Straw-man position on vouchers

The Chicago tribune attacks the Congressional Dems' attempt to block continued financing for the only federal school-voucher plan in the US- one in DC that gives vouchers of $7,500 (about 1/3 of the amount the district spends per student) to 1,900 kids to allow them to attend private schools. The article characterizes the Dems' position as follows:

But vouchers are anathema to many in the Democratic Party because teachers unions feel threatened by the prospect of more children going to non-union private schools. So this bill says there will be no more money for the program after this year and directs the head of D.C.'s public schools to "promptly take steps to minimize potential disruption and ensure smooth transition" for kids who will be forced back into schools their parents found wanting.

Democrats to kids: Tough luck.

I think this article unreasonably portrays the Democratic (as opposed to the teachers' union) position. I and many other dems oppose voucher programs like this becauase $7,500 is not in fact enough money to put poor kids into private schools (except for some religious schools with subsidies from the church). In a 2002 study, non-sectarian private school tuition averaged over $10,000/year, and has almost certainly gone up since then, and the top private schools in DC cost over $25,000/year. Consequently, the vouchers wind up being used by middle-class kids whose parents have enough money to fund the difference between the $7,500 and the cost of private school tuition, or by kids whose parents could afford the whole tuition and essentially get a free $7,500. This has two negative effects. 1.) there's some non-useful transfer of money between the school system, which needs it, and parents who largely don't; and more importantly 2.) as middle-class kids are drawn out of the public schools by vouchers, the public schools become (even more than they currently are) a concentration of the poorest kids or the kids whose parents don't know or care enough to utilize vouchers.

I'm not averse to voucher programs in principle, but I don't think that the DC program makes sense as it's currently structured. For a voucher system to work, and not merely siphon children of the relatively wealthy or super-involved parents out of the system, it needs to do a couple of things. It must provide enough of a tuition subsidy to cover non-sectarian private school tuition for the neediest kids (and could be means-tested to only provide a partial subsidy to wealthier parents). It also must be actively promoted to parents and have an easy way to sign up, so that kids aren't left out of the running for vouchers because their parents are at work, or don't speak English, or are undocumented.

I think this is a much more nuanced position, held by many dems, that goes far beyond this article's sneering "Dems to kids: tough luck" tone.