Letters: School choice ballot measure would be costly to public education

Initiative sounds simple but could prove costly to public education

Re: “Should school choice be a right?” Sept. 1 news story

Defending public education from attacks in this state is like playing whack-a-mole. An article Sunday reported on Initiative 138, advocated by the conservative organization Advance Colorado, to enshrine school choice in the state constitution — as if it wasn’t already firmly established in this state of more than 260 charter schools with statewide open enrollment. Homeschooling is also recognized by Colorado as a “legitimate alternative to classroom attendance.”

So far, vouchers have been kept out of the state laws, and for good reason. More than two decades of research have shown a loss of academic achievement in students who go off to private, usually religious, schools with vouchers in hand. No matter to privatizers. Initiative 138 is likely to be the next, but not last, subtle attempt to move the state toward vouchers.

Initiative 138 is very simple in its language, and there’s the problem. The text is short. It says:

“That all children have the right to equal opportunity to access a quality education;

That parents have the right to direct the education of their children; and

That school choice includes neighborhood, charter, private, and home schools, open enrollment options, and future innovations in education.

Each child in K-12 has the right to school choice.”

The simple wording will likely sound sweet to the ear of most voters, and they will naively check their ballot in support of the initiative, but passing Initiative 138 will provide Advance Colorado and others the opportunity to ask the courts to approve the use of vouchers. If that happens, it will likely be the final step in dismantling and dumping public education in Colorado into the dustbin of American history, and our children will suffer the consequences.

Rick Johnson, Castle Rock

Make life affordable for families

A recently published study indicates more than 40% of full-time workers, assuming a two-income family, do not earn enough to make ends meet. Younger generations have told us that we boomers didn’t have it as tough as they do today, and this would sadly appear to settle this argument in their favor.

Listening to younger folks, they are struggling with costs for rent, housing, daycare for their kids and more. Taking all that into account, I can not see that the government helping out in some way with these costs is some radical, left-wing idea. These folks are hurting and have been very clear about that. I would tell Sen. JD Vance if he wants families to have more kids, that it starts with making life affordable for full-time workers.

John W. Thomas, Fort Collins

Taking a back seat to the swing states

I am tired of hearing about the swing states, like Pennsylvania, Michigan, Iowa, etc., deciding the presidential election.

I think it’s absurd that we are still holding onto the antiquated Electoral College.

Every other election is decided by popular vote. Five candidates have lost five elections even though the majority chose them.

Every vote should count, but in winner-take-all states, a 51/49 decision means millions of people’s votes are worthless.

I can understand why people are disillusioned about voting, to spend the hours in line and not have your vote count towards the final tally. Surely in this technically advanced era, they could come up with a secure way to vote electronically.

The electoral college is a way to game the system so that the majority’s will is inconsequential.

Von Honnecke, Lakewood

Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.

To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.