Obama's Sun-Times correspondent: Obama will definitely not and should not consider public school

[Leopolds Ghost]

They will choose between Georgetown Day and Maret, it seems.

Never mind that they no longer have Marion Barry to kick around anymore.

The DC public school system is in the direct control of Obama ally and
paragon of the "high toned" neoliberal Gold Coast set, DC Mayor Adrian Fenty,
and his Reaganite (pro-vouchers, pro-selloff of underperforming schools
to turn them into literally condominiums and Golds Gyms) school chief
Michelle Rhee and her archipelago of right-wing think tanks. The DC school
system is firmly their experiment. Theirs to win or lose. Obama's policy camp
on school reform literally runs DC schools with no local power of interference.

But never mind that, Obama and his kids are privileged. They don't belong in DC public schools.

This is a rejection of public schools in general -- and as the correspondent
on Hardball noted, precisely because the schools Obama is looking at are for
the global elite, and have special precautions to care for the elite, and
that is the kind of care the children of the President deserve. Her words.

What this says to me is school reform was all along about two magic words: cap rates.

Not about democratizing or reintegrating the public school system.
More like disbanding it. And justifying doing so by the ABSENCE of the wealthy
and/or white kids they want to separate out in their tracking systems.

And if you don't understand what "cap rates" means,
you probably don't know what's going on with schools and policy and theory of
Democratic city administration. It's a good place to start.

[bluestateguy]

1. The will make a family decision that is best for their daughters and their education

If people want to call them hypocrites for choosing private school, then so be it. I'm sure they will brush off the label.

Your children's education is too important to make a politically correct statement with.

[Leopolds Ghost]

6. I went to both public and private school in DC area. I know something about Maret & Gtown Day

I know that the only reason I considered private school was because my home school was GROSSLY segregated and tracked. The top five students literally had their own classes. The bottom half of the student body was practicing in large rooms full of typewriters while the computer lab was off-limits to non-magnet students during non-class hours. I also know Maret and Georgetown Day are the worst kind of private school -- playpens for the cultivation of a permanent,
parasitic elite, guarded by fences and surrounded by formal gardens. The ultimate fulfillment of that "cap rates" ideology that calls for investing in the haves and divesting in the have nots (as some disaffected Hillary supporters strangely realized and hit on Obama for, despite failing to notice it in their own Clinton years.) The justification for considering Georgetown or Maret is exactly the justification used in the magnet programs -- to track out and separate the meritocratic elite from the rest of the "ordinary, low class, domestic African American and Hispanic" student body. They don't want Obama's kids to be beat up by "the low class kids that infest public schools." I got ribbed for going to a "dangerous" high school and asked how I survived. Dangerous meaning integrated, as every DC area resident understood growing up. They want to ensure Obama's kids are given all the privileges and advantages that would be accorded a white person of means.

[bluestateguy]

32. What a bunch of phony intellectual bibble babble

You have filled up this whole thread with nothing but straw man arguments.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. I'll ask friends who worked in DC public schools if they agree with you

That no place in the DC school system would be appropriate for Obama's kids.

Maybe they'll agree with you. :shrug:

All I know is that one of Obama's favorite school administrators, who is being
bandied about as a possible Education Secretary, Michelle Rhee, runs the DC school
system on a top-down basis directed on a national model that Obama supports --
cap-rates related disinvestment in underperforming schools and reinvestment
in high-performing schools. The Mayor of DC, who hired Michelle Rhee and is
a big Obama supporter, sends his kids to DC schools and the school reform plan
that they are implementing is real popular with the technocratic wing of the party.
The favorite thinkers of the new Democratic administration run DC schools directly.

So if Obama's not just full of hot air and actually believes we should disinvest
in the poorest schools and attract elite kids back into the highest performing
DC schools, maybe he should prove this isn't just a plan to do to public schools
what Reagan did to public transit and Clinton did to public housing.

[theboss]

163. If they send their kids to public school in DC, Child Services should be alerted

If you have the option of private school in DC and you still choose public school, you may be committing child abuse.

[Leopolds Ghost]

184. WOW what a fucking racist and classist statement.

Care to say it to DC DUers?

[theboss]

209. I am a DC DUer

So...that counts, right?

[Leopolds Ghost]

222. I guess it does. n/t

[pampango]

195. Do you support giving poor families the "option of private school" or should their children

continue to attend the public schools which are so bad as to represent a prosecutable offense if the Obamas send their children there?

[Leopolds Ghost]

202. Interestingly vouchers are a Reagan innovation. This whole debate is core to the Overton argument.

See what Overton's pupil had to say about this, see:

http://www.swordscrossed.org/node/53

Anger over bussing poor kids into white schools and vice versa was at the heart of the Reagan Dem coalition whose members have returned to DU thanks to the unpopularity of Bush, but they and the majority of their neighbors continue to hold the same preconceptions they had before when they voted for Reagan on "centrist" grounds of opposing class integration of schools.

[theboss]

210. I'm torn on vouchers

I tend to think choice among public schools is a better option than unusable vouchers for private schools.

My theory is that if you live in a major city, your best bet is probably Catholic School.

[Leopolds Ghost]

216. You do know that parents of high performing suburban schools would simply move.

If those schools recieved an influx of black students from DC.

(poor black, middle class black, doesn't matter as anyone who went to Montgomery County Public schools can attest. There is a gradation up the line from richest to poorest. The richer you are, from bottom to top, the greater the share of the school system you seek to avoid.)

Realtors call it income stratification.

80% of Buyers refuse to move into a neighborhood if more than a
tiny % of the houses are owned by people outside their income strata.

They stratify 50,000 person developments into $100,000 streets, $200,000 streets, etc with fences in between. When they try a more integrated approach, it bombs and the whole development becomes marketable only to the least selective in the lower groups, who only avoid the few people below them.

Same applies to schools in "liberal" neighborhoods.

[theboss]

223. So, what's the solution? Make every school suck the same?

DC Schools are dreadful performers in every statistic.

How does sending the Obamas to them fix this?

[pnwmom]

52. Were you personally at risk for a terrorist kidnapping?

Just wondering.

I don't think a public school in D.C. could be safe enough for the daughters of a President in this day and age. And the presence of a President's children there would also be putting the other children at risk.

[Leopolds Ghost]

58. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself. You go live in fear of terrorists.

That's how we got the 50 foot rule for public buildings, and ID checks at public hearings.

[MadBadger]

59. Your logic would work real well with the secret service

:sarcasm:

[pnwmom]

63. Our whole nation's well-being and security would become involved

if there were any attack on these girls. To put them at any unnecessary risk would be the height of irresponsibility.

[Leopolds Ghost]

67. As several have pointed out, the private schools in question are protected almost solely by

Virtue of being located in extremely wealthy neighborhoods, with fear of crime (not Mexican style kidnapping) being the overweening security focus.

I don't think the Obama kids have anything to fear from "angry inner city youths who might beat them up" as one poster argued. Which is the focus of security at these schools.

The Secret Service guards against terrorism type threats no matter where the school.

This all really boils down to the argument that those poor inner city kids have enough problems without them having to worry about being in the spotlight and having the Secret Service insist on extra security investment in their particular (already higher performing) school. Ask any existing DC parent whether they would lobby Obama not to send his kids to their school where their presence might disrupt these kids' splendid isolation from the local and national spotlight.

[chimpymustgo]

71. "...these kids' splendid isolation from the local and national spotlight." Thank you for this thread

What a reality check. (you are also a beautiful writer).

[Leopolds Ghost]

77. ... :-)

:hug:

[pnwmom]

105. No, they're more protected because they are smaller and better staffed --

everyone knows everyone else. And ingress and egress is already much more limited. The Secret Service would have a much easier time guarding the girls at a school like the one Chelsea attended than at a public D.C. school.

I'm not concerned about the risk to the girls from other students, but from outsiders.

[LanternWaste]

157. I think you confuse 'prudence' with 'fear'.

I think you confuse 'prudence' with 'fear'.

[Leopolds Ghost]

187. there is no such thing as "prudent planning for terrorism"

It's called "keep a stiff upper lip". Your mentality is why the West Front of the Capitol is inaccessible and the grand staircase permanently fenced.

[LanternWaste]

215. I suppose if I made no differentiation...

Wow. You read my mentality from a short, non-judgmental statement.

How very "telepathic" of you to determine that fences and obstacles in DC are the fault of my mentality merely because I see a difference between fear and prudence.

I suppose if I made no differentiation, those obstacles and fences would be gone, yes? No?




Or, more likely, your presumptions, prognostications and cleverness are simply more important to you than observing a statement from more than one angle.

(Wow-- your implication is right-- it *is* easy to read fiction into other people's statements...)

[Leopolds Ghost]

219. I should have said the argument you're advancing is similar.

We must after all fence off the first family's school.

Nobody bothers to fence off the schools Senators kids
attend -- no wait -- they refuse to send their kids to
schools without security precautions and a high income
level student population TOO, despite the lack of danger
to their kids.

Could there be an underlying answer here
that applies to the Obama girls AND Amy Carter
AND the Bush Twins that asserts it's not just a question
of security for these families?

[curse of greyface]

113. No Public schools period. Do what is right for the children. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

152. Just say no to public schools eh? nt

[curse of greyface]

154. In DC yes. The most important thing is what is best for the child.

If the atmosphere isn't conducive to learning why would one want to put their child there id they had a choice.

The Obamas wouldn't be moving into that school district if they hadn't won the obligation to serve us. We should not discourage people with school age children from running for president.

[Leopolds Ghost]

188. you don't know shit about DC and its obvious you guys wouldnt raise children in a black neighborhood

in the first place.

Even 16th Street Heights.

[theboss]

217. Depends on the neighborhood. I wouldn't send my kids to Anacostia

There are some schools in PG County that are fine though.

[Leopolds Ghost]

228. Fair enough, I agree.

The point is, there are teaching programs that have turned around schools like Anacostia in a big way.

The problem is, they aren't considered a success by the cap rates guys in City administration UNLESS they make the schools attractive to a new, more affluent group of students, which would be nice if it happened, I suppose.

But such parents won't even send their kids to Blair or T.C. Williams
no matter how good the scores of the inner city kids are made.

In other words, such breakthroughs are usually pooh-poohed by experts on grounds that, at the end of the day, only poor kids from troubled families are being attracted to these curriculums, placing them at an inherent statistical disadvantage to magnet schools and the like.

Maybe we should return to explicit tracking simply to make this sort of
school reform statistical manipulation moot, since it ultimately boils
down to a fight between the parents of above-average students and
parents of special needs kids (and every parent wants to declare their
kid special needs) to get more money for the schools they are in.

[JerseygirlCT]

27. Exactly. I'd do just the same. nt

[pampango]

169. I agree with everything you said, but feel the need to point out that some will

consider us to be hypocrites if we then oppose vouchers or other means of helping low- and middle-income people get their kids out of some bad public school systems.

Our son is a sophomore in college now, but we chose to have him go to a below-average (but not horrible) public school system rather than go to a private school nearby. It turned out that he got enough individual attention at the school (and with our prodding) did well, got into a good college and is doing very well. It was a tough choice for us and we gave serious consideration to the private school. I can only imagine what would be like to live in a "horrible" public school district and not have the resources to opt for a private school. I imagine I would not be too happy about my child's educational options being restricted by the "political correctness" of those opposing vouchers (which I, too, oppose).

It is one of those really tough calls, where you make the decision on what is best for yourself, your family and your children, even if it hurts public education (and I believe the country in the long run) if everyone else does the same thing.

[Leopolds Ghost]

2. cap rates

Learn why your kids don't deserve private school and kids poorer than yours don't even deserve a well-funded public school. it's about stratification and market capitalization of the underlying tax base.

[chimpymustgo]

7. It's a very sad statement about the reality of our class system. I was heartbroken when the

Clintons put Chelsea in Sidwell Friends. If I put my kid in public school, it won't make a difference. But if a President Obama or President Clinton does - and insists: let's make our public schools good enough for ALL our children - and put the force of his will and resources behind it - REAL CHANGE can happen.

Let's make sending out kids to public school - successful public schools - the hot, hip chic thing to do!

That's change you can believe in.

[Oregone]

14. Thats sorta playing politics with your kid's saftey. Children aren't chess pieces.

"But if a President Obama or President Clinton does - and insists: let's make our public schools good enough for ALL our children....."

Come on now...the school needs to be secure, have facilities for the Secret Service to use, be able to have a high profile student without disruption, etc. Obama's kids aren't like everyone's else. All other kids aren't a priority for white extremist hate groups to kill. This entire topic is built on ridiculous hyperbole.

[Leopolds Ghost]

21. "for white extremist hate groups to kill. This entire topic is built on ridiculous hyperbole."

The first sentence contradicts the second.

[Oregone]

30. Not at all. Obama's children are high profile targets.

And even so, my usage of hyperbole wouldn't contradict a statement suggesting this topic is built on it. I would simply be following suite, which is anything but a contradiction.

[LWolf]

193. Children aren't chess pieces.

If putting your kids in my public school is playing politics with their safety, then make my school safer.

Don't tell me that some people's kids are more valuable than others.

[DoctorMyEyes]

45. Amy Carter went to public school

for the reasons you said. Didn't necessarily make public schools any better and it sure as hell made protecting her a lot harder. Barack Obama is already putting his ass on the line for us - I certainly don't expect him to put his childrens asses on the line to appease Leopolds Ghost.

[Leopolds Ghost]

69. You guys are the ones asserting public schools are unsafe places for children.

Or maybe it's only high profile children, like in the 3rd world.

[ehrnst]

161. Most public places are considered unsafe for the first family - hence, Secret Service. (nt)

[fed_up_mother]

72. Amy Carter never looked happy. Obama doesn't have to prove anything. I say private school for kids

[Lydia Leftcoast]

94. Jimmy Carter sent Amy to a DC public school

She survived.

[woo me with science]

106. By reports, she was not happy. nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

181. I take it you would never send your kids to an urban school

They just wouldn't be happy there.

[theboss]

212. It depends on the school largely

There are a few urban high schools that are outposts in major cities. Taylor Alderice in Pittsburgh always looked like a reasonably functioning school.

I mean, if I couldn't afford Shadyside Academy, I would be okay with that I suppose.

If my option was Perry, I would be concerned.

[Leopolds Ghost]

220. I know someone who used to teach in Simple City

They sent in Blackwater Paratroopers and shut down the military style
program they had going there.

[theboss]

224. I have no idea what you are talking about

I think a few words in that sentence are out of order.

[Leopolds Ghost]

232. Simple City = housing project in DC, off Suitland Pkwy

They sent in paratroopers to break up a fight.

The city simply assumed the kids there were "supercriminals" or whatever the term was for the supposedly ultraviolent new generation of juvenile delinquents back in the 80s and early 90s.

It was a military-style academy program that was having some success.

The school basically WAS DC's reform school for juvenile delinquents... now they have none.

Simple City == if you live there, you can be shot for "simple" walking down the street.

[ehrnst]

162. Her dad wasn't targeted by white supremicists. (nt)

[curse of greyface]

114. Yeah but are you forced due to your job to live in Washington DC?

[Leopolds Ghost]

189. "forced" to live in DC?

DC is one of the most expensive cities of in the nation. Why don't the kids living in those homes go to the same schools? because of segregation enforced by cap rates. Your mentality is why New Orleans responded the way it did to Katrina.

[ContinentalOp]

115. Great post. I couldn't agree more.

This idea that somehow private schools are "safer" is absurd.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. Horace Mann school would be a good choice?

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[chimpymustgo]

10. What a mean, prejudiced thing to say! Where are you coming from?

[Leopolds Ghost]

15. Thanks for providing evidence for my assertion that this is what most people think.

I can't say I agree, since I was arguing the exact opposite -- that Obama or his handlers / media correspondents are indeed being classist if not indeed advancing an aristocratic concept of a political-professional elite that is above sending their kids to public school where they might encounter "ghetto youth".

What can I say? If I attack you for saying this I'll have 3 different DUers calling me a reactionary leftist and these DUers will say "I'm glad Obama refuses to bend over backwards coddling certain Democrats" with their distasteful poverty concerns and religious customs (not to mention double-parking on Sundays and painting their houses the wrong color and voting for leaders who speak in one or another distasteful lower-class accent, generally being ungrateful for everything "white people" have done to improve public perceptions of their neighborhood by pushing them out.)

Time to build another Golds Gym, people.

[DoctorMyEyes]

5. Their presence at a public school

would be very disruptive and a security nightmare for all involved - regardless of the quality of the education available.

[Oregone]

8. No doubt....someone is making a mountain out of a molehile here

I am a huge public school advocate. My children will NEVER attend private school (except if they choose a private university). But I would never enroll them in a public school if I were the POTUS. You have to consider security, among many other factors.

[AlexinVA]

12. DC public schools are horrendous

I can't imagine the President's (or anyone of means') children attending them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

18. You are flat out incorrect. DC public schools are run by Obama's favorite school chief

And plenty of well-off white folks send their kids to DC's better public schools (Wilson being one example, Coolidge for upper-class blacks, Bell Multicultural for Hispanics. See, even the upscale well-funded schools are segregated! And you having grown up in America have learned to have no shame about this but merely be proud to have the freedom to move elsewhere with your kids in tow.)

Segregation is the problem, not your neighbors' strange unwillingness to fund quality schools for poor kids (who you guys have no problem segregating into separate schools in the first place.)

[Starry Messenger]

25. "Well off white" is a totally different group

then "leader of the free world with every crazy shitbag who wants to assassinate you and your loved ones" which is a much smaller group. I don't worry about the quality of the school or the students or the teachers. I worry about a small militia easily overpowering the SRO.

[Leopolds Ghost]

29. I don't believe in giving in to paranoia and fear

It's also true that Russia might release a super-flu virus killing 99% of the worlds population, thereby making it easier for them to dominate us in the mine-shaft economic category. If you want to believe scenarios where the villain does something incredibly stupid and self-defeating while the rest of the population idly stands by.

[Starry Messenger]

34. How nice for you. n/t

[WhollyHeretic]

37. Listen carefully: There have already been death threats against Obama and his family.

Thinking those girls need extra protection is not paranoia.

[Leopolds Ghost]

44. There are death threats against all manner of public figures.

That will never be an excuse for setting up an American Aristocracy which is the agenda of the Georgetown Day and Harvard set.

[EmilyAnne]

116. Death threats against tiny children who are completely dependent on adults to make the right

decisions about their safety?
Do you think its elitist for the Obama family to have any security at all?

You seem really blinded by your personal issues. Weird.

[Leopolds Ghost]

119. Public school is not a personal issue. Some of you guys are wierd... for Democrats

Talk to Adrian Fenty about this. Hardly a liberal firebrand. He's a core Obamite, in fact.

Does he have it in for Obama's children safety?

[EmilyAnne]

125. And this answers my questions exactly how?

[Missy Vixen]

148. So, the girls' father graduated from Harvard.

Is he a member of the "American Aristocracy"?

I think the Obamas should send their daughters to whichever school offers the best hope for security, both for them and for their young classmates. They didn't ask for their daddy to be President, and they certainly don't need to be in danger. Frankly, I wonder to myself if the best thing in this instance might be (gasp), homeschooling.

Julie

[fed_up_mother]

74. Are you a parent? You certainly don't sound like one

Most parents don't want to take chances with their kids if they don't have to.

I'd sacrifice anything for my kids. I'm sure the Obamas feel the same way.

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. I guess the parents in DC schools are institutionally expected to be uncaring

Since we're not closing down the DC school system as a hazard to children.

Should we criticize parents of well-to-do Dems who send their kids to urban public schools, though?

Of course, nobody actually talks about how those schools came to be abandoned
by what we now call the middle class.

There was a recent article (past 4 years) on how the
Central High School (pre-1956) Alumni Association
has separated itself from and refused to merge with
the Cardozo High School (same school, post 1960)
Alumni Association in DC.

But there are plenty of legitimate reasons to want to make sure kids are protected
to the best of our financial ability, regardless of other considerations. SUV's for instance.
But isn't this the tragedy of the commons mentality that we see less of in countries without
a deep ethnic divide or some other source of pervasive danger? In many circles, SUVs are
considered essential for any parent who truly cares about their children... if homeowners
who post on community discussion boards are to be believed. ("A large vehicle is a flat out
necessity of life for parents who want to keep their kids safe" they argue.) Again, an arms race
mentality prevails... Social darwinism is marketed to parents to ensure that their kid is
not left out of the latest essential, and if they do get left out, it's a self-fulfilling
prophecy because they get left behind by the parents who self-selected for all the latest
parenting gadgets. The result is the creation of pockets of deliberately neglected areas
(poverty merely ends up in these areas) as the middle class panicky abandon anything that
is percieved as the tiniest bit unsafe, creating white flight and middle class flight zones
which can then (if real estate experts are to be believed) ONLY be reclaimed by wholesale
demolition and displacement of the poor residents who remain to some slightly more unsafe area.
Self fulfilling prophecy.

Only when the last "lower class character" leaves these neighborhoods (with the underperforming
schools, which usually requires total disinvestment in essence to starve the remaining population
of services in order to clear the way for redevelopment, per the cap rates doctrine) only once
all those people are gone do 80% of Americans agree to consider moving to or raising their kids
in these areas, according to real estate experts. (The other 20% is divided between the
"urban pioneer crowd" and the top 10% who are wealthy enough to purchase 80% of all new home
construction which is marketed exclusively to them, according to the same studies.)

Is it "class suicide" for middle class parents to send their kids to a public school
in the city...? or is it "pathological" for lower class parents to do anything other
than get their kids out of the city, as the city officials seem to think?

(City Admins in many blue cities actively make the argument that the best thing
for poor families with children to get out of the revitalization of the
inner city is to pay them to leave and go elsewhere, and that therefore
investing more money in the schools is NOT an option... The idea is that
concentration of poverty is bad because individual families are pathological
by virtue of their sheer willingness to send kids to such crappy schools and
the best thing for the rest of the population is that these "pathologically poor"
families should be dispersed over a wide area. Robert Samuelson just wrote an
editorial in the Post expressly blaming the poor for their problems and asserting
that if we do not help the wealthy first and foremost, they too will become poor
and have no money to spread around to everyone else.)

[fed_up_mother]

180. Parents are responsible to do the best they can for their kids

When I was younger, I can assure you that I went to a LOUSY school. My parents couldn't afford to move to a better school district, and private schools? That was a pipe dream!

So, my parents did what all parents should do - they did the best they could. They supervised our homework. They made sure that we were reading. They read to us when we were younger. They grounded us for goofing off in school. They had meetings with the teacher and went to PTA meetings. If all parents took responsibility for their kids, most kids would do well. I don't subscribe to the theory that certain groups are inferior to others.

I had a decent education despite the fact that we didn't have frills, used older books, and sat in beat up desks. As a matter of fact, most of the world gets educated just like that - and they seem to do fine. We're the only nation that equates test scores with shiny new buildings, brand new textbooks, and multi million dollar sports complexes. :(

[Leopolds Ghost]

207. What concerns me is that Obama would be ATTACKED here & on TV for choosing DCPS.

What does that say about this country? Bad things under the surface.

[fed_up_mother]

244. Because he sends his kids to private school in Chicago

Why change now, when the stakes (safety) are even higher? People would see that decision as politically motivated, but I don't think he's going to "play" politics with his kids. He hasn't yet. :)

[chimpymustgo]

43. Shall they live in a bubble? Truth be told, with the exception of Maret, which is completely fenced

and gated, the other toney private schools have open campuses. Holten Arms might be a good choice. It's up a long winding road in the suburb of Bethesda. All girls, too.

This all just makes me sad. Change? Not so much.

[Leopolds Ghost]

49. Last I checked, Maret was quite open and "protected" from the hoi polloi by property values

Not by any intense security measures.

There is NO QUESTION that the closet racists in America and white-skin privilege set
who believe we are entering a "post racial, classless society" would call Maret dangerous
if it were located in the middle of St. Elizabeths campus, with its high security fencing
surrounded by (horrors) black neighborhoods where those boogeyman white racist kidnappers
(projection much?) would not be caught dead in!!!

I got to tour the Maret campus when I was in high school. Perhaps it's changed thanks
to the increasing wealth of the multinational elite (Citigroup execs... the people
Chelsea's and Bush twins' parents enriched.)

Note the retreat from the idea that money in politics is a bad thing, too.
Never mind the fact that fundraising is still being done primarily by DLC allied
bundlers, the people who support closing public schools in urban areas and gentrifying
out any families with children. it's simply masked by all our private donations.
Why do I bring this up? Because the people investing money in politics are the
same ones who expect a return on their investment -- the urban super-elite who
send their kids to certain very specific schools.

The answer? Professional class -- what Mark Penn calls the "new middle class, $120,000 and up"
is the new base, not inner city blacks and liberals. The notion of families with children who
ARE liberal is beyond them -- those people must be some kind of ethnic minority, else why would
they vote for the Democrats and not have moved to the suburbs? And campaign finance reform is
dead and unlamented, and so is any kind of school reform that does not involve dismantling schools
that underperform just as they are dismantling underperforming campaign finance programs.

[Starry Messenger]

53. I asked you in post #13 about the protections at these schools.

You did not answer me in that thread. Instead you posted strawman crap in post #36 and still have not addressed my privacy concerns as a public school teacher. You are using the Obama children to grind your personal ax on. Nice.

[chimpymustgo]

80. Not to pick a fight, but Maret has a black iron fence around it, as well as unbreachable property

values of Cleveland Park.

[Leopolds Ghost]

85. Release the HOUNDS! nt

[123infinity]

179. The picture at their website doesn't seem to show a fence

:shrug:
http://www.maret.org/about_us/at_a_glance/index.aspx

[Leopolds Ghost]

186. They are located in sa residential mansion on a busy residential street

Across from residential homes and apartments in the rear.

[AlexinVA]

42. I have no kids...

but if I did they certainly wouldn't go to a DC public school...or even a public school in Alexandria, VA, which is where I do live. Arlington has great public schools. Ditto for Fairfax county.

Hey, I grew up in upstate NY going to pretty good public schools. I didn't even know public schools could be as horrendous as they are in some cities.

[Leopolds Ghost]

51. It depends on which school. You can't make blanket statements

In America, "great" means mostly white. The minute more than a token percentage of brown faces show up, people who haven't fled the jurisdiction already to avoid housing integration begin asking what happened to the school system they know and love. What's "wrong" with Blair HS in Silver Spring MD? When did Silver Spring become "like Beirut"? These are the questions I hear kind-hearted liberals in the DC area ask over and over.

[AlexinVA]

57. You're right...

I cannot make a blanket statement about all DC schools, but in general terms:

· Tests show that in reading and math, the District's public school students score at the bottom among 11 major city school systems, even when poor children are compared only with other poor children. Thirty-three percent of poor fourth-graders across the nation lacked basic skills in math, but in the District, the figure was 62 percent. It was 74 percent for D.C. eighth-graders, compared with 49 percent nationally.

· The District spends $12,979 per pupil each year, ranking it third-highest among the 100 largest districts in the nation. But most of that money does not get to the classroom. D.C. schools rank first in the share of the budget spent on administration, last in spending on teachers and instruction.

· Principals reporting dangerous conditions or urgently needed repairs in their buildings wait, on average, 379 days -- a year and two weeks -- for the problems to be fixed. Of 146 school buildings, 113 have a repair request pending for a leaking roof, a Washington Post analysis of school records shows.

· The schools spent $25 million on a computer system to manage personnel that had to be discarded because there was no accurate list of employees to use as a starting point. The school system relies on paper records stacked in 200 cardboard boxes to keep track of its employees, and in some cases is five years behind in processing staff paperwork. It also lacks an accurate list of its 55,000-plus students, although it pays $900,000 to a consultant each year to keep count.

· Many students and teachers spend their days in an environment hostile to learning. Just over half of teenage students attend schools that meet the District's definition of "persistently dangerous" because of the number of violent crimes, according to an analysis of school reports. Across the city, nine violent incidents are reported on a typical day, including fights and attacks with weapons. Fire officials receive about one complaint a week of locked fire doors, and health inspections show that more than a third of schools have been infested by mice.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/09/AR2007060901415_pf.html

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. And Obama's favorite schools administrator is doing everything in her power

To make those problems worse (or better for the remaining kids, as most liberal Americans see it) by closing (not investing directly in) half of the underperforming schools, selling their campuses to gyms and condo developers to make money for the rest, leaving open the high performing schools. Saving money to reinvest (and restock with high-performing upper-middle class students) the best schools. The low performing students will be shipped to the suburbs or charter schools. So will Obama be part of change that his allies including possible Education Secretary candidate are directly administering in a grand, Republican- and Democratic-lauded experiment, with no school board or local interference? Or is he asking other parents to send their kids to the new and improved public schools, which the Michelle Rhee plan is predicated on -- attracting high performing kids to the magnet schools like Wilson and McKinley and Bell?

[ContinentalOp]

118. That's pretty shitty -nt-

[Lerkfish]

9. just the point I was going to make

secret service would veto it anyways as too high risk.

[Leopolds Ghost]

16. Bullshit n/t

[WhollyHeretic]

28. Wow. Great rebuttal. I've talked to several teachers who agreed that they would not want them in

their school. It would be a logistical nightmare. It would be a distraction. With the death threats Obama has already gotten a public school is a dangerous place for those girls.

I say this as an enormous advocate of public schools.

[Leopolds Ghost]

38. And what makes a private school less dangerous?

Oh, I forgot, they are built and set up to provide for the special needs of the privileged (as opposed to "special needs" kids who don't deserve the attention prominent school children might focus in on improvements.)

Did I mention Maret is a former mansion across the street from some decidedly threatening tony apartment buildings and public streets (hardly what I'd call a "modernized, high security facility") and Georgetown Day is set up and chartered as an elite British-style school for the upper class, surrounded by a country club?

[chimpymustgo]

47. Leopold's Ghost, I'm totally with you on this. I'm guessing Maret may have an edge

because it's COMPLETELY FENCED AND GATED - so no need to have any contact whatsoever with the great unwashed.

Those girls are just wonderful additions to the universe. I'm sorry they're going to be forced into the DC elite bubble. I'm sorry the Obama's won't stand for real change. How great would it be to be a part of a real movement to make our public schools good enough for ALL our children.

[Johnyawl]

11. The wealthy have NEVER gone to public schools...

...and the upper middle class have gone to 'public' schools by grouping themselves into select communities where real eastate prices kept the neighborhoods free of the working class and poor, and where they could control the school board.

The RW wants to destroy public schools, and privatize them, but hell, they want to do that to EVERYTHING. One of the core philosophies of the modern conservative is that everything should be privately owned. No public schools, no public roads, no public transportation, no city fire department, no public parks, no public beaches, etc, etc. What that translates into is, A) no taxes, and B) more money making opportunities for the wealthy (since they'll own everything).

[Leopolds Ghost]

19. It gets worse. Get a textbook on Public Planning & City Administration, read chapter on cap rates

Also available in your handbook on Real Estate Development because it is a mathematical formula devised to maximize the public investment in public facilities for the upper class and defund anything that would encourage utilization by the lower class. That is the express intent and it is very highly calibrated formula used in every Blue US city by Obama's AND the Clintons' reinventing government buddies. Michelle Rhee, Andrew Cuomo, you name it.

BTW, from my time in DC, a good friend is a former DC schools admin and another close friend of mine used to teach in one of the worst schools in DC, down in Simple City (DC residents will catch the reference.) so I have some sources of knowledge to draw on this besides my own (limited) education in the subject. I brought this up with a recent DC government retiree and his eyes lit up. Nobody talks about this. (cap rates) The only place it's discussed is in planning circles where the expectation going in is that you are a member of the professional coastal class or developer class.

They are destroying public schools and the anti-integration folks on this very blog (and everywhere else in liberal circles) are facilitating their efforts by applauding Obama for not mixing it up with the untouchables.

[ContinentalOp]

122. Can you explain this better?

Can you explain the "cap rates" thing so I don't have to read a textbook on city planning? ;) thanks!

[Leopolds Ghost]

143. I actually would like to study this issue more, but here goes:

There's a mathematical formula used by city administrators and planning boards used to determine if a public investment is worthwhile (any public investment, including roads and sewers and tax breaks and permission to build sought by a private developer -- and we all know how much power zoning has in America these days, the form of urban development is pretty well dictated by what the local government will allow, which is why some jurisdictions just simply don't have any buildings that aren't surrounded by a sea of parking and people tend to overlook that this is mandated by law, but that's a totally different story.)

Anyhow, it's very precise and I took a class on it but my skill in math is more geometry based, so naturally I can't remember the formula, but it is a tiered system based on the return on investment (ROI) as measured by the potential income of the occupants of the new development or people from other cities who might be attracted to use attendant services and thereby cost the city money, the objective (of the formula calculations, explicitly) being to maximize tax revenue of the new occupants and minimize city investment in city services over the long term.

The calculations are based on things like do they add students to schools (bad), do they require any social services (very bad), do they attract more than the minimum legally required low-income residents to meet standards for needs-based affordable housing quotient (if the affordable housing is not needs-based but merely offered in hopes that it will be snapped up by students and other creative types, so much the better. the solution introduced during the Clinton administration is to require all residents of HOPE VI private developments -- those pretty townhouse pods that replaced most of our nations public housing since 1990 -- are required to have credit, including former residents of the public housing project that got torn down who are technically, legally have the right to housing in the new development, but only if they obtain credit and a mortgage in the new development -- ironically shoving down their throat, in the name of "teaching poor folks responsibility", the very shit mortgage backed investments that everyone else invested in, which are dragging down the entire US economy. The reason the mortgage crisis happened is that everyone who couldn't find another way to secure their retirement put their money in these mortgages in order to justify paying inflated prices for a former tenement precisely in hopes that the former tenants would not be able to afford to return, thereby in hopes of ensuring a return on investment by staying on a perpetual depreciation ladder, despite the fact that it is still basically the same tenement, or worse, icebox architecture that looks every bit as "new and modern" as the public housing towers did when they were brand new. You stay on the treadmill as richer and richer people displace poorer and poorer people into progressively more depreciated areas until the poorest of the poor are concentrated on neighborhoods that are so bad off that the city can justify wholesale demolition.)

As urban planning profs note, the objective is to continue to house 80% of the poor in tenements elsewhere -- in buildings that are just beginning to depreciate -- because 80% of all new construction is for the top 10% in income both by design (cost of construction, rigorous parking and infrastructure requirements, etc) and intent (cap rates, as outlined, because the objective of depreciated (pre-owned) housing is to wait for it to fully depreciate -- i.e. become a slum -- before any investment can be justified by the actuarial tables that house all these calculations (as mentioned, there are very specific and technical figures that have been attached to these calculations by the city administration and real estate industry -- working hand in hand, if you believe realtors who basically regard the purpose of city administration as -- the advancement of real estate development!

Anyway, so back to the central calculation they make, which is, which populations is a developer required to serve or else make accomodations to avoid attracting. In order, they are something like (again, there are specific numerical values attached to these groups that you plug into the cap rates valuation, along with the number of people expected to be attracted to the public investment in question and the tax revenue / cost to the taxpayer generated by each group:

POSITIVE (maximize # of people attracted from these groups)

Upper income Retirees

Double income no kids

Affluent single college students

"Creative Class" Professionals

FIRE Employees (Financial Insurance and Real Estate)

Wealthy families with school-age children
(assumption is that they can and should use private school
thus generating instead of costing tax revenue)

NEUTRAL:

Lower income Retirees

Middle income college grads

Young families with infant children

NEGATIVE (minimize # of people from these groups who benefit)

Families with school age children (ANY income except wealthy)

Poor families (ESPECIALLY with children)

Anyone recieving AFDC, Food Stamps, etc.

Manufacturing / Service sector employees
(employer taxes go out of area, local gov't has to pay for services)

-----

Apologies for any inaccuracies. Now, it gets worse because any public investment may be studied according to cap rates (if a streetscape redesign is approved, what is the ROI in terms of increased taxes from favored groups moving into the area as a direct result? If it only benefits existing residents it is explicitly not financially justified, and the planners say "postpone until conditions improve" meaning economic conditions are ripe for new, wealthier residents to move in who would "benefit more" from said improvements.)

This cap rates doctrine, combined with broken window theory (Giuliani's pet theory, which states that minor quality of life violations attract serious crime and therefore basic maintenance of the public realm can be explicitly justified by the fewer undesirables you have in a neighborhood) and the "ownership doctrine" that all new services such as affordable housing should be engineered to "educate welfare moms in responsibile credit habits" by encouraging them to assume as much debt as the rest of America and handing out balloon mortgages on a select few units of what used to be public housing, with the remaining "owner occupied affordable housing" going to a waiting list of middle class city officials, politicians' and sheriffs' cousins, realtors, house-flippers, and other lowlifes that take advantage of city hall. Even the famous stripper in Newark who taught courses in flipping tenements as a day job.

All of whom are, of course, considered more desirable from a cap rates perspective than the impoverished families with dependent children they displaced.

[Leopolds Ghost]

191. Anyone care to comment? It took me some time to pull together the info in post #143.

[Starry Messenger]

13. Can you say security nightmare?

I teach in a public school and there is no way I would enjoy being subject to daily searches, etc. to protect two students. What kind of special protections for the elite do these schools have that you are citing? Secret Service? If so, Republicans will be bitching to high heaven about the cost to tax payers. Chelsea Clinton went to Sidwell Friends. This is a non-issue.

[Leopolds Ghost]

24. Chelsea Clinton is no model for how Presidential kids should be treated.

She is a legacy baby at a Wall Street firm and her parents made hundred millions in kickbacks for speaking at business conferences just like Reagan did, a reward for their role in ending the American New Deal.

Clinton passed a bill allowing telecoms to buy up the entire spectrum and legalizing vertical and horizontal monopoly in the banking and financial sector, enabling the current crisis and enabling trillions to flow into the hands of Citigroup et al. The money they and their daughter have made is a tiny, tiny kickback compared to the God-like independence Citigroup, Bank of America and the media conglomerates now have over any sovereign government thanks to the Clintons (the latter two banks alone account for over half of all US deposits.)

[Starry Messenger]

31. Who is the model then?

What passive aggressive point are you trying to make here since you won't address the points about security? The Obamas are rich? Fine, yes they are rich. There is a class system in this country? Welcome to my world. I make under 30,000 per year, rent in a shitty neighborhood, haven't had dental work in 15 years and have no health insurance. I commmute 3 hours per day for my job. I'm still glad the Obamas are not making political hay with their children. And to reiterate, I am a public school teacher.

[KamaAina]

56. You're a public school teacher, and you make less than 30K a year? In CA?

That's a huge part of the problem right there.

[Starry Messenger]

62. I will not disagree.

Thank you.

[RebelOne]

168. That's unbelievable. My daughter is a public school teacher

in South Florida. She makes much more than 30K a year, has insurance and has a house in a fairly nice neighborhood in Hollywood, FL.

[Beacool]

111. Why don't you have health insurance?

Do you work in a public school? I'm surprised that you have no insurance.

[ContinentalOp]

124. What kind of public school teacher doesn't have health insurance!?

:shrug:

[WhollyHeretic]

33. And that has exactly what to do with her going to public school?

[bluestateguy]

35. She is a hell of a lot smarter than you are, based on the crapola you have put on this thread

nt

[Leopolds Ghost]

41. She's smart enough to get a high-paid Wall Street job right off the bat.

Obviously you are "smart enough" to either believe in Bell-Curve pseudoscience
or else you feel her upbringing in private schools (and not her family name)
entitled her to such good positioning in life and therefore subscribe to the
notion that public schools should be no different. You claim to be a dem after all.

[Beacool]

109. Oh please,

Chelsea is a lovely young woman and a testament of the good upbringing she received. Both Clintons are great parents. Your rant is out of place.

:eyes:

[chimpymustgo]

112. Hey, Chelsea's cool. A fine upstanding member of America's aristocracy. So much more deserving of

the wealth of Wall Street than some inner city, public school kids. That's just the way it goes.

[Beacool]

123. Why are you trashing Chelsea?

No one said anything about a public school kid not deserving a better future. What's your problem? She is the daughter of a president, that's her reality. What's wrong with that?

[Leopolds Ghost]

130. Speaking for myself, I was probably too harsh on Chelsea.

Her success in life is not ill-gotten. But I think it's fair to say she's gotten advantages other people have been denied. Would Jimmy Carter be a multimillionaire and Amy Carter be a society darling if he had been a little more in with the Acela crowd? maybe.

[Beacool]

134. Any child of a president is privileged.

But, I do think that someone as bright as Chelsea would have made her own way in life. She's particularly good at math and as studious and diligent as her mom.

[greguganus]

170. I'm sure Chelsea would have gotten a job right out of school making a 6-figure income...

...with a hedge fund company just on her math skills. :hi:

[Leopolds Ghost]

204. Not if her Father had Vetoed Gramm Deregulation Act, she sure as shit wouldn't have.

No offense to Chelsea. :shrug:

[greguganus]

231. Sorry, I forgot the sarcasm tag. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

233. Don't worry, I was agreeing with you!

Just pointing out it gets worse -- Chelsea would've had to prove herself
alot more and Clinton would be demeaned a lot more by every TV economist
if he had vetoed the act that allowed Citigroup etc. to consolidate and
use their inflated stock prices to commoditize all that bad debt.

[Leopolds Ghost]

128. OK, I'm no fan of Clintons, tho I admire them personally.

I don't fault Chelsea for the (exceptional) upbringing she received.

[Beacool]

129. OK, it sounded as if you did.

Peace.

:D

[Leopolds Ghost]

131. Gnight

:hi:

[Beacool]

135. Ciao!!!

;)

[MiniMe]

39. Sidwell Friends is an extremely expensive private school

And when Chelsea isn't there, there is not a lot of campus security. I did some work there. It is a very nice campus, but it is directly on Wisconsin Ave. No matter where they go, there will be extra security involved, as there should be.

[eyesroll]

17. Amy Carter wasn't allowed to play outside at recess due to security concerns.

I understand why the Obamas would send their children to a private school, that's used to and equipped for educating children in the public eye, in that situation.

[Leopolds Ghost]

20. Children in the public eye = children of the 2nd world elite.

USA being a 2nd world nation divided into two classes now.

[LooseWilly]

107. You do realize that the "2nd world" refers to Soviet Satellite States?...

1st World: The "West"... US & Europe... and Japan. And Australia.

2nd World: USSR, Eastern Europe.

3rd World: The "developing countries", pretty much all of Africa and South America (Egypt, Argentina, South Africa, Brazil... borderline maybe), the Middle East (except maybe Saudi Arabia, Israel... maybe Egypt is Middle East, despite being in Africa...), most of Asia (not so much China and India now, but Afghanistan, Mongolia, Thailand, Burma/Myan Mar, Cambodia, Vietnam, etc. ...)


So, saying the USA is a 2nd world nation implies that we're a Soviet Satellite state.

Divided into 2 classes ignores the 3rd (middle?) class... maybe you deem the middle class to have been... starved back to lower class?... I'm not sure... and you certainly haven't provided even an unsupported hypothesis/theory on the subject.
Did the middle class of our, presumably you meant newly 3rd world, country all slip back to the lower classes?... or did those "middle class" people that Charlie Gibson referred to in that one debate... you know, the middle class that makes 250K/year, did they graduate to the upper class (higher class?) ?

[Leopolds Ghost]

126. According to the media, as you say, the middle class is now 120 or 250 and up

Which means the vast majority of Americans have been socially relegated to what Michael Lind, former Republican turned Democrat think tanker, called the American underclass, those of us who cannot and never will send their kids to "leadership track" schools.

As for 2nd world, the Soviet Union no longer exists, but the term has been slowly redefined over the years to refer to the actual developing nations (as opposed to the euphemism) -- China, India, Brazil, Southeast Asia, etc. Countries with that sort of early-industrial two-tiered class structure with a middle class not much bigger than (and directly dependent on) the wealthy elite. Everyone else is expected to remain cheap labor and be "enterprising" in hopes of one day bettering their condition. Entry into the professional class is very tightly regulated by qualifying access to professional education, while the rich have their own schools. The objective is to either raise a child to be smart enough to get into a magnet school on scholarship or strike it rich somehow, although someone (Atlantic?) recently reported that the number of people who actually do substantially better than their parents is vanishingly small, and there is less class mobility in the US than in a bunch of other countries.

[LooseWilly]

139. Where exactly has the re-definition of the term "2nd World" been occurring?

Please tell me you're not an academic who is pushing these relatively simplistic neo-communist Worker's World terms... "American underclass", "leadership track", "class mobility"... or I'm gonna feel like I'm trying to decipher the tracts of Berkeley communist/worker intellectuals (in their own eyes), into some sort of model that can actually be fit into the apparent behaviors of the larger world... with a minimum of dialectic transliteration, so to speak....

And yes I realize that makes next to no sense... and likewise your tirade.

Why don't you just say that you suspect that the middle class is being laid off and left to either creatively cultivate personal relationships to advance themselves, or hum "Yankee Doodle Dandy" while they sink into the working/poor class... rather than try to couch your strange neo-marxist dogma in some sort of educational smoking jacket?

[Leopolds Ghost]

146. No, nothing marxist here

It's always been a fuzzy term for devloping nations that have limited class mobility.

"America is becoming a 2nd World nation" is a common phrase this past 8 years
meaning we are becoming more like Brazil or Russia or China. (contemporary Russia and China)

Sure it originally meant Russia and Eastern Europe. And it still includes them.

[DoctorMyEyes]

48. Exactly!

I love Jimmy Carter and admire what he was trying to do - but, it wasn't fair to Amy and the country wasn't nearly as kooky as it is now. It's ridiculous to expect those girls to attend a public school and I would question the Obamas judgment as parents if they were even talking about anything so reckless.

[Leopolds Ghost]

60. Is it ridiculous to expect White House aides to take public transit?

(hint, this is a set-up question as anyone who is pretty familiar with the DC area might guess)

[Lydia Leftcoast]

175. I don't know--why not?

The idea that taking public transit is BENEATH some people is almost a purely American idea. And it's one reason why American transit is so much worse than that in other countries. The middle and upper classes avoid it, so they have no reason to maintain or improve it, and so it gets worse, which drives away even more middle and upper class people.

I'd love it if more government officials took public transit and set an example for others.

[theboss]

226. Why wouldn't you take the Metro in DC?

It's safe and reliable.

Neither adjective describes DC public schools, I might add.

[librechik]

22. the intense security will be a bummer for any kids--but especially public school kids

We all have to acknowledge it's a special situation that needs access which might be illegal in public schools. Nobody wants their packs searched and lockers opened. leave the public school kids out of it. They have enough problems.

[Leopolds Ghost]

26. I was a public school kid... Why not ask them if they think it would be a problem

They would not want to put up with?

[LeftyMom]

23. Can't blame them.

Even without the obvious monumental security concerns that go along with their notoriety, I wouldn't in a million years put my kid in a public school in DC.

[Leopolds Ghost]

36. Lessons learned from this thread: Those "ghetto school children" will either stand idly by

While their heros and role models are viciously attacked by out of state racist ninja militiamen,

Or will actually participate in the assault on the First Daughters and beat them up out of
what some liberal Americans fantasize is lower-class jealousy for the white-skin privilege
of any person of means that manifests itself in some sort of upwardly directed class hatred.

In the reality-based community, the only class hatred in America is directed downward, and it is pervasive.

[WhollyHeretic]

40. reality-based?

:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. Not so much ironic

A certain GOPer attacked people in the "reality-based community" for being insufficiently attentive to perception based arguments.

Interestingly, in urban planning, addressing perception of crime is considered a bigger and more worthy planning problem than actual prevention of crime... actual crime only becomes an issue when it happens in a neighborhood it shouldn't, like Georgetown.

[Oregone]

46. Lesson: This thread sucks

Intellectually dishonest hyperbole and drivel

[DoctorMyEyes]

50. I think I'm having dejavu all over again

I just remembered a very similar dumb assed thread in defense of Joe the Plumber by the same OP. It made less sense than this one - as if that's possible. I think after six or so years here I've finally found someone worth putting on "ignore".

[Leopolds Ghost]

83. My Joe thread was merely in defense of liberal discourse

You can't win people over if you're unwilling to engage in liberal discourse with people whom you disagree, as Obama proved in charitably addressing (and demolishing) Joe the Plumber's argument in a friendly fashion instead of asking to see his plumbers license. Obama is nothing if not a great communicator.

[chimpymustgo]

54. Perhaps what is most shameful about this thread are the vicious aspersions cast on poor little black

kids who are so utterly worshipful of Barack Obama that they would protect those girls with their lives. Have these folks not heard the stories since election day, of black kids jumping out of bed in the morning, ready to go to school - they want to be like Barack!

Really - these kids are just like yours and mine - want the same things. They want decent schools too, and deserve them. How will they ever get them if our leaders, our agents for change - do nothing to bring it about?

[Starry Messenger]

61. I have one on ignore and the other one is about to join him.

I wish someone would address my points. And the kids at my high school are already inspired by Barack Obama to learn.

http://www.insidebayarea.com/sanmateocountytimes/localnews/ci_10942672?source=rss

High school students have a lot of sense. I will ask them if they feel any different to find out that the Obama children are attending private school.

[Wiley50]

65. Here! Here! and Great Thread, L.G.

It is important that this opportunity is taken to talk about these issues.

There is a great class divide right here on DU. And I'm often enlightened

by the attitude of those above towards the rest of us. It let's me see

who is who here. And how blind they really are to those here with fewer blessings.

[MadBadger]

66. Can you explain to me this "Great class divide on DU?" Sounds like divisive Bullshit to me.

[Starry Messenger]

68. I'm wondering too. n/t

[DoctorMyEyes]

73. Get a grip on yourself

You want kids to protect kids "with their lives"..... WTF is wrong with you?

edited to fix typo.

[fed_up_mother]

79. I believe everything you say, but this thread is about the Obamas doing what is best for their kids

Regardless of how accepting and protected the children might be in a public school, Washington D.C. schools are notoriously low performing. What parent who could take their kids out wouldn't? I'd never leave my kids in such low performing schools IF I had a chance to take them out.

That doesn't make me a bad person. It makes me a good parent. Parents are supposed to do what they can for their kids. No more. No less. In fact, I went to pretty sucky public schools, but that was all my parents could afford. We didn't live in the best part of town, but now that my husband and I are doing better, I want my kids to go to better schools. And, no, we are far from rich. Just doing better. :)

[LooseWilly]

121. What are you on?

I want some.

What vicious aspersions?

And, what makes you think that poor little black kids are worshipful, or that they would protect Obama's daughters with their lives (at least, before they got to know them?)?
If these kids are just like mine, they are checking out girls (or boys), they wouldn't mind some money/freedom, and they'd probably be willing to study something if it meant that they are liable to get money/freedom. They're not (not yet anyway) worshipful... and I'd be mighty shocked if any were looking to give their lives to defend a classmate they didn't personally know...

All that said... what the hell aspersions are you talking about? The poor academic performance in schools in DC is not an aspersion on "little black kids" per se... but school performance statistics ... well, they sort of are. There are hundreds of other factors that anyone really interested can also attempt to digest. Trying to just claim that any criticism of DC schools, or "inner city" schools in general is some sort of "aspersion cast on poor little black kids" is ridiculous... if nothing else, simply because, in my experience, White kids, Philipino kids, Latino kids, Asian kids, not to mention Arab kids... they were all fairly equally disruptive. And, while I'm on the subject.. boy kids and girl kids were also equally disruptive. Just in case anyone was thinking of accusing me of some sort of sexism (or reverse sexism).

So there you have it. It's not poor little black kids that are aspersion worthy, per se... it's ALL poor little kids, and some less-poor little kids... and even some rich little kids from schools in the hills.
The problem, I think, is one of "concentration" of kids who are disruptive. For whatever reason, the concentration is higher in "inner city" schools.. and less in suburban schools.
Make of that what you will... but the schools a parent has to pay for require a greater dedication than the ones that are free... so the kids in those schools will perforce have parents more dedicated to education... and as a result the kids will be more dedicated.
Maybe some consideration should be given to children of the educationally un-interested... alternatives dreamed up... trade schools and the like... something to present an alternative to what has thus far proved to be an un-inspiring educational pathway for so very many children in this country... Maybe WyoTech should be an available alternative to the last 2 or 3 years of high school... for students less concerned with learning about the Magna Carta, and more concerned with the capacity to earn the money to spare on a case of beer?

Just saying.

[Madrone]

142. Are you fucking kidding me right now?

..."utterly worshipful of Barack Obama that they would protect those girls with their lives."

So lets place the Obamas AND the "poor little black kids" in extreme danger of a fucking psycho because those "poor little black kids" can just throw their "utterly worshipful" bodies in the line of fire to take one for the team and protect the girls with their lives.

That's got to be some of the most retarded shit I've ever heard, right there.

As for the Obamas being (SMARTLY) unwilling to send their children to public school. You're right. Fuck Obama. Let's take back the election. We'll give it to McCain and Palin. They'll be MUCH better for the "poor little worshipful black kids" than "that one" that won't put his kids in public school.


:eyes:

[Leopolds Ghost]

153. Ridiculous paranoia. What psycho are we talking about again?

You do know that every public figure including Bill Maher, etc. gets death threats saying I will come after your dog, etc. But celebrity worship is so profound as the Millenial generation wears on I won't be surprised if folks on DU start saying they don't expect children of media personalities to go to public school because they would not be safe either. This whole atmosphere of paranoia is reminiscent of Brazil -- the movie OR the nation with its gated communities, helicopter commutes, and stratified access to services -- take your pick.

[DoctorMyEyes]

70. You're fucked up.

Nobody is saying they're going to get "beat up", asshole. People are saying that they are targets for the worst fucking right wing nutso elements in our society and they shouldn't be endangered because assholes like you think it would be a good idea. And no - I don't expect their 7 and 10 year old classmates to assist in their fucking protection. And if I were the parent of one of those children I wouldn't want the Obamas putting MY kid in the line of fire to please some "discussion board haunting wanna be electricians" idea of social justice.

[Leopolds Ghost]

76. All this talk is what creates an atmosphere of unsafety by satisfying paranoia about pub schools.

"Wanna be electricians" :eyes: OK... if you mean pursuing other career options and
advancing my education, including doing actual work in poor neighborhoods instead
of bullshitting and comparing middle class bona-fides and education levels...
I am sure your resume looks a lot better than mine and qualifies you to talk about
a subject I admitted upthread I am not an expert in. But I do have eyes and ears
and I grew up in the area, and have friends who actually taught in DC schools, so.

[LooseWilly]

101. What are you talking about?

What paranoia about public schools? The only people paranoid about public schools are A) the very wealthy who would never consider them (not you, because you do "actual work in poor neighborhoods"), or B) people who have actually worked in/attended public schools in the "inner city".

If you've never worked in these schools, but you spend time in "poor neighborhoods", why are you on about "paranoia about pub schools"?? I don't get it!

I attended public schools in the suburbs... because my mom fled the bussing scene in Oakland when I was a kid. Having now gone back and taught in those schools some, I mean to arrange a seance to communicate to her, in her grave, that all the attitude I gave her on the subject was merely ignorance on my part... and to apologize to her ghost in general on the subject.

And on the subject of "doing actual work in poor neighborhoods", mixed in with the months I endured teaching, I also spent 10 years driving a taxi in Oakland CA. I can assure you I have done work in poor neighborhoods the likes of which would make many blanch. When one gets to the point where one knows where the drug corners are, and what sorts of hours the dealers on various corners like to keep... one has truly done "actual work in poor neighborhoods".
As a matter of fact, one day when I was teaching, I came out of the school to find police tape across the street, and an ambulance loading what looked like a body into the back...
I tell you, the problem with these schools is, more than anything else, the fact that all effort has to go toward discipline... rather than actually educating. While teaching I had a student tell me: "fuck you, and your test"... and ironically, that was one of my better students who was just having a bad day.
I gave up teaching when I had a 4'6" 7th grader try to call me out for calling him on breaking half a dozen pencils I'd provided him to take a test with... he jumped up in my face and startled me and I nearly punched him in the face.
"paranoia about pub schools"? What paranoia, exactly, are you talking about? And, if I may ask you in your infinite wisdom, why exactly should Barack Obama, while he tries to tackle all the big-ass looming problems of the day, reward his family by subjecting his daughters to this kind of shit??

[Leopolds Ghost]

117. Public schools ARE a big-ass looming problem for anyone who actually wants everyone to benefit

Instead of blaming bussing for the decline of public schools.

Try blaming the lack of reform schools, or technical schools for poor kids who actually want to get a near-term career education instead of talking about how great the opportunities are in this country out of one mouth while complaining about the kids who will never succeed in the next.

This is like having an argument with people who insist that buses (public transit) are only for the poor and will never be an acceptable means of urban transportation for middle class people (because we are not Europe, don't you know, and Portland is a bad example because they are so whitebread...)

I am fully aware that the teachers are the ones who seem to be most solidly against sending their own kids to urban public school. Of course, I guess you can't blame the teachers (who wouldn't want their own kids in classes with the students in question) for the lousy state of education, it's the students in those classes not the environment they are presented with nor any lack of funding. (Michelle Rhee disagrees, she insists that the teacher is ultimately responsible, not parenting or funding but teacher philosophy, ok well...)

So what we learn is that the vast majority of Americans including Dems will never credit a school for performance EXCEPT TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY CULL UNDERPERFORMING STUDENTS off their rolls (because even the teachers in these schools wouldn't want to send their kids to a school that contained more than a handful of those fuck-ups, although of course nobody notices it when it's white, rural schools.)

So the verdict is apparently Reagans, then: busing was a mistake and nothing can be done to save public schools because the students themselves are the problem and those students must essentially be isolated and not expected much from. Certainly we shouldn't expect the parents of good performing kids to send their kids to a school that has even a handful of these "ghetto" type characters, and if they do, it's worth criticizing the parents.

:shrug:

[anneboleyn]

132. My husband I both teach at the college level (or I used to until recently) and we agree with private

school as a choice for the Obamas, for many of the reasons that have been stated on this thread.

[LooseWilly]

136. Agreed, public schools are a SERIOUS issue.

The question is, what is your proposed solution?

I don't blame bussing. I am the product of a flight from bussing... but I don't think it was any real contribution to the problem. If nothing else, it was an elucidation of the fact that trying to force parents who'd settled in a neighborhood that was rather... "civilized", to stand by while their kids were sent to "less-civilized" neighborhoods to go to school was not going to succeed.
By the way, in this context San Leandro is defined as "civilized", and East Oakland is defined as "less civilized", and it's an attempt to exageratedly reflect the notion of my mother 30 years ago.
(If you don't know the San Francisco Bay Area, San Leandro is a calm little town, bordered by East Oakland to the North... and Oakland, CA was (give or take) 377th safest city of 381 in the US with populations of 100k + in... 2006(?).)

As to your bit about reform/technical schools... I agree 157%... there is a huge portion of the students that I've run across (I only taught for about 3 or 4 months, before the horror became too much for me, and I went back to driving a taxi in the ghettos) that have no interest in "academics" but who might profit from learning a trade.
There is the abstract question, to consider considering, of whether or not the youth deserve an education in the humanities, to learn of the options of things to be learned... but in reality, from what I've seen, most of the kids in the poor neighborhoods don't care about that stuff.
Most.
Some do... and I wish there was something that could be done for them.
As for the "EXCEPT TO THE DEGREE THAT THEY CULL UNDERPERFORMING STUDENTS off their rolls" bit that you mention... I hate to break the news to you, but many of those students just slow down the progress of/ make impossible any depth of thought regarding... well, education. The "UNDERPERFORMING" students tend to be disruptive... they are behind/lost as a general rule... so at best a teacher is left with the job of trying to help them catch up... which leaves all the students who are ALREADY caught up BORED TO TEARS while they wait on catch-up work for those who're behind...

So, and I hate to disturb the weird neo-progressive but otherwise thoughtless position that you're trying to claim as your own... Yes, the students are to blame, to a certain degree, for the problem.
There are a variety of reasons behind this... and I don't necessarily mean it to be a stigma (though, I'm sure in certain cases I personally wouldn't object to it being one)... but yes, there is a certain logic behind "tracking", and all the other stuff that's frowned upon. In my opinion, those students who're obviously not interested in the "academics" of the educational system should have other opportunities to follow. Education should take into account all of the various possible avenues of interest that the young might feel inclined to pursue.

Until such time as something like that is pursued... while the educational system remains as it is today.. YES there are students who should be isolatd and not much should be expected from them, academically speaking. Underperforming students are one thing... but disruptive students are another. Schools should not be forced into keeping disruptive students in classes just to maintain the funding necessary to keep staff. Disruptive students should be ... "freed to pursue other opportunities".

Ohh yeah, and your bullshit lure of the "ghetto type characters" I personally think shows you to be some sort of neurotic freak, worried about being him/herself labelled a "ghetto type".
I'm not sure who you're trying to communicate with when you're making these statements, but anyone who lives close enough to a "ghetto" for it to be an issue isn't likely to be completely ignorant regarding the topic. Most likely any of us living in such proximity to the "ghetto" haven't got the sort of issues with it that you seem to project.. most likely we just worry about the safety/education of our children... and living in such close proximity we have an educated set of reasons for all of those concerns... and we're not worried about the " "ghetto" type characters " that you describe... because we realize what an ignorant sort of generalization that is... we're worried about that 12 year old kid whose mom is a crack ho and who might've picked up a knife to protect himself from his uncle who might try to rob him of his lunch money so he can buy a little rock of crack...

[Leopolds Ghost]

147. Well, Michelle Rhee says it's the teacher's responsibility in loco parentis etc.

She doesn't care what problems the students may face at home. There has to be a middle ground there between what some of the teachers are saying on this thread (to paraphrase "some students are just no good and I wouldn't want to send my kid to a school that was full of thugs who should have been held back") and the position of Michelle Rhee and the school reform advocates ("the teachers are responsible for ensuring their students learn and if the school is underperforming it should be shut down and the remaining students sent to a better performing school.")

[fed_up_mother]

78. There's no way in hell I'd send my kids to those schools either.

They are the worst of the worse. The scores are abysmal.

And if you think most parents would place their kids in a school like that just to score some PC points, I have a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

You do what you have to do and can do for your kids. Period

[chimpymustgo]

84. Obviously, you don't know jack shit about the DC public schools. Many of them are good - especially

the elementary schools. All of them could benefit from a President who got behind a movement of change - to change them - for the better. Nobody's life is in danger here. Just some people's (including the serfs') apparent need to maintain the current caste system of education in our cities.

[fed_up_mother]

86. D.C. schools have some of the worse statistics in the nation

I'm sure there are a few good schools since most large school districts have a few, but how feasible would it be to send the kids to one of those schools?

A small private school will be much better for them, imo.

[Starry Messenger]

81. Well thank you for not taking the time to address any of my points.

You are going on ignore now. Bye!

[Leopolds Ghost]

87. I didn't address your points because I didn't particularly agree or disagree.

Your experience is your own. I don't see how your perspective demolishes my argument, but I don't refute yours either.

Tell you what, I'll ask my friend who's a current (underpaid) school teacher in DC, I don't actually know where he'd come down on this.

[LooseWilly]

141. Hmm, seems like you were so set on talking, you didn't bother to listen.

Ironically, that sounds like the problem with most of the problem students in most of the problem districts in this problem nation...

Now you've got another DUer as unwilling to listen to what you might think to say, as any student in any dysfunctional school anywhere in the country.

Oops... mebbe you just contributed more to the problem than you meant to solve.

[Leopolds Ghost]

149. You can't reply to everyone, especially if they've got their finger on the plonk button

What I love is folks on threads who say to people "give me a reason why I shouldn't put you on ignore."

Kind of like a reverse Walt Starr.

Who I kind of miss, BTW.

[curse of greyface]

120. Maybe the concern is the teachers and curriculum more than security.

[madrchsod]

75. well that was one of the dumbest posts i have read in awhile

the girls going to a public school is not a realistic option because their father is the president of the usa.
the issue is security. both parents went to public schools and did quite well for themselves.

[fed_up_mother]

82. Obama attended an elite private school in Hawaii for about eight years

From what I understand, his grandparents sacrificed a lot to get him there, although he was on scholarship.

He's not really a product of public education. Columbia? Harvard?

http://abcnews.go.com/nightline/Story?id=3082803&page=1 Here's a bit of info about his schooling and friends.

[kwassa]

93. Obama went to Puhahou, the best private school in Hawaii

no public school for him.

[madrchsod]

140. opps i forgot about that..thanks

[kwassa]

89. I wouldn't put my daughter, who is black, in a DC public school

I never have heard so much drivel in my life as what Leopold's Ghost has written here.

We live in Montgomery County, just north of DC, and we have some great public schools, some of the best in the country, and they are pretty diverse. It is not unusual to have children from 90 different nations in the schools because of immigration into this area. I teach in this school system.

DC has many problems, and Michelle Rhee and Mayor Adrian Fenty are trying their best to fix things, but there are many generations of neglect in DC schools that I would never subject my child to. Around DC in nearby suburbs are some of the best public schools in the country.

The number of children in DC public schools has dropped in half over the past forty years, and the schools were half-empty, and Rhee combined student populations and closed schools to save badly needed money. This is the right thing to do.

[fed_up_mother]

90. thanks for that info. :)

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. Lesson: Nobody on DU should send their kids to DC public schools

Good to know it's not just the rich who are expected to avoid urban schools. We can all pretend we all have the same opportunities to make our kids just every bit as safe and well-educated as the smartest and most privileged students in the country, if we simply avoid putting our kids in certain schools. And the rich can pretend our opportunities are almost as good as theirs while they apply the same standards to make sure their kids never have to attend the schools DUers insist on, such as Blair HS in Montgomery County MD. DUers will never stop to contemplate that someone else with much more money thinks THEIR school is shitty and would insist on Georgetown Day even if they lived in places like Montgomery County (which in fact almost all of them do!) Thereby ensuring that their kids have an opportunity to become president one day, unlike kids who didn't get into the Ivy League and a "global leadership track" private school. And also that there is, in fact, a tiered system of education the vast majority of parents tolerate that will continue until the last non-segregated school is shut down.

[theboss]

165. Why on Earth would you subject your children to a bizarre sociological experiment?

Let's see if they can survive DC Public Schools!!
It will be fun.

[Leopolds Ghost]

182. Lesson: When white or middle class students go to DC schools its a "bizarre sociological experiment"

When inner city black kids go to those schools it's merely regrettable that we can't empty them out faster.

[ProfessorGAC]

205. No, It's Only A Bizarre Sociological Experiment. . .

. . .when we're talking about the two young children of the president of the United States.

There are plenty of middle class white kids in public school who have parents that make good money.

This isn't a class issue. This is strictly a security issue pertinent ONLY to those two little girls.
The Professor

[theboss]

208. I would like the names of those schools

In ten years here, I have found what seems to be one school that seems to be a middle class outclave.

[ProfessorGAC]

218. That's A Demographic Issue

Unfortunately, DC is largely minority and largely well under the median household income. So, looking for it in DC is probably a fool's errand.

But, the whole rest of the country isn't necessarily just like DC.

I come from a large town south of Chicago. It's about 20% black, and 15% Latino. It's been that way even since i was a kid, and i'm in my 50's.

The schools have always been integrated and were essentially proporationally identical to the rest of the city. It was a factory town and was mostly middle class.

It's still that way.

Now, i won't dispute that the tonier suburbs of Chicago have public schools that are as you describe. But, there are other large suburbs that match what i just described.

So, we can disagree, but that is really immaterial to the well-being of these two little girls.

How it "looks" is irrelevant to me. What political or sociological point could be made is equally irrelvant. I just care about what's best for those two little girls thrust into the national limelight through no choice of their own.
GAC

[theboss]

221. Fundamentally, the problem is how he fund our public schools

And DC's funding problem is two-edged because it doesn't get any kind of state aid since it is not part of a state.

DC schools can't improve without either a) massive amounts of federal aid, b) a massive demographic change in the city or c) a change in school funding mechanisms.

In DC, there is also a huge corruption problem that only compounds the problem.

I wish things were diffrent. I have some ideas on how these problems can be addressed. But I don't think sending the Obama girls to school in Anacostia is going to fix anything.

[ProfessorGAC]

225. No Argument From Me

But you seem to be willfully missing my point.

I don't care if where the Obama girls go to school helps fix anything. They are not responsible to fix a thing and i think it's wrong to use these children in any symbolic way.

Do only what's best for them.

If that fails some liberal purity test, i'll live with that too.
GAC

[theboss]

229. I agree with you there

I think we were disagreeing on some minutiae.

I could care less about the security issue that everyone seems to be hung up on. I trust that the Secret Service would keep them safe in any school they attended.

I just think it is silly to suggest they receive a subpar education when an excellent education is easily available.

[ProfessorGAC]

230. You're Right. That's A Different Point

My concern is just the welfare of those two little girls who should have every opportunity to just be left alone.
GAC

[theboss]

234. I trust the Obamas will be just as good as the Clintons and - frankly - the Bushes in doing so

All their kids seemed to grow up quite well in the public eye.

The only presidential child who seemed to have major issues with the spotlight, in all honesty, is Amy Carter. And it seems that Jimmy Carter used her as a prop at times.

[ProfessorGAC]

237. Yes (eom)

.

[Leopolds Ghost]

211. Fair enough.

I don't believe in putting elected officials above citizens to protect them from security, unless we're expecting to become more and more like Pakistan or something. That is why the East and West Steps of the Capitol are now off limits to civilians. Only politicians and registered lobbyists can ascend the ceremonial steps to the above-ground entrances. For security precautions, the people are kept out of the people's house except thru the servant's entrance and carefully chaperoned to keep them from bumping into the ruling families.

[ProfessorGAC]

213. Well, That's A Philosophical Issue

While i admire the egalitarian nature of it, i still can't agree that these two girls have a single role in it.

I'm for protecting those two kids at any cost. And if it somewhat violates my sense of demcratic fairness, i will live with that.
GAC

[chimpymustgo]

92. I wouldn't do it either. But that's exactly my point. You or I putting our kids in DC

public schools wouldn't make much difference. A PRESIDENT putting his kids - and his power to influence, and reform, and FUND - could change the lives of thousands of children for generations to come.

[kwassa]

95. DC needs one hell of a lot more than Presidential symbolism

The problems are so deep it needs a Marshall Plan.

[LooseWilly]

98. So, is Obama supposed to FUND it out of his petty cash?

I mean, last I checked, it was the Congress that passed budgets.
I suppose he could try to use the Department of Education to try to reform a school... but that seems like a rather hamfisted way to approach reform for a single school.
Thousands of lives for generations to come?? Aren't you being a little melodramatic here?... I mean, the kids are only going to be in the school for a couple of years. How is that going to change things for generations? Are you envisioning some sort of cult kind of deal? -- "And, if you should enroll your children in XXX Elementary, then your child will be walking in the steps of HISTORY !! Malia Obama herself once used this very restroom !!..."

Come on now. A school the Obama kids attend will have added security, added press interest, and the rest of the kids attending will have great stories to tell... like a friend of mine who likes to mention going to school with the daughter of the Shah of Iran. Other than that?... I rather doubt the teachers will get raises, I doubt the principal will be budgeted more money to spend on food for the cafeteria, I doubt that the White House will have some sort of veto power over new hiring... What sort of change do you really envision here?

[theboss]

166. Probably not

DC schools are 20 years - at best - away from improving.

[ehrnst]

167. But at what cost to his girls' safety? And what kind of funding for schools would change?

Maybe the cash strapped DC school system would feel that they have to move money from other schools to the one that the girls were going to. PTA meetings they attend would be a nightmare of security for a public school.

Maybe other people would offer to pay to have their kids go to that school to be in the PTA with the Obamas? Maybe others would pull their kids out, afraid of a potential assassination attempt? And YES - Obama is more of a target now, before he's even in office, than any President prior to him.

[Leopolds Ghost]

97. Says a fan of Michelle Rhee. Talk to the folks who actually TEACH in DCPS

I have never heard such talk, myself.

Michelle Rhee wants to close underperforming schools in order to improve average test scores and you think
this is anything other than the sort of blatant statistics manipulation used to justify Welfare Reform?
("We cut the number of poor people on the rolls in half, so the program was a success!")

I guess you know all about cap rates then.

If so, I guess you feel that DC should increase its population while cutting the number of families with
children in half, per the overall plan (they had two plans on the table, one to improve the schools and
one to starve out families with children and replace them with DINKs and families wealthy enough to send
kids to private school, thereby allowing them to downsize the school system. One elementary school went
from 800 students to 2 after the public housing project -- one of the safer projects in the city -- was
demolished to make way for a taxpayer funded stadium. As I'm sure you know, both plans
were vetted by the mayor's office and they explicitly chose between them in pen and ink.
They chose the latter.)

Why else would they not have a plan to INCREASE the number of students in public schools,
if they want them to be so successful?

What does being black have to do with it? That is exactly the mentality we are trying to get away from
-- unsuccessfully, as many civil rights leaders urged Obama to point out. As you know, Obama's daughters
are black too. It's question-begging to restate part of the premise ("my daughter is black and I wouldn't
send HER to public school") as refutation.

(I wait for many people to talk about how proud they are to see a successful black family sending
their kids to Georgetown Day or some such institution, as if that is an extra affirmation of their
success that was somehow needed, who is not proud of the parents who chose to stick it out in
public schools, and blame them for their pathological willingness to be left behind.)

[kwassa]

100. I don't know how to respond

"Michelle Rhee wants to close underperforming schools in order to improve average test scores and you think
this is anything other than the sort of blatant statistics manipulation used to justify Welfare Reform?"

She doesn't want to close under-performing schools, she wants to close HALF-EMPTY schools! That saves overhead costs.

People with school-age children have voted with their feet, including the black middle-class that fled DC as soon as housing covenants were dropped in surrounding counties. The number of children living in DC has dropped in half in the past forty years, from about 113,000 to about 56,000, recalling from memory. The system has been starved from resources for half a century, too, by Congress. This is nothing recent or new.

[Leopolds Ghost]

103. And you seem to uphold that pattern and simply accept it

As a member of the middle class yourself who would NEVER raise a kid in DC.

The two plans presented to Mayor Williams made this decision crystal clear.

They have a mutual social contract with the middle class to export families
with children to other jurisdictions because they are low-performing in terms
of cap rates, and replace them with higher performing demographics. Anything
that would increase the student population violates this agenda (and the
cap rates philosophy taught in public administration schools) in pretty
explicit ways. Literally, it violates what they are trying to accomplish.
For instance, anything that can be done to depopulate housing projects of
needs heavy populations results in less demand on the schools. Decreasing
the number of students in public schools is the OBJECTIVE of cap rates
administration, the stated goal. not a cost.

On-Edit -- BTW, needs heavy populations includes you because you have a
school age child regardless of income. They don't want you back either.
They don't want any new school age children. One of the objectives of
planning review in cap rates municipalities is to rate new developments
-- a condo, say -- on the degree to which the developer implements
assurances to minimize the number of poor people and families
with school age children, and maximize retirees, upper-income college age,
and DINKs. Anyone who thought this was just a fad for white kids wearing
groovy glasses who like to paint their house pastel hasn't read the
fine print where they decided to market this demographic in the first place
as the objective goal of all new target population. Demographers have
been seeking to apply cap rates and other market-based strategies (such
as letting middle class parents flee to other municipalities while the
poor stay behind, then closing the schools) for years.

[kwassa]

104. I think is time to remove the tinfoil cap.

[Leopolds Ghost]

151. Feel free to do your own research.

Real Estate Development Policy is a pretty detailed subject.

There's a whole chapter or two on cap rates, depreciation
as a tool for generating new low income housing and maximizing
return on investment (by waiting until properties are fully
depreciated before making new investment), who is willing to
live where (and only when the vast majority of former income
population has been removed, according to realtors) and who
are the actual intended beneficiaries (the rich) based on
market techniques applied to public services.

If I find them I might be able to put up some of the slides
from symposia describing the importance of the issue.

(of course I knew about the issue of cap rates before I got the chance
to study it, which was helpful because if one is thoroughly used to Reaganism
one might not right off the bat, notice how harmful the whole mentality
is of trying to minimize the number of people taking advantage of
schools and other non-restricted public services, which is the
whole objective of these programs. Abandon them, leave them
for the poorest of the poor, and minimize new investement until
a higher tax bracket population appears who can "benefit from" the bricks and mortar,
then and only then can improvements be "justified" and only for
the new residents because they will not live next to, much less
send their kids to school with, the residents of a dissimilar income bracket,
according to the American Association of Realtors, so the remaining population
has to be thoroughly displaced, usually by convincing them that the soon-to-be
rehabbed buildings are thoroughly unlivable, or in the case of high-rises,
asserting that, "only the wealthy" would want to live in such conditions!)

[LooseWilly]

145. Ok, your cap rates paranoia is beginning to confuse me.

I'd appreciate it if you would just go ahead and present the whole of your conspiracy theory in one go... rather than piecemeal guessing that anything and everything that you can, after the fact, by a stretch, squeeze into your theory, come after the fact.

The notion that getting rid of families with kids will somehow improve the cap value of properties, makes no sense to me. The revenue generated by a property divided by it's resale value... and children somehow factor into this how again?... where is my tinfoil hat?
Again, it sounds like you're paranoid about gentrification... but afraid to actually use the term, for fear that some might embrace it... cause it implies a driving out of the ghetto of the "fuck heads", to use my own term for the thugs and the assholes of the ghetto who do such a magnificent job of keeping the property values at least within the vicinity of what I can realistically dream of one day being able to afford... the notion that there is some sort of active developer conspiracy to drive the "breeders" out of the "ghetto" so that the ghetto properties will sell for more because the properties won't require schools in the neighborhoods (using up precious land, presumeably) sounds like one of the most paranoid, near retarded notions I can imagine. Families with children are stable families... and were the basis for the growth of the suburbs which now have such wonderful strip malls to boast of... strip malls of which the urban developers are jealous.

Give me a fucking break. "Cap rates" in municipalities are relevant for developers... but any public officials that aren't on the take will not be trying to work them to sell off lots... they'll be thinking in completely different terms. (specifically, how to build more schools to educate the children of the new couples being brought to the developments so that there is another generation to continue providing demand for services provided by the commercial interests in the area....)

Anyone who is convinced in advance that all schools are being sold out to developers everywhere in the country at the same time... is retarded.
And if LG is convinced of this in DC... and is so vague about the various potential pros and cons... well, I just have to consider LG to be an idiot. Provide more info, if you want me to give a shit (of course, I'm on the other side of the continent... so there's giving a shit, and there's actually giving a shit... the latter, of course, being unlikely...)

[Leopolds Ghost]

150. See post #143.

Gnite...

[chimpymustgo]

108. The battle is futile. Race is not the last frontier - it's class now. There's no way in hell the

Obama girls will go to public schools - they are part of the nation's aristocracy. It has nothing to do with safety or performance - really - in 2nd grade - how radically different is the paper mache experience?

Now I'm thinking GDS will win the prize. The top 3 schools (private, of course) are Sidwell, GDS. and National Cathedral School for Girls - which surprisingly has not been mentioned. It's the sister school to St Albans - school of Al Gore II and III (till Tipper got pissed about his being suspended for buying and smoking phony dope - and put him in Sidwell), Harold Ford, Jr. Bill Frist's son - I'd say STA/NCS and Sidwell are top top tier. GDS just a hair below. Maret - trying to break into the upper echelon. Queen Noor's son goes there - it's a huge white mansion on a gated property. If the Obama's pick GDS, it will move them solidly into the top tier - perhaps a hair above.

Well, it's a fun parlor game. Who really cares for those little kids in schools where the toilets don't work? Really - not our problem.

[Leopolds Ghost]

133. It's their own damn fault the toilets don't work

Everyone knows you just can't maintain a property where bad kids run wild. Why pay good money to replace a light bulb when they'll just burn it out? You hear this all the time.

People think it's what "broken window theory" means (and in fact some leading proponents of "broken window theory" argue that their theory only deals with the perception of safety, and that actual "ghetto" types need to be thoroughly removed from an area before it's worth trying to fix it up.)

Broken window theory says fixing broken windows, light bulbs etc. is merely to prosecute minor quality of life violations that, if left unchecked, will result in bad characters returning to an area and setting up shop. The question becomes is the objective to improve all walks of life, or simply create enclaves where there is a social expectation of good behavior that is explicitly tied to the presence of desirable wealthy and an absence
of perceived undesirables who are considered free to mess up their own nest elsewhere?

In other words, the social expectation of conduct dictated by the condition in which the space is kept / perception of safety is not considered worthwhile in its own right, but only to the extent that it creates high return on investment pockets of the city for certain populations while other people are considered not only untouchable but an undesirable condition in and of themselves that needs to be removed along with the broken light bulbs, etc?

If so then definitionally, they can never benefit from improving a school or neighborhood, only the bricks and mortar itself (and the intended beneficiaries of new investment, as the government defines who they want to be living in the area) are supposed to benefit. The objective of the poor is to make themselves as scarce as possible and live vicariously in hopes that their children escape the cycle of poverty, but the people they leave behind are not expected to escape.

[ehrnst]

160. And how would the Obama girls going to a DC public school change things?

Other than creating a security nightmare in a school that's part of a system already in transition and some chaos.

It is the job of Mayor Fenty and Michelle Rhee to fix this, not Malia and Sasha's.

The political point is not worth it.

[Leopolds Ghost]

197. You hypocrites support Michelle Rhee and Fenty for their neoliberal school reform agenda

And refuse to stand by it because the objective is to export students to other jurisdictions, so you feel you are doing your part for Rhee's agenda by keeping exceptional students out of the system.

[Leopolds Ghost]

206. Did I mention every so-called liberal thinks their students are exceptional by virtue of upbringing?

And deserve to be in these better school districts and magnet programs,
and if they underperform due to drug abuse, etc.,

well that's just an isolated family tragedy?

And deserve better than the children of the poor
who "regretfully can't afford, but probably wouldn't benefit from"
a selective magnet education?

And it has NOTHING to do with the fact that you expect
your kids to do as well as you are doing by virtue of
your own success in life.

That is legacy (or Social Darwinism) not merit.

You guys would go apeshit if your kid got passed over by an inner city kid
with drug problems for that last magnet slot.

Much less if a bunch of poor families moved into your neighborhood
and dragged down local school performance statistics.

You would flat out move.

Or demand the city veto the construction of said affordable housing
project on "environmental" and "traffic" and "noise" concerns.

[ehrnst]

158. I agree - Obama is literally in the crosshairs of many more than Clinton or Carter were.

As will be Sasha and Malia.

Security alone would be justification for sending them to schools that have the money for security.

That said, I moved out of DC to the suburbs in the late 90's because I was planning a family and did not want to send my child to school in crumbling buildings that often didn't meet fire code. And I didn't have the money or inclination to send them to a private school.

I opted to move to Arlington,Va where the population is diverse, and the schools well managed.

[LooseWilly]

96. I don't know about DC schools, but I taught a little bit in Oakland CA

If DC schools are comparable (and it sounds like they may well be worse), I wouldn't encourage more people... whether they be the President or not, to put their children into the schools.

If anything, the public schools here are already overcrowded. Democratization, integration, and all the Worker's World terminology that you so favor, LG, are really irrelevant from what I've seen. You could send the children of every member of Congress to Elmhurst Middle School on 98th Avenue in East Oakland... and it wouldn't change the fact that there are enough kids who don't take their own education seriously enough to be quiet long enough for a teacher to do anything but be a disciplinarian... and students don't learn anything except possibly discipline from a disciplinarian. Those who might like to learn some academics become bored... and the students not interested in anything school-related simply learn the limits of how far they can push their lack of discipline...

Tell ya what LG, how about you start lecturing the parents of all those "ghetto kids" you like to talk about, and convince them that, now that the US has elected a black president, maybe all that "dorky book stuff" might not just be a "selling out" of all the "keeping it real"-ness of the " 'hood", but rather might actually be something that could be of use. (Aside from the aspiring rappers, who I've found do take some interest in history and poetry...)?

In the meantime, if you want to talk about "cap rates", which a quick spot of research shows to just be some sort of real estate appraisal formula... it sounds like you're not so much talking about any sort of education reform, so much as a public policy/gentrification issue. Again, I don't know what it's like in DC, but here in Oakland, my favorite restaurant got eminent domained- and turned into a school... and that in the height of the dot-com real estate boom here in the Bay Area...

All in all, it sounds to me like you're more pissed off that DC might be gentrifying, than you're really considering school issues.

[mondo joe]

102. Get a fucking boundary. It's a personal choice, not a policy. NT

[curse of greyface]

110. Obama needs to do what is best for his daughters. He knows the value of a

good private school it would be wrong to deny his daughters that to score some cheap political points (I'm lookin your way Jimmy)

[Beacool]

127. The Obamas should send their kids to whichever school suits their needs.

Why should they be obligated to send them to a public school? If they choose to send them to a private school that doesn't mean that he won't support the DC public school system, both things are not mutually exclusive.

I went to an all girl boarding school and it was a great experience. I don't recall any of us acting as if we were anything special, it was just school. Why deride people who went to private schools?

[mzmolly]

137. I think it may be disruptive to a typical classroom to have the SS

escorts and so on?

[mondo joe]

138. Dude, get your priorities straight. The needs of kids and desires of families must be

secondary to worthless political symbolism!

[mzmolly]

178. I agree with you.

I was simply stating it would be better for the Public Schools not to have to deal with the commotion as well as for the Obama family.

Where people send their children to school is a personal decision.

[onefreespiritedchick]

144. Public schools, primarily magnet schools are great

However, the children of the POTUS for security reasons alone, would be better off attending a private school. Plain and simple.

[fujiyama]

155. I somehow doubt public schools in DC have radically improved since the early '90s

Both Michelle and Barack are well educated and it's obvious they believe education is very important for their daughters. The Obamas have their childrens' best interest at heart and will chose according to what they feel is best.

[B Calm]

156. I think they should go to public school!

Why give the cons something to crow about!

[ehrnst]

159. Because Obama is targeted by many of those cons. Why compromise the girls' safety to make a point?

Especially to those idiots.

[B Calm]

185. Only in a private school does it guarantee children safety?

[Phred42]

164. would be incredibly disruptive to Public school

[Freddie Stubbs]

171. He should do what he and his wife feel is best for their girls

I suspect that is a private school, since that is what they have been doing in Chicago.

[pampango]

172. If repubs are hypocrites when they preach "family" and "Christian" values and then

act inconsistently with those values, are we not hypocrites when we preach the value of public schools and oppose vouchers for private schools, then send our kids to private schools because we have the resources to do sol? We often bash repubs who stray from their "values" for hypocrisy, but not for the behavior itself.

My guess is that the Obamas will end up sending their children to private schools, but this difficult choice is shared by many families in poor urban (and some rural) districts. While I believe in the value of public schools (indeed am a retired public school teacher) and oppose vouchers, would I not be a hypocrite if I then chose to send my child to a private school, if I live in a bad school district?

[fed_up_mother]

173. No, you would not be a hypocrite.

I strongly support public education because I want all children to get a good education.

However, when public schools aren't working well, it's the parents' responsibility to do what is best for his child. That might be private school, moving to another neighborhood and another public school, or staying in public school and closely monitoring the situation and and the child's after school work. I think most parents will choose the best option available to them because they want the best for their kids. There is NOTHING wrong with that.

[pampango]

177. There's nothing wrong with it in the sense that choosing a good school over a bad one is what a good

parent should do. I still sense some hypocrisy if I choose this for my child, but in my political life I oppose providing poor families with government assistance to do the same thing.

[curse of greyface]

238. I never did quite understand how the anti-choice position became a

progressive ideal. I think because the Repubs were for it it was a knee-jerk idea to be against.

A school is only as good as the students that attend and the community they draw from.

[Leopolds Ghost]

183. So it'ds the responsibility of a good parent to move to another neighborhood.

That's exactly what the cap-rates theorists are saying. That's why they don't want to repair broken light bulbs at underperforming schools. They are competing to minimize the number of schoolchioldren in their district. If moralizing helps, they will convince you that it's someone else's problem.

[curse of greyface]

190. The problem with most poorly performing public schools isn't the light bulbs.

It is the parents of the other children that do not value a good education. You can't fix that with money.

[Leopolds Ghost]

192. More bigotry.

I don't hear Obama criticizing the poor white working class or gays for their supposed "social pathologies". He learned his lesson that only "his own people" can be "challenged for their ignorant behavior" and he is just the man to do it.

Un like the ignorant behavior of white upper-middle class overpaid, undereducated twits with an engineering degree or some similar qualification that makes them think they are superior when in fact their political beliefs are warped form of Reaganism that bears no resemblance to New Deal liberalism.

[curse of greyface]

200. New deal liberalism does not me subjecting you children to uneducated rabble

regardless of race. There are plenty of majority white school districts parents should avoid as well.

Thats why we have Magnet schools. So education oriented parents can self select their kids away from the others.

But I'm sure your against that as well.

[Leopolds Ghost]

203. ...

stereotypical neoliberal elitist views.

[theboss]

235. So, freedom of choice is fine everywhere but in education?

I fail to see how having the state dictate precisely how and where I educate my children is a Democratic ideal.

Our policy should be that public education should be an excellent alternative for parents and they should not be forced to make the decision for private education (which is precisely the situation every DC resident is in at the moment). You should have the choice of private schools, but it should never be a disservice to your children to send them to public schools.

Sending your children to DC public schools at the moment is doing them a disservice.

[chimpymustgo]

241. "Socialist government schools"! The hypocrisy of the situation has come full circle.

This would be funny, if it didn't have such tragic consequences.

[theboss]

242. Why are you quoting something I did not say?

Where did I say socialist in my post?

[RollWithIt]

174. Obama's children are not pawns in your chess game.... nt

[pampango]

176. Ahh, but the question is "Whose children are the pawns?" Are they only

"other people's" (particularly those who cannot afford private school without government help) children? Or are there no "pawns" in the game and all children should be provided an alternative to the public schools?

[LWolf]

194. Not "all children should be provided an alternative,"

but "all public schools should operate with the same resources that the private schools of the rich and famous do."

[Leopolds Ghost]

198. But that is not possible if Rhee and Bush and the cap rrates/school reform approach

Of tying funding to the performance of individual students have their way.

Her objective is to close underperforming schools and lessen the expectation of service to the overall number of inner city school children in the city, period.

But...!

Michelle Rhee blames teachers, NOT the students OR their parents poverty
and SUPPOSED social pathologies (more inverse-of-prop 8 bigotry) for
failing schools, and for once I agree with her on that one point.

she was given complete control of the system at the behest of Fenty and
national think tanks allied to Obama.

Here's the problem for the posters on this thread:

She disagrees with the racists and classists on DU who blame other parents and existing kids for "the safety of schools" who think parents of high performing kids should be PROSECUTED for sending their kids to those schools, thereby keeping test scores low at those schools (which cap rates theorists want to close.)

Which means classists here on DU are WRONG WRONG WRONG because Rhee,
their favorite school reformist, disagrees with them on their trumped
up reason (blaming the kids or their parents and declaring the problem intractable until those parents move out of DC) for not sending high performing kids to low performing schools!

She blames the TEACHERS! Hear that, DU?

And she's Obama's fav education reformer.

MAYBE SHE'S RIGHT on that one point!

But don't worry, DU, she agrees with you that inner city public school systems be drastically downsized and families exported (forced to move) to other jurisdictions that have non-magnet schools. Just as we did for public housing, public hospitals and welfare. Just not for the same reasons.

She blames the gov't that attracted nobody but the people who have no choice (whop nevertheless Dems no longer care about), not the "ghetto people" themselves.

Same difference you say? No, the two rationales for disinvestment are contradictory.

The ideology here bears some similarity to the people who said inner city blacks in New Orleans were better off being forced to relocate -- even if half their family drowned they are still better off than they were before -- because their children would have better influences in slightly whiter neighborhoods like Fayetteville, Ark. (according to the Washhington Post)

[LWolf]

240. I know quite well

that Obama is not going to be the savior of public education. He admits that he "gets in trouble with teachers," and for good reason.

Frankly, he's never been out of trouble with THIS teacher, on education and every other issue he's addressed.

I did, last Tuesday morning, send him a congratulatory note and a book, and urge him to reach out to teachers.

Time will tell who he's bringing together, and who he's leaving behind.

[pampango]

199. What government has that kind of money and what happens to the "pawns" in the meantime?

I am all for well-funded public schools, but I also know that that will be a difficult, long-term goal and will not totally solve the problem of quality education in urban and rural areas.

I taught in an urban district with plenty of the problems that afflict low-income people who live there. Since I left, the school district built all new buildings with tobacco settlement money. There have been improvements in the performance of the students, but the improvements have come around the margins, not overall dramatic improvements. These will require societal changes that are outside the control of teachers and school administrators.

[Leopolds Ghost]

201. Incorrect, disproven by evidence. Obama and Fenty and Rhee place the onus on teachers

Where it probably belongs.

The existence of teaching programs that dramatically reverse performance
of supposedly "pathological" inner city kids proves that theory incorrect.

That said,

Fenty and Rhee also want to close underperforming schools and minimize the
number of middle class or below families living in DC, not reinvest in it.

Your argument that it is an intractible problem of social pathology
(not unlike ignorant white hicks or gay people, as others claim) is
certainly not refuted if we simply try and dilute poor people in
other neighborhoods to minimize their visibility and increase
property values of the inner city, rather than actually stay put
and educate them.

[theboss]

236. I think you are vastly misrepresenting DC's problems

New York City can support a large welfare class because a) it has a large tax base and b) it can receive state funds from its rich suburbs.

DC does not a) have a large tax base because its chief employer is the federal government and b) the tax dollars of its rich suburbs go to Annapolis and Richmond and wind up in Appalachia somewhere.

DC has to raise the number of its "rich" and "middle class" residents simply to survive. Otherwise, it is completely reliant on federal funds. The best resident for DC at the moment is a 45-year old couple with children in college. They take no city services yet provide to the tax base.

[LWolf]

239. What government has the money to spend what we have

waging wars for corporations and for oil?

And which is the better expenditure?

I think equal access to high-quality education is a civil right that should be recognized; here are some folks who agree with me:

http://www.qecr.org/

And while we argue about what government can pay for that high quality public education system, what is happening to the "pawns," the children of the underclasses, as I type this post?

This educator would feel more optimistic about the chances that this new administration will TRULY support public education if he entrusted his own children to us. Of course, he's not acting out of character. He already supports mini-privatization schemes for public education. Charter schools that operate on public money, but are exempt from many public regulations.

[theboss]

243. He is not trusting his children to you; he would be trusting them to an utterly dysfunctional system

Let's compromise.

He can send his kids to public school in Fairfax County.

[LWolf]

245. Let's NOT compromise.

Let's quit playing around and give rich, abundant support to making our public schools safe, vibrant places that offer a superb education to every last student, preschool - college, in the United States.

Then we wouldn't need to worry about where the elite in Washington D.C. send their kids to school.

[Leopolds Ghost]

196. Yes, that is the message. Get all children out of inner city public schools. Close them down.

All but the publically funded magnet schools for the best and brightest.

Did you read post #143 on cap rates? this is Democratic Party Planning
DOCTRINE at the local level, people. They teach it in schools of planning.
It is formula-based.

[theboss]

214. I can have all the theories I want involving public education

If it came down to my kids, I would choose the best school for them that I could afford.

[ProfessorGAC]

227. Don't Care

These two little girls have been thrust into a public role through no conscious decision of their own.

At this point, it doesn't matter who is or who isn't a pawn.

I just want these two little girls to be protected from the glare of a spotlight they didn't ask to be turned on.
GAC