A bill that would create government vouchers for private-school tuition while maintaining public schools' bottom line was released Thursday, but with tepid reception from a leading voucher advocacy group.
Parents for Choice in Education Foundation has not yet taken a position on HB340, sponsored by Rep. Brad Dee, R-Washington Terrace.
"We're really glad that Rep. Dee believes in parent (choice)," communications director Royce Van Tassell said. "It's a fluid process. There are some questions we still have . . . (that are) better negotiated in private."
Still, Dee and likely co-sponsor Rep. Stuart Adams, R-Layton, believe the bill strikes compromise in a perennially contentious debate. They say it will make the "school choice" concept more palatable to legislators this year and will be a win for all involved.
"Imagine what would happen if education improved . . . because of it," Dee said.
"This is going to increase per-pupil spending . . . and handle growth coming down the pipe," Adams said. "If people understand it, it will probably gain support."
HB340 would create the Parent Choice in Education Program and offer private-school tuition vouchers ranging from $500 to $3,000, scaled to family income. Voucher amounts would rise every year "by the same percentage annual increase in the value of the weighted pupil unit," the state's basic per-student funding formula.
Students switching from public to private schools, those new to the state and low-income students currently enrolled in private schools could participate. Others in private schools right now would be ineligible.
The bill requires parents prove their income and receive four voucher installments so money doesn't go to students returning to public school midyear. It requires recipients take a national standardized test and report results to anyone who asks.
Participating private schools would have to meet state anti-discrimination laws, have teachers with at least four-year degrees, and hire an accountant to report on voucher-related procedures, among other requirements. Schools with fewer than 25 students and home schools couldn't participate.
The bill also gives school districts money to keep their budgets whole for up to five years after a student takes a voucher. Unused vouchers would transfer into the state schools' pot.
The bill's fiscal note — likely, appropriating between $12 million and $15 million of general, not school, money, to the program, Dee said — is expected to come out today.
Deputy legislative fiscal analyst Mike Kjar verified school budgets would not be cut to make room for vouchers, which was the result of last year's Carson Smith Special Needs Scholarships bill. "This is a different bill altogether," he said.
The idea of keeping schools whole sidelines the most contentious part of the debate: Whether the state will save would-be educational costs by enticing students to the private sector, as advocates assert, or whether schools, which get money based on students enrolled, will lose money under the program, as opponents claim.
"I'm not going to gamble with kids on this one in whether there will be savings or not . . . that's why I voted against tuition tax credits," Dee said. "What I do buy is that parents should be involved in decisions in where they send children to school."
Results of the Parent Choice in Education Program would be audited in 2010.
The Utah Education Association and State Board of Education chairman Kim Burningham oppose the bill because it puts public dollars into private schools.
"I am by principle concerned that our country's future will be jeopardized because such an education scheme will further divide the country," Burningham said. "Utah's schools are good; they are not struggling like the Washington D. C. schools are where vouchers were recently enacted. The recent Florida Supreme Court ruling indicates serious constitutional questions if the Legislature adopts a program where the state even indirectly supports a second private educational system."
E-mail: jtcook@desnews.com