Obama girls look at Washington private schools

Source: AP

WASHINGTON – Malia and Sasha Obama are in Washington with their mother checking out prospective new schools.

Michelle Obama brought 7-year-old Sasha and 10-year-old Malia to visit the future first family's top choices, her spokeswoman Katie McCormick Lelyveld said Tuesday. She would not name the schools.

"She brought the girls to visit choices for their new schools to make sure they find the right fit," she said. "Their move to Washington is her top priority."

A small motorcade was parked at the back entrance of Georgetown Day School on Monday afternoon, with a few Secret Service agents standing around. The motorcade left after a group of people emerged, but Michelle Obama was not seen among them.

Read more: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081118/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_schools

I wish ANY Rep, Senator, President, etc., would send his or her kids to public school.

I'm surprised they don't set up a school just for the kids of politicians in DC.

I went to an inner-city public high school that was much safer than a suburban private high school I attended previously. It's not even a contest.

After my experiences, I have no faith at all in the safety of private schools.

The secret service will need to run checks on every teacher and their associates, every administrator, office worker, student, parents of students, etc. Doing that in a private school is easier not just because there tend to be fewer students and teachers, but they tend to come from families with less red flags. Public schools have more people to check, and are far more likely to come back with a number of red flags for both security and political reasons.

and a private school is going to be inherently safer IMHO.

You ARE aware that the family is a prime target for white supremacists, aren't you?

A public school can accommodate the girls' bodyguards. Why would a private school be inherently safer?

and go anywhere other than straight to an office, that is not correct. Am I misunderstanding you?

school is.

Why do you people think you know better than the Obamas and the Secret Service what is best for those children? I find your attitude toward them, as the parents in this picture, extremely patronizing.

The big difference is that the students include those who, for whatever reason, can't go to private schools.

Private schools are often much more secure than public schools. They are often surrounded by stone or brick walls and have locked gates at the entrance. My private school had security on campus long before any of the area public schools.

At any rate, the Obamas should be allowed to choose whatever school they want for their daughters.

And locked doors. And security. So, again, what makes a private school safer?

:)

very attentive to the children's safety.

Seems to me you are engaging in the same behavior. You certainly seem to know that it is best for the Obamas to choose a private school.

My only point is that there is very little difference in terms of walking-in-off-the-street access between a public and private school.

And that's all I have to say about that.

My children went to inner city schools in Los Angeles for many years. The school buildings were poorly maintained and shabby, but the teachers were excellent.

In college, my children competed with students who had attended private schools. And guess what? None of the private school graduates did or could have done better than my children. The private school bit is nonsense. The only advantage you get from attending private school is that you got to school with other kids rich enough to afford the school. That sets you up socially for life. (Although I've seen children who suffered for life because they went to a private school and did not fit in.)

Private schools generally hire less well qualified teachers, do not pay them as well as public schools (especially if you think about pensions and other benefits), do not offer tenure (which is vital to motivate teachers to continue to invest in further education), do not treat their teachers as professionals and suffer from toxic politics at the staff and professional (what there is of it) levels. I base this on knowing a lot of teachers -- both in public and private schools.

The big problem with public schools is that they do not get to discriminate in choosing their students. They have to accept troublemakers and poor students along with the good, and they do not have the money or parental involvement that private schools enjoy.

I view people who send their kids to private schools as foolish snobs or religious fanatics. There are exceptions such as children with learning disabilities or special needs whose parents put them in schools appropriate for their special requirements.

As for safety, we need to protect every child in every school with the same degree of concern that with which we protect the Obama children. The Obama children have a right to be safe and secure at school. But then, what child does not?

And I can assure you we are neither snobs nor religious fanatics.

outside intercom systems. I know, because I occasionally have to drop things off to parishioners (teachers) or youth group kids at public schools. At some, I have to talk to the office through an intercom system, and be buzzed in. At others, if I don't call ahead of time and let them know I'm coming, there's no way I'm getting in the building. Publicly-owned does NOT mean a public space. Only people with business in schools are allowed in schools these days. As it should be.

guests to check in at the principal's office.

"Amy Carter attended Washington, DC, public schools to reinforce her father's "everyman" image,<1> including Stevens Elementary School and Hardy Middle School.<2><3><4> However, Carter struggled to make friends at the schools she attended, and she was not allowed outside for recess because the school's playground was too near the street.<1> The next First Family to decide where to send a child, Bill and Hillary Clinton, chose to send their daughter to a private school.<5>"

wikipedia entry on Amy Carter

"she was not allowed outside for recess because the school's playground was too near the street"

That must have been fun for ber. She may have had a more normal experience at a private school.

despite the "abnormality."

except that she hasn't complained publicly.

kids at recess. There's nothing a kid likes more than being "different". Sometimes a person turns out well despite their childhood.

The danger would be soooo great. And not to mention how it could isolate them from students, and even impact the students around them. They are much better off at a private school.

That is really the only advantage of a private over a public school.

My son attended a wonderful innovative private school during his elementary school years. They taught latin, built a solar car and he had the opportunity to shine in math. He wouldn't have had those opportunities in the local public school.

Perhaps you haven't thought it all through.

instead as of girls with their own individual, human needs.

In this case, they've both been attending a private school for the kids of faculty at the University of Chicago. How do you think they'd feel about moving and giving up all their friends and everything they've known, only to be put not into a comparable private school, but into a D.C. public school -- just to give their father and D.C. some good publicity?

All that matters with regard to these two little girls is what is best for THOSE TWO LITTLE GIRLS! That's it! Anything that makes them sort of symoblic gesture is not in their best interests. They should go to school where it's best for those two girls.

The Professor

than children who attend public schools? What kind of snob are you?

I sent my children to public schools. They do not see themselves or anyone else as better than themselves or anyone else. They do not suffer from that -- private school (read rich kids) are better than public school (read poor kids) kids.

Sorry to be rude to you, but think about what you are saying. You are being rude and unkind to all the parents and children who cannot afford private schools. I'll bet my children are far, far better in every respect than the brats produced by private schools.

most public schools do a good job with the resources they have. There are some so bad that I would avoid sending my kids to by any means necessary, including putting them in a private school or home schooling.

If D.C.'s schools are so bad that a president's child is too good to attend them, then Congress needs to take action. Ultimately Congress is responsible for what goes on in D.C., I believe. D.C. is not a separate state. I may be wrong, but I believe that D.C. is ultimately controlled by Congress. I know it has a mayor, etc., but I think that Congress is the equivalent of a state government above that local government.

I live in the area. The D.C. schools are not good generally, with a few exceptions.

New superintendent Michelle Rhee is struggling mightily to make some progress, but the going is slow and very difficult.

I'd like to see the Obama sisters go to public school, but considering the security issues and the state of the D.C. schools, I think that the Obamas need to make the right choice for their girls.

to choose schools that other people do? Why should the girls have their options limited in order to satisfy people like you? Why can't they continue to attend the same kind of school they've always attended?

Malia and Sasha didn't run for office; their father did. Their lives are being turned upside down as it is. People should cut them some slack, and not expect them to be some kind of national symbols.

And that he shouldn't receive a "rich people's" income? (Or even be able to spend the savings he already has on his daughters' education?) Or is it only the daughters, and their education, that should be sacrificed for the sake of political ideals?

The girls are having to give up their lives -- including friends and a school they love -- to further their father's ambitions. We shouldn't begrudge them whatever educational choices they make now.

believed public was better than private. It seems to me that you just assumed that is what was meant.

And your slam on private schools and the "brats" who attend them - well, now who's the snob?

For what it is worth, my daughter attends public school, but we looked at private schools as well. It just so happened that we found an excellent public school that was a really good fit for her.

I think we need to keep our noses out of the Obama's education choices - they know better than we what their children need.

benefited from the fact that they went to public schools. They had friends at private schools. The private school kids have a lot more trouble getting along with all kinds of people and having confidence than do my kids. Could be the families, but I think it is because the children suffered from the "My family is richer, better than . . . ." syndrome. Also, the children in private schools had the right things, which the children I know could not afford.

Public schools are the foundation of equal opportunity. I am very suspicious of anyone who claims to value equal opportunity but wants his or her kids to go to a private school in which most of the children are inevitably from privileged families.

My children work well with all kinds of people -- rich and poor, black and white, Hispanic, Asian, intelligent, less intelligent. Thank you public schools. A public school education is a well-rounded education. And if the schools in your city aren't any good, run for the school board or support someone you know to run for the school board.

to prove a political point.

You sent your own children to a good public school -- not to the equivalent of a D.C. public school. And improving public schools is a lot harder than getting someone you know to run for school board.

We live in the inner city of L.A., not the suburbs. My children got wonderful educations.

Nowadays you can send a child to a charter school if you want a public school with a more flexible curriculum. Public schools afford a lot of choices with regard to the curriculum. Private schools are small and one size fits all. I love public schools. I really believe in them. And public schools need all the support from the Obamas that they can get. If they are afraid to have their kids mix with public school kids, they could at least take supporting D.C. and other inner city public schools very seriously. Maybe Michelle could make that a priority.

The problem with sending your kids to a private school is that it is a cop out on issues like equal opportunity, good education for all and helping give a hand up to families of limited means. The more that the middle class opts for private education, the weaker public schools become.

When our public schools cease to be of high quality, we will cease to be a nation in which we enjoy equal opportunity.

superintendent has systematically dismantled every special school we had. When we moved here twenty years ago, the district promoted an "individualized education." Now, our teachers across the district are literally teaching the same lessons with the same books on the same page each day. And most of the residents are content with this, because we have also gamed the testing system. (Our superintendent figured out that the way to be ranked nationally among top schools has nothing to do with class size or quality instruction -- but simply with the number of A.P. tests that high school students take -- regardless of whether they pass the test.)

After thirteen years of fighting this superintendent and his school board cronies, I've given up.

The private school my youngest son attends now -- unlike the public schools here -- is anything but "one size fits all." While I will continue to vote for school levies, because I support the concept of public schools, I refuse to sacrifice my son to those ideals.

________

Edit to add: Did you know that Amy Carter was the only child of a President in the last hundred years to attend a D.C. school? It doesn't seem right to me that the first African-American children of a President shouldn't have the benefit of the same kind of education that almost all the other children of Presidents have had.

Does anyone know for sure?

for your children, then by all means...

Why deny any other parent the right to have their children educated as they see fit?

In the vast majority of cases, no one knows what's best for kids more so than their own parents do.

all three of my children attended public schools, and also spent some time in Catholic and/or private schools.

We made the decisions based on each child's separate needs at that time in their lives -- as I'm sure the Obamas will, too.

Can they read? Can most of the kids in the class read? Are kids shooting drugs in the bathroom? Are kids having sex on campus during school hours? How many of their classmates are in jail for stealing, dealing, or prostitution? How many kids in the class have attempted suicide because school was so horrific?

I saw all this and more in 4 years of public education, grades 5-8.

about once every two weeks. The real fun day was when I went out on my front porch to get my paper only to find two of the

'better than public school" kids ON my porch! I told them to de-couple themselves, get dressed and get off my porch. Little barbarians! Still they seemed to understand biology.

I went to public school through my BA. Never once shot anyone, had sex on campus, nor on the neighbors' porch, dealt drugs, nor engaged in prostitution. But if you say that's what goes on in public schools, I guess I should believe you, rather than my own lying eyes.

I grew up in Oakland, California, which I imagine is a lot like DC.

I don't engage in name calling, and I don't put words in other people's mouths. And I didn't say that the children were better -- anywhere.

My own children have attended every kind of school -- public, private, and religious. Yes, there are brats in private school. Also in public school and religious schools. And there are smart, hardworking students in every school, too.

But the particular private schools the Obamas are considering are much more similar to the schools the girls are already attending than the D.C. public schools would be -- in terms of class size, class offerings, and well-qualified, experienced teachers.

Bottom line, I think the Obama girls are entitled to be treated as separate human beings -- not as symbols for the sake of their father's career.

the girls are going to a private school. GET OVER IT.

or are related to it in another way.

http://www.ucls.uchicago.edu/admissions/faq.shtml

What is Lab's connection to the University of Chicago?
Laboratory Schools are a division of the University of Chicago, and like the University of Chicago Hospitals, the Smart Museum, and the Court Theater, we are an integral part of the University community. Nearly half of our families are employed by the University and many more have connections to it, past and present. Current University of Chicago employees receive priority attention in the admission process and are encouraged to contact us early in order to take advantage of this benefit.

but the security concerns for the President's children are likely much better addressed at a private school.

Let's not make this a litmus test. Just like if the President decides to get their puppy from a reputable breeder instead of a pound.

safer than a public one? More expensive locks? Higher hedges? What?

Everyone knows everyone else.

which makes it easier for Secret Services to watch over the girls.

Honestly, I have no problem with public or private schools in general. What I do have a problem with is people here who think they know what's best for Obama's girls. The girls are going to be going thru 8 years that very few other children in this country can say the have done - being children of the President of the United States. And there are great security risks out there not necessarily from other children in the school but others outside the school that might target those girls to get revenge on Obama. I would say the biggest advantage between public vs. private is the population of students in the school are much smaller and makes it easier for Secret Service to watch over these girls.

If someone were able to get to these girls and harm them, kidnap them or hold the school hostage with the girls in it - it could compromise our government and the job that Obama is doing (Let's face it - when it comes to our children they always come first). So this is not the time nor the place for Obama to be making a public statement about sending the girls to a public school. Obama may be our president but that does not make those girls our children to insist on doing what we want them to do.

Probably a school like Sidwell Friends would be the best. Yes it's religious based but Quakers are probably the most liberal religious group in the United States. Plus Chelsea Clinton is an alumni so the school is already accustomed to handling the children of Presidents.

My daughters' private middle school is far far smaller than their public primary school. Smaller in overall number of students, and in class size as well. And the ratio of staff to students is higher. As a result of all this it's easier to know who everyone is, and easier to screen visitors.

Their private school is physically more secure. Every exterior door is locked and anyone entering the school has to come by the front desk. At their public school the doors were unlocked, and a sign instructed guests to come to the office to get a guest pass.

By the way, I loved (and love) my kids public primary school. And they will go to public high school. The private middle school was the right choice for the right time.

Breeding animals for lives in captivity, unless you have to do so to sustain yourself (as in the case of sheep, cows, for some rural people), is WRONG.

If we set free all the dogs that are now living in captivity, that would be a problem, yes. But if we stopped BREEDING dogs FOR lives in captivity, the problem would go away. Free-roaming wolves are not a problem in areas where there is enough wilderness for them to live without disturbing humans. It only becomes a problem when people destroy native habitats, thus forcing wildlife to encroach on human-settled land. If we got rid of the dog-breeding industry and people became wiser about spaying/neutering their pets, the problem of unwanted dogs would be gone within a few decades. Rural people could still have dogs, which they could allow to roam outside and re-form packs.

People in urban and suburban areas, in general, are not able to provide dogs with the lives they deserve. There are a few exceptions: People with the time, money, and energy to get several dogs so that they have each other for company, take said dogs for long walks and take them to dog parks to interact with other dogs frequently. But in general, urban and suburban people have one dog, which is kept in a house most of the day, often by itself, and occassionally taken to a dog park for a short amount of time, where it can interact with dogs it has never seen before and will never see again. The fact that having a dog "makes people happy" does NOT justify this kind of life for the animal.

In the current situation, though, an urban or suburban family may adopt a dog from a shelter, and be justified in doing so, because the alternative for that dog would be to spend the rest of its life in that shelter, which is usually much worse than life with a human family. Ideally, though, these dogs would stop being bred for profit, or concieved accidentally by animals that humans were too lazy to spay/neuter, and then dogs would no longer be born with a "best-case-scenario" option of getting a lonely, boring life in a human home instead of an even worse one in an animal shelter.

:hide:

If everyone sent their children to public schools everyone would have a stake in the quality of those schools and everyone would trust the quality of the public schools. As I explained above, my children went to public schools and they have done extremely well, getting grades and opportunities better than those of their friends who went to private schools.

She wanted me to get a good education and have a good life.

:P

(including in the annual school levy campaigns); and that still didn't mean the public schools met all of their needs all of the time.

The latest fiasco has been the obsession with testing and cookie cutter education due to the "No Child Left Behind" act. My youngest is now out of the public schools, probably for good -- but it's not because of the other kids, or even because of the teachers -- it's because of the rigid standardization of the curriculum and administrators who care more about accumulating impressive statistics than about educating individual students.

President Carter was insistent on putting his money where his mouth is in regards to support for public education. That was one of his finest moments.

I disagree.

"Amy Carter attended Washington, DC, public schools to reinforce her father's "everyman" image,<1> including Stevens Elementary School and Hardy Middle School.<2><3><4> However, Carter struggled to make friends at the schools she attended, and she was not allowed outside for recess because the school's playground was too near the street.

wikipedia entry on Amy Carter

Parents must make the choice for their children--whether it's public school, private school, or home school. I just think it was refreshing that in Carter's case his personal life reflected the public policy that he espoused.
I'm sure if things had been impossibly miserable for Amy her parents would have pulled her out and put her in one of the many tony private schools in the area.
Obama to my knowledge has not been an outspoken proponent of public education, at least insofar as eschewing other options are concerned. So I see nothing wrong with his decision.

A private school allows for better security and smaller classroom details. I know that kinda sucks that we can't have that for all our children but these girls should not be put at risk jeopardizing the president.

then the only option is homeschooling. That is the only way they will be completely safe.

And there's always letting the family decide what it wants to do.

that only the wealthy families get the "choice." The plight of the public schools in the US needs to be highlighted and addressed, but no one seems willing to do it. I find it hard to believe that a public school could not be MADE safe for these children.

healthcare, in food.

Sending these two kids to public school as a symbol will not do anything to actually improve public education.

My daughters attended public primary school, are attending private middle school, and will attend public high school. I can say without doubt that of the schools my kids have attended, the private school is far more secure in terms of the sort of threat I'd think the President's children might face. If you actually care, I can tell you why.

Great education should be available to everyone.

I know how it is more secure, but a public school could be MADE secure.

school could have been made as secure as their private middle school.

Not without eliminating most of the student population, and forcing the school to install a lot more costly security infrastructure, change its student to teacher ratio.

Additionally, this symbolic gesture would do nothing to increase the quality of public education for the children of the United States.

a component of safety?

Sunshine is the best disinfectant.

In my kids public primary school, security consisted of a sign at the unlocked front door instructing guests to check into the principal's office. There was not the staffing to do much more than that - not that it was really needed.

In their private middle school, no one enters the school except through a locked door, where they have to buzzed in by staff. There are additional staff - including teachers - that are in a greater ratio to the kids so there are always more adults who know who is supposed to be there and who's not.

In my kids' public primary school there were hundred of kids, hence hundreds of parents often coming in and out. In their private middle school, there are far fewer, but (again) more staff to know who's who.

This level of security isn't why we chose the school, and it may in part be a response to location - in a somewhat sketchy neighborhood. But it's more secure, without doubt.

Take Sidwell Friends - 3 kids of presidents including Chelsea Clinton have attended that school with no issue.

Why should we DUers piss & moan about the education of Malia and Sasha? They aren't our kids and we aren't the president of the united states. I think the welfare of the children should come first along with providing some normalcy for these kids. Private schools are easier to secure than public. This is not a diss on public education (which I'm a product of) but the concept that these schools tend to have small classrooms & student populations which allow secret service to better maintain.

Heck even 20 years ago, it was starting to get really bad.

I remember when I was a senior in a public high school, back in 1987, there was a fight on campus between a student and someone that didn't go to the school. One of them got stabbed. This was late in the school year, close to June gradudation.

I discovered that during the summer break, the school had put up bars all around it to keep non-students out. Thus the Fall 1987 school semester started in "lockdown" mode for the first time in the school's history. Before that incident, it had been a pretty much open door policy, with students being allowed to go off campus during lunch time, even to the local fast food restaurant a block away if they wanted. However, now, nope. When I returned as a tutor in math and science, I had to "check in" to a certain location at the only entrance. There was a security guard there.

it will be quite a transition for them too. But I am sure Mom and Dad and Grandman too, will solidly keep their feet planted.

so few politicians will send their kids to public schools. Would you go to a hospital if you knew everyone who worked there, from the owners down to the doctors and nurses, refused to go there or send any of their family members to said hospital to get care no matter what the circumstances?

Seems to me if the people running the show want nothing to do with it then why the hell should the rest of us be stuck with it?

I guarantee you that if the rich and powerful in this country had to send their kids to any random public school we'd see a marked improvement in public education real quick.

A really shitty way to treat working Americans.

He should do what is best for the children, and not to prove a point or be politically correct.

I think people who want responsibility for public education should be familiar with it.

That's the kind of result you get when rigid thinking keeps a person from supporting the best candidate.

He didn't have anything like the organizational ability, or the inspirational ability that Obama did -- even among Democrats. Much less among the broader electorate.

and I think it says alot about what our politicians think of the public education system they run.

is considered so detrimental to children. That's a good sign.

Private schools are the forerunner of an aristocracy.

schools. And it wasn't Obama.

being guaranteed a sub-par and mostly useless education isn't all that better than having no access to education.

home schoolin' = fundie (in my twisted up mind)

I'm a product of public school system and I have no problem with it. But Malia and Sasha are not my daughters, they are the daughters of a soon to be very powerful man in this world who may have enemies that wouldn't think twice of using those girls to get to Obama. A private school may offer more security because of smaller classroom sizes or for a school like Sidwell - it's use to having president kids attending (Clinton, Nixon and Eisenhowser).

But whatever Barack and Michelle decide it's not for us to play armchair QB with those 2 girls. I didn't elect either of them to President nor did any of them run for office.

I just hope they are safe for the next 8 years :D

Was there this type of double guessing where they went to school when Obama was running for president?

Why should they even be expected to go to a public school at this point?

Are many of us here simply wishing PE Obama and his wife would send them to a public school for no other reason than mere symbolism?



How often do we ourselves impose symbolism on our own children? Selfish, selfish, selfish...

...to ameliorate the kind of disruption inherent in having the girls there.

Not that a public school couldn't handle it, but it would cost money for the security setup. Either that would come out of the school's budget, and the wingnuts would have a field day about public funding ("Bobby couldn't go to the museum because the Obamas ate up the field trip budget," etc. etc.) or the first family would pay for it, and the wingnuts would have a field day about the Obamas "fixing" a public school with money, and we'd have to listen to that for weeks on end.

Or, they go to private school and avoid these issues. And then some folks jump on them for their elitist education.

Can't please everyone. I think this is the best choice.

Their primary high school was public also.

I can only say that at every step it was a personal choice, based on what worked best for the girls and our family.

I will add that in our experience, between the public and private schools, the private school is far more secure. Much smaller school, smaller class size, more locked doors and fewer people means easier screening of people who aren't supposed to be there.

The Obamas are accountable only to their daughters.

or only children under high security.

:dunce:

blame them for sending them to private school. I think since the private schools are smaller and the classes are smaller, the SS have better control over the security of the children. I often wondered why Presidents with school age children didn't just hire a school teacher/governess for them to be taught in the White House. It seems so much safer for them. As a matter of fact, if they want more children around the girls, they could include the children of staffers of the same ages and grades to get a better classroom feel. Going out in public every day increases their chances of being kidnapped or harmed in some way. Although I know every SS guy would take a bullet for the girls, the experience itself would be very traumatizing.