extra day of leadership twisting arms happened...and Sandstrom caved to the rest of the Utah Valley delegation and voted for vouchers. We don't know whether to be more frustrated with him or with those who pressured him. We too feel betrayed.
Just while writing this, I think I might have had a stroke of understanding. I think most teachers feel this way--I perceive myself as closer to the people than the legislature. I'm not an elected official, but I feel like I'm in the trenches together with my students and parents fighting for correct principles against a distant, entrenched body with different agendas than ours. (A little stadium with your vouchers?) And I think Senator Dayton, and maybe all of the legislators kind of feel the same way in reverse--democratically elected officials representing the interests of Utah citizens against greedy, protective unions with personal agendas. That could partly explain why our base presumptions are so different.
Anyway, I'm determined to try and express my vigorous disagreement in productive terms, but how do you say something is a lie, purposeful or not, and be respectful?
I have it on very strong neighborly authority that John Valentine is a kind, gentle man who is easy to get along with. But my resolve gets tested when I see this:
http://blog.familynow.net/ President Valentine and and Speaker Curtis again cite the USU study that claims more than $1 billion in savings. This makes it hard to believe they really care about truth over ideology. Have they read this study...even once? A little bit? Are they telling the public that they read the Executive summary, or pgs. 45-47 and actually accept a marginal cost thousands of dollars more than total cost per student because of "Cost Function" estimates? That the state and local district actually save $8675 cumulatively each time a student leaves the district? Really? How can I conclude that they're prepared or honest if I don't believe they've read the fantastical study they use as evidence? I am forced to conclude again that the incomprehensibility of voucher funding is their greatest defense. Thus, this blog.
Or do they really think that they're making a case for understanding when they try to use the "out-of-state" union money as a reason to vote for vouchers? It's like the deep ebony pot calling the grey kettle black. The public knows where the money came from for both sides. Or scheduling a voucher advocacy meeting, but just calling it a "voucher discussion" in the paper and wondering why people don't trust you? The "trust the parents" movement treats the public like they're stupid and it's inconsistent with their stated views.
I'd like to work together with legislators and respect each other's views, but as I explained in all of my Nuts and Bolts posting, I must conclude the entire shell game of funding is a lie, and apparently a purposeful one. The Legislative Fiscal Analyst gave them different information; he or they told the legislature about the best estimates and scenarios, and they chose to believe their agenda rather than their own analyst's estimation of reality. And as Rep. Daw explained at the meeting last Thursday, they go out on a limb with their own assumptions partially because they received 4,000 applications for vouchers. But they simultaneously chose to ignore the fact that many applicants would be ineligible, and that there were over 3,000 eligible kindergarteners and current private school students under the income line who would be applying: http://taxcompanypb.googlepages.com/LegislativeFiscalAnalystsReport.pdf
Senator Dayton, or whomever else reads this, please see that my anger gets stirred up by the conflict of ideas, not personalities. Just like your voice and demeanor stiffen a bit when talking about local rights versus national encroachment, something you feel strongly about, I get riled up when I see what I interpret as deception. Maybe we can have some real discussions of common ground after the vote and furor die down a bit.
(I'll post my thoughts about the union, and about the free market in education over the next couple weeks as I won't have to worry so much about the specifics of this bill.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
