Obama say public schools suck.

[thundley4]

sonomak (23 posts)           Mon Sep-27-10 11:51 AM
Original message
Obama: D.C. schools don't measure up to his daughters' private school
   
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...

Obama: D.C. schools don't measure up to his daughters' private school
By Nick Anderson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 27, 2010; 9:30 AM

President Obama said Monday that his daughters could not get the same level of education from D.C. public schools that they receive at the elite private school they attend.

Obama, following a path chosen by some of his predecessors in the White House, chose to enroll his daughters Malia and Sasha in the Sidwell Friends School soon after he won the 2008 presidential election.

The president, in a television appearance Monday morning on NBC's "Today" show, was asked by a woman from an audience whether a public school in his home city could measure up to the standards of his children's private school.

"I'll be blunt with you: The answer is no right now," the president replied. Obama said the D.C. schools are "struggling." There are "terrific individual schools" in the city, he said, and because he is president he could "probably maneuver" to get his daughters into one of them.....

-------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.sidwell.edu/admissions/tuition-and-fees/inde...
Tuition for 2010-2011
Lower School $31,069
Middle and Upper Schools $32,069

Troll stirring the pot.

Didn't Obama and the Demonrats curtail the voucher program in DC that allowed poor people to have that same choice of sending their kids to better schools?

Brickbat   (1000+ posts)           Mon Sep-27-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Jayzus H. This is a ****ing nightmare.

But, I'll bet you considered Lord Zero your dream candidate, didn't you?

EFerrari   (1000+ posts)             Mon Sep-27-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
2. "Do as I say, not as I do." n/t

That has long been the motto of the left.

dkf   (1000+ posts)             Mon Sep-27-10 12:08 PM
Response to Reply #2
23. Is he telling anyone to pull their kids out of private schools because the public schools are
   
Superior?

No quite the opposite. He is telling you fools that the rich deserve a better education.

FiveGoodMen   (1000+ posts)             Mon Sep-27-10 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
3. An educated public is necessary for a democracy to function
   
That means good education for everyone.

If it's privatized, that means better education for the rich.

But those of us who actually pay attention already knew what side this guy is on.

The left has long ruled the education system.  Their goal of electing an idiot has come to fruition th Obama.

EFerrari   (1000+ posts)             Mon Sep-27-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. The president throws $30K + a year per kid at their school
   
and yet he says throwing money at schools is not a solution.

It seems to be working out pretty well for him.

It's a good sized bonfire.

[bijou]

Sonomak, what a star! 

[TheSarge]

Then Mr. President...if you think the schools suck in D.C. do NOT let the new Mayor & the D.C. teachers union fire Michelle Rhee.

[jukin]

Was that why Obama cut the voucher policy in WDC?

[Karin]

Technically, I believe it was all those democrat senators.  I remember being more furious than usual at Upchuck Schumer.  How dare he.  Relegating all those kids to the piece of shit, dangerous hellholes that are the WDC pubic schools.  I saw some interviews with some of those kids, and they showed a lot of promise and potential.  How dare he???  I'm mad all over again. 

[delilahmused]

EFerrari   (1000+ posts)             Mon Sep-27-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. The president throws $30K + a year per kid at their school
 
and yet he says throwing money at schools is not a solution.

It seems to be working out pretty well for him.

Beth you stupid, stupid cow. According to THIS economic professor (who got his information from CATO Institute), in 2009 the DC schools spent $28,169 per student. That's damn close to what the big 0 pays for his daughters. I'm sure another couple thousand will make a whole lot of difference. How about we try doing something besides throw money at a problem.  That's always been the left's solution. It doesn't appear to be working. Perhaps it's time to stop digging in the same hole.

Cindie

[thundley4]

Beth you stupid, stupid cow. According to THIS economic professor (who got his information from CATO Institute), in 2009 the DC schools spent $28,169 per student. That's damn close to what the big 0 pays for his daughters. I'm sure another couple thousand will make a whole lot of difference. How about we try doing something besides throw money at a problem.  That's always been the left's solution. It doesn't appear to be working. Perhaps it's time to stop digging in the same hole.

Cindie

Could the difference be that the schools that Obama sends his kids to are not controlled by teachers unions, but are ran on a business model?

[Ballygrl]

Brickbat   (1000+ posts)           Mon Sep-27-10 11:52 AM
Response to Original message
1. Jayzus H. This is a ****ing nightmare.

[Carl]

EFerrari   (1000+ posts)  ]           Mon Sep-27-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. The president throws $30K + a year per kid at their school
 
and yet he says throwing money at schools is not a solution.

It seems to be working out pretty well for him.

The difference Beth you idiot is that an institution taking private money understands it needs to be responsible and accountable to those paying it.
An intistution taking public money with union control and limited oversight learns it needs to be accountable to no one.

Guess which will suceed and which won`t?

[Ballygrl]

The difference Beth you idiot is that an institution taking private money understands it needs to be responsible and accountable to those paying it.
An intistution taking public money with union control and limited oversight learns it needs to be accountable to no one.

Guess which will suceed and which won`t?

You have a lot of nerve speaking the truth!

[delilahmused]

The difference Beth you idiot is that an institution taking private money understands it needs to be responsible and accountable to those paying it.
An intistution taking public money with union control and limited oversight learns it needs to be accountable to no one.

Guess which will suceed and which won`t?

The thing is, there's only about $2000 difference between the cost per student of Sidwell Friends and DC public schools. Someone's NOT getting their money's worth. There's something incredibly wrong with that picture. Especially when you consider that giving those same students vouchers to attend Sidwell they do as well as the other students there. Evidently not only do Democrats not care about the poor (especially at the expense of their precious teachers' unions) but they don't want them rubbing shoulders with their own children. Interesting how vouchers were withdrawn when 0 came into power...his kids must be too good to rub shoulders with the hoi polloi their daddy seeks to rule.

Cindie

[Wineslob]

EFerrari   (1000+ posts)             Mon Sep-27-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. The president throws away $30K + a year of tax payer dollars per kid at their school
 
and yet he says throwing money at schools is not a solution.

It seems to be working out pretty well for him.

FIXED

[MrsSmith]

Beth you stupid, stupid cow. According to THIS economic professor (who got his information from CATO Institute), in 2009 the DC schools spent $28,169 per student. That's damn close to what the big 0 pays for his daughters. I'm sure another couple thousand will make a whole lot of difference. How about we try doing something besides throw money at a problem.  That's always been the left's solution. It doesn't appear to be working. Perhaps it's time to stop digging in the same hole.

Cindie

I checked into various schools for one of my kids...the PUBLIC schools in Oklahoma get about $6500 a year per student (and Oklahoma is constantly criticized for not throwing more money at their schools.)

The PRIVATE school where I sent my kid that year cost me just over HALF that amount for the tuition, then $200 or 250 for books.

And that PRIVATE school recently built a new school building.  

The problem is not money.  The problem has never been money.  Some of the problem is parents that don't care about the education of their children, or whether or not their kids will be productive adults.  Much of the problem is teachers that blame the parents instead of teaching the kids.  Much more is the rubber-stamp mentality that throws away any kid that has a different learning style or learning disability.  Even more than that is the drag on the schools placed there by liberal government requirements and the NEA.

[JohnnyReb]

Lets see, $28,000 and some Secret Service men wondering the halls of my sons school would do wonders for it. The $4265 per pupil and one old retired cop they have now ain't doing as bad as DC schools.

[poorpoorme]

Where do you find official per-pupil spending numbers? 

I saw that $28.000 number in one column by one columnist in a newspaper, but I have no idea where the figure came from or how it was obtained.  When I google "DC per-pupil spending," everything else I see on the net is closer to $17,000. 

There is a lot of conflicting information on the web.  Does anybody have a link to some authoritative numbers? 

Thanks. 

[true_blood]

Funny thing, he says public schools suck. I say he sucks at American policies and standards/values.

[Chris_]

They suck, but it isn't for lack of money.  Must be something else.


http://www.cato-at-liberty.org/chart-of-the-day-federal-ed-spending/

[poorpoorme]

wow.  that's quite a graph. 

especially the extra lines at the bottom.