Obama shifts position on vouchers

[Atreus21]

http://voices.washingtonpost.c...ng_dc_vo.html?wprss=44

President Obama will seek to extend the controversial D.C. school voucher program until all 1,716 participants have graduated from high school, although no new students will be accepted, according to an administration official who has reviewed budget details scheduled for release tomorrow.

The budget documents, which expand on the fiscal 2010 blueprint that Congress approved last month by outlining Obama's priorities in detail, would provide $12.2 million for the Opportunity Scholarship Program for the 2009-2010 school year. The new language also would revise current law that makes further funding for existing students contingent on Congress's reauthorization of the program beyond its current June 2010 expiration date. Under the Obama proposal, further congressional action would not be necessary, and current students would automatically receive grants until they finish school.

Education Secretary Arne Duncan had told reporters that it didn't make sense "to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning," but Democrats effectively terminated the program by requiring its reauthorization. Obama must now convince Democratic lawmakers to endorse a gradual phase out by continuing to include grant funding in future appropriation bills.

The voucher program was created in 2003 and is a Republican favorite, providing low-income students with a maximum $7,500 grant to attend a private or parochial school. All students come from households with incomes below 185 percent of the poverty line, and 8,000 students entered a lottery to participate. But liberal education groups, including the National Education Association, have argued that the experimental program is poorly administered and that voucher recipients have not performed measurably better in their new schools.

In a March 6, 2009 letter to Obama, the NEA president Dennis Van Roekel called the D.C. program "an ongoing threat to public education in the District of Columbia" and urged Obama to "use your voice to help eliminate this threat" by opposing "any efforts to extend this ineffective program."

The Department of Education recently issued a three-year analysis of student achievement under the program that showed limited gains in reading and no significant progress in math. But the White House concluded that moving the children back to public schools amounted to an unnecessary disruption.

I didn't say a reversal of position. I'm in favor of vouchers, and I think they work both theoretically and practically.

I think even a limited improvement in reading comprehension in the DOE's report is evidence enough of this, especially when considering the limited scope of the study.

Was listening to Rush talk about this during lunch. To some extent I agree with him on the following: Why on earth would you discontinue a program that works, costs less, and the children and parents themselves seem to want?

To me, I think the worst you can say about vouchers is that they make no difference, and that doesn't strike me as a compelling reason to discontinue it, since the expenditure is either the same or less. I line up with this dude's blog, for the most part:


http://jaypgreene.com/2009/02/...re-a-win-win-solution/

 

[CycloWizard]

"Education Secretary Arne Duncan had told reporters that it didn't make sense "to take kids out of a school where they're happy and safe and satisfied and learning," but Democrats effectively terminated the program by requiring its reauthorization." It doesn't make sense to stop a good thing. Therefore, the D's will prevent a good thing from spreading. After all, it's the social injustice that they perpetuate via poor public schools that keeps them in power.

 

[ProfJohn]

This is a good move for the kids already in the program.

But if letting these kids stay in this program is a good thing then it must imply that the program does work...

i.e. if the program didn't work then no one would want to stay in it. Seems like Obama is setting himself up for some serious flack on this one. But at least they made the right move for these kids, maybe they can make the right move for all the other kids next.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
This is a good move for the kids already in the program.

But if letting these kids stay in this program is a good thing then it must imply that the program does work...

i.e. if the program didn't work then no one would want to stay in it. Seems like Obama is setting himself up for some serious flack on this one. But at least they made the right move for these kids, maybe they can make the right move for all the other kids next.

It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the costs, political, educational, social, etc, of removing them are more than the costs of keeping them in it.

 

[sactoking]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the costs, political, educational, social, etc, of removing them are more than the costs of keeping them in it.

It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the program doesn't NOT work, so there's no built-in excuse for removing them. Rest assured, if children in voucher programs were testing lower, they'd be discontinued in a heartbeat. Since they're testing on par or higher, there's no built-in excuse. The only other excuse is fiscal, but the program is likely cheaper ($7500 voucher vs ??). There's that excuse gone. Political? Well, that's happening when they graduate. Social? Yeah, right, when have politicians ever cared about what's good for society?

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the costs, political, educational, social, etc, of removing them are more than the costs of keeping them in it.

It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the program doesn't NOT work, so there's no built-in excuse for removing them. Rest assured, if children in voucher programs were testing lower, they'd be discontinued in a heartbeat. Since they're testing on par or higher, there's no built-in excuse. The only other excuse is fiscal, but the program is likely cheaper ($7500 voucher vs ??). There's that excuse gone. Political? Well, that's happening when they graduate. Social? Yeah, right, when have politicians ever cared about what's good for society?

Yup, politics is killing our schools. Voucher do work and studies show vouchers even improve public schools because of the added competition.

This is an admission that the program works and it should be continued rather than this half step.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the costs, political, educational, social, etc, of removing them are more than the costs of keeping them in it.

It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the program doesn't NOT work, so there's no built-in excuse for removing them. Rest assured, if children in voucher programs were testing lower, they'd be discontinued in a heartbeat. Since they're testing on par or higher, there's no built-in excuse. The only other excuse is fiscal, but the program is likely cheaper ($7500 voucher vs ??). There's that excuse gone. Political? Well, that's happening when they graduate. Social? Yeah, right, when have politicians ever cared about what's good for society?

Uhmm, it does necessarily imply that unless you think that Obama is behaving irrationally.

 

[cubby1223]

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, it does necessarily imply that unless you think that Obama is behaving irrationally.

I think it implies that Obama is taking on too many projects at once, and there will undoubtedly be many errors along the way.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the costs, political, educational, social, etc, of removing them are more than the costs of keeping them in it.

It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the program doesn't NOT work, so there's no built-in excuse for removing them. Rest assured, if children in voucher programs were testing lower, they'd be discontinued in a heartbeat. Since they're testing on par or higher, there's no built-in excuse. The only other excuse is fiscal, but the program is likely cheaper ($7500 voucher vs ??). There's that excuse gone. Political? Well, that's happening when they graduate. Social? Yeah, right, when have politicians ever cared about what's good for society?

Uhmm, it does necessarily imply that unless you think that Obama is behaving irrationally.

It's entirely possible that the program works, and Obama wants to kill it rationally because it is politically expedient to do so. Somewhere people have forgotten that Obama is a politician and that political concerns are foremost.

 

[miketheidiot]

i like vouchers

 

[ProfJohn]

In a March 6, 2009 letter to Obama, the NEA president Dennis Van Roekel called the D.C. program "an ongoing threat to education union in the District of Columbia" and urged Obama to "use your voice to help eliminate this threat" by opposing "any efforts to extend this effective program."

Fixed.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the costs, political, educational, social, etc, of removing them are more than the costs of keeping them in it.

It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the program doesn't NOT work, so there's no built-in excuse for removing them. Rest assured, if children in voucher programs were testing lower, they'd be discontinued in a heartbeat. Since they're testing on par or higher, there's no built-in excuse. The only other excuse is fiscal, but the program is likely cheaper ($7500 voucher vs ??). There's that excuse gone. Political? Well, that's happening when they graduate. Social? Yeah, right, when have politicians ever cared about what's good for society?

Uhmm, it does necessarily imply that unless you think that Obama is behaving irrationally.

It's entirely possible that the program works, and Obama wants to kill it rationally because it is politically expedient to do so. Somewhere people have forgotten that Obama is a politician and that political concerns are foremost.

Right, as I said in my first post.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Originally posted by: cubby1223

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Uhmm, it does necessarily imply that unless you think that Obama is behaving irrationally.

I think it implies that Obama is taking on too many projects at once, and there will undoubtedly be many errors along the way.

That`s a pathetic answer.....
considering most people who find fault with Obama expect him to have already solved everything. For you to say he has taken on to many projects is just assinine....
Obama is damned if he does and damned if he doesn`t!!

 

[Schadenfroh]

Probably best that they finish the school in which they are currently enrolled. My cousin had to change schools three times during high school due to moving, it was not good for him at all. I imagine other kids might face similar challenges. Vouchers make me uneasy and I am still on the fence, but I can see where they might be necessary in some rare cases.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: Schadenfroh
Probably best that they finish the school in which they are currently enrolled. My cousin had to change schools three times during high school due to moving, it was not good for him at all. I imagine other kids might face similar challenges. Vouchers make me uneasy and I am still on the fence, but I can see where they might be necessary in some rare cases.

Given the number of completely broken and disfuctional schools that exist in the US, I dont think the need for them is that rare.

 

[MikeyLSU]

damn, I read your topic and thought, this will be a great thing that Obama does. Instead, I just shake my head that we still can't try to fix our educational system. Bush messed it up with the no child left behind crap, Vouchers could really help kickstart some areas with poor performing schools. A system where you allow kids to go to private school. So many other counties get it right, you tie the money to the kid.

 

[BoberFett]

Considering how in love with the European model Democrats are, I'm surprised they're not 100% in support of vouchers. From what I understand Sweden, that socialist paradise of the north, has a very successful voucher program.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
Considering how in love with the European model Democrats are, I'm surprised they're not 100% in support of vouchers. From what I understand Sweden, that socialist paradise of the north, has a very successful voucher program.

Just because he's running our auto, banking, insurance, health care industry doesn't mean he's a socialist.

 

[Budmantom]

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
damn, I read your topic and thought, this will be a great thing that Obama does. Instead, I just shake my head that we still can't try to fix our educational system. Bush messed it up with the no child left behind crap, Vouchers could really help kickstart some areas with poor performing schools. A system where you allow kids to go to private school. So many other counties get it right, you tie the money to the kid.

I thought Obama was pro-choice....?....

 

[Xellos2099]

As I recall, Bush Try to get it pass but the democrat vote it down.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Budmantom

Originally posted by: MikeyLSU
damn, I read your topic and thought, this will be a great thing that Obama does. Instead, I just shake my head that we still can't try to fix our educational system. Bush messed it up with the no child left behind crap, Vouchers could really help kickstart some areas with poor performing schools. A system where you allow kids to go to private school. So many other counties get it right, you tie the money to the kid.

I thought Obama was pro-choice....?....

Like most Democrats, he's pro-his-choice. As long as you agree with the Democrats, you're free to believe what you want.

 

[Double Trouble]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: sactoking

Originally posted by: eskimospy
It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the costs, political, educational, social, etc, of removing them are more than the costs of keeping them in it.

It doesn't necessarily imply that at all. What it does imply is that the program doesn't NOT work, so there's no built-in excuse for removing them. Rest assured, if children in voucher programs were testing lower, they'd be discontinued in a heartbeat. Since they're testing on par or higher, there's no built-in excuse. The only other excuse is fiscal, but the program is likely cheaper ($7500 voucher vs ??). There's that excuse gone. Political? Well, that's happening when they graduate. Social? Yeah, right, when have politicians ever cared about what's good for society?

Uhmm, it does necessarily imply that unless you think that Obama is behaving irrationally.

It's entirely possible that the program works, and Obama wants to kill it rationally because it is politically expedient to do so. Somewhere people have forgotten that Obama is a politician and that political concerns are foremost.

:thumbsup: Ding ding ding, we have a winner.

Nowhere is the hypocrisy more evident than with school vouchers. I'd guess that not a single Washington senator, congressman or senior administration official has their kids in public schools in DC. Yet the hypocrites feel compelled to condemn those without the financial resources to pursue alternatives to a lousy education and a life of poverty.

I make enough money that I can choose to send my kids to some other school if the local public school sucks. Most do not have that option, so they have no way of getting a reasonably good education for their kids if they are unlucky enough to live somewhere where the public schools suck (ie, most inner cities).

Determine what amount is the appropriate amount to spend per student on education, then hand every single parent a voucher for that amount each year. Let the parents choose where to send their kids. You'd have a better more efficient education system in no time, since parents would force accountability through their choice of schools.