"Obama, Dems wrong to kill school vouchers"

Yet tucked into that bill is an amendment pushed by the president's former colleague in the Senate, Illinois Democrat Dick Durbin, who used his influence to essentially kill the District of Columbia school vouchers program.

Democrats say they believe in school choice, but they don't fully accept the gamut of choices. They will happily tout charter schools, also opposed by the national teachers unions, but stop at vouchers.

Why? Because Republicans have consistently advocated for vouchers, and Democrats have convinced themselves that vouchers will somehow destroy the public school infrastructure.

Now, some believe the Obama administration is sending mixed signals because Education Secretary Arne Duncan has said he doesn't want to see kids thrown out of Washington schools who are already in the existing voucher program. Fine. But the reality is that after this year, no new kids will be allowed to enroll in the program, and that folks, is killing the program.

Obama and his party have never been fans of vouchers. Why? They contend that vouchers would hurt the public school system. Vouchers allow parents who can't afford private school to remove their children from public schools in order to get a better education. Well, isn't that what the president and those in his party do themselves by sending their children to private school? Only they don't need the government's help.

The standard fallback position of Democrats and the Obama administration is that the Washington program only helps 1,700 children a year, and those who don't qualify are stuck in a sorry system, and they are largely poor and minority. They contend that since every student can't be helped by vouchers, none should be helped.

So parents and children are supposed to sit tight and wait on the promised reform to trickle down from Washington to the local school systems, and then all will be well?

To me, that's sort of like saying that historically African-Americans are likely to have high rates of diabetes and hypertension, so instead of launching a program to save some from developing the disease, let's wait for a comprehensive plan where all can be saved at one time.

Sorry, folks. I believe you save as many as you can now, and continue to save the rest later. This shouldn't be an either/or proposition, but an and/both situation.

The other fundamental problem here is that we have a bunch of politicians deciding what's best for education over the objections of actual educators!

I would have more confidence if President Obama and members of Congress truly walked the walk and sent their kids to public schools. If they have so much faith in them turning around with reform, entrust their own children to public education. That's the kind of confidence our system needs. If it's good enough for yours, then surely it's good enough for mine.

But preaching to the rest of us about the virtues of a public education, then sending your own children to private school and denying the use of vouchers so others can do the same, is frankly hypocritical.

- excerpts from: www.cnn.com...

As a parent who celebrated the ability to choose schools, it now seems there is a tide of reversal beginning to occur. I'm an advocate of schools competing for students, just as I am of doctors competing for patients. When the government assigns you to a school, a doctor, where to shop, etc., America no longer is a free nation.

[edit on 12-3-2009 by saint4God]

The way vouchers are done now is a little more than a sham and not real choice. Most schools that kids on vouchers go to offer just as, if not a poorer education than the public school they were at. Not to mention I find it unconstitutional for the state to be funding religious schools.

The mythical "Elite private schools" don't accept alot of these kids anyways. Whether it be the grades or the fact they don't have a great academic background. My hometown last year tried something of a "Public school voucher" program last year.

There were two high schools set up for academically gifted students, in addition to a third that was a specialized school for the arts. What the city did was any kid who went to a failing middle or high school could directly bypass the admissions process and go straight in. What happened? By the end of the first year nearly 75% of them returned to their neighborhood school and many who stayed were barely keeping a 2.0 GPA.

Is school choice in itself bad? No. However, the voucher system some states have up is just as flawed as the public schools these parents are trying to flee.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
The way vouchers are done now is a little more than a sham and not real choice. Most schools that kids on vouchers go to offer just as, if not a poorer education than the public school they were at.

I don't think it's fair to say "all schools are the same". I've done extensive research to schools in my area on my own and found VAST differences from state testing scores to online comparisons ( www.greatschools.net... ). I know when I switched schools even as a kid I saw a big difference but moreso in my child as a parent. I'm having a hard time believing that vouchers are only offered toward schools that are 'lesser' and not 'greater' or 'different'.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Not to mention I find it unconstitutional for the state to be funding religious schools.

Per your statement above it shouldn't matter because they're 'lesser schools' and people wouldn't move to them anyway.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
The mythical "Elite private schools" don't accept alot of these kids anyways. Whether it be the grades or the fact they don't have a great academic background. My hometown last year tried something of a "Public school voucher" program last year.

There were two high schools set up for academically gifted students, in addition to a third that was a specialized school for the arts. What the city did was any kid who went to a failing middle or high school could directly bypass the admissions process and go straight in. What happened? By the end of the first year nearly 75% of them returned to their neighborhood school and many who stayed were barely keeping a 2.0 GPA.

I'd recently moved my child to a 'step it up' school so I'm a bit familiar with this situation. They had an assessment test to see where the child was at. In the beginning of the year there was noticed by everyone some slipping in comparison (getting F's) with the rest of the class. I worked with my child every night until caught up with the rest of the class in math. It was hard, very hard for my child and I but we did it making honor roll this 2nd trimester. Now I no longer need to help with math and there's no other school my child wants to be at. It's a cooperative effort and certainly worth it. Parents often see schools as a babysitter that teaches on the side and that's not really their job. College isn't going to jam a binky in the mouths of their students.

Originally posted by FSBlueApocalypse
Is school choice in itself bad? No. However, the voucher system some states have up is just as flawed as the public schools these parents are trying to flee.

I wouldn't mind seeing revision and improvement surely.

[edit on 13-3-2009 by saint4God]

The vouchers debate is a side track to throw off people who send their kids to charter schools. Most states allow children to be home schooled if they are registered in a charter school. When the charter schools sentences showed up in the bill it sent home school lawyers into a tangent and they are getting ready fillings to put up against them as we speak.
I honestly believe that these debates are to keep the general public unaware that they are trying to take away the right to not have your children in a public school or a private one with government oversight. They have been on a head hunt for well over 5 years now, maybe with the new president they are going to get away with taking the child's' right to a good education that they can't always get from a public school where they live.

reply to post by saint4God


There are plenty of great public and private schools. However, I was speaking from the experience of the voucher program in my home state. Any private school could take the vouchers, however, as I said, alot of the big time Private schools wouldn't except the main catholic high school in my town. Even then, that school wasn't known for it's academics.

As for people not going to religious schools, you are mistaken. Close to 90% of all voucher use in the state went to private religious schools.

Just a few things... parents should have a right to chose how their tax dollars are being spent on their children's education. The Teacher's Union is directly responsible for the killing of this program because it takes funds away from their monopolistic rackateering of public education and indoctrination. It is NOT Unconstitional to fund religious schools with tax dollars - you had better look up the First Ammendment before making such ludicrous claims!

AND... the fastest way to clean up the Democrat's and Union's stranglehold on public education is to require, by law, that every politician who is paid by tax dollars to have to send their kid to the public school in the district in which they live!!! Imagine how quickly the entire system would be fixed!

Originally posted by kozmo
Just a few things... parents should have a right to chose how their tax dollars are being spent on their children's education. The Teacher's Union is directly responsible for the killing of this program because it takes funds away from their monopolistic rackateering of public education and indoctrination. It is NOT Unconstitional to fund religious schools with tax dollars - you had better look up the First Ammendment before making such ludicrous claims!

AND... the fastest way to clean up the Democrat's and Union's stranglehold on public education is to require, by law, that every politician who is paid by tax dollars to have to send their kid to the public school in the district in which they live!!! Imagine how quickly the entire system would be fixed!

I know the first amendment, and I believe that it extends to their schools. It is a violation of the establishment clause.

reply to post by FSBlueApocalypse


I'm sorry, but apparently you do NOT know the First Ammendment. You correctly identified it as the "Establishment Clause" though. Do you know WHY it is called that? Here, I will help you... It is called that because it prohibits the government from ESTABLISHING or FORCING the practice of any state-sponsored religion. However, nowhere in there does it prohibit the government from providing tax funds or otherwise to such organizations. I would be pleased if you could show me the statement in the Constitution that proves me wrong. Furthermore, the notion of separation of church and state is a liberal ploy used to secularize the entire country when there is NOTHING in the Constitution that requires it.

reply to post by kozmo


It provides that the government will make no law respecting or prohibiting any religion. A law that gives government money to a religious organization is one that respects it.

It's not really the government funding these schools though. It's the parents choice how to use the voucher, right? so if they want to use it on the a private religious school they should be able to do so.

I'd like for the vouchers to actually be handed to kids who can achieve at a higher level but are too poor to afford a better education.

[edit on 15-3-2009 by ThePiemaker]