News-Record.com

I can't really fault Obama here. If I were paying what he's paying for that fancy private school, I wouldn't want the riff-raff invading--and on the public dime--either.

I agree, Brian. Can you imagine the security that would be needed to protect a President's children in a public school. Get real, Robert.

Problem is, Carol, that Obama also showed "little faith" in public schools prior to when the (whew, thank goodness I wasn't pressed on it before and now I've got an excuse) dad's-the-president argument became the reason.

http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/operations/registrar/tuition.shtml

I dare say the Obama daughters didn't have the first bit of personal security there prior to the campaign.

April '09:

"Tuition totaled $47,488 for Malia and Sasha at the University of Chicago Laboratory School."

http://www.suntimes.com/news/sweet/1530003,obama-income-tax-filings-041609.article

Obama "got real" by showing that he viewed public school teachers as too incompetent to educate his children long before Robert wrote his LTE.

The obvious answer is to give more money to the public schools.

The national average $$ amount spent per student in public school was $9138 in 2006. DC was third highest after NY & NJ at $13,446.

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/releases/archives/education/011747.html

Over $13K per kid and the DC schools are still, using the authors term, "absolutely horrendous"?

What parents wouldn't want to take that dough and get their kids the hell out of there?

Professor Terguson: You remember that thing we had about 30 years ago called the Korean conflict? And how we failed to achieve victory? How come we didn't cross the 38th parallel and push those rice-eaters back to the Great Wall of China?
Professor Terguson: [rips a desk apart] Then take the fucking wall apart
[shouts]
Professor Terguson: brick by brick and nuke them back into the fucking stone age forever? Tell me why! How come? Say it! Say it!
Thornton Melon: [incensed] All right. I'll say it. 'Cause Truman was too much of a *pussy wimp* to let MacArthur go in there
[shouts]
Thornton Melon: and blow out those Commie bastards!
Professor Terguson: Good answer. Good answer. I like the way you think. I'm gonna be watching you.
Thornton Melon: [chuckling to his classmates] Good teacher. He really seems to care. About what I have no idea.

The D.C. public schoolsystem is a perfect example of what leftist politics produces when applied for generations. So, for that matter, is the Chicago school system. Or the school system of any large city that has been governed by Democrats for decades.

The problem is not money, it is the dysfunctional culture brought about by subsidizing illegitimacy, and all the resulting social pathologies. The law of unintended consequences strikes again!

Notable recent comment by Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Cato Institute's Center for Educational Freedom:

"...we’ve been lavishing huge amounts of money on a government monopoly inherently incapable of meaningful improvement. If we ever want better than that, we must completely change the structure of American education, leaving behind our Soviet-style system and replacing it with a vibrant market like we have for computers, grocery stores, courier services, and almost every other good and service we take for granted every day. We need universal school choice, and we need it now."

Having spent my undergraduate days in D.C., I know how terribly bad the public schools are. In the late 70s and early 80s, the DC schools had a terrible reputation. They have gone through countless superintendents. At one point, a retired Army officer was given the task of directing the school system. He couldn’t undo the damage. That being said, why should the Obamas gamble on their children’s education? Sure, they sent their children to private school in Chicago. The Chicago public schools are probably worse than the DC schools. My wife and I have friends in Chicago who have moved heaven and earth to finance their children’s private school education (Catholic schools), rather than risk their children being educated in Chicago’s public schools. As a matter of fact, you have to test in order to get into the better Chicago public high schools. If you don’t, you are left to wallow in the second and lower tier schools.

The Obamas are no different than the Gores and the Clintons, both of which sent their children to the same private school that the Obama girls now attend. The parents of DC schoolchildren are the ones who should be leading the fight to fix their schools, and up to this point, they have not been vocal enough to bring about any real changes in the schools. Hopefully, the new DC school superintendent, Michelle Rhee, will bring about drastic changes to an inept and bloated system. Money in the form of vouchers shouldn’t be taken from the budgets of public schools. The public schools should be made to be better.

conundrum;

the problem is not that Obama sends his girls to private school, but that he denies other, poorer children, the same advantage by doing away with the voucher system. He did so because the teacher's union hates the voucher system, and they are one of Obama's biggest backers. He can't afford to offend them, thus he did real harm to children in the interest of his own political future. He doesn't give a tinker's dam about those children if they don't help his career.

Do you really think that "poorer" children will benefit from the voucher system...Middle and Upper Class families will use the vouchers, making the public schools suffer even more. I know people who home school their kids and do without the mom's salary, I know people who work extra hours to send their kids to private schools. It is a matter of parental choice. As you all should know by now...we are not all created equal.

"This is why these 'investigations' being called for by the bottom rung democrats in the house will never see the light of day."

What will the other memos say neo? How effective torture was? How many Dems knew about it? Who cares?

Do they have memo from God that says torture isn't immoral or despicable?

clearly, the previous post was meant for another letter. sorry.

"The parents of DC schoolchildren are the ones who should be leading the fight to fix their schools, and up to this point, they have not been vocal enough to bring about any real changes in the schools."

You just illustrated that the DC schools haven't changed for the better in 30 years, why should we expect change now?

I illustrated that the DC ranks 3rd in spending per pupil nationwide, so we know even more money isn't the answer.

Frankly I don't blame the Obama's or anyone who can afford to send their children to private schools or home school to do so, but I wouldn't mind you answering sawdust's question. It is a valid one.

School Vouchers have never seemed consistent with general conservative ideology to me. Now, I realize that your beliefs don't have to be consistent...I just find it odd that conservatives seem to widely support the idea of subsidizing private education. While it certainly fits with the idea that freer and more choice will automatically pick the 'best' schools and close the 'worst,' it grinds against the 'work hard and earn it' notion that so often is presented to me, that is, unless this is a 'for the children' shtick, but then again, conservatives balk at that line.

I guess I'm just confused.

The socialists don't want an education system that educates in this country. The socialist hierarchy (like the little messiah) doesn't want their base to understand civics and American history. They'd never get elected.

Obama's Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, served for seven years as Chicago's CEO for education. In each of these 7 years, education in Chicago improved. I hope Mr. Duncan brings similar improvement to the nation as a whole.

"Obama's Education Secretary, Arne Duncan, served for seven years as Chicago's CEO for education. In each of these 7 years, education in Chicago improved. I hope Mr. Duncan brings similar improvement to the nation as a whole."

You may want to reread conundrum's post, and conundrum isn't what I'd consider a conservative:

"My wife and I have friends in Chicago who have moved heaven and earth to finance their children’s private school education (Catholic schools), rather than risk their children being educated in Chicago’s public schools. As a matter of fact, you have to test in order to get into the better Chicago public high schools. If you don’t, you are left to wallow in the second and lower tier schools."

Perhaps Arne Duncan will give the entire nation the DC and Chicago model and give us "similar improvement".

I didn't say they were great, perfect, or ideal, Dan. I said they'd been improving (you know, getting better) for 7 years, all under Arne Duncan. I'm sure they have a long way to go, but Duncan has set them on the right path and I hope he does as much for the nation.

You can't blame the guy for problems that were there when he started. Clearly, they were numerous. He's not a miracle worker...miracles are to be suspected. He gave Chicago steady improvement.

rahrah; let me help you out. What conservatives (this conservative, at least) stand for are results. And saving money (taxpayers' money and our private money). The private school system is what we call a twofer; results and cheaper costs. Plus, conservatives realize that 6 decades or so of leftist "improvements" have made a Mongolian cluster-fuck of our public schools, mainly by promoting the ridiculous notion of self-esteem over self-respect. It's almost impossible to fire a poor teacher if they belong to a union, doubly so if it is a black female. Conservatives, unlike liberals, realize the value of a good education, so why wouldn't we support vouchers?

Careful, rahrah:
"I said they'd been improving (you know, getting better) for 7 years, all under Arne Duncan. I'm sure they have a long way to go, but Duncan has set them on the right path and I hope he does as much for the nation."

Sept. 2007
http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2007/sep/26/news/chi-naep_26sep26

"Illinois made dramatic changes to its state exams two years ago, giving students more time to complete tests and lowering the passing bar on the 8th-grade math exam."

More from another source:

"Since 2001, when Duncan assumed control of the schools, the graduation rate has risen 8 percentage points to 55 percent, and the collegebound rate improved from 2004 to 2008—from 44 percent to 50 percent. Proficiency rates for elementary students are also up, from 38 percent to 65 percent. There is some disagreement, however, over whether state tests became easier after a redesign."

http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/2009/02/03/arne-duncan-the-lesson-plan-for-education.html

Hooray for Arne "lowering the passing bar" in order to get the numbers up. Awesome. Surely that strategy won't hurt students in the long run, and I can hardly wait until he does the same for the nation. I suspect the authority will come tied to the strings of the "stimulus" money...

Good thing he played b-ball with Obama in Chicago. Wait, sorry, I meant to type "was the best person for the position in the entire U.S."

"Hooray for Arne "lowering the passing bar" in order to get the numbers up."

I don't have a lot of time to respond...so, I'll just say, by my reading, it wasn't Arne that changed the test, although it appears to, at the least, aided in his success. This seems to be the one thing I didn't think to examine before posting.

...but I have to go take an exam, then finish a project, then take another exam and sleep at some point, so, please, if you see me back here today, at least with a more than a one line post, scold me.

Sawdust:

Your claims that private schools are a "twofer: results and cheaper costs" holds little merit. First of all, private schools cost more to operate than public schools. This is a fact when they offer the same level of programs. Secondly, private schools tend to enroll students from affluent backgrounds, hence their supposed better performance. If you enroll only top students in most public schools, they will do just as well.
There are good and bad private schools, as well.

I do support a voucher system, so long as the voucher goes only to schools that do not charge more tuition than the voucher value in an attempt to keep out less affluent students or otherwise exclude underprivileged children. If you want to send your kids to an elite school, don't ask the taxpayers to foot the bill.

An educated populace and workforce is a benefit to society that far outweighs the costs.