While Malia and Natasha Obama enjoy the many advantages of an elite private school education, few know that their father crushed the dreams of many kids who depended on the DC Voucher Program to continue in private school. Thousands of kids have been forced to go back to public schools in Washington, with have some of the lowest performance rates and test scored in the nation. Ironically enough, President Obama was on a voucher program as a young man getting through High School and into Harvard.
The D.C. voucher program had only cost the government about $18,000,000 a year, only a fraction compared to what the Federal government spends nationwide at $67,000,000,000 a year and even more insignificant to the crazy amount of money that the government uses to bail out banks, failed business, and auto companies, a record $14,000,000,000,000 dollars.
The D.C Voucher program provided the students and their families with $7,500 to cover tuition and any other fees that a private school may require. The kids in this program typically came from low income, gang infested, violent, minority communities made up of mostly Black Americans and Hispanics. The kids who had the opportunity to be a part of this voucher programs proved to be 19 months ahead in reading than the kids who attend public schools.
The reality of the situation is that no matter what argument liberals may make, shutting down the program has exposed Obama as putting politics over the best interest of children and families.
Organizations like the National Education Association (NEA) have long fought against voucher programs, claiming that they lower the quality of schools overall by concentrating resources into the best schools. A free market economist, however, would argue that by the principle of comparative advantage, the best schools should have their efficiency maximized instead of wasting money on schools that cannot succeed. Reasons for their failure may include poor teachers, bad infrastructure or bad practices, but whatever the case may be, you will be expanding the prosperous schools and exterminating the bad.
While that simple argument may seem logical, teachers unions like the NEA are opposed to vouchers for the simple fact that it means they will get less money. For that reason, teachers unions routinely vote for Democrats like Obama who oppose vouchers.
Meanwhile, families are forced to relocate to find better public schools, instead of using their tax money to send their children to a better school of their choice. It is also worth noting that President Obama effectively forced some schools to shut down because of the absence of voucher students, leaving hundreds of minority children without quality education.
Rush Limbaugh best explained the implications of Obama’s actions when he said that “[he] is worried that the black population will discover that he really doesn’t care about them, and that was starting to happen. You have parents of black kids who love this school, who love the whole concept in Washington, and their kids are excelling.”
“How in the world have we gotten to the point where a program that does not only a great job of educating children, but a better job of educating children, how have we gotten to the point where a program that does a better job of educating [minority] children with less money than public schools is considered controversial?”
If Obama really cared about these children, then how could he logically shut down a program that has proven to be both inexpensive and immensely more beneficial to minority students than public schools?