Congress Could End Vouchers in D.C.

Reader Comments
Back to blog

I can't read yokur wesbite in Opera 9.2, I just igfured I might tell you bout it.

seo lace of AL 3:25PM May 02, 2010

winsome answers i like it

plubpoeld of AL 11:34AM November 30, 2009

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!

Danielle of OH 9:44AM March 23, 2009

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.

chris riley of WA 6:02PM March 15, 2009

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 !

Dembabe of MI 3:11PM March 13, 2009

Marion's thoughts, I think, are very true. Obama said earlier
"that will use only one test when deciding what ideas to support with your precious tax dollars. It’s not whether an idea is liberal or conservative but whether it works.”
I am not a big fan of Obama but he hit the nail on the head there. If the vouchers are working for those students in D.C. who are we to take that success from them? Steve, you're being very obtuse when mocking Marion's EXAMPLE of cars to better explain his opinion. You lack any cohesion of thought and mix ideas to no real point as I see it.
All things considered, the voucher system seems to work in this case and it is cliche to say this but if it ain't broke, don't fix it! I am not sure how effective the vouchers are in Arizona, Louisiana, Ohio, Utah, and Wisconsin but in D.C. they seem to be effective.

Elliot of CA 8:06PM March 10, 2009

Good call on comparing kids to cars!
Only through the free market can our child learn-workers educate themselves faster and more efficiently; thereby resulting in a better human product for CEOs to use.
Hopefully vouchers will be put in place so that private corporations will be able to take public money with zero accountability to school millions of little "Olivers".
Utopia!

Steve of VA 3:27PM March 10, 2009

Here's what should happen. Syphon the funds used on vouchers into the public school system for supplies and to ensure a sound learning environment.

Matt of GA 7:31PM March 07, 2009

Richard Spencer of ID put his finger on the crux of the argument (The question is asked should we send students to private schools at the taxpayers expense? Maybe the question should be should we send our children to failing public schools at taxpayers expense?)
Universal education is only a virtue when the education is good, and quality is best achieved through competition in a free marketplace. Vouchers offer choice, plain and simple. One way to look at it is to imagine that the government decided that every adult needed a car. Would the best way to do this be to a.) design and produce one government car that each citizen would recieve, or b.) give each citizen a voucher he or she could trade for any car of their choice in the voucher's price range? Given the history of government programs, the government car would be crap compaired to what was offered in the market. In fact, knowing automakers, a huge development and marketing war pushing "citizen's cars" would ensue. In no time at all more than half of all cars built would be "voucher-cars."
So the answer is that we should have good schools at taxpayer expense, be they public or private. Allow parents to send their children to private schools at taxpayer expense and let public schools either shape up to compete for the taxpayer dollars or close. If they close they'll be replaced by private schools soon enough.

Marion Harmon of NV 11:37PM March 06, 2009