Obama Admin. Stifles Favorable DC Voucher Study

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
More proof that Obama is full of crap, and in so many ways.

1. Obama promised "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and yet they hide this report about the success of this school voucher system.

2. Obama said ?You do what works for the kids" and yet he let this popular program die without a peep.

3. Obama sends his girls to Sidwell Friends a private school that participated in this program. I guess offering poor children the same education as his daughters isn't as important as keeping the teachers union happy. BTW the school cost $28,000+ per year.

4. Obama HIMSELF was the beneficiary of a private school scholarship, one that he credits with helping him achieve what he has achieved. Again, I guess the concerns of the teachers unions are more important than helping poor children trapped in the DC school system.

Pathetic on all levels. And you wonder why so many people on the right are anti-union.
link
Despite being ?a skeptic of vouchers,? candidate Barack Obama promised this would not prevent him from ?making sure that our kids can learn.? As he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, ?You do what works for the kids.?

Last January 21, his first full day in office, President Obama declared, ?My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.?

Just 10 weeks later, Obama has broken both these promises. And poor-but-promising minority kids suffer the consequences.

These 1,714 children -- 90 percent black and 9 percent Hispanic -- enjoy the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. They each receive up to $7,500 for private or parochial schools outside Washington, D.C.?s dismal government-education system. Since its 2004 launch, 7,852 students have applied for these grants, or more than four children per voucher.

This program?s popularity notwithstanding, Obama stayed silent as Congress scheduled this initiative?s demise after the 2009 -- 2010 academic year. Both a Democratic Congress and DC authorities must reauthorize the program -- not likely.

Now it emerges that Obama?s Department of Education (DOE) possessed peer-reviewed, Congressionally mandated, research proving this program?s success. Though it demonstrates ?what works for the kids,? DOE hid this study until Congress squelched these children?s dreams.

This analysis compared voucher users? test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE?s results:

*While they were no better at math, voucher recipients read 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students.

*Student subgroups -- including high achievers, those from functional schools, and applicants between Kindergarten and grade 8 -- showed ?1/3 to 2 years of additional learning growth.?

*While 63 percent of non-voucher parents gave their kids? schools As or Bs, 74 percent of voucher parents so rated their children?s campuses.

This good news remained concealed, from the study?s conclusion last fall, through March?s Congressional debate, until April 3, when DOE finally released this report. That was a Friday afternoon, precisely when news whisperers issue stories they want journalists to miss in the mad dash for the weekend and citizens to overlook as Saturday?s papers vanish beneath ski equipment, movie tickets, and pitchers of beer.

Worse yet, DOE researchers reportedly were forbidden to publicize or discuss their findings. ?You?d think we were talking about nuclear secrets, not about a taxpayer-funded pilot program,? the April 5 Wall Street Journal editorialized.

For Team Obama, this is transparency we can believe in.

One expects better from Obama who won a scholarship at age 10 to attend Hawaii?s prestigious, private Punahou school. ?There was something about this school that embraced me, gave me support and encouragement, and allowed me to grow and prosper,? Obama has said.

DC voucher recipients want such life chances. If you want to bawl like a baby, visit VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org and watch the Internet?s most inspirational and simultaneously heartbreaking video.

?In my old public school, people screamed at the teacher, walked out of school during class, hurt me, and made fun of all my friends,? says Paul, age 11, imploring Obama to keep hope alive. ?I love going to school, where I can learn and be safe,? says Breanna, 9. ?I want to go to Morehouse College, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,? says De?Andre, 9. ?I am going to grow up and be a good man.?

With young black kids themselves begging for vouchers, why would reputedly pro-poor, pro-black Democrats kill this popular and effective school-choice program?

Follow the money: Teachers? unions? paid $55,794,440 in political donations between 1990 and 2008, 96 percent of it to Democrats. Senator John Ensign?s (R ? Nevada) March 10 amendment to rescue DC?s vouchers failed 39-58. Among 57 Democrats voting, 54 (or 95 percent) opposed DC vouchers.

As the late Albert Shanker, former American Federation of Teachers president, once said: ?When school children start paying union dues, that?s when I?ll start representing the interests of school children.?

When poor, black school kids start making political donations, Democratic politicians will start fighting for them.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,888
55,149
136
Nice editorial Pro-Jo. So the system's apparent 'success' is from a small group of self selected students that you saw reading 4 months better than equivalent public students? Really? Do you realize how absolutely retarded drawing a conclusion for the success of that program from that is? I really like how that piece uses WSJ editorials as sources. Pathetic.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nice editorial Pro-Jo. So the system's apparent 'success' is from a small group of self selected students that you saw reading 4 months better than equivalent public students? Really? Do you realize how absolutely retarded drawing a conclusion for the success of that program from that is? I really like how that piece uses WSJ editorials as sources. Pathetic.
Well the report did come from the government.

And you ignore the important elements of the story.

1. Why did the hide the report and tell people NOT to discuss it?

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?
 

IronWing

No Lifer
Jul 20, 2001
72,650
33,487
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nice editorial Pro-Jo. So the system's apparent 'success' is from a small group of self selected students that you saw reading 4 months better than equivalent public students? Really? Do you realize how absolutely retarded drawing a conclusion for the success of that program from that is? I really like how that piece uses WSJ editorials as sources. Pathetic.

Tsk tsk

Tsk

;)
 

HomerJS

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
39,159
32,551
136
The article offers no proof the conclusions were hidden it's just the authors opinion.

Let's assume for the sake of the rant the results were hidden. The article states the results were available in the fall. From Sept 20 - Jan 20 who was in charge of DOE??

As for Obama being full of crap I would bet the farm the end of 8 years of Obama will be far better ther your precious Bush.
 
Dec 30, 2004
12,553
2
76
Vouchers are the clear solution to our public school woes and are vital to our country's survival as an education powerhouse. We are 15 years overdue for them; the quality of people we're pumping through the system now is terrifying. Because our highschools are passing them the colleges are now too.
MS is becoming the new BS.
 

OrByte

Diamond Member
Jul 21, 2000
9,303
144
106
ok without getting into the school voucher debate....

exactly how was this study "stifled" and hidden?

I didnt see the proof of this authors claim.

Jeeez Prof you believe any old bullshit that is printed with a right wing slant don't you...?

as for #s 1 and 2 in your list you have no proof.

as for #s 3 and 4 in your list they are completely irrelevant.

this is just a mess OP.
 

JSFLY

Golden Member
Mar 24, 2006
1,068
0
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nice editorial Pro-Jo. So the system's apparent 'success' is from a small group of self selected students that you saw reading 4 months better than equivalent public students? Really? Do you realize how absolutely retarded drawing a conclusion for the success of that program from that is? I really like how that piece uses WSJ editorials as sources. Pathetic.

Tsk tsk

Tsk

;)

lol

pwnt
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More proof that Obama is full of crap, and in so many ways.

1. Obama promised "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and yet they hide this report about the success of this school voucher system.

2. Obama said ?You do what works for the kids" and yet he let this popular program die without a peep.

3. Obama sends his girls to Sidwell Friends a private school that participated in this program. I guess offering poor children the same education as his daughters isn't as important as keeping the teachers union happy. BTW the school cost $28,000+ per year.

4. Obama HIMSELF was the beneficiary of a private school scholarship, one that he credits with helping him achieve what he has achieved. Again, I guess the concerns of the teachers unions are more important than helping poor children trapped in the DC school system.

Pathetic on all levels. And you wonder why so many people on the right are anti-union.
link
Despite being ?a skeptic of vouchers,? candidate Barack Obama promised this would not prevent him from ?making sure that our kids can learn.? As he told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel, ?You do what works for the kids.?

Last January 21, his first full day in office, President Obama declared, ?My Administration is committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in Government.?

Just 10 weeks later, Obama has broken both these promises. And poor-but-promising minority kids suffer the consequences.

These 1,714 children -- 90 percent black and 9 percent Hispanic -- enjoy the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program. They each receive up to $7,500 for private or parochial schools outside Washington, D.C.?s dismal government-education system. Since its 2004 launch, 7,852 students have applied for these grants, or more than four children per voucher.

This program?s popularity notwithstanding, Obama stayed silent as Congress scheduled this initiative?s demise after the 2009 -- 2010 academic year. Both a Democratic Congress and DC authorities must reauthorize the program -- not likely.

Now it emerges that Obama?s Department of Education (DOE) possessed peer-reviewed, Congressionally mandated, research proving this program?s success. Though it demonstrates ?what works for the kids,? DOE hid this study until Congress squelched these children?s dreams.

This analysis compared voucher users? test scores to those of students who requested vouchers but lost the award lottery. Among DOE?s results:

*While they were no better at math, voucher recipients read 3.7 months ahead of non-voucher students.

*Student subgroups -- including high achievers, those from functional schools, and applicants between Kindergarten and grade 8 -- showed ?1/3 to 2 years of additional learning growth.?

*While 63 percent of non-voucher parents gave their kids? schools As or Bs, 74 percent of voucher parents so rated their children?s campuses.

This good news remained concealed, from the study?s conclusion last fall, through March?s Congressional debate, until April 3, when DOE finally released this report. That was a Friday afternoon, precisely when news whisperers issue stories they want journalists to miss in the mad dash for the weekend and citizens to overlook as Saturday?s papers vanish beneath ski equipment, movie tickets, and pitchers of beer.

Worse yet, DOE researchers reportedly were forbidden to publicize or discuss their findings. ?You?d think we were talking about nuclear secrets, not about a taxpayer-funded pilot program,? the April 5 Wall Street Journal editorialized.

For Team Obama, this is transparency we can believe in.

One expects better from Obama who won a scholarship at age 10 to attend Hawaii?s prestigious, private Punahou school. ?There was something about this school that embraced me, gave me support and encouragement, and allowed me to grow and prosper,? Obama has said.

DC voucher recipients want such life chances. If you want to bawl like a baby, visit VoicesOfSchoolChoice.org and watch the Internet?s most inspirational and simultaneously heartbreaking video.

?In my old public school, people screamed at the teacher, walked out of school during class, hurt me, and made fun of all my friends,? says Paul, age 11, imploring Obama to keep hope alive. ?I love going to school, where I can learn and be safe,? says Breanna, 9. ?I want to go to Morehouse College, like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.,? says De?Andre, 9. ?I am going to grow up and be a good man.?

With young black kids themselves begging for vouchers, why would reputedly pro-poor, pro-black Democrats kill this popular and effective school-choice program?

Follow the money: Teachers? unions? paid $55,794,440 in political donations between 1990 and 2008, 96 percent of it to Democrats. Senator John Ensign?s (R ? Nevada) March 10 amendment to rescue DC?s vouchers failed 39-58. Among 57 Democrats voting, 54 (or 95 percent) opposed DC vouchers.

As the late Albert Shanker, former American Federation of Teachers president, once said: ?When school children start paying union dues, that?s when I?ll start representing the interests of school children.?

When poor, black school kids start making political donations, Democratic politicians will start fighting for them.

Time to unsubscribe to your neocon think-tank newsletters, Poofjohn.
 

BansheeX

Senior member
Sep 10, 2007
348
0
0
If politicians handed off the taxdollars to the parents to spend it as vouchers, educators would suddenly have to compete for the funds. We do the same thing for food stamps, we don't give food stamps to the producer, we give them to the consumer to decide what the best producer is. That choice suddenly makes the producer have to compete with other producers for funds, and improves quality. It's obvious. But government employees don't want competition, they want a guaranteed inflow of money.
 

retrospooty

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2002
2,031
74
86
Dont worry, projo, I am sure if you keep trying and work really hard , someday you will come up with a valid post.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,888
55,149
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nice editorial Pro-Jo. So the system's apparent 'success' is from a small group of self selected students that you saw reading 4 months better than equivalent public students? Really? Do you realize how absolutely retarded drawing a conclusion for the success of that program from that is? I really like how that piece uses WSJ editorials as sources. Pathetic.
Well the report did come from the government.

And you ignore the important elements of the story.

1. Why did the hide the report and tell people NOT to discuss it?

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Your idea that they 'hid' the report is that they released it to the public, but on a Friday.

Think about what you're saying.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
The report was finished in the fall, but held back from release until April 3rd.

Why did they sit on it for 6 months?
 

daishi5

Golden Member
Feb 17, 2005
1,196
0
76
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nice editorial Pro-Jo. So the system's apparent 'success' is from a small group of self selected students that you saw reading 4 months better than equivalent public students? Really? Do you realize how absolutely retarded drawing a conclusion for the success of that program from that is? I really like how that piece uses WSJ editorials as sources. Pathetic.

The New Orleans voucher program is also showing strong results. These results are not proof, but honestly when you start a program, and a large percentage of the children do better in school, doesn't that seem like something to continue?
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,888
55,149
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The report was finished in the fall, but held back from release until April 3rd.

Why did they sit on it for 6 months?

You realize that Bush, a strong supporter of school vouchers, was president for at least half, if not more than half that time, right?

Wouldn't that suggest to you that there are other reasons to hold back publication of a report? I don't know what they are, but the fact that a supporter of the issue didn't let it loose for months either should tell you something.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,888
55,149
136
Originally posted by: daishi5
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Nice editorial Pro-Jo. So the system's apparent 'success' is from a small group of self selected students that you saw reading 4 months better than equivalent public students? Really? Do you realize how absolutely retarded drawing a conclusion for the success of that program from that is? I really like how that piece uses WSJ editorials as sources. Pathetic.

The New Orleans voucher program is also showing strong results. These results are not proof, but honestly when you start a program, and a large percentage of the children do better in school, doesn't that seem like something to continue?

It certainly seems like something to take ideas from, I agree. In fact, if you look at Obama's pick for education secretary I think you would probably like what you see. He's not your usual Democratic pick for that spot and he has a good history of making hard choices for schools and having them work out well.

There's more to it than just the vouchers though, because you also have to look at the effect of defunding other schools and see what that's doing to student achievement in other areas, things like that. I'm not opposed to school vouchers in principle, I'm a fan of what works. There's a lot more to the equation than what this study covers though, and that's important to keep in mind.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.
 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,172
14,602
146
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.

Parents have the choice to send their kids to private schools. They just have to pay for it.

If people are allowed to use vouchers to pay for private school, then, since we have no children in the public school system, we should be exempt from paying for school bonds and taxes.
Seems like a fair trade-off to me.
 

Triumph

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
15,031
14
81
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.

Parents have the choice to send their kids to private schools. They just have to pay for it.

If people are allowed to use vouchers to pay for private school, then, since we have no children in the public school system, we should be exempt from paying for school bonds and taxes.
Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

But isn't that the point, parents pay school taxes, why should they pay school tax AND tuition?
 

Acanthus

Lifer
Aug 28, 2001
19,915
2
76
ostif.org
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
More proof that Obama is full of crap, and in so many ways.

1. Obama promised "an unprecedented level of openness in Government" and yet they hide this report about the success of this school voucher system.
[/quote]

http://www.recovery.gov/

Lets put aside that the American Reinvestment Act wouldve never happened under a Republican President. This would've never occured had it happened because it would've been loaded with maladjusted spending and tax cuts for the rich that wouldve pissed off the public and gave the media a feeding frenzy.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
87,888
55,149
136
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.

Parents have the choice to send their kids to private schools. They just have to pay for it.

If people are allowed to use vouchers to pay for private school, then, since we have no children in the public school system, we should be exempt from paying for school bonds and taxes.
Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

But isn't that the point, parents pay school taxes, why should they pay school tax AND tuition?

Because we have a publicly funded school system, and those are funded with tax dollars. If you have people choosing what taxes they do or don't pay, your publicly funded system isn't going to work for very long.

Now if you want to argue against public schools, that's fine (although I would disagree with you). As long as we have public schools though, people aren't going to be opting out of taxes.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.

Parents have the choice to send their kids to private schools. They just have to pay for it.

If people are allowed to use vouchers to pay for private school, then, since we have no children in the public school system, we should be exempt from paying for school bonds and taxes.
Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

That is a nieve and selfish way to approach this.....
A system is in place that almost everyone pays into -- Public School system.
You don`t have to send your kids to a public school but if you do send your kids to a private school it`s ONLY fair that you continue to pay into the system that is in place -- Public schools...seems fair to me!!

 

BoomerD

No Lifer
Feb 26, 2006
66,172
14,602
146
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.

Parents have the choice to send their kids to private schools. They just have to pay for it.

If people are allowed to use vouchers to pay for private school, then, since we have no children in the public school system, we should be exempt from paying for school bonds and taxes.
Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

That is a nieve and selfish way to approach this.....
A system is in place that almost everyone pays into -- Public School system.
You don`t have to send your kids to a public school but if you do send your kids to a private school it`s ONLY fair that you continue to pay into the system that is in place -- Public schools...seems fair to me!!

I don't disagree with you...my point was that I have NO children going to any school at all...therefore, if people are allowed to have vouchers for private schools, I should be exempted from paying school taxed completely.
If they don't have to use their tax dollars to support public schools, then by damn, neither should I.
 

JEDIYoda

Lifer
Jul 13, 2005
33,986
3,321
126
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
Originally posted by: BoomerD
Originally posted by: Triumph
Originally posted by: ironwing
Originally posted by: ProfJohn

2. Why are the Democrats so keen on ending this program that is so popular among the people who use it?

Because vouchers are a taxpayer provided subsidy for segregated, religious education and anyone denying that is simply full of shit? Vouchers are used primarily to send white, evangelical kids to private schools. Using inner city black children as the poster children for voucher system is particularly hypocritical.

God forbid the parents determine what's best for their children. That role should be left up to the State.

Parents have the choice to send their kids to private schools. They just have to pay for it.

If people are allowed to use vouchers to pay for private school, then, since we have no children in the public school system, we should be exempt from paying for school bonds and taxes.
Seems like a fair trade-off to me.

That is a nieve and selfish way to approach this.....
A system is in place that almost everyone pays into -- Public School system.
You don`t have to send your kids to a public school but if you do send your kids to a private school it`s ONLY fair that you continue to pay into the system that is in place -- Public schools...seems fair to me!!

I don't disagree with you...my point was that I have NO children going to any school at all...therefore, if people are allowed to have vouchers for private schools, I should be exempted from paying school taxed completely.
If they don't have to use their tax dollars to support public schools, then by damn, neither should I.

Im sorry....I agree with what you are say-- my point was that I have NO children going to any school at all...therefore, if people are allowed to have vouchers for private schools, I should be exempted from paying school taxed completely.