Vouchers rear their ugly head

In 2001, when the [tag]White House[/tag] decided it would work with congressional Dems on No Child Left Behind legislation, Dems made one thing perfectly clear: no [tag]vouchers[/tag]. 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 that need assistance.

As it turned out, [tag]Bush[/tag] 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.

That, of course, was before Republicans decided rallying the far-right base was the only way to save their skin.

The Bush [tag]administration[/tag] and [tag]Republican[/tag] legislators yesterday proposed a $100 million national plan to offer [tag]low-income[/tag] [tag]students[/tag] [tag]private-school[/tag] vouchers to escape low-performing [tag]public schools[/tag]. […]

[Education Secretary Margaret] [tag]Spellings[/tag], flanked by Senate and House leaders on Capitol Hill, said the “[tag]opportunity scholarship[/tag]” plan would be aimed at helping low-income students “trapped” in poor schools by offering them transfers to other public schools, tutoring, and scholarships to private schools, up to $4,000 per student. The secretary said the plan would cover 28,000 students.

These guys have interesting timing. Just four days ago, the [tag]Education Department[/tag] quietly released the results of a massive study, which showed that children in public schools generally performed as well or better in reading and mathematics than comparable children in private schools

But this isn’t about letting a little something like evidence get in the way of a political agenda.

In reality, this isn’t about expanding “opportunities”; this is about a sop to the GOP base, which wants to take steps towards privatizing education and subsidizing private academies.

The plan will give “the children of lower-income families . . . the same opportunities wealthier families have,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

Nonsense. The [tag]GOP[/tag], which recently rejected a modest increase to the minimum wage, wants children of lower-income families to have “the same opportunities wealthier families have”? I’m delighted to hear that. Maybe we can start with those families that can’t afford the same kinds of housing opportunities that wealthier families have. And the same kind of health care. And the same kinds of transportation, nutrition, and political influence.

Also keep in mind, over the last two years, the Bush administration, which never fully funded its own [tag]education[/tag] plan, has proposed cutting federal support for public education. And some of the same congressional Republicans who want private school vouchers because of their heartfelt concern for low-income children also cut funding for housing vouchers for low-income families.

With this in mind, the new school voucher scheme is a transparent charade. The GOP isn’t worried about opportunities for low-income kids; they’re worried about opportunities to make James Dobson happy.

Vouchers are really a phaseout of public education, just as Social Security privatization is a phaseout of that program. Democrats could start using that language if only there weren’t so many Democrats favoring vouchers.

  • Ack—every time I read something like this, I contemplate the possible scenariae that could involve my good friend, Mr. Crowbar….

  • “And the same kinds of transportation, nutrition, and political influence.” – CB

    Sorry Steve, I really can’t get behind the idea of giving poor people Hummers. We want them on public transport and we really do not need more SUVs on the roads.

    Nutrition and access I can back. As for political influence, let them get off their duffs and act if they want political influence.

  • So you want your child to go to a private school, but they don’t meet the academic requirements, then what?

    The plan will give “the children of lower-income families . . . the same opportunities wealthier families have,” said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.).

    So how much friggin’ money are they planning on giving out? Do they really believe vouchers will cover the cost of going to a school that “wealthier families” go to?

    And what about school supplies, transportation, clothes, fees, and other costs that these schools require?

  • Lance,

    First you are assuming they all have access to public transportation. Second, even when they do have access you are assuming that they can afford public transportation. Third, even when they do have access and can afford it, you are assuming that it goes everywhere they need to go.

    It doesn’t need to be a Hummer. How about a hybrid, or a small diesel? In addition to the autobobile, some insurance and gas money would be helpful.

    Anyhow, I suspect that more/better public transportation, would go a long way towards satisfying transportation needs.

  • The only private secondary schools in this region (Portland, ME) that charge a tutition comparable with the sums tossed around at this time are the Christian academies, and the local Seventh-Day Adventist school.

    Even the Sisters of Mercy are out of reach, though I give them props for running a real school and maintaining a 4-figure tution at the same time.

    The top-of-the-line private day schools — and I’m not talking St. Paul’s or Milton or Choate-Rosemary Hall here — are just over or just under twenty grand.

  • 2Manchu writes:
    “And what about school supplies, transportation, clothes, fees, and other costs that these schools require? ”

    As we have seen in such events as Iraq and New Orleans, Republican’ts don’t care about these minor piddling issues so why should poor people? (/sarcasm)

    The only way vouchers can work is if you see Education as an industry rather than a service or necessary function of society in general. As we have seen with many things, when profit enters the equation of things that are considered essential services and then bad things happen.

    It has always been a mystery to me why Americans pay their teachers so poorly. Up here in Cannuckistan, our teachers are well paid (some might say overpaid) and our education system gets decent results (not spectaular.)

  • I agree with Lance somewhat.
    The people that live in poverty can’t even bring themselves to find the facts and more importantly vote. The truth does not land on ones doorstep, yet it doesn’t take a Masters to find it either.
    If I remember correctly the report clearly stated that the poorest of schools were far behind every school. So offing poor children an opportunity for a better education is a good idea, regardless of the motives. And even if the educations were equal, offering poor children an opportunity to socialize outside of there class is another good idea.
    That being said, it does sound like a bait & switch. “Oh, by lower income, we meant lower income compared to their neighbors, we didn’t actually mean poor people.”

  • Haliburton- an equal opportunity exploiter!
    We’ve fleeced you in Iraq and Katrina, so why not the schools?

  • The more you look into the complex and unintuitive economics of public and private schools, the worse vouchers look. Here’s just one example.

    Tuition at an independent private school (non-subsidized) high school in the DC metro area runs $20-26,000 per year. Let’s say a low-income student qualifies for the full $4.000 voucher — they still have a $22,000 problem which, being low-income to start with, they’re unlikely to solve. Sure, most K-12 private schools try to provide some level of financial assistance for those in need, but those monies are limited since the majority come from endowment and general operating funds.

    There are less expensive private alternatives, primarily religiously affiliated schools that are parish or diocese subsidized. These however, tend to have larger class sizes and are of lesser quality than the independents (admittedly, a gross generalization that is not true in all cases) as the NCES-funded study found (particularly with respect to certain Christian schools). Nevertheless, the voucher will not begin to cover even the lower tuition at these subsidized schools.

    Messing around with the economics of education can have unanticipated, perverse affects. There is, for example, a considerable body of evidence to suggest that financial aid offered to college students is responsible for a sizable portion of the rise in published college tuition. Of course, the higher tuition goes, the more financial aid is needed, and you’re caught in a vicious cycle. And what are vouchers but financial aid at the K-12 level?

    [Note for those who flipped at the 20-26k tuition at an independent school. When you factor in the smaller class sizes at these schools, economies of scale that they don’t enjoy, etc., the figure isn’t all that outrageous. Unless, of course, you’re paying it. ]

    As CB noted, there are other areas in which we could help low-income families and haven’t, so that claim for vouchers doesn’t hold up very well. Vouchers are, in my opinion, nothing more than the usual push of public services to the private sector, and a way to funnel funds to religiously affiliated institutions while appearing to care about kids.

  • Even as a sop, this is pretty pathetic. I don’t know the exact numbers, but I’d be willing to bet there are more than 28,000 students in any given county of any moderately well-populated state. So spread out over the whole nation that’s a very small percentage of availability.

    My guess would be that they put it up to make a quick headline and will let it die an anonymous death once it’s out of public view. Then they’ll use it to slam Dems for “killing” it and being anti-education and anti-kids in November while said Dems are scratching their heads and going, “Huh?”

    Talk about cheap thrills……

  • “So spread out over the whole nation that’s a very small percentage of availability.” – Curmudgeon

    I’m amazed you even wrote that. You should know that NONE of this money is going to any God-foresaken Blue State!

  • Dadgumit, Lance, now you’ve gone and ruined Georgie’s little surprise!! 😉

  • Are the Repubs trying to change the name of the Department of Education to the Department of Faith-based Education?

  • Comments are closed.