Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

DC FINALLY gets school choice

Jan 25, 2004 12:20AM PST
D.C. Delivers!
Senate Gives D.C. School Choice Program Final Approval


At long last, educational freedom has come to the nation's capital.

More than a month after the measure passed in the U.S. House of Representatives, the U.S. Senate gave final approval to a plan which will provide $13 million annually for five years to fund private tuition scholarships for schoolchildren in Washington, D.C.

The passage marks the end of a nine-year ordeal in the attempt to bring more educational opportunities to D.C. families. "This is a truly historic development," said Children First America President John Kirtley. "What's most heartening about it is that it was primarily a locally driven measure, with the support of local leaders such as Mayor [Anthony] Williams, Councilman [Kevin] Chavous and School Board President [Peggy] Cooper-Cafritz, not to mention the legions of parents who demanded choices for their children's education. That, along with bipartisan support at the federal level, helped make this a reality."


For a summary of the legislation, click here

For how your reps in DC voted: click here for House, I can't seem to find the Senate vote yet, would welcome a link. Doubtful my esteemed Senator Lieberman showed up, even though outside his 2000 VP candidacy he has been a proponent of vouchers.

Predictably Teddy Kennedy who is so concerned about education, with Rep. Norton weigh in as follows:

At an anti-voucher rally after the vote, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) said they would attempt to repeal the voucher program and send the money to public schools.

"Even after this vote, don't bank on vouchers coming to D.C.," Kennedy said.


While the mayor of DC and the school board Prez supported the measure.

Evie Happy

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Are you baiting
Jan 25, 2004 12:34AM PST

those who don't share your opinion in this case?

- Collapse -
(NT) Huh? baiting how? opinion maybe, so what?
Jan 25, 2004 8:33AM PST

.

- Collapse -
Ignore him Roger ...
Jan 25, 2004 8:35AM PST

... in a now-deleted thread it was brought to his attention that his timing is not so good when it comes to posting controversial links. This is just his way of "getting back" which is rather childish to say the least.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
I reserve ignoring or not responding in general to when the post is so infuriating
Jan 25, 2004 9:06AM PST

I don't trust myself to answer without being extremely rude.

Otherwise, I question and try to keep it very to the point.

There are posts from many that I link to desktop, go back time and time again, and finally decide it's best for me to stay the heck out of the fight between whatever parties are going at full steam ahead. Occasionally I blow the chance to bite my tongue and reply anyway. Wink

roger

- Collapse -
Re:which is rather childish to say the least.
Jan 25, 2004 11:06AM PST

shame on you Evie, you offend the children for no reason...

Wink

- Collapse -
Timing...
Jan 25, 2004 2:58PM PST

When do you think it would be a good time to post about the Israeli official? Two weeks after the incident, when it is not even news anymore?

- Collapse -
I actually agree Roger..
Jan 25, 2004 2:55PM PST

The problem is that Evie considered my post on Israei official a baiting post since her friend jonah is a very sensitive person and cannot tolerate that anything negative is said about the country he chose to live in. I also wondered what was wrong with posting a message that not everyone liked, and Evie basically replied that I knew it would stir feelings. That's the reason that I now ask her if she looks at her own posts the same way.

- Collapse -
instead of sowing the seeds of mayhem for no reason whatsoever
Jan 25, 2004 4:26PM PST

why not lodge a complaint with Lee Koo, or the mods, or take it to email.....

- Collapse -
(NT)So you admit there was not baiting? You just chose to 'prove a point' by implication?
Jan 26, 2004 6:06AM PST

.

- Collapse -
The Senate vote was ...
Jan 25, 2004 1:55AM PST

The program was included in a $328 billion catchall spending measure that cleared the chamber after minority Democrats abandoned filibuster tactics against unrelated measures that delayed passage nearly four months into the federal fiscal year. The vote to end debate was 61 to 32, and the bill was approved 65 to 28.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A38866-2004Jan22.html

The senate Roll Call handy site to bookmark

I too think Kennedy and Norton need to rethink their position. Kerry, Lieberman, and Edwards were too busy campaigning to vote--COMPASSIONATE Democrit priorities maybe?

- Collapse -
Thanks Ed
Jan 25, 2004 2:18AM PST

I was surprised to see my other Senator, Dodd, voted Yea Happy Maybe he can have a sit down with his former drinking buddy. Fatherhood may have changed his mind?

Leiberman's absence comes as no surprise to me. It is widely reported that he has moved his family to NH as the only hope for his candidacy would be a strong showing there. Pre-2000 Lieberman used to be someone I could support or at least agreed with on many issues. He sold out all of them to Gore only to mostly re-adopt them after their loss. I also felt strongly that he took this state for granted, and apparently continues to do so. In 2000 he was also defending his seat, yet barely campaigned in the state. The Republican was never a strong candidate, and turned out to be a pretty corrupt guy (Giordano, fmr. Waterbury mayor, sitting in the clink for sex with a minor and bribery), but at the time there was NO excuse for Lieberman not giving our state's voters at least the benefit of ONE debate Sad

In my recent detailed rebuttal (yet unanswered) to Gearup's SOTU smear I linked to some info regarding voting (or non-voting) records of Presidential candidates. Gephardt missed the record 90%, and Kerry leads the Senatorial pack with 72% missed, but Lieberman is again no slouch in the missed vote department.

Evie Happy

- Collapse -
You are welcome...
Jan 25, 2004 3:00AM PST

I noted that he did not respond just as Blake did not bother checking facts and figures and reasons previously when he posted the same garbage.

- Collapse -
Re: The Senate vote was ...
Jan 26, 2004 9:18PM PST

Hi, Ed.

It wasn't just Democrats who were filibustering -- so was McCain and some conservative Republicans appalled at the massive pork when we're running a half-trillion dollar deficit already. But the alternative to letting it through after making the symbolic point was to shut down the government, and that would be cutting off your nose to spite your face.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Re: DC FINALLY gets school choice
Jan 25, 2004 11:57AM PST

Hi, Evie.

And where's the proof that the voters of DC want this program, and wouldn't prefer the money to be used to upgrade the substandard public schools? Knowing the politics in DC as I do, I suspect this is a Republican imposition of its own values on a Democratic city.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Where is the proof they don't?
Jan 25, 2004 12:43PM PST

"Mayor [Anthony] Williams, Councilman [Kevin] Chavous and School Board President [Peggy] Cooper-Cafritz, not to mention the legions of parents who demanded choices for their children's education."

All seem to say otherwise.

You conveniently forget (or never learned in school) that the District of Columbia is handled a bit differently than the States because it isn't one.

I suggest we need 100% fewer "Democratic cities" and more based on the Republican Democracy the founders wanted and insisted each state would have.

- Collapse -
Re: Where is the proof they don't?
Jan 25, 2004 9:33PM PST

Hi, Ed.

As you well know, the only reason DC is not a state is that the Republicans don't want two more Democratic Senators. Things are a lot better than when I grew up, though -- there was no right to vote for President, and the city was governed by three Commissioners appointed by the President with Senatorial Advice and Consent. And I call it a city because all of the District of Columbia is encompassed within the City of Washington. Incidentally, DC was originally larger than it now is; it was a perfect square, but in 1846, Congress returned to Virginia the approx. 32 square miles of land that was originally taken from that state, undfer the premise that the land would never be needed for governmental purposes. That returned area now includes the Pentagon, Arlington National Cemetary, and many many government departments in Arlington and Rosslyn. As for my statement, I stand by it, bolstered by a Zogby poll (isn't he your favorite pollster?) showing that
District of Columbia Voters Strongly Oppose Vouchers
75% would be a landslide if it was an election...

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
Again the poll--I asked for PROOF...
Jan 26, 2004 5:44AM PST

and your polls do not satisfy that.

additionally it is not ONLY because Republicans don't want two more "Democratic Senators" but because it can ONLY happen with an ammendment to the Constitution and the numbers to ratify simply are not there.

It was specifically excluded for a reason and the reason is still quite valid.

"Incidentally, DC was originally larger than it now is;"

You sure about that? The Washington DC of today spreads out far beyond the original boundaries. Perchance you meant the physical boundaries?

Incidentally, Washington DC was NEVER a perfect square Dave. It was always bounded on the south by the Potomac and Boundary Avenue up north isn't exactly a straight line. It was a diamond shaped (roughly as the boundaries were not straight lines) tract where the Potomac and Eastern Branch Rivers meet.

You likely got confused by its being originally a 68 square mile area and assumed the shape (actually 100 square mile area but the 32 not included was that west of the Potomac given back to virginia later.

Here are a link or two for your viewing pleasure:

L'Enfant map of the Federal City
-">http://www.firstbooks.com/relocationandrecruiting/washingtondc/washingtondc.intro.htm]- Newcomer's Handbook

- Collapse -
Re: I asked for PROOF -- the poll is the best proof available
Jan 26, 2004 12:27PM PST

Hi, Ed.

C'mon -- your perrennial insistence that black is white depsite all the evidence to the contrary is getting extremely tiresome. When the numbers are so overwhelming (75% opposed to vouchers), the poll shifts the burden of proof to you to prove that its data are flawed. As for "and the numbers to ratify simply are not there," the reason that the numbers aren't there is precisely because DC is a perennially Democratic city, so the Republicans don't want additional Democratic votes in Congress. This is nothing new -- why do you thing admission of the Republican Alaska and the Democratic Hawaii were paired?

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
And still no proof...
Jan 27, 2004 10:35AM PST

it has been shown time and again that polls simply provide the results the polster desires Dave. It is you who insists that black is white despite our best efforts to get you to see things as they really are.

The favorable response by the public is documented as overwhelming while nonfavorable "majority" only shows up in your poll--that alone should tell you something about the poll.

Regarding numbers to ratify Dave, even when the Democrats held both housed, the presidency and most states the numbers for ratification were simply not there because most everybody sees and understands the founders reluctance to allow the inhabitants to vote. They were initially allowed to vote as residents of the states they were residents of before the land they lived on was ceded but that was only for a short time.

The same would be true regardless of party affiliation.

- Collapse -
Re: And still no proof... It's a lot better than
Jan 27, 2004 10:46AM PST

Hi, Ed.

Imperfect as they are, scientific polls are a heck of a lot better than a bunch of conservative ideologues claiming to speak for a population which is definitely not conservative in ideology! Pools aren't perfect -- but I can't remember a single one where a 75% majority was actually overturned in a direct election. You're the link master -- show me an example. Failining that, you, Evie, KP, and the U.S. Congress are simply blowing hot air and imposing your own views on a population that doesn't share them. And for one who claims to love the American way as much as you do, that ought to give to pause for thought, but I suspect it won't. You're side long ago decided that playing by the rules doesn't matter as long as you get your way -- that's why "dirty tricks" have been a staple Republican campaign tactic at least since the 60's.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
A 'scientific' poll consisting of 603 persons 'interviewed' over a...
Jan 27, 2004 11:42AM PST

two or three day period (can't remember which but I think it was the 15-17th) isn't exactly a "scientific poll" Dave. Matter of fact it doesn't even come close to being "scientific". One begins to wonder if the first question asked of the "man on the street" was "are you registered as a Democrat?" and if the answer was no they were not "interviewed".

There is a considerable difference between a poll and an interview Dave but I suspect that you don't want to bother yourself with than.

Regarding "imposing views", the population of DC is fully aware of the reasons they are administered as they are and are free to move outside the district at any time if they feel disenfranchised.

It is you who don't like "playing by the rules" Dave.

now on a final note regarding a 75% majority, you have used that number before regarding opposition to private firearm ownership and pro gun control and it should be apparent even to you that the supposed 75% has constantly been overturned in direct and any other type election you desire to consider.

I suspect that on looking over the methodology of this cited poll you actually find it indefensible and are just trying to change the subject.

- Collapse -
Re:A 'scientific' poll consisting of 603 persons 'interviewed' over a...
Jan 27, 2004 12:09PM PST

Hi, Ed.

You complain about me not being a military expert? I dare say I understand the military better than youunderstand scentific polling. The size of the population (DC is not a terribly large city -- 2001 population estimated at 572,000) dictates the necessary sample size, and that used in this case has a margin of error of 4%. That means those opposing vouchers might be as low as 71%, and those favoring them as high as 29% (if there's noone undecided). That's a 42% margin -- still a tremendous one. You can try to hand-wave the proof away all you want, but it's there. As usual, when the experts are against you, you just belittle their expertise. it's amazing you got through school, let alone the Army, with that attitude!

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
You're still missing something, Dave...
Jan 27, 2004 4:12PM PST

Did I say missing? Perhaps I should have said ingoring. O.K., you have "the necessary sample size". Now, is it then proper to select a set of conditions for people who would be interviewed and select 603 of them? There went "random", right out of the window.
Watch out for percentages without the raw numbers. Did that mean that 75% of those who met the inclusion requirements, and (most important) agreed to answer questions rather than say no opinion had a negative opinion?
You said, "(if there's noone undecided)". Didn't it raise a flag to you that you don't know how many of them were undecided? Dave, you couldn't conduct a poll in D.C. with even a simple question like "Do you favor street vendors being allowed to sell hot dogs?" and get a 100% response from people asked to even give their opinion.

- Collapse -
Knowing DC politics as you do, Dave...
Jan 25, 2004 12:46PM PST

You may think that you know DC politics, Dave, but it is quite clear that you are not aware of the current situation in their schools. I live right next to it and watch the DC local news daily. The condition of many of those schools is a shattering mess. Calls by locals for someting like vouchers so residents can send their kids to another system have been many and constant. Oh, on the idea of giving that money to the DC public system, they just caught two (so far) schools officials that embelezed a small fortune from the DC school money. They may have caught those two crooks, but a lot of that money is gone with the wind. They keep pumping more and more money into the system, but the schools don't seem to get better.

- Collapse -
Irrelevant and slanderous, J.
Jan 26, 2004 2:38PM PST

You are saying there is no point in puting money into the DC school system, because school officials will all steal it.

Ian

- Collapse -
Not at all, Ian...
Jan 27, 2004 12:08PM PST

Not at all, Ian, I'm saying that there is a lot of gross mismanagement in the system. You should have seen some of the unsanitary conditions in some of those school cafeterias when the local TV crew got into them with a camera. They keep getting more money, but conditions do not improve.
BTW, slander is spoken, libel is written.

- Collapse -
I suspect the proof will come when parents opt to leave the public schools.
Jan 25, 2004 2:56PM PST

Why do Dems and Libs persist in arguing that these are great places where children should be sent?

- Collapse -
Re:I suspect the proof -- HERE's the proof, a Zogby poll.
Jan 25, 2004 9:37PM PST

Hi, KP.

District of Columbia Voters Strongly Oppose Vouchers
So y'all are cheering the anti-democratic imposition of Congressional will on a resistant population... BTW, The same is also true of welfare funding for medically necessary abortions, which is allowed if states desire it, but is blocked for DC by Congress despite persistent requests from the City Council.

-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email semods4@yahoo.com

The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!

- Collapse -
I'm not impressed by a poll commissioned by those who oppose vouchers. Maybe you believe in the tooth fairy,
Jan 26, 2004 8:55AM PST

but I don't. I don't think these folks are foolish when they spend their money. I think they have a pretty good idea what the poll will show. They set it up to produce the desired results. I'll still wait to see how the parents vote with their feet.

- Collapse -
Let's examime that poll, Dave...
Jan 26, 2004 10:49AM PST

O.K., Dave, so let us look at the mechanics of that poll. The poll says, "Zogby International conducted interviews of 603 D.C. adults, chosen at random, who voted in the November 2002 elections. The interviews were conducted from November 6-15, 2002, and the poll has a margin of error of + / -4.1 percent.".
Before we go on, a quick look at the D.C. population numbers would be in order. D.C. has roughly 456,000 people over 18 and therefore of voting age. The poll was of 603 adults.
But notice the word "interviews", it's one of those words that should raise a red flag. You know the red flag, what is called the "powder rag" in military and police ranges, indicating that there are loaded weapons on the range. You're supposed to let that word slide by unnoticed, but it's an important word. An interview is not a poll, it's a series of questions, and question wording can be one of those tricks that I mentioned previously. A poll is something like, "Are you in favor of school vouchers?", and response choices like yes, no, undecided, no opinion. Always look for the ability of the poll respondent to chose one of them. If one or more of them is missing, you're getting a distorted picture.
Moving on to the use of the words " chosen at random", the choice may have been random in a sense, but the chosen population base from which the selection was made was a double limitation of the base. First limitation was only registered voters, and the second one was only the sub-set of that selected population who voted in the November 2002 elections. Dave, didn't you think about the fact that such a selection indicates that before they started interviewing, they dug up a lot of information to select the population to which they went? Didn't it strike you as funny that they went out of the chute with that information and went only to those selected people? O.K. let's pretend that they went out with a truly random list. If that were the case, what happened to the responses of people who did not vote in that election? What did those people say, and why were their responses thrown out and/or why were they eliminated as parcipitants in the base of people "interviewed" when that fact came out in the interview questions?
You don't have to be a range officer to have a strong suspicion that a weapon on the firing line is loaded.