Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal used his platform at the Brookings Institution to argue that vouchers are the best way to provide excellence for all children.
Joy Resmovits of the Huffington Post wrote an excellent description of his presentation, noting that a court in Louisiana had just called the funding of vouchers unconstitutional. Jindal assured her that decision would be overturned on appeal.
She also pointed out that some of the state’s voucher schools refused to accept students with disabilities and some teach creationism.
Also of interest: like other free-market zealots, Jindal insists that vouchers are popular but cannot bring himself to call them by their rightful name. Instead, they are called “opportunity scholarships.”
Block that euphemism! Say the word: Voucher! Voucher!
A note to Joy: the evidence in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and DC is not mixed. It is clear: Voucher schools do not outperform public schools. They are no better and are often worse. Does anyone believe that the Louisiana children who enroll in that little church school that teaches creationism and uses DVDs for lessons will get an excellent education?
Diane Ravitch's blog 
NJ’s Chris Christie also refuses to call vouchers by their name, instead it’s called… Opportunity Scholarships! They all get their marching orders from the same ALEC-type of organizations.
LikeLike
Every voucher program is called “opportunity scholarships.”
Why are they so afraid of saying the V word?
They also use another euphemism: Choice.
What they really mean is privatization.
Say it. Shout it.
Vouchers!
Privatization!
Stealing the public schools!
LikeLike
I did not know public schools “owned” the money that is currently paid to them.
Collective decisions are collective decisions. If you lose, and lord knows I lose often, you live with it. But I don’t mistake losing the argument with stealing.
LikeLike
Well, that would be true if all possible outcomes in education debates were bound by the agreement that any “winning policy” would still be legally restricted from giving any public money to a private “educational” organization.
Here’s the crucial difference; the “winners” in public policy when it comes to VOUCHERS take taxpayer dollars and hand them over to private companies.
LikeLike
So taxpayer dollars should never go directly to private companies? No more Pell grants? No more buying buses or trains for the municipal transit system? Governments must manufacture paper to avoid giving tax money to private firms?
My point, of course, is that government routinely hands money to private firms because it is the sensible thing to do. You need to argue that it is not sensible in the case of education.
LikeLike
Yes, government does routinely hand money to private firms. We do not, however, routinely pretend that such firms are “public” just because they receive such money.
LikeLike
We do refer to some firms as public utilities although they are privately owned. Public livery services are also typically privately owned as well.
LikeLike
What an embarrassment Jindal is to his entire state and his party….he looks and sounds like a caricature of a cartoon reformy shyster. Good grief!
LikeLike
Let me get this right. Private schools get to pick who they admit. Private schools are exempt from all the unfunded mandates (driver’s education, ESL, students with disabilities, etc.) that also take time and other resources away from classroom instruction. Still private schools are not the clear winner. HHHmmmm. The less gifted students must remain in the public school. Then government wants to compare the two systems. This is not a level playing field.
The real deal here is to cut costs and education is the clear second. An ignorant population is easier to govern. Just keep the masses going with circuses (professional sports) and bread (welfare). Do I see the collapse of Rome here and not just the school system?
Here is a bit of trivia. What country has lasted the longest under one set or rules (constitution, charter, King, dictator, etc) in all of history? Answer: USA
LikeLike
Do students at the schools accepting vouchers have to take state/national/international tests like students at public schools and are the teachers evaluated the same as teachers at the public schools?
LikeLike
The government can choose to regulate any type of school in any way that it thinks appropriate. I imagine the answer to your question depends on the jurisdiction.
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure that’s not true. The government cannot choose to regulate any private entity “in any way it thinks appropriate”. That’s sort of the definition of “private”.
LikeLike
Governments regulate private businesses routenely. It is so common that you probably don’t notice. Take private liquor stores in my state for example. The government tells a private liquor store owner where the store can be located and how many stores the owner may own. The government tells the owner how many days a week the store may be open and when it may be open on each day. The government tells the store owner what can be sold in the store and from whom the owner can purchase the stock. The government tells the store owner a minimum price that may be charged for each item. The government tells the store owner who can be hired, how much they can be paid, and to whom the items can be sold.
Pass the right legislation (and if the courts interfere, just amend whatever document is required) and regulate as the government thinks appropriate.
LikeLike
I absolutely cannot stop laughing over this one: http://thelensnola.org/2012/12/11/report-lauds-rsd-for-school-choice/
LikeLike