Vouchers

I've never understood the case against school vouchers. Never. I've heard all kinds of criticisms against them but have yet to encounter one that makes any sense.

Perhaps the most popular argument is that vouchers take money away from public schools. I'm unconvinced. Take Washington D.C. for example. Despite much opposition the city was able to start a voucher program a couple of years ago that provides a voucher of up to $7,500 for low-income families to send their children to private schools. To many people that sounds like a lot of money -- money that should be going to the public schools.

But check this out: As of six years ago D.C. was spending $10,107 per pupil, an amount that has surely only gone up since then. So that's actually a savings of over $2,500 for every student that leaves the public school system.

Lack of money, of course, has never been the problem. Studies have regularly shown that the U.S. spends more per student than most other countries with worse results.

Anyway, I thought I had heard it all until the latest from Hillary Clinton: vouchers might help support terrorism.

It never ceases to amaze me the lengths that these people, who bill themselves as defenders of the poor and downtrodden, will go to to deny the same educational opportunties to poor kids as are afforded to the wealthy.

Update: Clinton's absurdities aside there is actually some good news to report on vouchers.

Another update: The New York Post has a good editorial on the subject.

And again: I think it is important to remember in this debate that the question is not whether vouchers are flawless, it's whether they are an improvement over the current sytem. We can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.