澳门跑狗论坛

The resounding defeat in Utah last week of what would have been the nation鈥檚 first universal-voucher program highlights again the political vulnerability of such controversial school choice measures.

The rejection also offers a cautionary example for voucher supporters in at least those states like Utah where voters may overturn newly enacted legislation through a ballot referendum. The Utah plan was effectively vetoed by voters before it ever took effect.

Voucher foes go even further, saying the vote in Utah, a generally conservative, reliably Republican state, should reinforce the message that the public simply doesn鈥檛 like the idea of vouchers, and that lawmakers elsewhere should take heed.

鈥淣o matter what state, no matter what the plan looks like, voters, when they really focus on it, are against an unproven and unsound education policy,鈥� said Marc F. Egan, the director of federal affairs for the National School Boards Association.

Mr. Egan and other observers suggest that, at least in states where overturning legislation through referendums is possible, such a strategy could well become more common. Unlike in Utah, most ballot measures on private school choice over the past decades have been aimed at creating such programs.

鈥淧ublic school supporters will have to take a hard look at that [referendum strategy] and consider whether it鈥檚 worth the obvious cost, time, and energy,鈥� Mr. Egan said. 鈥淯tah would indicate that it probably is.鈥�

Even some voucher backers say the Utah measure was made more vulnerable because the program was so broad, rather than being targeted, for instance, to students from low-income families or with disabilities.

鈥淚 have come to believe that the Utah voucher program was a major strategic error for the school choice movement,鈥� said Clint Bolick, a longtime lawyer on voucher issues who now works at the Goldwater Institute, a think tank in Phoenix. 鈥淢ost of our successes over the last several years have been pursuant to what I would call the acorn strategy: small choice programs that grow and give rise to others.鈥�

鈥楾his Is 11 of 11鈥�

Some 62 percent of Utahns who voted Nov. 6 said no on the state ballot measure, Referendum 1, killing what would have been the most expansive voucher program in the country before it ever got started. It lost by a majority in every county.

The law鈥檚 enactment had set off an intense political battle. Opponents, with strong backing from teachers鈥� unions nationally, gathered enough signatures to force a statewide vote. The ensuing campaign鈥攚ith both sides spending a combined total of more than $8 million鈥攚as bitter.

If history is any gauge, the outcome was predictable. Every voucher or tuition-tax-credit program to face a decision by voters on a state ballot in recent decades has been soundly rejected.

鈥淏y our count, this is 11 of 11, going back to the early 鈥�70s,鈥� said Mr. Egan of the Alexandria, Va.-based NSBA, referring to both kinds of programs.

In six of the seven states where voucher-only plans were placed on the ballot, those measures were not narrowly tailored to specific groups of students. The one exception was the 2000 vote in Michigan, where vouchers were targeted to districts in which fewer than two-thirds of high school students graduated within four years.

Battles over vouchers have gone to court, with mixed results.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the state-enacted voucher program for Cleveland in 2002, saying that its inclusion of religious schools did not violate the First Amendment鈥檚 prohibition on a government establishment of religion.

But in 2006, the Florida Supreme Court struck down that state鈥檚 voucher program for students in the state鈥檚 lowest-rated public schools. The ruling said the state law violated the state constitution鈥檚 provision that requires a 鈥渦niform鈥� system of public schools for all students.

So far, states have enacted publicly funded voucher programs that are targeted in some way, such as being aimed only at students who are from low-income families, who have special needs, or who live in a particular place.

But the Utah program鈥� approved by a single vote in the legislature in February and signed into law by Gov. Jon Huntsman Jr., a Republican鈥攚ould have gone further. Any public school student would have been entitled to a voucher worth $500 to $3,000, depending on family income.

The program鈥檚 costs, which would have been taken out of the state鈥檚 general fund, were estimated to potentially top $71 million a year, according to legislative fiscal estimates. The same estimates predicted that public schools statewide would save up to $28 million because of lower student enrollment.

National Spotlight

The battle over whether to overturn the law was largely a duel between the 3.2 million-member National Education Association and the voucher champion Patrick Byrne, the millionaire founder and chief executive officer of an Internet shopping site, Overstock.com. The NEA donated about $3 million to the cause, while Mr. Byrne, who lives in Utah, and his family donated $2.3 million, according to state campaign-finance filings and media reports.

Voucher opponents鈥攚ho argued that the measure ultimately would divert resources that would otherwise reach the state鈥檚 public schools鈥攚ere jubilant after last week鈥檚 vote.

鈥淭he people spoke out by saying that it is not acceptable to have money diverted from the public schools,鈥� Reg Weaver, the president of the NEA, said in an interview. 鈥淥nce again, the voucher issue has raised its ugly head, and once again it has been snapped off by the people.鈥�

Larry J. Sabato, the director of the University of Virginia鈥檚 Center for Politics, said voters may have been influenced by issues such as concerns about government spending.

鈥淭he voters were in a surly mood,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hen that鈥檚 the case, they鈥檙e inclined to say no. 鈥� The voters know that there are many needs and limited resources, and this just does not appear to be a priority.鈥�

Unusual Venue

Utah was an unusual venue for a universal-voucher program. The state has only a small private school sector. Some 3 percent of the school-age population is enrolled in about 100 private schools, or about 15,000 students.

Michael J. Petrilli, a vice president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, a Washington think tank, and a former official in the Bush administration, saw several flaws in the Utah voucher law.

鈥淚t was poorly designed,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he idea of having a universal voucher, and one that is funded at a fairly low level, made it so easy for the opponents to claim that it wasn鈥檛 going to help poor kids, and would subsidize middle-class parents.鈥�

鈥淭his was sort of the worst-case scenario for a voucher program in terms of navigating politics,鈥� added Mr. Petrilli, who said he believes vouchers should be targeted toward students from low-income families who are not being well served by public schools.

But Jeanne Allen, the president of the Center for Education Reform, a Washington-based research and advocacy group that is a leading promoter of school choice, including vouchers, said the problem wasn鈥檛 the policy, it was the fact that vouchers were put on the ballot.

鈥淏allot initiatives on such emotional issues as education rarely succeed when they鈥檙e looking for dramatic change, because people are uncomfortable with making policy at the ballot box,鈥� Ms. Allen said.

Currently, 23 states, including Utah, have a process in place through which residents may collect signatures to place a measure passed by the legislature on the ballot to be accepted or rejected by voters, according to Kristina Wilfore, the executive director of the Washington-based Ballot Initiative Strategy Center, a self-described progressive think tank. Most of those states are in the West or Midwest.

In most cases, Ms. Wilfore said, residents have a fairly limited window of time in which they may do so.

She believes the Utah action will deter other states from passing voucher legislation. 鈥淚t takes the wind out of the sails,鈥� she said, 鈥渂ecause no one wants to champion an issue that鈥檚 a loser.鈥�

Still, voucher advocates say they have reasons for optimism. For instance, earlier this year, Georgia joined three other states with voucher programs for students with disabilities.

鈥淭his movement is strong,鈥� said Robert C. Enlow, the executive director of the Indianapolis-based Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation, which promotes school choice. 鈥淲e鈥檙e going to continue to see new programs enacted across the country.鈥�

Mr. Bolick of the Goldwater Institute said he also doesn鈥檛 anticipate any slowing of momentum around vouchers, but hopes proponents take heed of the Utah results.

鈥淚 think any time you get your clock cleaned,鈥� he said, 鈥測ou need to re-evaluate your strategy.鈥�