Obama Girls Benefit from Private School

[catzmeow]

Except I voted for Obama. I'm not an Obama-hater, but I'm sure that helps the koolaid drinkers on the left dismiss this issue, rather than thinking about it in real terms.

The weighted pupil unit in the district, per student, is close to $7k. The voucher program allows DC parents who can't afford to send their kids to private schools to opt out of the failing public school system that already rakes in virtually the same amount, annually, as the vouchers, to educate kids.

So, why would Obama cut a program that allows poor parents to make the same choice to opt out of a failing/unsafe school that he did? Because it pisses off the teacher's union, that's why.

 

[Luissa]

Didn't Clinton do the same thing? Talk big about public education then send his kid to an elite private school. Left hypocrisy. It's so easy to talk the talk, much harder to walk the walk.

FWIW, the kids will have Secret Service protection no matter what school they go to, so that argument is out the window.

most high profile politicians send their children to private school especially if they are President due to security reasons and most of the other children who attend these private schools are used to these sort of situations. Most of the kids who attend private school in DC have parents in the same line of work and understand the interruption that might happen to the school envirnment if say the presidents children attend school with them. Plus not to mention the more privacy a private school would have.
And as for talking about the importance of public school, they understand the most american can't afford private school and are not the president's children but still deserve to have better funded schools.

 

[DamnYankee]

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 is, 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."

That's why advocating school choice is so ludicrous on its face. There aren't enough Triple A schools to accommodate all the students who wish for a better education than the one they're getting. Most of the private schools are too expensive. Build more schools? The JUST SAY NO BRIGADE doesn't want that to happen either, with federal funding, and states can't afford it.

Obama doesn't want his children attending public school because the quality of education is so low, especially in DC. Why wouldn't he send them to a private school? Anyone would, if they could. It's a no-brainer.

Naturally.... He merely advocates for CHANGE, and the "little people" WAIT for it to happen!

Obama on standardized testing:
“I will provide funds for states to implement a broader range of assessments that can evaluate higher-order skills, including students’ abilities to use technology, conduct research, engage in scientific investigation, solve problems, present and defend their ideas,” says Obama.

Obama on school choice:
“We need to invest in our public schools and strengthen them, not drain their fiscal support,” he says. “In the end, vouchers would reduce the options available to children in need. I fear these children would truly be left behind in a private market system.” Obama is more open to charter schools working within the public school system, calling them “important innovators” which improve healthy competition among public schools. However, Obama says there need to be strong accountability measures in place.

Obama on NCLB:
“Particularly at a time when our nation is facing a shortage in teachers due to retirement and retention problems, it is important to ensure that we can attract, support, and retain high-quality teachers,” he says. How does Obama propose we do this? By experimenting with alternative preparation, mentoring and professional development programs, in addition to providing fresh incentives for serving high-need schools. Specifically, he plans to provide funding for 200 new Teacher Residency Programs, an idea he introduced in the Senate last year. In these programs, individuals completing coursework for teacher certification could serve as apprentices in the classrooms of veteran teachers, as long as they pledged at least three years of service in the sponsoring district.

Obama on Improvements to Science, Math and Technology Education
Recruit High Quality Math and Science Teachers
Focus on Science Instruction
Test Skills, not Facts



Obama has tallied the expenses for his education plan at a cool $18 billion. Wondering where he’ll get the money? According to his campaign web site, he plans to delay a NASA project for five years, auction surplus federal property, close tax loopholes for executives, and use “a small portion of the savings associated with fighting the war in Iraq,” among other sources.

This is all part and parcel of Obama’s “historic commitment” to education. The president-elect will need to address many challenging issues, education chief among them, when he steps into office next January. Whether Americans will see Obama's education platform promises become realties, only time will tell.

Barack Obama on Education


The clock is ticking....

 

[elvis]

Again, instead of offering real solutions to our economy and to our country, the Republicans just attack everyone else. This IS the party of no. The party of no more elections... as in the Republicans will never be elected to the White House again.

Wake up and wipe yourself off.

 

[elvis]

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 is, 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."

What makes you think it's Barack's decision to send the kids to private? Maybe Michelle made it. I have no problem with the obamas sending the kids to to the best school possible. I commend him for putting his kids before politics.
Before you think I am "drinking the kool aid" this about the third issue I have defended Obama on. I voted for McCain.

 

[Luissa]

Except I voted for Obama. I'm not an Obama-hater, but I'm sure that helps the koolaid drinkers on the left dismiss this issue, rather than thinking about it in real terms.

The weighted pupil unit in the district, per student, is close to $7k. The voucher program allows DC parents who can't afford to send their kids to private schools to opt out of the failing public school system that already rakes in virtually the same amount, annually, as the vouchers, to educate kids.

So, why would Obama cut a program that allows poor parents to make the same choice to opt out of a failing/unsafe school that he did? Because it pisses off the teacher's union, that's why.

like I stated before why don't they take the 12 million or more dollars of tax dollars they are sending to a private organization and spend it on improving the schools that are unsafe and failing?

 

[KittenKoder]

Public education is the crux of the US, has been and always will be. We need it for those who live with parents that cannot afford private schools and no one who went ever really remembers what it was like well enough to truly fix the problems. The end result, throwing more money at it and a lot of bickering.

The reality of the situation is this, to fix it us adults need to go back to school first. The teachers are whining about not being paid enough even though most are trying to dictate the curriculum based on their own personal beliefs, which ultimately dumbs down the students. Then the approved curriculum is often lacking in advancement, and more recently challenge. Kids need guidance and wisdom yes, but that's the parents job, what the schools should be doing is challenging them, not in the form of test taking but encouraging them to expand their knowledge through exploration and let them ask questions. Don't just shove information down their throats and expect them to learn from it, learning doesn't work that way. I got kicked out of many classes for questioning the teacher, and I know many probably have as well, that isn't teaching in any way.

Obama has a few good points, sometimes he's right but usually because he is parroting something someone else has already stated. We need the public schools to focus more on science and technology. They cannot just be disbanded, at this point in time there is no way to implement a better system. But one thing too many people are still ******* up, we do NOT need to throw more money at the problem.

 

[editec]

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?

 

[KittenKoder]

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?

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.

 

[Ravi]

It would be too much of a burden on a public school to have two girls that must be guarded by the secret service...not to mention it would endanger the rest of the kids in the school.

 

[raceright]

He's the ******* idiot president.

There, I fixed that for ya Sealy. Have a nice weekend.

He is not a idiot,his kids are in private school and not in the sewer,drop out,, no accountability,union run,teacher first,,raise our budjet so teachers have more, democratic party RUN one sided SCHOOL SYSTEM. The very expensive public schools do more harm to the supposed free thinking, freedom first country we are to be than all other enemies we have or have ever had.

 

[Agnapostate]

This business is actually a bit dated, but still relevant. Firstly, since broad policy approaches cannot be reduced to individual economic agents, criticism of Obama's alleged hypocrisy is a bit off the mark, and is similar to the sneering rightist suggesting that the advocate of progressive taxation send in extra money or that the socialist start a commune with his friends. Somewhat amusingly, the only relevance that his personal actions can have to broad policy approaches is the avoidance of accusations of hypocrisy, which would then grant him a greater ability to appear an honest and consistent public leader and thereby generate support for his preferred policies.

Regardless of all that, there is a rational interest in pursuing the existence of equality of opportunity, and the establishment of voucher programs typically act contrary to that goal, as affirmed by examination of the empirical literature. For instance, examination of Levin's Educational Vouchers: Effectiveness, Choice, and Costs makes the point well. Consider the abstract:

Most of the policy discussion on the effects of educational vouchers has been premised on theoretical or ideological positions rather than evidence. This article analyzes a substantial body of recent empirical evidence on achievement differences between public and private schools; on who chooses and its probable impact on educational equity; and on the comparative costs of public and private schools and an overall voucher system. The findings indicate that: (1) results among numerous studies suggest no difference or only a slight advantage for private schools over public schools in student achievement for a given student, but evidence of substantially higher rates of graduation, college attendance, and college graduation for Catholic high school students; (2) evidence is consistent that educational choice leads to greater socioeconomic (SES) and racial segregation of students; and (3) evidence does not support the contention that costs of private schools are considerably lower than those of public schools, but the costs of an overall voucher infrastructure appear to exceed those of the present system.

Few are rational, unfortunately; it's much more popular to be openly and proudly irrational if it supports the appropriate political ideology.

 

[editec]

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?

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.

ARe you under the impression that teacher make more money who work in private schools which cost vast fortures?

They don't you know...not typically.

What IS different are the resources that teachers typically have to work with in those private schools.

I've worked as a teacher in both public and private schools. I made much more money working in the public schools, FWTW.

The largest difference between public and private is generally the educator to student ratios.

Of course, the schools themselves and the quality of life in them are also very different.

For example, most truly great private prep schools are also residential schools designed to give those student every advantage and motivation to work hard and achieve.

That's not typically of what most public school kids are working with, either is it?

 

[SpidermanTuba]

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 ******* 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.

 

[Agnapostate]

If D.C. was legitimately "governed by the U.S. Congress," one might think that they'd have a voting representative.

I'd imagine that would be struck down by the current SCOTUS, however.

 

[DamnYankee]

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 ******* 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.

If D.C. was legitimately "governed by the U.S. Congress," one might think that they'd have a voting representative.

I'd imagine that would be struck down by the current SCOTUS, however.

Maybe they are being governed by the POTUS himself.... Ya think?

 

[Agnapostate]

Uh...I didn't say they weren't.

 

[jillian]

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.

 

[DamnYankee]

Uh...I didn't say they weren't.

I know you didn't. Just following up on your line in hopes of helping Spidey see the point....

 

[DamnYankee]

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).