🚀 go-pugleaf

In <MS-C.726280864.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:

>Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
>Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the
>great and gradiose promises.

>Bill Clinton knows perfectly well what sending his daughter to public school
>in Washington DC would mean.  After years of ``just throw more tax money and
>all problems will be solved'' mismanagement, public schools are a nightmare; a
>lot happens there, but not very much education.

>It's very nice for the Clintons that they can afford to send their child to an
>expensive private school.  Too bad their supposed constituency -- the poor and
>middle class -- don't have the same luxury.  Too bad liberals have vehemently
>opposed giving the poor and middle class that luxury.

>I wonder if it's time for a Constitutional Amendment forcing all children of
>government officials to attend public school?  That'd get changes made!!

Likely the reason is more due to security and fear of the daughter getting 
harrassed or kidnapped or something.  That's not something a parent will admit
in public, but it's not unreasonable for a President's child.  As a govenor,
there was nothing to fear...now there could be.

One can still understand educational values, even if they don't go to the
same schools.  I think someone may be putting the cart before the horse here,
let's wait and see what comments he makes about education.  (Personally, I
see no hypocrisy, just common sense safety for the Presidential children).
 
Crystal
  :>
BTW, I tend to stay out of political arguments.  I don't follow the gossip of
others...  ;>

[]

	"Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already
	started.  The Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive
	private school.  So much for the great and gradiose promises."

Perhaps you could tell us when Clinton promised to send his daughter to
public school?  I miss this one.

Whether or not a First Daughter is sent to public school has nothing at
all to do with Clinton's public school policy.  Chelsea is going to a
school that can accommodate children of high-profile officials.  Even
if the White House were in Beverly Hills, a special school would still
be appropriate.  My daughter's public school classroom, for one, could
not function if staked out by Secret Service people, and wouldn't know
what to do with hungry media folks hanging around the steps.

I applaud Clinton for not turning his daughter into a symbol at the
expense of making Washington DC public school into a circus.

  -=- Andrew Klossner  (andrew@frip.wv.tek.com)
                       (uunet!tektronix!frip.WV.TEK!andrew)

In article <crystal.726283133@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
>Likely the reason is more due to security and fear of the daughter getting 
>harrassed or kidnapped or something.  That's not something a parent will admit
>in public, but it's not unreasonable for a President's child.  As a govenor,
>there was nothing to fear...now there could be.

I thought that Amy Carter went to public school.  Can anyone else remember
that far back?

... John

mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:

>Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
>Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the
>great and gradiose promises.

>Bill Clinton knows perfectly well what sending his daughter to public school
>in Washington DC would mean.  After years of ``just throw more tax money and
>all problems will be solved'' mismanagement, public schools are a nightmare; a
>lot happens there, but not very much education.

>It's very nice for the Clintons that they can afford to send their child to an
>expensive private school.  Too bad their supposed constituency -- the poor and
>middle class -- don't have the same luxury.  Too bad liberals have vehemently
>opposed giving the poor and middle class that luxury.

>I wonder if it's time for a Constitutional Amendment forcing all children of
>government officials to attend public school?  That'd get changes made!!

Mark,

I can see that you're very irate at Clinton on this, but both Bill and Hillary
said that Chelsea had a major say in what school she wanted to attend.  I
would give (and will, in the future) the same choice to my boys.  It would
not be right to *force* a child to go to a school they don't want to. 
Besides, at the private school, Chelsea won't necessarily be under the
microscope of her classmates and the press since many of the politicians'
children attend classes at the private school.

I don't demean FOR A SECOND public schools and I think that public
school officials in D.C. are being incredibly unrealistic and shortsighted
in not respecting the Clinton family decision.  I think one thing that's
quite clear about the Clinton family is that major decisions seem to be
discussed and shared amongst family members.  This is another case.

allen

jrm@pgroup.com (John R Mudd) writes:

>In article <crystal.726283133@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
>>Likely the reason is more due to security and fear of the daughter getting 
>>harrassed or kidnapped or something.  That's not something a parent will admit
>>in public, but it's not unreasonable for a President's child.  As a govenor,
>>there was nothing to fear...now there could be.

>I thought that Amy Carter went to public school.  Can anyone else remember
>that far back?

The news last evening did report that Amy Carter was the last child of a President
to attend public schools in D.C.

allen

In article <crystal.726283133@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
>In <MS-C.726280864.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
>
>>Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
>>Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the

>Likely the reason is more due to security and fear of the daughter getting 
>harrassed or kidnapped or something.  That's not something a parent will admit

>I see no hypocrisy, just common sense safety for the Presidential children).

Oh, I see.  They don't allow harrassment or kidnapping at Private Elitist
schools, only at the commoners public schools.  That makes sense.  You're
right, I should be happy to send my children to public schools were they
may be harrassed or kidnapped.  But not the President.  He has more 
important things on his mind.  HIS child should be protected from such
things.

In article <1993Jan6.165538.27667@tessi.com> allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
>I can see that you're very irate at Clinton on this, but both Bill and Hillary
>said that Chelsea had a major say in what school she wanted to attend.  I
>would give (and will, in the future) the same choice to my boys.  It would
>not be right to *force* a child to go to a school they don't want to. 

I would claim that it is also not right for parent(s) to put themselves
into debt simply because their child doesn't want to go to a particular
school.

... John

jrm@pgroup.com (John R Mudd) writes:

>In article <1993Jan6.165538.27667@tessi.com> allen@tessi.com (Allen Warren) writes:
>>I can see that you're very irate at Clinton on this, but both Bill and Hillary
>>said that Chelsea had a major say in what school she wanted to attend.  I
>>would give (and will, in the future) the same choice to my boys.  It would
>>not be right to *force* a child to go to a school they don't want to. 

>I would claim that it is also not right for parent(s) to put themselves
>into debt simply because their child doesn't want to go to a particular
>school.


I agree with you John, but is Chelsea going to put Bill and Hillary in debt?
Doubt it.  Besides, I said it was a *family* decision and that Chelsea had a
major say in the decision. 

allen

In article <MS-C.726280864.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU>,
 Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes...
>Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
>Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the
>great and gradiose promises.
> 

Chelsea attended public schools in Little Rock.  Please also note that she was
reportedly a major participant in the decision.  She is not being "sent". 

>Bill Clinton knows perfectly well what sending his daughter to public school
>in Washington DC would mean.  After years of ``just throw more tax money and
>all problems will be solved'' mismanagement, public schools are a nightmare; a
>lot happens there, but not very much education.
>                                                                         

Amy Carter went to D.C. public schools.  May I assume you have a negative 
opinion of what happened to her?  :-)

>It's very nice for the Clintons that they can afford to send their child to an
>expensive private school.  Too bad their supposed constituency -- the poor and
>middle class -- don't have the same luxury.  Too bad liberals have vehemently
>opposed giving the poor and middle class that luxury.
> 

OBJECTION!  As an upper middle-class graduate of a private high school, I can
tell you there is such a thing as (limited) financial aid.  Unfortunately,
there isn't enough.

>I wonder if it's time for a Constitutional Amendment forcing all children of
>government officials to attend public school?  That'd get changes made!!
> 

I'm not even going to touch this one.

							Dan, ad nauseum

In <13146@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) writes:

>In article <crystal.726283133@glia> crystal@glia.biostr.washington.edu (Crystal) writes:
>>In <MS-C.726280864.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> Mark Crispin <mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> writes:
>>
>>>Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
>>>Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the

>>Likely the reason is more due to security and fear of the daughter getting 
>>harrassed or kidnapped or something.  That's not something a parent will admit

>>I see no hypocrisy, just common sense safety for the Presidential children).

>Oh, I see.  They don't allow harrassment or kidnapping at Private Elitist
>schools, only at the commoners public schools.  That makes sense.  You're
>right, I should be happy to send my children to public schools were they
>may be harrassed or kidnapped.  But not the President.  He has more 
>important things on his mind.  HIS child should be protected from such
>things.


I seem to detect a bit of jealousy here...go ahead, send your kids to a private school...it's your choice.

In article <MS-C.726280864.1103527590.mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU> mrc@Tomobiki-Cho.CAC.Washington.EDU (Mark Crispin) writes:
/Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
/Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the
/great and gradiose promises.
/Bill Clinton knows perfectly well what sending his daughter to public school
/in Washington DC would mean.  After years of ``just throw more tax money and
/all problems will be solved'' mismanagement, public schools are a nightmare; a
/lot happens there, but not very much education.

Of course, we all know what will happen with socialized medicine. Those with
political power will be attending 'special' hospitals that don't have long
waiting lines and incompetent care. It will probably look like the two-class
system used in Communist countries, special stores and hospitals for elite
party members, and the not-so-special stuff for everyone else.

bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:

>Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
>Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the
>great and gradiose promises.
>Bill Clinton knows perfectly well what sending his daughter to public school
>in Washington DC would mean.  After years of ``just throw more tax money and
>all problems will be solved'' mismanagement, public schools are a nightmare; a
>lot happens there, but not very much education.

There is nothing hypocritical about sending your kids to a private school while
urging improvements for public schools.

Another poster stated that sending his kids to a private school would require a
sharp reduction in his living stadard (drive a beater and move to a cheaper
apartment etc). Therefore he should be subsidized by the government. I don't see
how this follows. I made just that choice when I overheard people on the ferry
bragging about how good the incredibly bad South Whidbey school system is.

The quality of education does not depend strongly on the salaries of teachers, the
size of classrooms, or the age of the school buildings. It depends on the standards
of the local school board, the local community, the state, and the nation, roughly
in that order. Until people decide that they want their children to learn something,
and stop interfering when a teacher tries to make them do some work, our public
schools will never improve. Having said that, I still don't believe that we should
siphon funds from the public school system to subsidize those who have chosen to
abandon that system.

In article <1993Jan8.170604.29297@tc.fluke.COM> skele@tc.fluke.COM (Martins Skele) writes:
>bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>Another poster stated that sending his kids to a private school would require a
>sharp reduction in his living stadard (drive a beater and move to a cheaper
>apartment etc). Therefore he should be subsidized by the government. 

I said the stuff about reducing my lifestyle to afford a private school
education for my kids.  I NEVER said I should be subsidized by the
government.  Quite the contrary!!  The way things are now, I have two
choices -- use the money that has been collected via taxes to send my
child to a public school (remember, it is not FREE. Many people pay
taxes for public school including me).  It's not the government's money.
You and I and many others pay OUR OWN money for public education.  The
government SPENDS it.  The other choice I have is to spend additional
funds (I've already paid taxes for part of my childs public education) to
send him to a private school.  THAT was my point.

>The quality of education does not depend strongly on the salaries of teachers, the
>size of classrooms, or the age of the school buildings. It depends on the standards
>of the local school board, the local community, the state, and the nation, roughly

You're right about what a quality education does NOT depend on (salaries,
age of buildings, etc.)  But as far as stating what the quality of
education (or most anything else) depends on, you are wrong, wrong, wrong.
The quality of ANYTHING is determined largely (not exclusively) by
competition.  No competition, little quality.  Why are private schools
"better" (in general) than public schools?  Because they compete with one
another for students.  No students and the school goes out of business.
It isn't how much it costs for that education.  In many cases, you and
I are paying more money per student (again via taxes) for a public
education that is inferior to one they could get in a private COMPETING
school.

>schools will never improve. Having said that, I still don't believe that we should
>siphon funds from the public school system to subsidize those who have chosen to
>abandon that system.

The point is this:  The money going to pay for public education was OUR
money to begin with.  Should we be able to "shop around" for the best
value with that money?  Not to get into another subject, but the system
we have now would be analgous to having government-run grocery stores
for those on food stamps.  In other words, they would not be able to use
the food stamps at the store of their choice.  IF the prices in the
government-run stores were higher than other stores, if the quality and
choice of the food was poor, what could anyone using the food stamps do?
They could get some real money and shop at a real store.  Other than
that, they could complain, etc.  But wouldn't it be frustrating if just
down the street were good stores doing a good job?  Why should you have
to fight and complain to get good quality when competition would solve
the problem for the most part.

In essence we (who have school aged children) are being forced to use
our school-stamps, if you will, at government-run schools.  Clinton thinks
this is fine.  He's not going to send his daughter to an inferior public
school.  But, then, he's got the money and/or influence to do otherwise.

A voucher system that would allow people to spend their "school-stamps"
at the school of their choice is in NO WAY abandoning the public school
system.  If the public school in my neighborhood was better than any
private school, I would send my kid their (and thus spend my
"school-stamps" there).  But it would be MY choice, not the government's.  What is everyone afraid of?

First off, let me say that I agree with those who say Clinton is
being hypocritical -- IMO he is.

But that's not my main point.  So far, every post about education
in this thread has been obsessed with _schools_.  Pepole seem to
have forgotten how much learning takes place _outside_ of school
and structured class lessons.  Of course, this means that the
child's environment outside of school has to be conducive to learning
and development.  But take a look at the statistics -- both parents
are working now, yet the US spends a shamefully low sum on child
care as compared to the rest of the first world.  Parents should
be able to spend time with their children, yet US workers have the
least vacation of any industrialized nation save Japan.  Maternity
leave?  No luck there either.

And then there's the whole issue of what kind of student one gets
if that child doesn't get enough to eat (and comes to school hungry),
if the parents are unable to take time off work to care for him/her
when s/he is sick (so s/he gets well slower and misses _more_
school), if the child comes from a slumscraper like Cabrini Green
and is more concerned with staying alive than with studying and
getting enough rest, etc., etc., etc.

All this talk about school choice strikes me as one big red herring
(although if truth be told, most of the school-choice proposals
I've seen have defects the size of a small planet).  It's as if
there is a treacherous mountain highway with a very rusted guard
rail (painted white) with rotten support posts and the highway
department comes and paints it metallic silver and trumpets that
all is fixed and safe now (it sure _looks_ different, doesn't it?).

Sorry, I don't think so.
-- 
David Barts  N5JRN                      UW Civil Engineering, FX-10
davidb@ce.washington.edu                Seattle, WA  98195

In article <1993Jan8.170604.29297@tc.fluke.COM> skele@tc.fluke.COM (Martins Skele) writes:
/bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
/>Well, the hypocrisy of the Clinton administration has already started.  The
/>Clintons are sending Chelsea to an expensive private school.  So much for the
/>great and gradiose promises.
/>Bill Clinton knows perfectly well what sending his daughter to public school
/>in Washington DC would mean.  After years of ``just throw more tax money and
/>all problems will be solved'' mismanagement, public schools are a nightmare; a
/>lot happens there, but not very much education.

I didn't say that. Please be more careful on your attribution lines.

/Having said that, I still don't believe that we should
/siphon funds from the public school system to subsidize those who have chosen to
/abandon that system.

I don't find this argument compelling because if a student does not attend
public school, presumably the public school doesn't need to spend that
student's allocation of public funds.

In article <13172@sail.LABS.TEK.COM> charlesw@sail.LABS.TEK.COM (Charles Wilson) writes:
/A voucher system that would allow people to spend their "school-stamps"
/at the school of their choice is in NO WAY abandoning the public school
/system.  If the public school in my neighborhood was better than any
/private school, I would send my kid their (and thus spend my
/"school-stamps" there).  But it would be MY choice, not the government's.
/What is everyone afraid of?

The NEA is terrified of losing their heavilly subsidized position. If they
had to compete, instead of practically being guaranteed students, they
would have a much harder time blaming their failures on insufficient
funds, family values, etc.