Education advocates, policy makers and parents alike are criticizing the failure of Congress and the Obama Administration to ensure the continuation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, a federally funded school voucher system in the District of Columbia. The program, initiated five years ago by President George W. Bush, provides selected low-income students with up to $7,500 annually from the federal government to pay for tuition at a private school. Students are selected through a lottery, but students attending schools that the No Child Left Behind Act has determined are in need of improvement receive top priority. The roughly 1,700 students currently selected will be forced to enroll in a public or charter school in 2010, unless the administration or Congress intervenes to renew the program.
Those angered by Congress’ decision cite a recent study on the program by the Department of Education’s
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) that indicated improvements in reading ability among recipients of the vouchers. The study’s results were made public on April 3, shortly after Congress’ failure to renew the program in early March. The controversy surrounding Congress’ decision resulted from accusations that Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan had access to preliminary results of the study in November 2008, yet failed to take any action to stop the elimination of the program. Furthermore, critics argue that Democrats and others failed to support the program due to pressure from teacher’s unions, who are opposed to it. Some go as far as to accuse the Obama Administration of hypocrisy in promoting itself as a champion of educational reform, while at the same time failing to endorse reforms such as the voucher program.
On the other side of the debate, teachers unions and others who oppose the vouchers argue that they are not a long-term solution to the weaknesses of the public education system. D.C. Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee agrees with this assessment, yet acknowledges that “school choice is only effective when families have viable options that enable them to make decisions based on the best interest of their child.” The implication is that if a family cannot afford to send its student to a certain school, this represents a fundamental inequality that must be addressed in some way, through vouchers or some other system. Regardless of the effectiveness of the system, supporters and critics expressed a concern articulated by D.C. Mayor Adrian Fenty, “Political leaders can debate the merits of vouchers, but we should not disrupt the education of children who are presently enrolled.”
-Amira Elmallah
Comments