Monday, January 21, 2008

Vouchers and Open Enrollment, one politican at a time

Rex Sinquefield is on a mission; to buy enough politicians to get school vouchers and open enrollment in Missouri. Those ideas are the exact opposite of the alleged Republican principles of smaller government and local control. Who wants Matt Blunt running the North Kansas City school district?

You will recall a previous post on Buying Vouchers, One PAC at a Time. That one discussed how Rex set up 100 PACS to pass his money through since the Missouri Supreme Court struck down the unlimited contributions that the Republicans put in place. You will also remember the hub bub about Missouri School's getting a bad report grade from President Bush's Department of Education. Getting told by Bush - a guy who struggles with the English language - that your schools stink really hurts.

So here's the question, who has been benefiting from Sinquefield's mission to get school vouchers? Rep. Jerry Nolte? Sen. Luanne Ridgeway?


SSideDem said...

What could possibly be wrong with vouchers?

sophia said...

Nothing is wrong with vouchers, if your goal is to gut the public school system.

Stephen Bough said...

Ask the NKC School District, they passed a resolution opposing vouchers.

Brian T. Johnson said...

Take the partisan blinders off and take a real look at school choice. It keeps in tact the social compact that says every child deserves an education, while opening up the system to innovation that will improve the delivery system of that education.

"Public Education" does not HAVE to mean that every child attends a "Government-Operated" school. If a publicly-funded education system incorporates both public and private providers in order to put each kid in the school that is the best fit for him or her, we should embrace that.

Anonymous said...

We should embrace taking money AWAY from public schools? To give a few wealthy families help paying tuition to a private school?

This is what you want us to embrace?
No thanks.

believer said...

Doesn't sound like there is a lo of understanding in these comments about what school choice can do. I don't know where ya'll got the idea that school choice only benefits wealthy families, but it wouldn't help those who already have choice through wealth: where to live, money for tuition at private schools. Choice levels the playing field for middle to low income families who can't pack up and move to give their kids a better education. And I think we can all agree that some urban districts in Missouri are doing pretty poorly. What options do those families have now--for their child who is graduating in 3 or 4 years? And since the amount of scholarships is almost certainly less than the state pays per pupil, the state would save money that could go for teachers salaries, resources, facilities--you name your priority, those savings could really help. Does that sound like "gutting public education"?