How many Presidents of the last 100 years have had a child go to the Washington DC public schools? One

His principles were largely misguided but at least Carter was a person of principles.

http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/08/a-public-school-paradox/495227/?utm_source=atlfb

Are you able to understand that you can be a sincere advocate for public education and send your kid to private school?  It isn't the same as being, say, an anti-slavery slave owner.

I am not sure you can be.

The Atlantic Monthly article talks a lot about the Obamas sending their daughters to Sidwell for security reasons, but even when the Obamas were private citizens in Chicago they still sent their daughters to the most elite private school in Chicago, the University of Chicago Lab Schools.

Although he was a private school kid all the way and his daughters have never attended a public school, Obama has criticized other parents who have made the private school choice:

And what’s happened in our economy is that those who are doing better and better -- more skilled, more educated, luckier, having greater advantages-- are withdrawing from sort of the commons -- kids start going to private schools; kids start working out at private clubs instead of the public parks.  An anti-government ideology then disinvests from those common goods and those things that draw us together.  And that, in part, contributes to the fact that there’s less opportunity for our kids, all of our kids.

Of course Obama is factually right about the affluent increasingly retreating into a bubble and pulling away from the middle class (and poor) and Obama is right to criticize disinventment from the common good, but he's always been part of the pulling away himself.  

And I think that the greater harm of voucher systems wouldn't be that they would take money out of public schools, it's that they would take more academically-proficient kids out of public schools.  

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/12/remarks-president-conversation-poverty-georgetown-university

Of course it does not matter if someone like Bruce Springsteen sent his children to public schools or not. Because the Rumson public schools are pretty much like private schools, except with less diversity.

tjohn said:

Are you able to understand that you can be a sincere advocate for public education and send your kid to private school?  It isn't the same as being, say, an anti-slavery slave owner.

IMO You can be a private school parent and be a sincere advocate for public education, but you can't be a private school parent and be a sincere opponent of school vouchers, let alone charter schools.

Since Obama and Clinton are steadfast opponents of school vouchers, I see a lot of political expediency in their opposition.  

However, Obama and Clinton at least are pro-charter school (though Clinton has been inconsistent). Diane Ravitch, on the other hand, sent her kids to private schools and yet thinks that charter schools are demonic because they have non-representative enrollment.  

my public tax money should never be used to fund for profit private schools, should never be used to fund religious schools, and should not go to fund charter schools especially if those funds then leave public schools with funding cuts.

If you as a parent make the decision to send your children to private school or religious school or a charter, thats your choice.   its not up to me to finance your choices.  i'm more than willing to fund the public schools.   send your kid there.

There were compelling reasons for the introduction of public schools.

There is no compelling reason for the State to subsidize Private or Parochial schools of any religion.

really? You don't think children of Presidents just might have some extenuating security concerns that ultimately drive a private school decision? Just maybe?

Runner_Guy said:

tjohn said:

Are you able to understand that you can be a sincere advocate for public education and send your kid to private school?  It isn't the same as being, say, an anti-slavery slave owner.

IMO You can be a private school parent and be a sincere advocate for public education, but you can't be a private school parent and be a sincere opponent of school vouchers, let alone charter schools.


Since Obama and Clinton are steadfast opponents of school vouchers, I see a lot of political expediency in their opposition.  

However, Obama and Clinton at least are pro-charter school (though Clinton has been inconsistent). Diane Ravitch, on the other hand, sent her kids to private schools and yet thinks that charter schools are demonic because they have non-representative enrollment.  

I won't address the logical fallacy that underlies your first two points in detail except to say that it is whole consistent to want to separate your children from others of lower socio-economic classes and then prevent same from attending said enclave by denying aid such as vouchers.  Ethically repugnant but logically consistent.

Another point that might be made is there is a difference between supporting an institution and sacrificing your own child on an alter of abstract principle.

Your criticism of Ravitch, however, leaves out the detail that she changed her position over time as her real world experience of charter schools changed, becoming convinced that charters fail only after seeing the rate at which charters fail.

Also, charters and private schools are not the same thing and need to be discussed separately.

conandrob240 said:

really? You don't think children of Presidents just might have some extenuating security concerns that ultimately drive a private school decision? Just maybe?

Carter worked it out. 

This is one of those non-issues that arises every four years.

you do realize that the federal government is now the principal source of debt funding of tuition relative to colleges and universities, including private and "religious" schools, yes?  Ergo, your "public tax money".

I wonder if anyone has asked Trump where he would send his son to school.

I'm quite sure that every parent wishes they could afford a world class education for their child. American schools are the blatant evidence of the systematically supported wealth gap. Period. 

Vouchers ( a joke) and charters ( not always living up to the hype ) are band aids. 

It's a family choice of where and how you should educate your children. One has graduated from a private school and is college bound; the other still in. I'm still and will always be a public school advocate. For those who know me IRL, you know that since kindergarten, I've been on a board, volunteered, been a PTA president, etc. 

My tax dollars still go towards public school funding. And that's the rub. Until we change how property taxes are used to fund public schools, we will always have schools that are run down and disproportionate. Like most, when we decided to move here, we thought the schools were stellar and that we'd have no issues like lack of books or classroom overcrowding. Not so. 

When the youngest has graduated and is off to college, my commitment to his school financially is over. Not so with public schools. Until we decide to leave MWSO, we are committed. And though I don't care that our property taxes still fund schools that our children don't attend, I wish they'd figure out a better way to actually FUND our schools for the better. 

kibbegirl said:

It's a family choice of where and how you should educate your children. One has graduated from a private school and is college bound; the other still in. I'm still and will always be a public school advocate. For those who know me IRL, you know that since kindergarten, I've been on a board, volunteered, been a PTA president, etc. 

My tax dollars still go towards public school funding. And that's the rub. Until we change how property taxes are used to fund public schools, we will always have schools that are run down and disproportionate. Like most, when we decided to move here, we thought the schools were stellar and that we'd have no issues like lack of books or classroom overcrowding. Not so. 

When the youngest has graduated and is off to college, my commitment to his school financially is over. Not so with public schools. Until we decide to leave MWSO, we are committed. And though I don't care that our property taxes still fund schools that our children don't attend, I wish they'd figure out a better way to actually FUND our schools for the better. 

This.

Inequality is baked into the system.  You can believe in and support the public schools, but this doesn't require you to sacrifice your child at the altar of equality when it doesn't yet exist.

Note that zoinks is not sending his kids to public school in DC or Newark.  No, he's criticizing the POTUS from the comfort of Milburn, NJ.  Easy-peasy.

mjh said:

kibbegirl said:

It's a family choice of where and how you should educate your children. One has graduated from a private school and is college bound; the other still in. I'm still and will always be a public school advocate. For those who know me IRL, you know that since kindergarten, I've been on a board, volunteered, been a PTA president, etc. 

My tax dollars still go towards public school funding. And that's the rub. Until we change how property taxes are used to fund public schools, we will always have schools that are run down and disproportionate. Like most, when we decided to move here, we thought the schools were stellar and that we'd have no issues like lack of books or classroom overcrowding. Not so. 

When the youngest has graduated and is off to college, my commitment to his school financially is over. Not so with public schools. Until we decide to leave MWSO, we are committed. And though I don't care that our property taxes still fund schools that our children don't attend, I wish they'd figure out a better way to actually FUND our schools for the better. 

This.

Inequality is baked into the system.  You can believe in and support the public schools, but this doesn't require you to sacrifice your child at the altar of equality when it doesn't yet exist.

Note that zoinks is not sending his kids to public school in DC or Newark.  No, he's criticizing the POTUS from the comfort of Milburn, NJ.  Easy-peasy.

It appears that BHO meets the literal definition of a hypocrite (promoting the public schools and criticizing those who send their kids to private schools) while sending his own daughters to private school.  Attacking Zoinks in order to defend BHO seems to be a logical non sequitur.  IMHO parents should have the best interest of their children in mind as the primary issue when making decisions about education (rather than the common good).  Hence, parental responsibility for the education of a parent's own kids supercedes the common good issues surrounding public education.

=====================================================

BHO: "That’s happened in our economy is that those who are doing better and better -- more skilled, more educated, luckier, having greater advantages-- are withdrawing from sort of the commons -- kids start going to private schools"

See http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/obama-disapproves-kids-start-going-private-schoolsprivate-clubs

=====================================================

hypocrite

[hip-uh-krit] 

noun1.a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs,principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, especially aperson whose actions belie stated beliefs.

2.a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude,especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his orher public statements.

Not really.  A hypocrite would be somebody who takes advantage of a system they are criticizing.  Obama is a supporter of public education.  Many supporters of public education send their kids to private schools for whatever reason.  In the case of the Obama girls, we can perhaps assume that he didn't choose private school to give his daughters some special advantage in life since, as the daughters of a President, they pretty much have that.

being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate one's argument however.

Oskar Schindler profited nicely from WW II and also saved a few Jews along the way.

What's the term for someone who relies on CNS to parse a Q&A about poverty for them?

RealityForAll said:


It appears that BHO meets the literal definition of a hypocrite (promoting the public schools and criticizing those who send their kids to private schools) while sending his own daughters to private school.  Attacking Zoinks in order to defend BHO seems to be a logical non sequitur.  IMHO parents should have the best interest of their children in mind as the primary issue when making decisions about education (rather than the common good).  Hence, parental responsibility for the education of a parent's own kids supercedes the common good issues surrounding public education.

Merely found the first place where BHO's quote on education was reported on the internet (which was cnsnews.com).  If the quote had been first reported at another website then I would have used that website.  Finally, dave23 please clarify for me whether your CNS parse quip was an attempt to allege guilt by association on my part (maybe I am just misunderstanding you).

dave23 said:

What's the term for someone who relies on CNS to parse a Q&A about poverty for them?

RealityForAll said:


It appears that BHO meets the literal definition of a hypocrite (promoting the public schools and criticizing those who send their kids to private schools) while sending his own daughters to private school.  Attacking Zoinks in order to defend BHO seems to be a logical non sequitur.  IMHO parents should have the best interest of their children in mind as the primary issue when making decisions about education (rather than the common good).  Hence, parental responsibility for the education of a parent's own kids supercedes the common good issues surrounding public education.

Wonder if OP looks at the President's children -- who really are in unique circumstances regarding education needs than non-presidential children would be -- in the same light as Gov. Christie who sends his brood to private schools? If so, what would that difference be?

RealityForAll said:

Merely found the first place where BHO's quote on education was reported on the internet (which was cnsnews.com).  If the quote had been first reported at another website then I would have used that website.  Finally, dave23 please clarify for me whether your CNS parse quip was an attempt to allege guilt by association on my part (maybe I am just misunderstanding you).

dave23 said:

What's the term for someone who relies on CNS to parse a Q&A about poverty for them?

RealityForAll said:


It appears that BHO meets the literal definition of a hypocrite (promoting the public schools and criticizing those who send their kids to private schools) while sending his own daughters to private school.  Attacking Zoinks in order to defend BHO seems to be a logical non sequitur.  IMHO parents should have the best interest of their children in mind as the primary issue when making decisions about education (rather than the common good).  Hence, parental responsibility for the education of a parent's own kids supercedes the common good issues surrounding public education.

I think you are misunderstanding me since I haven't the slightest idea what you are talking about.

ml1 said:

being a hypocrite doesn't invalidate one's argument however.

It's true that a hypocrite isn't necessarily wrong, but hypocrisy around school choice goes beyond where rich politicians send their kids to school.

Teachers unions across the country are ferociously against charter schools (and vouchers).  They say they don't want money to be drained from public schools and they say that charters, even when they appear to meet parental demand and perform well, have non-representative enrollment.  

Leaving aside the fiscal argument, the argument against charters because they have non-representative enrollment rings very hypocritical to me.  There are selective magnet schools all over the country that have blatantly, officially non-representative enrollment and yet there's barely a word of complaint against them.  There are forms of school choice, like Interdistrict Choice in NJ, that have wildly non-representative enrollment, that are totally non-controversial and openly embraced by teachers' unions.  What's more, unlike charters, magnet schools and Interdistrict Choice schools are equally funded or better funded than regular non-selective/non-Choice public schools.

If the teachers object to charters because charters don't demographically match district schools, why are they silent on magnet schools? Why do they support Interdistrict Choice?

In Passaic County, school districts are being severely hurt by the expansion of the Passaic County Technical Institute.  Clifton, already severely underbudgeted and understaffed, had to lay off 50 teachers for 2016-17 because of a budget crisis that was largely due to surging enrollment at the PCTI.  Perhaps it's worth it to send kids to the PCTI, but I find it telling that there's zero-protest of it from the teachers union and adamant opposition to even much smaller losses to charter schools.  

Anyway, it doesn't take a genius to see that the real reason teachers unions (and their allies) hate charter schools is because charters are non-unionized and magnet schools and Interdistrict Choice schools are.  

Also, in New Jersey, Abbott Pre-K is an indisputable voucher system.  Some districts have district-run Pre-K, but there are also private Pre-K providers and these providers can even be religiously linked.  Abbott Pre-K can be housed in churches and often is.  Abbott Pre-K providers are supposed to refrain from religious instruction during the regular day, but there can be after-care programs that provide it. The (taxpayer originated) rent that Abbott Pre-K pays to churches would certainly help churches with bottom lines.   Also, Abbott Pre-K providers can be for-profits too.

There are quality regulations on Abbott Pre-K, but that doesn't make it any less of a voucher system.

The reason people accept Abbott Pre-K is because it didn't displace any public school Pre-K because public schools didn't provide Pre-K previously.  

Why would anyone ever choose public schools if they have better options?

terp said:

Why would anyone ever choose public schools if they have better options?

My oldest daughter did well by CHS.  I can't complain at all.  Are there things I don't like about CHS - of course.  I could have remedied all of those complaints by sending her to a 30K/year private school.

terp said:

Why would anyone ever choose public schools if they have better options?

They wouldn't,  as long as the public schools are plummeted by bad press, overwhelming societal issues, and the ongoing games of politicians and corporations.

While Public Schools may work for some(and where they work that's great!).  However,  they are by and large, an unmitigated disaster.   I mean statistically speaking.  Most children are not prepared for college.  And they sure aren't prepared for life.