Criminal Illegal Immigrant Education (Update)

Apparently, we are helping to pay for criminal illegal alien education programs. The Davis County Clipper had an article on April 10, 2008, entitled “Jail inmates offered education programs” (not available on the web). The article notes three programs in place for the inmates: GED certificate (General Education Development, ie ‘High School diploma’), ESOL (English for Speakers of Other Languages), and ABE (Adult Basic Education - literacy education).

The programs are administered by the Utah State Office of Education. I found the programs are under the Adult Education department (more information is available at the link).

There are no disqualifications (involving legal residency) for participation in the programs. I understand that the ESOL program is volunteer driven and that no residency criteria is required for the use of Federal (tax) funds. However, all programs are open to those who are here illegally and have engaged in criminal activity.

We have the pleasure of paying for these programs via our tax dollars. At least, only those legally here should have access, but that is not the case.

Further, I would hope that obtaining the GED will not, then, entitle a criminal illegal immigrant who has resided in the state for three years to qualify for our in-state tuition. If so, what a deal: enter illegally (butting in front of those in legal immigration lines), commit a crime, get a taxpayer funded education and then be rewarded with discounted tuition at one of our universities (while legal immigrants and US citizens without criminal records pay the nonresident rate). Good grief.

Your tax dollars at work.

UPDATE:  While I’m still looking for the written administrative rule addressing in-state tuition HS attendance documentation, I am told that High School transcripts are required.  That only partially solves the problem, however (criminals illegal aliens still get tax-funded education and certain criminals will still qualify for the tuition benefit).  See comment 6 for details (and the rest of the comments for background).

Seeding Political Ground (UEA and Vouchers)

This isn’t anything too shocking, it’s typical political maneuvering. Two articles caught my interest because of the contradiction by the UEA. From the first article:

The UEA’s Kuziak said the education community is fearful of repercussions for campaigning against vouchers.

“I had one of our elected legislators tell me specifically that education funding would suffer,” she said, declining to name the lawmaker.

First, I would bet that the ‘unnamed lawmaker’ is a pro-UEA lawmaker (providing their own talking point quotes - possibly Kory Holdaway, based on the second article…).

When I read the above it was clear to me that the UEA is seeding the ground for victim status if their demands aren’t met in the next session (and using the self-appointed victim status as a weapon). Fortunately,  Bramble did a good job exposing the ploy:

Bramble says the anti-voucher side will label any education reform proposed by Republicans retaliation. “I think you will see several reforms introduced. And when they are introduced, those who oppose vouchers will simply come forward and they will try to pigeonhole them as retribution.”

The UEA et al. are also attempting to expand their voucher win to say that ‘the people’ are with them and anything they propose (or oppose), is ultimately the will of the people. Again, that tactic isn’t anything new, but worth looking out for.

So where does the UEA contradict it’s victim status?  Here’s the key from the second article:

The UEA hasn’t decided which legislators it will oppose, said Vik Arnold, political director for the union. It plans to wait until after the upcoming session, giving legislators a chance to make nice with the union.

The anti-voucher coalition, Utahns for Public Schools, also will not disband, and will get involved in party caucus meetings and the 2008 election, Arnold said. 

In other words, the UEA etc are overtly telling legislators to vote their way or else.  They will be stacking caucus meetings to take out those that don’t toe the union line.  At the same time, they are preemptively claiming victim status.

Frankly, I’m not disturbed that the UEA wants its revenge, but gimme a break on the victim crap.  Nevertheless, I will give them credit on the tactic given the fact that the media will be a willing accomplice in promoting the victim status.  Reading the articles, it is clear on which side the media stands on this issue as they gleefully push the line of “comeuppance” and “reckoning”.

Finally, remember the legislature set up a ‘do no harm fund’ when they passed the voucher bill.  So where will the money in this fund go?

Plenty of interest groups will be gunning for the money, but I would like to remind legislators that that money wasn’t diverted from eduction or transportation, it was diverted from taxpayers.  I would expect that the money be returned to its rightful owners.

Aftermath (2007) (Pork Update)

I was planning on getting this done this morning, but as usual the law you can never escape (Murphy’s Law) came knocking on the door. So now I’m posting this late in the afternoon simply because I followed several issues in this election.

First, I’m sure we all know the election results. If you do not, click here for election results by county or here for statewide election results.

Obviously, vouchers were slapped down. Someone mentioned Lonsberry on this blog - I guess he would say Goliath won. I see it as a big missed opportunity (especially for parents with children struggling in public schools with no alternative) and will set us on a tax collision course to fund the upcoming influx of 150,000 students (DCW addresses that). It will also leave us with the ongoing problems of about 45% of students flunking out (20% drop out and 25% fail the UBSCT - Utah Basic Skills Competencey Test) not to mention some of the alarming drop out rates in certain school districts.

Going from the bad news to the mediocre news, the RAP Tax was a mixed bag. Woods Cross soundly rejected it and West Bountiful did so as well, however, they still have some provisional ballots that may change the results (we won’t know until the 13th). Bountiful only passed it by about 200 votes and Centerville went for it, big time. The interesting bit is Woods Cross and West Bountiful represent a massive amount of the commercial tax base for the tax, without these two they will not get much money.

Bountiful and Centerville city councils can move to adopt the tax even though it will not bring in enough to build the theater. If they do adopt it, they have carte-blanche to spend it on whatever pet projects they see fit. Even if RAP passed everywhere, they still would’ve been able to blow the money on their pork projects after the theater were build as I indicated and the Standard Examiner noted. Now would be a good time to contact the councils and ask them not to adopt the tax. We’ll see if the tax hunger continues.

Also, Bountiful dumped Higginson and put Beth Holbrook on the council. That’s an additional tax and spend proponent with the added benefit of her desire to force everyone to pay for her pet project (recycling). It doesn’t look like the intaxication will stop anytime soon.

Ending on the positive, it looks like CitizenForTaxFairness.org had a sound effect on the transportation tax. That was defeated. Rocky will soon be gone and while I’ll constantly disagree with Becker, he will make for a much more reasonable mayor and, from all I’ve heard, is a stand up guy.

Take away message #1: contact and keep close watch on the city councils (be vigilant on their RAP tax pork). I’m betting we haven’t seen the end of RAP and transportation tax grabs.

Take away message #2: Watch congress, they continue their pork binge in earnest.

Pork UPDATE: It just keeps rolling in, Congress just can’t get enough.

RAP Tax, Transportation (Question 1), more

Despite the title, I’ll keep this brief. If you’re interested in vouchers, please refer to the consolodated post which includes some more updates.

RAP Tax

I’ve addressed it several times and would refer you to this link for my opinions/information (scroll past the first post) on it. Additionally, the “arguments against” section of the RAP Tax voter information pamphlet (PDF) is in line with how I feel as well. Finally, as shocking as this may sound, the Standard Examiner Editorial Board is also opposed to the tax and urging a ‘no’ vote. See also: Citizens For Tax Fairness page on the issue.

Transportation Tax

I’ll refer this to the Transportation Tax Voter Information Pamphlet (pdf). I am aligned with the arguments against on this one as well. Enough is enough. See also: Citizens For Tax Fairness page on the issue.

Misc. Local Stuff

North Salt Lake City Council Election - Candidate Scott Briggs has signed the Citizens for Tax Fairness Tax pledge (more at the link) and the city council rejected the RAP tax.

Bountiful City Council Election - Good luck. All candidates support higher taxes, however one (Beth Holbrook), additionally, supports raising your fees for recycling. Chalk that up to voting for the least tax hungry candidates.

Consolidated Voucher Post (Referendum 1)(Update)(11/1 Update)

I’ve frequently referred to previous posts, keywords, or category links for more background on my voucher posts. I’ve noticed that, those methods aren’t the most efficient way of finding the information etc I’ve put up here. So for reader (and my) benefit, I’m putting this up as a means of having rapid access to my more recent posts as well as new information (at the bottom of this post).

Voucher Accountability: The Best Auditor (Referendum 1)
Parents Know Their Children Best (Vouchers)(Referendum 1)
Voucher True or False (Referendum 1) (update) *Based on the KSL “Truth Test” report including video of and links to the newscast (click here to go to the KSL report).
Letters On Vouchers (Referendum 1)
The Missing Voucher Column (Referendum 1)
Voucher Arguments (Referendum 1)
Vouchers and Entitlements
Carson Smith Scholarship
Education: Nanny State Knows Best?
Voucher Update

**See also: Utahns Can Vote For School Choice Tuesday and Liberal or Progressive, Same Old Nonsense (found via Davis County Watch - seel 11/1 Update below)

Here’s the new information:

I found an insert in the newspaper from the pro-voucher folks. I am constantly irritated by the large print, three-bullet-point, information-poor pamphlets put out by candidates/groups. We all know them, the “I love families have never hurt a kitten”, “I will do great things for the community” write-ups which always leave you wondering if they hurt a puppy and what “things” they consider great. Admittedly, they work (but I still hate them). However, kudos go to the pro-voucher group for the four page, small/normal print insert which includes references. It is one of the best political pamphlets I’ve seen. Fortunately, you need not take the paper to view it. The brochure is available here (in pdf):

Referendum 1 Information Brochure (or click here - also pdf).

I also recommend their Facts page, which includes an overview of how the voucher program would work and a link to the voucher law text as it appears in Utah Code.

Finally, CitizensForTaxFairness.org have/has also chimed in on vouchers.

UPDATE (10/31): I love irony. Today I received a four page brochure (entitled “A Voting Guide for Referendum 1″) from the anti-voucher folks. It was exactly the opposite of the above. It had huge lettering and amounted to 5 vague, single line, ‘bullet point’ items. Three of the items were discussed in the KSL report (as being false) and four have been discussed here on various posts.

The brochure implies that private schools hire criminals as their teachers (a semi-new tactic). If that were true, private schools would be committing institutional suicide. All would be out of business from being sued into oblivion. So, I called five or six private schools (from well known to small) in Salt Lake and Davis Counties. All require criminal background checks prior to hiring teachers (one specifically noted they require it of all employees - I failed to ask the others about that, sorry).

While public schools do also run checks, let’s face it, they have had their problems. Here are the most recent (this week): Southern Utah Teacher Arrested For Sex With Student and Piute High School coach resigns amid sexual misconduct allegations (these are two, separate cases).

As I recall there have been a couple of teachers in Tooele, one in the Jordan (maybe Granite as well) District who’ve been arrested for fairly serious infractions (usually involving students, it seems) within the last year. Let’s face it, background checks aren’t a silver bullet and this stuff will happen however, they should think twice before making such disturbing implications.

Additionally, Citizens For Tax Fairness asked the Davis School Districts to require contractors to verify social security numbers of their employees (fugitives, illegal immigrants etc use fraudulent numbers to obtain work - for more information, see this or this or this). So far, no word has come back from the District (it’s still ‘looking into it’). To date, it appears ID thieves and fugitives can still become contractors for the District.

Lastly, one point I’ve mentioned in the past that has been dredged up again by the anti-voucher crowd is that private schools will discriminate against those with disabilities. Again, a little research and common sense sinks that too. Just look at the Carson Smith voucher (yes, Utah already has vouchers for special needs students) and the schools accepting it. This is just another scare tactic.

I will admit, however, I did find one school (there are probably some more) who do discriminate on disabilities. The “Carmen B. Pingree” school only accepts special needs students. The nerve!

They also play the religious discrimination card - I know LDS folks who send their child to a Catholic school. Just because it’s Catholic, doesn’t mean you must be as well. I’ve found the exact same thing living in Australia - plenty of religious schools (especially Protestant and Catholic) with Muslims, Buddhists, Atheists, Mormons…(name it) in attendance.

Whatever the case, this still all comes down to who I trust more to make the best educational choice for a child. For me that is not a school district - it’s mom and dad.

UPDATE (11/1): I heard another ad about ‘diverting money from public schools’. The argument is pure sophistry.

The money was never allocated to the schools, it was just part of the surplus money (nothing was taken away or lost as they imply). The same type of argument would say returning money to taxpayers would be diverting money from transportation, parks & rec, WIC…(name a government program/department). Not expanding a specific government department is not diverting funds! The only reasonable argument that could be made here is that the money was diverted from taxpayers (but then, the same could be said of education, transportation, etc budgets as well).

KSL’s report did a good job blowing the false argument out of the water (click here for the article and video). It is also worth referring to the aforementioned “Referendum 1 Information Brochure“.

Finally, Davis County Watch also has some new columns on the vouchers by some well known folks (see: Liberal or Progressive, Same Old Nonsense and Utahns Can Vote For School Choice Tuesday). Another good one is If Not Vouchers, Then What.

Bottom line for me, this still comes down to who will make the best decision for a child’s educational needs: mom and dad or school district bureaucrats. Again, check the links at the top of the post for more information.

Irony Update (11/2): Yesterday I said: “The same type of argument would say returning money to taxpayers would be diverting money from transportation, parks & rec, WIC…(name a government program/department). Not expanding a specific government department is not diverting funds!”

From today’s anti-voucher brochure (entitled “Referendum 1 is too expensive”): “…it will take money away from roads, Medicaid, seniors’ programs, colleges…”. I had to laugh. They really are consummate bureaucrats at heart - if your money isn’t spent on government programs, it wasn’t spent wisely (even if returned to taxpayers).

Schools, Water Guns, and a Dream (act)

The is another example of school ‘no tolerance’ policies (and no tolerance policies, in general). When I first heard about it, I thought it was just about the kid in Arizona but I was wrong. This time it occured in New Jersey.

For the sake of clarity, these kids didn’t ‘draw’ in the wild west, Gary Cooper or The Duke sense the did so in the Escher or Picasso sense. Good grief.

In other news:

The DREAM Act was quickly brought up in another attempt to ram it through, but failed for a fourth time (click here for the vote record). Both Bennett and Hatch voted in support of it.

Voucher True or False (Referendum 1) (update)

I saw this on KSL. The article is entitled “Truth Test: School Voucher Ads Deciphered“. I’m only putting in a small excerpt of the article’s lead as the article should be read in full. The video of the report (I think it has more details than the written story) is also available at the above link in Real Player format (it is also available below for those without Real Player). Excerpt:

Surely you’ve heard the claims, arguments and counter-arguments in the barrage of advertising on the issue of school vouchers. Tonight Eyewitness News has the first of a series of reports we’re calling, “The Truth Test.” We’ll examine claims made in advertising on political races, and we’ll do our best to give you the straight scoop.

We think the best way to tell you how to vote on any issue or candidate is to get informed and let you reach a conclusion yourself.

Oh, one last thing, the reporter (Richard Piatt) did a good job getting this information out in a reasonable clear, concise, and understandable manner:

Again, the ultimate argument for me is that vouchers will help fulfill our ultimate goal in educating every individual to their fullest potential (at their choosing). Parents know their children’s needs better than anyone else. We’ve all known kids who’ve fallen through the cracks or just don’t seem to fit into out traditional education system. Some just learn differently than the rest of us. I strongly feel that these kids (and their parents) deserve the option to make the necessary sacrifices (otherwise unattainable without vouchers) to give their child the best shot at success. In the end, I believe that will fulfill societal goals on eduction and benefit us all with a better educated population as these otherwise highly capable kids are no longer lost.

Finally, for what it’s worth, I also heard this comment (from the debates) by Giuliani and managed to find a longer version (with better context) on youtube:

**Just to avoid any confusion, no this is NOT an endorsement of Mayor Giuliani (I’m not dedicated to any candidate at this time).

For more information on vouchers, see my education category.

PS. One last thing, I just can’t resist Oreo cookies. Here’s an extended version of the pro-voucher folk’s Oreo demonstration I stumbled upon. Mmmmm…Oreos….

UPDATE: I should have included this.  This page discusses how the voucher program will work.  It is from the voucher folks site (off the facts page) but is a plain factual look at what is involved along with a small blurb on accountability.  The page also has a link to the original legislation.  Here’s the page: How the Program Works

Letters On Vouchers (Referendum 1)

Sometimes it’s better to let others do the talking, especially when they have experience with a voucher (Private schools accept special-needs students):

I am sick of anti-voucher lies about private schools. I hear their debaters say things like, “Private schools won’t take children with special needs who struggle in school because it will hurt their test scores.” That is untrue and an insult to parents, like me, whose children do have special needs, and who already use a voucher to attend a private school.

Utah already has a voucher program, the Carson Smith Voucher. It applies only to children with special needs, and hundreds of children like mine are using it and getting a quality education.

Private schools in Utah participate in this program, proving that they can and do accept students with special needs.

But why limit the program just to special-education students? Many children without learning disabilities also struggle in school and need another option. Don’t those kids also deserve the best education they can find, too?

Hillary Stirling
Orem

I’ve blooged about along the same lines with “Voucher Accountability: The Best Auditor” and “Parents Know Their Children Best (Vouchers)“.

I also stumbled on another couple of letters:
Catholic schools accredited, teachers certified - letter details requirements etc in Catholic schools

Fund public classrooms first - While not voucher related, the middle paragraph is the most interesting and one with which most can probably agree. I think the legislature looked at a bill last year that would’ve mandated a minimum percentage (60%?) of district finances be used in the classroom (including teacher salary) but the bill was opposed by the UEA et al and defeated.

Voucher Arguments (Referendum 1)

The October 2nd Clipper had a decent (albeit brief) pro/con article on vouchers. My only ‘beef’ with the article is that the pro side didn’t focus as much attention as they should have on the intent of vouchers (which also is the strongest, and most convincing, argument for them, in my opinion). They did address it, but it was, unfortunately, one of the shortest paragraphs and the seventh point (rather than the first):

7. Referendum 1 provides a choice for students who struggle in their assigned school.

“Public schools are the best option for most students, but it’s just not realistic to expect one system to meet the needs of more than a half million diverse learners,” Bell said. “Not all children get what they need at their local school. Those kids still deserve the best education we can give them, and sometimes the best option will be a private school.”

I’ve blogged on the fact that all children have different educational needs. The majority fit well in our current system (although I feel the educational quality has dropped - that’s for another time, however) and do well therein. A minority, however, don’t fit well within our system - whether that be from a documented disability, different learning method, or social problems (they are bullied or choosing bad influences as friends…), etc etc. These are the kids we see fall through the cracks and often they and society miss out on their potential for a successful and highly productive future.

These are the children who end up being a portion of the statistics found here: Utah High School Dropout Rates are Up (the video provides more details). From their stats:

2006 High School Dropout Rates
Ogden 49%
Salt Lake City 31%
Jordan 23%
Granite 14%
Davis 10%

Another article worth a look is here: One-quarter of graduates fail Basic Skills Competency Test - Failing the UBSCT (Utah Basic Skills Competancy Test). The article also notes that the figure doesn’t include dropouts. UBSCT is not the Federal NCLB, but a Utah specific evaluation.

Vouchers will not be a silver bullet but will provide an additional tool for parents with struggling children who can’t find a solution to their child’s needs in the current system and an additional tool for our educational system to meet its goal of providing the best education possible to each, individual, child.

Anyway, I won’t get anymore detailed than that since I’ve blogged on this several other times (click here for all my posts on this issue). My previous posts include more details and links.

Finally, some other posts/articles I stumbled upon that are worth a look:

Voucher Vote - Overview article.

Most high schools in Utah make the U-PASS grade - A bunch (30%) still didn’t pass, and the pass rate is inflated. U-PASS is not NCLB, it is an evaluation system passed by Utah (us) and not the Feds.

Weighing in on the Utah Voucher Program - Detailed post I stumbled on (I’m referenced somewhere in the lengthy post).

The Missing Voucher Column (Referendum 1)

For some unknown reason, the column (”A Minute For Parents”, September 11, 2007) is not available on the Clipper website (all of Ms. Hamilton’s other columns are, however). So here’s her column:

Choice: A Fundamental Freedom

Choice is a fundamental freedom. In November you get to vote for or against the voucher system. I guess you have to decide if you want to be in charge of your children or if you want the Board of Education and the Utah Education Association in charge of your children’s school environment and education. Frankly, I have more confidence in you – not because public schools are not doing an excellent job in most instances, but because children don’t all fit into the same category.

I had a single mother friend whose oldest boy entered junior high in Davis County and started running with friends she did not approve of. She wisely pulled him out of the public school and put him into a private school. He stayed there two years and then when she put him back into the public school, he did just fine. I can’t imagine how she did it financially.

This parent saw a need and somehow scrounged up the money to solve it. In my opinion we need to vote for vouchers and allow parents to choose the most appropriate educational setting for each of their children. In the vast majority of cases parents will choose a public school. However, we all know children who march to a different drummer and need something that the public schools can’t provide, whether it be more discipline, a more challenging environment for high achievers, a new approach for low achievers or a way to get children away from the “wrong crowd,” whether that be drugs, gangs or for moral reasons.

I personally know educators in high places who are very much for the voucher program. A Utah State University study estimated that this arrangement would potentially save the state more than $1 billion over 13 years. That money could be used to increase public school spending and help fund the education of the 150,000+ new students projected to enter Utah’s schools in the next decade. Parents need to understand that even though a child attends a private school under the voucher system, about $2,500 will go to the public school allowing more funds for the school to use on the students who are there.

It is parents who have the primary right and responsibility to educate their children. It is constitutional. See Utah Constitution Article X, Section 2 where it says, “The public education system shall include all public elementary and secondary schools and such other schools and programs as the Legislature may designate.”

The number of children attending Utah charter schools has doubled nearly every year since 2002, and school enrollment will have grown from 537 students in 2001 to an estimated 20,000 in 2007, with thousands more on waiting lists. This shows parental desire for something different than the public schools can offer.

There is accountability in the voucher program. It is scaled as to household income and household size. Participating private schools must use testing, have teachers with specified education, disclose accreditation status and be audited. Money is given directly to the school and there are other regulations. It disturbs me when I read that this is not true.

Again, the school system offers a great education for a lot of students, and I believe they will continue to do so, but I believe concerned parents need other alternatives. In other states, the whole system improves when competition is a factor.

For more information see www.choiceineducation.org.

Kim Burningham, the state BOE chair recently responded to the column (you’ll note that his long response is available on the website) . For the most part, Burningham runs the same, tired arguments illustrated in “Nanny State Knows Best?“.

Burningham starts by saying that vouchers won’t help choice as no one will afford the private schools anyway. I bet the single mother illustrated above begs to differ as do many of us who’ve actually bothered to call private schools to inquire about their tuition rates. Burningham also makes a poor assumption that private and public educational facilities will remain static ignoring the law of supply and demand by also stating that there aren’t very many private schools. With demand, the supply will go up and tuition rates will decrease as supply increases. I find it very likely, that the supply will be naturally biased to those in low to middle incomes as they hold the greatest amount of funding opportunity for a private school and are the emerging market - the high income market has already been met (no new growth opportunity there).

Burningham also tries to hit the “accountability” argument by focusing on government programs/methods, again, indicating that he puts more weight on a bureaucrat/big company/third party analysis over the judgment of the child’s parent (see: “Voucher Accountability: The Best Auditor” and “Parents Know Their Children Best“).

On the lighter side, I found a couple of funny comments in his letter. First, is the argument that private schools will only take good, able bodied students and leave the physically challenged etc in the public schools. Maybe he should check out the Carson-Smith Scholarship which the “education union” opposed. Check out the “student eligibility requirements”, the voucher amount, and list of private schools. Note: Carson-Smith is taxpayer (NOT private) money. Carson-Smith was passed in early 2005. This also goes back to the supply and demand stuff I mentioned above. Second, I chuckled at his ‘limited enrollment slots” and “preferred children” (siblings) line. Charter Schools have limited enrollment slots and enrolled siblings make it much more likely that their siblings will be accepted. Schools also have limited slots for transferring students (but usually aren’t exceeded, I believe).

Ok. I’ll quit there, this is long enough. Again, the bottom line is parents will make the best decision for their child’s education and are the superior auditor.