A Personal Perspective on the Obama Comments

He attended private school on scholarship. Extremely commendable and hardly the mark of a privileged childhood...

If it was an academic scholarship, yes, it's commendable.

However, Punahou is the largest and one of the richest private schools West of the Mississippi, with nine tennis courts and an olympic sized pool.

There is absolutely nothing about being deprived when going to a facility like that for your grade school years.

If anything, it is the most elitist secondary education of the three candidates. McCain went to 20 different schools as a Navy Brat, though he did finish his final three years at a private Episcopalian school in Alexandria, VA.

Clinton went to regular old public school.

I thought public schools were the bane of society?

It seems conservatives want underachievers in charge. How come you're not pulling for the home-schooled candidate?

Good point.

Consistency would demand that Obama favor vouchers and scholarship to insure that all disadvantaged kids have the same educational opportunities that he had. He could make this point well, and draw some distinction as being a Democrat on the side of vouchers and educational choice.

Private scholarships = public vouchers?

Public schools will suffer lack of funds under this system, and the kids needing education the most will get the worst. Add to this the choice of private schools is pretty limited. Other than a few "elite" private schools, the rest are fundamentalist breeding grounds. What do you think would happen if thousands of Johnnies applied to Country Day?

Thousands of more Country Days would spring up.

They'd have to lower their standards a bit.

I'm not seeing anyone giving Obama shit for going to a private school.

However, it's hard to buy the 'I'm a poor man of the people' schtick when he went to an elite private school while living with his grandparents (his grandmom was a vice president at a bank) in one of the most beautiful places in our country.

Either he doesn't realize that isn't normal, and the elitist comments have merit, or more likely he's simply pandering.

I don't see why. They're getting paid privately and wouldn't be under any government pressure to grade on a big curve or risk losing funding.

Kid flunks, they have to repeat the grade at the expense of mom and pop. You can bet your ass parents would start straightening up their kids if they had to cut a big fat check when Johnny brings home an invoice along with his report card.

Do you hold all universties to the MIT standard?

Why isn't the university/college system set up along the same guidelines as primary and secondary education in this country?

Myriad sources for funding exist for higher education, and there is a corresponding diversity in higher education. The US higher education system has a healthy mix of private, public, religious, vo-tech, trade, etc. All of them have different standards and priorities. These schools compete for tuition dollars, and the student is allowed the choice on where to attend school.

Why would the public schools in this system be unable to compete on a smaller scale, when their corresponding state institutions are thriving in this environment? Why shouldn't the parents of a poor kid have more choice on where to send their child to school, assuming the public voucher will cover the costs? Why should the public school be entitled to more students, regardless of their performance?

Kid doesn't get in.

Tuition for country day is about $20k per year. Cost of public school is about $7K. Outside of religious schools, private schools are too expensive for a voucher system. I really don't want my tax money supporting baptist and catholic schools.

The choice is limited. Do you think Country Day, or any elitist secular private school is going to lower their standards to embrace the masses? I think a bunch more christian schools would pop up eager to rake in tax money.

The big difference is people WANT to go to higher education. It's that demand thing. Half the kids in public schools are there because they have to be.

Are we going to pretend that anybody who's running for president this cycle is somehow not a member of the elite?

Ok, but you're assuming no other credited schools will pop up to get in on some of that sweet previously-socialized cash. It's not going to be static as it is with the private schools staying as they are while a homeless guy teaches math in a publicly-run shack.

I think that's the whole point. There are folks here who are pretending that the elitism of certain would-be messiahs doesn't matter, but overall, the entrants in this particular Presidential race are shining examples of how far out of touch those whom govern are from the governed.

Why do you say Obama (or anyone else) would be a messiah?

And why is "being in touch" virtue in and of itself?

Bill Clinton felt people's pain and clearly came up from nothing. I wouldn't say that automatically made him a better president for that.

First of all, I disagree about the consistency argument.

It's like saying because he got a scholarship to go to a private school, everyone should get a scholarship to go to a private school. The one doesn't follow the other.

Second, it is hard to envision a national Democratic politician being firmly on the side of vouchers given the indebtedness to the teachers' unions. FWIW, Obama said he would consider vouchers if research showed they worked.

http://www2.nysun.com/article/71403

Perhaps. But they're going to have a hard time competing with public schools that for the most part are pretty good. Or is the plan to close all public schools? I think the majority taking advantage of such a program would be those that want their kids in some religious school.

So, kids don't get government funds to attend Baylor or Notre Dame?

Who's to say that given the demand that secular schools won't set up basic curriculum schools to educate kids that don't meet their normal standards?

Secular private schools wouldn't want to rake in tax money?

You're kidding, right?

Why should someone who's to lead a nation be "in touch" with those whom he's wanting to lead?

Please tell me that you're being flippant.

No, it wasn't actually people's "pain" that Bill Clinton was "feeling".

In fact, let me help you out:

Not entirely. It depends on what you mean by "in touch" and with whom you are in touch.

I don't have to be a disabled lesbian or a smalltown farmer or a corporate mogul or whatever to be able to understand what those people might need, weigh their competing interests and come up with what I think is the best solution for all the different parties.

I don't have to personally know or hang out with people who fit those qualities to do the same thing.

I would venture to say there's never been a national politician who can truly be said to have been "in touch" with every single constituent group he represents. Whether it's women, minorities, labor unions, business people, lawyers, etc., there's always going to be some faction that a politician isn't in sync with.

And as I said in my previous post, "being in touch" doesn't guarantee one's going to follow the best overall policies either.

Joke all you want about Clinton's promiscuity, but the fact is that of all the presidents we've had in recent history, he was certainly among a handful who personally understood what poverty means.

What kind of money? I'm guessing not the kind that Country Day gets.

Would private secular schools open in areas where there are none? Where publics schools are substandard? Or are they going to go to the burbs? I don't know, but I'm guessing they'll go to the suburbs and leave the inner cities to the public schools and private religious schools.

There'll be some McHighschools open out in middle class suburbia, but for the most part their public schools are good today. The only shift there would be from suburban public schools to religious private schools if vouchers were available.

Vouchers are being tried in areas around the country. Back it up.

Well, you're qualifying "in touch" right out of fashion.

Obama either revealed his own political ineptitude with scripted comments in regard to, or Freudian slipped his true disdain for, "small town Americans".

If you believe that words, as well as actions, are a President's stock and trade, then he's out of touch with political decorum because he's careless.

Personally, I don't want a President who keeps saying things that sounded good when he was rehearsing in front of the mirror, but didn't bother to consider how those words might be interpreted "across the board". This has been a real point of contention with Bush, no?

If you believe that being "in touch" suggests a willingness to engage every faction with consideration to their needs, his Freudian slip might as well have been a slap in the face and a hearty, "Fuck you!"

This is a guy who made a gratuitous display of his desire to be perceived as an "everyman" by going bowling. Shit, he might as well have been kissing babies. The score of 37 notwithstanding, that he is, apparently, cavalier about which stripe of "everyman" he considers most deserving, "out of touch" couldn't be more relevant.

Yeah. You're right about that. Those decades of collecting government salaries and reaping the benefits of government health care and ensuing perks, not to mention Hillary's take-home as a lawyer really put him in touch with poverty.

I shudder to think of how one could make ends meet with such disadvantages.

Seems to be a wash except for a handful of Catholic schools. Link

Outside of Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Washington DC there doesn't seem to be any voucher programs. Are you basing your expectations on programs in those cities?

Of course you don't.

Is it too much to ask that you don't pretend to be one yourself on one hand and then open your mouth spouting disdainful and insulting remarks on the other?

And? If they can produce a quality product that parents want their children to have, they have nothing to fear. They'll get plenty of vouchers. If not, they need to fail and make room for a school that can get the job done.

What you're saying is akin to saying that I hurt USC because I chose to go to Auburn.

Now, sure. But, not under a voucher system. Schools would pop up left and right to get that money. Competition and profit are wonderful, wonderful motivators.

Country Day would either expand to get it's hands on those guaranteed voucher dollars or lose the revenue to Country Day Clone 1-10 down the road that would be more than happy to take Johnny's voucher dollars.

But Elwood, you've got to understand. Public schools aren't about education.

They're about fairness.

The voucher system has had no impact on the quality of Milwaukee's education. The majority of vouchers used (70%) are for religious schools.

Of the remaining 30%, many were fraudulent. Milwaukee has gone to regulating the private schools to ensure quality if not prevent outright fraud. The market didn't work (parent's didn't make good choices).

Student success hasn't changed.

Country Day (and similar) are so far out of this picture to make it laughable to include them in this conversation. Their tuition is 20grand. Vouchers are for 7 or less.

So, it seems the motivation for vouchers is religion. Courts ruled it's OK. Hallelujah.

The stories in Cleveland and DC are similar. No voucher program has been tried in the burbs.

link