Editor's Notes
I'm sorry: the children of the president should go to public schools
Is anyone else appalled that the Obamas are not even considering sending their kids to public schools? Seriously. This may not seem like the most important issue on the president's agenda, but I think it's a big deal.
According to The New York Times, Michelle Obama has toured Sidwell Friends, the pricey private school where Chelsea Clinton was educated. She's also looking at Maret School and Georgetown Day, two institutions that cater to the children of the rich and powerful. There are no public schools on the list.
Adrian Fenty, the mayor of Washington, DC has urged the Obamas to consider the schools that most DC kids attend, but he has little moral suasion: Mayor Fenty's twin sons go to private school.
I'm a public school parent, and this really bothers me. What the Obamas are saying, in essence, is that there is no public school anywhere in the district good enough for their kids. They're saying that if you've got the money, you should flee for the safety of private academies. Those lowly public places are just for the peasants.
That sort of statement matters.
A D V E R T I S E M E N T
It matters when you think about the new president's priorities. It matters when you think about the role he wants to play not just as a chief executive but as an agent of change and a moral compass for the nation and the world. In a way, it's his first test, and he's flunked it.
I'm sorry: the children of the president should go to public schools. The children of mayors, and city council members, and county supervisors, and city attorneys should go the same schools as the kids of the majority of their constituents. And if those schools aren't as good as they'd like, well then, join the team. The rest of us are working like hell to make the under-funded, over-stressed public schools better. You can, too.
And by the way, Mr. President-elect, my public school in San Francisco is giving my son and daughter a great education. And they're growing up with kids who aren't just like them. That's worth way more than your fancy $21,000 private school can ever offer.
* * * *
The election of Sup. Ed Jew two years ago gave ranked-choice voting a bad rep. This year, however, I think we saw how the system can work.
I understand the critics who say that old-fashioned runoffs — second-round elections held a few weeks after the general — are more fair and allow for excitement, like Tom Ammiano vs. Willie Brown in 1999 and Matt Gonzalez vs. Gavin Newsom in 2003. But they also create a problem, particularly when one side has a lot more money than the other.
Downtown had almost endless resources to try to defeat Eric Mar, David Chiu, and John Avalos. The Democratic Party, thanks to the progressive takeover this summer, was supporting the three progressives, as was labor, the Sierra Club, and the Tenants Union. And while party chair Aaron Peskin raised a sizeable sum for slate cards and labor spent cash on organizing efforts, that was dwarfed by the landlords and developers.
Mar, Chiu, and Avalos had the advantage of a high-turnout election. If they'd been forced to run again three weeks later, downtown would have again dumped hundreds of thousands of dollars into the races — and at some point, the good guys would run out of money. Plus, RCV gave the candidates an incentive to make alliances.
Not a perfect ...
Read more...
Page: 1 | 2
( 15 comments | Comment on this article )
hyperj0 on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 08:11 AM
No doubt public school educations are excellent and if not, should be fixed. But public schools cannot and will not be able to protect the children--who will be under scrutiny that the rest of American children are not--the way a private school can. Schools like Sidwell Friends and GDS earn their reputations in part by ensuring the focus is on education, not a media circus.
Were the children of presidents to attend public schools, it would be disruptive and unfair to the children who are exposed to publicity and attention that non-famous children do not experience and disruptive and unfair to the students who would have to attend schools with the president's children.
Furthermore, the parenting decisions the Obamas make are outside the realm of political commentary. The children are not political statements. Any parent would want to provide the best learning environment, the most safety, and the least amount of celebrity treatment they can for their child.
If I could afford these schools, I would most certainly send my child to them.
Were the children of presidents to attend public schools, it would be disruptive and unfair to the children who are exposed to publicity and attention that non-famous children do not experience and disruptive and unfair to the students who would have to attend schools with the president's children.
Furthermore, the parenting decisions the Obamas make are outside the realm of political commentary. The children are not political statements. Any parent would want to provide the best learning environment, the most safety, and the least amount of celebrity treatment they can for their child.
If I could afford these schools, I would most certainly send my child to them.
hyperj0 on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 08:16 AM
I also want to add that you don't seem to be aware of the financial struggles of the DC school system. In order to protect Sasha and Malia's academic privacy--which all public school children are entitled to--a large amount of resources would have to be diverted from other programs. Private schools have policies, procedures, and safeguards in place already to protect children from those who would invade their privacy. These necessities are paid for by the parents who send their children to these schools. Would it be fair for the already troubled DC school system to divert what little money they have to the benefit of two children? My opinion is "no."
hyperj0 on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 08:56 AM
I keep posting because I continue to be disturbed that you are appalled that the Obamas won't pretend their children would have the same experience as non-famous children in public schools. For one example of how they would be more vulnerable: the level of IT security at DC public schools may or may not be adequate for the average student. However, even if the protection of student data and student medical information is first rate, it's still not sufficient for the child of a president. You are unaware of or naive to the extent individuals, unscrupulous bloggers, and curious hackers will go to pry into these children's records. To expect public schools to perform at a level that will protect innocent but exceptionally vulnerable children is ludicrous.
Furthermore, your thesis statement "I'm sorry: the children of the president should go to public schools." leaves me confused. What are you sorry about? Are you appalled or are you sorry?
Furthermore, your thesis statement "I'm sorry: the children of the president should go to public schools." leaves me confused. What are you sorry about? Are you appalled or are you sorry?
HermeticSurveyor on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 11:03 AM
I understand Redmond's position, public schools need our help. But so do the new pioneering alternative private schools who have a new vision of education. If Obama sent his kids to an alternative school with new vision and new ideas that would be a big shot in the arm for real change.
paulhogarth on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 01:29 PM
Tim, I have to echo what others said ... your outrage doesn't hold much ground here. When the Clintons decided to put Chelsea in a private school after moving to DC, it was an issue (to an extent) because when Bill Clinton was Governor of Arkansas, he made a big deal of the fact that his daughter went to a public school in Little Rock.
But the Obamas have never sent their kids to public school, nor have they tried to pretend that. In fact, back in Chicago, Malia and Sasha went to my alma mater -- the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, a private K-12 school. Kids whose parents are affiliated with the University get 50% off tuition -- which is how the Obama kids could go (Michelle used to work for the U of C Hospitals) and I went (my Dad was a professor.)
I should also add that the Lab School is precisely the "alternative school with new vision and new ideas" that other commenters talk about. Hopefully, the Obamas will put their kids in a similar school in Washington DC.
But the Obamas have never sent their kids to public school, nor have they tried to pretend that. In fact, back in Chicago, Malia and Sasha went to my alma mater -- the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, a private K-12 school. Kids whose parents are affiliated with the University get 50% off tuition -- which is how the Obama kids could go (Michelle used to work for the U of C Hospitals) and I went (my Dad was a professor.)
I should also add that the Lab School is precisely the "alternative school with new vision and new ideas" that other commenters talk about. Hopefully, the Obamas will put their kids in a similar school in Washington DC.
bgedit on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 02:50 PM
What the president does has great symbolic importance. Sending his kids to public schools would do wonders for the reputation of public education in America. And that IS a big deal.
When the Clintons were looking for schools, the public schools in DC made a strong pitch and demonstrated how they could handle security, accomodate the secret service etc. It's going to be a disruption wherever the Obama kids go, and of course, the easy thing to do is to pick the private schools. I think they ought to be seriously looking at public schools and giving the public sector option a chance.
I realize this isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I think it's important.
When the Clintons were looking for schools, the public schools in DC made a strong pitch and demonstrated how they could handle security, accomodate the secret service etc. It's going to be a disruption wherever the Obama kids go, and of course, the easy thing to do is to pick the private schools. I think they ought to be seriously looking at public schools and giving the public sector option a chance.
I realize this isn't the biggest deal in the world, but I think it's important.
bgedit on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 02:51 PM
Oh, by the way, this is Tim commenting here. FOr some reason I can't remember I'm logged in as bgedit.
hyperj0 on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 05:38 PM
bgedit, the disruption would be lesser at a private school that is accustomed to handling the children of famous politicians. And you didn't address any of the issues about the added expense to an already financially strained DC public school system. In fact, it doesn't seem as if you even read the comments.
The fact that the DC public school system attempted to demonstrate they could throw resources at the problem of having a president's child in attendance does not mean they proved they could handle it adequately. The children of a sitting president would -never- be left in peace at a public school.
Moreover, these are children, they are not symbols. Their parents' decision regarding their education and wellbeing are not fair political game. The Obama children have never been to public school. Not only would it run contrary to the Obamas' previous choices as parents, but it seems unfair to the children to thrust them into a public school for the first time ever when they are in the process of becoming the most famous family in the country.
Finally, you seem to be entirely unaware that the death threats against this president-elect are unprecedented in volume. A militant freak who can't get to Obama might happily settle for going after his daughters. I do not believe there's a public school in America that could accommodate the degree of security needed to protect these children from assassination attempts without seriously disrupting the education of the rest of the students. On the other hand, schools like Sidwell Friends and GDS specialize in educating high profile children. Security and privacy are part of what the hefty tuition fees pay for.
In short, this is none of your business. And you are delusionally naive at best and willfully uninformed at worst.
The fact that the DC public school system attempted to demonstrate they could throw resources at the problem of having a president's child in attendance does not mean they proved they could handle it adequately. The children of a sitting president would -never- be left in peace at a public school.
Moreover, these are children, they are not symbols. Their parents' decision regarding their education and wellbeing are not fair political game. The Obama children have never been to public school. Not only would it run contrary to the Obamas' previous choices as parents, but it seems unfair to the children to thrust them into a public school for the first time ever when they are in the process of becoming the most famous family in the country.
Finally, you seem to be entirely unaware that the death threats against this president-elect are unprecedented in volume. A militant freak who can't get to Obama might happily settle for going after his daughters. I do not believe there's a public school in America that could accommodate the degree of security needed to protect these children from assassination attempts without seriously disrupting the education of the rest of the students. On the other hand, schools like Sidwell Friends and GDS specialize in educating high profile children. Security and privacy are part of what the hefty tuition fees pay for.
In short, this is none of your business. And you are delusionally naive at best and willfully uninformed at worst.
bmgibbs on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 06:41 PM
While I sympathize with what I perceive as being your thesis--that public schools are in danger and that someone in power needs to care about their decline--your shrill tone in this instance sounds slightly absurd. I personally believe that sending the Obama girls to public school would be problematic for their learning, and for the learning environment of the other children who'd be in their classes. With the amount of attention this presidency has already and will receive, the presence of the Obama children would be disruptive to a public classroom that in all likelihood would already be short of resources.
bmgibbs on Wednesday, November 19, 2008 at 06:45 PM
While I sympathize with what I perceive as being your thesis--that public schools are in danger and that someone in power needs to care about their decline--your shrill tone in this instance sounds slightly absurd. I personally believe that sending the Obama girls to public school would be problematic for their learning, and for the learning environment of the other children who'd be in their classes. With the amount of attention this presidency has already and will receive, the presence of the Obama children would be disruptive to a public classroom that in all likelihood would already be short of resources.
chriswoodward on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 06:44 AM
There is one huge issue you are neglecting to the detriment of this post. These children are the children of the first African American President of the US. And as much as I'd like to believe my fellow Americans can and have moved past ignorance and racism, there are still people out there who have not (highlighted clearly by the two white supremacists who plotted to kill the President-Elect during the campaign). So in order to protect their two innocent children, Barack and Michelle cannot take any chances just to please you and your likeminded friends. So cut the parents a break and put yourself in their shoes. How far would you go to protect your children from psycho racists who may plot to kill not only you but your spouse and children? And now state your opinion on what they should do!
bgedit on Thursday, November 20, 2008 at 03:44 PM
There's something I don't get here. Are you all saying that the US Secret Service can't protect the Obama kids at a public school? (The additional resources for that would NOT come from the DC schools but from the federal government, which pays for ALL security costs and needs to protect the president and his family.) Are you saying that EVERY DC public school must by nature by filled with more violent and dangerous people than the private schools? That somehow public school teachers and staff can't be trusted and the private folks can?
SOrry, I don't buy it.
The Obamas have every right to decide on their own kids education. But when you're president, your decisions have importance that goes beyond your own family. I think they should at least give public schools a chance.
An remember: The Obama kids are going to grow up in a bubble, surrounded by fawners, fans and high security. Should they also go to school with only the kids of the rich and famous -- or should they have a chance to have a fuller childhood?
It's not my choice, of course, but again: He's the president. His actions matter.
SOrry, I don't buy it.
The Obamas have every right to decide on their own kids education. But when you're president, your decisions have importance that goes beyond your own family. I think they should at least give public schools a chance.
An remember: The Obama kids are going to grow up in a bubble, surrounded by fawners, fans and high security. Should they also go to school with only the kids of the rich and famous -- or should they have a chance to have a fuller childhood?
It's not my choice, of course, but again: He's the president. His actions matter.
lrclayton on Friday, November 21, 2008 at 11:20 AM
(Okay, I was so fired up by the article that I had to write...but I didn't realize this handy little forum existed so I am basically repeating what most of you said..but I am going to say it anyway)
I usually adore your editorials but...WHOAH. Last week’s Guardian was like the Negative Nancy issue. When did it become so wrong to feel happy about, and supportive of, our current politicians/politics? You’ve soured on him before he’s even stepped into office. And for what, for leaning towards a private school for the education of his daughters? Sending his children to private school while strongly supporting public schools does not have to be mutually exclusive. Your column states that the Obama’s are saying, “that there is no public school anywhere in the district good enough for their kids”, and “if you’ve got the money, you should flee for the safety of private academies.” Um, I am pretty sure you are the one saying that, not them. We can’t begin to imagine the logistics that play into this very personal decision. There is safety (remember, not everywhere is San Francisco and there are actually places like Kentucky that hang likenesses of Obama from trees), privacy, and attempting to provide a sense of normalcy for these young girls. A public school might not be able to handle the stardom that these two girls will certainly bring with them, or provide the safety and special accommodations that they will require. With wars, a health care crisis and a failing economy, I do not actually believe this is his first test, or that he has flunked it. People, even presidents, still deserve some sense of privacy and the option of making personal decisions for their family without us sticking our noses in it to pass judgment.
I usually adore your editorials but...WHOAH. Last week’s Guardian was like the Negative Nancy issue. When did it become so wrong to feel happy about, and supportive of, our current politicians/politics? You’ve soured on him before he’s even stepped into office. And for what, for leaning towards a private school for the education of his daughters? Sending his children to private school while strongly supporting public schools does not have to be mutually exclusive. Your column states that the Obama’s are saying, “that there is no public school anywhere in the district good enough for their kids”, and “if you’ve got the money, you should flee for the safety of private academies.” Um, I am pretty sure you are the one saying that, not them. We can’t begin to imagine the logistics that play into this very personal decision. There is safety (remember, not everywhere is San Francisco and there are actually places like Kentucky that hang likenesses of Obama from trees), privacy, and attempting to provide a sense of normalcy for these young girls. A public school might not be able to handle the stardom that these two girls will certainly bring with them, or provide the safety and special accommodations that they will require. With wars, a health care crisis and a failing economy, I do not actually believe this is his first test, or that he has flunked it. People, even presidents, still deserve some sense of privacy and the option of making personal decisions for their family without us sticking our noses in it to pass judgment.
MellyG on Wednesday, November 26, 2008 at 02:12 AM
Tim, I see your point, in that Obama's actions hold extreme significance and that his dedication to the middle class and his role as a community organizer greatly contributed to his success.
With that being said, I also believe that you are holding him to an unnecessary and irrational standard in regards to the school chosen to educate Obama's daughters. I am confident that they're preference to send their daughters to private school is more of a safety issue rather than a question of quality. In no way does it seem to be a slap in the face to the middle class, or as you mentioned, peasants. Nor do I feel unformfortable for feeling indifferent with where he sends his children to school. I mean, seriously, peasants? The 'peasant' reference reeks of elitist SF stench. If the President Elect didn't want to mingle with peasants, he would have held his acceptance speech in a 5-star hotel, like John McCain, instead of the public park in which he hosted over a million willing citizens and supporters.
I have one major question for you: where do you send your children in this city? To be clear: I am an avid public school supporter, and SF public school graduate. Born and raised in this city, I know first hand what the schools are like in this city, and its no secret that they are in desperate need of a retrofit. This country is based on the idea that once you have the means to an end, you take advantage, I never got the memo that once you attain success you're not allowed to reap the benefits. When I graduated high school I dreamed of how money could buy you the finer things in life: like relief from renting or a legit education, bougie or not. I chose not to participate in the UC system simply because I didn't want to pay for it. So critisizing Obama for being able to afford a luxury like providing his children with a private school education, is a luxury many families would take advantage of if given the opportunity.
Don't you think you should be more concerned with Obama's decisions on the economy and Iraq, and less about where he sends his children to school; the question belonging in the realm of whether he wears boxers or briefs. Instead, lets criticize him on whether he buys organic produce or drives an SUV. Lets push for the first bullet proof Prius. Lets push for federal funding for public transportation, similar to that given to private automobile infrastructure. Lets encourage Obama to put money into public schools, not just his children.
Obama's success shouldn't be monitored by the livelihood of his family, I mean, lets at latest wait to see what kind of dog they get.
With that being said, I also believe that you are holding him to an unnecessary and irrational standard in regards to the school chosen to educate Obama's daughters. I am confident that they're preference to send their daughters to private school is more of a safety issue rather than a question of quality. In no way does it seem to be a slap in the face to the middle class, or as you mentioned, peasants. Nor do I feel unformfortable for feeling indifferent with where he sends his children to school. I mean, seriously, peasants? The 'peasant' reference reeks of elitist SF stench. If the President Elect didn't want to mingle with peasants, he would have held his acceptance speech in a 5-star hotel, like John McCain, instead of the public park in which he hosted over a million willing citizens and supporters.
I have one major question for you: where do you send your children in this city? To be clear: I am an avid public school supporter, and SF public school graduate. Born and raised in this city, I know first hand what the schools are like in this city, and its no secret that they are in desperate need of a retrofit. This country is based on the idea that once you have the means to an end, you take advantage, I never got the memo that once you attain success you're not allowed to reap the benefits. When I graduated high school I dreamed of how money could buy you the finer things in life: like relief from renting or a legit education, bougie or not. I chose not to participate in the UC system simply because I didn't want to pay for it. So critisizing Obama for being able to afford a luxury like providing his children with a private school education, is a luxury many families would take advantage of if given the opportunity.
Don't you think you should be more concerned with Obama's decisions on the economy and Iraq, and less about where he sends his children to school; the question belonging in the realm of whether he wears boxers or briefs. Instead, lets criticize him on whether he buys organic produce or drives an SUV. Lets push for the first bullet proof Prius. Lets push for federal funding for public transportation, similar to that given to private automobile infrastructure. Lets encourage Obama to put money into public schools, not just his children.
Obama's success shouldn't be monitored by the livelihood of his family, I mean, lets at latest wait to see what kind of dog they get.
hyperj0 on Thursday, November 27, 2008 at 06:26 PM
bgedit, are you deliberately misreading what people are writing, ignoring what people are writing, or are you really so cognitively impaired that you don't understand what people are writing? I did not say that the attendees of DC public schools are more violent than others, nor did anyone else. I certainly haven't looked at the statistics of violence at DC schools and you don't seem to have either. You are making -assumptions-. You are making a judgment based on your own preconceived notions and no understanding of the issues involved. In short, you are uninformed.
Contrary to what you seem to believe we are saying, other people and I have pointed out that threats would come from individuals -outside- of the school who would love to exploit or harm or kill the children of the first black president of the US. You think the Obamas should make a choice based on your uninformed idea of symbolic importance?
As a parent, I would not want the president's children at my public school. If you can't see how their attendance would be socially and academically disruptive to the other children of the school, then I don't know what to say to get through to you.
I'll stop replying because you barely have a grasp of the fundamentals of writing, let alone any skill in persuasive writing. With rhetoric like "I'm sorry" and "seriously" and OMG I AM SO APPALLED, you may as well have written in LOLcats. O hai, can u shud haz prezs kids in ur skul, disruptin ur lif. kthnksbai.
Contrary to what you seem to believe we are saying, other people and I have pointed out that threats would come from individuals -outside- of the school who would love to exploit or harm or kill the children of the first black president of the US. You think the Obamas should make a choice based on your uninformed idea of symbolic importance?
As a parent, I would not want the president's children at my public school. If you can't see how their attendance would be socially and academically disruptive to the other children of the school, then I don't know what to say to get through to you.
I'll stop replying because you barely have a grasp of the fundamentals of writing, let alone any skill in persuasive writing. With rhetoric like "I'm sorry" and "seriously" and OMG I AM SO APPALLED, you may as well have written in LOLcats. O hai, can u shud haz prezs kids in ur skul, disruptin ur lif. kthnksbai.
Comment on: Editor's Notes
In order to comment on an article, you must Log In.
More in NEWS & CULTURE >>
