We Should Not Vouch for Utah Vouchers
Author: Professor Warner Woodworth, BYU
As a lifelong church member and professor at BYU’s Marriott School, I’ve observed our political leaders for many years. As a longtime Utah resident, I grew up attending Salt Lake City schools. The high quality of my teachers motivated me to attend college at both BYU and the U. From there I went on to receive two masters degrees, and then earn a Ph.D. at the University of Michigan, and have loved university teaching all my life.
My wife and I have sent our ten children to schools in Provo schools, and now as grandchildren come along I find it necessary to address the question of vouchers. In past months I attempted to ignore the issue, anticipating that it was simply another bad idea whose time had come, and would soon also go. But because of the political clout from in and out-of-state coalitions, along with Big Money, such is apparently not the case.
We have treasured the wonderful and dedicated public school teachers both we and our kids have had. We always felt a commitment to support the schools, volunteering at times and encouraging public officials to provide more fair and ethical levels of compensation for those we trust with our young. When inane decisions were made over the years to cut taxes, further eroding the capacity of those in the teaching profession to continue in their service to build Utah’s future, we were deeply saddened. The dollars sent back to us as refunds were immediately forwarded on to our children’s schools to help buy basics like chalk and erasers. No frills–just the educational necessities Utah politicians did not think necessary.
Unfortunately, we’ve seen many teachers move to other states to teach where education and the future of the next generation was more valued than in Utah. While officials mouthed the importance of the family, their actions suggested otherwise. I recall some of our community teachers being forced to change careers in order to support their families. One promising young Mormon educator quit his job in our neighborhood school and joined the military because even that career paid better and required fewer hours.
For a long, long time a small group of Mormon-professing political extremists in the Utah legislature have attempted to inflict a voucher program upon the public. Their numbers grew during the machinations of the 2007 legislative session from the supposedly independent branches of our government which colluded to foist on us a supposedly Republican and conservative agenda. While the pretext for all this has been parental choice, I’m now convinced that this is primarily another tactic of the country’s neo-cons to dismantle public sector services that have made us the envy of the world. The Utah movement continues trends started by Newt Gingrich & Co. to privatize government, outsource the military, dismantle social security, hire actors to play scientists and reporters, and defund hundreds of federal and now state programs that have served us well over many decades. Presently, schools are simply the latest targets to be caught in the crosshairs of contemporary extremist guns out to hunt down and kill any quality-of-life institutions that may still be breathing. Clearly, some of them apparently studied at the Dick Cheney School of Shooting Range Safety!
In spite of rhetoric about free agency, the need to put God in the classroom more, the importance of educational choice and independence, voucher proponents actually anticipate government handouts. Their strategy is largely being advocated by people who apparently prefer government subsidies to hard work and market forces. Our lawmakers strive all they can to ignore the ‘least of these.’ They try to get beggars off the streets, cut funds for single mothers and so on. These folks are against subsidizing the poor, and they continually vote against legislation that would help the most vulnerable in our state. On the other hand, they obviously believe in welfare for the upper middle class and the rich, the ones already able to send their children to private schools. As a registered Republican, this hypocrisy galls me to no end.
The advocates of the voucher dream complain that big, outside unions are funding this battle. (Translation: Trade unions are the “secret combinations” warned about in the Book of Mormon.) They employ red herring terms such as liberal, labor, and special interests. But the real story is just the opposite. It’s rich CEOs who moved here from California (i.e. Overstock.com) who have spent millions for their voucher campaign, as well as the right-wing heirs of Amway and Wal-Mart fortunes. It’s libertarian outfits like the Sutherland Institute which has been largely funded by big donors who got their millions from outside the state. Several of these were non-LDS right-wing extremists who were first attracted to what they saw as a rare brand of ultra-conservatism, and admit they later joined the church for political reasons, as well as gospel truths. Some of these individuals now claim Utah as their residence, but they don’t like moderate governors like Jon Huntsman.
In Sutherland’s case, proponents even attempted to give credibility to their cause by linking it to the region’s Mormon heritage and pioneer values. For anyone with an inkling of understanding about LDS and Utah history, it was sheer fantasy, one of the most ludicrous claims ever promulgated about the state’s politics. Then again, perhaps it was no worse than the infantile Oreo cookies ad shown on television featuring a married couple who were always viewed as Mormondom’s pre-eminent Yuppie couple. No longer young, they are definitely urban professionals, and have achieved the fame and status they sought among the wealthy of the Wasatch Front.
Incredibly to me, this group supports a proposed law that would give at least $500 to those already having plenty of money to send their kids to private institutions, if they so desire. These folks want to be free to teach Ezra Taft Benson’s ultra-right ideology and school subject matter, along with the gospel of John Birch, and the evils of centrist and rational electoral behavior. With regard to Referendum 1’s economics, it has no upper-income limit regarding how much such people earn, so the wealthiest Utahns can receive public assistance, otherwise known as welfare. During the first year, this program will cost Utah taxpayers over $5 million, and when it is fully implemented 13 years later, the financial burden will skyrocket to $71 million! This seems to be fiscal insanity, not unlike the recent era of Whitehouse tax cuts for America, even as our nation sinks deeper into the abyss of massive federal debt.
In Referendum 1 there is no concern about so-called “schools” qualifying for support as long as they have 40 students. Even more disconcerting is the fact that the “teachers” in this plan only need some type of “expertise,” or other. Apparently the denigrated joke about schools offering courses in Underwater Basket Weaving will finally become a reality in our state. Such questionable skills may potentially qualify a teaching applicant as an instructor in the new voucher institutions. (They should not be referred to as “schools.”) Such individuals do not need to be professionals, nor will they have to be certified. Based on the recent growth of private schools in upper class Utah neighborhoods, the educational content is likely to skip math and science in favor of Cleon Skousen’s treatise from his Freeman Institute materials.
If the law passes, we will see a plethora of new schools. I can already envision the celebrated names of these emerging institutions: The Orrin Hatch Academy of Critical Thinking, the Sean Hannity Institute of Media Accuracy, the George W. Bush School of Strategic International Development, etc. Educational content for use in such schools could include public policy successes like the town of La Verkin in southern Utah which in 2001 passed a law making it a United Nations-Free Zone. Or they could teach a case on how Howard Ruff led the fight in New York to block Hillary Clinton’s campaign to become a senator from that state. Other examples might be the career success of Vance Smith, a Mormon who recently was selected as the new president of the John Birch Society; the insidious Second Amendment tactic during the year 2000 in the little town of Virgin, Utah where the city council, caught up in the frenzy of Y2K millennialism, established a policy that all families must have a gun and ammunition in their homes. Are these the values and teachings we want the next generation of Zion’s children to believe and practice?
Defunding public schools in the epicenter of Mormonism under the guise that it will better Wasatch Front quality of life is a reckless hope based on sheer fantasy. It’s not good for most families, and especially not desirable for children. At Tuesday’s election please join in cutting off the legs of this monster before it consumes the legacy that proclaims: “The glory of God is intelligence.”
Dr. Woodworth, I am neither a Utah resident nor an American, but with the lone exceptions of a comment on the cost increase over time (from $5M to $71M) and some concern expressed about teacher qualifications, I see nothing substantive in this essay. It appears to be mostly fulminating about the incursion into schools of a political agenda you obviously deplore. That, and a shotgun condemnation of policy direction in Utah generally.
Maybe I’m just missing a whole bunch of context that you can safely assume your intended audience possesses. You’re obviously very upset about this issue, but as a disinterested outsider I found myself thinking “there is no explanatory power here.” After reading what you wrote, I don’t know a single thing about the issues surrounding school vouchers in Utah that I didn’t know before (which was nil).
Comment by Chuck McKinnon — November 5, 2007 @ 11:48 am
When you start claiming that private schools will start offering classes in Underwater Basket Weaving, you forfeit the credibility of discussing the actual issue instead of just throwing around extremist claims. Are you interested in a discussion, or just spouting off? Parents are not dumb enough to put their kids in a school with such a lame curriculum.
Your third and fourth paragraph offered a few examples of what’s wrong with public schools. Perhaps some competition from the private sector will encourage the govt to fix the problems, as they do not seem to be doing much about them right now.
My gripe with public schools here in Utah County is specifically with their math curriculum. They used “Investigations Math” until parents demanded they throw it out because it wasn’t actually teaching any math. This year, a teacher said that they’ve got a new math textbook, but it’s still Investigations Math dressed differently. I want my child to learn actual math, not self-esteem, group project math.
I look forward to private schools that teach actual facts to young children, and that’s what I’ll be lookin for in a private school. I won’t be taking my child to some political right-wing brainwashing factory. Have a little more respect for your neighbors’ judgment. You sound like U of U faculty, who always assume the worst about people in Utah County. We’re not all right-wing nutjobs, and if you live here, you ought to know that.
Comment by Melinda — November 5, 2007 @ 11:48 am
I am totally and completely for the voucher system. Parents deserve a right to choose where their kids are going to school and should not have to double pay in order to send their children to a good school. If the concern is that people would leave public school under a voucher system, that says a great deal about the public school system. Fix the problem rather than force people to continue to fund it. My children both graduated public schools and do well in life — because I was there to teach spelling and grammar when the public school teacher said “what’s the point; that is what spell check is for.”
How about we take other industries and do the exact same thing? Everyone must support a state run grocery store even if the food is crap. If you want good food, you have to pay for the crappy food and the good food. You can see how silly this whole thing is.
Comment by StillConfused — November 5, 2007 @ 11:57 am
p.s. the whole class warfare thing is LAME!!!!
Comment by StillConfused — November 5, 2007 @ 11:58 am
Is it Friday already?
Comment by Steve Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 12:01 pm
Huh,
Sounds more like a rambling lefty political speech then a serious examination of the issues relating to vouchers.
I think I would probably vote against vouchers if I lived in Utah. I simply do not see the need for them in a largely middle class state with succesful 2 parent families and a functioning education system.
I would though support vouchers were I grew up in Chicago or more specifically inside the actual Chicago public school boundaries where bad parenting combined with typical poorly run public schools and overly powerful unions are destroying generations of kids.
Comment by bbell — November 5, 2007 @ 12:04 pm
Warner,
You sound as politically motivated as those you criticize.
Comment by MAC — November 5, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
Hey guys, lay off. He’s a registered Republican!
Comment by gst — November 5, 2007 @ 12:10 pm
It’s discouraging to see somebody I respect immensely and who is insightful and articulate on many issues engage is this sort of low polemic. There are good arguments to be made against the voucher proposals; unfortunately, Prof. Woodworth fails to make them, going instead for the cheap shots against Hannity, Ruff, et. al.
HA! There’s a kneeslapper!
Comment by Mark IV — November 5, 2007 @ 12:15 pm
Question:
What’s the legal framework that private schools in Utah operate under? In the UK, private schools have to meet certain statutory educational requirements.
Comment by RonanJH — November 5, 2007 @ 12:21 pm
Once again, someone tries to convince us that it’s really the government’s money, we’re just holding it for them temporarily.
Comment by Mike Parker — November 5, 2007 @ 12:25 pm
The requirement in the law is either a B.A. or “expertise.” I worked as a lawyer for six years before deciding on a career change. Since I’d considered teaching as an undergrad, I thought I’d look at becoming a political science teacher.
Imagine my surprise to find out the public school system did not think I was qualified to teach political science because I did not have a B.A. in PoliSci. My law degree and experience counted for nothing. But I could teach in the area where I had a B.A., even though that knowledge was 10 years out of date.
Under this law, I’d be qualified to teach PoliSci in a private school because of my “expertise” even though I lack the B.A. that public schools require.
Comment by Melinda — November 5, 2007 @ 12:41 pm
Sometimes by the way President Ezra Taft Benson’s name is used in a post or comments (in the ‘Nacle) you would never know he was an apostle or the prophet of the Church. It’s a little strange to see his name used so casually and contemptuously. Yes, he was very conservative … but his status for us should go a little beyond mere politics.
Comment by danithew — November 5, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
As a former Utah resident, and long term watcher of public school policy, I have concerns about the proposed voucher system in Utah. My wife has taught in both the Utah and Washington State schools, is National Board Certified in Math, and currently is working with a Microsoft grant in efforts to improve the teaching of science and math in the public schools. I’ve spent time observing and video taping in classrooms, and have read and researched information about schools and how to get success. I’ve also sent six kids through the public school systems in both states.
My concern about vouchers in general is that they have the potential to divert already inadequate funds from the public schools to private schools, where there is no guarantee of improved curriculum and success. The proposed Utah voucher system, as Warner indicates, requires that a qualifying school be no less 40 students. Generally in education, small is better. The Gates Institute primarily grants money only to small schools (ie, 250 or less). However, I have heard Utah residents talk about “Campus” model private schools, where the kids would meet once or twice a week, and the rest of the time be homeschooled. It appears that oversight is limited at best, and the lesser qualifications for teachers in the proposed voucher system is troubling as well.
Warner’s polemics bothered me a lot as well, but he is right about many points. As a parent, some of my kids did just fine in school, others required more hands on assistance. The curriculum has changed as the culture and needs of a technologically advanced society has changed as well. I am as concerned about parents who want to push the old “skill and drill” math over newer problem solving approaches to math education. Sure, kids need to learn their times tables, how to multiply and divide, but today’s professional requirements are more geared to group projects, cross-discipline problem solving, and learning the context of how math is used at work, which is not the way that many of us boomers and gen-xers learned math growing up.
Long comment only to try and make the point that more privatization of education is not likely the answer to the troubles facing Utah’s public schools. They’ve long been underfunded, and now are even more pressured, as are schools in most states, by the unfunded federal mandates of No Child Left Behind. It’s a worthwhile goal, but creates budget problems for schools as they focus more on teaching to the tests, rather than the goal of educating students across broad disciplines. That’s why you see fewer electives at school, fewer music, art, and vocational classes.
Think twice about supporting the voucher program as proposed in Utah.
Comment by kevinf — November 5, 2007 @ 12:48 pm
I must be the choir, but I sure enjoyed the preaching. Warner’s point, as I understand it, was that a general association between Mormonism and the voucher movement has been both posited and actively advertised. His voice proves this is not the case, and is a worthy reminder that believing Mormons who haven’t just moved from the East Coast reject vouchers. And some fire in the belly to resist what appears to be the deliberate cooptation of sectors of Mormonism within the corridor by the Mammon-centric neocon movement makes sense to me.
I oppose vouchers on many fronts, including concern that such programs specifically are intended to withdraw from the public system those parents and families who are most committed to cooperative education, concerns that these merely become a new government subsidy for silly entrepreneurism (which I oppose to actual innovation), the clear implication that workers ought to be powerless (eliminate unions, encourage employees who are minimally qualified thus highly expendable), and the very real dangers of abandoning our neediest children (what private institution would ever, without massive government subsidy, agree to care for the profoundly disabled?)
Comment by smb — November 5, 2007 @ 12:52 pm
It just seems preposterous to me that with the lowest spending per-pupil in the country, and with teacher salaries that should leave every family-values voter in Utah burning with embarrassment and shame, we would even consider something so expensive and unproved as vouchers. Until teachers in Utah are paid a living wage, and until we are willing to pull ourselves out of the competition for biggest education cheapskate, we have no business messing around with voucher entitlements.
Comment by Jeremy — November 5, 2007 @ 12:56 pm
danithew,
My respect for Pres. Benson has gone up immensely over the years as I have seen the results of his efforts at putting the Book of Mormon back in a central place in our theology. He was an admirable and worthy prophet and leader of the church. His politics, prior to becoming the President of the Church, appear to me to be misguided and divisive. His service as President of the was remarkable as it was free of political comment and focused instead on the work of the Church.
Comment by kevinf — November 5, 2007 @ 12:58 pm
Melinda, # 12,
There are two aspects to teaching, subject matter expertise, and instructional theory and practice. Both are required for a teacher to be successful, and your comments are appropriate in the sense that teachers should know their stuff. That’s why teachers are normally required to continue their education in both their subject of expertise, and also in teaching skills.
This is further compounded by the requirements of No Child Left Behind that teachers need to teach within their areas of expertise, or in your case, your BA degree. It’s not all the fault of the public schools. Schools run the risk of being declared as “not meeting” the federal standard when they let teachers teach outside of those areas. With so many schools in so many states not being able to meet the “adequate yearly progress” requirements of NCLB, they can’t allow you to teach PoliSci by federal mandate.
Comment by kevinf — November 5, 2007 @ 1:09 pm
14 - About the “already underfunded” school system. I’m from California, where we have a really high rate per student, and many of our schools are doing really bad! Money isn’t the only answer to public school’s problems.
Comment by Jacob M — November 5, 2007 @ 1:24 pm
Parents should have the right and the means to choose what kind of an education they want their children to have. If the public schools weren’t failing so spectacularly across the country, there wouldn’t be any need for this discussion. When only 60% of high school students graduate from some schools (not necessarily Utah schools - I am in Florida), there is definitely a problem - a problem that doesn’t go away no matter how many dollars get thrown at it. Competition and choice -possibly a way to at least get the government schools attention. Besides, I thought liberals were all for “choice”…
Comment by Outsider — November 5, 2007 @ 1:32 pm
I read somewhere recently where the biggest factor that determines success or failure in a child’s education is parental involvement. I would say parental involvement also would greatly improve the educational system itself- if enough parents see that texts are inadequate, that teachers are poorly trained, etc. and voice these concerns, perhaps the system itself will begin to improve. If parents do nothing and are not involved in their child’s education, how can they complain that they system has failed? Let’s all take more of the responsibility that belongs to us as parents….
Comment by Jim — November 5, 2007 @ 1:33 pm
If the public schools weren’t failing so spectacularly across the country
My US experience is limited to suburban Baltimore, Maryland. The top public school in the state was down the road from me. It was not “failing” and I would have been happy to have sent my children there. It was one of many good schools in Baltimore. Yes, some schools in the city were awful, but there are other factors in play there. One of which is funding.
Comment by RonanJH — November 5, 2007 @ 1:38 pm
Sam, # 15,
Perhaps this is the greatest danger in voucher systems. As parents with the means to make choices pull more and more kids into private schools, the public schools will be left with the kids who have no choice, ie special needs, handicapped, kids from families of the working poor, with no other recourse than publics schools.
Outsider, # 20: While I sympathize with the idea that choice will lead to improvements, most school districts that I am familiar with are trying to offer choice via charter schools, open enrollment, magnet schools, etc, to the extent that funding is available. A private school that is brand new with no track record at all is a pretty high risk investment to me. Better to put your kid in an existing Catholic school.
Education seems to be a lightning rod for distrust of government, fears that our moral values are being eroded, and general dissatisfaction with society. Someone echoed a favorite theme of mine, which is if you don’t like how your public school is working for your child, get involved. Volunteer, talk to teachers about your child and their homework, get to be known at the school, and you can have a direct impact. Students with parents actively involved in their education do better, period.
Comment by kevinf — November 5, 2007 @ 2:04 pm
If you think of vouchers as pell grants for elementary age school children, they become more palatable. If you think of them as the first step on a slippery slope to the dismantling public education, less so.
Comment by John C. — November 5, 2007 @ 2:09 pm
Ironically, the biggest proponents of vouchers in Utah are the Catholics, not the “Mormon-professing political extremists”.
On well, don’t let that get in the way of a good rant.
I’ll avoid repeating my posts on this from the other discussion and just mention a few links like KSL’s article
I think that we have some great schools here in Utah. But we also have some poor ones. All we’re asking is for the state to let us choose what school we send our child to. Yes, there are some choices in the public ed system, but why not give us more choices. Sometimes, the choices that are offered through public ed are not enough to fit the needs of individual children.
The public schools are expecting a huge increase in numbers.
If you are living in a 3 bedroom home with 4 kids and one on the way, one child leaving home will not make your mortgage go down, but it may prevent you from having to move to a larger home and getting a larger mortgage.
One comment from KSL:
However, I’ve sat down and tried to really get a good look at how this program works. I may have been wrong in my assumptions, but after my calculations I still saw more money per student than before. Correct me if I’m incorrect in my calculations. What I did was very simple.
I assumed one school district had 5,000 students. That would mean, the school district would receive $37,500,000 for the school if vouchers were not in place. That is based on the $7,500 per student figure. Lets assume that the fixed costs are $20,000,000 for the district. That would mean that only $17,500,000 goes directly into the education of the students, or $3,500 per student.
Now, let say of those 5,000 students, 200 have decided to utilize the voucher and transfer to a private school. The district will now get $36,000,000 for the students enrolled (7,500 * 4,800) plus and extra 1,000,000 for the students who have transfered (that is $7,500 less the average voucher (which generously estimated around $2,500, it’s really about $1,800 - leaving $5,000 * 200 transfered students.) That would be $37,000,000 to the district, only $500,000 less than before the vouchers were used.
Now, less subtract the fixed costs (20,000,000) from that $37,000,000 so that it equals $17,000,000. Divide that by the 4,800 students and you have $3,645.83, or 168.83 more per student.
Of course, there are probably at least 100 kids living in that district whose parents never considered putting them in public school. You know, the parents who have four year olds and will sent them to kindergarten in a private school with or without vouchers. That would put another $500,000 in the public school system, which brings the total money allotted to the district the same as it was before any student transfered to private schools with vouchers.
I am not a CPA, and will never claim to be. I my A- in both my college Accounting classes and haven’t really looked back. If I am wrong in my generalization, please let me know. Please correct me if I’ve made a mistake.
Side Note: There a few problems with your arguement, that have nothing to do with the funding/accounting. You place textbooks and supplies in your list of fixed costs. If a school knows how many students are enrolled in each subject, why is the administration buying more books and supplies than are needed? If the schools has 90 5th grade students, they only need 90 5th grade math books, right? If the number drops to 80, then they should only buy 80 books. If the school still buys 90, then I would not want my student surrounded by such fiscally irresponsible adults. (Also, new books do NOT need to be in the bugdet every year, basic math, english and science concepts are the same today as they were 7 years ago when I was in public school.)
Also, if my child leaves home, no my mortgage payment does not go down. However, my gas and lighting bill will be cause he will not by using appliances in my house, or using so much water to take bath. I will no longer have to buy him clothes or food. I would save significantly overall. However, my son is only 4 and I would not wish him to leave for another 15 years. I understand that a couple less students in a classroom will not cut down on energy, etc. I’m just pointing out that that specific example does not mesh with this issue.
Comment by Ranbato — November 5, 2007 @ 2:16 pm
This seems like the best opportunity for me to disabuse people who might have been fooled by George Will into believing that the voucher proposal will actual save the state money. Will made the following claim:
First of all, the source of the $7,500 is not clear and the number conflicts with a study issued by the Utah Taxpayers Association last month that puts average operating expenses in 2005 at $5,169, increasing to only $5,647 by 2022. Will also conveniently forgets that a significant chunk of the operating expenses represent fixed costs that will not decline as pupils exit the system. The buildings still need to be heated, the administrative staff still needs to be paid, etc. But even if you look at just the variable cost per student instead of the average cost, you still get a figure that is higher than the likely savings from pupils exiting the system. That is because the figure still includes the cost of special education, which is approximately 2.5 times that of the typical student who would use a voucher.
Then there’s that line about how the entire amount remains in the school system because vouchers are paid out of general revenues. Nice try, George. Future appropriations for schools will undoubtedly adjust to reflect the smaller pie of post-voucher money available. Either that, or they will just cut taxes since the public schools obviously won’t need as much.
Comment by Last Lemming — November 5, 2007 @ 2:19 pm
Melinda, how exactly does a law degree qualify you to teach political science? Political science, is after all, a theoretical discipline (at least, it is to any one who went beyond 100). Sorry, I’m a poli sci ABD and I think there’s a good bit of difference. While I’m generally not a fan of certification, I do believe that some overlap is necessary…
Comment by TMD — November 5, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
About teacher pay — that argument is extremely disingenuous. Have you ever stopped to calculate the teacher’s hourly wage? It is actually quite high. So I feel no sympathy there.
Plus, if teachers are really that miserable, why don’t they get another job. This is the US and you are free to change jobs as desired.
Like I said before, I fully support vouchers because I fully support someone getting to choose how their own money is spent! Novel concept I know.
Comment by StillConfused — November 5, 2007 @ 2:28 pm
Regarding “choice,” it bothers me that people imply that they have no choice today and will only have choices with a voucher system.
We recently had a family move into our neighborhood specifically because they wanted their child in a different school than where they lived. Perhaps that is an extreme case and I’m not suggesting that as a solution for everyone. However, we all have choices.
If you are unhappy with your local public school option and can’t afford a private school, perhaps a local charter school would be better. Choose, perhaps, to get involved in your child’s education. Let’s not be deceived into thinking that a voucher system will solve all of the problems….
Comment by Jim — November 5, 2007 @ 2:36 pm
I have conflicted feelings about public schools. I am a product of public schools and my experience was hands-down wonderful. But now that I have studied economics I have strong free-market leanings and I realize that public schools are pretty much a socialist state-run, centrall-planned apparatus. Wouldn’t it be more efficient to drop the whole system? Just give everyone a huge tax break and let everyone find a private school for their kids. In a competitive market private school tuition would drop to levels where people could afford it with their tax breaks. Future plumbers wouldn’t be forced to waste time learning Emily Dickinson. Future computer programmers wouldn’t be forced to waste paint on lame finger-paintings of dogs. We’d save millions of dollars on paint alone.
Comment by California Condor — November 5, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Judge Memorial Catholic High School in Salt Lake City is a fine institution and when I was briefly a substitute teacher there I was astonished to learn that it had very few LDS students. More LDS families should support Catholic education. I’m proud of my own Catholic high school alma mater, and of my (brief) association with Judge Memorial.
Comment by gst — November 5, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
Julie, your comment #28 made my day. Thanks.
Comment by Geoff B — November 5, 2007 @ 2:55 pm
The policy debate over vouchers is important and interesting. Too bad this post contributes nothing to this debate.
Comment by ed johnson — November 5, 2007 @ 2:59 pm
Stillconfused:
here’s teachers average hourly wages. Keep in mind that this covers 33-42k, whereas in Utah, the average for a BA is about 27k, or just about 11/hr.
Comment by Matt W. — November 5, 2007 @ 3:02 pm
Matt W. (35),
I think your numbers are off. A teacher who makes $27,000 a year gets summers off, a week break in October, maybe two weeks off for Christmas, and then maybe a spring break. They are done by 3:30 or 4:00 pm. They get all major holidays and some minor holidays off. When all is said and done, they might make about $18.00 an hour. And then for teachers whose salaries are in the $30,000s, then the hourly wage is even higher.
Comment by California Condor — November 5, 2007 @ 3:16 pm
Julie et al, please refrain from mockery of the post or its author. There’s no call for that.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 3:28 pm
Stillconfused,
Most non-teachers assume that teachers are only “working” during regular school hours. Teachers have contract times they are required to be in school, but that doesn’t begin to cover the amount of time to grade, plan, have faculty meetings, meet with parents, help kids after school, etc. In addition, there are the non-paid time spent supporting after school activities, and the work they take home because they can’t get it all done at school.
I’ve watched my wife average 10 hours a day at school as a Junior High math teacher over the last 10 years, and then the average of 2 to 3 hours of grading and planning spent at home during the school year. It’s a 60 hour a week job for the good teachers. Yes, there are some that do the minimum, but those are not the rule.
Julie, I know you are a home school proponent, and I respect those who are willing to take that on and do a good job. I will also agree that the original post exhibits poor logic, is filled with scare tactics, and not well done. I just know from experience that funding for education in Utah has always been hand to mouth, and just claiming that the vouchers will come from the general fund is a bit of a red herring in and of itself. I don’t see the Utah legislature continuing to fund public schools at the same level if a significant portion of students do go into private schools. I fear that the voucher system will only hasten the day that the poorest performing public schools get taken over by federal mandate under NCLB, which I fear will only hasten the decline in general.
Good luck to all in the Utah elections tomorrow. I really do hope that it turns out best for the most, and that whatever happens is for the good of the students.
Comment by kevinf — November 5, 2007 @ 3:29 pm
“a significant chunk of the operating expenses represent fixed costs that will not decline as pupils exit the system. The buildings still need to be heated, the administrative staff still needs to be paid, etc.”
Last Lemming, this is false. School districts would consolidate as students exit the system, just like they do now. Communities age and the number of school children drop — the schools are re-purposed or sold. My elementary school in Sugar House is now an office building, my mom’s elementary school in Holiday was razed.
I’ll grant you that the bureaucrats running government schools aren’t geniuses, but even they aren’t so foolish as to heat buildings without students.
The best case scenario would be that as students exit government schools (which everyone admits would happen if government allowed parents to take their money elsewhere), private schools would buy many of the government school’s facilities. The schools wouldn’t go away, just their management.
Comment by Matt Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 3:30 pm
Ok, but then she gets 10 weeks of vacation a year.
Comment by California Condor — November 5, 2007 @ 3:36 pm
They are done by 3:30 or 4:00 pm.
Anyone who has ever taught knows this is certainly not the case. Teaching requires time outside of the classroom to a degree that most people really don’t grasp.
When exactly do think work gets graded and lesson plans constructed? My sons teacher spent most of the summer going to class at a local university to learn more about a new math program that’s being used for the first time this year. She didn’t get paid anything extra for that.
Although some teachers here in Arizona are able to take the summers off and get jobs doing other things (the favorite seems to be working for parks and rec, especially the aquatics is almost all staffed with teachers) but many teachers are on year round, and intercession is way to short to even consider another job.
I don’t have all the answers but I think complaining that teachers are paid too much is really misguided.
We’re lucky because my kids schools are really great. But we are also fortunate because Arizona has an open district policy which allows a lot of movement between districts - which is also a big incentive for the districts to lure the students away with great programs, great teachers, etc. because the districts get the money for the kids who come from out of district. The cream then does tend to rise because they pay better and are able to attract the professionals who have decided to leave to pursue something more satisfying (my 7th grader currently has 5 MA and two PHD teachers). My high school senior has an ex chemist PHD teaching his AP chemistry class, a professional psychologist teaching AP psychology, etc. It seems like a system that works pretty well.
Comment by Bandanamom — November 5, 2007 @ 3:50 pm
re: 31
Amen, Condor!!! For that matter, why require children to be educated to any particular level at all? Leave it up to the parents! Soon I will be able to open my soccer-ball factory in El Segundo and hire local labor (the stitching requires little hands) rather than outsource to Bangladesh.
And as for those over-paid teachers, let them do some real work for a change. Once education is fully privitized and optional, they can work as supervisors in my factory. At least then they’ll really earn that lavish $11 an hour!
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 5, 2007 @ 3:51 pm
“please refrain from mockery of the post or its author. There’s no call for that.”
Steve, Woodworth mocks voucher advocates like me by claiming we want to establish “the Sean Hannity Institute of Media Accuracy” and the “George W. Bush School of Strategic International Development” in order to teach “the gospel of John Birch.”
If there a defensible rationale for requiring mockery to flow in one direction only, you haven’t explained it.
Comment by Matt Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 3:52 pm
(Oops, I meant to reference #30)
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 5, 2007 @ 3:53 pm
Matt,
I am not so sure about your last paragraph. I am trying to imagine parents in large numbers exiting the local Keller TX public schools were my kids go because of vouchers. It simply would not happen. The schools are to good.
To me vouchers should be an option for those parents in low performing urban schools. Like DC, Chicago, NY etc.
I just cannot imagine the majority of Utah voters with kids in largely adequate public schools voting for vouchers.
Comment by bbell — November 5, 2007 @ 3:54 pm
Matt, consider it a personal challenge to your capacities for restraint and aplomb.
Personally, I don’t care about the topic one bit. I don’t live in Utah, don’t have school age kids and can’t vote. I didn’t see Prof. Woodworth’s article before it was printed. I can see that the post mocks voucher advocates. But the fact is that he’s a guest of BCC, and as an admin I will make sure that he is treated kindly. I hope you can understand. I don’t believe the post is an inherent obstacle to your cogent and polite conversations on the topic.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 3:57 pm
MikeInWeHo (43),
This is actually an interesting question…
Comment by California Condor — November 5, 2007 @ 3:59 pm
bbell,
Most Utahns won’t vote for vouchers (the latest polling was 56% - 36% against), but it’s not because they wouldn’t use them if they were available. Everyone agrees that if vouchers were implemented, the government schools would lose students. That’s why a voucher program like Utah’s, which excludes children already in private school, is still opposed by the teachers unions so forcefully. The teachers unions only oppose school vouchers because they know parents will use them.
Comment by Matt Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 4:00 pm
First off, I’m all for vouchers. I’ve yet to hear a convincing argument against them. (especially this post)
However, I must take issue with those of you who think that teachers are somehow making plenty of money. Sure, the students leave at 3:30, and they get a couple of day/weeks out of the classroom during the year and three months off for the summer, but that doesn’t mean that they stop working. When they get home there are papers to grade, lessons to plan, and parents to talk to. Also, many teachers also direct other programs such as extra-curricular activities and they might get a little extra for that, but it hardly makes up for the amount of time they must put into it.
As to why they don’t go out and get another job: There are probably many reasons but some might be that they enjoy teaching. They like to give something back to the community. Like parenting, there are plenty of aspects that are difficult, but the rewards are worth it.
Comment by Angela — November 5, 2007 @ 4:02 pm
Once again, I forgot to refresh. Sorry if my comment is a little redundant.
Comment by Angela — November 5, 2007 @ 4:04 pm
Matt,
That’s a pretty strong assertion, knowing what motivates the teacher’s union. Have they said as much any place?
Like Steve, I don’t live in Utah or have school age kids (although unlike him, if I lived in Utah I could vote), and I don’t especially care what Utah does. But I can think of a number of reasons a teacher’s union would be opposed to a voucher bill outside of believing it would draw students away from public schools (anything from the fact that it would weaken the union’s strength to the idea that it is bad as a policy matter). I wouldn’t dream of imputing any of these motives to the union, because I don’t know, but the motivation you impute sounds to me like pro-voucher (or anti-union) propaganda (which is not to say it hasn’t been said, just to say, what’s your source?).
Comment by Sam B. — November 5, 2007 @ 4:05 pm
OK, maybe teachers have to grade classwork during their spare time, but at least high school teachers who teach difficult subjects like chemistry and trigonmetry might have some “off-hours” during the day when they can work on that.
Comment by California Condor — November 5, 2007 @ 4:06 pm
Steve, in that case I would request you remove my comment altogether. As it is, readers will assume I resorted to ad hominem or said something more outrageous than other commenters have done. Surely Woodworth understood his logic and analysis would be sujected to critical scrutiny when he asked BCC to post it.
Comment by Matt Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 4:14 pm
I have never met a teacher who was the sole financial supporter of his/her family. The spouse always has to work to make ends meet.
As far as monetary compensation goes, I think ‘teacher’ is just about at the bottom.
Comment by Angela — November 5, 2007 @ 4:17 pm
Then they are paid enough.
McIntyre! McIntyre! McIntyre!
(I believe that if you say his name three times he will appear and dispense economics wisdom.)
Comment by gst — November 5, 2007 @ 4:19 pm
Matt, okey-doke.
gst, I think you’re confusing Frank with Candyman.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 4:22 pm
Clearly, you were not at Columbia during the Bollinger administration.
Comment by gst — November 5, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
#55 You can’t pay the bills with intangible rewards.
Comment by Angela — November 5, 2007 @ 4:23 pm
That’s a pretty strong assertion, knowing what motivates the teacher’s union. Have they said as much any place?
There have been lots of debates about the vouchers in Utah, and the opposing side is usually represented by a current or former member of the teachers union. In every case they argue from the assumption that if vouchers pass, many parents will choose to pull their kids from the government schools. It’s a staple of every debate:
Teachers union rep: “Utah’s government schools are great and parents agree.”
Voucher advocate: “Then you have no reason to fear competing with private schools on equal footing.”
Comment by Matt Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
California Condor, let’s talk about those 10 weeks of vacation in the summer.
Last summer, our schools ended up here the 24th of June. My wife had to be back in the classroom for three days before school actually started the day after labor day.
She also spent a week at meetings for the Microsoft grant that she is involved with, plus another week learning to be a trainer for a computer aided math curriculum for the safety net kids (on the bubble as to passing the state math competence tests). During the remaining 8 weeks, she actually got to be “on vacation”, which is pretty good, until you think about the extra 20 hours a week for the rest of the school year. She spent more time in extra hours than she gained by being off for 8 weeks. This year, she chose not to teach summer school, as she has the last two years.
She loves teaching, she loves junior high kids, and wouldn’t want to do anything different. She also gets paid better in Washington than Utah, but Washington is still in the bottom rungs of the school pay ladder nationwide.
I have a son who won’t teach in Utah, because he would have to take a 40% cut in pay from his teaching job in Hawaii’s public schools. He now works selling computers, and is thinking about going back to school to get a second degree so he can earn a real living.
Comment by kevinf — November 5, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
“In every case they argue from the assumption that if vouchers pass, many parents will choose to pull their kids from the government schools.”
What always amazes me about this is that it concedes that parents don’t think that that school is the best choice for their child–they are only stuck there because they don’t have the financial resources to move or pay tuition.
Which reminds me: those of you worried about John Birch Academy or The People’s Republic School #47 should remember that those things are 100% legal now. They are just restricted to the rich. If you are really concerned about that, you need to quit wasting your time thinking about vouchers and work to make private schools illegal.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — November 5, 2007 @ 4:47 pm
The average hourly wage PRESUMES true full time work. Teachers only work 179 days a year and some of those are “career ladder” and other types of things. Also, pretty much anyone who is an educated professional works more than the 40 hour week. In employment law it is called an “exempt position.” Think of engineers, etc. They often work more than 40 hours a week.
But it has been my experience throughout both my children’s public school education that there was never a teacher who put in 8 hours a day, much less more. Now I only had two children and they were only in 12 grades plus kindergarten each, so I am sure that there are other cases where teachers actually do extra work. I just didn’t get to meet them.
Because they work approximately 1/2 of your typical exempt employee, a simple rule of thumb would be to double their stated salary and that is what they are effectively being paid.
Again, if it isn’t enough money, go do a different job. Just don’t be surprised when you have to work in the summer and are expected to put in more than 8 hours a day. And complaining to your politician won’t get you anywhere.
Comment by StillConfused — November 5, 2007 @ 5:08 pm
I guess Still Confused thinks that teachers wander into the classroom at 9:00 a.m. and scratches his/her head and six hours of lessons pop out, and then when the little kiddies have gone home they toss the homework/exams/essays into the magic grader and voila! they come out marked with comments and grades, and then when there’s the school activity in the evening or on the weekend, they don’t actually have to show up because they have a whole room of clones behind the janitor’s closet and so, life is easy and they deserve to make $22K a year.
To say nothing of having to deal with obnoxious kids and worse parents and the yahoos in the state legislature who never did learn much in school but now they’re in control, and educrats and bureaucrats and Republicrats.
It’s a wonder they don’t all run off to Mexico with some 13-year-old.
Comment by Mark B. — November 5, 2007 @ 5:15 pm
Julie, amen! No more private schools at all. Plus homeschooled kids should be barred from college educations.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 5:16 pm
I’m sorry, Steve, what was that you were saying about mocking?
Comment by Julie M. Smith — November 5, 2007 @ 5:20 pm
I’m serious! I don’t trust them.
That said, I can imagine an exception for those who have learned a skilled trade in utero.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 5, 2007 @ 5:21 pm
Stillconfused,
Not to be mocking, but I hope that the vouchers pass, and your kids get to go to a private school where the teachers get $11 an hour, work a six hour day, and don’t have to be certified teachers, just have “expertise”.
Okay, maybe I am mocking, but with six kids through the public school system, a wife and two adult kids who teach, I just don’t see the kind of approach to teaching your kids and my kids that you describe.
My work in high tech requires additional outside hours, study, research, gaining professional certifications and the like. Why don’t you think that teachers (the good ones) do the same?
I used to laugh about the “best part time job” comments regarding school teachers, but after living with my wife the last ten years, it isn’t very funny when she’s too busy in the evenings with school work to do anything else. I’m absolutely not kidding about the 60 hour weeks. She arrives at school at 7 AM, returns home about 5, and most evenings has another 2 to 3 hours of school work. And she only gets a 30 minute lunch.
I know elementary teachers that put in that kind of week as well, and are nearing burnout faster than they are nearing retirement. Wait until the voucher election is over, and the emotions have died down, and then go ask 5 secondary and 5 elementary teachers to total up the time they spent the previous week, and then let me know how many are putting in a seven hour day, 179 days a year only.
Comment by kevinf — November 5, 2007 @ 6:10 pm
StillConfused (and any others claiming teachers in Utah are paid enough - or even too much), I never have been as insulted personally by a series of comments as I have by yours in this thread. I started my career as a high school teacher and coach. I made around what a beginning teacher makes in Utah. I worked at least 60 hours each week - and I stopped calculating my hourly wage for coaching after about 30 seconds, when I realized it would end up being less than $1/hour. I am dead serious - less than $1/hour. I worked hard throughout the summer in order to save money to supplement my income throughout the school year just so I could live on what I made as a teacher and allow my wife to stay home with our children. I couldn’t do it, so she had to work part-time at a health club nursery - where we didn’t have to pay for child care. I was raised poor, but we weren’t any poorer then than I was when I was teaching. I don’t want teachers to make so much that people go into it just for the money, but I am appalled that a teacher in many places has to do what I did just to survive and raise multiple children.
There are MANY problems with public school education in this country, but teacher pay is not one of them. To assert otherwise is ignorance, plain and simple.
I am not a proponent of vouchers - not at all - and many of the arguments for vouchers that are put forth are manipulative and overwrought, but the tone and many of the justifications presented here might push me to support them if I weren’t knowledgeable on the subject. I just don’t like polemics and name calling, no matter the position being defended.
Comment by Ray — November 5, 2007 @ 7:11 pm
California and Confused:
I’m sure other people have already addressed your claims about teacher pay, but I’m not patient enough to read through them. I’m just going to shoot of a rash response instead.
Vacation Shmacation. It’s all about hours. I’m a high school teacher and the minimum I can get away with is ten hours a day. Most days it’s more; for instance, this Thursday I collect 90 3-page 12th grade essays (not a fun read in case anyone wondered), which means I’ll be putting in twelve hours a day until they are done.
But let’s suppose the twelve hour-days are balanced out by the days I am too tired to bring work home and the days that go only half-time (noon dismissal) and call it an average of ten hours a day. There are 180 days in a school year; that’s instructional days only, weekends and holidays not counted. So a teacher making $27,000 a year (the figure that somebody somewhere mentioned in this thread) and working 1800 hours earns, by my calculation, $15 an hour before taxes.
For a bright, motivated, dedicated college graduate (which I can promise you 90% of teachers are), that isn’t “quite high” by anyone’s deifintion (unless you’re one of those folks who thinks teaching is rather like flipping a hamburger — and lots of people do).
Comment by lurkgirl — November 5, 2007 @ 7:25 pm
The problem with the whole discussion of teachers salaries is that first we have to agree on what economic system we are going to work within. This will help us determine what a teacher “should” be paid.
Capitalists want the market to determine teacher pay (hence comments about teachers who don’t like their pay finding a different job), but capitalism requires many market forces working together for the system to check/balance itself.
Teachers unions work hard to restrict market forces such as paying teachers very different salaries based on performance and firing poor teachers. There are consequences to that. Merit-based pay (as opposed to tenure-based pay) leads to the best people making a good living and the worst people looking for other jobs. Teachers I know don’t want a merit-based system. The downside is that this means a lot of money that we should be paying to our best teachers (which would in turn create an incentive for talented people to become teachers) is instead spread evenly among all the people who have been teaching for X number of years, regardless of their effectiveness.
If a teacher wants to complain about teacher salaries, I want to know if s/he is willing to live within a merit-based system. If not, I don’t have a lot of sympathy.
Comment by Jacob J — November 5, 2007 @ 7:42 pm
Jacob J,
I’m a former classroom teacher who would have preferred merit pay. However, the problem is determining what constitutes merit–it isn’t as simple as seeing who sold the most cars by the end of the month. How precisely do you think teaching merit should be determined? Test scores? Grades?
Comment by Julie M. Smith — November 5, 2007 @ 7:47 pm
Jacob J, your point is well taken, but let me throw your own quote back at you: “capitalism requires many market forces working together for the system to check/balance itself.”
Who would determine the “merit” and how? If the principal or other administrator could determine pay, they might be tempted to say all their teachers are great, so they can all get great pay and the administrator won’t have to deal with teachers who hate him/her for giving a bad review.
Leaders could try to counteract this by giving bonuses for administrators who reduce costs by NOT doing that. But then the administrator would be incentivized to give everyone low reviews, saving money to enrich themselves. Perhaps each administrator could be given a set budget that they can divide as they see fit between good and bad. But if every school gets the same budget, schools in less desirable areas would be hugely disadvantaged–most teachers would rather be at a school with nice kids, so those dollars wouldn’t go as far for the rowdier schools.
So then the problem starts all over–who determines rowdy and how?? Testing could be an alternative to the administrator, but that brings all kinds of issues about fairness based on how good the students were before the teacher got them, and all the “immeasurables” on a test.
Some things just don’t fit well into a market scheme. Markets are GREAT for things that fit the model. But round peg/square hole with some things. Education is one.
Comment by blah — November 5, 2007 @ 7:56 pm
Julie,
Given your preference for merit pay, I sypathize with you if you complain about your former salary. Of course there is an issue of determining merit, but this is an issue everywhere. People who think it is straightforward to determine merit in technical companies do not have experience in technical companies. Where I work, we have to compare the performance of people making vastly different contributions. Although I work in a technical company, all the people I work with are so far removed from any bottom line that such comparisons are utterly meaningless. Same for number of sales since I am not in sales.
I have had long and interesting conversations with my teacher friends/family about how teachers can be ranked against each other, but it is more than I can represent in a comment here. I just want to stress that determining merit in a teaching situation is no more difficult than many of the places where merit based systems are used. After all, if you have worked in a school you know that everyone gets a pretty good idea of who are the better teachers and who are the worse teachers. They must be figuring it out somehow, right?
Comment by Jacob J — November 5, 2007 @ 7:58 pm
blah,
You make my point exactly. I am not saying teachers must be willing to work within a capatilist system. I am only saying that thier poor pay is in large part due to the absence of that system. If you are correct that market forces can’t be adapted to the profession of teaching, the result is that we should all get used to teacher’s pay being bad and move on.
Comment by Jacob J — November 5, 2007 @ 8:01 pm
Jacob J, I don’t buy the comparison. My husband has one of those ‘very small cog in a very big machine’ type of jobs, but his merit pay has a basis in his relationship with his manager in setting out goals and meeting them. Lest that sound instantly applicable to teaching, tell me how to evaluate a teaching goal of “convince 30 8th graders that ancient Egypt is worth learning more about” or “improve the writing ability of my 7th graders” or “teach my 2nd graders the times tables in the most efficient way so that their parents don’t have to scream at them at 9pm while they cry because they haven’t finished learning them for the test tomorrow.” My fear here is that a poorly designed merit pay system will get us exactly where the poorly designed standardized tests have: to a place where we emphasize only extremely-low level skills and stress out little kids.
Comment by Julie M. Smith — November 5, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Last Lemming (@26),
George Will is right. Utah has a rapidly growing school age population. Enrollments are projected to increase by 160,000 over the next ten years. This increase is far larger than the projected number of students who will take advantage of private school vouchers (~15,000). The fixed cost argument is invalid because the vast majority of public schools will have rising, not falling enrollments.
In addition, the legislature has funded the full weighted pupil unit for any students who depart, for a term of five years, insulating every school district from any financial impact during that period.
Ultimately, this dispute revolves around one key issue - namely do government schools have a divine right to every tax dollar spent on primary education? I don’t think so. Competition and freedom of choice - limited as it is - would be a healthy thing.
Comment by Mark D. — November 5, 2007 @ 8:11 pm
Julie,
If what we implement is “poorly designed merit pay system” then you are correct that the results will be poor. I am constantly amazed that teachers think it is intrinsically impossible to tell a good teacher from a bad one. In my job, I don’t have any luxury of setting a goal and being ranked well if I meet it. I am ranked yearly and things change so much during a year that I cannot possible set long term goals that are relevant by the time they could be evaluated.
As the end of the year, I get to make a pitch for why I did a good job, how I contributed, and why I am valuable to my group. There is no one magic vector on which to compare teachers, you have to take many things into account. Testing is obviously one vector which is useful, but not complete or perfect. Like all systems where there are customers, you must also get feedback: feedback from students, feedback from parents, feedback from peers, feedback from administrators. The idea that teachers cannot be meaningfully compared is just bogus. Every problem you cite has a direct analog in the environment where I work. If teachers want better pay, they need to work in a system that is able to provide it. The downside is that such systems offer much worse job security. There are always trade-offs.
Comment by Jacob J — November 5, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
Sir - your satire in school naming conventions shows a want of feeling and calls you out as a political opportunist masquerading as a community activist.
If you told us up front about your political angst your credibility would still be intact.
It is not.
Comment by Justin — November 5, 2007 @ 9:12 pm
Jacob J, I consider “much worse job security” for teachers a very good thing. But I have serious doubts about the ability to design a good merit pay system. All of the ideas you mention have serious practical problems: What student will highly rate a teacher who made them memorize three Latin declensions instead of letting them host a mock Olympics? What parent will prefer the teacher who told them that they needed to spend 30 minutes per night laboring over CVC word with their whiny first grader instead of sending them home with a cute little picture to color?
The main problem is that the rewards of good teaching are generally not immediately apparent and/or appreciated by parents, students, and sometimes even other teachers (stop making me look bad!) or administrators (stop rocking the boat!).
Comment by Julie M. Smith — November 5, 2007 @ 9:13 pm
Count me among those who are disappointed with this essay. I will vote against the referendum because I believe there are good reasons to oppose it. I cannot understand why those reasons are not part of the public debate over it. This essay pretends that the serious problems with the public schools that motivate this type of legislation do not exist. It is insulting to people who are on the other side of this. It suggests that pro-voucher groups have evil designs and want to dismantle civil society!
I believe that if the teachers unions would get serious about teacher performance and accountability, support for vouchers would dry up. As a parent, it appears to me that job security comes ahead of the needs of students as a priority for the teachers union. This is wrong. I also dislike the argument that parents whose children attend substandard public schools with bad teachers should just get more involved in running the school. For many working parents, this is not practical. The purpose of the schools is to educate children, not to provide teachers with job security.
Comment by E — November 5, 2007 @ 9:28 pm
I am all for the concept of merit pay in theory, but until we fix the school funding issue it’s going to be impossible to implement in many, if not most, districts. Right now, Ohio’s funding has been declared unconstitutional for ten years - a decision I support fully. For the first seven years, the legislature proposed one funding change after another that did absolutely nothing to address the issues that caused the ruling. Each was rejected. Three years ago, the legislature stopped trying and simply refused to budget in any different manner.
What this means is that the schools and districts in this state are stuck with a ten-year-old, unconstitutional funding mechanism that relies on citizens to pass tax levies every few years to cover inflation costs - including teacher salaries. Many districts still pay teachers what they did ten years ago - specifically because so many citizens are fed up with the constant requests for more money from their own pockets - on top of all of the other taxes they are paying - simply to continue the same level of performance they have seen for years.
In this environment, any rise in salaries for excellent teachers must mathematically be offset by a decrease in salaries for poor teachers. Rewarding excellent teachers economically as a way to entice higher performance across the board sounds great, but that only is possible if there is more money available to pay for the higher total salary base throughout the district - and it simply isn’t there for most districts. One could argue for reduction in other areas, but that is a whole separate issue.
Vouchers won’t begin to address any of this.
Comment by Ray — November 5, 2007 @ 9:41 pm
Like a belated and not terribly useful fairy godfather, I have responded to gst’s cries for succor, written up a post on vouchers, and posted it on the best blog in the Universe. Those of you in the know will know where that is.
Comment by Frank McIntyre — November 5, 2007 @ 9:57 pm
lurkgirl (68),
I find it hard to believe that teachers average 10 hours a day. If I’m not mistaken, teachers at my high school got two or three “off-hours” during the day.
Jacob J. and Julie M. Smith,
A fair merit based system would be based off of a principal’s in-class evaluation combined with student’s change in test scores.
Comment by California Condor — November 5, 2007 @ 10:20 pm
Ray (67),
If you were making less than $1.00 an hour, then you truly were getting shafted. I hope made a scene in your principal’s office and quit, slamming the door behind you.
Comment by California Condor — November 5, 2007 @ 10:22 pm
CC, Many, if not most, of them do - including every good-excellent one. Please accept the word of multiple teachers and former teachers on that.
Comment by Ray — November 5, 2007 @ 10:30 pm
CC, you really don’t understand teachers.
Comment by Ray — November 5, 2007 @ 10:32 pm
Jacob J.,
I am in my ninth year of teaching and I am at least open to the idea of merit-based teacher salaries. But like Julie, I am skeptical that an excellently (or even acceptably) designed system is possible and like Ray, I don’t think the money is there.
In order to pay the most excellent teachers the salary they deserve (which here in Orange County, CA is arguably upwards of $80k), districts would have to pay the worst and laziest teachers $20k (not a livable wage here).
Here’s where you say, “So what? Go find a new job then.” I agree except that… the district would then have to count on employing crappy teachers in order to afford to pay the excellent ones, the very good ones, the good ones, and the merely acceptable ones. See the problem?
But if Jacob is willing to write the check, then I am willing to have my pay based on my performance.
Comment by lurkgirl — November 5, 2007 @ 10:33 pm
#85 - Perhaps that was a bit too harsh. Let me clarify:
I was making that amount for the stipend I received for the extra hours I put in as a coach outside of my classroom duties.
Comment by Ray — November 5, 2007 @ 11:05 pm
Julie (#78),
Notice that there are tensions between the different sources of feedback (which is good). Testing requires that children learn the material, which is in tension with student feedback (which improves if teachers go easy). I have a less cynical view than you of the kind of feedback that would be given by parents. If they knew it made an actual difference, I think parents could give very valuable feedback, but it would just be one consideration. If I was a teacher and my raise next year counted on the students testing well (or well in relation to previous performace as suggested in #82) in conjunction with good feedback from students, parents, and principal, that would certainly influence my behavior. It would certainly help us identify the best teachers. The thing is, what I suggested is the most rudimentary system possible. We could do much better if we were committed to merit-based pay and put things in place to help us evaluate and compare teachers (today we essentially have nothing).
Ray (#80),
I agree that no one is excited to pay more when they feel sure it will lead to the same performace as before. As to your point about paying the best teachers out of the pockets of the worst teachers, that is what happens in my industry.
lurkgirl (#86),
I don’t want to give the impression that I think merit-pay will magically solve all the problems. I am just arguing that it is a major factor in why the system (as a whole) does not function well. If we allow capitalism in, then what happens is we actually pay more money to the schools which perform better, and they can afford good teachers since they have proven they know how to utilize them. See how that solves the problem? Rewarding success leads to more success. Rewarding mediocrity leads to…well…what we have today. Oh, and by the way, I am already writing the check.
Comment by Jacob J — November 5, 2007 @ 11:50 pm
Wow. I had to rub my eyes and take a double take to make sure that some commenters were actually suggesting that teachers were overpaid, let alone paid adequately.
Teacher pay is just a huge, looming problem that overshadows everything else. Until professionals feel their skills and education will be rewarded with at least a respectable living wage as teachers, nothing else will matter much. Including and especially vouchers.
Also, what kind of “efficiencies” will private schools funded with (or established through) vouchers introduce into the system while still keeping tuition within a range that will make the vouchers at all applicable? Either they will cut out less-quantifiable educational components (the kind that foster critical and abstract thinking), thus training students just enough to be consumers. Or they will emerge and fall in rapid succession based on fly-by-night pedagogical methods.
A comment way up the thread said: “Future plumbers wouldn’t be forced to waste time learning Emily Dickinson. Future computer programmers wouldn’t be forced to waste paint on lame finger-paintings of dogs.” Wow. Just, wow. If you think education is only about job training, there’s a Bob Geldof movie you really, really need to see.
Comment by Jeremy — November 5, 2007 @ 11:53 pm
Jacob (#88) - Yes, it happens in your industry, but the point lurkgirl and I are making is that the $20K left over when the crappy teacher quits is all that is available to hire a new teacher to replace the crappy one. When that is all that is available, you are left with the ability to hire . . . another crappy teacher. Overall, the system hasn’t changed one iota.
So, a question: Would you rather have a chance of hiring and paying two good teachers (or even a good one and an excellent one), or would you rather guarantee a crappy one for every excellent one - and how do you justify the latter decision to the kids (and the parents of those kids) in the crappy teacher’s class? “Sorry, we had to guarantee you (your child) a crappy teacher, because we had to guarantee those other children (those parents) an excellent teacher” just doesn’t cut it. You better be locking the panic room door when you finish saying that - and no district in its right mind is going to cause the flood of lawsuits that are sure to result.
Comment by Ray — November 6, 2007 @ 12:19 am
This idea that teachers anywhere are overpaid….WOW. I’m with Jeremy.
The fundamental problem with the U.S. educational system is the fact that the electorate is unwilling to provide adequate funding. All the rest just follows. We’re the uber-capitalist society. Until teaching becomes financially attractive, we will never have enough good teachers.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 6, 2007 @ 12:49 am
Just out of curiosity, how much time do you spend each year soliciting and compiling feedback?
You mention in #88 that knowing you would receive feedback “would certainly influence [your] behavior” and in #75 that “there are always trade-off.” What trade-offs could we expect if teachers were to alter their behavior in pursuit of positive feedback?
Comment by Peter LLC — November 6, 2007 @ 7:00 am
Make that
Comment by Peter LLC — November 6, 2007 @ 7:01 am
I’m a little amazed at some of the arguments and comments here.
Somewhere in the midst of some of these arguments it seems we’ve lost focus of a simple idea. When we don’t pay teachers well, there is no way to attract the best and the brightest. And that secondly, as a nation, as communities, we should want each and every child to have equal eductional opportunities.
These are idealistic goals that are difficult to implement at times - there are complications, and I understand that those are not always simple problems to fix. What disturbs me though is there seem to be some here who say those are not ideals. To me, that’s stunning.
California Condor - do you really believe that there are no reasons that as a society we shouldn’t want to educate all children? That all are created equal? You seem to be advocating for some sort of system where if Johnny doesn’t seem very smart we shouldn’t be making him read poetry, he should go off and learn to dismantle a car.
Future computer programmers shouldn’t have to take art?
Is it really that simple for you? Does it follow by logic then that artists shouldn’t have to learn math? Or to read for that matter? Where does this type of education lead us as a society?
I’m assuming Brave New World is one of your favorite books.
It is also apparently impossible for you to understand the basic altruistic nature of most teachers. People with personalities who only do things because there is the lure of money, never went into teaching in the first place.
This however, doesn’t mean we can get away with not paying teachers at all!
I understand what Ray is talking about. We had a really hard time getting a speech & debate coach at my sons school this year because when you figure out the time commitment you aren’t even earning minimum wage for that extra job. It’s a huge responsibility with no pay. How grateful I am for a teacher who doesn’t mind spending almost every weekend and 2 days after school for several hours, on speech & debate. My sons life has been so enriched by this very self-less individual.
Comment by Bandanamom — November 6, 2007 @ 7:15 am
I too am puzzled at the line of argument that teachers are overpaid. Supporting vouchers does not require resort to this absurd and patently false claim. If it does, then that shows a huge problem with the theory of vouchers.
Comment by john f. — November 6, 2007 @ 8:43 am
I said:
a significant chunk of the operating expenses represent fixed costs that will not decline as pupils exit the system. The buildings still need to be heated, the administrative staff still needs to be paid, etc.
Matt Evans said:
Last Lemming, this is false. School districts would consolidate as students exit the system, just like they do now. Communities age and the number of school children drop — the schools are re-purposed or sold. My elementary school in Sugar House is now an office building, my mom’s elementary school in Holiday was razed.
Mark D. said:
George Will is right. Utah has a rapidly growing school age population. Enrollments are projected to increase by 160,000 over the next ten years. This increase is far larger than the projected number of students who will take advantage of private school vouchers (~15,000). The fixed cost argument is invalid because the vast majority of public schools will have rising, not falling enrollments.
So it seems I am wrong for two contradictory reasons. When you guys get your stories straight, maybe I’ll try again.
Comment by Last Lemming — November 6, 2007 @ 9:24 am
Last Lemming,
Those arguments are not contradictory, but rather complimentary. They show how schools would be protected under two radically different scenarios.
Comment by Mark D. — November 6, 2007 @ 9:33 am
“complementary” that is.
Comment by Mark D. — November 6, 2007 @ 9:34 am
As a society we like to talk about how much we value our children, but the truth is, we don’t. Teachers salaries are a direct reflection of that.
Anyone who thinks teachers aren’t underpaid is deluded.
I personally think the entire public school system needs to be scrapped and completely redesigned, from funding to scheduling to how classrooms operate and material is taught. But then I went to a very unusual elementary school in the liberal-arts 70s.
Comment by Susan M — November 6, 2007 @ 9:36 am
My parents both started out as high school teachers, which is also how they met. I grew up with many family and friends who were public school teachers. A few who stick with it career-long can establish comfortable middle-class lifestyles, but it seems like many go into administration where they can be paid more.
As bbell implies, the real problems are in the big urban centers. L.A. Unified School District might start out a teacher at upwards of 40k/year, but in an environment where a smallish 2 bedroom condo costs a minimum of a half-million dollars…who’s going to take that deal? I’m sure it’s even worse in New York City. Except for the few who have other resources, teachers in such cities must accept either extremely long commutes (upwards of 2 hours each way), or tolerate sub-standard rental housing for life.
The idea that teachers should be motivated by reasons other than money, as some comments imply, clearly does not pan out. Even a voucher-fueled Catholic school system could not come up with enough altruistically motivated teachers to provide a good education for all our kids.
Comment by MikeInWeHo — November 6, 2007 @ 9:39 am
#99. How does valuing ones children relate to teacher’s salaries?
I greatly value my children and their success and personalities are a direct reflection of that. That is a relationship that is shared between the parent and child. I do not see the salary of a public school teacher as a component in that relationship.
Comment by StillConfused — November 6, 2007 @ 9:40 am
Susan M, I couldn’t agree more.
Comment by Tracy M — November 6, 2007 @ 9:42 am
#101- you send your children to be with this person for 6-7 hours a day. If said person is barely scraping by and not feeling much job satisfaction, what kind of job performance will they be turning in? We cannot expect a teacher to be so altruistic about their chosen profession that a sub-standard salary coupled with the life-stress broght on by such isn’t going to intrude on ther job performance.
If teachers were paid more, more people would go into teaching, and bar, such as it is, would be raised.
Comment by Tracy M — November 6, 2007 @ 9:46 am
Let me add to this thread(jack) about teacher salaries the following quote from Pres. Monson, from theJune 2000 1st Presidency message. And just TRY to tell me that this statement wasn’t directed, if obliquely, to the cheapskate Utah legislature.
There is no more important aspect of public education than the teacher who has the opportunity to love, to teach, and to inspire eager boys and girls and young men and young women. President David O. McKay said: “Teaching is the noblest profession in the world. Upon the proper education of youth depend the permanency and purity of home, the safety and perpetuity of the nation. The parent gives the child an opportunity to live; the teacher enables the child to live well.” I trust we shall recognize their importance and their vital mission by providing adequate facilities, the finest of books, and salaries which show our gratitude and our trust.
Comment by Jeremy — November 6, 2007 @ 10:29 am
Ray (#90),
You are treating the whole system as a zero sum game. You were correct back in #80 when you said people are fed up with paying more money for the same bad performance. I would be happy to fork out additional money if it was going toward a system which was designed to promote, reward, and select for excellent teachers. I’m not the only one who feels that way.
Peter LLC (#92),
I spend some time (an hour?) every two weeks keeping track of my contributions/status and then once a year I have to come up with a document making the pitch I spoke of in #76. The person who would get stuck with the most extra work is the principal (and staff) who would have to do all of the reviews. It is a real cost, but most industries find the cost to be worth it. I freely admit there are drawbacks and benefits to the kind of system I describing. Even if we took a baby step and made it reasonable to fire poor teachers, that in itself would help.
To repeat, however, I am not saying teachers shouldn’t be paid more, I am saying the education system as it currently functions is not conducive to providing high paying jobs. There really are customers in the educational system, whether we like to think of it that way or not. Customers don’t get excited about paying more money if they are not happy with the product.
Comment by Jacob J — November 6, 2007 @ 10:29 am
California Condor, you asked about planning time during the day (”teachers at my high school got two or three “off-hours” during the day.”).
Secondary schools normally grant 1 out of 6 class periods per day as a planning period, not two or three, unless the teacher is working on a reduced contract. In that case, such as one teacher I know, she earns 60% of the normal pay for teaching three periods a day.
But let’s talk about the planning period. You’ve got to prepare to teach 5 classes, averaging between 25 to 30 students per class. It would be easier if you only had one prep, such as 5 classes of Intermediate Algebra. Most schools, and most teachers, don’t have that luxury. Two or three “preps” are more often the norm, such as two periods of Intermediate Algebra, two periods of Geometry, and one period of Trigonometry. Each prep requires different work. No teacher I know gets all of their prep done in one period per day. that’s why the teachers and those who really know teachers on this thread talk about routine 10 hour days.
Too much of the argument about vouchers has turned emotional and polemic. I’m just trying to help get some facts straight.
Good luck today, whatever side you are on.
Comment by kevinf — November 6, 2007 @ 10:34 am
Bandanamom (94),
Maybe we should give people the freedom to choose what they study, and not cram a state-mandated curriculum down their throats (a la North Korea). Now granted, young children might not have the reasoning skills to make informed decisions, so their parents would make those decisions for them.
Comment by California Condor — November 6, 2007 @ 11:21 am
CC, that’s an excellent idea. I would like my kids to study esoterica, exclusively.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 6, 2007 @ 11:32 am
Jacob J.,
I agree that feedback can be a useful tool to improve performance (though not where I work–here performance reviews amount to secret, unscheduled and unpublished surveys of colleagues and superiors), especially when combined with incentives and a transparent review process.
At the same time, if education is a public good (it is at least non-rivalrous, as you point out to Ray in #105), then market forces alone may not be up to the task of providing the best to everyone.
Comment by Peter LLC — November 6, 2007 @ 11:33 am
Here is a good right up from a long time friend.
For me, it’s this in a nutshell:
“Should I as a parent be allowed to decide what is done with my tax money the state has set aside for my child’s education?”
conversely:
“Should the state bureaucracy decide what is best for my child?”
I don’t really care the effect it has on “Utah’s Schools” I only care the effect it has on my kid. I in fact support taking ALL of the money allocated to my kid out of the EDUCATION FUND. I reject the idea that Utah’s Public Schools provide the most appropriate education for each and every child.
I can tell that that as the parent of a child with Autism…they are woefully inadequate. To get the state’s money for my child would prevent a lot of debt in my family we’ve been spending on special education for him. Instead, they are telling me he doesn’t need their help and they are going to keep our money anyway?
Comment by Austin — November 6, 2007 @ 12:05 pm
I was talking on a societal level, StillConfused, not a personal one. If we really valued kids like we say we do, we’d give them better educational systems. Better medical care. Better support to parents. Better protection from abuse. Etc.
Unfortunately we don’t live in an ideal world and we have to work with what we’ve got. But I stand by my comment—our society does not value children as much as we say we do.
Comment by Susan M — November 6, 2007 @ 12:06 pm
Austin,
My heart goes out to you. Kids with special needs certainly get short shrift in public education, with too few special ed qualified teachers, lack of funding for all of the needs, and no recognition from NCLB that a special needs kid may not perform at grade level. They are required by law to be at the same performance level as everyone else, and the schools can not take them out of the testing pool, or their test score is counted as zero.
However, as I am sure you are aware, there are very few private schools that also are equipped to meet the needs of these kids. The more we take the best and brightest out of public schools, the more difficult it becomes for the kids left in public schools.
I wish there were better answers for parents than what you are probably faced with. I’ve had a couple of ADD kids, which still makes them pretty mainstream, and we have struggled trying to get them the best environment for learning, with limited success. Nowhere near the difficulties you have faced, but I appreciate your concerns.
The state bureaucracy should view you as a partner in your child’s education, but declining funding and federal mandates aren’t helping.
Ray, you get my vote for the “Voice of Reason” in all this discussion over the last two days.
Comment by kevinf — November 6, 2007 @ 1:39 pm
If we completely privatized education, parents would pay top dollar for the good teachers. So teachers would have a financial incentive to be good teachers.
Comment by California Condor — November 6, 2007 @ 1:45 pm
I totally agree that anyone who thinks teachers aren’t underpaid, as a general rule, must be living on a different planet. But even if we could magically snap our collective fingers and double teachers’ salaries overnight, I’d bet that there would be little long-term impact, if any, on our kids’ education. There might be a little more competition for teaching positions, so the overall caliber of teacher might improve to some degree, but MOST of our existing teachers are already pretty good at what they do, anyway. By and large, teaching would continue to take place in much the same way it does now.
A number of people here have indicated great surprise at the callous attitudes of others who don’t see teacher pay as a gigantic problem. Jeremy in particular (#89) considers it “a huge, looming problem that overshadows everything else.” As for me, it’s only a symptom of what’s really wrong with the system. I have nine kids, all of whom are in (or will be in) public schools. No way on my salary could I send them to private schools. My wife and I try to supplement their scanty education at home, as best we can. But in spite of the well-intentioned efforts of countless teachers, administrators and PTO members, public education is a resounding failure. And no - injecting a lot more money into it isn’t going to somehow convert it into something wonderful.
There’s simply no good, compelling reason for state governments - let alone the federal government - to be in the business of teaching our kids, at all. We have limitless evidence that the government does it very, very poorly. And yet as a society, we seem to think that the only alternative is a bunch of private schools for rich kids, and no education for the rest of us.
It drives me crazy that so many people think that the only way to cure any of society’s ills is through government programs, funded by compulsory taxation, mandated by statute, enforced by bureaucrats. At what point did we lose faith in ourselves - we, the people - and our ability to do these things on our own, in our communities, without whining and begging for the heavy hand of government to do our work for us?
Education should be strictly community-based. State governments should have nothing to do with it. Individual communities - cities and towns, even neighborhoods - should be free to decide where and when and how to educate their children. Some might assemble schools made up of volunteers; others might enlist private schools. Still other communities might make school mandatory and tax their citizens to pay for it. No one can say exactly how things would work out, if the government got out of the business of educating kids, but this much I do know: people who have forever been apathetic, uncaring, uninvolved, would suddenly find a great need to participate, to make a difference. Churches - OUR church, for heaven’s sake! - would rise to the occasion, providing locally-based education solutions which would be infinitely more tailored to local populations, more personal, more efficient, and in every way better. And people would voluntarily work together to provide education solutions for those in other neighborhoods and communities who don’t have enough resources to properly educate their own kids.
The marvelous thing is that all of this could - and WOULD - happen, entirely independent of governmental coercion. People of their own free will would work together to help educate our kids. As it is now, everyone is apathetic, because the government is in charge of the whole thing, so we pretty much don’t care. If education were returned to the hands of the people, you’d see it turn around.
It’ll probably never happen, but I can dream, can’t I?
Comment by Perry Shumway — November 6, 2007 @ 2:22 pm
I beleive that the issue of vouchers is a false choice. We are forced to take the sides between a public system that is geared for the creation of complacent workers and willing consumers, and a system of privatized education that ignores the fact that if education is privatized, only those who can afford education will get it.
Is not education a human right? If we privatize it then we open yet another door for the stratification of society.
The solution then is not a simple one. Education should perhaps be neither public nor private, but not-for-profit. Run by Organizations whose primary concern is quality education for everyone, not indoctrination or profit.
Comment by Jason Brown — November 6, 2007 @ 2:23 pm
#115 “Is not education a human right?” Based on the world in which we live, I would have to answer NO.
Comment by StillConfused — November 6, 2007 @ 2:27 pm
#112 — Why is it assumed that “the best and brightest” would leave the public school system in a voucher program? Is it assumed that family wealth and individual intelligence are tied?
Comment by StillConfused — November 6, 2007 @ 2:29 pm
Also, it is a sad state of affairs when i see comments to the effect of “i only care about my kids”. as if we are literally not supposed to care about anyone else. That is exactly what our economic system has trained us to do. But really if we look inside ourselves it isn’t a controversial idea to assume that we should also care about the kids next door, and those down the street. Privatizing education and the support it has received shows how deeply propagandized we have been by our media and economy. Is this not a Mormon blog? It is as if the commandments dont apply to everyday life, only in the abstract. Love one another, care for the poor, wo unto the rich. Those are basic ideas that should apply to every aspect of our lives ESPECIALLY the economy.
Comment by Jason Brown — November 6, 2007 @ 2:30 pm
Teacher’s hourly wages aren’t that low when you factor in the 10 weeks of vacation.
If there was no state-funded schooling, a demand would pop up for low-cost private education that you might be able to afford with your tax savings. Or, if you really think your kids would benefit from certain types of education, you could arrange for certain types of financing for tuition like many people do for college.
This might be true.
This is a money quote. I like it.
Actually you raise an intriguing point– we have BYU, BYU-Idaho, BYU-Hawaii, and LDS Business College. Why not private LDS Church-sponsored K-12 education? The Catholics have it.
Comment by California Condor — November 6, 2007 @ 2:49 pm
CC, the LDS Church did in fact have several private pre-college schools. The last of these, located in New Zealand, will close when the last of its current students graduate in 2009. Read more here.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 6, 2007 @ 2:54 pm
Actually, there is one LDS private school here in Utah County. It’s called Liahona Academy.
Comment by Angela — November 6, 2007 @ 2:57 pm
Steve (120),
Thanks for the link.
Angela (121), is that school actually run by the Church?
Comment by California Condor — November 6, 2007 @ 3:00 pm
Actually I stand corrected — the Church continues to operate a number of schools throughout the Pacific Islands. Wiki has a list.
Comment by Steve Evans — November 6, 2007 @ 3:04 pm