Congress Could End Vouchers in D.C.
It's uncommon for the leader of a public school system to support a voucher program that diverts money from public schools to private schools. But the District of Columbia's schools chancellor, Michelle Rhee, is not your typical public schools leader. She is the head of one of the worst-performing public school districts in the nation. And she supports vouchers if it means that children will attend better schools. That is exactly what school choice supporters say the Scholarships Opportunities program has done for children in Washington, D.C., since 2004. The program provides scholarships of up to $7,500 so that some 1,700 low-income, minority children in the city can attend private schools that are, by many accounts, better than the district's anemic schools. But now congressional Democrats could eliminate that option for D.C. families.
Last week, Rhee got word that federal funding for the city's voucher program might end by fall 2010 and that her public schools should prepare to re-enroll those students currently attending private schools on taxpayer money. Rhee was not thrilled with the news. "Part of my job is to make sure that all kids get a great education, and it doesn't matter whether that's in charter, parochial, or public schools," Rhee told the New York Times last week. She went on: "I don't think vouchers are going to solve all the ills of public education, but parents who are zoned to schools that are failing kids should have options to do better by their kids."
Vouchers are available for public school students in Arizona, Louisiana, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin. But only D.C.'s voucher program is directly financed by the federal government. In recent days, several major newspapers have published scathing editorials taking congressional Democrats to task for supporting an omnibus spending bill that could kill the program. Their reasons for cutting the program are not entirely clear. But many suspect that politics, rather than compelling evidence about the merits of the program, is driving the decision. (A Republican-controlled Congress set up the city's voucher system five years ago.) Deborah Parker, a D.C. mother whose children receive vouchers to attend Sidwell Friends, the elite private school that enrolls the Obamas' daughters, told the Washington Post that she's frightened of returning her kids to the public schools. If the Senate goes along with the House and approves the bill that could end vouchers in D.C., the newspaper's editorial said, "someone needs to tell Ms. Parker why a bunch of elected officials who can send their children to any school they choose are taking that option from her."
Andrew Rotherham, cofounder of the Education Sector, an independent research organization in D.C., offers some background on the controversy surrounding vouchers. He offers this prediction: "The coming fight over the D.C. voucher program seems destined to be the most interesting debate to date in terms of what education politics are really going to look like in the Obama era because that issue cuts across a host of political and jurisdictional lines."
What do you think? Should Congress allow eligible families in D.C. to send their kids to private school at taxpayers' expense?
Related News
Tags: Congress | private schools | public schools | Washington, DC | education
Tools: 
Share
|
| Comments (28) | Print
Reader Comments
Vouchers are a give and take
Yes taxpayers should pay for students from underperforming schools to go to private/charter schools becuase those same taxpayers benefit from an educated economy. Read the study done by Henry M. Levin found in the Educational Reseacher, Vol. 38, No. 1, pp. 5-20 entitled The Economic Payoff to Investing in Educational Justice. His findings show that we all benefit from investing in our children so as to create more high school graduates. The benefits of higher graduation rates to the taxpayer manifests itself through "higher tax revenues and reduced costs of criminal justice, public health, and public assistance."
When elementary schools are underperforming their graduates are left behind in middle school. When they are unable to compete in middle school they lose more momentum which then fails to catapult them into high school. This gap doesn't get smaller, but larger which leads to higher leavels of high school dropouts or graduates unable to perform in the college environment. They begin their college careers in developmental coursework, just to begin the cycle again.
The facts are that we are no longer raising the Baby Boomer generation. What worked for educating them is no longer working; therefore, we must try different approaches to find something that DOES work. If the voucher system works, keep using it. When/If it is consistently not producing... end it.
Fact: Parent involvement has declined. As parents are now needing to work more hours and in many cases maintain more than one job those teachers are responsible for being both nurturer, educator, and disciplinarian. This issue increases the need for smaller classrooms and stronger Administrators. Can we afford to allow some kids to leave so that we/the schools can concentrate on improving the system... Absolutely!
vouchers
The action of the Congress in this matter crosses the border that separates political self- interest and pure evil. The persistent poverty of African Americans is arguably one of the largest preventable causes of human misery in our nation today. This economic underperformance is merely a continuation of the scholastic underperformance that is endemic in “urban” schools. The evil here can be found in the answer to the question: Why are they de-funding this program? Is it because it costs too much? It appears to be saving $11,050,000. Is it because the voucher students actually receive an education that is inferior to that provided in the D.C. public schools? Of course not. Both the demand for openings in the program and numerous studies that compare the performance of students who win the lottery and those who enter the lottery but lose, show that the program is a smashing success. No, the reason the Democratic Party needs to kill this program is precisely because it is working.
This highly visible demonstration of the success of the voucher system threatens the immediate interests of the NEA and the long term interest of the Democratic Party as success in DC will lead to demands for similar programs in other cities. The 1700 D.C. students are a very tiny fraction of the lives that will be negatively affected by Congress’ actions. Imagine how a politician would be treated who, upon hearing that a new drug under testing showed significant hope in curing sickle cell anemia, endeavored, at the behest of a major campaign contributor who currently produced a less effective treatment, to influence the FDA to deny permission for a clinical trial of the new drug. Such a politician would deservedly face criminal penalties and a social status normally reserved for war criminals and Klansmen.
Why is it that when a political party does something that is thousands of times worse, in terms of its contribution to human misery, that it is considered “progressive”?
I suppose it depends on what your definition of progress is.
Vouchers NO!
I am a retired 30+ year educator, AT THREE levels,public,private and state(corrections). As a union representative(public) in a large midwest state,I worked very hard to defeat the voucher system in our state. It came to us by way of a private company ( which has it's home ofice in China)that wanted to dessimate public school systems( and still does)in areas outside of their part of the state.I have yet to see these schools educating our children any better.In fact,they(students)are returning ,lacking some of the very skills that the(uninformed)parents thought they would receive. They(alternative schools) are/cannot/ don't hire certified teachers, counselors, occupational/vocational staff, speech and language pathologists,reading specialists,coaches,classroom assistants,other support staff, and seldom provide guest teachers(substitutes).They have less than adequate supplies for class/staff use,technology,TV,computers that are less than five(5) years old ,provide transportation,service Special Needs students and provide support services to them( if accepted at all).Food may or not be outside provided,Salaries,for staff is usually substandard in relation to public schools and NON UNION with lower health/dental/vision benefits and pension benefits are usually non existant. Demanding positive student behavior is not always a priority but HIGH State/District scores are.Educational development is usually not provided and/or college courses reimbursed. Staff morale can be low to medium and many personnel leave within the first 3 years.(Tenure is not provided)These schools are businesses run for profit regardless if chartered by universities or companies.
I have not the understanding to accept the reasons for parents/caregivers that think leaving their neighborhood school behind, for one that is doubling your tax dollar, is going to improve the childs knowledge base and the educational system.Do you leave your house just because it needs some repairs? No,you fix it up FIRST and THEN MOVE(maybe).I was hoping that the Obamas would have sent ,they both are products of same ,their children to a public school. It would have shown the country/world that, with the right support,public education can/and have produced the "best and brightest " of people. So called "Merit "pay is NOT the way to improve educational achievement.Each grade level requires a different curriculum and standards for mastery.Give us the vocal,material and physical support to impart to today's student the knowledge needed for success. We ask for no more and CERTAINLY NO LESS !
advertisement
