Please ask your guests who are debating the Utah school voucher issue tonight why the income level for students' parents is based on "Adjusted Gross Income" and not "gross income." I am very concerned about this knowing full well how many upper level income people are able to lower their AGI through creative accounting methods employed by their CPAs and other tax professionals. (Even Warren Buffett admits that the wealthy in this nation pay far less in taxes than others in lower income brackets.) Why should wealthy parents who are living in big homes with large interest writeoffs and other deductions be able to get a larger voucher amount than someone who may make less overall but doesn't have the writeoffs to give them an AGI that would allow them to get a voucher amount that would help them more given their socio-economic status?

Posted by Lisa Rutherford, Friday November 2nd, 2007 @ 10:27 am

I was thinking of voting yes to school vouchers until I watched your program & realized that those already sending their children to private schools would now receive vouchers. This would cost money with no reduction in class size (possibly an increase). I was also persuaded by the comment that lower income people couldn't afford to send their children to private schools even with the voucher!

Posted by Ray Urbaniak, Saturday November 3rd, 2007 @ 1:28 pm

Regarding the Voucher referendum: your program did not mention anything about the seperation of church and state. By giving voucher money (from the state) to parents are they restricted from giving that money to a religious private school? The voucher money should only be given to private schools without religious affiliation. One of the reasons we have public schools is so that students are not influenced by any one religion. By giving state money to parents to use as they please only supports the idea that my tax dollars are going to religious affiliated schools.

Posted by Tom Shaner, Sunday November 4th, 2007 @ 12:14 pm

Regarding the Voucher referendum: your program did not mention anything about the separation of church and state. By giving voucher money (from the state) to parents - are they restricted from giving that money to a religious private school? The voucher money should only be given to private schools without religious affiliation. One of the reasons we have public schools is so that students are not influenced by any one religion. By giving state money to parents to use as they please only supports the idea that my tax dollars are going to religious affiliated schools.

Posted by Tom Shaner, Monday November 5th, 2007 @ 10:07 am

As a teacher of 34+ years, this is the first year I have had over 32 students in my science classroom and I have classes with 36 students! This is unimaginable, especially in light that I am expected to teach 8th grade integrated science by doing. Currently, administrators make the decisions within the school districts as to class size and it has not been working. Provo School District went to year-round schools with the "promise" that it would reduce class size. It did not. Utah continues to "stack 'em deep and teach 'em cheap". We need real class reduction! Apparently this needs to be done by legislative action by passing laws similar to California and other states, giving a maximum class size and then only allowing it to be increased in consultation with the teacher. Then paying an amount for each child over that limit, if the teacher is willing and able to teach a larger class.

Posted by Golden Adams, Monday November 5th, 2007 @ 10:10 am

The voucher system is needed because the public school system fails to provide support for students like my grandson with ADHD. He thrived at voucher schools and is currently going to a HS specializing in film arts, while his older brothers dropped out and obtained their GED HS diplomas. All are very bright; their mother was very pro-active in trying to get ADHD accommodation for the older boys which failed miserably and she is very thankful the youngest son had the voucher option!

Posted by Bonnie Doone, Monday November 5th, 2007 @ 10:12 am