nice school

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2008
nice school
218
Fri, 11-07-2008 - 11:33am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Chicago_Laboratory_School


Obama's girls have a nice school to attend; if public education is so great, how come his girl's don't go to public school?

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-28-2004
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 10:53am

Well he doesn't have a history of big giving.


http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2008/03/obama-releases.html

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-25-2007
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 11:23am
Just a thought here...I tithe and don't declare that as charitable giving on my tax returns.

Sopal

<?xml:namespace prefix = v ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" />

iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 12:02pm

Errr ... not quite.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F0CEEDF1E3BF935A35752C0A965958260

President-elect Bill Clinton, who has made improving public education a priority throughout his political career, announced today that he was sending his daughter, Chelsea, to an expensive private school attended by many children of Washington's power elite.

In explaining the Clintons' decision to send 12-year-old Chelsea to the Quaker-run Sidwell Friends school, where annual tuition is $10,700, Mr. Clinton's spokesman, George Stephanopoulos, said the family believed it had to do what was best for her education. She is currently in the eighth grade at a public junior high in Little Rock, and will begin classes at Sidwell in Northwest Washington later this month.

Mr. Stephanopoulos said that the decision should not be interpreted as a snub of the public schools in Washington and that there was no contradiction between it and Mr. Clinton's commitment to public education. Forgoing Symbolism

In effect, Mr. Stephanopoulos said the Clintons had made a parental decision, not a Presidential one. They chose a school purely on the basis of what they as parents thought best for their daughter, setting aside whatever symbolic effect the decision would have. The last recent President with a school-age child, Jimmy Carter, sent his daughter, Amy, to Washington public schools.

"They didn't reject public schools," Mr. Stephanopoulos said. "The schools in the District of Columbia and across the country are good schools, and Governor Clinton supports the public school system, as he has throughout his term as Governor and will continue as President. What they did was choose as a family Sidwell Friends. It's a good choice."

He said the question of where the Secret Service would find it easiest to protect Chelsea was not an issue in the Clintons' decision.

The Clintons said in a statement that "after many family discussions and careful consideration" they had chosen Sidwell, because "as parents, we believe this decision is best for our daughter at this time in her life based on our changing circumstances."

Friends of the Clintons said today that the decision was based on their conviction that they simply would not sacrifice their daughter's education to make a political point. The District of Columbia school system is notoriously underfinanced, overcrowded and far from ideal, and many parents in the District -- white and black -- who can afford to do so send their children to private schools. There are 81,000 students in the District's public schools; the League of Independent Schools of Greater Washington counts 78 private schools in the metropolitan area.

Vice President-elect Al Gore's children also attend private schools in the Washington area. His daughters, Kristin, 15, and Sarah, 13, attend the National Cathedral School, and Albert 3d, 9, attends St. Albans School for Boys. Some Criticism Expected

Hillary Clinton's close friend Marian Wright Edelman, founder of the Children's Defense Fund, sent her children to Sidwell, and this probably had a big influence on the Clintons. Sidwell has a reputation for being ethnically and racially diverse and it grants a number of scholarships to underprivileged students.

Nevertheless, the Clintons' decision is likely to prompt some criticism. Throughout his Presidential campaign, Mr. Clinton stressed that unlike President Bush and some other candidates he was a "member of the middle class," a point he made with frequent visits to McDonald's. He also often went out of his way to note, particularly to black audiences, that his daughter attended an integrated public school.

More specifically, Mr. Clinton spoke strongly against Mr. Bush's proposal for government vouchers to help families pay for private schooling. Instead, he supported the notion of school choice, which gives parents the right to choose any public school in their district and is meant to improve schools by putting them under the pressure of competition.

Washington already has a public school choice program, and the Clintons could have sent Chelsea to one of the better public schools there.

mccain image

Obama image
iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 1:17pm

Obviously a number of people found Obama's school-hunting to be relevant to this topic. Your free to ignore them, or perhaps redirect certain conversations to points you feel are relevant, but it's pretty arrogant to dismiss other people's ideas and concerns just because they are not your ideas and concerns.


I'm sorry you see it as arrogant.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-27-2001
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 1:19pm

>>> Since he will be our President, there is no longer a need to campaign against him, so in my opinion, where his kids go to school is irrelevant.


That doesn't seem to have been the left's opinion concerning our President over the past 8 years. For those of us who opposed Obama, we feel that it's appropriate to hold him, and those who voted for him, accountable for his actions, both personal and political.


Please don't misunderstand.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 3:31pm

>>> Yes - It DOES...

Ecclesiastes 4: 9 - 12

It's better to have a partner than go it alone.

Share the work, share the wealth.

And if one falls down, the other helps, But if there's no one to help, tough!

Two in a bed warm each other. Alone, you shiver all night.

By yourself you're unprotected. With a friend you can face the worst.

Can you round up a third? A three-stranded rope isn't easily snapped.

I stand corrected on the verbatim reading...but the passage is referring to companionship, not a social order, and the threefold cord refers to the inclusion of God into the relationship, which I doubt many liberals would advocate.

>>> I have a very clear view of what sharing the wealth means - I've been doing it all my life in all sorts of ways. Helping someone get up on their feet in no way diminishes me and what I have. I will not help someone who shows themselves to be lazy and expectant or otherwised owed. I believe that I have enough to spare and share.

Your explanation shows that you do not have a clear view of what "spreading the wealth means" in a socialist context...which is how Obama means it. You are referring to charity...personal GIVING. Obama is not intending to leave the "spreading of the wealth" to your discretion. He intends to TAKE money from those who have earned it, and hand it out to those who have not...with no litmus test for whether or not they have been "lazy and expectant or otherwise owed."

>>> I personally also think that the taxes I pay are a small cost for the privilege of enjoying the freedoms and benefits of this country.

No one has objected to paying taxes...fair taxes.

>>> I also think that all people should pay their share and fully understand that many do not. I have no tolerance for people who CAN yet refusing to do their part.

40% of Americans pay no income taxes. The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes...and Obama wants them to pay more...equaling up to 52%.

>>> As far as what I will 'find out' - I'm very optimistic about my future.

"Hope and change."

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 4:34pm
Personally, I don't think that any of the arguments presented on this board are going to go anywhere or teach anyone anything...but you're especially right about this topic. I'm off.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 4:35pm
Why don't you offer some specific points you'd like to discuss?
iVillage Member
Registered: 02-19-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 6:45pm

How about we try this .... I just took it off BO's website. This is what he intends to do.

Zero to Five Plan: The Obama-Biden comprehensive "Zero to Five" plan will provide critical support to young children and their parents. Unlike other early childhood education plans, the Obama-Biden plan places key emphasis at early care and education for infants, which is essential for children to be ready to enter kindergarten. Obama and Biden will create Early Learning Challenge Grants to promote state "zero to five" efforts and help states move toward voluntary, universal pre-school.

Expand Early Head Start and Head Start: Obama and Biden will quadruple Early Head Start, increase Head Start funding and improve quality for both.


Affordable, High-Quality Child Care: Obama and Biden will also provide affordable and high-quality child care to ease the burden on working families.

mccain image

Obama image
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-12-2008
In reply to: greenie75
Thu, 11-13-2008 - 7:38pm
I'm all for affordable daycare, but like most of Obama's promises...how's he going to pay for it? I'm also getting a little fed up with the notion that we have to send our infants to school to get them ready to attend school.

Pages