What do you think of Obama's decision to send his daughters to Sidwell Friends School?

Background: It's an exclusive private school in Washington, attended by Chelsea Clinton and children of both Nixon and Eisenhower.

Enrollement: 1,100; Faculty: 250.

ON EDIT: I kind of expected this reaction, which is along the same lines as I feel. But OF COURSE the conservatives are going to make an issue out of this--and a racially tinged issue to boot.

The Obama family has had a lot of threats against them. There's no way I'd want these little girls going to a public school, but what I think doesn't matter. I'm convinced that the Obama's know what is best for their children.

Why do they have to live in a glass cage?

Parents own choice to suit their children.

Or better yet, if all public schools were as good as Sidwell Friends. But alas...

Give it a rest. If the Obamas had to live with the same confines as average Americans, they wouldn't have secret service protection and would live in a two bedroom condo instead of the White House. Nothing about them is ordinary so stop treating their school choice that way.

:fistbump:

:popcorn:

swim swim swim swim ...

What happened to GD-P? I weep for the GD-P of old. :cry:

The old girl's doing fine. :D

nt

Their daughter's privacy was protected, and the Secret Service had no problems providing security to Chelsea at Sidwell.

The Obamas did what was right for the girls. Good for them!

Why should I give my opinion on that? As any parent who has the choice, they go for what they think is best for their daughters.

members of our society

But then...I mentioned ODDs....which has some bearing....

Come, we go eat, drink

:toast:

And I'm surprisingly literate.

we would have moved to Scarsdale and I would have gone to public school. But my mother didn't want a house so we ended up in an apartment and my parents thought the public schools where we were weren't good enough, so we went to private school.

There were no private schools in my day, and only the catholic one when my children were young. We could not have afforded to send them to one if there had been one.

My daughter was a straight A student, was offered scholarships to several top notched Universities and was invited to alumni parties for both Harvard and Yale to meet with backers. We had our pride and she chose not to try for the backing and we could not afford the application fee to either of those institutions. She instead chose to go to the area State University because they not only offered her a scholarship for her tuition but also all of her living expenses and ended with a double BA. For four years she went to college free of charge. She went on to Graduate school and ended up with a big student loan debt. She sacrifices and works at a job that requires a HSD in order to help support me and pay off those debts.

My son was not as good a student, but he worked his way through the same university and ended with a Bachelor's degree in Journalism. He got a job in his field and also has high student loans to repay. Both my son and daughter are intelligent and liberal.

Some of us are poor and cannot afford the best there is in life, but that does not mean we are not intelligent or liberal. Both my children have been tested to have high IQs and if they had been born in an affluent family, would have had more opportunities than they had. As the saying goes to not judge a book by the cover, do not judge a person by the schools they attend.

As far as the Obamas go, I don't care where they send their kids but no more of my money will be going to them. Not because of the school but I refuse to go without anymore so I can send money to those who live so high above me. See I am liberal to the bone. I don't believe there should be the haves and the have nots. Love the Obamas but this last month broke me financially too much for me to feel good about $47 lunches and dates at fancy restaurants. I am also sick of the rich people (not the Obamas) looking down their noses at people like me and mine. Frankly this attitude tends to turn off those of us who have had to struggle through life.

Bitter supporter at the moment.

how they ought manage their relationships with their kids or their educations. It's one of the most petty and ignorant criticisms possible IMO of politicians on any side of the aisle, including Palin. The Obama's have to do what's best for them and their family and only they can decide that, same with the Palin's, same with the Biden's grandkids, same with the Dodd children when they moved to Iowa while he campaigned, etc.

It's about choice and Democrats like choice.

It is their business where the girls go to school. Why does that matter to us.

And, it's not just about privacy: it's about safety. I wouldn't ant to see either of those little girls shot or kidnapped, or even the attempt of that made. Sidwell will be better set up for certain security precautions an dto better accommodate the Secret Service agents.

The safety argument is nonsense. If the SS can't keep them safe in any school, there's a problem with the SS detail. All city schools have tight security these days. This isn't about safety.

the safety argument is nonsense. For the offspring of the President of the United States, it is not nonsense. The added security needed to guard the assets would disrupt the routine of the school.


The private school, attended by children of the wealthy and important, is already used to "Special needs" Security kids. The disruptions bodyguards cause is already a part of their routine.

The wealthy could send their kids to public schools. Oh, and I think public school students and their families are important, too. Even if they're not wealthy.

I'm talking about them being murdered.

The DC public schools are horrific,and are actually dangerous -- I mean the actual schools.

The President's kids should be totally safe,and that won't ahppen in DC schools.

I'm a product of public schools, but I didn't live in DC, and my Dad wasn't the first Black President, either.

There are some interesting offerings--the "museum school" program, Montessori programs in several schools. For a Montessori program to qualify as Montessori, it must have a low teacher:student ratio. So, apparently, there are schools doing that in DC. It's a shame the first family won't be showing support of these efforts.

Have you ever thought about the fact that the Obamas may show their support of these efforts without actually participating in them? Presidents shouldn't have to pull a Morgan Spurlock to show their emotional involvement with social issues.

Again, how have they?

Perhaps they weren't the toughest, scariest public schools in the country--although Barack's WAS in Indonesia.

But the question remains--do you have to personally experience something in order to pass political judgement on it? Both Michelle and Barack have publicly stated their intention to encourage public education, with Michelle in particular wanting to address DC's struggling school system.

Their word is good enough for me.

And yes, I think it's disingenuous to claim to support something you've spent your life avoiding. That's why I'll be deeply disappointed if his Ed Sec is the product of private education.

...it's that both didn't go to AMERICAN public schools for their entire lives. And you don't even care that Michelle DID, despite the fact that this decision for her children was by all accounts mostly hers.

Will you be upset if Obama's Secretary of Commerce didn't grow up in poverty, or his Secretary of Health and Human Services didn't grow up sickly and disease-prone? Or that, as the first Black president, Obama has no direct ancestors who were slaves? Ye Gods, what you expect of our public officials' biographies.

doesn't need to have ever set foot in one? I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. This is actually one reason I voted against him in the primaries. I voted for the candidate whose entire education, through law school, was at public schools.

But I did, because he was clearly our best candidate, despite his years at the Browning School, St. George's Prep, and Yale. And while I admire John Edwards' hard-scrabble background, I always thought of him as a sleazy opportunist then and now.

I myself went to Public schools all my life until College, then two urban Private schools for my two degrees. So my education was largely a mix of funding by my state and by my family. And Occidental College, where I went for 4 years and Obama went for 2, isn't exactly what you'd call the snootiest of the snooty.

But as long as they got good marks and managed to actually achieve within their formative years, I would never hold a politician's education against them. That Bush got to Yale through family connections doesn't bother me--Gore probably made it into Harvard in a similar way--it's that he got piss poor grades and only made it to the top of the Cheerleading Squad and Skull 'n' Bones. It's not WHERE you go, it's what you do with it.

How do you even know what change would mean in a setting with which you are completely unfamiliar?

Yet he set up some of the most influential public welfare programs our country has ever seen. By your logic, Herbert Hoover, the son of an Iowa Blacksmith, would have been the optimal man to lead us out of the Depression.

Being a politician on a national level means working for people you've never met and whose experiences are NOTHING like yours. Everything else is just spin.

threats on his and his family's life than any other president, ever.

I'm betting it's more of a matter of safety for their girls than dissing public schools in D.C., which are, by the way scary. I have family and friends who attend schools in D.C.

I do believe President-Elect Obama will do whatever he can as president to provide better education for everyone.

Finally, if he and Michelle like Sidwell, I love it. and so should you. It's their decision and that's good enough for me. Those are their little girls, not yours or mine.

You sound very bitter.

Look, if Sidwell is equipped/set up for high-security kids, it's a no-brainer, versus the trial-and-error that would take place with a facility that has to be suddenly upgraded from the building to the administration to the students etc.

And, fine, you want to take the murder rate in the current schools off the table, fine; are the public schools equipped to deal with someone from outside who would want to kidnap (for example) the PRESIDENT'S children, which could spark a major security crisis? Do you (not YOU Lost, I mean, anyone pushing this), really want to, in the name of well-intentioned, photo-op, PR gestures, RISK THAT???

CIAB alert...

Amy Carter attended public school...couldn't go out to recess cause of the open yard. The secret service couldn't protect her...open street. It is about safety.

No doubt that security considerations largely tie the president's hands as to choices of educational institutions for his children.

That being said, there is another side of the issue to consider.

What about the situation of a less fortunate child, from working class parents, without money, and the denial of
opportunity to that child due to those facts ?

Shouldn't any child of promise, and there are many, many such children, be given the best that a country can
offer in terms of education and thus opportunity ?

When there are no private schools and when the public school system offers the best that pedagogical science
can discern and implement, for every child, then you have social justice.

Not before.

Robert Morpheal

I'm sure scholarships are offered but to think everyone in this country should have every opportunity available to them is absurd and childish. I attended a Quaker school and highly recommend them.

Not everyone should have every opportunity. Some opportunities are only for a certain class of people. How progressive.

That's exactly what I said!

that is precisely how Barack got his excellent private school education...
by scholarships...and didn't I read that Sidwell Friends has 20-some % scholarship rate...

and yes, every child should have the opportunity to a great quality education...
unfortunately, as things stand in our country right now, it is not a reality.

Barack spoke of this in all his stump speeches...
I eagerly await watching how he implements his vision.

to opt out of a given public school, becauses otherwise we can't have social justice?

There's a lot more to the school experience than just applying "pedagogical science." And I'm not talking social status stuff. There's the chance to integrate religion with education, which is important to many people. There's the chance to celebrate holiday customs, which some public schools now avoid for fear of controversy. There's the chance to make practical choices that fit the family on location, transportation, schedules, etc -- public school bureaucracies are notoriously rigid about such things.

A better thing to hope for would be that all children/families have their choice of good schools. No, I'm not necessarily talking vouchers here. . . just stating the goal we ought to aim for.

The more you spend on educating a child, the better education you can get, within reason.

To give every child the best education possible would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars per child per year.

The state should ensure that every child gets a good education; what consitutes a "good enough" education is the important and difficult decision, although I think that many schools clearly currently fail to provide it.

If private individuals choose to spend some of their earnings to try to provide an education for their child which is better than the one the state offers to provide, then it would be absurd for the state to try to stop them (although I don't think it should subsidise their doing so by giving fee-charging schools charitable status).

And it's absolutely impossible for the state to try to match the amount some people spend on educating their children for every child - you'd end up spending more than America makes in total.

"Good enough for some, better for others" may be an iniquitous solution, but it's better than any of the alternatives.

want his children to go to public schools? Considering the fact that the presence of the Secret Service would be disruptive in a place not used to the SS, and the danger of someone getting to the girls and therefore to him, do you really think that the decision is totally his to make? One of his responsibilities to the American people is to keep himself and his family safe. It doesn't take much imagination to realize the possible consequences of not taking all precautions necessary.

why can't some understand this? :shrug:

public school. Especially if the SS is doing its job. Do you really think public schools just allow anyone to wander in off the street?

during the day. People can't just walk into them.

You have no idea how easy it would have been to climb over it if they really wanted to--or at least, stick a camera through it. And any case, it's more of an issue at the beginning and end of the school day, when the place really IS a zoo--as are most public schools, in my experience.

his sitter was supposed to pick him up at 3:00, but didn't show.

(ps-- I did fire her for that).

This was the fault of your sitter, not the school.

This incidence was reported to the District Superintendent, and the principal of the school was
subsequently removed.
Kindergarten teachers are supposed to, by law, in NYC,
make sure that every child has a caretaker pick them up at 3:00PM.
The children are never realeased without an adult or older sibling.

but the sitter was supposed to be there.

And I had to let her go. She showed up at my apartment almost
an hour later.

But, in the (rare, thankfully) case of children who do not get picked up:
they are to be brought to the
Principal's office and the parent/guardian is to be notified.
In this case, the Principal called me at work.
I told him I would leave work immediately, and jump in a taxi,
and to please hold my child.

He didn't, hence, his removal.

protecting some pretty high-target children of "important" people. The teachers, janitorial staff and even the children are probably on automatic high alert most of the time, very unlike public schools. I would imagine it would be very difficult to slither into the hallways and kidnap anyone.

My granddaughters' public schools do have a sign-in requirement for visitors, but it's easy enough to circumvent. I've walked through many times without using it.

Now if somebody came in armed and acting like an assassin, they would be stopped. But with a mom's or a grandmother's demeanor, they tend to take you at face value. I assume the same might be true of somebody wearing a service worker's uniform, like an electrician, utility co. worker, etc.

Secret Service would probably be more alert, but in a large building even they can't be everywhere.

I'm sure the necessary precautions were taken.

Because the Secret Service felt the playground was too close to the street for safety.

Great way to isolate a kid.

that has taught several presidential children in the past, the most recent having been Chelsea Clinton.

;)

Students at the school had the highest scores on the AP English exam for a school of their size in the nation -- even though they do not offer a separate AP English class. (In other words, their standard high school English courses are the equivalent of AP courses.)

For mathematics, check out http://newton-math.org/results.aspx -- a math competition for DC-area students, see how many students from Sidwell Friends school are in their list of winners. This is run by the George Washington University and any high school in the area can send students to compete. Their 7th Grade math students helped make Sidwell rank third in the Maryland Mathematics League, #1 in the DC Region, and that ranking includes both public and private schools.

They have more full-time teachers than any other private school in DC.

The Wall Street Journal ranking of New England schools that send the most graduates to Ivy League colleges has Sidwell 2nd in the DC area, behind National Cathedral School/St. Albans, which are part of the same network and are very religiously based. None of the DC public schools made their list but several other areas had public schools in the list, so they do count them. Only other school in the DC area on their list was Georgetown Day School.

Additionally, they have a more diverse student body than any of the other private schools mentioned in the lists, their middle school is one of the top 10 most eco-friendly buildings in the country, and they have experience with the kind of security measures that are taken with the children of the President or Vice-President.

... you asked....

that doesn't exist in public schools. That would be helpful.

Otherwise, I don't care how they raise their children, it's their business.

If this school has a history of working with the Secret Service and against the prying eyes of the media, or better yet, against the racist wackos who want to do Obama and his family harm, I say, let them pay the money.

This is no time for experimentation with Sasha and Malia's young lives.

This safety stuff is a rationalization for sending these kids to a private school. I don't care where the Obamas send their kids to school. I expect them to give their kids the absolute best education. What I want to know, for the benefit of our public schools, is what do these other schools provide students that our public schools don't. These other parents are not paying for security. They're paying for a premium education. What are they buying.

And a good education. I took a look at the Washington Public Schools website. There are some good options there--a "museum school" program, Montessori programs in several of the schools, magnet schools, etc. I'm not convinced the girls couldn't have gotten a good education at a public school. And all public schools are secure these days, especially in cities. The safety argument doesn't fly with me.

but I think you're absolutely wrong here. It doesn't matter whether the safety argument flies with you (or me, or any of us). We're not Sasha's and Malia's parents. Parents are absolutely right to make the best choices they can for their children's safety.

Did Amy Carter's attending a DC public school bring about a marvelous transformation of the District's school system? Haven't seen any evidence that it did. You want to change them for the better, there are surely more effective ways to work for it than second-guessing the Obamas and the Secret Service about the security factors.

...these other children's parents aren't President, and thus, these kids aren't under the media scrutiny that Sasha and Malia will have to face. But forget about that--let's talk about the DANGER these kids, and in effect, the entire Obama family may be in.

We all know Barack Obama has gotten more threats, if not outright plots against his life, than any other President-Elect in history. Some Americans just cannot stand the thought of a black person in the White House, much less one with the name of Barack Hussein Obama, yadda yadda yadda. . . Now, there has never been any serious attempt (that I know of) to kidnap a sitting President's young children--probably because it would be such a horrible breach of national security that the Secret Service are duty-bound to prevent it.

I'm not saying the girls should grow up paranoid and jumpy, but if this private school (with its low student-to-teacher ratio, tighter security for admittance, etc.) already KNOWS how to watch out for the children of Presidents, Obama would be a fool to send his kids anywhere else--at least, if they hope to have a normal childhood and adolescence.

MY question is - what does that money buy. I don't care where the Obamas send their kids or why. NOT MY QUESTION. I would like to see the Obamas tell the parents of the country what goes on in a $30,000 school that does not go on in OUR schools so that WE know what changes to start making. Get it?

And I'd be more than happy if the Obamas prompted a national discussion about this very topic. But there's no reason why they need to bring it up in this personal context, as you know some conservative reptiles no doubt will.

Let's save this discussion for when Obama and his Secretary of Education begin to address the issue as it effects the entire nation's children--and not just his own. It's hard to say whether one family deserves to send their child to a private school more than any other family--but if ANYONE deserves the finest care for their children that money can buy, it's the President. After all, he and his family have the toughest job in the country.

I'm not arguing with their decision, I'm just saying it would be nice if they told the rest of the country what a quality education looks like - that's all. They say parents are supposed to advocate for their kids, well it's kind of hard to advocate if you've never seen anything better.

Not to mention Barack went to Public School in Jakarta, Indonesia before he returned to Hawaii.

Cut them slack--let's have the conversation AFTER he's moved into the White House and not before.

If YOU find criticism it's because YOU are looking for it.

I'm starting a topic of conversation - which is what a discussion board is for. If you don't want to talk about what a private school offers over a public school - don't talk about it.

I can't speak highly enough of the private school I attended. My largest class in high school was 8 students. There's no getting away with not doing your homework or cutting up in class when you are in a class of 8.

We also took some terrific field trips and had awesome assemblies. The year we studied local politics in social studies, the mayor's kids went to our school so we got to spend lots of time at city hall shadowing the mayor and the city council. The mayor and the governor came and spoke to us at an all school assembly.

One of my teachers was a former US ambassador's wife. Her daughter was a student at the school. She and her husband had been personal friends with the Kennedy family. And she was an awesome current events teacher. She had the most wonderful stories.

Senior year we had to do a senior project. I wanted to be a teacher so they let me teach a class for 2 weeks. I was 17. There's no public school in the country that gives that kind of experience to teenagers.

I wouldn't trade my private school education for anything.

And we did quite a lot of the things you mention--good field trips, our Congressman spoke to us--in class, not in an assembly--I was a teaching assistant my senior year. And we had kids of all socioeconomic levels, which is an important education in and of itself.

Especially the small class size. I would have to say that was the best thing about my private school. I was a fairly lazy student until I went to high school and had no choice but to pay attention to my work since my classes were so small.

And you know I now teach in public schools so I am not going to slam either system. I am just discouraged to see so much private school bashing here. My dad spent his 40 year career in education in private schools. He could have made more money in public schools but was dedicated to his work and his school.

I also think it is none of my business where the Obama girls go to school. :eyes:

what it's paying for is small class sizes, a very diverse and rich curriculum, lots of extracurriculars and new books every year for every student.

you can't just throw money at the schools, know that that isn't true, although with public schools, you have to make sure the money gets down to the classroom level.
When they talk about vouchers, they pretend that the private school experience, particularly the small class sizes, is infinitely expandable, with no loss of quality. That's ridiculous but I'm sure there are many improvements that can be made to public schools by the people who actually care about learning, rather than profit.

If Parents don't know what to put on the list when they go to the school board meeting, they're never going to convince anybody to spend more money.

He attended special school that has a total of 300 students. It is located on the University of Illinois campus. It is called an experimental school in that it tests the latest methods for imparting knowledge. Many of its graduates have excelled. Can you imagine the cost per student. He is a perfect asshole. Well, smart well educated asshole.

what exactly does "diverse and rich" curriculum consist of, as opposed to public schools. Can you give examples of 3-4 extracurriculars. And new books every year, wow, but is it a new curriculum every year - where do the old books go - etc.

This is the kind of conversation I think we ought to be having regarding education. Parents don't know what to advocate for if they've never seen anything different. I didn't know some private schools had that high of teacher/student ratio and I pay attention to education and am a grandma now.

are not certified to teach. No education background, not qualified to teach in public schools. But they're teaching at the private school. I know both the Spanish and French teachers, and neither have degrees. Really. Not so much as a bachelor's. But the parents pony up big bucks, mostly to keep their kids away from the riff-raff in the public schools.

So, you'll excuse me if I'm not impress with private schools. A 4:1 ratio doesn't mean much, if the teacher isn't qualified.

and while I'm sure there is snobbery that goes on, very sure, I'm also sure that there are some elite schools that are providing things that public school students couldn't even dream of. I just want to know what some of this stuff is.

And I would say that 90% of the teachers were qualified. There were definitely ones that were not, however. And I would say that because it was a private school there was a certain degree of refusal among parents to believe that a teacher wasn't qualified when their kids came home and said so. Their logic is that if they were paying tuition there was no way that a teacher could possibly be unqualified and that their kids were just complaining.

I actually had three teachers with PhD's while attending this school. Two of them were wonderful and I would say that my education was greatly enhanced because my AP US History Teacher had a PhD and was so knowledgeable and smart. But my Pre-Calculus teacher also had a PhD and she was a horrible teacher because she had poor communication skills. I would say that having good communication skills is a requirement to be a good Pre-Calculus teacher and while a Doctorate in Mathematics might be a plus it's certainly not a necessity.

I don't know a whole lot about education policy and so I won't comment on the practice of certification in general.

I find that appalling.

high school? May I venture that it makes a difference, if you're going to judge the school's effectiveness solely on the basis of the teachers' certification.

My dad taught for 15 years and didn't get a certificate until he was working on his masters degree.

This is one of the dumbest things about NCLB, IMO. You would be amazed by the number of really good teachers public schools have lost because they didn't have the correct certification. It is also impossible for teachers of multiple subjects (a common practice in smaller school districts) to be certified in every subject they teach.

In the end, that certificate is really just a piece of paper. What makes a great teacher isn't what's on that paper, but what happens in the classroom.

I think that's a problem.

Is this private school a religious school? I can't imagine any reputable school hiring teachers without degrees.

there were courses available in Art History, Studio Art, Oceanography, Behavioral Biology, Italian, Russian, Chinese, German (in addition to French and Spanish), Basic Physics, and Advanced Placement Math, among other choices. My junior and senior English classes were stuffed with grammar and poetry, as well as literature. In 4th through 6th grades, violin, viola or cello were required instruction, in addition to regular studio art and music classes for all years. Since this was the old days, in 4th grade the girls had sewing and the boys had shop. My HS math teacher had been a member of the College Board and was able to give us very useful advice about how to answer SAT questions.
The girls had field hockey, basketball, lacrosse, track and field, gymnastics, tennis and dance on our own 7 acres with playing field and tennis courts. The boys (who were separated from us from 5th-10th grades) had basketball, baseball, football, track and field and swimming and diving(with the girls). Plenty of competition with other schools.
There were many clubs and committees; I was on the poster club, where I was taught to design and hand paint posters for school events. There were language clubs, social service clubs, theater, art, glee clubs, etc.
A lot of what a private school can offer depends on the teachers they can attract. When I was there, chemical engineers were making good money, so getting a decent chemistry teacher was a struggle. Clearly, the teachers were encouraged to expand the offerings by teaching their specialities in addition to their regular classes. The Oceanography teacher was a junior high science teacher with a particular expertise.
The curriculum didn't change that much from year to year but students would keep their old books and there would be new books for everyone the next year (plus pencils, paper, etc.).
My graduating class was 99 students, 33 girls and 66 boys. My 6th grade class had 12 girls (the boys were at the Boys' School by then). In those days, the cost was $5,000 per year; about the same as college tuition. There were always scholarships available.

Many foreign languages, pe every day, music in grades 4-6, lots of clubs in high school. We had a new English program that was broken into quarters offering a variety of classes; poetry, novels, mystery writing, etc. We didn't have anything interesting in the sciences. The difference that I see is in getting public school parents to understand how important participating in all of that is. I'm going to make a wild guess here, but wealthier parents are very busy and having kids busy with school projects is helpful. Working parents are exhausted and need the kids to get home so they can get chores done, dinner done, and keep the schedule going. Extra-curriculars is an inconvenience, not a help. Make sense?

:shrug:

My son's tuition is near that amount, but he needs the 5:1 ratio that he gets. The 30:1 in his public school didn't work for him even with additional support from the school district.

That is helpful. I think we need to be talking more about these details than a blanket "more dollars". There's a huge difference between even the 18 to 1 my district tends to have, and 4 or 5 to 1.

As you said, it's their business.

It would be helpful to know what a quality school looks like.

We know Chelsea was kept safe at Sidwell. That is enough of a recommendation to me.

as to how her safety was compromised.

"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."

So, you'd be OK with your children never leaving the classroom? Jimmy was a little naive about this--young kids shouldn't have to make sacrifices to their childhood because their father is President.

buildings surrounded by grass. How is one more safe than another?

But I'm going to go off on a limb and assume that they had good reason to do this.

As to your question, probably a smaller campus with less kids to look out for would be the reason. But again, I'm no expert. And anyway, this is no time for experimentation with Sasha and Malia's safety.

of public school students all the time? Why should they not also be safe?

Normal students don't have to deal with tabloid paparazzi sneaking around in the bushes, trying to get a scoop on Sasha's bad grades or Malia's first boyfriend.

Normal students don't have to deal with psychotic racists sending their parents a bushel of hate mail every night.

To say that the Obama girls should be treated like any other kid in America is naive and disingenuous--it assumes that the Obamas have a choice in the matter. The world, by and large, will never treat them as such. While less fortunate in some ways, Public school kids have the privilege and relative safety of anonymity--these girls don't.

The needs of public school system students is a different issue altogether than the needs of Sasha and Malia Obama. Let's not confuse the two.

crazy racists and right wing wackos.

Did they have right wing wackos back then? Certainly not Rush Limbaugh inspired ones.

later in the Carter administration moved her to a private school.

And as far as "missing the news" -- you sure are arrogant aren't you -- b/c you will not be privvy or informed when the Obamas and the greatest security agency in the entire world make decisions.

for them to send the girls there. And they definitely need privacy and protection, particularly since Obama is our first AA president. It's a good choice.

Hard to secure a hallway teeming with kids in a public school. We had stabbings in my Junior(!) high.

These two kids are in even more danger than normal Presidential kids. Too many white power types in America.

How do they move from one classroom to another? I guess it's true...the rich are different.

Obviously a school with only 1100 students and one faculty member for every four of them is much easier to secure than a public school.

I don't believe it's about the size of the school. And I still don't believe it's easier to secure.

and you know it.

There is civilization outside Chicago. And you know it. Or do you?

...and it's Podunk, ID.

Next you're going to tell us how Afghanistan is just as safe as Switzerland.

Not even close. Again, 500,000 people. You really need to get out of Chicago more often. Well, ever.

To see Niabi zoo, among other things.

You know why we spend the occasional weekend in the Quad Cities? It's quiet, safe, and practically the middle of a corn field. It is Podunk, ID. It's Mayberry.

Your posts throughout this thread are the written equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

The fact that you seriously think that a public school IN WASHINGTON is just as safe as a private school overcrowded with teachers for the children of the first black president of a racist nation is bizarre.

have a right to be safe in their schools--not just the children of the famous. We're failing our children, and the wealthy should NOT be allowed to ignore that fact by avoiding the public schools. If the rich sent their kids to public schools, public education would improve considerably. Instead, we accept this two-tiered education system, rather than working to improve it. The Washington, DC schools should be safe, because American children need them to be. All children should be safe. Not just Sasha and Malia.

Always with the "LALALALALALA I CAN'T HEAR YOU."

How do you not understand that the children of the first black President of this racist nation are in more danger than standard kids? HOW? You are being willfully ignorant. You're like one of those hyperbolic freaks that make a sign saying "War never solved anything" when protesting Iraq, rather than the truthful "THIS war is not solving anything."

You are what they call the "loony left." You're just great at setting up straw men and then ripping them to shreds, aren't you?

Let's try a different angle: How about you just shut up and stop whining about where someone else decides to put their kids? IT'S NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

I have a right to opine. You have a right to disagree. Try doing it without insulting anyone--that seems to be the challenge for you.

Oh, and war never solved anything, either.

I think war solved the holocaust just fine, did it not?

As for the other thing...NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS.

Yes, I know. La la la. You can't hear me.

Indeed, FDR didn't want to waste resources dealing with the Holocaust--bombing rail rightaways, etc. The war ran alongside the Holocaust, but they were two separate issues. The way to have avoided Hitler's rise would have been to NOT take revenge after WWI. Reparations made WWII possible. Compassion would have prevented it. As Marshall knew at the end of WWII.

So, no the war did not solve the Holocaust. 9 million people died, because those at war didn't care.

One problem with that...

All the Jews would be dead.

risen to power. And again, the purpose of the war was NEVER to stop the Holocaust. Shiploads of Jewish refugees were turned away from the port of New York. I have a good friend whose parents were on a refugee ship just before the US entered the war. Far from being concerned about stopping the Holocaust, the US government turned them away, with every intention that they return (to certain death) to Germany. Happily, the port of San Juan allowed them in, and so they settled in Puerto Rico. No thanks to the US government, which gave about two shakes of a rat's ass about the Holocaust.

You made the contention that war never solved anything.

It is a fact that war solved the holocaust. The Germans were killing the Jews. The Allies stopped them...thereby solving the problem.





Also...American slavery.

You're not worth the trouble.

The Germans decided they didn't feel like gassing Jews any longer?

Oooooh, now I've brought down your fauxrage!

Seems to me a private school would be better for security reasons than a public school. That's sad, but these are the times we live in.

And that I had attended one. Not only is it unfortunate that people of means get better education but I honestly felt that most of the kids I went to school with were stuck-up jerks. I feel that I would've had a better high school experience if I had gone to a good public school but there simply were none where I live.

Where Obama sends his kids is entirely his business. I just hope that he works to make our public schools better.

The school system was damn near as segregated as when there actually was segregation. There was magnet public school (out of my district) that was actually mixed among racial and income lines. The rest of the public schools were 90% minority and low income students. If you had any means whatsoever you sent your kids to private school.

That's progressive.

Happily, I went to public school in a community with no private schools anywhere near. I actually had to sit in class with *gasp* minority and poor kids. Somehow, by the skin of my teeth, I survived.

Some are drastically underfunded, overcrowded, and the dropout rate is higher than the graduation rate. Those were the public schools in my area. The DC public school system is, undoubtedly, similar to the one in the area that I lived growing up. And yes much of it does have to do with people of means sending their kids to private school so that they don't have to give a shit about public schools. But Barack and Michelle sending their daughters to a public school isn't going to magically solve that problem.

My friends who lived in a smaller town an hour away went to public schools that bridged racial lines and income lines and they got just as good of an education as I did at a private school. I would trade my experience for theirs any day if I could have.

didn't segregate their kids at places like Sidwell Friends.

As I've said I would toss away me private education in a heartbeat so that every child in America could get the education that my friends who went to good public schools got. Whatever supposed benefits my private school had certainly weren't worth a whole hell of a lot because I didn't turn out any better educated than they did.

And I also agree with you that it would help to move in that direction if people with means didn't segregate their kids. But where I disagree is that Barack and Michelle not sending their kids to Sidwell Friends will make a difference. I don't think it would even make a dent in the problem.

nonetheless, I approve :D

DC Public Schools probably aren't prepared to handle all of that, where Sidwell Friends has "been there and done that" already with Chelsea Clinton.

I wish we lived in a world where the President's kids COULD go to public schools without it being a risk to them. :evilfrown:

I don't know thing one about "first tier schools" or the best schools/most progressive schools in DC or what have you. I do not know how they plan to keep these 2 beautiful children safe and allow them to grow up in anything like a normal way, much less whether that would be practically possible in any given public school or private school on the other side of the country from me.

My other is that as a self identified Quaker, I am proud that the Obama's chose us, even though I am not really a part of that particular us. Granted that in all reality that has likely nothing to do with anything in their decision making proscess. Granted the Quaker school I went to was not very quaker. Still, there is an unreasoning contentment in it for me that makes no sense. Anyhow, I hear the Obama's might be looking for a church in DC. I wouldn't mind wiping ol Tricky off the map as the only/most recent Quaker Prez, cause that one did not live up to my sense of what a Q should be.

And thats the Other.

how important the UCC was to him. I hope that's still the case, in spite of how the Clinton campaign made his faith an issue. I hope they'll rejoin the UCC.

I hope you can also accept that I can have an impossible wish to replace ol Tricky as the "Quaker President". I would even be willing to share Obama. A Quaker/UCC president? I'm ok with it if you are...

a good soul at heart. His work with Belgian relief or the flood of '27 was wonderful, and completely representative of Quaker values. So, you have him.

The UCC has taken a beating because of Obama's membership. It would be good if he'd come back after all we've been through.

I also made the choice to put my daughter into provate school, my kid, my choice.

Certainly, the Obamas (and anyone who can afford it) have the right to send their children to private school, however, it is unfortunate, that, in many cases, our public schools are in very bad shape, and, for most Americans, they are the only option.

perfect they were better then they are now. The public school system in California has been gutted thanks to woeful underfunding.

I think it is the parents decision where to send their children to school. Now let see the puppy. It will be nice to see a first grandma at the white house too.

to meet other kids who aren't like them. Rich kids meet less wealthy kids, poor kids meet kids better off. It doesn't mean they pal around together, but they at least have to figure out how to get along at some minimal level. Going to private schools that allow children to be segregated by economic and social divides is a bad idea. By the time they're out of grade school they've developed some pretty harsh perspectives that carry on into life.

I doubt there's much chance Sasha or Malia would get hurt in a public school (those big guys with the sunglasses who talk to their wrists, don't you know) and I'm confident their family environment will lead to effective learning. I understand the choice, and don't object to it real strongly, but I wish they'd made a different one.

They will certainly be taught about the real world. Plus, I'm sure (or at least I hope) that Sidwell Friends offers scholarships to poor students.

I would have seen about enrolling them in the Fairfax County, Virginia public schools. Those are supposed to be excellent.

Come on, give it a break. It's nice that people believe in public schools so much but its just not realistic to expect the first daughters to have to go to one just to make a nice gesture. Their parents' first job is to make sure the kids are safe and get the best education possible, not to make some statement while playing with their kids' future.

And it's been widely reported that the Secret Service is MUCH more comfortable with private schools and likely would be in a lot of pain over public schools. Private schools are most importantly much smaller and easier to keep under control. With all these concerns over Barack's security that came up just in the general election, I can't believe that people would actually complain about the Obama's sending their young girls to the safest possible school environment.

Not to mention, the Bidens' grandkids go Sidwell and they've all become good friends. It's not surprising the girls want to go to a school where they already have friends.

It would have done wonders for the school system as well.

It's a shame all around.

People should not use their children to promote their own political agenda. The number one priority of any parent is to protect their children.

The Carter family tried to send their daughter to public school, and had to move her to private school. The security was a nightmare for the SS, and the public school could no longer handle the disruption.

All president's kids are at risk, but no presidential kids have ever been at more risk that the Obama kids. The threats against Obama, and his family are at an unprecedented high level.

Adding two famous girls to a public school is not going to do wonders. Most likely, they would've picked a public school that was already pretty good anyways.

There is no way that you are actually suggesting that Obama should send his 7 and 10 year old girls to a crappy public school just for "symbolism". They're not your kids. Get over it.

Just because he didn't send them to public schools doesn't mean he won't do something about them. I can't believe some people are making a big stink of this.

The Obamas have worked hard and their daughters deserve the best education money can buy. They are gifted little girls who probably wouldn't be challenged enough by a public school curriculum.

I don't believe in vouchers. I believe the public school systems need to be improved. I also believe that those who are fortunate enough to invest further in their child's education should do so.

Bad decision! DC's struggling public schools just got snubbed by the country's first black President.


:shrug:

You've got to be kidding!?

Amy Carter tried public schools, but they had to move to a private school cause the Secret Service had concerns. I went to a pretty good public school system and while the quality of education is pretty comparable to a private school, it was still much larger and more difficult to keep an eye on.

People need to give it a rest and think about what's best for the kids instead of trying to promote an agenda.

If we were as concerned for the kids who DO go to public schools as we are about these two who don't, there might be some improvement in public education. Instead, we accept the status quo-- a two-tiered education system where the rich get to opt out and working families are left to make do. Welcome to America.

Most average children aren't being threatened everyday by crazy racist nutjobs who'd like to get to their father.

due to gun violence in Chicago? There are no special schools for them.

.. just to show solidarity? That's ridiculous. Again, that kind of issue is for his policy team. When it comes to their kids, they need to think only of their safety and welfare. And the fact that anyone would criticize them for being good parents is beyond ridiculous and hypocritical.

If you had children who needed a huge Secret Service detail, you would NOT be sending them to an average public school.

... you would send them to a crappy, likely dangerous public school for symbolic purposes? Not to mention the family already gets enough death threats. Get over yourself.

Let them do their job as parents without injecting politics into the girls' lives. The girls are already going to facing a lot of difficult changes without idiots bitching about their school.

Or a magnet school. But yeah, I'd send 'em to public school.

How dare I strongly advocate for public education?!

whether you would until faced with just that situation.

And even then, I'd expect the child/children's other parent would have some say.

Most parents, given a chance, would decide on the basis of 1) will my child be safe? 2) will he/she be happy there, or at least not utterly miserable? 3) will my child be learning?

If the child's welfare isn't the top criteria, then maybe somebody else should be making the decision.

And yes, it's tragic when there are parents & children caught in situations where their safety is uncertain. We should be working on ways to obviate this necessity for everyone.

I think anybody who complains is a butt-wipe jerk. And probably a troll.

And will have the best in life, the best education included. I didn't have it, but hopefully my future kids will.

Can parents of kids in the D.C. public schools be jealous? Yeah. Do they really have place to have an opinion? No.

They know that Obama is the freakin' President and their family is in no way a typical family with regular concerns.

And thus have to send their kids to schools that have been regularly referred to, in this thread, as "crappy"? That seems reason enough.

Private schools aren't always bad things. It's perfectly reasonable that parents with greater means either send their kids to private schools or move to a good district. Any parent would want the best possible education for their kid; I don't think anyone should resent other people being good parents.

Why is this so hard for people to get?

Because public schools are FREE and you have to make the best out of it, a lot of kids do and become successful. They need work obviously, but having the Obamas send their daughters to one (and thus giving the Secret Service a huge headache) is not going to solve any of the public school problems.

Even if the public schools weren't "crappy" there would still be private ones that are better as you say. The best education possible is going to cost you.

Education as commodity. Health care as commodity.

Yeah, justice is such a pain in the ass. Why should we even bother?

You wouldn't last 2 hours in a DC public school, but you expect the POTUS to send his kids there? Those schools are terrible.

for these two little girls other than the very real danger they would be put in if they were in public schools where the security could not be controlled. Privacy.

In a private school a student, or parent faces expulsion for divulging personal intimate details about the President's, or other famous people's children. They sign non disclosure contracts on admission. How would you like it if your daughter's personal life were spread all over the internet? She started her period, or had nervous diarrhea, and the whole fracking world needs to know about it? Hell no.

You'd be righteously outraged. Any good parent would be. And the child would be humiliated. Bad all around.

And all so the parents could make a political or social point?

Sheesh!

Public schools need improvement. That can't be done if public money is diverted away to private schools.

Unfortunately, until schools improve, a child is at the mercy of his/her parent's decisions in life.

The kids would be too easily abused in public schools, so it's gotta be private.

There are very good schools in France and the girls would come back speaking perfect French. Oh, to be in Paris right now.

Just kidding, but I went to a boarding school overseas and had a blast while making many friends who I still visit on occasion.

:7

that would be a political problem

They are too young now, but later on when they are teenagers they might enjoy a year or two overseas. It makes for a fantastic training for young women in their position, a sort of finishing school.

;-)

I have a friend who went to a school in France. I think the name was Rose'. Probably wrong on the spelling. Pronounced "rose-say."

It doesn't sound familiar.

My friend is French, and I mistakenly referred to her school as in France. I thought it was in France, and didn't realize it was in Switzerland until I looked it up just now. She went to school with the son of the Shah, so I looked up his bio and found the name of the school.

My friend graduated from there in the early 1970s.

but I checked it out and it appears to be a very good school. Many people of means send their children to school in Switzerland.

the decisions in those young lives.

Doesn't matter what we think.

Doesn't matter to me at all.

and, I am a public educator. I understand and appreciate the need for supreme security of these little girls.

are generally run by local Quaker Meetings and in accord with Quaker principal and Quaker practice. Quakers (Friends, as we call ourselves) set up the first co-educational and racially integrated schools in this country. Many were free to the public.

Friends schools remain intentionally diverse ethnically, and socioeconmically. Like Sidwell Friends, most have extensive endowments and provide substantial need based financial assistance. Friends schools are generally selective for the academically gifted without regard for faith, ethnicity, or socioeconomic class. They are generally smaller schools that are run on a non-profit basis and are staffed to provide for plenty of one on one attention.

Conservatives will have difficulty making an issue of this as the school is run by progressives and is intentionally diverse. The school is exclusive for academic talent only.

From their site:

Sidwell Friends School is an educational community inspired by the values of the Religious Society of Friends and guided by the Quaker belief in "That of God" in each person. We seek academically talented students of diverse cultural, racial, religious and economic backgrounds. We offer these students a rich and rigorous interdisciplinary curriculum designed to stimulate creative inquiry, intellectual achievement and independent thinking in a world increasingly without borders. We encourage these students to test themselves in athletic competition and to give expression to their artistic abilities. We draw strength from silence—and from the power of individual and collective reflection. We cultivate in all members of our community high personal expectations and integrity, respect for consensus, and an understanding of how diversity enriches us, why stewardship of the natural world matters and why service to others enhances life. Above all, we seek to be a school that nurtures a genuine love of learning and teaches students "to let their lives speak."

Board of Trustees
Sidwell Friends School
Approved September 15, 2005

nuff said

even appropriate for me - or anyone else - to say anything further about it.

Obama's first priority should be his daughters' safety, no matter where they are sent to school. He's their dad--he and Michelle should make the decision, not us.

If it were me I would take my children's safety into consideration first and foremost. Having dealt with the inherent security issues of having First Children attend would be the deciding factor for me I think.

A lot of people I know send their kids to Friends schools here in PA ~ they're great academically and are known for a multicultural peace-making world view.

Seems like a good fit; I hope the girls are happy there.

i mean i hope that Malia and Sasha get an excellent education.

however, i put my opinion on where they should go to school behind Mr. and Mrs. Obama.

Who gives a shit, it's the Obamas' decision.

If the children of our rulers had to attend public school, then maybe they'd have some incentive to make the public schools better.

But, even though I got a great public school education, there are some public school systems that are really struggling, and DC is one of them

but its my preference that these elite and private schools be illegal. It sets a shitty example and works against efforts to improve education because it creates another two Americas situation but I don't want to see those two kids life become more of a circus than it already is going to be. It makes me agitated that leaders put their own kids before all kids.

As a parent, I know that I would want my daughter to be safe, and to be in a good learning environment.

As far as I'm concerned, if that's where the Obama's want to send their daughters, it's their business, not mine or anyone else's.