Logo

Obama proposal seen as beginning of end for school voucher program

Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Laura Jamison, Catholic News Service
ShareThis

WASHINGTON (CNS) -- President Barack Obama's May 6 budget proposal to allow 1,700 poor children in the District of Columbia to keep their federally funded scholarships but bar any more students from entering the program means a slow death for an initiative that works, said a Washington archdiocesan official.

"This proposal might help children who are now in the program," said Patricia Weitzel-O'Neill, superintendent for schools. "But what about the many other children in the city who will never have this opportunity?"

She was referring to the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a federally funded voucher program launched as a pilot program five years ago that has to be reauthorized by Congress.

It allocates $14 million annually in individual scholarships of up to $7,500 to 1,700 children from low-income families, which allows them to attend private schools in the District of Columbia. About half of the scholarship recipients attend Catholic schools.

The announcement of the president's proposal came the same day that nearly 2,000 students, parents and other community members converged on Freedom Plaza in Washington for a rally to urge elected officials to keep the program intact.

A statement from the Washington Archdiocese noted that with the president's proposal Congress would have to appropriate funds annually and at a level that adjusts for inflation so the scholarships retain value for low-income families. The archdiocese called for permanent, full funding of the program.

Of the 1,700 children in the program, 879 attend a Catholic elementary or high school. At the archdiocese's six inner-city elementary schools, these students constitute from one-quarter to two-thirds of the total enrollment.

Weitzel-O'Neill said Obama's proposal would create a "two-tier education system" for families, barring younger siblings from going to the schools their older brothers and sisters attend with the help of the scholarships.

Four applications are received for every scholarship made available, according to the archdiocese.

"The president, in his February address to a joint session of Congress said, it 'will be the goal of this administration to ensure that every child has access to a complete and competitive education,'" Weitzel-O'Neill noted.

"He can fulfill this goal by fully funding the popular and proven Opportunity Scholarship Program into the future," she said. "The program is a proven academic success, a lifeline for the children and a matter of justice."

At the May 6 rally, Catholic school students -- many of whom had never been to such an event before -- came by bus and subway, carrying homemade signs and chanting slogans to help save the scholarships of their classmates and friends.

Over their school uniforms most students wore bright yellow T-shirts that had "Put Kids First" in black letters across the front.

Erin Taliaferro, an eighth-grade student at St. Francis Xavier School in Washington, said she participated because she believes "everybody should have the opportunity to attend a good school like we do."

DC Children First and D.C. Parents for School Choice, two groups dedicated to educational reform in the city, organized the rally across from the Wilson Building, which houses some district government offices and is blocks away from the U.S. Capitol.

Among the speakers was Washington's former mayor, Anthony Williams, who said if his parents hadn't adopted him and made sure he had the very best schooling he wouldn't have become mayor.

"Every child in our city should have the opportunity to succeed," he said. "To put our kids first, we need to fight to see that the U.S. Congress, the D.C. Council, and my successor all support school choice for our children."

Scholarship student Ronald Holassie, a sophomore at Archbishop Carroll High School in Washington, told the crowd the scholarship program has changed his life, making him "the successful young man standing before you."

"The Opportunity Scholarship Program must continue. I am shocked that there are some people who do not care about our education and would take away our chances of having a brighter future," added Holassie, who serves as the district's deputy youth mayor for legislative affairs.

"This is a great example of a program that's working for kids. ... It's hard to think of a federal program that deserves funding more than this," John Schilling, interim director of the Alliance for School Choice, told the Catholic Standard, Washington's archdiocesan newspaper, in an interview before the rally.

He praised those who had gathered for the event, saying, "It's important to take this stand. Low-income children in the city deserve the same opportunities as their higher-income peers."

- - -

Contributing to this story was Mark Zimmermann.

Copyright © 2009 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

OOPS sorry

(I meant the comment below as a response to the comment- to appear below the comment, and not as a reply to the article itself)

But isn't it better....

I am no big fan of the political State, which has thousands of years of history of being a strong arm of repression for the wealthy elite to maintain power. This is even true of modern "free" governments, unfortunately. (Of course, the alternative- lawless chaos- is not so pretty either.)

However, isn't it better to allow our *government*, which is at least answerable (hopefully) to "we the people" and to some checks and balances, to create the framework for a better society "with liberty and justice for all," then to put this same hope in, and power into the hands of, multinational *corporations*, whose only interest is profit and who answer only to wealthy corporate feudal lords and shareholders?

Conservatives are so critical and so fearful of "big government" when it comes to economics and business. I am more fearful of "big corporations" (who are treated as if they were- and actually better than if they were- living "persons" under the law) when it comes to these issues. On the other hand, the places where I'd like to see "big government" decreased (military, prisons, police, etc)...these are the places where the right wants to increase governmental power. So in reality, conservatives actually favor the power of government- just in different areas then we progressives.

Statism

What is a progressive?  The term statists more accurately defines your philosophy as you wish to use the power of the state to bring utopia.  Is wanting to force people to live under your rules more "progressive" than liberty?

The power of corporations pales in comparison to the power of the state.  No corporation has the power send people with guns to take money away from me.

Corporations are responsible for much of the economic advances which have benefited all of society.  More efficient operations leads to higher profits distributed to shareholders and higher wages.  People who work for large corporations have much better pay and benefits than those that work for small businesses.  My parents, who made next to nothing  but spent even less, managed to save up a retirement nest egg by investing in stock.

Democracy can be a form of tyranny if one group supresses another.  It is immoral to use the power of government unjustly such as appointing judges who will make decisions based upon their empathy of the poor as desired by President Obama.

Leviticus 19:15 - "You shall not act dishonestly in rendering judgment. Show neither partiality to the weak nor deference to the mighty, but judge your fellow men justly."

 While Jefferson was correct that government that governs least governs best, there is obviously a place for the regulation of corporations.  It is silly to think we'd be better off with the Stalinistic model of the state controlling production.    The primary function of government is to protect the people from outside and internal threats while letting the people live in liberty, so it is rational that a strong military is necessary and police force is necessary. 

Thomas Sowell writes, as usual, brilliantly on these subjects:

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell051209.php3 

"When we look back at history, it is amazing what foolish and even childish things people said and did on the eve of a catastrophe about to consume them. In 1938, with Hitler preparing to unleash a war in which tens of millions of men, women and children would be slaughtered, the play that was the biggest hit on the Paris stage was a play about French and German reconciliation, and a French pacifist that year dedicated his book to Adolf Hitler. "

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell050509.php3 

"Appoint enough Supreme Court justices with "empathy" for particular groups and you would have, for all practical purposes, repealed the 14th Amendment, which guarantees "equal protection of the laws" for all Americans.

We would have entered a strange new world, where everybody is equal but some are more equal than others. The very idea of the rule of law would become meaningless when it is replaced by the empathies of judges.

Barack Obama solves this contradiction, as he solves so many other problems, with rhetoric. If you believe in the rule of law, he will say the words 'rule of law.' And if you are willing to buy it, he will keep on selling it.

Those people who just accept soothing words from politicians they like are gambling with the future of a nation. If you were German, would you be in favor of a law "to relieve the distress of the German people and nation"? That was the law that gave Hitler dictatorial power.

He was just another German chancellor at the time. He was not elected on a platform of war, dictatorship or genocide. He got the power to do those things because of a law 'to relieve the distress of the German people.'"

 

Corporations, government, free market, middle class

Corporations are in many cases more powerful than governments.  The free market is a myth....markets are the creation of government.   Allowing total "liberty" to business does not lead to a middle class making living wages.  Rather, it leads to poverty, slavery, and pain for the masses of people.

"A middle class is not a normal phenomenon... a middle class has to be created." - Thom Hartmann

Government should participate in creating and building, rather than destroying, the middle class. 

I urge everyone to go to this link:

 http://blog.buzzflash.com/interviews/034

P.S. Why shouldn't I use the state to enforce "my rules" if "my rules" are peace, social justice, and economic justice?  Why should there be liberty and "freedom" for injustice?

 

 

 

Thom Hartmann School of Economics

Thom Hartmann School of Economics

 

Under the Thom Hartmann School of Economics if we ban Toyota and Mattel from importing into the United States and guarantee unskilled laborers  with a fifth grade education wages beginning at age 18 that support a family with a nice lifestyle, college for the kids, world class medical care, nice vacation and generous retirement everything will work out great!

 

Why on earth would I forego earning good money and benefits for screwing around in school and taking low skilled job at 18?   Who is going to work hard in k-12 school, sweat out engineering school, so they can make a few more bucks, have a lot more work stress, be called evil for making more, and have nearly all their additional earnings taxed away?

 

The 1950’s was not as utopian as Hartman thinks.  When Europe and East Asia was still buried in rubble it was easy for large American corporations to export goods and absorb high wages to a unionized work force.    Most people did not have such cushy jobs and got low quality automobiles.

 

There are a few jobs insulated from reality which are usually working for evil corporations.  My neighbor kicks himself because he could have gotten in with the longshoreman’s union.  He turned it down thinking he could make more money studying for being an accountant and found out too late he could be making $150,000 annually for working 4 hours a day.  He didn’t make the longshoreman’s but he quit the stress of being an accountant to work for an evil large oil company transferring fuel from the ships.  He makes $90,000 with excellent benefits for sitting around watching television until he and his buddies need go out for 20 minutes to hook up hoses to the next ship that comes in.   I’m happy for him, but it is not realistic that everyone can work like he does.

 

There is a reason the Church condemned Socialism.  It guarantees sloth and the downfall of society.

 

Hartmann believes our freedom has nothing to do with success.  All success before FDR’s Wagner Act supposedly paid off in the 1950’s was due to the benefits of slavery and stealing land!  The fact that vast expanses of the United States were sparsely populated and the states without slavery were more prosperous mean nothing to Hartman who despises American liberty.

 

California is a nice showcase of the results of “progressive” policies is here in California long dominated by “progressive” politicians.  We now have a $45 billion deficit because the progressive politicians have given state employees huge raises while greatly expanding government.  If California had limited increases in spending to the rate of inflation adjusted to the increase in population, it would have a $15 billion budget surplus!   

 

The problem does not even include the massive pension obligation due to hit in the next 15 years when those workers get to retire at 50.  State employees have become a privileged class spending massively on campaign commercials for progressive politicians who will pay them off.  They don’t care if those politicians destroy profits that could have supported their and other’s retirements.  They can just tax the poor suckers who are not government workers more!  While the unemployment rate for non-government workers soars and their salaries decrease, the state increases their sales tax, income tax and vehicle license fees!  Talk about forming a banana republic!

      

Obama cares for the poor?

Catholic liberals support President Obama even though he  he believes the siightest regulation such as sonograms before abortions violate a right to abortion on demand enshrined in our Constitution even though our founding documents says rights come from our Creator..  They justify their support saying that his care for the poor is more important than the millions of lives that would be saved if sonograms were required.

We know that President Obama cares more about paying off the teachers unions than he cares for the poor.  He cares about increasing dependecy on  an all powerful government controlling our lives with his utopian vision.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

U.S. Catholic insists on a civil and respectful dialogue on our website, following our Comment policy. Comments should be charitable, on topic, and brief. U.S. Catholic reserves the right to delete comments deemed inappropriate. Links are not allowed and comments with them will be moderated or deleted. We encourage you to choose your words wisely.