Obamas Choose Private School for Their Kids
“Mrs. Obama is the product of public education on the South Side of Chicago and she believes strongly in the importance of good public schools for other kids,” Lelyveld said.
(Yes, the snarky edit was mine.)
I have to partially disagree with you on this one.
Given the security situation, I can’t imagine public school even being a viable option for the Obama girls in Washington.
That said, their decision to send them to private school in Chicago is fair game for the “good enough for thee, but not for me” criticism.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 2019 hrs
Too bad they didn’t home school them—- then the snarky bitches on the View would LOVE the idea of homeschooling.
Posted by Fuzz on November 21, 2008 at 2125 hrs
Given the security situation, I can’t imagine public school even being a viable option for the Obama girls in Washington.
But we are told that public schools—no matter where, and regardless of the security situation—are a viable option for the rest of us.
Posted by hsgbdmama on November 21, 2008 at 2154 hrs
I think Mayor Barrett’s daughter attends Pius XI High School.
Nothing wrong with that. Good school. But I’m always amazed how these politicians kids never attend public schools.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2008 at 2330 hrs
No doubt that the superintendent controversy played a role in their decision.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 0728 hrs
Given the security situation, I can’t imagine public school even being a viable option for the Obama girls in Washington.
What is the difference from a security standpoint between a public school and a private school????
Seems to me the measures taken would be identical and the logistics would be identical
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 0847 hrs
xxpilot,
I don’t have a problem with the girls going to private school, but I was thinking the same thing.
We will never know. The Secret Service would not talk about the challenges of kids in public school. What if the next 1st kid decided to go to public school. You can’t give a bad guy a game plan.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 0906 hrs
As President, the girls will also be under security risk by those enemies of their dad - both domestic and foreign. The Secret Service intensely dislikes putting their charges out with the public a lot. Private schools are generally smaller and easier to “contain” and monitor. Although I find it interesting that Sidwell Friends tuition is over $28K per year. That’s a great way to keep out the middle-class riff-raff. I’m paying just over $4K per daughter to send them to a Christian school with an outstanding academic record.
However, the decision to send their kids to private school in Chicago is fair game. That decision was the height of hypocrisy. The kids didn’t have the same needs for physical protection, the Obama’s were actively promoting the public schools. What about Barack’s tenure with the Chicago Annenberg Challenge? Wasn’t that to improve the Chicago Public Schools? (Side note - Bill Ayers is heading the curriculum program with the NEA, think about that for a minute….)
If Mayor Barrett sends his kid to Pius, then that should be challenged too. Especially when the new completely Dem-controlled State Legislature comes to kill the school choice program.
Democrats only want other people’s kids to suffer through the public schools. Its part of their strategy. They don’t believe the public school system is working, I don’t think they even want to improve it, or else they’d have some idea other than “Raise Taxes, more money”. Just check out the multitude of examples of extreme waste and utter disregard of their supposed mission to educate children over at Badger Blogger. Dems just want power. An uneducated public is very easy to influence and therefore get and keep power. Democrats are the new aristocracy in America.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 0910 hrs
Ugh - mornings….
The first sentence should read. As their Dad is President,
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 0915 hrs
Robinson’s Choose Private School for Their Kids
Good to know? Why?
If Mayor Barrett sends his kid to Pius, then that should be challenged too. Especially when the new completely Dem-controlled State Legislature comes to kill the school choice program.
I am sure you can explain the logic in that statement to me, JJ?
Seems to me the measures taken would be identical and the logistics would be identical
Seems to me you should keep your sales job, xxp.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 1203 hrs
pjr -
2 things.
If Mayor Barrett fiddles while MPS is burning, then he should explain why MPS isn’t good enough for his own family. Especially since his silence is deafening on the subject of the wasteful spending coming to light and their ghastly results.
Since Diamond Jim and the rest of the D’s in the State Legislature are no fans of school choice - they are bought and paid for by WEAC after all. Barrett is a D as well. Do you really think they won’t try to kill school choice? WEAC despises school choice. That’s 20,000 kids that aren’t in their grasp and who actually have a chance to beat their socio-economic odds.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 1707 hrs
JJ-
Democrats only want other people’s kids to suffer through the public schools.
I am a Democrat. I send my kids to a public school packed with other Democrats’ kids, wealthy ones, too. Doesn’t that just make you wrong?
Dems just want power.
OK, and your point is…?
An uneducated public is very easy to influence and therefore get and keep power.
Of course that’s true, its just that Dems won this time and Reps lost: big deal.
Democrats are the new aristocracy in America.
Not even sure I know what that means… does this mean all Dems are now going to be rich landowners with undue influence over the workings of Parliament…er…congress?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 1725 hrs
Could it be that Mayor Barrett simply wants his children to have a Catholic education?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 1739 hrs
Perhaps it should have said Elected Democrat.
The point about an uneducated public is that the biggest mistake that conservatives have made in the last 40 years was abdicating control of public education to the liberals. From pre-schools to universities, the administration, teachers, and aides are overwhelmingly liberal. Now its about self-esteem and being politically correct. History is being sanitized to the point where the foundations of our country are unrecognizable. Liberal “free” speech and ideas are “tolerant”, conservatives are stupid, and their “free” speech is “hate” speech. God is a word that cannot even be mentioned, but vile profanities are accepted. Universities are now echo chambers instead of the places where free exchange of ideas are nurtured. Conservatives are to be bullied into silence. That is the legacy of public education and the legions of the pre-fab voting block that they are producing.
The lies about conservatives are rampant. “Selfish” is shouted, when in fact, studies have shown that conservatives are far more generous with their charitable time and money. “Big Business” is shouted as though profits and the jobs that they create are evil. I thank God every two weeks as my paycheck is deposited that my big, evil, multi-national company is making money. It means I have a job, and that we are buying goods and services from other companies that then employ people as well. Conservatives “will take your freedoms” is shouted, when in fact, it is the constantly advancing nanny state and more and more regulations that infringe on my and small business and property owners’ rights. (Dad29 had a great post on this). The uneducated are told that only the Democrats can understand their miserable plight in this world and that only the Democrats care enough to take care of them. One only had to watch the video of the woman at the Obama rally proudly proclaiming that with an Obama Presidency, she would no longer have to worry about putting gas in her tank and paying her mortgage.
Has anyone noticed that even though the Republicans are vilified for being the party of the “rich”, that the Democrats have the most wealthy now? And the academics? The ones that tell us all that they are much smarter than we are and that we will all be okay if we do what we are told? The irony in this past election is that the middle-class mostly supported the Republicans. The rich and the poor supported the Democrats. It seems that the middle class are the ones that just want government to mostly just leave us all the hell alone, because we can take care of ourselves and our families.
That is foundation for the Democrat aristocracy. The goal is to have absolute and undue influence of Congress in regard to the opportunity and standing of the “peasants”. They will decide how much money the people can keep and who should receive more of it. They will decide what speech is acceptable and the appropriate subjects for our children to be taught.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 1809 hrs
Has anyone noticed that even though the Republicans are vilified for being the party of the “rich”, that the Democrats have the most wealthy now?
Good point there - awhile back I had a discussion with someone who told me that the Republicans take care of “their own”, i.e. the rich. I remember pointing out that when you look at the worth of the top 10 wealthiest Congress, you find that they represent a total of $1,026,000,000. Most interesting is that of those top 10, 6 are Democrats & 4 are Republicans. If you add up the Republicans, you get a total of $334,000,000 and the Democrats share is $692,000,000. Another way to look at is that represents 33% for the Republicans and 67% for the Democrats.
http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Congress_2008/guide/28506-1.html?type=printer_friendly
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 1905 hrs
JJ said,
They don’t believe the public school system is working, I don’t think they even want to improve it, or else they’d have some idea other than “Raise Taxes, more money”.
Wow, you’re soaked in the koolaid aren’t you
Look I don’t agree with Dems on a lot, but your opinion is baseless. I seriously doubt a whackjob leftist’s similar description of your opinions would be anymore accurate than yours.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 22, 2008 at 2135 hrs
Wow, you’re soaked in the koolaid aren’t you
Ah, the gift of understatement.
That is foundation for the Democrat aristocracy. The goal is to have absolute and undue influence of Congress in regard to the opportunity and standing of the “peasants”.
Say, wha?
Get a grip rc.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2008 at 0003 hrs
pjr and mht -
In the past 20 years, what have the NEA, WEAC, and the Democrats brought to the table to improve education other than give us more money? Whole language? Bribing for free breakfasts with iPods (see the MPS budget for this one)? Domestic partner benefits for the school board? Political correctness? Sanitizing history to the point where they can’t teach that the Pilgrims came to the new country for religious freedom because you can’t say the “G” word?
WTF?
When we moved earlier this year, we seriously thought about public school for the kids. When we were checking out what would have been our elementary school, we asked the principal about how they taught reading to Kindergartners - the class our youngest would be entering. The answer was “we don’t think there is one good answer, so we use a combination of whole language, some phonics, and we let the kids self-explore”. Huh? How the hell is a 5-year old going to learn how to read by self-exploring? Then when doing further research, we find out that the drop-out rate in our area is close to 40%. Add in that the state goal for 3-8 grade reading proficiency is 43%. 43% is the goal!! So the epidemic of failing our kids in public schools isn’t limited to the Milwaukee area. The area here is dominated by Democrats too, and the rallying cry is, you guessed it - “We need more money”. So here we are paying tuition again to educate our kids while donating increasing tax money to the failing public schools. Lovely.
And yes, I do believe it is deliberate, the liberals and Democrats have had control of the schools forever. When is it we can finally stamp the “FAIL” on top of it and try something new?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2008 at 0944 hrs
The girls will be 11 and 14 when they move out of the White House. Perhaps then the Obamas will send them to the same public schools they think other black children should be forced to attend.
Posted by HeatherRadish on November 23, 2008 at 1041 hrs
First you offer this
the ones that just want government to mostly just leave us all the hell alone, because we can take care of ourselves and our families.
Then, in a total abdication of responsibility for the most important JOB of your life, this
...How the hell is a 5-year old going to learn how to read…..
And then you try to politicize this smorgasbord of blather.
I think you need to tighten it up a bit.
BTW, my Mom provided us with a solid foundation in the 3 R’s before our formal education even statrted.
Sounds like your getting a late start.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2008 at 1147 hrs
pjr
With all due respect - f off. How dare you even assume that I am abdicating my JOB of raising my children. I am sending my kids to private school for the very reason that I do give a damn. My youngest is 1-1/2 grade levels ahead of her public school counterparts right now so take your late start comment and shove it.
But I need to lighten up? Perhaps you might better explain why you think its OK to spend billions of dollars on a system where 40% don’t graduate and less than half are proficient in reading? In the global economy, there are fewer and fewer unskilled labor jobs. Education is more critical than ever. Maybe you should take it more seriously.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2008 at 1229 hrs
How dare you even assume that I am abdicating my JOB of raising my children. I am sending my kids to private school for the very reason that I do give a damn.
So you just found a private nanny, good for you.
Perhaps you might better explain why you think its OK to spend billions of dollars on a system where 40% don’t graduate and less than half are proficient in reading?
Perhaps you might better explain how you came to assume this?
Second It was “tighten” not “lighten”.
Like the difference between literate and lucid?
You do know the difference right?
If you don’t want to take responsibility for what you wrote, I guess that is your problem.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2008 at 1308 hrs
Perhaps you might better explain how you came to assume this?
Perhaps it was the combination of your personal attack on me and my parenting skills instead of any sort of outrage at the failing public school system, the billions spent there and the constant request for more.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2008 at 1359 hrs
Perhaps it was the combination of your personal attack on me and my parenting skills instead of any sort of outrage at the failing public school system, the billions spent there and the constant request for more.
So you were looking for a shared delusional experience as far as the “foundation for the Democrat aristocracy” and their conspiracy against the middle class?
Sorry I could not be more accommodating.
I hear Digaudio opened up a new waste transfer facility, maybe you should check it out.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2008 at 1426 hrs
JJ,
Your failure to understand the principal’s answer doesn’t mean she’s wrong, or evil. In fact it sounds like her answer was a good one, given that different kids respond better to different learning methods.
Look you make some decent points about failure and the sole answere of needing more money. I bet we could find some common ground on the issue if you weren’t bonging Big Gulps full of partisan kool aid.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2008 at 1041 hrs
The self described man of change could have demonstrated his belief in the public school system by sending his children to a public school. He isn’t, so no change so far.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2008 at 1241 hrs
Hmm. I thought Repubs were all for parental choice. The Obamas are parents, and they chose. As for as the girls attending the U. of Chicago Lab School, wasn’t Mrs. O employed there, and could that convenience have also played into that decision? Ya think?
I don’t disagree that there’s all kinds of ugly politicization (by both sides) of public schooling, but I think most of us agree that a parent’s decision of what school their kids will attend should not be a political one. It certainly should be based on the kids’ skills and needs, and not how it looks for the parents.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2008 at 1343 hrs
Good, then we can agree. Road blocks to school choice should be eliminated so that a child can attend the school that will best fit their skills and needs. And as much as all children are different lets not assume that public schools cannot meet those needs, even if you are PE of the US.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2008 at 1427 hrs
ATV - here’s the kicker, I don’t belong to any party. I am one of those much-maligned “Conservatives” or “Traditionalists” if you will. The group that the R’s are trying to throw under the bus and the D’s have utter disdain for.
I’m the sole support of my family at the moment as my spouse is in school changing careers - to become a middle school math teacher of all things. We are the middle class - we bought the house we could afford we drive older cars so we don’t have payments. We have very little debt. I take my lunch to work. You know, all the things responsible people do to get through these types of economic times. But read the headlines - every single government entity run by D’s right now isn’t looking to cut back, but is telling all of us that WE will have to cut back more, because the government black hole must come first. If it were only that easy to go tell my company that I need a raise because the government needs more.
My bad if that emotion comes across as partisan kool-aid. You seem like someone to have an actual conversation with.
pjr is still a jackas$
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2008 at 1819 hrs
Clearly.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2008 at 0800 hrs
Total Entries: 20000
Total Comments: 134051
Most Recent Entry: 05/25/2012 06:26 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/25/2012 10:25 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 117
Total anonymous users: 1
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/25/2012 12:04 pm
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).