Posted By: L.Walker  on Friday, November 14, 2008

considering the amount of death threats and hate speech that have become apparent following obama's election, i hope he does put his girls in elite private school, or has them tutored in the white house.  there is no need to expose them to the danger of what some psycho might do, just so their father can make a statement.

Posted By: dhunter  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

My thoughts mirror L.Walker's.  That is EXACTLY what I was thinking as I read this article.  No other president has ever faced the threat level Obama is facing and a smaller, more private, and more easily protected school is a better choice.  This situation does not compare to any other -and somehow I can't believe that it's JUST Democratic politicians who choose private schools in DC.  Also, are you starting with a premise that implies Republicans DON'T support public education??

Posted By: bella96  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

If I remember correctly, President Carter did enroll his daughter in public school during his term.  This posed a problem as she had Secret Service with her as well as dealing with the school population.  It was due to these potential issues that helped President Clinton to put his daughter in a private school.  Why shouldn't Obama do the same with his daughters?  I also agree with L. Walker and dhunter opinions.

Posted By: SandyB  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

I agree with and applaud the ideas of Chancellor Rhee, and agree with this article that we need to address the real problems facing American schools. I don't think I can agree with putting innocent children in harm's way, as the Obama children (or those of any public figure, whether I agree with his politics or not) would surely be placed. But to make teachers accountable for excellence in teaching, yes, yes yes.

Posted By: GKT  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

I don't think the President-elect should enroll his kids in the public schools of DC.  The security issues are clear.  And of course, why should he sacrifice his kids' education to make a point? He's already shown he won't expose them to poor quality schools by his behavior in Illinois.  And that is what fathers and mothers should do.  Too bad the population of DC doesn't have his choices.



And dhunter, where were you when your history teachers mentioned Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, Kennedy, and the injuries to Roosevelt and Reagan, as well as the attempts on Truman, Nixon, Ford, Franklin Roosevelt, Clinton, and 2nd Bush?  Hard to see how the current President-elect is in more danger.

Posted By: SherC  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

I totally agree that President-elect Obama should put his daughters into a private school. They need to go to a school that will let them feel secure and safe.  As far as Chancellor Rhee's proposal for merit-pay and eliminating tenure.  She needs to start with administrators in her schools.  As a retired teacher after 35 years teaching in a public school,  I found the biggest problem was administrators who did not have enough knowledge of the subject matter themselves as to what a teacher was teaching and it's subject matter.  Too many of them want teachers to teach so that all children are doing the same thing at the same time, but that is not how children learn.  If they don't know how can they evaluate a teacher's performance and success.  I hope the answer is not test scores.

Posted By: R. Mohr  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

I agree.  I don't agree with Obamas politics,but that doesn't mean

that he needs to expose his childern to the same risk as he is daily.

As far as teaching goes, childern learn at differnt levels and ways.

Seeing how they do on a test is not the way to see if there is an increase in knowledge. Some children do great on tests other do

better orally, and still others need to test in a hands on approach.

Posted By: meleon  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

Chavis, I think your partisan panties are showing. Please don't lower yourself to arguing a position that could potentionally put the lives of innocent children in danger. The President elect's daughters presence in any public school is asking for nothing but chaos and madness leveled on every nook and cranny.



The America public understands that Malia and Sasha Obama need an environment that can provide the kind of protection needed for the children of a man whose life has had more threats made against him than history has noted for any other in his position.

Posted By: John Handforth  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

We have a double-edged sword here.  Obama putting his children in public school would be a wonderful gesture of confidence in the public school system, BUT the security issues would be overwhelming.  Not only would his daughters be in potential danger, but many other children attending the same school would also be in jeopardy.  I am afraid that security demands that the children be placed in a private school.

In reference to contributions made by SherC and R.Mohr, I would like to tell a short story.  My oldest daughter had always had test score problems and performed poorly.  She was advised not to go to college, but she wanted to be a Special Education teacher.  The teachers knew that she usually knew the subject, but her test results were always horrendous.

In her college senior year, she took a course aimed at improving her ability to take and pass tests.  At the end of the course, they gave her a practice teacher's exam.  Since it was only practice, she had very little stress during the test.  At the end of the test, she was told that she had just taken the real thing.  She has been teaching for most of the last 24 years.

Posted By: Steve Weichel  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

I always find it interesting that politicians put their children in private schools yet won't give public schools what they need to improve education to the level of private schools.  Instead they focus on throwing more money into the toilet er..public school system.

Posted By: Stephanie  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

"Too many of them want teachers to teach so that all children are doing the same thing at the same time, but that is not how children learn.  If they don't know how can they evaluate a teacher's performance and success.  I hope the answer is not test scores."  What else do you propse?  As a woman about to graduate with a degree in education, the most insulting day of my life was when I found the pay scale for teachers posted in the teacher workroom showing what I would make when I finished my first year and when I finished my 35th year.  The same as everyone else.  I worked hard--many of my classmates did not.  To think they would receive exactly what I received was very frustrating.  It was that moment I started to have 2nd thoughts about education.  Lucky for me, I found a career in business and education that rewards people for results, NOT longevity.  After 35 years, I am sure you want to justify your pay though.

Posted By: Martha  on Saturday, November 15, 2008

To insist that the Obama girls attend public school to prove a point is just nonsense.  We don't use children to make political points.  We'd all send our kids to schools with smaller class sizes if we could, let's be honest.  We just don't have the money.  To get to the top of the pay scale, I've had to teach 29 years, get an extra year of college and a Master's degree.  Six years of college. And that doesn't count the courses I'm required to take each year just to satisfy a district requirement.    I net $3600 a month.  My first paycheck was $800 a month.  Thanks to a divorce last year, I lost $600 a month, net, as I had to pick up medical for my two kids and pay single person taxes.  It is discouraging.

As one of the so-called better teachers, I have to mentor the younger teachers, serve on committees, and get tougher children because I can deal with them.  There aren't many perks at the top.  And the special education population keeps growing.  Whatever the answer is, it isn't an easy fix.

Posted By: geoff  on Sunday, November 16, 2008

GKT: the number of death threats made against Obama have already broken records.

Check it out:

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/washington/AP-Obama-Threats.html

It's bad enuf some wingnut tried to argue that Chelsea Clinton shouldn't be allowed to "breed" while the Palin camp tried to keep her kids out of the limelite, but now exposing not just the Obama kids but potentially all their classmates to unnecessary danger really has nothing to do with the quality of public schools and everything to do with minimizing very real risks...

Remember what the wackos said after the Oklahoma bombing? something about how evil the Feds were to put a daycare in a potential target...? You could imagine how Linda Chavez would turn around and attack Obama if his kids did attend a public school, did get hit, and if there were some "innocent bystanders" (or "collateral damage," maybe, if you're way out there on the right-wing of the spectrum).

Posted By: John Handforth  on Sunday, November 16, 2008

Geoff -

We agree!  See my post above.

Posted By: Capurnia Richmond  on Monday, November 17, 2008

It is unfair and unrealistic to expect the President to remove his kids from the secure and superior private education when he was senator, and place them in public schools. Besides, with the level of personal threats heightened by the actions of that racist nincompoop Sarah Palin should we expect the Obama kids to be more exposed than they already are? No American parent wants to be lectured by the government about the choice of their children's schools. But most opinionators feel entitled to tell the President and his wife how to raise their daughters and what schools to send them too? How hypocritical. Leave the Obama family to do what is best for their daughters. The kids are used to private education. It is only logical not to distort their transition.

Posted By: John Handforth  on Monday, November 17, 2008

Capurnia Richmond ---

Do you realize that both parties put some of their supporters in political rallies?  Some of them are there to verify what the other party is actually telling the people.  Others are there to foment trouble by shouting threats and profanity.  Sometimes those people go as far as to start fights, real or staged.

The Secret Service also places people within the audience, looking for people making threats and also looking for weapons.  I have not heard of any of the candidates being charged with stirring up trouble within their audiences.

Whatever happened at a particular rally, of either party's, it was caused by people within the audience and not necessarily supporters of the candidate.  This is an old time-honored political tactic.

When I said time-honored, I was being faceitious.

Posted By: geoff  on Wednesday, November 19, 2008

Interesting how Linda starts out with the phrase "Democratic politicians" in a way which makes it ambiguous whether the "Democratic" refers to members of a particular party or a political system (i.e. in the same way one might speak of "Totalitarian politicians").