Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal’s (R) school voucher scheme has been plagued by a series of problems, culminating in a legal defeat in a state court two weeks ago. But in a Brookings speech yesterday, the Republican governor said he still sees his plan as a national model.
“I think there is a moral imperative that it’s not right that only wealthy parents get to decide where their kids go to school,” Jindal told an audience at Washington’s Brookings Institution. […]
“To oppose school choice is to oppose equal opportunity for poor and disadvantaged students in America,” he said. “What we are putting in motion in Louisiana can be done across the country.”
This is certainly standard rhetoric from the right. They’re not trying to privatize public schools out of existence, the argument goes, they’re simply trying to use tax dollars to provide new opportunities to “poor and disadvantaged” children.
There’s always been one part of this argument that bugs me: why does the principle apply solely to education?
For Jindal, poor and disadvantaged kids should have the same educational opportunities as kids from wealthy families. Fine. There’s ample evidence that vouchers don’t work, but let’s stick to the larger principle. The next question is pretty straightforward: can poor and disadvantaged kids have the same access to quality health care as kids from wealthy families? How about the same access to safe and affordable housing? How about nutrition? And transportation? And political influence?









