| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/22/2008 08:42:36 AM · #1 |
It's almost official. The first Kids will be attending Sidwell Friends School in NW Washington DC.
Nothing wrong with Sidwell Friends, from my days as an undergrad in DC I can say it had a great reputation where the children of the upper class and upper upper middle class went to escape the public schools. A great choice for those who can afford it ($25K ++ per year).
However, like most good Democrats, Barack is in the pocket of the NEA (National Education Association - not actually an "association" but the public school teachers UNION). Their position is against school vouchers in all cases. Therefore, Barack is beholden to that position and has affirmed that publically.
Hence, the great masses of Americans (unlike Barack and Michelle) who can not afford to pay for private schools are left with no choice for their kids except the local public school. Unfortunately, in many cases these schools are disfunctional at best, and as a former public school board member I can say with certainty run by a class of "educrats" for the primary benefit of the teachers, administrators and employees. Outside of primarily religious institutions, very few affordable private educational choices exist for the masses.
The one dilemna here that faces the Democrats, that I don't understand how it does not bubble up is the oppositional interst between 2 key constituencies of the party - The Teachers Union and African Americans. On the one hand the Teachers Union wants to maintain its monopoly on school jobs, on the other hand African Americans are disproportionately mired in the worst of those schools and would most likely flee them if given opportunity of choice and funding (Barack's soon to be neighbors living only blocks away). Clearly the union wins this battle within the Democratic party with the platform being lets just throw more money at them, as if that's the root of the problem.
So this is a small thing, but maybe we shouldn't let this just go. Barack should have to justify his choice here, because he will work to deny millions the same one. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 09:01:57 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by photodude:
I
So this is a small thing, but maybe we shouldn't let this just go. Barack should have to justify his choice here, because he will work to deny millions the same one. |
Physical security would have been impossible in a public school. It's not gonna be a cakewalk as it is.... |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 09:16:54 AM · #3 |
You'd think with all the death threats he's already received, terrorist threats, kidnappings that seem to have been on the rise you might have included security as a point in the OP, as to their decision. It's solid reason, enough for the choice in my mind.
Sixty days before the guy has even taken office and it seems like we're pretty quick to concoct...or convolute an issue to bog him down.
Message edited by author 2008-11-22 09:44:26. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 09:18:04 AM · #4 |
Security is often cited as the reason why politicians' kids go to private schools. It would be more difficult in public school, maybe (depends on the size of the school), but it is not impossible.
The fact is, though, is that most politicians' kids go to private school because they do (with exceptions on both sides) get a better education.
When I was teaching in public schools, and a member of the NEA, I remember a "push" for those at the national level to set an example and send their kids and grandkids to PS. Much scoffing and stonewalling on that one. It was eventually dropped, and I don't know if it was ever brought up.
So, yes, it is an "issue," but it is not a new issue by any measure. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 09:45:37 AM · #5 |
If Obama were white, would this be an issue?
Where did the Clinton kids go to school?
Bushes?
Why this is even brought up is puzzling to me. I smell something awful.
Cant wait to see the other stuff that will be dug up to show how Obama is different from past leaders. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 09:51:11 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Jac:
If Obama were white, would this be an issue?
Where did the Clinton kids go to school?
Bushes?
Why this is even brought up is puzzling to me. I smell something awful.
Cant wait to see the other stuff that will be dug up to show how Obama is different from past leaders. |
If you read my post, you will see ---
It doesn't matter what color he is.
The Clintons' and the Bushs' kids all went to private school.
He is NOT different from past leaders, thus the last line of my post, yes, it is an "issue," but it is not a new issue by any measure.
The issue, generally for democrats, is that they and the NEA are hugged up tight, but yet, even they won't go to the schools the NEA wants them to --despite pressure in teh past to do that and lead by example. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 10:00:59 AM · #7 |
There is a difference. Its not the color of his skin. It's his staunch support for the NEA and opposition to any other school alternatives involving choice.
As for security, why would the secret service have any issues at a public school that dont exist at a private school. You mean the kids might be in a public school where other students might bring weapons to school? OK for the other parents stuck there I guess. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 10:19:35 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by photodude:
As for security, why would the secret service have any issues at a public school that dont exist at a private school. You mean the kids might be in a public school where other students might bring weapons to school? OK for the other parents stuck there I guess. |
No. Some places are simply easier to keep secure and I assume The Friends School is set-up... has already handled situations or is very well versed in that matter.
To me it's obvious that a public school that has never handled students with such a high security risk would be turned upside down and then some by their presence. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 10:26:53 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by pawdrix:
Originally posted by photodude:
As for security, why would the secret service have any issues at a public school that dont exist at a private school. You mean the kids might be in a public school where other students might bring weapons to school? OK for the other parents stuck there I guess. |
No. Some places are simply easier to keep secure and I assume The Friends School is set-up... has already handled situations or is very well versed in that matter.
To me it's obvious that a public school that has never handled students with such a high security risk would be turned upside down and then some by their presence. |
Your assumption is wrong. Sidwell Friends is on Wisconson Ave, a major thoroughfare. Closing the road there is not an option. It is surrounded by other commercial properties and backs up on a residential neighborhood.
As for experience, Im sure that the Secret Service could provide appropriate security at any school.
Lets be honest here. Michelle and Barack dont want their kids going to school with kids of crack moms - they want their kids to flourish as do most parents. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 10:47:00 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by photodude:
[quote=pawdrix] [quote=photodude]
Lets be honest here. |
Let's be honest, you're nitpicking the guy because you don't like him and I'm sure you never will. If it wasn't this, you'd be nailing him for something else no matter which way the sword cuts.
Being on a major thoroughfare isn't an issue. The fact that the secret service and many other private security workers have been on those premises, with a smaller student body makes it easier to manage than a large public institution on a daily basis. The "crackmom" issue may or may not be true but you have him guilty of it pretty quick.
I'm sure between now and the end of his Presidency you will have him guilty of many things and motives beyond your actual knowledge.
As David Brooks said, "people love their lies" and he meant it both ways. Democrats love their lies as much as Republicans. I'm happy enough Americans see this stuff for what it is and voted to move away from the bullshit and try to work together.
Message edited by author 2008-11-23 08:23:47. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:06:50 AM · #11 |
Many (most?) private schools have financial assistance programs which allow kids from a range of income levels to attend.
I'm pretty sure the NEA is not against private schools, per se, but most likely against taking money away from already-underfunded public schools to give to schools which offer religious instruction, one of the major arguments against most voucher programs. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:09:19 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Lets be honest here. Michelle and Barack dont want their kids going to school with kids of crack moms ... |
Let's be honest here -- to characterize all of DC's maternal parents as using cocaine is the worst form of bigoted stereotyping.
Message edited by author 2008-11-22 11:09:40. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:12:40 AM · #13 |
You can argue whether public schools are overfunded (certainly on Long Island NY where I live) or underfunded. That's not my point. Any funding that would go with kids leaving the public system should reduce their expenses as well as they would have fewer students to teach.
My point is that Barack does not want anyone except the rich and powerful to have any choice. Yet he exercises his choice because he can. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:23:57 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Many (most?) private schools have financial assistance programs which allow kids from a range of income levels to attend.
I'm pretty sure the NEA is not against private schools, per se, but most likely against taking money away from already-underfunded public schools to give to schools which offer religious instruction, one of the major arguments against most voucher programs. |
Actually, the NEA takes a pretty strong stand against any and all forms of non-public instruction. Their motto is "Great public schools for every child," and their mission statement also only deals with public education.
The "primary" reason is the whole money thing, but you don't have to be a member long, or read much on their website to see that another strong reason is that they want a lot of control (them, as a union, and governmental) over education -- not just public education. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:27:46 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by photodude:
You can argue whether public schools are overfunded (certainly on Long Island NY where I live) or underfunded. That's not my point. Any funding that would go with kids leaving the public system should reduce their expenses as well as they would have fewer students to teach. |
That's simply not the case -- it costs the same to (for example) heat a school whether there are few or many students; a teacher costs the same whether teaching a class of two or twenty-two; a school bus costs the same to run a route whether it picks up three or thirty kids. That's why the current funding system for (most) public schools based on daily attendance is so stupid.
Rich people have all kinds of choices poor people don't have -- say, you think we can start a program so I can get a government voucher to upgrade my bus pass to a Ferrari? |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:30:04 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by photodude:
You can argue whether public schools are overfunded (certainly on Long Island NY where I live) or underfunded. That's not my point. Any funding that would go with kids leaving the public system should reduce their expenses as well as they would have fewer students to teach. |
That's simply not the case -- it costs the same to (for example) heat a school whether there are few or many students; a teacher costs the same whether teaching a class of two or twenty-two; a school bus costs the same to run a route whether it picks up three or thirty kids. That's why the current funding system for (most) public schools based on daily attendance is so stupid.
Rich people have all kinds of choices poor people don't have -- say, you think we can start a program so I can get a government voucher to upgrade my bus pass to a Ferrari? |
Fewer students mean fewer or smaller buildings, fewer sections etc. There are breakpoints to all growth and consolidation in almost anything but in the big picture the general ratios hold. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:32:26 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Many (most?) private schools have financial assistance programs which allow kids from a range of income levels to attend.
I'm pretty sure the NEA is not against private schools, per se, but most likely against taking money away from already-underfunded public schools to give to schools which offer religious instruction, one of the major arguments against most voucher programs. |
Actually, the NEA takes a pretty strong stand against any and all forms of non-public instruction. Their motto is "Great public schools for every child," and their mission statement also only deals with public education. |
Well, that might be an area where I differ -- though I haven't read that through carefully yet. Also, do you know if the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) differs or is in sync with the NEA?
You can look at it as an issue of "control" or one of "quality control" -- as long as private scools exist, there will be an excuse to allow some public schools to fall below the highest standards. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:47:13 AM · #18 |
The mission of the American Federation of Teachers, AFL-CIO, is to improve the lives of our members and their families, to give voice to their legitimate professional, economic and social aspirations, to strengthen the institutions in which we work, to improve the quality of the services we provide, to bring together all members to assist and support one another and to promote democracy, human rights and freedom in our union, in our nation and throughout the world.
The AFT differs primarily in that while they do not support vouchers, they recognize the parents' right to choose religious or private education. The NEA does not.
As far as quality control, ordinarily I wouldn't argue with that, but my experience, especially at the state level, is that the NEA (or NCAE, the state branch for me) wanted to define the "quality" that was expected or needed and totally ignored local autonomy of the schools. Goals, procedures, expectations for students in the Charlotte-Meck system are vastly different than those in rural Madison County.
The unfortunate situation is that with vouchers or not, the rich systems (Charlotee-Meck) have a lot, and the rural systems like Madison just had to make do. Yet, while they continually lobby against the vouchers to keep the money out of private schools, it doesn't seem like they do a whole heck of a lot to address the inequality existing in the current structure of public schools. |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 12:11:49 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by karmat:
The unfortunate situation is that with vouchers or not, the rich systems (Charlotee-Meck) have a lot, and the rural systems like Madison just had to make do. Yet, while they continually lobby against the vouchers to keep the money out of private schools, it doesn't seem like they do a whole heck of a lot to address the inequality existing in the current structure of public schools. |
Well, we all know how well a call to "spread the wealth around" goes over ... |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 06:52:27 PM · #20 |
| But the real issue isnt about spread the wealth. Isn't it about being willing to live with the same rules/conditions that you would impose on others? Since he doesn't want the vast majority of Americans to have any educational choice, shouldn't Barack live by those standards and send his children to the public school? |
|
|
|
11/22/2008 07:20:03 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by photodude:
But the real issue isnt about spread the wealth. Isn't it about being willing to live with the same rules/conditions that you would impose on others? Since he doesn't want the vast majority of Americans to have any educational choice, shouldn't Barack live by those standards and send his children to the public school? |
On the surface it looks as if he's being a hypocrite but we don't know all of the issues involved in their decision. Did his kids go to a public school before he became president? If they did then that would tell me Obama is trying to live by those standards and that becoming president is forcing his hand. Lets face it President of the United States isn't like any other job in the country or in the world for that matter.
Message edited by author 2008-11-22 19:21:31.
|
|
|
|
11/22/2008 11:10:25 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by photodude:
But the real issue isnt about spread the wealth. Isn't it about being willing to live with the same rules/conditions that you would impose on others? Since he doesn't want the vast majority of Americans to have any educational choice, shouldn't Barack live by those standards and send his children to the public school? |
If indeed your suggestion were to be considered at their fullest, then the President of the USA could take public transit to go to work and his kids would mingle with all the rest of the "normal" folks.
The reality is that these individuals are the focus of attention to a great number of people, not all of which harbour good intentions.
Surely you can understand that there are a myriad of mitigating factors that come into play when decisions of this nature are made, and security is right up there as a factor that warrants serious consideration.
Ray |
|
|
|
11/23/2008 12:07:23 AM · #23 |
This is absolutely ridiculous. IMO anyone who would even CONSIDER making an issue out of POTUS sending his kids to a private school is totally out of touch with reality. Would you criticize POTUS and FLOTUS if they hired tutors and home-schooled the kids? Why? The issue here is safety/protection, plain and simple. Secret Service would have a cow if the Obama kids were enrolled in DC public schools, sheesh.
I'd go even further and say anyone who thinks rich folks are being hypocritical if they are against vouchers and yet send their own kids to private schools doesn't have a logical leg to stand on. Have we denatured our society so far that we criticize folks for spending their money in whatever way they choose? 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.
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 12:23:40 AM · #24 |
Money talks.
The Teachers Union has it, inner city residents and minorities do not.
Look at the NFL. The officials have been making bad calls all over the place. A week or so ago the Steelers 'lose' a touchdown in the last seconds of the game. The officials say it is, then it's not, then it is, and finally, no it's not. The league says yeah it should have been a touchdown.
So what?
The NFL changed the rules on how officials look at plays, review wise. No long talk, no deliberations, no votes. It's just changed.
Why so fast? Simple. Money. The point spread got changed from 7 or 8 to 1. The gamblers made a stink and the rules got modified.
Money talks.
I can't say public schools are bad - my son is doing wonderful - based on my recollections of what I could do at his age/grade level -and I went to Catholic (as in private) schools. And that's a place where there is influence - the kids whose parents are active in the school/church, give money, etc get away with more than the 'poor' kids. So I can't say private school are the answer.
Would vouchers create competition and 'fix' the issue? Every 'fix' has side effects. The parents that care would move their kids - what would be left would be the worst of the worst - then what?
|
|
|
|
11/23/2008 12:45:53 AM · #25 |
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.) |
|
