Obama Girls Benefit from Private School

[Sky Dancer]

Why do people expect Obama to put his girls in public school? He can afford to send his children to a public school, and given his position as President, that's not a radical idea.

The other issue is that Obama is phasing out a bad idea program from the Bush administration that gives public education monies to private schools. Government funding of private schools brings with it government control – and the higher the level of government involved, the more serious the problem.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=6342

 

[Gunny]

But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.

Right?

Hit & Run > When It Comes to School Choice For Low-Income DC Residents, Obama Offers Crumb (And Is One) - Reason Magazine

President Obama, proud father of two daughters attending private school, has relented as little as possible when it comes to continuing the proven-effective, cost-effective DC school voucher program, which gives 1,700 kids up to $7,500 per year to get the hell out of the DC public school system. From the Wash Post and following a rally for the program yesterday:

This REALLY, REALLY pisses me off. If Obama believes so much in what this particular urban school district is doing, his kids should be attending there. Put your FAMILY where your mouth iDis, and then we'll all know you're telling the truth. But instead, he's just thrown a biscuit to the powerful teacher's union, and shown us that he's kind of a hypocrite..."Do as I say, not as I do."

Here's an idea - why don't we try not and tell other peope how to raise their children? Did you ever consider the possibility it isn't any of your fucking business?


Besides - Obama has no specific authority over DC. DC is governed by the u.s. congress they have superior authority there, the President gets no say.

Read the links. Says straight up he persuaded Congress to cut voucher funding. That's having a say.

 

[Harry Dresden]

There's truth there...

so what's the answer? giving up isn't it.

Allowing the rightwingnuts to give the finger to a good chunk of our society isn't...

so what is?

Here one aspect of our values that have changed. I believe education is an important foundation for a developing and advancing society. To have a strong education, the family unit needs to be strong which I think has digressed over the past 100 years. Divorce has risen substantially and the family unit has eroded. Circumstances that society once looked negatively towards (children out wedlock, divorce, extra marital affairs) have been generally accepted and one that used to be accepted (corporal punishment for children) is looked unfavorably.

Single parents have a very difficult life. They have to raise the children and provide for the household (one job if lucky some with multiple jobs).

I am not a sociologist but I bet these societal changes have moved America’s value system.

and lets not forget that many of the "RIGHT WINGERS" are sick and tired of pouring billions of dollars into a system that is getting worse and not better,would you keep throwing money into something that was just sucking up your money with no positive results?....here is what the assholes in my state do....the state lottery is supposed to give schools billions every year,and it does,so if the lotto pumps 5 billion into the system,these assholes will take 5 billion from the school budget to use what they think is best,.....so much for the lotto giving the schools extra needed cash...and EVERY ONE of those basterds know it including the jerk Gov....and not one from either party speake up about this....but yet every year they say we have to give more...top 5 to no. 48....increasing the school budget seems to be working wonders here

 

[Red Dawn]

There's truth there...

so what's the answer? giving up isn't it.

Allowing the rightwingnuts to give the finger to a good chunk of our society isn't...

so what is?

Here one aspect of our values that have changed. I believe education is an important foundation for a developing and advancing society. To have a strong education, the family unit needs to be strong which I think has digressed over the past 100 years. Divorce has risen substantially and the family unit has eroded. Circumstances that society once looked negatively towards (children out wedlock, divorce, extra marital affairs) have been generally accepted and one that used to be accepted (corporal punishment for children) is looked unfavorably.

Single parents have a very difficult life. They have to raise the children and provide for the household (one job if lucky some with multiple jobs).

I am not a sociologist but I bet these societal changes have moved America’s value system.

and lets not forget that many of the "RIGHT WINGERS" are sick and tired of pouring billions of dollars into a system that is getting worse and not better,would you keep throwing money into something that was just sucking up your money with no positive results?....here is what the assholes in my state do....the state lottery is supposed to give schools billions every year,and it does,so if the lotto pumps 5 billion into the system,these assholes will take 5 billion from the school budget to use what they think is best,.....so much for the lotto giving the schools extra needed cash...and EVERY ONE of those basterds know it including the jerk Gov....and not one from either party speake up about this....but yet every year they say we have to give more...top 5 to no. 48....increasing the school budget seems to be working wonders here

assuming you have kids, which I'm guessing you don't, are you going to your local school board meetings and demanding that the board slash funding for the district your kids go to school in?

 

[Gunny]

I'm really curious as to where it was written that just because someone has the means to avail themselves of private school, they can't care about public education.

There seems to be this faux outrage when people who have means actually care about policies that affect the public.

No more "faux" than your "outrage." If people using private schools were THAT concerned about public schools they'd be donating the money they spend on private schools to the public school system to make them better for EVERYONE, not just their own kids.

That in and of itself wouldn't be so bad if your political party didn't sell itself as the party of the little guy, the regular joe. Actions speak louder than words.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not entirely, ever stop to think about why the teachers in public schools do not work in these better paying schools? The quality of the work should always determine the pay rate.

So let's have all private schools. Who will build them, and who will control the curriculum which must include knowledge of the primary areas of learning that people have to know in order to function in the real world? With more private schools than public schools, here comes the competitive factor all over again, and even private schools would eventually be required to employ lesser quality teachers because there aren't enough really dedicated smarter ones to go around. Since pay scales for teachers varies from state to state, we'd still have the problem unless the federal government set the pay scale and reguirements for meritorious wage increases.

Yea all private schools ran just like they are now. Kick out the troubled kids who always make it harder for everyone in public schools to learn and 30 to 40 % would probably not be there,now less teachers needed,less schools needed,put some in the Army to learn discipline as there parents will not teach them, others can do the work of the illegals. See how many problems can be solved with private schools. My oh my what a smart idea..wait a minute
this would be toooo good can't do that.

The only problem with your perfect scenario is that what constitutes a troubled kid in middle school may not be the same troubled kid by the time s/he becomes a high school student. Peer pressure in adolescence has a lot to do with "troubled" teen behavior. My grades sucked as a Freshman and Sophomore when I was trying to prove how grown up I was, but graduated with honors once I realized how bleak the future would be for me, even way back then, without at least a high school diploma.

 

[Gunny]

I'm really curious as to where it was written that just because someone has the means to avail themselves of private school, they can't care about public education.

There seems to be this faux outrage when people who have means actually care about policies that affect the public.

I, for one, didn't say that he didn't care. In fact, I've detailed what he says he cares about -- except OTHER THINGS take priority while OTHER PEOPLE WAIT for the promised change(s).

if i'm following what you said, then i'd have to say that's life. people wait for lots of things to get fixed.... the guy has only been in office three months.

and besides... the poor public school kids having to "wait for change" wasn't the point of the thread. the point of the thread was another whine about obama.

Lame. Apparently 3 months is enough time to cut voucher funding. I can't wait to hear y'all use that excuse when it's "he's only been in office 3 1/2 years". And you'll say it with a straight face.

The point of the thread is more out-of-touch, elitist hypocrisy from the leader of "the party of the people." Your attempt to brush it off with a lame accusation changes the facts not one whit.

 

[Sky Dancer]

I'm really curious as to where it was written that just because someone has the means to avail themselves of private school, they can't care about public education.

There seems to be this faux outrage when people who have means actually care about policies that affect the public.

No more "faux" than your "outrage." If people using private schools were THAT concerned about public schools they'd be donating the money they spend on private schools to the public school system to make them better for EVERYONE, not just their own kids.

That in and of itself wouldn't be so bad if your political party didn't sell itself as the party of the little guy, the regular joe. Actions speak louder than words.

Actions speak louder than words. 95% of school voucher funds go to religious schools.

I agree with Obama's position on reversing the Bush Admn support of religious schools with government funds which violated First Amendment rights--separation of Church and state.

 

[KittenKoder]

I'm really curious as to where it was written that just because someone has the means to avail themselves of private school, they can't care about public education.

There seems to be this faux outrage when people who have means actually care about policies that affect the public.

No more "faux" than your "outrage." If people using private schools were THAT concerned about public schools they'd be donating the money they spend on private schools to the public school system to make them better for EVERYONE, not just their own kids.

That in and of itself wouldn't be so bad if your political party didn't sell itself as the party of the little guy, the regular joe. Actions speak louder than words.

Actions speak louder than words. 95% of school voucher funds go to religious schools.

I agree with Obama's position on reversing the Bush Admn support of religious schools with government funds.

Um ... where did you get that statistic?

Considering all religious schools are private schools and most private schools are religious schools. If they supported private schooling more then there would be more non-religious schools.

 

[MaggieMae]

US Census Bureau Report on Education, 2006:

Please note that DC, with some of the worst public schools in the country, spends one of the highest amounts per capita on education:

$13,000+ per year.

And yet, the schools are still failing the vast majority who attend. This IS NOT about money. It's about requiring schools, teachers and administrators to ensure that they are using proven methods in the classrooms (something the NEA has resisted, strenuously, for some reason), and ensuring that the dollars MAKE IT TO THE CLASSROOM instead of getting hung up on administrative costs (a huge issue in inner city schools).

The voucher program allows a limited number of poor, yet talented kids, to escape these failing schools and get a good education. It impacts primarily black inner city kids who are already struggling against multiple barriers in their lives:

poverty
high crime neighborhoods
family dysfunction

AND, it works.

Yet, Obama would deny these poor black students the same opportunities his kids have.

I don't get it.

And no, this isn't about partisan politics, for me at least. THIS IS ABOUT PANDERING TO TEACHERS UNIONS who in some cases seem committed to failure.

p.s. Utah, whose schools receive the lowest amount of funding per student per capita routinely outperforms schools in the states with the top ten highest amount of funding.

Coincidence? I think not.

Key words "a limited number." And that's the problem.

 

[Gunny]

I find it amusing when people tell me that the problem in public education cannot be solved with more money.

Most of those people send their children to schools which cost LOTS of money.

You don't suppose, do you, that perhaps, just perhaps, that extra money might have SOMETHING to do with WHY those schools are able to offer edcuational experiences which is so superior, do you?

ED....when i moved to Cali. from NY back in 67 my folkes were told Cali was like no. 4 nation wide in schooling,and they probably were.....BILLIONS of dollars later we are now no. 48.....

When california schools were awesome, they used to spend higher than the national average on education/per pupil.

Now, california spends well below the national average/per pupil on education. And the quality of education, oddly, went down. Coincidence? We report, you decide.


Here's another interesting tidbit. In general states that spend more per pupil on education, have higher quailty education. The correlation isn't perfect (obviously DC schools suck) but the correlation is strong and striking. States in the northeast and upper midwest, like Vermont, Conn, Mass, Wisconsin, New Hampshire have top notch public education. And they spend a lot more money than average per pupil. Most bible belt states rank way below average in funding per pupil, and their education generallly sucks.

So, broadly speaking, more spending per pupil equals higher quality education. Coincidence? Again, we report you decide.

US Census Bureau Report on Education, 2006:

I can see your point, but you have not included one BIG factor that would even that playing field out quite a bit. Incomes vs cost of living in the Northeast are enormous compared to most "Bible Belt" states. We make less, cost of living is lower, as is costs of funding government and schools.

Using straight-up dollar amounts couldn't possibly show a true picture.

 

[Gunny]

I bet the reason his kids are in a secluded private school is that some right wing nutjob would probably be stalking them outside the DC public school.


When it comes to radical, nutjob extremists, the right wing wins the show. They are all NUTS.

Might want to consider that your post indicates exactly the opposite of what it states.

 

[MaggieMae]

McCain had it right--he was all for school vouchers & charter schools. Personally I wonder how many Einsteins we missed through lower income Americans being forced to keep their kids in failing inner city schools--"where it's COOl--to be stupid". Where the teachers are all of a sudden are babysisters--not educators.

Who opposed this plan? BARACK OBAMA. Why? Because he's a union man & by God the Teachers Union would never support him if he let loose & said every single child--no matter how poor deserves the opportunity for a good education--"if they're deserving of one".

Instead of lifting those kids that want to learn & are capable---he chose to keep those kids within the group that can't get through their 1-2-3's--& all for his own personal political purposes. The teachers union VOTE.

Yet, these nit-wit parents STILL can't figure out today--who is the party for education. UNBELIEVABLE IGNORANCE on their part.

Did McCain ever detail how new charter schools would get the seed money to get going? If they are currently all financially supported by foundations and/or anonymous doners, then why aren't they automatically opening more? Could it be that money to start even charter schools would need to be subsidized by the U.S. government?

 

[Gunny]

US Census Bureau Report on Education, 2006:

Please note that DC, with some of the worst public schools in the country, spends one of the highest amounts per capita on education:

$13,000+ per year.

And yet, the schools are still failing the vast majority who attend. This IS NOT about money. It's about requiring schools, teachers and administrators to ensure that they are using proven methods in the classrooms (something the NEA has resisted, strenuously, for some reason), and ensuring that the dollars MAKE IT TO THE CLASSROOM instead of getting hung up on administrative costs (a huge issue in inner city schools).

The voucher program allows a limited number of poor, yet talented kids, to escape these failing schools and get a good education. It impacts primarily black inner city kids who are already struggling against multiple barriers in their lives:

poverty
high crime neighborhoods
family dysfunction

AND, it works.

Yet, Obama would deny these poor black students the same opportunities his kids have.

I don't get it.

And no, this isn't about partisan politics, for me at least. THIS IS ABOUT PANDERING TO TEACHERS UNIONS who in some cases seem committed to failure.

p.s. Utah, whose schools receive the lowest amount of funding per student per capita routinely outperforms schools in the states with the top ten highest amount of funding.

Coincidence? I think not.

DC is a city, not a state. And an expensive city at that. I don't think you can compare dense urban cities to states. Cities have higher overhead expenses, higher salaries, and higher infrastructure costs than some po-dunk town in wyoming. I think you'll find that DC per student expenditures isn't significanlty different than San Francisco or New York City.


I have a hard time buying the republican assertion that the less we spend on public schools they better they will perform. Republicans never make that argument about the Pentagon. It makes no sense at all as a broad proposition. I know that money isn't the only answer. But well funded public schools are undoubtedly better, in general, than underfunded public schools. There are always exceptions, but there's not doubt that its broadly true.

Here's a map of school expenditures per pupil, on a county basis. Interesting that the deep south and bible belts which have the worst public education, are also the least well funded. And that the northeastern, and upper midwest states are better funded and generally have better public schools.




Finally, I think every single middle class republican with kids on this board would not knowingly choose to put their child in the lowest funded public school district in their city or state. I think that, rather, every single one of them seeks out and chooses to live in a school district with a robust property tax base, and a district that is well funded.

Where did you come to the conclusion that Republicans assert the less money spent on public schools the better they will perform? I've never heard that one, myself.

The term "Republican" as you use it greatly narrows down those you accuse. I'm not a Republican and I chose to live in one of the highest taxed school districts here to ensure my child went to one of the best high schools. That's a no-brainer, and I hardly think it has anything to do with political ideology; rather, good parenting and wanting what is best for your child. The latter being THE primary consideration at the time I bought my house.

And again, you almost hit the nail on the head in your opening of this post by differentiating between rural and urban schools, then slumped back to making straight-up dollar comparisons.

 

[MaggieMae]

There's truth there...

so what's the answer? giving up isn't it.

Allowing the rightwingnuts to give the finger to a good chunk of our society isn't...

so what is?

Here one aspect of our values that have changed. I believe education is an important foundation for a developing and advancing society. To have a strong education, the family unit needs to be strong which I think has digressed over the past 100 years. Divorce has risen substantially and the family unit has eroded. Circumstances that society once looked negatively towards (children out wedlock, divorce, extra marital affairs) have been generally accepted and one that used to be accepted (corporal punishment for children) is looked unfavorably.

Single parents have a very difficult life. They have to raise the children and provide for the household (one job if lucky some with multiple jobs).

I am not a sociologist but I bet these societal changes have moved America’s value system.

It's THE driving force, in my opinion. I'm afraid only the strongest will survive at all.

Even a decade ago (and beyond) when we were largely an industrial nation, schools taught trades like woodworking, machine operation. Do schools even have those programs anymore? So for a kid who knows he doesn't stand a chance in hell of going to college, where all the emphasis is, and his future will be locked into flipping burgers or maybe advancing by some community college to learn computer programming (highly competitive), where is the incentive to do well in high school?

 

[Gunny]

Why do people expect Obama to put his girls in public school? He can afford to send his children to a public school, and given his position as President, that's not a radical idea.

The other issue is that Obama is phasing out a bad idea program from the Bush administration that gives public education monies to private schools. Government funding of private schools brings with it government control – and the higher the level of government involved, the more serious the problem.


"Why Federal School Vouchers Are a Bad Idea" by Andrew J. Coulson (Cato Institute: Daily Commentary)

Who expects Obama to put his kids in public schools? It's the hypocrisy of his position as leader of the "little guy's" party behaving in elitist fashion that is the issue. If Democrats are so damned concerned about public education, as is a basic tenet of their platform, then put your money where your mouth is.

But no, you want to put MY money where your mouth is while you spend yours on something else. I have no problem with someone spending what they earn on what they want. I'm all for it.

I DO have a problem with them funding their ideas with my money and spending theirs on what they want.

Your second paragraph ignores the real issue. Why are there vouchers? obviously public education is lacking. The vouchers might be a band aid, but they're better than nothing. And nothing is what has so far been offered in place of vouchers.

 

[Gunny]

I'm really curious as to where it was written that just because someone has the means to avail themselves of private school, they can't care about public education.

There seems to be this faux outrage when people who have means actually care about policies that affect the public.

No more "faux" than your "outrage." If people using private schools were THAT concerned about public schools they'd be donating the money they spend on private schools to the public school system to make them better for EVERYONE, not just their own kids.

That in and of itself wouldn't be so bad if your political party didn't sell itself as the party of the little guy, the regular joe. Actions speak louder than words.

Actions speak louder than words. 95% of school voucher funds go to religious schools.

I agree with Obama's position on reversing the Bush Admn support of religious schools with government funds which violated First Amendment rights--separation of Church and state.

So? What percentage of private schools are religious?

I have to reassess my claim that MM's and sillybooboo's posts are the lamest. You just took the lead.

 

[Gunny]

McCain had it right--he was all for school vouchers & charter schools. Personally I wonder how many Einsteins we missed through lower income Americans being forced to keep their kids in failing inner city schools--"where it's COOl--to be stupid". Where the teachers are all of a sudden are babysisters--not educators.

Who opposed this plan? BARACK OBAMA. Why? Because he's a union man & by God the Teachers Union would never support him if he let loose & said every single child--no matter how poor deserves the opportunity for a good education--"if they're deserving of one".

Instead of lifting those kids that want to learn & are capable---he chose to keep those kids within the group that can't get through their 1-2-3's--& all for his own personal political purposes. The teachers union VOTE.

Yet, these nit-wit parents STILL can't figure out today--who is the party for education. UNBELIEVABLE IGNORANCE on their part.

Did McCain ever detail how new charter schools would get the seed money to get going? If they are currently all financially supported by foundations and/or anonymous doners, then why aren't they automatically opening more? Could it be that money to start even charter schools would need to be subsidized by the U.S. government?

Is McCain President? Why no, as a matter of fact ... ummm ... no.

 

[Sky Dancer]

Why do people expect Obama to put his girls in public school? He can afford to send his children to a public school, and given his position as President, that's not a radical idea.

The other issue is that Obama is phasing out a bad idea program from the Bush administration that gives public education monies to private schools. Government funding of private schools brings with it government control – and the higher the level of government involved, the more serious the problem.


"Why Federal School Vouchers Are a Bad Idea" by Andrew J. Coulson (Cato Institute: Daily Commentary)

Who expects Obama to put his kids in public schools? It's the hypocrisy of his position as leader of the "little guy's" party behaving in elitist fashion that is the issue. If Democrats are so damned concerned about public education, as is a basic tenet of their platform, then put your money where your mouth is.

But no, you want to put MY money where your mouth is while you spend yours on something else. I have no problem with someone spending what they earn on what they want. I'm all for it.

I DO have a problem with them funding their ideas with my money and spending theirs on what they want.

Your second paragraph ignores the real issue. Why are there vouchers? obviously public education is lacking. The vouchers might be a band aid, but they're better than nothing. And nothing is what has so far been offered in place of vouchers.

Obama is reversing Bush's bad decisions, that's why he won the election.

 

[MaggieMae]

[/QUOTE=Gunny]I'm not a Republican and I chose to live in one of the highest taxed school districts here to ensure my child went to one of the best high schools. That's a no-brainer, and I hardly think it has anything to do with political ideology; rather, good parenting and wanting what is best for your child. The latter being THE primary consideration at the time I bought my house.[/QUOTE]

Which goes to the subject title. Why wouldn't the Obamas want the best for their kids too? He will continue to advocate for better education and better opportunities for all kids, but in the meantime, the implication is that he should not be concerned about his own children and send them off to a lousy school just to be politically correct.