In an emotional debate Thursday, Kirk Jowers, director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics, asked representatives of both sides of the Utah school voucher debate: “Ultimately is this referendum robbing or aiding public education in Utah?”
“It’s critical for people to hear both sides at the same time,” Jowers said. “If you don’t hear the argument and then the rebuttal, it is difficult to understand the implications of this ballot measure. My biggest fear is that people will make up their minds on 30-second ads.”
Carol Spackman-Moss, a representative in the Utah State Legislature, and Richard Eyre, an advocate for vouchers, squared off in the Hinckley Caucus Room over the advantages and disadvantages of Utah’s proposed voucher plan.
Currently the amount of money a student can receive from the voucher program depends on family size and income. Depending on these factors, students could receive a voucher for between $500 to $3,000 to pay for tuition required at private institutions that range from $4,000 to $10,000 a year. During the Legislative session last spring, Utah lawmakers narrowly passed a bill creating a voucher program, but after a public petition challenged the Legislature’s decision, the Utah Supreme Court voted to allow a referendum vote on the issue. Utah voters will have the final say this November at the ballot box.
The debate between Eyre and Spackman-Moss focused heavily on the quality of education all students would receive with vouchers.
Spackman-Moss repeatedly returned to the idea that public and private schools are held to different standards. From hiring, testing and quality of education, public schools are required to meet certain standards that private schools don’t have to adhere to, she said.
“This program is using tax-payer dollars to fund students’ education that have no requirements,” Spackman-Moss said. “This bill is flawed and is taking money from 96 percent of students in public education.”
Eyre stressed that vouchers would decrease the number of students in classrooms, increase parent involvement and provide more money for children in public education. Eyre explained that when students from wealthy families use a voucher, they take $500 to $3,000 of the $7,000 spent on each student in the public school system away from schools, leaving at least $250,000 in the system. Eyre brought along a package of Oreos to illustrate his point.
“Private education is like the university system: choice controls quality and creativity,” Eyre said. “Let’s give parents a choice in their students’ education.”
The debaters focused on the issue of competition and the role it would play between public and private schools if vouchers were given out.
“If you’re against competition, you’re against vouchers,” Eyre said. “Competition that mandates something isn’t competition.”
In his arguments, Eyre explained that vouchers put pressure on both public and private education to improve. With the voucher system, parents become consumers for their child’s education, choosing where they spend their money, he said.
In response, Spackman-Moss reiterated that public schools aren’t held to the same standards that public schools are. In public schools, expectations are created for educators by elected officials, requiring students to pass rigorous testing standards, she said.
“You can’t have competition between teams if they’re competing with different rules,” Spackman-Moss said.
Jump: Forum examines pros, cons of vouchers
Jarad ReddekoppAuthor Richard Eyre and Carol Spackman-Moss debate the issue of school vouchers Thursday at the Hinckley Institute of Politics.