Obama's kids go to a private school?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: jonks
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
I think it's profound how the McCain supporters will advocate "It's your money, do with it what you want," except when Barack Obama does what he wants with his money.

He's a man who needed secret service protection sooner than any other candidate running for president due to the death threats he receives so frequently. Think his kids might be a bit safer in a small, secure school? You crucify a man for looking out for his two most important people in the world.

I dont believe the issue here is spending the money how they want. I know for a fact if I had money like him, my kids would go to a private school as well. It is the idea that he is in bed with the teachers union which is against the idea of a voucher system where the money allocated for a student stays with the student and not the district. Meaning poor to middle class families are stuck with what the state tells them.

So while he is out bobbing with the Union and helping to keep people(usually poor to middle class) from having a choice of school. He is easily excercising his right to send his children to a school not mandated by the state. For being a champion of the poor on this issue he is clearly not helping them.

Vouchers are coupons, not free tickets. You get $3500 towards the tuition of your choice. But that money comes out of funds that would go to public schools. The majority of middle-class and nearly entire lower-class would not be able to send their kids to a private school even with the voucher. So their kids are now still going to a public school, only the public school has even less funds than it did before.

He IS helping the poor by preventing the pillaging of public school funds in the form of vouchers that go towards families already paying for private school.

There is more than one plan. I have seen plans that send the entire allotment with the kid.

That said even if only 3500 went with the kid please explain to me how it pillages a school that see much more in funding per pupil? In the minneapolis area the avg cost per pupil is between 8500 and 11K. Even on the low end the school has 5000 more dollars to use due to the pupil not being in school.

Forcing the poor into a terrible school system because of where they live is not helping them, as evidenced by the absolutely disgusting graduation and proficiency rates.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
But he opposed to unnecessary wars , you candidate isn't which I think is more important.
The war will go away, but UHC will not.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
But he opposed to unnecessary wars , you candidate isn't which I think is more important.
The war will go away, but UHC will not.

Darn, I guess we'll just have to have a massively more efficient health care system then.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Originally posted by: DealMonkey
From what I can glean from the McCain-Palin web site, McCain is only for vouchers in the D.C. school system.

In comparison to Senator Barack Obama's education plan, Senator John McCain's is downright terse.

Among his short list of initiatives, Mr. McCain, the Republican presidential nominee, includes bonus pay for teachers who raise student achievement or who take jobs in hard-to-staff schools, an expansion of after-school tutoring, and new federal support for online schools and for the voucher program in Washington, D.C.

The brevity of Mr. McCain's plan reflects his view that the federal government should play a limited role in public education, and his commitment to holding the line on education spending, said Lisa Graham Keegan, a McCain adviser and former Arizona education commissioner. . . . adding that his plan's limited scope should not be interpreted as a lack of commitment to education and school reform. "He's been a quiet and consistent supporter of parents and educators who he thinks are making a difference."

http://www.johnmccain.com/Info...4c04-a2e2-d01e3d4a9345
It doesn't appear that McCain is proposing any sort of nationwide school voucher program.
link
Q: How can we improve the quality of public schools in this country?
McCain: Choice and competition is the key to success in education in America. That means charter schools, that means home schooling, it means vouchers, it means rewarding good teachers and finding bad teachers another line of work.

NY Times: McCain?s proposal would create the most ambitious voucher experiment yet, spending $5.5 billion over three years to present one million students with vouchers of up to $2,000 annually.

McCain: I would certainly make them part of any voucher program, a test voucher program which I would not take out of education funds.

McCain: It?s time to conduct a nationwide test of school vouchers.


I think that is enough.
 

quest55720

Golden Member
Nov 3, 2004
1,339
0
0
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
But he opposed to unnecessary wars , you candidate isn't which I think is more important.
The war will go away, but UHC will not.

Darn, I guess we'll just have to have a massively more efficient health care system then.

Ya because the government has been so quick to fix medicare,medicaid and SS. PJ is right once we go UHC there is no going back. With how this government is I can only imagine it making that war spending look like penuts for shitty medicar level coverage. I think UHC might work one day but this government must prove it can run an entitlement program first with out going broke. That and finding a fair way to pay for it.
 

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
I always thought that providing vouchers would actually help the school system.

Here is how:
School system X has 1300 students and spends $13 million or $10k per student.
That is 100 students per grade. Say 4 classes for each grade or 25 per class.

Now they offer vouchers to parents in the amount of $5000, or half the cost of each student.
20% of all students take the offer.
That takes 260 students out of the system. 260 x $5000 cost them $1.3 mil. But still leaves them with $11.7 million or $11.2K per student.

So your class sizes are now reduced to 20 per grade.
And you have more money to spend per student.

The reason the unions are against vouchers, and thus the Democrats are against them, is the fear that 50% of students take them and you have to go from 4 classes per grade to 2 classes and thus teachers will lose their jobs.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
166
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
Originally posted by: eskimospy
What are you idiots babbling about?

Has Obama ever said you shouldn't send your kids to private schools if you can afford it? You can be for both sending your kids to private school and improving America's public schools. I am just floored sometimes at the leaps of 'logic' people here try to make.

Um, Obama is against school vouchers for poor parents who can't otherwise send their kids to private schools because they're poor. He panders to teacher's unions and just want to throw more money at the problem.

Ughhh.

Allow me to explain one more time why vouchers are an idiotic solution. Let's suppose you're one of those poor people. Your kids go to the public school. Down the road, there's a private school. The people who send their kids to the private school pay $20,000 to send their kids there. You think, "why won't the government give me 20k so I can send my kids there too!"

Guess what. If EVERYONE at your public school got 20k to send their kids to that private school, you think the private school is going to let you in?? Of course not. They're going to realize, "wow, we can really rake in the money now!" They raise the tuition to $30k, the rich people pay $10k less than they were before. You can't afford to send your kids there. And NOW, the public schools your kids are still stuck going to have $20k times the number of kids heading to the private school less to work with. Or, do you think the private school is going to open their doors and say "everyone's welcome! We're going to buy more chairs!"

They're not. They're going to screen the students. "Sorry, you're grades aren't good enough." "Sorry, you have special needs that cost 3 times what it takes to educate the average student." "Sorry, you're a trouble maker." Private schools aren't stupid. They're going to take the best students. If a student can't really afford it, but has a lot of potential, they'll offer the student a scholarship. I taught at a private Catholic school - I saw this first hand. If they had extra room, they did not turn away promising bright young students simply because the student couldn't afford to go there. Your family can only afford $100 a month? Fine. Here's a scholarship. Here's a work study program - you're going to clean classrooms for 1 hour a week. Your parents can "volunteer" to work on Bingo night.

All you have to do is look at higher education to understand exactly what would happen. Universities have been doing this for ages! Tell me, what's the tuition to get into Cornell? MIT? Harvard? Yale? Ya' think they let in average students? Why aren't you whining "I need the government to give me $50k per year so I can go to Cornell. I don't want to settle for the local community college" (not to besmirch the quality of education that some community colleges offer.) You think Cornell is going to say, "hey, let's double the size of our campus and let in twice as many students"? Or maybe, Cornell would say, "hey, the gov't is giving everyone who comes here a free $50k. Let's raise tuition since there's so much demand, and sink some extra money into our research facilities - buy better cutting edge equipment, attracting more of the top researchers in their fields. And, oh yeah, those community colleges that a couple lines ago I said had excellent programs - sorry guys, we have to cut your budget because we're giving that money to students who want to go to Cornell instead - the community college you'd be attending because with that extra cash allotment, you'd still not get into Cornell.

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I always thought that providing vouchers would actually help the school system.

Here is how:
School system X has 1300 students and spends $13 million or $10k per student.
That is 100 students per grade. Say 4 classes for each grade or 25 per class.

Now they offer vouchers to parents in the amount of $5000, or half the cost of each student.
20% of all students take the offer.
That takes 260 students out of the system. 260 x $5000 cost them $1.3 mil. But still leaves them with $11.7 million or $11.2K per student.

So your class sizes are now reduced to 20 per grade.
And you have more money to spend per student.

The reason the unions are against vouchers, and thus the Democrats are against them, is the fear that 50% of students take them and you have to go from 4 classes per grade to 2 classes and thus teachers will lose their jobs.

That's idiotic at best. You seriously think that private schools have room for 50% of the public school's students??! You're delusional. Teachers at public schools are going to lose their jobs? Just who the hell is going to teach that 50% of the students who just left? Is the magic math fairy going to arrive at the private school and whisper math facts into the ears of children as they sit around quietly?

And guess what - again, they're going to take the best students. You're working with averages - it doesn't cost the same amount to educate each child. You apparently don't realize how much more expensive it is to teach students with developmental and learning disabilities. You think the private schools want those kids? Hell no! Not when Uncle Sam says "His IEP says he is to be in a 12-1-1 or an 8-1-1, or even a 6-1-1 classroom, meaning 6 students, 1 teacher, 1 aide. Or, "he needs someone provided to take notes," etc. You think you get to say to a teacher, "Okay, we're paying that teacher $40k, and he has 30 kids in his classroom. You only have 6, so you get 1/5th of his amount. Oh, and you have to split it with your aide.

But, let's assume 50% of students take them up on the offer. All you're going to end up with is a transfer of the best teachers from the public schools into the private schools. Everyone in a community seems to generally get a good feeling of who the better teachers are and who the worse teachers are. This is especially true for math, science, and foreign languages. You can't find them. There's a shortage. Heck, right when I graduated, I put my resume on N.C.'s state clearinghouse for teachers. Even into October, while I was already teaching, I'd get a call on the phone in the evening. With that southern accent, I'd hear, "Hello, Mr. DrPizza? Hello, this is <..> from such and such a school in N.C. We understand that you have a degree in mathematics and that you're certified to teach mathematics. We have a position available for you, you start Monday, we'll pay your moving expenses." (at least it seems I was offered moving expenses a couple of times; that was 7 or 8 years ago though.) That was it - they looked at my credentials and offered me positions without even an interview. Desperate for math teachers, they are. And, you think that the private schools are going to pull teachers out of a hat?

End result: you don't have the money available to meet the costs of educating students in your public school. Your school just got gutted of the brightest and best behaved students. Your school just lost a bunch of their best faculty.

Here's an idea - why not allow public schools the ability to pick and choose who they get to keep, and they pick who goes to the private schools, on the public's dime. Gee, suddenly it doesn't sound so fair, does it.

edit: oh, and in some thread or another, I said I'd be willing to run for President in 2012.
In addition to having competent advisors, and actually listening to what the experts say, rather than going with my gut instinct when I don't believe them (why wouldn't I?),
and in addition to trying to get the drinking age lowered to 16 so students can be under the watchful eye of their parents - well, for those with responsible parents - who can say when enough is enough, and in addition to raising the driving age & making it a hell of a lot more difficult to get a driver's license, I'm also going to add this to my platform:
We need sweatshops. Someplace where we can employ 10 year old kids. Not for the rest of their lives, but for, ohhhh, 6 months oughta do it. Oh noes! Your grades fell below standards. You only attempted 1 homework assignment out of 10. Well, since you're just wasting your teacher's time and don't want to learn this year, we'll let your work for a year, then you get to decide after that year, "do I want to go to school, pay attention, learn? Or do I want to graduate from the sweatshop to manager of McDonalds? (Not to besmirch McDonald's managers either.)
 

Mani

Diamond Member
Aug 9, 2001
4,808
1
0
Originally posted by: alphatarget1
How is this "change"?

Op-ed, but nevertheless

"Fair enough, fair enough, but here?s the thing: I do not know why Barack and Michelle Obama cannot send their children to a nice public school in Hyde Park. You understand that I am a bit unstable this election season (I voted for Hillary) and I do my research by erratically Googling from home. And all I know about Hyde Park ? and, readers, I?d love to be corrected if I?m wrong ? is that even though real estate prices seem high, the brave little public schools in its ZIP code seem to be flailing. Their scores on www.greatschools.net are largely 2?s and 4?s (on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best). When you read the tea leaves as manically as I do, those low numbers suggest that few children of educated, middle-class children are attending the local schools. Rather, they?ve withdrawn, with nary a ripple, into their whispery private enclaves."

Wow, you guys are really reaching to try to find hypocrisy with the Obamas. I think the GOP holds the patent on hypocrisy in this election.
 

lupi

Lifer
Apr 8, 2001
32,539
260
126
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
But he opposed to unnecessary wars , you candidate isn't which I think is more important.
The war will go away, but UHC will not.

Darn, I guess we'll just have to have a massively more efficient health care system then.

Thanks for proving what an idiot you are while you provide all the links to the efficient uhc systems that are currently out there.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Ughhh.

Allow me to explain one more time why vouchers are an idiotic solution.
[ ... Trimmed ... ]
Excellent analysis. Thank you.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
But he opposed to unnecessary wars , you candidate isn't which I think is more important.
The war will go away, but UHC will not.
Darn, I guess we'll just have to have a massively more efficient health care system then.
Thanks for proving what an idiot you are while you provide all the links to the efficient uhc systems that are currently out there.
You, of all people, have no room to be calling anyone else an idiot with your non-stop, intelligence-free partisan trolling. The fact of the matter is most of our industrialized peers have UHC in one form or another, at a lower cost per person, and often with objectively better performance. You may be able to make other arguments against UHC, but suggesting they are generally more inefficient than America's screwed-up system isn't one of them. The only idiot in that exchange is you.

In any case, UHC and Iraq are both off-topic for this thread. Wait. Come to think of it, given the lame premise of this thread, that's probably for the best. Yet another example of empty partisanship and hypocrisy by the Obama bashers. Maybe we could just cut everything before Dr. Pizza's post and turn this thread into something useful.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Ughhh.

Allow me to explain one more time why vouchers are an idiotic solution.

*Lots of first class material*

You are my hero for at least a month. Thank you so much for taking the time to write this.
 

TheSlamma

Diamond Member
Sep 6, 2005
7,625
5
81
How does supporting public schools mean he has to be against having private schools?

If you support libraries does that mean you can't buy books from Barnes and Noble?
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
Originally posted by: DrPizza
Ughhh.

Allow me to explain one more time why vouchers are an idiotic solution.
[ ... Trimmed ... ]
Excellent analysis. Thank you.

Lest he think no one read it, I'll chime in too. I noticed no rebuttals followed. Well done.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
This only proves Obama is an elitist and an hypocrite. Shame on him.

Considering Dr. Pizza's comprehensive post, your post only proves you have no response, no brain, and are not just a partisan hack, but a shitty partisan hack.

/ignored

Jonk's List addition. It's getting packed on there...
 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
Wow. You really are something. Everybody that does not agree with you is ignored. You would not be a great debater with that frame of mind.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Vouchers or alternative means of funding are not always about going to a private school. The system includes sending the money to the public school the child attends.

Europe does this and it works. Watch the link in my sig, it really opened my eyes.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Wow. You really are something. Everybody that does not agree with you is ignored. You would not be a great debater with that frame of mind.

It is not about agreeing or disagreeing. This is about the fact that you brought absolutely nothing to the table and Dr. Pizza wiped the floor clean.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
85,586
50,771
136
Originally posted by: lupi
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
But he opposed to unnecessary wars , you candidate isn't which I think is more important.
The war will go away, but UHC will not.

Darn, I guess we'll just have to have a massively more efficient health care system then.

Thanks for proving what an idiot you are while you provide all the links to the efficient uhc systems that are currently out there.

It's not like this exact information hasn't been posted on here dozens of times. Use the serach function. Hell, use google.

As for you calling me an idiot, I think you're just mad. I know it would grate on me after awhile to have people constantly belittling me, shoving my face in stupid things I've said, etc. I mean, how much humiliation can one person take?
 

sammyunltd

Senior member
Jul 31, 2004
717
0
0
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Wow. You really are something. Everybody that does not agree with you is ignored. You would not be a great debater with that frame of mind.

It is not about agreeing or disagreeing. This is about the fact that you brought absolutely nothing to the table and Dr. Pizza wiped the floor clean.

Where are the REAL facts. Like real stats. Nothing is more credible than real data to prove your point.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Vouchers or alternative means of funding are not always about going to a private school. The system includes sending the money to the public school the child attends.

Europe does this and it works. Watch the link in my sig, it really opened my eyes.

Why would we need these vouchers for public schools when you can just as easily increase public school funding?

Also, the link is blocked for me.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Genx87
Vouchers or alternative means of funding are not always about going to a private school. The system includes sending the money to the public school the child attends.

Europe does this and it works. Watch the link in my sig, it really opened my eyes.

Why would we need these vouchers for public schools when you can just as easily increase public school funding?

Also, the link is blocked for me.

Because the idea that money is the sole issue is false, no amount of funding is going to correct a shitty situation. The point behind the potentials system is to introduce competition within the system. Children are for the most part stuck within the district they live. If they were allowed to be sent to another district and their money sent with them. The school taking a dive needs to shape up or ship out. He goes into detail how the schools that lose children are still better off.

When you get home watch it. It is a good bit of information.

 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: sammyunltd
Wow. You really are something. Everybody that does not agree with you is ignored. You would not be a great debater with that frame of mind.

It is not about agreeing or disagreeing. This is about the fact that you brought absolutely nothing to the table and Dr. Pizza wiped the floor clean.

Where are the REAL facts. Like real stats. Nothing is more credible than real data to prove your point.

Look them up yourself and then come back and present your argument to justify your opinion on the matter. Vouchers for private schools is anything but new news. I'm sure that if you care enough redeem yourself here then you will take the time too research the matter and come back to us with some facts.

I seriously doubt you will be able to come up with anything that is even remotely convincing enough for most people to believe you over Dr. Pizza's argument though.
 

Xavier434

Lifer
Oct 14, 2002
10,373
1
0
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Xavier434
Originally posted by: Genx87
Vouchers or alternative means of funding are not always about going to a private school. The system includes sending the money to the public school the child attends.

Europe does this and it works. Watch the link in my sig, it really opened my eyes.

Why would we need these vouchers for public schools when you can just as easily increase public school funding?

Also, the link is blocked for me.

Because the idea that money is the sole issue is false, no amount of funding is going to correct a shitty situation. The point behind the potentials system is to introduce competition within the system. Children are for the most part stuck within the district they live. If they were allowed to be sent to another district and their money sent with them. The school taking a dive needs to shape up or ship out. He goes into detail how the schools that lose children are still better off.

When you get home watch it. It is a good bit of information.

No one here is arguing that money is the sole issue even though I realize that is an argument that a lot of people lean on when trying to fight this stuff. What they seem to forget is that while it may not be the sole issue, it is most certainly one of the largest slices of the pie.

Beyond that, it isn't all about allowing kids to choose which public school they want to attend is not going to increase competition. Why would it? It is not like a business. There is no profit to make and the amount of money that each school gets has zero impact on the wages of those who work there. There is no incentive for competition.

The only thing which will increase competition while also increasing the quality of education would be to increase the number of quality teachers who are willing to teach to the point where there are more quality teachers than there are positions to fill.

Lastly, I just want to know one thing. In this "potentials system", do the lesser quality students have an equal opportunity to receive and equal quality education within the public education system regardless of money, grades, and behavior?