Even the Washington Post says the Obama administration went too far in opposing school vouchers. The Justice Department filed suit recently to block Louisiana from providing vouchers to children trapped in failing schools. The newspaper had enough and called them out in an editorial last week:
NINE OF 10 Louisiana children who receive vouchers to attend private schools are black. All are poor and, if not for the state assistance, would be consigned to low-performing or failing schools with little chance of learning the skills they will need to succeed as adults. So it’s bewildering, if not downright perverse, for the Obama administration to use the banner of civil rights to bring a misguided suit that would block these disadvantaged students from getting the better educational opportunities they are due.
The Justice Department has petitioned a U.S. District Court to bar Louisiana from awarding vouchers for the 2014-15 school year to students in public school systems that are under federal desegregation orders, unless the vouchers are first approved by a federal judge. The government argues that allowing students to leave their public schools for vouchered private schools threatens to disrupt the desegregation of school systems. A hearing is tentatively set for Sept. 19.
There’s no denying the state’s racist history of school segregation or its ugly efforts in the late 1960s and early 1970s to undermine desegregation orders by helping white children to evade racially integrated schools. These efforts included funneling public money to all-white private schools. But the situation today bears no resemblance to those terrible days. Since most of the students using vouchers are black, it is, as State Education Superintendent John White pointed out to the New Orleans Times-Picayune, “a little ridiculous” to argue that the departure of mostly black students to voucher schools would make their home school systems less white. Every private school participating in the voucher program must comply with the color-blind policies of the federal desegregation court orders.
The government’s argument that “the loss of students through the voucher program reversed much of the progress made toward integration” becomes even more absurd upon examination of the cases it cited in its petition. Consider the analysis from University of Arkansas professor of education reform Jay P. Greene of a school that lost five white students through vouchers and saw a shift in racial composition from 29.6 percent white to 28.9 percent white. Another school that lost six black students and saw a change in racial composition from 30.1 percent black to 29.2 percent black. “Though the students . . . almost certainly would not have noticed a difference, the racial bean counters at the DOJ see worsening segregation,” Mr. Greene wrote on his blog.
The number that should matter to federal officials is this: Roughly 86 percent of students in the voucher program came from schools that were rated D or F. Mr. White called ironic using rules to fight racism to keep students in failing schools; we think it appalling.
Unfortunately, though, it is not a surprise from an administration that, despite its generally progressive views on school reform, has proven to be hostile — as witnessed by its petty machinations against D.C.’s voucher program — to the school choice afforded by private-school vouchers. Mr. White told us that from Day One, the five-year-old voucher program has been subject to unrelenting scrutiny and questions from federal officials. Louisiana parents are clamoring for the choice afforded by this program; the state is insisting on accountability; poor students are benefiting. The federal government should get out of the way.
So its ok for the government to give food stamp money to kids to buy candy and toy guns, section 8 money to crackheads and drunks to ruin neighborhoods, or money to encourage fatherless homes BUT give money to a poor black child to get a good education? Hell no. Can't have that. Not at all.
Monday, September 9, 2013
The new segregationists: the Obama Justice Department
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
17 comments:
You seem to be under the misguided notion that the purpose of education is to teach students.
This is not about kids or civil rights or anything like that. It is about protecting union members and (by extension) Democrat campaign donors.
This administration is completely shameless and its DOJ is downright criminal. I've never seen an AG who was so damned arbitrary in what he chooses to litigate.
Black Panthers show up armed at a polling place to intimidate white votes - Pass. But Alabama successfully petitions the SCOTUS to free a select group of states from decades of punitive electoral sanctions - Fight. DOMA and Federal drug laws are not worth defending, but state immigration laws that track with Federal law are attacked viciously.
The sad part is that NOBODY cares. Well, nobody with power. Republicans are impotent, the media is complicit, and the Democrats could give two sh*ts about screwing the country as long as it means more of their criminal brethren get elected.
What white liberals dont want people to know is they dont want blacks educated. You keep people under control by keeping them poor and ignorant. Thats how the slave owners kept all those people on the plantation. Nothing good has happened when you get democrats and blacks together. Democrats have kept them down for decades and until blacks descide they are tired of having white liberals dictate their future....it wont end. Want to really see how white democrats act? Become a black republican and see how they treat you. See, its not that they want to help you, they only want you to be a democrat.
Never any logic in what you all are asserting. If White liberals' true intentions were not to educate or what you are insinuating is that they want to discriminate against Blacks, they surely would not be a part of electing Blacks to office. I would suspect it would be more like what happens in the GOP where Blacks get lip service and a few bones here and there, but rarely get elected. White liberal nor the Democratic Party has anything to do with why the GOP does not have any minority representation to speak of. So,it is laughable to believe the party that cant seem to find any electable Blacks(even in their controlled areas)is most concerned about their education. I think Blacks and Whites that are concerned that vouchers, charter schools etc., divert money and only result in a small percentage of help to the overall problem. It is not some sinister desire to deny Blacks an education.
4:47 It's hard to follow your poorly written screed but I'll remind you it used to be illegal to teach a slave to read because education means power.
Forcing young black kids to stay in failing schools is almost as effective.
Enjoy the results of your program.
Hmmm, 4:47, you claim "the GOP does not have any minority representation to speak of." Remind me, please, as of 9 September 2013, to which party does the lone black member of the upper house of the United States Congress belong?
6:57, slave owners were conservatives, abolitionist were liberals. My point is that any party that claims that the majority of Americans are conservative, but can not seem to elect many Blacks, must not really be trying to. That being the case, why would I believe the just mentioned party/ideology would be interested in educating the very group they do not want to have political power? All I know is after charter schools, vouchers, etc., you will still have a ton of kids that need to be educated; therefore, people still need to have those kids in mind. Forgiving me for not trusting conservative ideas on race based on their past interest and results.
If folks would take the time to read the DOJ's well written brief KF posted, you would see the real story of what Louisiana's scheme is here, that is, to skirt its obligations under the federal desegregation order it has been under since 1975 due to the fact that Louisiana purposely segregated black kids and white kids, as most, if not all, southern states did. Which color children would you guess La. gave the crap schools, teachers, books, etc. to up till the Feds sued them?
Now the La. Repubs. come up with a voucher scheme to keep the white kids from having to go to school with blacks but try to tell us they're really trying to help black
kids. I'm not buying it.
Why not use the money to hire better teachers, upgrade the schools' technology, etc. versus spending taxpayer money on private schools and thus perpetuate the problems some public schools are having?
@8;57 I guess you don't understand what liberalism is. The most liberal idea a person can have is owning another human being. And the only time in our nations history this was done was by democrats. All the republicans did was kill as many democrats as they could to free the slaves. So if your stupid enough to be with the slave holding party, that gave birth to the KKK and enslaved blacks with the welfare system, them have at it. We can't fix stupid but we can give you an option.
"Why not use the money to hire better teachers, "
That's a reasonable start - first we'll have to fire the current, non-"better" teachers to make room for them. Good luck with the NEA on that (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Democratic Party, unless it's the other way around).
"Now the La. Repubs. come up with a voucher scheme to keep the white kids from having to go to school with blacks"
So, black kids get vouchers to leave schools that are almost all-black, and attend better schools that have some white kids attending, and you think this is a plot "to keep the white kids from having to go to school with blacks"?!?
My brain hurts just trying to figure out your tortured logic.
9:39 One more pop quiz (someone already asked who knows which political party the only black member of the US Senate belongs to today - hint: he wasn't invited to the MLK memorial).
To which European country can the governor of Louisiana, who signed the voucher law under discussion, trace his ancestry? Just another one of them damn WASPs, hmmm?
" A mine ' beez a ter'bal thang ta wieght 'z !
Where the hell is Sally Field when you need her ?
10:11 pm You have a poor education indeed if you believe what you wrote.
In 1863 and in 1963 both political parties had liberal and conservative wings.
Those against slavery were abolitionists and included people of both parties, especially in the North.
A century later, you could hardly argue that Strom Thurmond and Adlai Stevenson , both Democratics were both liberal.
The entire notion that one party is liberal and the other conservative has been and continues to be absurd as there are few purists. I would remind you there are Republican who are gay and for gay rights and who are not anti-abortion.
The Democrats who were segregationists in the South became Republicans. The Southern strategy Nixon , with the help of Lee Atwater, used was to bring segregationists to the GOP.
This liberal, conservative, and now Libertarian nonsense involves redefinitions of all those philosophies so as to make them unrecognizable to those outside this country and are not recognizable to those who received good education inside this country.
A true conservative is conservative about all spending, not just spending on social programs. A true conservative doesn't approve of corporate welfare anymore than they approve of social welfare and also would be as frugal about defense spending as spending on education. " Privatization" isn't conservative. It's shifting tax money to the private sector and has , over time, resulted in more cost for the same services. THAT is not conservative. A privately contracted military is more expensive than a conscripted military. That's NOT conservative.
You've been duped.
"Privatization" isn't conservative. It's shifting tax money to the private sector and has , over time, resulted in more cost for the same services. THAT is not conservative. A privately contracted military is more expensive than a conscripted military"
And privately contracted trash collection is less expensive than government run trash collection. The difference is no one except a government should run a military.
What you say about "true conservatives" being concerned about ALL spending - well ,that describes the TEA party perfectly.
9:32 am please look at the spending of the elected TEA party members.
To the liberal/progressive/unable to communicate...
WTH are you talking about? Did you take the time to consider the "lefty" WAPO article, or are we to believe you drink some Koooool aid? I'm disgusted by the fact we would leave any child behind, black, white, indellible ink color.... your assertions are pure fantasy and approach incomprehensible. Please take the time to engage with others, it will do the soul gud.
Post a Comment