DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Rant >> Obama's Kids Avoid The NEA Monopoly
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 34 of 34, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/23/2008 07:38:02 AM · #26
Why does the personal security issue keep coming up here. Does anyone really believe that the Secret Service will be unable to secure Stevens Elementary or Francis Junior High? Or that Sidwell Friends will be more secure? If you believe that, please tell us why.

Its hard to fathom that the Secret Service can not secure any school that Michelle and Barack choose to send their kids to. On the assumption that security is not the real issue, then let's explore the other possible reasons behind the decision. What could they be?
 11/23/2008 08:55:42 AM · #27
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To say that there's an argument to be made that the voucher system will be bad for public education and, by extension, America's youth is NOT the same as saying private schools should not exist at all...
R.


However, that is almost exactly what the NEA, who are traditionally huge supporters of anything democratic, says. As I pointed out earlier, there has, in the past, been pressure (by the NEA) on the legislators to "lead by example" and put their kids in public school.

It very rarely happens, though.

(Just for the record, if I were Obama, I would definitely not send my child to public school.)

Karmat, I'm also a teacher and NEA member. Where are you getting the idea that the NEA stands against the existence of private schools. That's just ludicrous. Show me anywhere that they take that stand. They take a stance against using public funding for private schools, but I have never heard anything coming out of the NEA against the existence of private schools.
 11/23/2008 09:07:05 AM · #28
Originally posted by JMart:
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
To say that there's an argument to be made that the voucher system will be bad for public education and, by extension, America's youth is NOT the same as saying private schools should not exist at all...
R.


However, that is almost exactly what the NEA, who are traditionally huge supporters of anything democratic, says. As I pointed out earlier, there has, in the past, been pressure (by the NEA) on the legislators to "lead by example" and put their kids in public school.

It very rarely happens, though.

(Just for the record, if I were Obama, I would definitely not send my child to public school.)

Karmat, I'm also a teacher and NEA member. Where are you getting the idea that the NEA stands against the existence of private schools. That's just ludicrous. Show me anywhere that they take that stand. They take a stance against using public funding for private schools, but I have never heard anything coming out of the NEA against the existence of private schools.


The stance against public funding for private schools means that private schools (i.e. school choice) is limited to the wealthy or those who are seeking/willing to accept religious schools which are usually subsidized. The poor, middle class and even much of the upper middle class can not afford to pay anywhere near in tuition what the public schools get per capita.
 11/23/2008 09:10:40 AM · #29
Originally posted by photodude:
Why does the personal security issue keep coming up here. Does anyone really believe that the Secret Service will be unable to secure Stevens Elementary or Francis Junior High? Or that Sidwell Friends will be more secure? If you believe that, please tell us why.

Its hard to fathom that the Secret Service can not secure any school that Michelle and Barack choose to send their kids to. On the assumption that security is not the real issue, then let's explore the other possible reasons behind the decision. What could they be?

I'd say the number one reason is this: The Obamas decided on a school that they thought would be best for their children. End of story. They have money, can afford a private school, and here in the US we call using your own money in that fashion "choice".

We can debate the issue of things like school vouchers on their own merits, but since Obama is not advocating forced attendance at public schools and has never taken a stance for the abolition of private schools, there is nothing hypocritical about using his personal money for his family as he sees fit.
 11/23/2008 09:19:16 AM · #30
Couldn't it be hypocritical if the tax funding is there and he chooses to only allow one group to benefit from it and provide the services? He is effectively saying that unless you are wealthy, you can't opt out and therefore really have no choice - except in theory.

I understand his stance politically, all politicians are beholden special interests and the NEA/teachers unions are one of his. But if he is going to "lead" then he should do so by example. It's not about his right to make the choice and spend his money, it's about what is right to do. If you make the bed, sleep in it.
 11/23/2008 09:47:46 AM · #31
Originally posted by photodude:
Couldn't it be hypocritical if the tax funding is there and he chooses to only allow one group to benefit from it and provide the services? He is effectively saying that unless you are wealthy, you can't opt out and therefore really have no choice - except in theory.

Uh, hate to burst your bubble, but even with vouchers you can only opt out if you have enough money to pay for the difference between vouchers and the private tuition and you have transportation available to get to the school (yes, I know this is not a problem in areas with good public transit). So, even with vouchers there is a class difference for who will have choice.
Originally posted by photodude:

I understand his stance politically, all politicians are beholden special interests and the NEA/teachers unions are one of his. But if he is going to "lead" then he should do so by example. It's not about his right to make the choice and spend his money, it's about what is right to do. If you make the bed, sleep in it.

So, shouldn't a president also have to live in standard public housing if he's not willing to give people vouchers to rent/own a private place? Your logic that policy makers should have to use the same systems as the poorest Americans is rather strange. Fortunately for Obama's girls, what is best for them trumps appeasing conservative criticism. I would have NO respect for the family values of someone who sacrificed what he thought was best for his children to win some political points.
 11/23/2008 08:48:49 PM · #32
The basis of your argument appears to be that you pay school taxes to cover the cost of sending your kid(s) to public school and that if you choose to send your children to private school you should be able to use the school taxes you pay to cover some of the cost of private school.

If that isn't right, feel free to correct.

The problem with that argument is you don't pay school taxes to send your kids to school. If this were the case then people with no kids that buy homes in your community shouldn't have to pay any school taxes.

At least here in Texas, every homeowner pays school taxes. Singles, empty nesters, and young couples with no children or even plans to have children all pay school taxes.

Home owners are levied school taxes to fund the public schools for all that live in the community. The assumption is that the community is financially responsible for providing a quality education to the children of the community. The rational is that we as a people desire an educated populous and potential workforce.

If you choose to send your children to private schools, that does not absolve you from your responsibility to the community for the privilege of buying a home in the community.

You can argue the validity of such a system, but that is the system.

11/23/2008 09:36:42 PM · #33
Seems like Home Schooling would be more advantageous for the Obama kids (less kids per teacher)... and cheaper for the Secret Service (the American Public) to front.

I did it for twelve years, still paid the school taxes AND my four kids' schooling... and protected them myself.

I do realize that protecting the President's children is a bit more of a task... but the White House is a bit different than my home.

Message edited by author 2008-11-23 21:38:14.
 11/23/2008 09:45:38 PM · #34
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
Seems like Home Schooling would be more advantageous for the Obama kids (less kids per teacher)... and cheaper for the Secret Service (the American Public) to front.

I did it for twelve years, still paid the school taxes AND my four kids' schooling... and protected them myself.

I do realize that protecting the President's children is a bit more of a task... but the White House is a bit different than my home.

Yes, that thought crossed my mind too. Of course, home schooling often involves cooperative efforts with other home schoolers in part to give the kids others to socialize & work with. It could help those girls have a slightly more normal childhood to have a regular school day with other children.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 08:43:47 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/27/2025 08:43:47 AM EDT.