# Obama Girls Benefit from Private School



## catzmeow (May 8, 2009)

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."


----------



## catzmeow (May 8, 2009)

More on this...



> Mercedes Campbell is one of the 1,700 students in the Washington, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, a school-voucher program authorized by Congress in 2004. The program gives students up to $7,500 to attend whatever school their parents choose. For kids like Mercedes, who now attends Georgetown Visitation Prep, the DC voucher program is a way out of one of the worst school districts in the country.
> 
> "It's different, now that I go to Visitation," says Mercedes. "I approach things differently. It's like a whole new world, basically."
> 
> ...


Hit & Run > Reason.tv: Barack Obama & The DC School Voucher Program&mdash;The president says he wants to do "what's best for kids." So why won't he save a proven program that helps low-income students? - Reason Magazine

There's a word for what Obama did to his DC constituents:  betrayal.


----------



## sealybobo (May 8, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



He's the fucking president idiot.  And when you make the kind of money the Messiah makes, you too can send your kids to private schools.

The difference is, you want us to pay for your kids to go to a private school that discriminates and probably doesn't pay taxes like Churches don't.  Fuck that.  You want to send your little kids to private school, pay for it.

Remember, people like you fought universal education, just like now you fight against universal healthcare.  Am I right?  Now you realize that you aren't a Republican.  If you really were, you wouldn't have a problem affording private school.

So you are voting outside of your tax bracket.  Stop that.  Then maybe public schools will be better funded and your kids will do better.

PS.  Public schools are better than private anyways.  Don't raise a bunch of private school pussies.


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

Interesting, but did you realize that if the DC school district offered $7500.00 to every student there wouldn't even be enough money in their budget for even half of the students?

Who would get the money?

I suppose they could give every student $3000.00. Think there are any private schools with a tuition cost of $3000.00?


----------



## Yurt (May 8, 2009)

i really don't care where his kids go to school....but it is hypocritical to point to republicans or mccain and proclaim, they're out of touch with the common people and then send your kids to the elite of the elite private schools...


----------



## DavidS (May 8, 2009)

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.


----------



## wihosa (May 8, 2009)

Can private schools provide a better education than public schools? Of course and that is why those that can afford a private education will continue to to do so. 

The idea that the Obama's should sent their kids to public school with all the inherent issues of safety and security to the First children is just so much blather.

This is really just a cover for those that want to destroy public education.


----------



## DamnYankee (May 8, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> He's the fucking president idiot.




Ummm.... You know something that we don't? Or do you have your Presidents confused?


----------



## DamnYankee (May 8, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



*Barack Obama on Education*

 Americans voted in Barack Hussein Obama as president of the United States in an election weighted down with the harsh realities of a down-turning economy and two costly wars. Now that the dust is beginning to settle, many Americans are wondering what the new president will do to improve their children's education.

Throughout his campaign, Barack Obama has said he plans to take a fresh, objective look at the age-old debate over education issues. A truly historic commitment to education  a real commitment will require new resources and new reforms, Obama says. It will require a willingness to break free from the same debates that Washington has been engaged in for decades  Democrat versus Republican; vouchers versus the status quo; more money versus more accountability. And most of all, it will take a President who is honest about the challenges we face  who doesnt just tell everyone what they want to hear, but what they need to hear. Where does Obama stand specifically on the most pressing education issues? Heres our cheat sheet on education according to Obama:

Barack Obama on Education


Quite a mouthful....


----------



## Luissa (May 8, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> More on this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I bet the run down school district could us the 12 million or so dollars spent on this voucher program to make their run down schools better for the rest of the kids who attend. Why don't you look up the number of kids who do not get to go to a private school and have to stay in their under funded public school.


----------



## Zoom-boing (May 8, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> He's the fucking idiot president.



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


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



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.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> More on this...
> 
> 
> 
> ...



From the article:
*Congress voted in March to cut off funding after the 2009-10 academic year unless the entire program is reauthorized by lawmakers, a dim prospect in the Democrat-led body. The White House proposal would revise the law and secure grants for the coming school year, but Obama has to persuade Democratic lawmakers to support a gradual phaseout by continuing to include grant funding in future appropriation bills. *

So, it's not completely dead yet. Like many other issues, this has become a balancing act of trying to placate everyone.


----------



## Yurt (May 8, 2009)

DavidS said:


> 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.



people said the same thing about dems a few years ago.....


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

wihosa said:


> Can private schools provide a better education than public schools? Of course and that is why those that can afford a private education will continue to to do so.
> 
> The idea that the Obama's should sent their kids to public school with all the inherent issues of safety and security to the First children is just so much blather.
> 
> This is really just a cover for those that want to destroy public education.



No, it's just a sampling of a daily rant against Obama. Ho-hum.

I can't think of any other children of presidents who attended a DC public school except Amy Carter, who hated it.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> ...



Your point? Obama wants quality education for ALL children. Obviously, he is able to give HIS OWN CHILDREN that opportunity. What part of this aren't you, er, UNeducated fools not getting?


----------



## strollingbones (May 8, 2009)

if they had attended public schools you would be bitchin about the cost of security, any parent who kids are in the type of danger these young ladies are in daily.  What aryan wouldnt like to go down in history as killing the first black president or part of his family? 

more spending does not improve school...toss computers out of school....put books back in libraries and teach students  to read, write and do math...and think..the little things will figure the rest out..hell who do you go to when you want to figure out...a cellphone, twitter etc...you find a kid...you dont ask your buddy unless he has the kid.....

stop mainstreaming...dont teach to the lowest common denominater in a school..go back to blue bird, robins, sparrows....hell we all knew who the dumb kids were....that has not changed


----------



## MaggieMae (May 8, 2009)

Yurt said:


> DavidS said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



But Dems were united, and thanks to Howard Dean's state-by-state strategy, poised to assume control. The GOP now stands for the Grand Obsolete Party.

*"We don't need to go on a listening tour; we need to go on a teaching tour."
~~ Herr Limbaugh*


----------



## Yurt (May 8, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



do you like sounding like a cliche?


----------



## Amanda (May 8, 2009)

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.


----------



## catzmeow (May 8, 2009)

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 (May 9, 2009)

Amanda said:


> 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 (May 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> ...



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 (May 9, 2009)

DavidS said:


> 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 (May 9, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



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 (May 9, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> 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 (May 9, 2009)

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 fucking up, we do NOT need to throw more money at the problem.


----------



## editec (May 9, 2009)

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 (May 9, 2009)

editec said:


> 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 (May 9, 2009)

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 (May 9, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > He's the fucking idiot president.
> ...



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 (May 9, 2009)

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 (May 9, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


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


 
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 (May 9, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...





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.


----------



## Agnapostate (May 9, 2009)

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 (May 9, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> 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.





Nemesis said:


> 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 (May 9, 2009)

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


----------



## jillian (May 9, 2009)

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 (May 9, 2009)

Nemesis said:


> 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 (May 9, 2009)

jillian said:


> 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).


----------



## jillian (May 9, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

editec said:


> 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.....


----------



## Agnapostate (May 9, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> 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.....



Isn't it just easier to link to John and Ken's website? It would save you the work of extra typing.


----------



## chopcrazy (May 9, 2009)

editec said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Between private and public --
1.  what is the difference with discipline and respect for the teachers? As a teacher did you have to spend more time dealing with disruptive students in private or public school? Is discipline an issue at all?
2. Are students in general better prepared for class?
3. Which system  provides better support to the teachers? Are parents and administratives more supportive in private or public?


----------



## midcan5 (May 9, 2009)

Private schools cost lots of money and usually require smarts - not always necessary. So the question then for those who support vouchers is why not make all schools equivalent to private schools? Why? well think about it for a second, public schools accept all students, they have to, and private schools have the power to toss out troublesome students. All the private schools, I am familiar with, cost any where from 15k to 30k, some are even higher. When the tools who criticism Obama for the voucher cutback are willing to pay and support equal educational opportunity they can speak until then it is the usual partisan blather.  


26K !!!
$26,000 Cost Pushes Up Barriers to Area Private Schools - washingtonpost.com
Private vs. Public Schools: What's the Difference? - GreatSchools.net
CAPE | Private School Facts


----------



## Dr Grump (May 9, 2009)

Zoom-boing said:


> sealybobo said:
> 
> 
> > He's the fucking president.
> ...



Fixed it for ya Zoom..have a nice weekend


----------



## editec (May 9, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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


 
Yeah I can believe that.

The issue of what makes schools function well or not is very complex and not entirely based on what's happening AT THE SCHOOL.

In fact, what's happening to the students and their families play, as far as I can tell, a much greater role in the educational outcomes of the students.  

Of course there are bad schools, and good schools, but that's not the only thing that going on to ruin our educational system.

Mostly what's destroying edcuation are the same things that are destroying the middle class.


----------



## Red Dawn (May 9, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


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



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:


----------



## Zoom-boing (May 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



NOW it's fixed.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 9, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> 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.



Probably because there's only so much ROOM for all the kids who want to go to private schools? To me, its just another one of those no-brainers. Plus, it was Congress that put the kibosh on future funding for the program, and Obama may tryi to get it restored. He's not an all-pro union person. In fact, during the campaign, Obama raised the ire of the NEA by announcing he endorsed the idea of merit pay at their convention, and elicited boos because of it.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 9, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...



Your point? If only everything Obama WANTED could magically come true. It's not up to HIM to decide many of these issues, including this one. Would you prefer he ran the government by Executive Order only?


----------



## MaggieMae (May 9, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


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



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.


----------



## raceright (May 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> KittenKoder said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



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.


----------



## DamnYankee (May 9, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




No, I would prefer that he (and ALL damned politicians) not make broad policy statements (promises) that they know damned well they don't have control over, and that the "little people" who only heard HOPE and CHANGE would understand that fact. 

By the way, this issue isn't only about private schools as a choice. And yes, I've read the other comments that assert that the "bad" district will only get worse if the "good" kids are taken out. Another fact: The "bad" kids aren't going to improve because they have no motivation (parental or self, and often educator) to improve, so it certainly get any worse. I see no problem using tax dollars to send kids to a better _public_ school district if their public school district is failing them!


----------



## Dis (May 9, 2009)

Dr Grump said:


> Zoom-boing said:
> 
> 
> > sealybobo said:
> ...



Your avatars boobs are crooked.. Maybe you should fix them.


----------



## Cmyr (May 9, 2009)

DavidS said:


> 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.



Like a judge said of pornography.........." I know it when I see It." Good answers to our countries problems reveal themselves to everyone. So far Obama's answers make sense only to him,an ill-chosen cabinet, and fewer of those who voted him in every day. Borrowing and spending at the greatest rate in history, and a world apology tour,and castrating  our intellegence services appear pornographic.


----------



## catzmeow (May 9, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> 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.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

Nemesis said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > 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.....
> ...


why?...i dont need those too morons to tell me what every Californian should already know...


----------



## ItsFairmont (May 9, 2009)

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.


----------



## ItsFairmont (May 9, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> 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.



Utah doesn't have minorities (except for a couple guys name Joe and Earl).


Minorities are usually poorer than whites because whites kidnapped their ancestors, dragged them across the sea, forced them into slavery, opressed them for two hundred years after slavery ended (almost 200), and then said, "Why are black people so far behind white people?"


Utah.

If you love it, move there.  


You'll learn quickly:  There is no nightlife ANYWHERE in the state of Utah.

No, I'm not exaggerating.  Utah is dead after 6pm.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 9, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



well after this statement you just proved why when it comes to radical extreamist nutjobs....the left wing also wins the show....another Bobo grad....


----------



## DamnYankee (May 9, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> 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.



Since DC is in a heavily blue geographic area, that is probably highly unlikely. Maybe the problem is that the African-American (majority) children would set a poor example for his children....
Test Scores for District of Columbia Public Schools | GreatSchools


----------



## oreo (May 9, 2009)

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.


----------



## wizard61 (May 9, 2009)

The President sending his children to private schools does not upset me. 

Conservatives should find a way to save poor children from wretched education. If we cannot do this we should retire & maybe someone who can will step up.

Competition improves quality. Children need the best education possible, especially the disadvantaged children. 

Instead of trying to shame liberals into admitting they are slaves to unions & willing to damn the poor to a tough life, maybe the Fed could issue proper "wild cat" licenses to selected firms & teachers, and withhold education funds that would have gone to each state to pay for the vouchers.

Let the dreaded uniform public tests fade away & test the wildcat teachers instead.

Start small. If it works it cannot be stopped.

Gov. Romney, are you listening?


----------



## DamnYankee (May 10, 2009)

wizard61 said:


> The President sending his children to private schools does not upset me.
> 
> Conservatives should find a way to save poor children from wretched education. If we cannot do this we should retire & maybe someone who can will step up.
> 
> ...





Meanwhile, in nearby Prince William County....

*Performance Pay Being Considered for Pr. William Teachers*
By Michael Birnbaum
Washington Post Staff Writer 
Sunday, May 10, 2009 

A test run of a performance-pay plan for Prince William County teachers could come to classrooms in the 2010-11 school year, drawing the county into a national debate about whether to tie teacher pay to student achievement. 

continued....
washingtonpost.com


Wonder what would happpen if health care professionals required incentive pay for patient survival....


----------



## editec (May 10, 2009)

chopcrazy said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...


----------



## jillian (May 10, 2009)

poverty and education and not good bedfellows.... 

many (not all) public schools first have to overcome the mindsets that go with poverty before they can even begin to teach.

.


----------



## editec (May 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> poverty and education and not good bedfellows....
> 
> many (not all) public schools first have to overcome the mindsets that go with poverty before they can even begin to teach.
> 
> .


 
Cannot be done.

When kids are living in hell, which is what real poverty is, the hopelessness and anger  not only make it impossible for the teacher to overcome it in the kids, _but it actually infects the teachers, too._

Sure we all love the stories about those rare cases where some inspired teacher turns on a few kids.

But those happy days stories are nothing but WILLY MAYS rationalizations for why we don't have to do something real about the problem.

I do so get sick of that kind of  rationalizing right wing anti-education, anti-teacher classist blather, Jill.

Schools are sick because society is sick.

Health care is sick because society is sick.

Our justice system is sick because our society is sick.

And society is sick because our value system is a series of interlocking rationalizing  lies _designed to justify the enormous injustices_ which we mete upon our own people.


----------



## jillian (May 10, 2009)

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?


----------



## DamnYankee (May 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> There's truth there...
> 
> so what's the answer? giving up isn't it.
> 
> ...




I don't believe that the "right" did any such thing. NCLB was well-intentioned, albeit not implemented properly. On the other hand, "dreams" doesn't cut it either. A good place to start would be with educator evaluations and cutting the "tenured" crap.


----------



## chopcrazy (May 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> There's truth there...
> 
> so what's the answer? giving up isn't it.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

sealybobo said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> ...



Projecting out your ass, as usual.


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

DavidS said:


> 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.



Yours is about as lame a response as it gets.  Been taking notes from sillybooboo, have you?


----------



## Red Dawn (May 10, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > US Census Bureau Report on Education, 2006:
> ...





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.


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> ...



Been taking notes from Obama, have you?  That's a pretty long-winded non-solution to anything you've offered up, blindly defending Obama's non-solution.


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> wihosa said:
> 
> 
> > Can private schools provide a better education than public schools? Of course and that is why those that can afford a private education will continue to to do so.
> ...



As yours is a sampling of defending the indefensible via deflection.


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...



I'll take uneducated over willful partisan blindness and glaringly obvious hypocrisy any day.  Especially when it's an uneducated fool calling me one.

Obama has taken action to deny funds for alternative and better education that he himself ensures his children receive.  

He has taken NO action in regard to this "quality education for all children" you claim he is for. 

The fact is, he is just another one of you "do as I say not as I do," leftwingnut, wannabe-elitists.  You think your shit doesn't stink while the reality is you're smelling up the entire country.


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Yurt said:
> 
> 
> > DavidS said:
> ...



_*yawn*_


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

Luissa said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



Why don't you ask Obama or his posse that controls Congress and funding?  I don't see then realigning the funds, nor offering anything to public education.  They're just taking.


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

Ravi said:


> 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.



That's already been squashed, thanks.


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 10, 2009)

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 &#8211; and the higher the level of government involved, the more serious the problem. 


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


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

SpidermanTuba said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> ...



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


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

chopcrazy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > There's truth there...
> ...


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 (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> chopcrazy said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...




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 (May 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> 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 (May 10, 2009)

raceright said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > KittenKoder said:
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

jillian said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Red Dawn said:
> 
> 
> > US Census Bureau Report on Education, 2006:
> ...



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


----------



## Gunny (May 10, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> 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 (May 10, 2009)

oreo said:


> 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".
> 
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Red Dawn said:
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

chopcrazy said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > There's truth there...
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



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 (May 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> oreo said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



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


----------



## MaggieMae (May 10, 2009)

[/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.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > wihosa said:
> ...



Why is pointing out that few politicians (and presidents) send their kids to private schools a "deflection"?  What ARE we talking about here? The weather in DC?


----------



## DamnYankee (May 10, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...




'Scuse me, but with the exception of a couple of EOs, Obama has been ever-so-very-carefully  following in the footprints left by Bush. Or haven't you noticed yet?


----------



## MaggieMae (May 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...



I couldn't give a shit what you think. All you post are insults, which says volumes.


----------



## DamnYankee (May 10, 2009)

Gunny said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...




Not to mention, the _urgency_ of the Stimulus Bill, which he made sure _included_ Education funding, after having _reprioritized it_, and while holding his nose to avoid the smell of the pork in the urgent Stimulus Bill.


----------



## HUGGY (May 10, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



You've been eating "smart" pills...right?  In what parallel universe or this one would you have a presidents child go to a public school?  Your partisanship and the blindness to reality you pay as membership dues leads you to say so astounding bullshit.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 10, 2009)

Okay, I don't get it. What's THIS all about?

*President Obama Proposes $52 Million Increase for Public Charter Schools*
May 7, 2009

Washington, D.C. &#8211; National Alliance for Public Charter Schools President and CEO Nelson Smith made the following statement today concerning the President&#8217;s budget proposal for education and public charter schools in FY 2010: 

&#8220;President Obama has taken a strong first step toward fulfilling his campaign promise to double federal funding for public charter schools.  His budget calls for $52 million in new funds for the Charter Schools Program, the State Facilities Incentive Grants, and the Credit Enhancement for Charter School Facilities Program.   

&#8220;This increased funding, a 25% increase over Fiscal 2009, will provide new resources to start up high-quality public charter schools and help them deal with the difficulties of accessing capital support at the state level. We appreciate the strong statement the President is making here with a large increase in charter school funding at a time when resources are tight.  We understand that President Obama expects great things from high-quality charter schools &#8211; and we look forward to surpassing those expectations. 

&#8220;In the Office on Innovation and Improvement, the charter programs received the second largest increase of all programs, a signal of their importance to the President.  The Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) received a substantial increase as well, increasing funding from $97 million to $717 million. Of that, $517 million will be competitively granted out to eligible entities, including charter school LEAs.  In a time when so many of our schools are seeking to create innovative pay systems to reward excellent teachers, this new investment will help solidify existing programs, seed new ones, and research the effects of performance-based compensation. 

&#8220;Additionally, we are very pleased that $10 million was added this year for the President&#8217;s Promise Neighborhoods Initiative, based on the success of the Harlem Children&#8217;s Zone (HCZ) and the public charter schools operating there. Grants will be made to non-profit community-based organizations to develop programs that address the needs of children in poverty, from birth to college. We expect that many charter school operators will be able to replicate the success of HCZ around the country as a result of this funding.&#8221;

Press Releases | National Alliance for Public Charter Schools


----------



## DamnYankee (May 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> Okay, I don't get it. What's THIS all about?
> 
> *President Obama Proposes $52 Million Increase for Public Charter Schools*
> May 7, 2009
> ...





There are two principles that guide charter schools. First is that they will operate as autonomous public schools, through waivers from many of the procedural requirements of district public schools. The second is that charter schools are accountable for student achievement. To date, 11% of the over 4000 charter schools founded in the United States have closed for reasons including academic, financial, and managerial problems, and occasionally consolidation or district interference.[6]

The rules and structure of charter schools depend on state authorizing legislation and differ from state to state. A charter school is authorized to function once it has received a charter, a statutorily defined performance contract detailing the school's mission, program, goals, students served, methods of assessment, and ways to measure success. The length of time for which charters are granted varies, but most are granted for 35 years. Charter schools are held accountable to their sponsora local school board, state education agency, university, or other entityto produce positive academic results and adhere to the charter contract. *While this accountability is one of the key arguments in favor of charters, evidence gathered by the United States Department of Education suggests that charter schools are not, in practice, held to higher standards of accountability than traditional public schools.*[7]
Charter school - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## MaggieMae (May 10, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > Okay, I don't get it. What's THIS all about?
> ...



Sooooo...this looks like it was DC that cut the funding, no? Why is Obama getting blamed?

D.C. charter schools cry foul on budget - Washington Times


----------



## DamnYankee (May 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...





Dayum.... I don't recall anyone blaming Obama for this specific cut, nor is he blamed in the Times article.

Leaders of the District's public charter schools are appeal ing to D.C. Council 

members in the wake of Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's proposed $24 million, or 26 percent, funding cut. 

Lawmakers have until May 12 to amend the mayor's budget before voting on it. 

The proposed cuts followed the release of city-audited enrollment data that showed a 17 percent increase in student enrollment in public charter schools and an 8.5 percent drop in enrollment in city-run schools. 

The cutting is to the charter schools' facilities allowance, which is used to lease, buy and renovate buildings. The mayor's budget, meanwhile, would increase facilities funding for city-run schools by $13 million, or 5 percent. 

*Victor Reinoso, deputy mayor for education*, told the council earlier this month that the $66 million allotted for charter school facilities is "sufficient to support all current facilities costs with a 10 percent growth rate."


----------



## DiveCon (May 10, 2009)

KittenKoder said:


> Sky Dancer said:
> 
> 
> > Gunny said:
> ...


she pulled it out of her ass, like MOST statistics posted on message boards


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

The school that Obama is sending his kids to go too costs $30,000 a year.  Do you all really think the government should be spending that much, per pupil, per year?  

The fact that private schools in the aggregate are not better than public schools in the aggregate does not diminish the fact that there are very good schools in both the public, and the private sectors, and one can choose a school from either to go too in some areas.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> 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?



i have one 30 yrs old.....and people who do now, have clashes with the board on funding many times....the teachers union in alliance with the local politicians trump everyone....they are tough to beat.....its THEIR money


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> Gunny said:
> 
> 
> > Sky Dancer said:
> ...


Sky....do you understand what Gunny is saying here?


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

MaggieMae said:


> 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.



HE IS BEING A HYPERCRITE  MAGGIE....telling you NO you cant,vouchers not for you,your kid goes to the shitty school,mine will go to good school....bottom line.....i dont want your little juvenile delinquents going to my kids school.....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> The school that Obama is sending his kids to go too costs $30,000 a year.  Do you all really think the government should be spending that much, per pupil, per year?


maybe not,but i should have the right to say give me what you spend on my kid per year so i can send him to a private school and i will pay the balance....


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> MaggieMae said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...



No, hes not.  Even with a voucher program, most kids couldn't go there.  He is trying to do the best for society while simultaneously trying to do the best for his kids.  Exclusive, insanely private schools are really good for exactly that reason.  Open it up to everyone, and they won't be good anymore.  Its the nature of the beast.


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > The school that Obama is sending his kids to go too costs $30,000 a year.  Do you all really think the government should be spending that much, per pupil, per year?
> ...



Except that hes trying to fight for affordable education, not create a program for the upper middle class kids who can't afford to go to really rich schools.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...


then ok vouchers.....if i can afford it with the help of that voucher then let me do it....dont tell me no....


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



If you can "only" afford $17,000 a year to send your kid to a private school, you can send your kid somewhere else.  No need for the government to take away from public schools to subsidize that.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



you know what Nic...tough shit....each year this problem goes on with the idiots in charge,your kid gets older and another grade passes,and he keeps getting a sub-par education...10 years later he got a sub-par education,while the kid in the private school got a great education,and its all happening while our so-called leaders play their fucking political games at the expense of the kids of today and tomorrow, .....you do whats best for those kids and society and they had better do it quick....if you care about your kids you want them in a good school NOW.....


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Only problem with your rosy little scenario is that nobody's been able to prove that private schools, in the aggregate, are any better than public schools.

Public vs. Private School Report Spurs Controversy : NPR


----------



## Agnapostate (May 10, 2009)

Why bother with the selective incorporation of raw data? Empirical evidence has already been posted to support my claim that voucher programs effectively increase inequality of opportunity, and unsurprisingly, it has been ignored.


----------



## Chris (May 10, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> But poor blacks in DC probably wouldn't.
> 
> Right?
> 
> ...



Kudos to Obama for sending his children to a private school. This means more money per pupil for the students in the D.C. public schools.


----------



## DamnYankee (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > MaggieMae said:
> ...




Exclusivity does not equate to quality necessarily.

Public and Private School Students Perform Similarly in NAEP Study
A national assessment comparing the performance of public schools to private schools has found that nearly always, when certain student characteristics are taken into account, public school students perform just as well, if not better, than private school students. These conclusions, presented by the National Center for Education Statistics, of the U.S. Department of Education, in Comparing Private Schools and Public Schools Using Hierarchical Linear Modeling, are based on data from the 2003 NAEP reading and mathematics exams. This good news demonstrates that public schools continue to be a valid source for a solid education. 

The Results

The study (http://www.schoolfunding.info/news/policy/ncespublicprivate.pdf) examined the differences between public and private school NAEP scores when adjustments were made for selected characteristics of students. These characteristics included gender, race/ethnicity, disability status, and English Language Learner status. While all the unadjusted NAEP scores initially indicated higher scores for private schools, taking the selected student characteristics into account substantially reduced the difference in all analyses between 11 and 15 score points. The report also further divided the category for private schools into Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian subcategories.

Access Quality Education: Policy News


----------



## DamnYankee (May 10, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...




Kinda stuck your foot in your mouth when you said this then:



Nik said:


> Exclusive, insanely private schools are really good for exactly that reason. Open it up to everyone, and they won't be good anymore. Its the nature of the beast.


----------



## DiveCon (May 10, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


OOPS
dont ya hate it when that happens


----------



## Nik (May 10, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Umm, no, actually I didn't.  Notice the "insanely private schools".  Private schools by themselves, aren't that exclusive.  Schools like where the Obamas enrolled their kids, are.  

Some public schools are also exclusive.  See Berkeley or UCLA.  The exclusivity of a school and whether the school is public or private are two completely different things.


----------



## DamnYankee (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...




<chuckle>  Nice spin there.... And I was under the impression that this discussion was focused on primary education rather than secondary....

Now, I'd call this "exclusive", wouldn't you?
Most private school students (81 percent) attend religiously-affiliated schools (see table). And most private schools are small: 86 percent have fewer than 300 students (see table).

Oh, and BTW....
Where do the children of the wealthy go to school? In December 2006, the U.S. Census Bureau released data on the social and economic characteristics of students enrolled in the nations schools in October 2005. It turns *out that of the eight million youngsters in grades K-12 who come from families with annual incomes of $100,000 or more, 80 percent (6.4 million) attend public schools and 20 percent (1.6 million) attend private schools*.

CAPE | Private School Facts

Sorta puts a "hole" in the argument for "Obama can afford it, so why not?"


----------



## editec (May 11, 2009)

Nemesis said:


> Why bother with the selective incorporation of raw data? Empirical evidence has already been posted to support my claim that voucher programs effectively increase inequality of opportunity, and unsurprisingly, it has been ignored.


 
Yes, of course a voucher program will increase inequality of opportunity.

Why?

Well the market (in this case that would be the edcuational market) WILL RESPOND to all that new money coming at them in the way that markets always respond when more money is chasing essantially the same amount of good and services---IT RAISES PRICES.

So, while I, as an edcuator, might personally benefit tremendously in a school voucher universe, I think that in the longer run, the voucher system is simply an move that will cause inflation in prices and no real long term benefit to the commonweal.

The greatest problem in our schools today, doesn't have much to do with the schools themselves.

It has to do with what's happening to the families and communities that the schools serve.


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...



*sigh*

I was using secondary schools as examples, since I'm unfamiliar with specific primary schools.  It was an analogy, genius.  

And no, small doesn't necessarily mean exclusive.  Harvard Law is, as far as law schools go, relatively large.  With an entering class of approximately 450 people, it is one of the largest.  It is also one of the most exclusive.  

As for primary schools...



> But make sure your child has what the school is looking for. Only 15% of applicants are accepted [at Sidwell]. This is a very competitive school.



Its exclusive because it self-selects, not because its small, large, or that somehow being private means anything at all.   There are also some very good (public) charter schools that are extremely exclusive in Manhattan.  Same distinction there.


----------



## DamnYankee (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...





Well, excuse me, genius, but this thread is about primary education (not colleges and universities) since it pertains to the Obamas sending their children to private schools, and they're not old enough for secondary education yet!

And thank you, for making my point....


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...



Do explain why I can't reference tertiary schools to make my point about primary education.  Its called an analogy.  Do I need to draw you a diagram or something?


----------



## Newby (May 11, 2009)

DavidS said:


> 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.




Sounds to me like it's Obama saying NO, yet you somehow turn this into a Republican bashing? Priceless.


----------



## MaggieMae (May 11, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Yep. Blame sub-par education ALL on Democrats, and of course ignore the fact that Republicans were in charge for 22 of the last 28 years.


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

ItsFairmont said:


> Utah doesn't have minorities (except for a couple guys name Joe and Earl).
> 
> Minorities are usually poorer than whites because whites kidnapped their ancestors, dragged them across the sea, forced them into slavery, opressed them for two hundred years after slavery ended (almost 200), and then said, "Why are black people so far behind white people?"
> 
> ...



I lived in Utah for ten years and worked with an almost exclusively minority population.  Utah has a large latino population, the largest population of pacific islanders on the mainland U.S., and is a refugee resettlement point for Catholic Community Services.


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

jillian said:


> Allowing the rightwingnuts to give the finger to a good chunk of our society isn't...
> 
> so what is?



Allowing hard-working kids of color to opt out of a failing school system isn't giving the finger to a good chunk of our society.  If poverty is the issue, and the poor are doomed to fail, let those kids who can succeed do so.


----------



## jillian (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


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



you're talking about sucking the money out of the public education system so that it no longer exists.


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

Red Dawn said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.



We have failing schools in the same district that my kids attend.  Property values fluctuate based upon school performance.  My kids live in high-performing schools, but the low-performing schools aren't funded to a lesser degree than the schools my kids have attended.

Some people on the left need to realize that when we talk about school funding, throwing more money at failing schools IS NOT THE ANSWER.  The answer is as follows:


Ensuring those dollars make it to the classroom (and don't end up in some bloated low-performing school administrative office, as happens all too often).
Retraining teachers to more appopriately manage student behavior.
Ensuring that teachers use proven teaching methods IN THE CLASSROOM.
Holding teachers accountable for doing the above.

The fact of the matter is that most failing schools are funded AT THE SAME LEVEL as their high-performing neighbors.  The difference is in what happens in the classroom, and the expectations of the school.

I've seen schools totally turn around, behavior and performance-wise, by requiring proven teaching methods and offering literacy instruction to kids.

Kids who are functionally illiterate in the elementary, middle, and high school levels are behavior problems.  EVERY SINGLE TIME.


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

jillian said:


> you're talking about sucking the money out of the public education system so that it no longer exists.



No.  I'm talking about allowing competition so that when school districts choose to remain in the shitter, the kids who have a chance to succeed are given the opportunity to opt out.  I've worked with failing urban school districts for the past 15 years.  Some kids deserve a chance to get out.  

It's ABOUT THE KIDS, not about the self-serving education bureaucracy.  It should always BE about the kids.  The kids are the clients.  In too many schools, the educators think it is all about what the teachers want.  i've seen some great teachers in my time.  I've also seen many, many teachers who are extremely detrimental to children.  Kids and their families should have the opportunity to earn a way out of that morass of failure.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



kind of a biased site there Nic.... most kids who go to a sub-par public school get no-where near the ed. they would get at a private school....and there are two many SUB-PAR schools for you to even try to argue your point....like i said....while the morons in charge squabble over this....thousands of kids are getting a half-ass education...and this has been going on for at least 25 years....should we go another 25 years?....


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...


i believe they are talking about kids who go to a decent middle class neighborhood public schools or better......the kids in the lower class schools in crappy neighborhoods and there are MANY,do not compare....


----------



## Sky Dancer (May 11, 2009)

jillian said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > jillian said:
> ...



I was quite struck by the differences of public schools in prosperous middle class neighborhoods and those in the inner city.  Both kinds of schools are public schools, results, extremely different.

In the middle class neighborhoods, the parents were very involved, and they advocated for programs for their kids and raised funds for special projects.

I haven't quite made up my mind yet on the voucher program.    I don't like that it favors religious schools and gives them public dolllars which appears to violate separation of church and state.

I do have a vested interest in seeing American kids have equality opportunities in education.    Private schools tend to be smaller, and to emphasive a stricter code of behavior and more vigorous academic programs.

I went to both parochial and public schools as a child.   I valued my parochial school for emphasing the basics---reading, writing and math.  I valued my public school curriculum for including the arts and music, and physical education.

The public schools were more racially diverse, and that provided a richer cultural environment.


----------



## DiveCon (May 11, 2009)

Sky Dancer said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...


so, even by your own experience, going to a private religious school doesnt estabish a state religion
so your worry about a violation of the first amendment is unfounded


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> so, even by your own experience, going to a private religious school doesnt estabish a state religion
> so your worry about a violation of the first amendment is unfounded



The parochial schools have, in many ways, demonstrated an ongoing commitment by religious folks to serving needy populations.  These schools could have abandoned the inner city, and in many cases, haven't.  Parochial schools are the last bastion of quality education that is still available to inner city DC residents.

i don't really think that religiousity plays a significant role in DC school decision-making regarding the vouchers.


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Harry Dresden said:
> ...



Really?  Care to point out how the supposed bias effects a report put out by the Department of Education under a Republican president?   

*sigh*

That there are sub-par schools doesn't mean that in the aggregate, private schools are better than public schools.   There are sub-par private schools too.  

Besides that, part of the issue with sub-par schools is funding.  They are in shitty areas, and don't receive enoug funding.  This, obviously, causes problems.  But the other thing is that being poor sucks, and is hard in America.  Until you address the underlying causes, there will be lots of kids who grow up in really shitty situations with really poor parents.  Theres only so much the schools can do.


----------



## DiveCon (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > so, even by your own experience, going to a private religious school doesnt estabish a state religion
> ...


well, sky was claiming it was a violation of the constitution
that was what i was addressing with her
and she is proof that a religious school does not make a state established religion, thus no violation


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> Besides that, part of the issue with sub-par schools is funding.  They are in shitty areas, and don't receive enoug funding.



FAIL.

As shown, DC schools receive amongst the highest amount of funding nationally.

This is a common liberal misperception, that school failure is an issue of funding.  it isn't.  I'm not arguing that we cut funding here, that has never been my argument, but that we hold schools accountable to ensure that the funding goes directly to the classroom level.

Some of the lowest performing schools in the U.S. have some of the highest levels of funding.  Consider the East Cleveland school District, for instance, which has THE HIGHEST WPU in Cuyahoga County, and the lowest educational attainment levels in teh state of Ohio...so low, in fact, that the State of Ohio took over management of these schools in 2004.


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > Besides that, part of the issue with sub-par schools is funding.  They are in shitty areas, and don't receive enoug funding.
> ...



It is ONE problem in SOME areas.  Not, as I specifically noted, the ONLY problem.


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> It is ONE problem in SOME areas.  Not, as I specifically noted, the ONLY problem.



It is overstated in its effects, and the only problem you offered.


----------



## Amanda (May 11, 2009)

The problem in education, as I see it, is that school is boring and most teachers suck.

Make school interesting and teachers not suck and you'll see an improvement.

I don't think it has to cost any more than we spend now. I think vouchers are a good idea. Let some alternative schools try out some new techniques. What's the worst that could happen, school would be boring and teachers would suck?


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

I think that more kids would find school less boring if literacy were improved in the early grades and kids were allowed to experience the joy of reading.  At the least, it gives people an opportunity to supplement boring school days with their own research on topics of interest.

Too many kids in America make it out of elementary school without basic literacy skills, and that's simply fucking absurd and unacceptable.


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > It is ONE problem in SOME areas.  Not, as I specifically noted, the ONLY problem.
> ...



Reading comprehension fail.

Quoted from a previous post of mine.



> Besides that, part of the issue with sub-par schools is funding. They are in shitty areas, and don't receive enoug funding. This, obviously, causes problems. *But the other thing is that being poor sucks, and is hard in America. Until you address the underlying causes, there will be lots of kids who grow up in really shitty situations with really poor parents. Theres only so much the schools can do.*


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

Amanda said:


> The problem in education, as I see it, is that school is boring and most teachers suck.
> 
> Make school interesting and teachers not suck and you'll see an improvement.
> 
> I don't think it has to cost any more than we spend now. I think vouchers are a good idea. Let some alternative schools try out some new techniques. What's the worst that could happen, school would be boring and teachers would suck?



it was like that when i was in HS Amanda....not all teachers,but some sucked and many classes were boring.....that will never change...


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> *But the other thing is that being poor sucks, and is hard in America. Until you address the underlying causes, there will be lots of kids who grow up in really shitty situations with really poor parents. Theres only so much the schools can do.*



And yet, there are many inner city schools in poor areas that are managing to teach children to read.  Shockers.

If what you say is true, and poor people are doomed to fail in school, then the voucher program makes MORE sense.  Let the kids who can make it out flee from the failure and make something of themselves.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...


Nik ...your just going to argue for the sake of watching yourself type...if some of those parents from the poorer districts can get and pay the balance of the cost of the private schools fee,after the voucher amount,then they should be able too....why cant they opt for that?


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > *But the other thing is that being poor sucks, and is hard in America. Until you address the underlying causes, there will be lots of kids who grow up in really shitty situations with really poor parents. Theres only so much the schools can do.*
> ...



I never said "doomed to fail".  In fact I specifically gave advice on how to address the problem.  And if the problem is the parents, and their situations, and not the schools then changing to a voucher system won't do jack shit.


----------



## catzmeow (May 11, 2009)

Nik said:


> I never said "doomed to fail".  In fact I specifically gave advice on how to address the problem.  And if the problem is the parents, and their situations, and not the schools then changing to a voucher system won't do jack shit.



The parents who are part of the problem aren't willing to go through the hassle of trying to get a voucher.  

Catz
^has extensive experience working with the "parents who are part of the problem"


----------



## Agnapostate (May 11, 2009)

Returning to the still unaddressed obstacles that vouchers impose upon equality of opportunity, another interesting and illuminating study to consult is that of Prasch and Sheth, _What Is Wrong with Education Vouchers?_, which notes the following:



> [E]ducation vouchers are not the magic bullet that will empower parents while efficiently selecting out the lazy, corrupt, and unqualified among the nation's schools and teachers. On the other hand, there is compelling evidence that vouchers will result in less equality of opportunity, less social mobility, and the further exacerbation of social stratification along the lines of race and class.



Then we return to our initial problem. Few have an interest in sound analysis of empirical evidence; rather, they'll seek out and cherrypick things that support preconceived ideological dogma.


----------



## Nik (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > I never said "doomed to fail".  In fact I specifically gave advice on how to address the problem.  And if the problem is the parents, and their situations, and not the schools then changing to a voucher system won't do jack shit.
> ...



Its not that they aren't willing to go through the hassle of trying to get a voucher thats the problem.  Its the other day to day issues that come up from being poor in America.


----------



## Ravi (May 11, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> Nik said:
> 
> 
> > *But the other thing is that being poor sucks, and is hard in America. Until you address the underlying causes, there will be lots of kids who grow up in really shitty situations with really poor parents. Theres only so much the schools can do.*
> ...


I don't agree with you. Some private schools can and do suck as bad as some public schools.


----------



## Amanda (May 11, 2009)

Ravi said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > Nik said:
> ...



And since the parents are paying for it they can pull them out and put them someplace else if they don't like the school. Wouldn't it be great if poor, public school students had the same option?


----------



## DiveCon (May 11, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...


exactly

too bad they want the kids stuck in whatever hell hole happens to cover their geographic area


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 11, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



which i cant understand why?....say the school costs 25 thou., the voucher lets say is 10 thou.(just to use a number) and you are able to pay the other 15.....why wont the anti-voucher people allow you to do that?.....what happened to school choice? its allowed with the public schools,out here anyway.....


----------



## Agnapostate (May 11, 2009)

Harry, I've presented empirical evidence illustrating the role of vouchers in adversely affecting prospects for equality of opportunity. Where's your evidence?


----------



## Ravi (May 11, 2009)

Amanda said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...


Sure...but if you eliminate the public schools you eliminate that choice.


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 12, 2009)

Nemesis said:


> Harry, I've presented empirical evidence illustrating the role of vouchers in adversely affecting prospects for equality of opportunity. Where's your evidence?



evidence of what?....are you reading what im writing there?


----------



## Agnapostate (May 12, 2009)

Harry Dresden said:


> evidence of what?....are you reading what im writing there?



What *are* you writing? I presented plenty of evidence of vouchers increasing inequality of opportunity. Plenty here simply kept babbling on whilst ignoring the studies that had been quoted.


----------



## DamnYankee (May 12, 2009)

Ravi said:


> Amanda said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...




This was already addressed.... Choice isn't only about private schools, despite the focus on Obama's kids. It's about the choice of a better quality school if you/your children happen to live in a district that sucks.


----------



## Newby (May 12, 2009)

Nemesis said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > evidence of what?....are you reading what im writing there?
> ...



Where?  I didn't see it.  All I saw was one statement that said there was supposedly 'evidence', you didn't state what it was or where it came from as far as I saw?


----------



## catzmeow (May 12, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> *It's about the choice of a better quality school if you/your children happen to live in a district that sucks.*


*

That's it, exactly.  Too many kids are trapped in failing schools without the option of leaving.  It's fine that we want to improve schools, and quite obviously, we should.  You'll never see a bigger proponent of the need to improve inner city schools as the primary element of attaining social justice in the community, than me.  BUT...until that happens, you have to give people a way out.  You need a relief valve.  Too many kids are falling through the cracks in failing schools with no real choice.

Immediate relief is needed until change happens.*


----------



## Harry Dresden (May 12, 2009)

Nemesis said:


> Harry Dresden said:
> 
> 
> > evidence of what?....are you reading what im writing there?
> ...



i dont care about the "studies" Nem.....if i want to and am able to, i should be able to take what they spend on my kid every year,and go to a private school and give it to them.....if im paying for something and the ones i am paying are not delivering,i should have the right to go else where to someone who is and can....if our public schools were as good as they were when i and many others on this board were in high school....this thread would be non-existence.....


----------



## DiveCon (May 12, 2009)

catzmeow said:


> ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> 
> 
> > *It's about the choice of a better quality school if you/your children happen to live in a district that sucks.*
> ...


*
and that needs to be done on a LOCAL level
get the feds the hell out of it*


----------



## HUGGY (May 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> catzmeow said:
> 
> 
> > ALLBizFR0M925 said:
> ...


*

That is irrational...unless you just hate people in small communities ..pockets of poverty...maybe a town that lost its major source of employment.  What??...just fuck those folks?  

What the hell is wrong with you?  Did some poor kid beat your ass down and take your lunch money when you were a child?

Grow up...stand up and be a man.  Why do we help those in need?  Because we can.*


----------



## DiveCon (May 12, 2009)

HUGGY said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > catzmeow said:
> ...


no, because it isnt the constitutional job of the feds to do anything about education
that is a LOCAL responsibility
you dont like it, change the constitution


----------



## Ravi (May 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...


I think getting rid of No Child Left Behind would be a first, positive step. Unfunded federal mandates do nothing but hurt the States.


----------



## DiveCon (May 12, 2009)

Ravi said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...


NCLB wasnt unfunded
that wasnt the problem
the problem was you had people in DC telling people in the local schools what to do
and most of the time those in DC dont have a CLUE whats needed in the local areas


i agree to do away with it
but also do away with the whole department of education, and cut taxes accordingly and let the state/local governemtn tax that money for what they need


notice i'm not saying to cut taxes and not raise them in other areas, but to cut the federal taxes so the state/locals can get that money


----------



## DamnYankee (May 12, 2009)

DiveCon said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > DiveCon said:
> ...




Since property taxes pay a good portion, and the States/locals hand money over to the Feds that the Feds turn around and give back, there probably wouldn't be a need to raise them too much anyway.


----------



## DiveCon (May 12, 2009)

ALLBizFR0M925 said:


> DiveCon said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


thats why we need to eliminate the middle man
get the feds out of it with the exception of setting a basic standard


----------

