Public School for Leaders?

kameronsmith · May 15, 2009, 11:30pm

[Moderator’s Note: moved from another thread to keep that thread on topic.]

Actually, the matter of security is a bigger concern. A public school just isn’t set up to handle the amount of security the girls require.

They’re the daughters of the President of the US: there’s all the connections they need.

I never disagreed with the Ivies being to educate the elite—but I do think they work to find the “up-and-coming elite” from poorer classes to. I don’t doubt for an instant that it’s harder to get into an Ivy without connections, but it’s certainly not impossible.

I truly think one of the biggest factors Ivies look at is “how well might this future-alumnus donate?” Poor but promising students might actually be good “investments” in those situations; they’ll often give back far more once they strike it rich.

chaosakita · May 15, 2009, 11:41pm

I agree with the above poster. Why shouldn’t he? Sending his children to public schools isn’t going to really benefit anyone in a real way.

Keilexandra · May 16, 2009, 8:33am

If Obama had sent his children to public school, he would be expressing faith in the public school system. That he prefers private education–and the security can be addressed, if one really wants to–also sends a message to America.

Debruns · May 16, 2009, 12:09pm

He admitted the reality that the public schools in his area needed a lot of work. I admire his honesty in a sense that he didn’t just say it was security, but education also. They also went to a private school before, so it wasn’t a big change. I think Amy Carter was the only president’s daughter to go to a public school.

tomjonesistheman · May 16, 2009, 12:35pm

American public schools are pretty crappy I have to say…the teachers are mostly unqualified, the educational system is usually really messed up. Compare this to most European schools. I would gladly attend a private school, if I only had the money.

kameronsmith · May 16, 2009, 2:12pm

You shouldn’t made such broad generalizations. There’s a massive spectrum of public schools. Some in rich suburbs are superb, while inner city publics are crap. Here in Vermont public schools are actually pretty good (to the point that many rich parents send their kids to the public school).

But DC public schools are notoriously bad.

chaosakita · May 16, 2009, 2:39pm

I like the public education I’m currently receiving, but I wouldn’t send my kids to the schools near the White House. I’m not sure which is the closest one that would be acceptable with me.

Wouldn’t it be better if he actually did something about public education than make a token gesture?

hoveringmom · May 16, 2009, 4:56pm

I have to disagree (although you raise valid points). I think Obama’s sending his daughters to public would be a HUGE boost for the schools the girls went to. Huge. It would positively impact hundreds of low-income children’s lives. As for security, I dont’ really understand why private would be better than public. They both have security issues. I’ve been to private schools that have no good security, and public schools that have excellent security. Or are you talking about the fellow students being violent? That’s the real factor, as far as I can see. But that’s what poor kids have to suffer through all the time, all the time. I would also accept Obama’s stance on education much more if he were actually impacted by the laws and rules he promotes (and again, I’m for OBama. I just disagree on this issue.) As far as the fact that they’re the President’s daughters and that’s all the connection they need – that’s my whole point. If that were all the connection they needed (they and other very well connected kids), private schools would not exist. Rich people claim they’re going to private for the education. But they’re not. There are plenty of public schools that have better educational opportunities than private. (of course some private are terrific) And teachers in public are paid much more than private, on average. Bottom line: Rich people go to be around rich people, do be around ‘their kind.’ They don’t want to be around the ‘rabble.’ They want the bubble. This is the fact that no one speaks, because we like to imagine ourselves a meritocracy, when we are only partly one (Mr. Obama himself is a product of meritocracy, and that’s great. But it doesn’t extend as far as we’d like to imagine,not by a long shot).

kameronsmith · May 16, 2009, 5:05pm

Again, it’s all about what you’re comparing. Public schools in rich neighborhoods are practically private schools, both in terms of education quality and connections. Therefore, many rich kids go to public schools — when the public schools are good (ex. suburbs).

The security issue is big. Remember, the area public schools are used to having politician’s children so are used to security details, etc. Public schools aren’t set up to handle that.

For the record, I agree with you that public schools in this country need to be vastly improved. In fact, I don’t think private schools should exist at all. But, in the present climate, I can 100% understand Obama’s reluctance to put his kids in such a school. Remember, even as President, he can’t fix everything at once and the DC public school system is in major need of reform.

BCEagle91 · May 16, 2009, 5:15pm

“For the record, I agree with you that public schools in this country need to be vastly improved. In fact, I don’t think private schools should exist at all. But, in the present climate, I can 100% understand Obama’s reluctance to put his kids in such a school. Remember, even as President, he can’t fix everything at once and the DC public school system is in major need of reform.”

Fixing school systems is a long-term prospect but parents with children don’t have the luxury of time. I don’t understand why someone would want to restrict the educational choices of other people that only want the best for their own children. They brought them into the world and it is commendable that they actually want to put in the effort to educate them to be productive adults.

Fixing public schools requires cooperation from a lot of players that have their own self-interests at heart. The President plays a tiny part in that cooperation - education is really a local issue.

kameronsmith · May 16, 2009, 5:23pm

BCEagle91: I don’t think we disagree… I just said the same thing you did.

Pragmatically, of course people should have private schools today. But in an ideal world I don’t think we should. The purpose of public education should be to give all children the ability to succeed in this world, not to give a substandard education to the unlucky ones. Your parent’s income should have no impact on your quality of educational opportunities.

I just said that.

BCEagle91 · May 16, 2009, 6:24pm

“The purpose of public education should be to give all children the ability to succeed in this world,”

Maybe. If so, I’d add the word efficiently to the mix. We spend from $120,000 to $240,000 per student for their K-12 education. A huge amount of spending in school isn’t effective, most of the time, when pitted against a poor family environment. Maybe we would be better off just giving the kids the money.

Public education is supposed to be efficient. It is supposed to reap economies of scale. To reach those economies of scale, mass production is needed and there are parents that prefer a more craftsmanlike approach.

“Your parent’s income should have no impact on your quality of educational opportunities.”

This goes against human nature. The New Jersey experiments indicate that even spending huge amounts of money on schools isn’t a match for a stay-at-home mom that can and does volunteer in the schools and in the community.

I will add that a parent’s character contributes greatly to educational outcomes.

Perhaps vacuously - that is by omission.

kameronsmith · May 16, 2009, 6:36pm

Obviously there are dramatic effects from the parents involvement. That’s why I was very careful to include the word “opportunities.” It would be idealistic to expect all students to receive the same quality of education, since that is contingent upon parent’s involvement, but I think everyone should have the same opportunities for education. A student, given strength of will, can succeed in school even with terrible parents. But a student can’t go to a better school than their parents can afford, no matter their determination.

I think it would be an acceptable alternative to give all students the money. Allow a mix of schools to crop up and give every student a voucher to attend any one of them, state run or not. But no school should be limited to the financial elite.

BCEagle91 · May 16, 2009, 6:56pm

“It would be idealistic to expect all students to receive the same
quality of education, since that is contingent upon parent’s
involvement,”

Involvement is only one area. Education, character, wisdom, extended
family support, optimized logistics, or just a parent picking them up
from school for chats in the car make a big difference.

I don’t know how you provide equivalent outcomes or how you measure
quality or why you would want the same quality of education for
everyone. Families allocate resources to what is important to the
family given their unique circumstances.

“but I think everyone should have the same opportunities for
education.”

I don’t believe that this is possible and I do have regular talks with
those that grew up in socialist systems. I don’t even think that this
is desirable unless we want carbon copies of a model student.

“A student, given strength of will, can succeed in school even with
terrible parents. But a student can’t go to a better school than their
parents can afford, no matter their determination.”

Students can self-study but they need to understand how to do this and
how they can go about acquiring resouces to do this. This is easier
than ever today with the free availability of high-quality educational
resources on the web.

When I say just give the students or their parents the money, I mean
just giving them the money with no requirement that it be spent on
schools, public or private. What we spend on schools would be a massive
amount of money for homeschooling.

kameronsmith · May 16, 2009, 7:21pm

I factor those all into involvement—how involved parents are with helping their children succeed.

I never said anything about equivalent outcomes. All I said is that is that all students should have access to the same high

That’s demonstrably false. If that were true, all the graduates from a single school would be the same, which they clearly aren’t.

Your whole view reeks of elitism. You think students should be doomed to live the same life as their parents, with no potential for social advancement?

That seems fine, but we have to be sure that the student is able to choose not to be homeschooled. There are too many examples of parents indoctrinating and abusing their students, so I certainly wouldn’t want the state to finance that.

BCEagle91 · May 16, 2009, 9:08pm

“I factor those all into involvementhow involved parents are with
helping their children succeed.”

Some of these factors aren’t intentional and represent resources from
an extended network. To illustrate, a set of parents may not be
involved in the education of their kids at all but have grandparents
that provide substantial involvement and investment.

“I never said anything about equivalent outcomes.”

I found your position unclear.

“All I said is that is that all students should have access to the same
high”

I still find your position unclear.

“That’s demonstrably false. If that were true, all the graduates from a
single school would be the same, which they clearly aren’t.”

Perhaps you should further explain what you mean by opportunities. I
maintain that you can’t do this. Even those from the same high-school
do not have the same opportunities.

“Your whole view reeks of elitism.”

One should avoid name-calling; it’s the recourse of those that have no;
argument.

“You think students should be doomed to live the same life as their
parents, with no potential for social advancement?”

That’s a strawman argument. Another fallacy.

“That seems fine, but we have to be sure that the student is able to
choose not to be homeschooled. There are too many examples of parents
indoctrinating and abusing their students, so I certainly wouldn’t
want the state to finance that.”

For example? How does that compare to the number of students assaulted
in school by teachers or other students?

kameronsmith · May 16, 2009, 9:20pm

Let’s not quibble over parents vs. grandparents. We both agree family can have a large impact on a child’s education.

Ability to learn from good teachers. Ability to take classes at appropriate difficulty. Etc.

Let’s put it this way: 38% of home schooling parents cite religious reasons. I doubt many of those students will learn much in the way of science.

BCEagle91 · May 16, 2009, 10:14pm

I think that you are referring to resources, not abilities.

In any organization, you have a variety of abilities and individual
circumstances of your labor pool. Typical organizations usually have a
variety of customers with different abilities to get what they want
from the organization. You have a natural imbalance in the ability to
utilize resources from just these two variables.

That’s a pretty bigoted and misinformed view.

PA Homeschoolers provides online AP courses for homeschoolers and serves
religious homeschoolers as well. Here’s the biography of their AP Biology
teacher:

I earned my BS and secondary teaching certificate in Biology (summa
cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa) from Dickinson College in Carlisle PA and
my PhD in Plant Physiology from The Pennsylvania State University with
a thesis in Plant Molecular Genetics. I performed research and taught
for ten years at Penn State, Loyola College in Maryland, the
University of Maryland and the Johns Hopkins University Hospital in
the area of Molecular Genetics. I am a PHAA evaluator. On my
sabbatical last year, I wrote multiple choice and free response
questions for AP© Study Guides published by Applied Sciences, Inc.
This will be my ninth year teaching the PA Homeschoolers On-line AP
Biology Course. I look forward to meeting new students each year, and
always find my interactions with them rewarding. This year I am
excited about the addition of a completely new laboratory component
based on the 12 College Board Recommended AP Biology Laboratories
which will include several hands-on labs.

kameronsmith · May 16, 2009, 10:24pm

It’s pretty much the same thing. You know what I meant and shouldn’t argue over semantics.

Well-funded schools can afford to pay higher salaries and thus attract more talented teachers. That’s basic economics.

No, it’s bigoted to regard basic scientific tenants (ex. evolution) as a “liberal atheist conspiracy” which students need to be protected from.

Nothing requires the parents to take advantage of those courses. If parents don’t like how biology is taught in school (based on science) then I doubt they’d allow their students to take an online AP biology course.

That evidence is purely anecdotal.

BCEagle91 · May 16, 2009, 10:37pm

It’s rather difficult having a discussion with someone with imprecise
writing.

That’s a pretty vague statement and has all sorts of problems with it.

No it isn’t.

I don’t recall making such a statement. Whether your red herring is
bigoted or not is irrelevant. Your original statement is bigoted.

And you’re wrong.

You made a forall claim. To prove a forall claim, is rather difficult.
To disprove it is far easier. You only need to find one counterexample
to disprove a forall claim. You can read about this in any elementary
logic book.

Public School for Leaders?

CONNECT WITH US