So, which really is the best plan for Utah's education: the state's strategic education plan, championed by GOP gubernatorial candidate Mike Leavitt? Or candidate Richard Eyre's voucher system?
Stop, counters candidate Mike Stewart. They're both wrong; both candidates are wasting time and energy even talking about them. The solution? Stewart's new 10-point plan for education.And these are only the Republican gubernatorial candidates arguing.
This past week saw the unveiling of several gubernatorial candidates' education proposals. Leavitt had a luncheon at West High School to talk about the state's strategic plan, which he helped formulate. And Independent Party candidate Merrill Cook released his education specifics, as did Stewart. Some highlights:
Stewart: Works well already
Stewart said Utahns would be wrong to jump into Leavitt's grandiose strategic plan because it costs too much money. But they'd be equally foolish to "scrap a good education system" for Eyre's voucher plan, "which has never worked in any place it's been tried," Stewart says.
He obliquely criticized Eyre for "bashing teachers," saying parents need to learn that, in the classroom, teachers are always right.
"If we don't back our teachers, classroom discipline is destroyed."
Stewart cited a number of statistics to show that Utah's current education system works well. It can, and should, be better. His 10-point plan calls for the governor to demand coordination between public and higher education, increased voluntarism by senior citizens in schools, advancement based only on competency and increased competition among schools via open enrollment throughout the state.
Cook: Streamline
Cook said, "The Utah Education Association's state strategic plan endorsed by Leavitt and (Democratic gubernatorial candidate) Pat Shea is a large tax increase waiting to happen. Even with the high cost of the program, it is not a reform plan as much as it is a security blanket for the educational administrative elite."
He was equally critical of Eyre's voucher plan, saying that it would bring educational chaos to Utah, empty schools with perceived difficulties and overcrowd schools with perceived above-average achievement.
"Clearly, schools that are having trouble need support, not a slap in the face," said Cook. "Utah simply doesn't have the educational infrastructure for a voucher program. Schools are already overcrowded. Vouchers would cause low-income families to subsidize wealthy families' use of private schools. Basically, public tax money should go for public, not private, education."
Cook offered a five-point plan, which includes requiring the Legislature to directly fund education, not giving money to school districts to use as they see fit; consolidating the state's 40 school districts into 25; streamlining the State Office of Education and the 40 district offices to facilitate curriculum development; encouraging attrition of non-teaching personnel over four years; and shifting all career-ladder money directly into teacher salaries.
He said his changes would free up $100 million that could be used to bring teacher salaries up to the national average.
Eyre: Private involvement
Eyre said Cook's, Leavitt's and Stewart's criticism of his voucher education plan is bunk. Either they don't understand it, or they fear real education reform because it's opposed by the Utah Education Association, the main teacher union.
Eyre's education proposal is also a five-point plan, with only one being vouchers - what he calls parental choice.
To reduce class size, retired people and others with specific knowledge should be allowed to teach in the schools, helping students one-on-one where appropriate, said Eyre.
Private companies should be encouraged to help fund schools or specific programs, develop curricula and endow teacher chairs. An income tax checkoff would allow Utahns to dedicate $25, $50 or $100 to a teachers education fund, used to buy texts or other items needed to enhance education. Eyre would study whether the career ladder program should be scrapped, the money going directly into teacher pay (like Cook has suggested).
Parents should be encouraged to get involved in the schools via clear requests for help - whether in the classroom or with homework. Finally, vouchers would be offered - with parents able to choose the school they will "spend" their education dollars on. Eyre predicts 90 percent to 95 percent of students would stay in their neighborhood public school. But the opportunity of choice would change attitudes, with teachers and administrators vying to improve education to keep "their customers - their students" at home.
Leavitt: Supports long-range plan
Leavitt, meanwhile, said too much is being made of the strategic education plan's cost. While some elements of the comprehensive plan would cost more - class size reduction, for example - the most important parts of the reform plan cost very little.
Most crucial is the plan's call for competency-based education. A child would progress as quickly or as slowly as his abilities allow. Taken to the logical conclusion, there would be no grades - no A, B or C; no first, second or third.
For Leavitt, a good education provides a good job, and good jobs provide the tax revenue for good education. "The strategic plan doesn't demand higher taxes. It is a plan, a direction to go when (tax) revenues become available." Leavitt promised no tax increase.
His education plan isn't a five- or 10-point plan - it is a 25-page document that is just a summary of even longer education goals and directions. For the sake of brevity, he listed nine main goals, which include: competency-based education; empowering parents, teachers and principals to make decisions on the local level; paying teachers, when possible, at a level comparable to Western states; developing and using a teacher development program that identifies poor teachers and gives them help, or gets them out of teaching; paying teachers on a performance scale; getting computer and other technology into the classroom; requiring that college courses be more job-market driven; and integrating public and higher education, eliminating overlap and waste.