April 13, 2009
No you can't
Staff editorial from Saturday's Washington Post:
EDUCATION SECRETARY Arne Duncan has decided not to admit any new students to the D.C. voucher program, which allows low-income children to attend private schools. The abrupt decision -- made a week after 200 families had been told that their children were being awarded scholarships for the coming fall -- comes despite a new study showing some initial good results for students in the program and before the Senate has had a chance to hold promised hearings. For all the talk about putting children first, it's clear that the special interests that have long opposed vouchers are getting their way.Officials who manage the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program sent letters this week to parents notifying them that the scholarships of up to $7,500, were being rescinded because of the decision by the Education Department. Citing the political uncertainty surrounding vouchers, a spokesperson for Mr. Duncan told us that it is not in the best interest of students and their parents to enroll them in a program that may end a year from now. Congress conditioned funding beyond the 2009-10 school year on reauthorization by Congress and approval by the D.C. Council. By presuming the program dead -- and make no mistake, that's the insidious effect of his bar on new enrollment -- Mr. Duncan makes it even more difficult for the program to get the fair hearing it deserves.
That's not to mention the impact of the last-minute decision on these families. Many of the public charter schools already have cut off enrollments for the upcoming school year; the deadline for out-of-boundary transfers for the public schools has passed. No doubt Mr. Duncan is right about possible disruption for new students if the program were to end. But scholarship officials have been upfront with parents about the risks, and the decision really should be theirs. Let them decide whether they want to chance at least one year in a high-quality private school versus the crapshoot of D.C. public schools.
That, after all, is what this program is about: giving poor families the choice that others, with higher salaries and more resources, take for granted. It's a choice President Obama made when he enrolled his two children in the elite Sidwell Friends School. It's a choice Mr. Duncan had when, after looking at the D.C. schools, he ended up buying a house in Arlington, where good schools are assumed. And it's a choice taken away this week from LaTasha Bennett, a single mother who had planned to start her daughter in the same private school that her son attends and where he is excelling. Her desperation is heartbreaking as she talks about her daughter not getting the same opportunities her son has and of the hardship of having to shuttle between two schools.
It's clear, though, from how the destruction of the program is being orchestrated, that issues such as parents' needs, student performance and program effectiveness don't matter next to the political demands of teachers' unions. Congressional Democrats who receive ample campaign contributions from the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers laid the trap with budget language that placed the program on the block. And now comes Mr. Duncan with the sword.
So much for "Yes we can." Unless, of course, you belong to a teachers union.
Trackback Pings:
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.erinoconnor.org/movabletype/mt-tb.cgi/1622
Comments:
Note also that Arne Duncan thinks children should be in class 6 days a week, 11 months a year. (See Joanne Jacobs' site for link)
In my view, when an organization or institution fails to use the resources it has effectively (and "resources" here includes the million of person-years of student time being consumed by the schools, as well as money) the solution is not to give it *more* resources to waste, but rather to take resources away and see if someone else can do a better job with them.
Putting aside the merits of the program, it's worth pointing out that the government isn't telling DC that it can't have vouchers. Rather, it is curtailing a program that was imposed upon the city (which only has as much democratic autonomy as Congress chooses to grant it). If DC wants vouchers, there is nothing stopping the mayor and city council from implementing them on their own. Actually, that's not exactly true. Congress could presumably impose its will and prevent DC from adopting a nwe voucher program. But that wouldn't be very democratic, would it?
Peter...the Mayor of Washington DC has an editorial in yesterday's Washington Post supporting the opportunity scholarship program and criticizing the congressmen who want to shut it down. So he evidently believes that he lacks either the authority, or the funding, or both, to implement this program on his own.
For what it's worth, the Washington Scholarship Fund, which administers the voucher program, also accepts private donations for its scholarships. Anyone who's frustrated by the fate of the public program may want to visit their Web site and send them a few bucks. (I'm not affiliated with WSF, but I do write them a check every once in a while.)
David,
You're absolutely right: Anthony Williams doesn't have the authority to implement this program, for the simple reason that he is not the mayor. He is the *former* mayor. (That honor goes to Adrian Fenty.) DC got rid of the whole "mayor for life" thing with Marion Barry.
Mayor Fenty *has* pushed for federally funded vouchers--partly out of principle, partly (I suspect) because they bring revenue into the district and because it's politically convenient for vouchers to be debated in Congress, rather than the City Council.
Colbert I. King has a good column on this in the WaPo:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/03/AR2009040303269.html
Peter...good catch.
David... Sorry if my last comment came off as snarky. I actually think that both parties (Republicans and Democrats) are playing politics with the DC schools, here.
![[Critical Mass]](/archives/cmlogo.gif)