I agree with Amber's post on the demise of the DC voucher plan. ????I'll add four quick things.
First, I can't imagine how sad and frightened thousands of DC kids and parents are today. ????Safe, high-quality schools that are serving them well are soon to be taken away. ????As Andy Rotherham, no voucher zealot, recently????wrote, "the spectacle of forcing the kids to leave their schools????before they age out????is pretty????cold-hearted." ????Policy implementation is slow work, so it's seldom that elected officials have the opportunity to see the full impact of their ideas. ????This is one exception. ????The scuttling of this program will have a swift and severe influence on about 1,700 low-income boys and girls.
Second, as Amber pointed out, at least one US Senator believes continuing the program is an attack on DC Public Schools. ????That position cannot be sustained in light of Chancellor Rhee's opposition to the program's immediate termination.
Third, by launching this unnecessary attack, voucher opponents are about to cause both sides to expend enormous amounts of energy battling this out--energy that could be directed toward????other????pressing????issues.
Finally, the politics of this could get ugly. ????There are going to be some outraged families and commentators. ????Hill Dems have put the President, who sends his children to a private school, in a box. ????They are sending him a bill that, if signed, will deny poor parents a choice that he is exercising. ????I would hate to be the WH official charged with responding to a press question along the lines of, "What does it say about this administration when the President in his public capacity suggests that DC public schools are good enough for the children of poor families while demonstrating in his private capacity that they are not good enough for his own children?"