District Newsletter Flirts with Vouchers and State Law
None by KCPW
(KCPW News) Residents of Salt Lake County could be forgiven for mistaking a recent mailing from Salt Lake City School District for a campaign piece against vouchers. While the newsletter makes no mention of the upcoming referendum, it draws heavily from language often used by voucher opponents. It's the latest illustration of the fine line public schools walk in protecting their state funds without violating election law. KCPW's Julie Rose reports:
The Salt Lake City School District sent a mailing to more than 70-thousand homes in Salt Lake City over the weekend touting public schools as "your best choice." The glossy newsletter does not mention vouchers or the upcoming referendum, but district spokesman Jason Olsen knows it will probably stir strong feelings:
"And I'm sure there will be people who will look at this and read into it what they want to," says Olsen. "This is nothing but a community newsletter telling parents there are options out there within the Salt Lake City School District."
State election law prohibits a public entity - such as a school district - from using public funds to influence a ballot proposition. Olsen insists the newsletter is not a campaign piece, but to some the Salt Lake City School district appears dangerously close to violating state law.
"Because they mention in the flyer how there's this political rhetoric - so it's obvious they're talking about what's been happening recently with vouchers," says Leah Barker, a spokesperson for the pro-voucher group Parents for Choice in Education. "But they don't mention vouchers specifically, and it's okay."
Parents for Choice has raised concerns over schools and teachers using publicly funded resources in support of the referendum. Barker says her group won't file a complaint against the district newsletter, and the Utah Attorney General's office declined to comment because it has not been asked to review the document.
Email to a friendPosted in KCPW Newsroom, Legislative Coverage, and 2007 Legislative Coverage. Copyright 2009 KCPW
1. Jesse Harris said:
This really cuts it close. It seems foolhardy and risky to get that close to the line on this one, especially when the issue is as explosive as it is.
3. Teha Rangi said:
So, just because the pro voucher gang and the east siders are going nuts, a school district has to stop marketing its services? That's faulty thinking.
SLC District, as well as Granite and Jordan, each have a wealth of diverse services. If a district fails to freuqnetly inform citizens of services available to them and their children, that's a greater crime.
4. Anonymous said:
I got an email today from a publicly funded charter school in Utah County. Under the sender's signature it said "Vouchers Work" and had a link to PCE's website. That's a lot more blatent than anything the SL District has done.
5. Roger said:
I thought the ideas was for public schools to act more like a business. Isn't marketing a business practice? Isn't a newsletter a common business tool?
They don't say vote for or against vouchers. They are simply stating what services they offer. What's the problem?
6. Dennis said:
Alpine School District has an election violation complaint (multiple violations) sitting in the Attorney Generals desk. It seems no one in Utah cares if Public Schools are funneling money that was earmarked for children to be spent on political issues.
7. An observer said:
Likening the district's advertising to plain old marketing doesn't wash.
Competition is well and good--but the competition is stacked in favor of the politically run schools. Only they receive tax money for the public purpose of education. (Compare this with higher ed, in which both government and non-government owned entities benefit when students get taxpayer backed scholarships or loans.)
8. Roger said:
Competition stacked in favor of public schools - NOT!
Public schools must accept all students. Private schools can pick and choose from the cream of the crop.
Public schools must meet accountability standards from UPASS, NLCB and more. I think the voucher law says private schools must take ONE nationally standardized test and be audited once every four or five years.
Public school budgets are controlled by legislators, many who are openly hostile against schools, teachers or both. Private schools can set their own tuition and charge what they want.
Think again Observer!
9. Craig said:
To #4 anonymous: Email is free! Don't confuse sending a free email to paying for a flyer.
10. David Clarke said:
Why is it that anti voucher people are saying the think Public schools should be run more like buinesses, but only when it comes to spending Tax payers money on spreading false information. They seem to over look that this country was made great by our system of supply and demand. If public schools don't want me to take my money else where why don't they provide a beter product. Just becouse the state takes my money away for my kids education doesn't meen I shouldnt I have a say in what they spend it on. In every state that has a voucher system in place, both public and private scools have increased test scores. Also Vouchers are only about 60% of what the state Pays the schools that means for every student that goes to a private school pubic schools get more money per student. What are you Afraid off ???
11. Jeanne said:
to #8 (Roger):Private schools accept just about everybody they have room for. And they are bound as are all businesses by anti-discrimination laws. The proof is in the pudding--they often turn the disadvantaged kids into the cream of the crop, because they are better able to tailor to the needs.The point about private enterprise is that it exists to make money by providing a needed service/product. The "less desirables" have the same tuition bucks to spend as the cream does, when vouchers are used. Their business is just as wanted.As for "setting their own tuition and charging what they want"--yeah, exactly the same way AT&T does. My gosh, have you never learned that only MONOPOLIES can charge whatever they want? Competing businesses charge what the market will pay, or what it takes to attract customers to their doors.
Why is it that private schools spend so much less per student than the public ones anyway? Maybe it's the cost of fliers in the public system...
The competition model does hold up, and has been proven to also improve public school performance. Besides, they ought to love having fewer kids and more money, right? This program really will benefit all sides. It's the future. Love it, live it.
12. Ammon Wright said:
Roger (#8): Have you not seen/heard all of the tv/radio comercials for Sylvan Learning? All of the private schools I've heard advertise are trying to attract failing students, not those who excel. The idea that private schools will take away the cream of the crop and leave only the average and below average students behind is a total fallacy. The reality is, private schools attract ALL types of students for whom the public school system is not working. Certainly some of those students are top achievers who feel held back by the relatively fixed pace of mass education. But a much larger percentage are those students who are being left behind, need special help and require custom programs. These students are also being served by private schools which target their specific needs.
13. Michael said:
Craig(#9): As a public school employee I have been told I cannot use the school email system to do such things as #4 mentions. Since charter schools are also public institutions and not completely private, they shouldn't do it either, but as usual in this debate the rules are not equal. I have also had students transfer into my class from private schools they got kicked out of for "talking too much" yet I can't even tell a student to shut up without a principal on my case.
When I was a kid there was a big debate about federal money going into local schools. Many people opposed it as the feds would soon be taking over the schools. Look at NCLB. If the vouchers go through, the private schools will shortly have their version of meddling as well. I'm with with Scott Ferrin(#2), keep the systems separate for the health of both.
2. Scott Ferrin said:
Here's the funny thing. The pro-voucher forces say there is no problem with mixing public funds and religious or private schools and they say competition is the answer. However, the public schools must not compete as other businesses and entities can. They can't tout their benefits, or the harm vouchers may do to them in their view. In addition, public schools have to provide services to some types of private school students, and must do "child find" and testing under IDEA. There are so many ways that the "competition" model is stacked against public schools. Here's another illustration of the problem. Private schools are a great choice. Why must I endorse their message by paying for them? I can't know if all future private schools will all provide the inculcative values and citizenship views that enhance our state's citizens, and make it worthwhile to be state supported in the mandatory process of taxes. What about extremist religious views? Do I now have to pay for these? Keep public schools good and viable, and keep private schools private and viable. I taught at a private high school for five years. This is a recipe for the health of both educational sectors in my opinion.