The WSJ hasn’t been distracted by controversy over President Obama’s school speech. They rightly recognize that the real scandal in the Obama education efforts revolves around the DC voucher program. They write in today’s paper:
“The D.C. voucher program has proven to be the most effective education policy evaluated by the federal government’s official education research arm so far,” writes the Education Department’s chief evaluator Patrick Wolf in the current issue of Education Next. “On average, participating low-income students are performing better in reading because the federal government decided to launch an experimental school choice program in our nation’s capital.”
Democrats had pledged that if the D.C. Council supported the voucher program, they’d revisit it. “The government of Washington, D.C., should decide whether they want [the voucher program] in their school district,” declared Illinois Senator Dick Durbin, who sponsored the provision to kill the program. Well, a majority of the D.C. Council has since sent lawmakers a letter expressing support. Yet Democrats are still preventing Congress from living up to its end of the deal and voting to restore funding. Meanwhile, Mr. Obama sends his own daughters to the best private school in the District.
Jay P. Greene's Blog 
Too bad the Republicans don’t recognize the importance of the issue. Too bad for the Republicans that President Obama does recognize the political importance of the issue.
I’m surprised no one in the edupundocracy has commented on the disconnect between Obama’s speech on healthcare and his actions with the DC voucher program (or vouchers in general). From the speech:
“My healthcare proposal has also been attacked by some who oppose reform as a “government takeover” of the entire health care system. As proof, critics point to a provision in our plan that allows the uninsured and small businesses to choose a publicly sponsored insurance option, administered by the government just like Medicaid or Medicare.
So let me set the record straight. My guiding principle is, and always has been, that consumers do better when there is choice and competition. Unfortunately, in 34 states, 75% of the insurance market is controlled by five or fewer companies. In Alabama, almost 90% is controlled by just one company. Without competition, the price of insurance goes up and the quality goes down. And it makes it easier for insurance companies to treat their customers badly by cherry-picking the healthiest individuals and trying to drop the sickest; by overcharging small businesses who have no leverage; and by jacking up rates.”
All you’d have to do is replace a few words and you’d have a powerful argument for vouchers and against the monopoly of the current system.