We hear so much about school vouchers. Many liberals decry them – when they say "public education", they always mean "taxpayers paying for public schools". Many conservatives, many (not all) favor vouchers, where parents can use these at any school they believe is best for their child. My take on it is that public education is that funded by taxpayers.
Of course, the NEA is certainly not in favor of this. Yet, I never hear them talk about the fact that we DO have vouchers – just not at the K-12 level. From Phi Beta Cons:
A top priority for the new Democratic majority this spring will be expanding the popular Pell Grant program, which is essentially voucher program for higher education:
Under the program, students who meet certain income requirements can receive a scholarship to help pay college tuition. The scholarship is redeemable at one of 5,400 postsecondary institutions. In all, federal taxpayers spend more than $13 billion on Pell grants.
The post contains an interesting observation, especially since the incoming Democratic majority to Congress (House and Senate) are all over the idea that they have to make secondary education more affordable (we will leave aside the consideration of what are the incentives to these colleges and universities to reign in their costs in order to make it more affordable)
If Democrats are really concerned about equal opportunity and educational access, they should end this bizarre bias against choice for those under 18 and support programs that make it easier for all parents to control where their children go to school.
After all, according to John Miller (still at Phi Beta Cons):
How crummy is the state of American education? I recently came across this datum, which is not brand-new but is still distressing:
More American teenagers can name three of the Three Stooges than can name the three branches of government (59% to 41%) .
It’s appalling, to think that less than six in ten adolescents are familiar with Larry, Curly, and Moe