Now to education and access: I think it quite “ironic” that Obummer puts his kids in private school yet takes issue with vouchers and the need for them. They fill a void for kids who need an alternative to an under-performing school

Then there is the public education vs. private education debate: having worked in both sectors there’s such an obvious difference between the two and it’s certainly not money it’s quality. I taught in public school and felt like not only the babysitter but other roles I wasn’t equipped for such as social worker. However, in the local Catholic school system I taught in, I found that while the kids dealt with the same developmental issues/challenges, their learning was more advanced and there was a culture of respect that was missing overall in the public school system. I’ve seen equal disrespect from both teachers and students in public schools and it’s not a productive environment.

And, sunshinerbray: I totally disagree with your take on unions. Why is it that teachers last an average of 5 years before they get out? Why? That was my average of tolerance given the total lack of support I had from schools regarding the fact that I was a military spouse.

Why are unions so threatened by substitute teachers? Why are they so devalued as mere “babysitters” when many of them have to be certified to be subs and most already have either college degrees or a teaching background?

I do agree that NCLB has not ended social promotions. However, it has introduced some accountability but because so many schools game the system or outright cheat by feeding their students answers to the standardized tests (which happened to a local school district where I lived but didn’t teach), many schools don’t want to address their failing standards.

Then there is the societal component in which clueless parents drop off their kids and expect schools to be their kids’ parent for the whole day including feeding them and providing daycare. I’ve actually had one parent say that to me. And this runs across the whole socio-economic plane.

Frankly, if unions were left out of the equation, we’d all be a lot better off. Plus, if these school districts wanted higher caliber subs, they wouldn’t have the union dweebs butting in and making threats. Perhaps, vouchers would be taken more seriously and more kids would have the access to charter schools where they would actually learn how to read, write, and do math. Not the opposite: say, what the state of Mass does by teaching their kids that it’s okay that Johnny has two mommies.

Public schools have been a experimental environment for social engineering for a long time since they were invented to put newly arrived immigrants in to keep ‘em off the streets. Schools aren’t doing their job any longer, and, as a former teacher, I admit it. Schools are perpetuating the shortcut mentality and the current culture of less education is more.

As a former Social Studies teacher, I’ve seen such a lack of basic civics/American history being taught these days. It’s not as cool, as say, teaching the civil rights movement, or how the white man oppressed the native peoples. That’s more appealing and that’s why our kids can’t read, write, or figure things out for themselves.

Vouchers would provide some means of competition. The unions can’t allow that because they’d have to give up their educational fiefdom. We can’t have that.

On March 4th, 2009 at 9:18 pm, nail49 said:

When I sent my daughter to private school (grades 6-12) I still had to pay taxes to keep the public schools financed. Where is the extra $$$$ required if I could have taken the tax $$$$ paid to the county to educate my duaghter in a public school, and instead spent it on her private school?

Exactly. My parents did everything they could to put my sister and I in private schools, but they get no help from tax money, that’s for sure. I’m thankful for it, but we still had to have fundraisers just to be able to make it affordable for the families who had kids there. If only there were a tax break for that. *sigh*

If I lived in a major city I would refuse to send my kids to any public school that has metal detectors at every door.

Or any public school that does not!

On a side note, I’m curious about who asked the question.

Someone who is no longer with us, rest his soul.

Personally, I think the money would be better spent improving the public school system so all kids have access to quality education, rather than the lucky few who get a voucher.

Huggybear, I can’t believe you used “public school system” and “quality education” in the same sentence!!

On March 4th, 2009 at 5:58 pm, Red State Skeptic said:
I’ll follow this under “gotcha journalism for thee but not for me.”

I have to agree with RedState… the jounalist apparently didn’t know his “place”. The Press Secretary MUST NOT be made to look foolish! Journalists must stick to a specific agenda of questions, as provided on the “list of acceptable questions” given out to each reporter upon entering the hallowed ground. If that reporter went off-topic, he should be flogged. I have a theory as to why Obama wants to do away with the program. I think his daughters may have actually made friends with (gasp) some of those “ordinary” people. And, since his daughters are “prominent” people, they can’t be associating with the commoners. Thus, he needs to destroy the rest of the peasants also, in order not to look like he is singling anyone out. That would fit his MO, don’t you think? Yeah, RedState, that was a career-busting question. These things must not be allowed!!

If you think Obama is being hypocritical and Gibbs is being evasive–great. If you think vouchers are a good thing–great.

But, no. It’s all about smoke & mirrors instead of the issues.

Money has been thrown at the public school system all across the country and it does not work. Teachers are paid a ‘competitive’ salary–in some places, above the range.

The left is cruel–just like Rush said. Cruel.

On March 4th, 2009 at 9:03 pm, Red State Skeptic said:

Um, I did. Why can’t you tell me how school vouchers wouldn’t be an enormous government expenditure?

Please, at least try to think about how the voucher system really works. Look at the Sidwell situation for example:

There is a pile of money out there and it amounts to over $13,000 per student per year for all students eligible for public education in DC. That is how the states do it, they inventory the students in the fall and then send out the funds based on the enrollment. There is a classroom with 26 students in it. The system gives $7500 to 1 student and they go to Sidwell. That leaves $5500 still in that classroom and is now divided up over 25 students or an extra $220 per student to spend in that classroom. There is more money available for those students, which addresses the top priority of the NEA. There is now a smaller class size, which addresses the second priority of the NEA. The voucher system always gives substantially less money to those that want to leave the public schools than what is allocated per student in the budget. That always leaves more funds available per pupil in the public system.

If it is truly all about the children, anyway you can get more dollars per child is a good thing isn’t it? At any point in time there are a total quantity of children the state is responsible by law to educate. If some choose to take only a partial amount of their allocation and get educated outside the system, the state is left with more money to spend inside the system and the responsibility is less.

I find it inane to ask a question regarding a politician’s policy and gratuitously put it in the context of the politician’s personal life, as if that changes anything.

So we can naturally assume that you were vocally opposed to everyone who asked if Bush would send his daughters to fight in Iraq, and of course you denounced everyone who condemned the war based on Bush’s lack of combat in Viet Nam.

You know the difference between you and us? When someone on the right is full of it a bunch of us jump on it. When The One is full of it (which is daily) you torture logic until it screams trying to convince us that he’s not. Intellectual and idealogical integrity matters to us, to you they’re foreign concepts.

AlohaGuy said:
What are you talking about? And since when is social promotion our fault? How many kids have you personally held back?

Whoa…you’re defensive for no reason. I never said social promotion was a conservative problem or attacked anyone for it. I just said it was a problem. All I was saying is that there is more to the problems of public school than lazy, unmotivated, unionized teachers.

I pointed out that particular issue since many people think NCLB changed that, when it didn’t.

Thanks for your comments. You raise some good points. My comment about personal responsibility was really an aside as opposed to a direct response.

I have no problem with homeschooling, and in many cases would absolutely support such a decision. I also have no problem with vouchers. I agree that competition=competitiveness.

However, I’ve grown beyond tired of the idea that union=bad schools. My point was that the issue is far more complex than that.

A little more specificity on loopholes:
One thing we heard when NCLB passed was that social promotions would be ended. I thought, “hurray!” We heard that if students didn’t pass tests at certain grade levels, they couldn’t promote.

Then the details came out, and we found out that committees at those levels could “override” that decision if they felt the student was a good performer who just had a bad day.

As an example, I personally know of a jr. high where 50 8th graders failed TAKS, and not one of them was retained.

Not.

One.