Our son was born July 6th and has kept us busy the past six weeks along with the care of our three year old daughter. We hope to resume posting on a regular basis as time permits.
Citizens for Reasonable And Fair Taxes (CRAFT) was a group that we started in December 2002 to fight the spending problem in our schools in Illinois. CRAFT quickly grow to over 600 supporters and active members. CRAFT eventually networked many groups statewide to fight for education reform and education spending reform.
When we moved to New Hampshire we decided to start a group here in Croydon and for people residing within SAU 43. We are looking for individuals to join our efforts. People can do as little as being a recipient of our emails and spreading that information to friends and neighbors to becoming active in helping us reduce our tax rates by encouraging reduced spending in our schools at the same time encouraging improved educational results in both Croydon and SAU 43.
Please email us if you would like to become involved in controlling the spending therefore our tax rates within our school district and improving the quality of education our students receive. There is no cost involved in joining our efforts.
New posts appear below this post.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Another reason not to vote for Hillary
The following Letter to the Editor appeared in the Union Leader.
Another reason not to vote for Hillary
To the Editors: As if we didn't have enough reason not to support Hillary Clinton, the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association recently gave her its endorsement. This largest union in America doesn't endorse candidates based on their service to the public.
The NEA continually strives to force every taxpayer to send as much money as possible into their hands through frivolous lawsuits and legislative edicts. To this end, the NEA supports candidates committed to using the power of government to suit their financial, not educational goals.
From its perspective, the NEA chose wisely, for all evidence suggests Hillary Clinton would be delighted to send our money to the NEA in exchange for political influence. Its the true reason she earned their endorsement, and the reason she must not have the public's endorsement in January.
Whether you're a Democrat, Republican or independent, one thing is clear. Hillary Clinton has neither the integrity nor competence to serve as President. Hillary Clinton stands for Hillary Clinton, nothing more.
-- Jim Peschke, Croydon
Another reason not to vote for Hillary
To the Editors: As if we didn't have enough reason not to support Hillary Clinton, the New Hampshire chapter of the National Education Association recently gave her its endorsement. This largest union in America doesn't endorse candidates based on their service to the public.
The NEA continually strives to force every taxpayer to send as much money as possible into their hands through frivolous lawsuits and legislative edicts. To this end, the NEA supports candidates committed to using the power of government to suit their financial, not educational goals.
From its perspective, the NEA chose wisely, for all evidence suggests Hillary Clinton would be delighted to send our money to the NEA in exchange for political influence. Its the true reason she earned their endorsement, and the reason she must not have the public's endorsement in January.
Whether you're a Democrat, Republican or independent, one thing is clear. Hillary Clinton has neither the integrity nor competence to serve as President. Hillary Clinton stands for Hillary Clinton, nothing more.
-- Jim Peschke, Croydon
Monday, November 12, 2007
Fight taxes - Rep. David R. Boutin, Hooksett
The following letter to the editor appeared in the Concord Monitor.
Fight taxes - Rep. David R. Boutin, Hooksett
Tuesday's municipal elections crystallized what will be the central campaign issue in the 2008 elections: taxes. Voters wisely elected two tax-fighters: Manchester Mayor Guinta and Mayor-elect Donnalee Lozeau in Nashua. Taxpayers in Dover overwhelmingly voted for a charter amendment that establishes a tax cap.
In 2006 voters elected Democrats to govern the state. The Democrats proved that they cannot govern with fiscal restraint. First, the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed, without Republican support, a 17.5 percent budget increase. Second, without Republican support, they passed $169 million in new or increased taxes and fees. And third, the Democrat-controlled Executive Council and Gov. Lynch passed increased highway tolls.
The Democrat-controlled Legislature has spent the past few months determining which broad-based tax they believe they can saddle on New Hampshire taxpayers. I'll give three guesses and the first two do not count. If you guessed income tax, you would be right.
Taxpayers must be vigilant in watching what new or increased taxes or fees the Democrat-controlled Legislature will pass in 2008. Tell your state representative and state senator that enough is enough. Tell them no new or increased taxes or fees in 2008.
Rep. DAVID R. BOUTIN
Hooksett
Fight taxes - Rep. David R. Boutin, Hooksett
Tuesday's municipal elections crystallized what will be the central campaign issue in the 2008 elections: taxes. Voters wisely elected two tax-fighters: Manchester Mayor Guinta and Mayor-elect Donnalee Lozeau in Nashua. Taxpayers in Dover overwhelmingly voted for a charter amendment that establishes a tax cap.
In 2006 voters elected Democrats to govern the state. The Democrats proved that they cannot govern with fiscal restraint. First, the Democrat-controlled Legislature passed, without Republican support, a 17.5 percent budget increase. Second, without Republican support, they passed $169 million in new or increased taxes and fees. And third, the Democrat-controlled Executive Council and Gov. Lynch passed increased highway tolls.
The Democrat-controlled Legislature has spent the past few months determining which broad-based tax they believe they can saddle on New Hampshire taxpayers. I'll give three guesses and the first two do not count. If you guessed income tax, you would be right.
Taxpayers must be vigilant in watching what new or increased taxes or fees the Democrat-controlled Legislature will pass in 2008. Tell your state representative and state senator that enough is enough. Tell them no new or increased taxes or fees in 2008.
Rep. DAVID R. BOUTIN
Hooksett
Sunday, November 11, 2007
Phillips Exeter will be cost-free for some next year
The following piece appeared in the Union Leader.
Phillips Exeter will be cost-free for some next year
By FAITH SWYMER
Union Leader Correspondent
EXETER – Current and prospective students at Phillips Exeter Academy will be recipients of a new financial aid package next year if their family income is less than $75,000 -- their tuition, boarding and other necessarily school materials will be completely free.
"The educational gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' continues to widen in this country and in the world," principal Tyler Tingley said in a statement announcing the board of trustees' decision.
"We want to be clear that money does not stand in the way of an Exeter education," he continued.
►Click here to view the news release about Phillips Exeter Academy free tuition.
Included in the free education will be a computer, academic supplies, books, school fees and linens for students' rooms. Without any financial aid, which is offered for families with income up to $200,000, full tuition and room and board comes to more than $36,000 a year, excluding books and fees.
School spokesperson Julie Quinn said the new initiative is funded by the school's large endowment fund that recently topped over $1 billion and a fundraising campaign that has raised its $305 million goal two years ahead of schedule.
The school's current financial aid program helps 46 percent of its students with tuition costs, with grants that total more than $13 million. The school also decided last year to become a "no loan" institution where student loans would be replaced by grants.
The initiative is expected to affect 183 out of the school's 1,000 students. Of those, 83 students have families who are currently contributing partial amounts of the school's tuition while still receiving financial aid.
"The number of students who will fall into this category next year will, we expect, be larger, but we can't know the figure until our admissions cycle is complete in April," said Quinn.
Quinn said the initiative proves the school is "need blind," meaning it accepts applicants without regard to financial background and would qualify nearly two-thirds of American families to send their children, if accepted, to Phillips Exeter for free.
"The point of an Exeter education is usefulness to the world," said Charles Harris, president of the school's board of trustees. "Financial wealth should not determine access to the best education, nor should it shape a learning community."
Founded in 1781, the school is widely known for its Harkness teaching method and notable graduates such as Franklin Pierce, Daniel Webster and John Irving.
The initiative will go into effect for incoming and current students for the 2008-2009 school year.
Quote of the Day:
"I have found it; I have discovered the cause of all the misfortunes which befell him. A public school, Joseph, was the cause of all the calamaties which he afterwards suffered. Public schools are the nurseries of all vice and immorality." Attribution: Henry Fielding (1707–1754), British novelist, dramatist. Abraham Adams, in Joseph Andrews, bk. 3, ch. 5 (1742). Speaking of his host, Wilson.
Phillips Exeter will be cost-free for some next year
By FAITH SWYMER
Union Leader Correspondent
EXETER – Current and prospective students at Phillips Exeter Academy will be recipients of a new financial aid package next year if their family income is less than $75,000 -- their tuition, boarding and other necessarily school materials will be completely free.
"The educational gap between the 'haves' and 'have nots' continues to widen in this country and in the world," principal Tyler Tingley said in a statement announcing the board of trustees' decision.
"We want to be clear that money does not stand in the way of an Exeter education," he continued.
►Click here to view the news release about Phillips Exeter Academy free tuition.
Included in the free education will be a computer, academic supplies, books, school fees and linens for students' rooms. Without any financial aid, which is offered for families with income up to $200,000, full tuition and room and board comes to more than $36,000 a year, excluding books and fees.
School spokesperson Julie Quinn said the new initiative is funded by the school's large endowment fund that recently topped over $1 billion and a fundraising campaign that has raised its $305 million goal two years ahead of schedule.
The school's current financial aid program helps 46 percent of its students with tuition costs, with grants that total more than $13 million. The school also decided last year to become a "no loan" institution where student loans would be replaced by grants.
The initiative is expected to affect 183 out of the school's 1,000 students. Of those, 83 students have families who are currently contributing partial amounts of the school's tuition while still receiving financial aid.
"The number of students who will fall into this category next year will, we expect, be larger, but we can't know the figure until our admissions cycle is complete in April," said Quinn.
Quinn said the initiative proves the school is "need blind," meaning it accepts applicants without regard to financial background and would qualify nearly two-thirds of American families to send their children, if accepted, to Phillips Exeter for free.
"The point of an Exeter education is usefulness to the world," said Charles Harris, president of the school's board of trustees. "Financial wealth should not determine access to the best education, nor should it shape a learning community."
Founded in 1781, the school is widely known for its Harkness teaching method and notable graduates such as Franklin Pierce, Daniel Webster and John Irving.
The initiative will go into effect for incoming and current students for the 2008-2009 school year.
Quote of the Day:
"I have found it; I have discovered the cause of all the misfortunes which befell him. A public school, Joseph, was the cause of all the calamaties which he afterwards suffered. Public schools are the nurseries of all vice and immorality." Attribution: Henry Fielding (1707–1754), British novelist, dramatist. Abraham Adams, in Joseph Andrews, bk. 3, ch. 5 (1742). Speaking of his host, Wilson.
Saturday, November 10, 2007
School Choice
Quote of the Day
"Quality of educational opportunity is a civil rights issue for the 21st century and it’s one that we should embrace. We can accomplish this and if we do, we will revive education in America and education will be as it should be. Education in America should be not failing the way it is now in comparison to many other countries. Education in America should be the best education in the world and choice will make it that way." Mayor Giuliani’s Remarks At The Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit, Washington, D.C., 10/20/07
"Quality of educational opportunity is a civil rights issue for the 21st century and it’s one that we should embrace. We can accomplish this and if we do, we will revive education in America and education will be as it should be. Education in America should be not failing the way it is now in comparison to many other countries. Education in America should be the best education in the world and choice will make it that way." Mayor Giuliani’s Remarks At The Family Research Council’s Values Voter Summit, Washington, D.C., 10/20/07
Friday, November 9, 2007
GISD moves ahead with threat to sue parent
The following editorial appeared in the Galveston County The Daily News. The below article is not that uncommon we received a threat of a lawsuit back in Illinois as well as many of our education reform friends. We also had many friends whose children were harassed by teachers if they spoke against the status quo. Educrats will go to any length to protect their gravy train even it is to suppress the freedom of speech of others.
GISD moves ahead with threat to sue parent
By Rhiannon Meyers
The Daily News
Published October 31, 2007
GALVESTON — The public school district has officially demanded that parent Sandra Tetley remove what it says is libelous material from her Web site or face a lawsuit for defamation.
Tetley received a letter Monday from the district’s law firm demanding she remove what it termed libelous statements and other “legally offensive” statements posted by her or anonymous users, and refrain from allowing such postings in the future. If she refuses, the district plans to sue her, the demand letter states.
Tetley said she’ll review the postings cited by David Feldman of the district’s firm Feldman and Rogers. She’ll consider the context of the postings and consult attorneys before deciding what to delete.
“If it’s not worth keeping in there, I’ll take it out,” she said. “If in fact it is libelous, I have no problem taking it down.”
Libel Or Opinion?
Feldman said Tetley’s Web site — www.gisdwatch.com — contained the most “personal, libelous invective directed toward a school administrator” he’s seen in his 31-year career.
“It is not the desire of the School District, the Board, or this Firm to stifle free expression or inhibit robust debate regarding matters pertaining to the operation of the public schools,” Feldman wrote in the demand letter. “This is solely about the publication of materials that clearly go beyond that which is legally and constitutionally encouraged and permitted, and into the realm of what is legally offensive and actionable.”
Feldman cited 16 examples of what he says are libelous postings. Half were posted by Tetley; the other half were posted by anonymous users.
The postings accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for “personal gain,” violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things.
Tetley said the postings were opinions only.
“Everyone deserves to have their opinion,” she said. “I don’t think they have a right to make me, or anyone else, take down criticisms of them off the Web site. They’re not going to force us to take off our opinions because we have no other place to go.”
Tetley said she had not removed any of the postings as of late Tuesday.
Rare Move
One legal expert said the district’s move to sue Tetley is rare and unlawful. Under the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, government entities cannot sue for libel — any court would toss out the “threatening” suit as being inconsistent with U.S. law, said Sandra Baron, executive director of New-York based Media Law Resource Center. She called the district’s potential lawsuit an intimidation tactic and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Feldman said the district is only asking Tetley to remove a small percentage of postings on her site that he says accuse trustees and administrators of breaking the law. They’re not trying to shut down the blog or eliminate postings, he said.
“How can that be threatening or initmidating?” he said. “There’s a tremendous amount of dialogue, if you will, on that Web log that we’re not touching with a pole ... What we leave is this huge field of free expression and discourse. There’s debate and then there’s libel. Debate all you want, criticize all you want, but don’t accuse people of committing crimes when you have absolutely no evidence to support that.”
More than 130 registered users post on Tetley’s site. Since trustees threatened legal action, more people have been visiting the site and posting, Tetley said. She said she planned to post Feldman’s letter on the site.
“People are very tired of what this type of government is doing,” Tetley said. “They are using our money to silence us.”
The law firm monitored the site for months before trustees took action. Board President David O’Neal said the postings deter potential employees from working at the district.
Tetley and her group, Galveston Alliance for Neighborhood schools, has long criticized the district for reconfiguring its middle schools, closing elementary schools, meeting in executive sessions some claimed were illegal, refusing to divulge the contents of a letter from a civil rights consultant and for issuing a budget forecast that was off by $10 million.
The district’s controversial reconfiguration, to go into effect in 2008-09, prompted Tetley to start the site.
It’s often difficult to prove a public official has been libeled. Aside from proving the libelous statements are damaging, public officials must also prove actual malice. Actual malice means knowing a statement is false or having reckless disregard for the truth.
GISD moves ahead with threat to sue parent
By Rhiannon Meyers
The Daily News
Published October 31, 2007
GALVESTON — The public school district has officially demanded that parent Sandra Tetley remove what it says is libelous material from her Web site or face a lawsuit for defamation.
Tetley received a letter Monday from the district’s law firm demanding she remove what it termed libelous statements and other “legally offensive” statements posted by her or anonymous users, and refrain from allowing such postings in the future. If she refuses, the district plans to sue her, the demand letter states.
Tetley said she’ll review the postings cited by David Feldman of the district’s firm Feldman and Rogers. She’ll consider the context of the postings and consult attorneys before deciding what to delete.
“If it’s not worth keeping in there, I’ll take it out,” she said. “If in fact it is libelous, I have no problem taking it down.”
Libel Or Opinion?
Feldman said Tetley’s Web site — www.gisdwatch.com — contained the most “personal, libelous invective directed toward a school administrator” he’s seen in his 31-year career.
“It is not the desire of the School District, the Board, or this Firm to stifle free expression or inhibit robust debate regarding matters pertaining to the operation of the public schools,” Feldman wrote in the demand letter. “This is solely about the publication of materials that clearly go beyond that which is legally and constitutionally encouraged and permitted, and into the realm of what is legally offensive and actionable.”
Feldman cited 16 examples of what he says are libelous postings. Half were posted by Tetley; the other half were posted by anonymous users.
The postings accuse Superintendent Lynne Cleveland, trustees and administrators of lying, manipulation, falsifying budget numbers, using their positions for “personal gain,” violating the Open Meetings Act and spying on employees, among other things.
Tetley said the postings were opinions only.
“Everyone deserves to have their opinion,” she said. “I don’t think they have a right to make me, or anyone else, take down criticisms of them off the Web site. They’re not going to force us to take off our opinions because we have no other place to go.”
Tetley said she had not removed any of the postings as of late Tuesday.
Rare Move
One legal expert said the district’s move to sue Tetley is rare and unlawful. Under the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times v. Sullivan, government entities cannot sue for libel — any court would toss out the “threatening” suit as being inconsistent with U.S. law, said Sandra Baron, executive director of New-York based Media Law Resource Center. She called the district’s potential lawsuit an intimidation tactic and a waste of taxpayer dollars.
Feldman said the district is only asking Tetley to remove a small percentage of postings on her site that he says accuse trustees and administrators of breaking the law. They’re not trying to shut down the blog or eliminate postings, he said.
“How can that be threatening or initmidating?” he said. “There’s a tremendous amount of dialogue, if you will, on that Web log that we’re not touching with a pole ... What we leave is this huge field of free expression and discourse. There’s debate and then there’s libel. Debate all you want, criticize all you want, but don’t accuse people of committing crimes when you have absolutely no evidence to support that.”
More than 130 registered users post on Tetley’s site. Since trustees threatened legal action, more people have been visiting the site and posting, Tetley said. She said she planned to post Feldman’s letter on the site.
“People are very tired of what this type of government is doing,” Tetley said. “They are using our money to silence us.”
The law firm monitored the site for months before trustees took action. Board President David O’Neal said the postings deter potential employees from working at the district.
Tetley and her group, Galveston Alliance for Neighborhood schools, has long criticized the district for reconfiguring its middle schools, closing elementary schools, meeting in executive sessions some claimed were illegal, refusing to divulge the contents of a letter from a civil rights consultant and for issuing a budget forecast that was off by $10 million.
The district’s controversial reconfiguration, to go into effect in 2008-09, prompted Tetley to start the site.
It’s often difficult to prove a public official has been libeled. Aside from proving the libelous statements are damaging, public officials must also prove actual malice. Actual malice means knowing a statement is false or having reckless disregard for the truth.
A Sad Day for America's Children Occurred on November 6th.
The following media advisories express our sentiment in the defeat of the nation's first statewide universal voucher program. Teachers' Unions are destroying are public education system and the lives of millions of children they fail to educate every year. If teachers truly cared about our children they would support school choice. If the system is as great as teachers believe they would not fight so hard to keep their captive audiences. They would not fear choice if they knew families would stay with public schools if given the choice. The greed of educrats, teachers, school employees and their unions sadly is more important than the education of our children.
Media Advisory
Harriette Johnson
Media Relations Manager
hjohnson@heartland.org
phone 312/377-4000
Expert Comment:
Utah Voters Repeal Voucher Program
(CHICAGO, Illinois - November 7, 2007) On November 6, the nation's first statewide universal voucher program was defeated in Utah when voters repealed, through referendum, the law that created it last February. More than 60 percent voted for repeal.
In the statements below, experts contacted by The Heartland Institute explain the vote had more to do with teacher unions fighting for their very survival than parents' rejection of school choice. You may quote directly from this statement or contact the experts for further comment.
"At the Utah Education Association's annual rally last week, most of the discussion was devoted to how to defeat the state's universal voucher program on November 6. President Kim Burningham rallied the crowd by telling them voucher supporters could call in well-funded reinforcements from all over the country with a single phone call, knowing it would incense them into action. "Unfortunately, what she was actually describing was the network behind all the people speaking against vouchers from that very stage--not voucher advocates, who raised only chump change for every dollar of the $3 million raised and spent by the National Education Association and its affiliates before the vote.
"Fully 96 percent of the money to defeat the Utah voucher program came from union sources, while pro-voucher sources worked hard to raise 84 percent of their funds from in-state people. Utah teachers voluntarily contributed only 6 percent of the money to defeat the program--so they're not really against this. That means the other 94 percent of the union contributions were from mandatory dues money. "So this was not a matter of Utah voters saying they didn't want a voucher program. This was the rest of the nation ganging up on Utah. The teachers unions are fighting for their very survival, so it would be unrealistic to expect them to change their dishonest tactics at this stage. Until voters become better informed and more involved in protecting their own liberties, this is the sort of thing we can expect to see happening--but given the overwhelming popularity of other voucher programs nationwide, it's clear the tide is turning, and that day will soon arrive."
Karla Dial
Managing Editor - School Reform News
dial@hearland.org
719/265-9659
"The Alliance for School Choice is disappointed that Utah's voucher program did not prevail in yesterday's referendum. The Alliance regrets that thousands of disadvantaged children will be denied increased educational options because the voucher program, which was passed earlier this year by the Utah legislature and signed into law by Governor Huntsman, will not be implemented.
"The Alliance honors the valiant efforts of the thousands of parents who volunteered their time to support this referendum. These parents knew that ballot referenda, on any subject, rarely pass. But despite this, they worked mightily, and we salute them.
"The school choice movement, like any movement for reform, experiences the jubilation of successes and the disappointment of defeats. We have seen disadvantaged parents rise up and demand options for their children, and win. More than 100,000 children are the beneficiaries of a better education because of private school choice in America--more than ever before. And, despite the tens of millions of dollars spent by opponents, the clear majority of the American public supports school choice.
"A setback in one state is just that: a setback in one state. The movement to empower parents to choose a better education for their disadvantaged children remains vital, committed to its mission, and determined to achieve successes.
"Today, school choice supporters across the country are rightly disappointed. But, in our disappointment, we are emboldened to fight even harder to help the children in America who are too often forgotten."
Andrew Campanella
Director of Communications and Marketing
Alliance for School Choice
202/276-1303
"This defeat is in no way a roadblock for the school choice movement in Utah or the U.S. Utah's very successful statewide school choice program for special-needs students still remains in effect. Across the country, there are more families than ever before choosing to exercise their right to educational choice. Parents everywhere are standing up and supporting the concept of school choice because they want the best educational experience for their children. "School choice is a state issue. Unfortunately, the fight in Utah was not. Statewide school choice organizations teamed up with parents and did a great job at getting out the information about the program and how a 'yes' vote on Referendum 1 would make a real difference in the education of thousands of children. Their opponent, the national teachers union, spent at least one dollar from every teacher in the country to defeat this effort in Utah . That's not exactly what I would call a fair fight."
Andrew LeFevre
Executive Director
REACH Foundation
alefevre@paschoolchoice.org
717/238-1878
For additional research and commentary on school reform, go to The Heartland Institute's Web site at www.heartland.org, click on the "PolicyBot" button on the home page, and choose "Education" from the list of topics.
For further information about The Heartland Institute, please contact Harriette Johnson, media relations manager, at 312/377-4000, or email hjohnson@heartland.org.
Media Advisory
Harriette Johnson
Media Relations Manager
hjohnson@heartland.org
phone 312/377-4000
Expert Comment:
Utah Voters Repeal Voucher Program
(CHICAGO, Illinois - November 7, 2007) On November 6, the nation's first statewide universal voucher program was defeated in Utah when voters repealed, through referendum, the law that created it last February. More than 60 percent voted for repeal.
In the statements below, experts contacted by The Heartland Institute explain the vote had more to do with teacher unions fighting for their very survival than parents' rejection of school choice. You may quote directly from this statement or contact the experts for further comment.
"At the Utah Education Association's annual rally last week, most of the discussion was devoted to how to defeat the state's universal voucher program on November 6. President Kim Burningham rallied the crowd by telling them voucher supporters could call in well-funded reinforcements from all over the country with a single phone call, knowing it would incense them into action. "Unfortunately, what she was actually describing was the network behind all the people speaking against vouchers from that very stage--not voucher advocates, who raised only chump change for every dollar of the $3 million raised and spent by the National Education Association and its affiliates before the vote.
"Fully 96 percent of the money to defeat the Utah voucher program came from union sources, while pro-voucher sources worked hard to raise 84 percent of their funds from in-state people. Utah teachers voluntarily contributed only 6 percent of the money to defeat the program--so they're not really against this. That means the other 94 percent of the union contributions were from mandatory dues money. "So this was not a matter of Utah voters saying they didn't want a voucher program. This was the rest of the nation ganging up on Utah. The teachers unions are fighting for their very survival, so it would be unrealistic to expect them to change their dishonest tactics at this stage. Until voters become better informed and more involved in protecting their own liberties, this is the sort of thing we can expect to see happening--but given the overwhelming popularity of other voucher programs nationwide, it's clear the tide is turning, and that day will soon arrive."
Karla Dial
Managing Editor - School Reform News
dial@hearland.org
719/265-9659
"The Alliance for School Choice is disappointed that Utah's voucher program did not prevail in yesterday's referendum. The Alliance regrets that thousands of disadvantaged children will be denied increased educational options because the voucher program, which was passed earlier this year by the Utah legislature and signed into law by Governor Huntsman, will not be implemented.
"The Alliance honors the valiant efforts of the thousands of parents who volunteered their time to support this referendum. These parents knew that ballot referenda, on any subject, rarely pass. But despite this, they worked mightily, and we salute them.
"The school choice movement, like any movement for reform, experiences the jubilation of successes and the disappointment of defeats. We have seen disadvantaged parents rise up and demand options for their children, and win. More than 100,000 children are the beneficiaries of a better education because of private school choice in America--more than ever before. And, despite the tens of millions of dollars spent by opponents, the clear majority of the American public supports school choice.
"A setback in one state is just that: a setback in one state. The movement to empower parents to choose a better education for their disadvantaged children remains vital, committed to its mission, and determined to achieve successes.
"Today, school choice supporters across the country are rightly disappointed. But, in our disappointment, we are emboldened to fight even harder to help the children in America who are too often forgotten."
Andrew Campanella
Director of Communications and Marketing
Alliance for School Choice
202/276-1303
"This defeat is in no way a roadblock for the school choice movement in Utah or the U.S. Utah's very successful statewide school choice program for special-needs students still remains in effect. Across the country, there are more families than ever before choosing to exercise their right to educational choice. Parents everywhere are standing up and supporting the concept of school choice because they want the best educational experience for their children. "School choice is a state issue. Unfortunately, the fight in Utah was not. Statewide school choice organizations teamed up with parents and did a great job at getting out the information about the program and how a 'yes' vote on Referendum 1 would make a real difference in the education of thousands of children. Their opponent, the national teachers union, spent at least one dollar from every teacher in the country to defeat this effort in Utah . That's not exactly what I would call a fair fight."
Andrew LeFevre
Executive Director
REACH Foundation
alefevre@paschoolchoice.org
717/238-1878
For additional research and commentary on school reform, go to The Heartland Institute's Web site at www.heartland.org, click on the "PolicyBot" button on the home page, and choose "Education" from the list of topics.
For further information about The Heartland Institute, please contact Harriette Johnson, media relations manager, at 312/377-4000, or email hjohnson@heartland.org.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)