News & Commentary
D.C. Parents Lose on Schools With Obama Win
DC Examiner
President-elect Barack Obama won a decisive nation-wide victory this election, but nowhere was it more overwhelming than in Washington D.C. Obama bested his rival by collecting 93 percent of votes cast in the nation's capital.
When Obama was declared the winner a few hours after polls closed, the streets of Washington D.C. erupted in celebration, with honking horns, applauding crowds, and even fireworks.
Yet, at least 1,900 D.C. residents might have cut their celebration short if they had considered what an Obama presidency likely means for the Washington D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program. This program was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush in 2004. It provides low income families with a scholarship - more commonly called a "voucher" - to be used to enroll their children in a local school of their choice.
For many families, this program has been a lifeline. D.C. public schools are notoriously bad. In 2007, D.C.'s fourth- and eighth-grade students scored lower than kids from any of the 50 states on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the national standardized test.
D.C. has one of the highest dropout rates and lowest graduation rates in the country, which should hardly come as a surprise since the schools are often violent and chaotic, discouraging even good students from continuing their education.
The federally-funded vouchers give parents the opportunity to take their children out of that environment, and place them in a new school suited to their needs. As one parent explained in an interview last year, "You see the changes that it makes in your child's life. &hellipto look in my daughter's eyes and see how happy she is and that she's learning." Her story is echoed by many others who see their children's potential unleashed in their new school.
Yet, in spite of the program's popularity and success, it's been a struggle to keep the program funded due to anemic Congressional support. Ironically, it's Democrats, who claim to be champions of the under-privileged, who have been the most eager to destroy the program.
They do so not out of concerns for the budget-the program costs only about $12 million per year, hardly a blip in the federal budget-but out of ideological hostility to the concept of an education marketplace that gives parents more options than their local public school.
D.C.'s own representative, Eleanor Holmes Norton, has led the charge to abolish the program, even as she described the Washington, D.C., parents as "completely befuddled" by the news that their children may soon lose their scholarships.
These families will probably be similarly surprised to find that Obama-whom most have seen as their champion if not potential savior-also opposes the program. In the final presidential debate, he explained that he opposes "spending public money for private school vouchers" and wants to focus on "improving our public schools, not throwing our hands up and walking away from them."
But D.C. parents might note that President-elect Obama has "walked away" from the D.C. public school system, at least when it comes to his own daughters. In deciding to send his children to the prestigious private school, Sidwell Friends, he follows in the footsteps of President Bill Clinton and wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton. The Clintons also opposed expanding school choice for D.C. residence while exercising choice for their daughter, Chelsea.
No one begrudges the Obamas their right to give their daughters the best education possible. Yet, don't the rest of Washington, D.C. families deserve at least some of the same control over their children's education that the Obama's enjoy?
No system can give all families the ability to pay the steep tuition costs at the city's most prestigious schools, but scholarship worth $7,000, like those given by the current program, are enough to give parents numerous options.
The fate of the D.C. Scholarship Opportunity Program-and in large measure the fate of the 1,900 students who currently depend on those scholarships-will be decided next year. Let's hope that D.C. parents take time out from celebrating Obama's historic election and start focusing on getting him to change his mind about a program that's so important to their children.
Carrie Lukas is the vice president for policy at the Independent Women's Forum and the author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Women, Sex, and Feminism.






5 Comments
Julene | December 11, 2008, 11:28pm | #
I do not agree. You make it seem as though the only reason the President Elect chose a school other than public is because of the education value. That is not true. I can understand the possibility of putting his daughters in schools where not only the children of the school feel comfortable but an environment that would be comfortable for their daughters.
I agree there needs to be a change in the public school system. Chicago for one is a disaster. I hope the President Elect urgently demonstrate change in public school systems across the country. But where he decides to send his daughters is irrelevant to changing the school systems. Ask the President Elect why he opposed private funding. Provide us with more information regarding this, rather than trying to convince us that he is not on his job.
And lastly, it is up to the parents across the country to be involved with their children’s education and be involved in putting pressure on our governments to get this kind of change done. Let’s ask ourselves how can we make sure our schools are doing better? I understand the schools need money. But also, parents have to get together, raise more funds and pressure the legislatures to act on this now!
...just my three cents!
Jay | December 16, 2008, 5:07pm | #
An issue I observe is that many parents have relinquished the responsibility of raising their children to the social organizations such as schools. This includes education and discipline. "Let the schools do it" seems to be the attitude. We don't teach our children correct priciples at home and send them to school to let others do it. We then wonder why many of the children grow up having different principles than we do, if we can say we have any ourselves. American citizens seem to have adopted the attitude of get what you can for free and take no responsiblility for yourself and those for whom you should. It is a shame we seem to have become such and unpricipled people.
rebecca | December 17, 2008, 11:21am | #
To address Julene's posting: the reason it is relevant as to where the Obama children attend school is due to the hypocrisy that resides in the Democratic Party regarding this issue. Because Obama can choose the school he wants his daughters to attend while the majority of D.C. parents can not. And what is the difference between the two? Money. The Obama's have the privilege of sending their children to a better school all the while saying "we need to fix the schools we have". That may be true but they do not wish to sacrifice their child's learning while the schools are "fixed". But they can leave yours and mine at those schools while the educational repairs are being done. And to hinder the argument that his choice is due to their being the children of the president. The girls went to private school before he was president and they will continue to do so after he is president. Just like the Clinton's, Gore's, Kerry's, etc children did as well. But before you cry out that “Republicans send their child to better schools too” let me remind you that they are the ones fighting for our rights to do the same. Be it vouchers, charter schools, and/or competition. The Democrats are the ones who bankroll their election campaigns with money from the NEA, (National Education Association).
raphael | December 22, 2008, 12:28pm | #
It makes about as much sense to rely on the good will of Senator Harry Reid to preserve the DC voucher program as it did for the frog to rely on the good will of the scorpion. Appeasing unions is what Democrats do.
Republicans would be better off creating Ed Hirsch centered internet curriculum for home schooling parents. That would assist parents fed up with public schools and circumvent the government altogether.
dailyraphirmations.com
Erwin Rysz | February 5, 2009, 7:39am | #
I'm tired of hearing excuses for Obama and Clinton choosing private (exclusive) schools for their own kids and not allowing choice for others. It's true, but I'm tired of hearing it.
We are a country awash in debt. We are facing budget problems in 43 states - not counting the thousands of communities and districts. People are losing jobs and homes and there is no end to the bottomless pit of public education. There is no end, but there is a solution.
Choice.
The private schools - the ordinary Christian, parochial, for profit types do a better job than the public counterparts
for far less cost and we parents only get penalized pay taxes and tuition) for doing so.
What's really at work here is tribute - tribute to the Dem party's center - the teacher unions. Think of the billions of dollars (and Obama wants more) for NEW public school buildings constructed since the Clinton days. What do we have to show for it - higher standards? increased graduation rates?
Try NADA. Nothing except for the bottomless pit.
My own small, rural community is a picture-book example of the situation. In the 60's, when I grew up we had a community with 4 parochial schools alongside the public counterpart. At that time the taxes were cheap. At that time spending was responsible and the elcted officials accountable. Today all the private schools have closed and our taxes have gone to the moon.
We need choice for a simple fiscal reason - it is cost-effective. It forces accountabilty and responsibility.