‘Pell Grants for Kids’ = Vouchers

In 2001, when the White House decided it would work with congressional Dems on No Child Left Behind legislation, Dems made one thing perfectly clear: no vouchers. Plenty of ideas were on the table, but there was simply no way Dems would support a national plan that used public funds to subsidize tuition at religious and other private schools when there are still so many public schools in desperate need of assistance.

At the time, Bush didn’t even put up much of a fight. For the White House, vouchers were practically a bargaining chip that was easily discarded through the course of negotiations. Some of the president’s far-right supporters had hoped to use NCLB to help privatize education though vouchers, but the reality was, the president’s heart was never in it.

Vouchers, for the most part, have been a non-entity ever since. Congressional Republicans rammed through a voucher scheme for the District of Columbia — against the wishes of city officials — but that’s been the extent of the right’s progress on the issue.

Last night, in the State of the Union, Bush tried to re-start the fight all over again.

“Thanks to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarships you approved, more than 2,600 of the poorest children in our Nation’s Capital have found new hope at a faith-based or other non-public school. Sadly, these schools are disappearing at an alarming rate in many of America’s inner cities…. [T]o open the doors of these schools to more children, I ask you to support a new $300 million program called Pell Grants for Kids. We have seen how Pell Grants help low-income college students realize their full potential. Together, we’ve expanded the size and reach of these grants. Now let us apply that same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.”

The president didn’t use the word “voucher,” but he didn’t have to (Republicans have been told repeatedly that the word doesn’t poll well, so they come up with euphemisms).

As long as the White House is going to throw this into the State of the Union, we might as well go to the trouble of pointing out how foolish this is.

First, Bush characterized the DC voucher program has some kind of sterling success story. It’s not: “A voucher program designed to send low-income children in the District to better-performing private schools has allowed some students to take classes in unsuitable learning environments and from teachers without bachelor’s degrees, according to a government report. The shortcomings are detailed in a draft prepared by the Government Accountability Office about the $12.9 million D.C. Opportunity Scholarship program. The GAO said the program lacks financial controls and has failed to check whether the participating schools were accredited.”

Second, as TP explained very well, the president asserted as fact the notion that private schools out-perform public schools. This isn’t true either.

Third, it’s ironic that Bush talked about the success of the Pell Grant program in helping “low-income college students realize their full potential,” given that his administration has repeatedly scaled back funding for regular ol’ Pell Grants.

Ultimately, none of this comes as too big a surprise. Bush wants to privatize education in this country; what a shock. But for me, it was a reminder of just how little the president has to offer in the way of a policy agenda — instead of ideas he hopes to achieve, Bush recycled an old idea he knew a Democratic Congress would reject out of hand.

When Republicans ask why Dems struggle to take the president seriously on policy matters, we can add this to the list.

And he can’t appropriate that 300 il to failing public schools directly?

  • His slashes budgets of great programs and then claims ownership of any meager successes that the programs may have.

    When he retires, the grateful nation should present him with a clown suit.

  • This is from Greg Palast: ” Here’s your question, class:

    In his State of the Union, the President asked Congress for $300 million for poor kids in the inner city. As there are, officially, 15 million children in America living in poverty, how much is that per child? Correct! $20.

    Here’s your second question. The President also demanded that Congress extend his tax cuts. The cost: $4.3 trillion over ten years. The big recipients are millionaires. And the number of millionaires happens, not coincidentally, to equal the number of poor kids, roughly 15 million of them. OK class: what is the cost of the tax cut per millionaire? That’s right, Richie, $287,000 apiece.

    Mr. Bush said, “In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams. And a decent education is their only hope of achieving them.”

    So how much educational dreaming will $20 buy?”

    If a voucher is for $3,500.00 and a school charges $7,000.00 how does a poor family send their child to the better school? On the other hand those that are affluent take the $3,500.00 and make car payments on their Mercedes.
    In the USA it’s better to be rich than Poor.

  • “Now let us apply that same spirit to help liberate poor children trapped in failing public schools.” – F**khead

    Endless waves of arrogance and smug dismissal just pour out of our Asshole in Chief.

    This jerk is way past ready for the Blackwatering of and on public education. His acknowledgment of “failing public schools” isn’t a lament for a problem without a solution. It’s a success story with the failure showing that corporatism and selfishness can prevail over the common good and that profiteers, like his brother Neil, can make a very nice living sucking the life out of America’s communities and dousing the light’s in America’s young minds.

    This country is waiting to exhale. When it does, if it happens, Shruby and his cohort of idiot thugs are going to be in for supremely well deserved and long lasting assessments of ridicule and disgust.

  • When is someone going to reveal these privatization schemes for what they are? Schools, Social Security, mercenary militias — wouldn’t it be easier to debunk them all at once than rather one at a time? They all do the same thing — create profit centers while reducing or eliminating accountability. This is what drowning the common good in the bathtub sounds like.

  • The public school system is a proven disaster. The more money poured into it, the worse it becomes. The Democratic Party doesn’t care about educating children, they care only about strengthening the various Teachers Unions, so that they are assured of more votes.

    Basically, the public school system is a reflection of the Democratic Party’s dogma, i.e. no effort is required, because everything is or should be free. Children can’t learn if teachers are more interested in their union than they are in teaching. Children can’t learn if they don’t put in some effort, and they won’t put in any effort if their parents aren’t encouraging them to do so.

    I don’t know how the schools in Great Britain work now, but they use to work like this:

    School begins at age five. By age eleven, children are separated into two groups, as they were prepared for the next level of education at new schools…one group got to wear green uniforms, and the other group would wear blue uniforms. The green schools were for students who had performed better at the lower level, and showed the ability to be a studious student. The blue schools were more directed more towards the trades and other positions that didn’t need a college education. I was headed to a blue school before the family returned to America.

    Children are not all the same, e.g. some are better at sports than others…some are better with their hands than others…some are more artistic than others…some like to read books more than others…etc. Those are all skills and/or talents that can be improved upon at another level of education; however, the basics –RRR, should be well taught at the lower level first. The basics are not being taught properly in the public school system, and the results are proof that the current system is useless.

  • and the results are proof that the current system is useless.

    Public schools are public. If they’re mediocre, or worse, then there exists a society-wide consensus that they be mediocre, or worse. Our educational system was not imposed from without by some hostile power, it’s teh result of choices made by the people that it serves, whether it serves them well or ill.

  • First kill off public education by claiming that in a capitalistic society the private sector should fill that role, then make the rich richer and the poor poorer by redistributing the tax burden away from the rich and squarely on the shoulders of the less well-off … and voila! A permanent underclass that society can take advantage of for cheap and abusable labor! The genius, and petty classism, of George Bush is revealed.

  • Thanks Kiss on the Greg Palast comments.

    We all realize that Bushie has just changed the verbiage to describe vouchers for religious purposes.

    If he truly wants to better education. Why not give the money to the public schools?

    Seabury — the public schools tend to be a reflection of the economic prosperity or despair of a given location

  • I get really tired of hearing that the public school system doesn’t work – we all know, don’t we – that whether you have schools that work depends a great deal on where you live, and what your socio-economic circumstances are. The public schools my children went to, and the county system their schools were part of – were (and still are) excellent. Part of that success is attributable to a student population that is coming from an upper socio-economic area, with parents who are educated, who are involved in their children’s schools and who demand – and get – the high quality of education they expect. These are schools with active parent-teacher associations, which can draw significant funds from the community to fund those things the school system cannot include in its budget. These children know the value of education, what it means to their futures.

    Is it fair that my children got a high level and quality of education at their public schools, but the children in the city school system did not? Of course it isn’t – but the problems with public education, especially in urban areas, are not as simple as first-grade arithmetic. These are problems that have to be attacked from so many directions, and many cities are not equipped to address them. A beautiful school, staffed with great teachers and filled with the best equipment and materials still cannot get the high level of results if the students are coming to school hungry, if they are sick because they have no health care, if they are constantly moving because whichever parent they are living with cannot find or keep a job, if they are missing school to stay home with younger siblings, if there are drugs and violence in the home, or if there are drugs and violence in the neighborhoods.

    Good schools require parents committed to education, and part of that commitment requires parents to see to it that their children are properly fed and clothed and cared for, that they know what is going on at school, that they know their children’s teachers. Vouchers will not buy a parent who gives a crap whether their child learns to read. Vouchers will not buy food to keep the children well-nourished. Vouchers will not buy health care. Vouchers will not keep children safe.

    Private schools get to pick and choose which students to educate; public schools have to take any child who walks in the door. Meeting the needs of a student population which is diverse on many levels is not easy, but many public schools are meeting those needs and exceeding expectations at all educational levels.

  • Jen, I prefer an all expenses paid trip to The Hague, myself. Bush already has his souvenir vis a vis Saddam’s gun (like a serial killer keeps a trophy). The only thing I would like to give him is a severe kick in the ass, something his parents should have done long and hard when he was a kid.

  • The basics are not being taught properly in the public school system, and the results are proof that the current system is useless. -Seaberry

    I’ve always thought that the existence of people like yourself and the number of Republicans who get elected every cycle were proof the the public school system was failing.

    You really think that Democrats are only invested in the school system to strengthen the Unions and solidify support? The best support the Democrats have is a well educated public.

    If it weren’t for all of the Seaberrys in the world standing in the way of improving our public school system, we’d never elect another Republican again because no one would be dumb enough to buy their bullshit.

  • Ironic that just prior to the Pell grant comments, Bush was touting how well the No Child Left Behind was working. So which is it?

  • Why should only affluent parents have true school choice in this country? Low-to-moderate income families should be able to choose whatever educational option is the best “fit” for their child- whether that’s a government-run school, a religious school, a secular private school, an independent study program, or home education without government funding but also without government interference.

  • There are too many successful schools in poor communities for any intellectually honest person–which excludes our troll, of course–to dismiss the public school system in toto.

    What does it take? Resources, relevance, and accountability. The right has the germ of a point in that Democrats have shown over-deference to teachers’ unions; the moment at which my support for Obama absolutely solidified was when he went to the AFT and told them he was for merit pay whether they liked it or not. (They endorsed Clinton, of course.)

    That profession needs to be, well, professionalized–but teachers also need far more support, in terms of money and professional development opportunities, than they generally receive. The best ones should earn on a level with doctors and lawyers. Here in NYC, half of all new teachers quit within three years–not because they don’t love their work and their kids, but because they get overwhelmed by the enormity of the task and the lack of institutional support.

    But we also need curriculum reform–an emphasis on applied learning and career development rather than just mindless teaching to endless testing. And communities and businesses need to take more of an ownership stake in their schools.

    All this can be done; it has been done in high-achieving schools and districts. But as always, lazy and dishonest Republicans with no interest in governing rather than politicking would rather just exploit the problem for political gain. Bush is no more interested in the effectiveness of vouchers than he is in whether “faith-based” programs actually work, or what Social Security privatization would really mean. In all cases, he just wants to buy off waverers and weaken enemies. Happily, the country seems to be wide awake to this nonsense now.

  • Seaberrry @ 8. That is the sloppiest, most uniformed blather I’ve read in a long time. Your technique of following an obvious truth with an ideological leap of fantasy is transparent, unconvincing, and quite frankly, sad. But by all means, please waste more of your time ranting about topics you know nothing about so that we can all be reminded of what happens when children are taught to write but not to think.

  • As if public education is doing so well in America? Get rid of NCLB and the Dept of Education and you might start getting quality public education again. As long as schools are under Federal control instead of local, you’ll continue to see the system failing kids. Its no wonder why parents want their kid to be able to go to a private school. Public schools have to let everyone attend, even the behavior problems. My mother worked in a public school for 30 years, I have worked at one as well. Its a terrible situation for children to be in.

    I’m definitely not in favor of federal funding of vouchers; anything that makes that behemoth bigger I am against. But if I were paying property taxes that went to the local public school, where my kid would get a shoddy education, I’d certainly be upset.

    I had to go to a public school myself, although my parents wanted to send me to a private school. Unfortunately, we couldn’t afford a private education, because through property taxes, we were already paying for a public education. Why should parents who want to send their kid to a private school, pay for their children’s education twice?

    And sorry to disappoint the above commenter, but just because someone has more money than you doesn’t entitle you to take it away from them. Not everyone who makes a decent living drives a Mercedes. What is it about you people that makes you hate anyone who has actually managed to have some success in life? Why, when liberals say they believe in a ‘shared responsibility’ for the community, do they insist that responsibility be primarily on someone else’s shoulders? Why can’t people be responsible for their own lives?

  • Dajafi – I agree that teaching to the test is an abomination, and may prove to have more of a ripple effect than we realize, because what is being lost is time that could be spent on developing critical thinking skills. The tests may say the kids are learning, but I think that overall they contribute to the general dumbing-down of American students.

    Base pay for teachers needs to be high enough to attract the best and the brightest. Good teachers should make more money than not-so-good teachers; what’s the incentive to improve your teaching skills if you make the same amount of money as everyone else? If teachers feel it is important to be unionized, then institute merit bonuses for those who exceed expectations. Teachers’ unions need to weed out under-performing or truly bad teachers – put them in mandatory skills training or require them to be mentored and monitored by good teachers – there is no value in protecting them.

    Good schools requires a committed partnership of teachers, students, parents, communities and government; in some areas this is a monumental task.

  • Why should parents who want to send their kid to a private school, pay for their children’s education twice? -Jason

    You aren’t paying for your children’s education when you pay taxes for public education; you’re paying for the greater good of the public arena which benefits everyone. That’s why everyone, not just people with school age children, pay that tax.

    And sorry to disappoint the above commenter, but just because someone has more money than you doesn’t entitle you to take it away from them. -Jason

    Oh, another disbeliever in progressive taxes. Where is an ignore button when you need one…

  • Jason @ 19. Whatever it was you did in the public school system, I hope it wasn’t teaching. Your “logic” is only slightly more coherent than Seaberry’s.

  • Jason@19 – it sounds to me like you are taking it personally, that you feel targeted as one of the “rich bastards” or whatever. That doesn’t feel comfortable. But I would guess that while you might think that you are one of the ones helped by the Bush Tax Cuts, in the bigger picture, you aren’t.

    Sure your income tax bill went down. But local taxes went up, because the services have got to be paid for somehow. And the US debt went up, which has led us to a devaluation of the dollar, and probably a round of inflation. Is that going to help you?

    Oh, and the tax cuts fueled the housing bubble, which made you feel great for a while, but remember all that new money in your pocket went right back out again in a big new mortgage. For a house that’s not reallly all that better. Do you suppose there’s maybe a connection between people having more takehome pay and house prices rising sharply?

    For me, progressive taxation is a good idea, and I’m one of the 15 million Steve talked about. (Hint, I’m not a child). The Bush policies are only good for you if you’re Ken Lay, which I doubt you are.

  • Is Senator Pell well enough to speak out against the President for this disgraceful and wildly audacious mischaracterization of the landmark program that bears the former Senator’s name?

  • Seaberry quotes this approvingly: “By age eleven, children are separated into two groups, as they were prepared for the next level of education at new schools…one group got to wear green uniforms, and the other group would wear blue uniforms. The green schools were for students who had performed better at the lower level, and showed the ability to be a studious student. The blue schools were more directed more towards the trades and other positions that didn’t need a college education. I was headed to a blue school before the family returned to America.”

    If I’d been in a system like that, I’d have surely gotten a blue uniform: I was not a particularly studious student in elementary school – or in junior high, and only occasionally in high school.

    I’m glad nobody decided my destiny for me, putting me on a trade-school track when I was eleven years old, seeing as how I have a Ph.D. in mathematics. Just sayin’.

  • And just in case conservitaves say that isn’t the case, Kevin Drum just caught Kathryn Jean Lopez saying/typing it outright.

  • Do these cut-and-paste trolls ever have a solution that doesn’t cost more money and doesn’t sacrifice accountability?

    Do they even know that there are no federal mandates on curricula? No federal requirements for… Well, anything, really. Even NCLB only rates schools upon the amount of improvement or dropouts that they have.

    Vouchers, also, don’t come from thin air. Who’d pay for them? How do you complain about being ‘more responsible’ for your neighbor’s children than your own via taxation in the same breath as you ask for money from the government?

    Two faced and dishonest, that’s what our cut-and-paste anti-education trolls are.

  • One Bush Left Behind

    by Greg Palast

    Here’s your question, class:

    In his State of the Union, the President asked Congress for $300 million for poor kids in the inner city. As there are, officially, 15 million children in America living in poverty, how much is that per child? Correct! $20.

    Here’s your second question. The President also demanded that Congress extend his tax cuts. The cost: $4.3 trillion over ten years. The big recipients are millionaires. And the number of millionaires happens, not coincidentally, to equal the number of poor kids, roughly 15 million of them. OK class: what is the cost of the tax cut per millionaire? That’s right, Richie, $287,000 apiece.

    Mr. Bush said, “In neighborhoods across our country, there are boys and girls with dreams. And a decent education is their only hope of achieving them.”

    So how much educational dreaming will $20 buy?

    George Bush’s alma mater, Phillips Andover Academy, tells us their annual tuition is $37,200. The $20 “Pell Grant for Kids,” as the White House calls it, will buy a poor kid about 35 minutes of this educational dream. So they’ll have to wake up quickly.

    $20 won’t cover the cost of the final book in the Harry Potter series. If you can’t buy a book nor pay tuition with a sawbuck, what exactly can a poor kid buy with $20 in urban America?

    The Palast Investigative Team donned baseball caps and big pants and discovered we could obtain what local citizens call a “rock” of crack cocaine. For $20, we were guaranteed we could fulfill any kid’s dream for at least 15 minutes.

    Now we could see the incontrovertible logic in what appeared to be quixotic ravings by the President about free trade with Colombia, Pell Grant for Kids and the surge in Iraq. In Iraq, General Petraeus tells us we must continue to feed in troops for another ten years. There is no way the military can recruit these freedom fighters unless our lower income youth are high, hooked and desperate. Don’t say, ‘crack vials,’ they’re, ‘Democracy Rocks’!

    The plan would have been clearer if Mr. Bush had kept in his speech the line from his original draft which read, “I have ordered 30,000 additional troops to Iraq this year – and I am proud to say my military-age kids are not among them.”

    Of course, there’s an effective alternative to Mr. Bush’s plan – which won’t cost a penny more. Simply turn it upside down. Let’s give each millionaire in America a $20 bill, and every poor child $287,000.

    And, there’s an added benefit to this alternative. Had we turned Mr. Bush and his plan upside down, he could have spoken to Congress from his heart.

  • Schools are really just a ‘scorecard’ for what’s going on in the communities where they are located.

  • Back in 2000, Sen. McCain proposed shifting $5.4 billion in Federal spending from farm subsidies (which overwhelmingly benefit wealthy agribusinesses) to fund vouchers for students from low-income families.

    I can think of any number of other programs that could be cut in order to finance vouchers. How about all the pork barrel Defense spending that the DoD didn’t even ask for but Congress funds anyways? How many vouchers would $10.8 billion in 2007 buy?

  • I teach. I love to teach. I love to teach the struggling students the most because they need it the most. My parents told me 30 years ago “Don’t go into teaching, we see the trend in education and it is not going to be a good field to be in.” Unfortunately I love teaching. I tried different fields but teaching is what I am passionate about, it is what I do well.

    That said here is my take on why the public schools are failing (by the way, we have to have good PUBLIC schools because it is the graduates of THOSE schools who are going to be caring for us in nursing homes when we get too old to care for ourselves). First, it is no longer a PROFESSION, it is a job. My education, my experience, my natural talent for the helping children learn is not valued in the public school system. I am no longer considered a true professional. It used to be that teachers were respected by society. Now all of society thinks that they know more about educating our young than the trained teacher. Worse, instead of the school system standing up and saying “we are trained, we know better” they kowtow to the whims of public opinion and parental demands. As educators we should teach the way we have been trained to teach, the way we know it should be and if the parent doesn’t like it they can send their child to private school, or home school.

    Second, eliminate tenure, which is what keeps bad teachers in schools.

    Third, let teachers teach. They are inadequate to the task but they must divert attention away from that. They have been trained for it; they should be allowed to do it. School systems should provide an agreed upon curriculum and then they should allow teachers to teach it in the best way for their students and themselves. Contrary to popular belief teaching is not a science, it is an art form. Not all children learn in the same way, at the same time or at the same pace. Not all teachers have the same teaching style. Sure, in the past we had good teachers and bad teachers. Through your school experience you were assured of having bad teachers. But fortunately those bad teachers would be overshadowed by the outstanding ones that you were also assured of getting. Now all teachers are being forced to be mediocre. All education is being forced to be mediocre because not all people can be great. When you expect everyone to be the same then you must then lower the standards to achieve your goal. All men are created equal, not the same.

    Fourth, the climate of teaching must change. Currently the focus is on what teachers are doing wrong. How can anyone be successful when all they receive is negative reinforcement? People want to be successful. They want to be told what they are doing right. The current system is top heavy, and all those resource people, administrators and supervisors all have to justify their existence. They do this by pointing out how inadequate the teachers are and how they have to fix them, rather than supporting the teacher as they are supposed to do. They do this because people rise to the level of their incompetence.

    Finally, we have to remember and apply the knowledge of how children learn best. They learn best when they are engaged and enthusiastic. They learn best when their minds are ready to learn. Forty years ago children started school at age 6, they had three recesses a day, and they had a long enough lunch period to go home for lunch. Children had time to play and learn to entertain themselves after school. First graders even went home earlier than the older children. Reading was introduced in the First grade. Yet most children learned to read, write and do math. Now our children start school at age 2, they go all day at age 5 or younger. Recess is once a day for 15 minutes. The school day is longer and children are given homework in Kindergarten, every night, sometimes a lot of homework. Reading is started in our preschools. What was once taught in first grade because a child’s mind is most likely to be read to receive and organize that information around 7 years old is now taught in Kindergarten (or earlier). For some children this is achievable, for many it is not. They become despondent, they decide by age 5 that they are stupid and will never learn. From there it is very difficult to teach them. Even those who can achieve it do so with great stress and burn out by college or earlier. Some lash out like at Columbine.

    I see so many great teachers leaving the profession. I see why they are leaving, but I can’t fix it and society won’t. Both Republicans and Democrats care only about having the biggest house, the biggest SUV, the most money (or is it the biggest gonads?). They really do not care about out country’s lost youth. All of this is rhetoric.

  • Funds going directly to schools aren’t working, schools are using them on useless stuff, like $5,000 curtains. Pell Grants going to college students mainly stay in public colleges, much like these grants would most likely stay in public schools. It isn’t mandatory that the funds go towards a different school, the parents can choose to use the money for whatever they choose. Ex: books, better teachers, ect. It would give the parents the oppurtunity to decide whats best for their children.

  • Comments are closed.