General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWhere do Michelle Rhee's children go to school? Glad you asked....
HARPETH HALL, Nashville TN.
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/01/14/14051/
What? Not a charter school staffed by Teach for America temps? TFA temps = the best teachers in the country, according to Rhee.
Harpeth Hall School is an all-girls private college preparatory school for grades 5-12 in Nashville, Tennessee. Tuition = $21K. Students: 650
Our Mission: To teach girls to think critically, to lead confidently, and to live honorably.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harpeth_Hall_School
Look what Harpeth Hall's got:
http://www.harpethhall.org/podium/default.aspx?t=151749
One thing Harpeth doesn't have, though, is many black girls. Judging from the photos, even though Nashville public schools are half black:
http://www.harpethhall.org/
And, astonishingly, not a single mention of the all the reformy stuff Michelle thinks is so very very important for other people's children -- you know, important stuff like continual standardized testing, teacher evaluations, 'no excuses' discipline, accountability, humiliating teachers in the newspapers by falsely calling them perverts, duct tape --
All the stuff Michelle pushed in DC while she decimated the experienced teaching staff, broke up schools and cut programs. What gives?
It's almost like -- correct me if I'm wrong, but it's almost like her actions say OUR KIDS need one thing, but HERS need another.
Almost like she thinks OUR KIDS are different from hers. Stupider, or more criminal, or less creative, or less deserving or something.
It's almost like she doesn't want our kids to have all the nice arts and drama and music and sports programs and small classrooms and experienced teachers hers have.
I mean, really, correct me if I'm wrong, but that's what it kinda looks like...
And I wonder why Rhee is so vague about where, exactly, her girls go to school in this interview with Nashville's "City Paper"?:
What I will say is that I am a public school parent, and, you know, because of that I think that all of these things, again, have a different impact.
I’m just wondering do your kids go to a traditional public school or a charter school?
I would rather … I keep my comments to I’m a public school parent.
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/michelle-rhee-talks-charters-vouchers-and-getting-reprieve-school-boards
What Michelle is trying to say is that when she lived in DC, her girls went to a top-rated public elementary school in DC with other sons & daughters of DC's elites. So, she's a 'public school parent'.
Just not in Nashville. Which happens to be where her girls attend school now. But once a public school parent, always a public school parent, I guess.
Rhee's girls are in Nashville to be near their father, Kevin Huffman, from whom Rhee is divorced. Huffman is (surprise, surprise) the Commissioner of the Tennessee State Department of Education, an education deformer and former TFA-er!
From TFA, he jumped into law school, then became a lawyer for -- wait for it -- TEACH FOR AMERICA!!! And now he's Tennessee's state Education Commissioner!! How do these people do it??? They must be really really fucking fucking smart. No wonder they need different kinds of schools for their kids, because their kids are probably really really fucking fucking smart too.
Tell me, how do I get a gig like that? I mean, where I graduate from college with an English degree, teach for -- what was it Kevin, 3 months or 6 months or something like that? -- get a law degree & jump into senior management at the place where you were formerly a mere peon teacher temp -- and from there go on to run an entire state education department?
Is it the Swathmore English degree that assures this kind of career trajectory, do you have to grease some palms, or does somebody else do the greasing? You & your ex Michelle, same quick rise from temping to running the show.
How does that work? Do you have a connected relative? Or is it just that you were better at brown-nosing and back-stabbing than the rest of your TFA class and so caught the attention of the sociopath billionaires funding education deform?
Tell me the secret, Kev. How did a Whitey McWhitebread Swathmore English grad whose only experience in education is working as a TFA temp & litigating for Teach for America come to be running the mostly black & minority Tennessee public schools without some palms getting greased somewhere?
Kev is currently pushing through a raft of reformy, "cutting edge" (he calls it) stuff in Tennessee, like --
Teacher report cards!!!
New teacher accreditation organizations!!
A state-level version of Teach for America!!!
A teacher 'supply & demand' study!!!
Online schooling!!!
The largest student-and teacher-level database ever assembled!!!!
http://www.tn.gov/firsttothetop/programs.html
Woohoo, can you feel the excitement?
More cutting edge -- they're taking over all the 'bad' schools statewide!!
Tennessee created the “Achievement School District” and put charter founder Chris Barbic in charge. Barbic, a graduate of the unaccredited Broad Superintendents Academy, has promised to take the schools scoring in the bottom 5% and put them in the state’s top 25% in five years. He has the authority to take control of low-performing schools to turn them around.
http://dianeravitch.net/2013/01/14/memphis-families-outraged-by-school-takeover/
Other cool 'cutting edge' stuff Kev's got going:
- Withholding state education funding from Nashville because they voted against (4 times) the McCharter school (Arizona corporation)/segregation academy Kev wanted to bring into the city:
http://dianeravitch.net/2012/10/27/kevin-huffman-knows-exactly-what-hes-doing/
http://nashvillecitypaper.com/content/city-news/great-hearts-how-charter-operator-lost-political-fallout-and-what-happens-now
Well, I guess that's enough about this divorced power couple.
So to close, please join me in the Harpeth Hall Alma Mater:
Our voices ring with happiness,
Our hearts are filled with pride,
As here each girl finds for herself
The joys that will abide.
So light of heart and free, we pledge
Allegiance through the years.
And of thy destiny so fair
Proud privilege to sing!
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
xchrom
(108,903 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)decided to make the decisions it did.
jehop61
(1,735 posts)A discussion of the children of national figures does NOT belong here. As the old song said, "leave the kids alone".
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)now enhanced system she claims is so wonderful? If she believes her own claims, then to deprive one of her own children of what she is attempting to force on everyone else, is reprehensible.
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)People making policy the consequences of which do not pertain to them personally.
Nothing could be MORE pertinent, in fact.
And, oy. Spare us the crocodile tears. The kids aren't following DU.
Jeeeeeesus.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)pertain to her personally. See why bringing the kids into it isn't very useful?
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Which it is.
As is her OWN educational background: private prep school, exclusively.
As is her ex-husband's position in the Tennessee school bureaucracy.
Without more detail.... which Ms Rhee is evidently loathe to provide ( see OP).... we can only speculate as to what "kind" of ps the second daughter attends. And why.
I have a strong feeling that it bears little resemblance to a "typical" Nashville ps.
hatrack
(64,168 posts)nt
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)should be honest about what type of school (the name of the school isnt necessary) she sends her children. She is a hypocrite.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)stance, why dont you say so with a statement instead of asking the question?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)is 1) disgusting, and 2) stupid, because Ms. Rhee can easily point to her kid in public school. You don't win over people by attacking kids....it never works.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the real issue here. Funny you care more about her two children and have nothing at all to say about all the others who most definitely are brought into these discussions, especially by Rhee herself.
Her children and everyone else's ARE a part of this discussion and should be. Why, eg, is she denying her own children the incredible benefits of the programs she claims are so good for everyone else's? How awful of her to do that to any child. She absolutely needs to answer these questions. In fact I hope to get the chance to ask her along with all the others who I'm sure will be looking for her to respond.
People in public office who refuse to answer legitimate questions generally have something to hide. If they are taking public money, they have no right to refuse to respond to questions from the public. If she doesn't like it, then let her quit, that would be just great for the rest of America's children.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Facts are good.
kcass1954
(1,819 posts)And like any good lobbyist, she's convinced them that she knows what's best.
HelenWheels
(2,284 posts)When talking about schooling of course children enter into it. Especially if those children belong to a person who preaches a damaging policy like Rhee.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the other?
We have no idea why one is in private school. It's a personal, family decision.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)If the post said, "her kids got suspended for smoking cigars, or
pulling a fake fire alarm, or dipping pigtails in ink wells...."
...That would be bringing the kids in to the fight.
This isn't remotely that. It's entirely appropriate for the discussion of
the educational mantra's she (and hubby) preach to others, and the
educational philosophy that's followed at the school.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)The article does say it's the older one who's enrolled.
You really think as parents they're planning to give
one daughter a second-rate education?
Talk about setting up a sibling rivalry.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)has no private schools that teach Grade 4 and below?
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)Public education can (and should be!) terrific.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)whatever point you want to make about Michelle Rhee's policies is obscured by the points you are trying to score about her daughters.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)5 through 12.
And the real comparison shouldn't be between extremely pricey private schools and public education,
but what funding favoritism for charter and voucher and other "accessible" private schools does to
public education.
That's the whole point.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)question--note that if you make Michelle Rhee's kids the focus of your OP, you never get to the question?
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)What, exactly, is the question that's never broached?
A 1 to 8 teacher to pupil ratio is something any parent that could afford it would want for their kids.
Like, D'uh.
13 to 1 median class size is pretty impressive, too.
But the point of the O.P. is that a school that teaches and emphasizes "critical thinking," leadership and moral honesty would not be the first place you'd expect to find the children of these two particular parents. Because none of those values or skills are emphasized in T.F.A. teach-to-the-test/Learn-Your-Place-You-Future-Serf/Drone schools, that those two have built a career on shilling for.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)And since she does, and has made it clear, why won't she answer a very simple question?
Her feeble attempts to avoid answering only make it more important to find out what she is hiding.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Orrex
(66,590 posts)But you cry foul when others speculate as to why she has another child in an elite and private college prep school?
I wonder where you come by your information, since you've based much of your argument on your unfounded assumption that one of her children has special needs.
You are further arguing (fallaciously, by the way) that Rhee must have no problem with public schools because one of her children is currently enrolled in public school. Why is it ok for you to invoke her children for the sake of your argument while you demand that others leave her children out of it?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)and one was in private. Diane Ravitch decided to post the name of the private school, and also allow the child's name to be used on her website.
And look, I'd rather leave the kids out of it. But if you are going to use them as political tools, at least get the facts right.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)Do you now abandon that baseless assumption and the portion of your argument that depended upon it?
If so, then I'll stop questioning you about it. If not, then I must ask again how you came by that assumption.
In addition, we should reiterate that Rhee herself brought everyone's kids into it, using them for political ends. It is therefore entirely consistent to take her to task for her hypocrisy.
Also, here's a rhetorical note: you are welcome to repeat the same question(s) in multiple posts, but I'm not likely to address them in each response. That doesn't signify acquiesence on this point; it simply means that I don't care to repeat a point already made.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Orrex
(66,590 posts)Many of your early posts in this thread were structured as "maybe her child is in private school because of special needs" (paraphrased). If that was not your intent, and/or if you feel that I misread your intent, then I apologize and withdraw that objection.
I understand that your own child has special needs, and I take no issue with that whatsoever, except to say that I pity anyone who crosses you in terms of your child!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)But I don't think she has to give any reason whatsoever. When you have children some decisions are private. And sometimes you have to make very painful decisions based on their needs. We don't know what's happening in that family.
I think when you start involving the minor children of your political opponents you run the risk of alienatinating moderates. And the teachers unions need the support of moderates.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)she said when asked where they are in shcool:
You mention your kids, are they attending public school?
What I will say is that I am a public school parent, and, you know, because of that I think that all of these things, again, have a different impact.
I’m just wondering do your kids go to a traditional public school or a charter school?
I would rather … I keep my comments to I’m a public school parent.
It was a simple question, 'one of them is in PS' is not what she said. She did say she once had them in PS, BEFORE she moved.
Can you point to where she stated that one of them is in PS?
And children, EVERYONE'S children IS the issue she raises, except her own I guess. When she leaves everyone else's children out of it, which I can assure you, most parents who have had the misfortune to run into her through their own children, would very much like her to do, then she can avoid any discussion of where her own children attend school. Isn't that what she is doing, deciding where everyone else's children should go to school, ignoring the wishes of those parents, assuming she has the right to discuss THEIR children?
She is not special, entitled to keep where her children attend school private, while she runs around the country discussing where everyone else's children should be. Why are not as concerned about all the other children being dragged into this battle over money?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)She is a hypocrite and nothing more than another right winger profiting from public funds and pretending that she is 'just concerned about the children'.
I love Ravitch's Blog btw, as do most Democrats I know. Why would you assume that any Democrat interesting in preserving the Public Schools would not have read Ravitch's Blog? It is required reading for Democrats.
Dorian Gray
(13,845 posts)I did well and thrived with our public education. He had a slew of learning disabilities and suffered through bad grades until he was sent to a place with smaller classrooms and more one on one instruction that actually focused on those disabilities.
I ended up graduating from a four year college while studying for a further degree. He did not.
There are many valid reasons for sending siblings to different schools.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)From the interview where she avoided the question:
What I will say is that I am a public school parent, and, you know, because of that I think that all of these things, again, have a different impact.
I’m just wondering do your kids go to a traditional public school or a charter school?
I would rather … I keep my comments to I’m a public school parent.
So where did you get the information that one of them is still in PS, and what PS would that be? In Tenn, in DC where they were fortunate enough to live in a very wealthy district, or is one in DC and the other in Tenn? I can't seem to find the information you are claiming to have and she seems very reluctant to provide it herself.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,361 posts)Shame on you.
But but that's different!!!
5
4
3
2
1
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)accurate if you are going to bring them in.
One might wonder why the OP didn't mention that only one kid went to private.
Hassin Bin Sober
(27,361 posts)Shame!!!!!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Hassin Bin Sober
(27,361 posts)And leave him out of this!!!! He is a minor!!!!! 
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)The Swarthmore English major, ex-T.F.A. drone who's now rather highly placed?
Haven't heard you mention that much more germane "family angle."
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was in a private school. Assumptions based on nothing that has been stated by anyone close to the child.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)No dragging in is required, it is the subject. If Ms Rhee is not doing herself what she advises others to do, that is VERY relevant.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)given her a trump card to make the argument that she likes public schools, but they aren't for every kid--thus, she has one kid in public, and one in private.
And, when you attack a mother in a political fight, you will always lose. Always.
bemildred
(90,061 posts)I don't care a fig about her myself, but what she does is relevant to what she says, and she says a lot in this area, so I'm not buying the pity-party for Ms Rhee.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)focusing on her motherhood--why not focus on her policies?
bemildred
(90,061 posts)If you don't understand that, I have no intention of trying to "explain" it to you.
emsimon33
(3,128 posts)in this case, it is appropriate as the children are not discussed as individuals but as examples of what Rhee wants for her children--what is best--but what is advocates is best for everyonelse's children (at least those children of the 98%).
If her reforms and those of her husband are so great, shouldn't they subject their own children to them by sending them to the neighborhood public school. Also, her children as a concept are fair game here because she refers to herself as a public school parent, which she is not!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
freshwest
(53,661 posts)For the record, I hate privatization of all kinds and especially in education. The public schools handle all kids, regardless of income or ability. Truth be told, having been through public schools myself that were more than adequate to prepare me for life after school, I still did not want my offspring in them if I could afford it.
Several reasons. Blatant discrimination at the time I went, against women and minorities. This was long time ago, but it was clearly better than the stories we hear today, which are horrible.
Another reason I swore I would keep mine out of public school, was the abuse of students, both physical and emotional. A fully able student learns to deal with such troubles and escape the authoritarian and at times sadistic attitude of some teachers. There were great teachers and there were beasts in my time in public schools.
I sought private pre-school and other sources when I became a parent, but my offspring didn't fit their model. So I went to the public system and learned how to deal with the bureaucracy. Problems did arise of the same sort I wanted to avoid but had no choice by that time.
But the school district I finally settled in was a god send. I couldn't have asked for more dedicated and selfless individuals as time went on. They will always have my gratitude, love and support. I count them as lifesavers to many parents and they taught me a lot about community.
Many people, and I have never been one of them, attended religious based schools. To me, this is an odd thing, but here at DU I've learned they are as good of Democrats as any and I always believed that there are solid, dependable teachers in unions and public school workers. I admit I am not and have never been, cut out for that work.
What has been done to these teachers is an absolute crime, as well as what is being done to the students. I see a terrible future in store for children in many charters and the remaining starved public schools.
I'm not sure how this happened, other than RW propaganda has won. If DU is any sample, few Democrats are interested in actually doing the work on the ground to keep public schools vibrant and part of communities.
The sickening misrepresentations of the missions of the public schools has been unrelenting and extreme, and done by those who mean no good. But at the base of some who are allowing this to happen are those who for reasons of economics in their own lives, funding being cut from schools repeatedly, and those higher up in public and private not being responsive, have been hurt.
No one will get their support by savaging a parent who has a child in private school. This OP is making it personal and not about policy and it doesn't help.
JMHO.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Sid
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Didn't fit the narrative, I guess.
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)You should be ashamed of throwing out personal attacks like that.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2013, 10:02 PM - Edit history (2)
Tell 'em to stay away from topics like Baltimore and North Korea.
Edit: fixed incredibly stupid error.
Sid
madfloridian
(88,117 posts)I wonder who else will be driven away because of the scorn of a few? You bring up a sad history of those who are missed here.
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)
Sid
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)
SidDithers
(44,333 posts)It was North Korea!!
Damn. I hate it when that happens. 
Gotta go fix the post. Thanks for the correction.
Sid
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)telling other people what is best for their children
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to give to big corporations, many of them foreign, to turn the educational system meant for children into businesses for profiteers like these two, who know zero about education or children as has been demonstrated clearly by now, most definitely makes it relevant to find out just how much confidence these 'public school parents' have in what they are pushing for America's 'other' children by asking them if they are allowing their own children to benefit from these 'great' programs for which they are stealing public funds.
What utter nonsense to claim that they have any right to hide the fact that they apparently have so little confidence in what they are selling for less wealthy children, for minority children, for poor children is beyond ludicrous.
In fact I am glad to see this raised and I hope the each one of these anti-Public School advocates who somehow managed to profit from tax payer funding for schools, will be required to explain why they have no confidence at all in the system they have been lying about for the past number of years.
We need to find out how many of these profiteers are keeping their own children out of the schools they claim are so wonderful.
This is not only appropriate, it is necessary. I want to know eg, where Rahm's children go to school, and all the others' involved in the theft of Public School funds and also how much are THEY making from selling out our schools and the children who depend on them.
Interesting how protective you are of these few children. Anything to say about the rest of the children these people have so damaged?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I'm not really suprised that the farthest left (Diane Ravitch) and the farthest right agree on strategy.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Ravitch is brilliant, an actual educator. Amazing to see this attack on her here. Speaking of the 'far right' they too absolutely hate her and also refer to her as the 'far left' as if that was something derogatory in a country where 'far left' means means supporting SS and the Public School System.
I'm proud to be on the 'far left' who are the only hope of saving these Democratic programs in this country.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Mentioning her name to a right winger is like waving a red flag at a bull.
But then she's a Democrat, an Educator who actually understands how children learn. So it's understandable why the Far Right would hate her so much. I'm sure she, and I and any other Democrat wear that hatred from the Right as a badge of honor.
You haven't said why you do not like Ravitch, what you disagree with here about.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)That's a low blow.
Are we consistent on this issue (outing the children of political opponents) or were those crocodile tears earlier when the far right did it?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Are you sure you understand the issue here or were referring to something else?
We are talking about an advocate of destroying the Public Schools claiming her ideas for the education of our children (see it was Rhee who dragged children into this policital game she's playing on behalf of big corporations) are so good everyone should be thrilled with them. She was asked a legitimate question considering how she claims to know what is good for ALL of our children.
The question was not answered by her. She appears to believe that she is 'different/better than' the lesser people for whom SHE believes she has the right to make decisions for, that would be OUR children.
She apparently does NOT have the confidence in the system she is pushing for our children, for HER children. That is significant information for parents to have. If she feels HER system is not good enough for HER children, considering the power she has been given over OUR children, we need to know that, don't we? Her hypocrisy is what was outed, and it appears she has some passionate defenders here sadly, who are themselves USING children to try to defend her.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I get the hypocrisy angle. It's delicious. Normally I go for that jugular in an instant.
But this is identifying where her kid goes. (one of them, anyway)
Unless she shared that info publicly herself, that is not valid material. One can show the invalidity of her position without dragging her kids personally into it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Instead she tried to be clever. This is what she was asked and how she responded:
What I will say is that I am a public school parent, and, you know, because of that I think that all of these things, again, have a different impact.
I’m just wondering do your kids go to a traditional public school or a charter school?
I would rather … I keep my comments to I’m a public school parent.
No one asked her to reveal what specific schools they were in. It was a simple question and the simple answer did not require her to reveal any personal information, just answer the question which was ' what kind of schools she chose for them' was it in line with what she advocates for other people's children. The kind she wants the rest of us to choose, or not.
She is a disgrace and should not be allowed anywhere near our educational system and least of all, the public funds she has so profited from.
Someone in this thread has clearly been trying to deflect from the actual facts, using children to do so. I find that reprehensible and odd considering this is a Democratic forum where we tend to want to protect the Public Schools, not defend those who are trying to destroy them.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)It was not necessary to out the specific school. It is enough to state 'she has two kids, one goes to private school, one to public'.
That's all it had to be. Instead... we got this. Which is materially identical to what the NRA did to the children of the POTUS. For which many of us were justifiably outraged.
It's 'not cool man'.
Again, I get that the hypocrisy factor is delicious, practically hypocrisy overload... But that's the same point the shitheads at the NRA were trying to make. When our tactics start resembling theirs, something has likely gone haywire.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)was. The person who started this deflection has failed, because everyone knows that no one asked Rhee to reveal the schools her children attended, they asked a questions that should be asked of everyone who advocates for Bush's failed education program but rejects it for their own children.
This old tactic of trying to appeal to emotions, using children as was done in this thread, just doesn't work.
Rhee is a hypocrite, a profiteer from the funds meant for the education of OUR children, whose schools no one worries about naming. And thankfully we have intelligent people on our side, like Ravitch, who actually IS an educator, to expose Rhee for what she is.
I am very familiar with Right Wing, Corporate paid for tactics. I recognize them when I see them. Thankfully so do a majority of Demcorats on this board.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)I didn't say she was asked that question. Somehow this data has been 'outed' by that article, and probably other sources. Not by Rhee. THAT is precisely what I said was 'not cool'. I don't give a RIP what she was asked, and in no way suggested she WAS asked for the school name. If Rhee ventured it, fair game. She didn't. Ravitch didn't need to name the school to make this point.
Nor have I made any appeal to emotion. I expect logical consistency in argumentation, and today, it is lacking from 'our side'. Either we are writing a complete blank check to people like the NRA, using kids in this manner for political hay, or we rightly objected to it then, and should object to it now.
Identifying the school was not necessary to out Rhee as a hypocrite.
And you can't fucking tell me msanthrope is a right wing shill, or somehow suckered in with paid for right wing rhetoric. Not a chance.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Call it demonstrating by example one's own behavior.
As for strawmen, your last sentence qualifies as a strawman. Unless you are mistaking me for someone else.
Rhee is a right wing shill, she is a public figure which was her decision. She chose to set out to try to destroy the PS System and to lecture millions of parents, a large % of them poor and/or minorities. They have told her to basically mind her own business when it comes to THEIR children. She arrogantly refuses to leave their children out of her ignorant rhetoric about education.
She chose to be interviewed, she knows, I presume that when you grant an interview it is going to be available to the public. The interviewer asked her a very legitimate question. She attempt to worm out of it. She was NOT asked for private information, she was asked a generic question and thoroughly exposed herself as the hypocrite she is.
She is in this for the money and has enriched herself with tax dollars that should be used for the education of everyone else's children.
It's absurd to see the attempt, failed as anyone can see by this thread, to try to defend and protect her. It is her victims, PS children who need protection, so forgive all of us if we are not buying the weak attempt to distract from the harm this woman has done and her blatant hypocrisy.
Good leaders with good ideas lead by example. That someone like Rhee is in any way involved in the education of OUR children is nothing less than tragic in what it says about this country.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)"And you can't fucking tell me msanthrope is a right wing shill, or somehow suckered in with paid for right wing rhetoric. Not a chance."
"As for strawmen, your last sentence qualifies as a strawman. Unless you are mistaking me for someone else."
sabrina 1
Mon Mar 11, 2013, 06:00 PM
"I am very familiar with Right Wing, Corporate paid for tactics. I recognize them when I see them. Thankfully so do a majority of Demcorats on this board."
If you meant Rhee's tactics, this was highly ambiguous, and I misunderstood you. It doesn't make sense in that context. If you meant msanthrope's 'tactics', whether intentional, or suckered/confusion (best leverage of that sort of tactic is to convince a middle-man on the 'other side' that cannot be mistaken as a troll to take the rhetoric and run with it, believing it to be their own, or in their own interest) the statement at least makes sense in this context, but makes it an accusation against msanthrope, whether intentional or unintentional on ms's part.
It appeared to me that you were criticizing msanthrope with that line. Yes/no?
Rhee's tactics are obvious and easy to dispel. It does not require knowledge of the actual private school to do so. Was the NRA wrong to put the President's children and school 'in play' as a political issue or not? If you feel 'not wrong', then I guess you are at least consistent. I don't believe EITHER should be 'in play' politically, even though Rhee's right wing school-breaking tactics are directly relevant to the question of where her children go to school. The question was ducked. Don't need to know which school to correct that lie of omission.
sulphurdunn
(6,891 posts)into a political fight. No demographic data other than where they attend school was noted, and that only as irony considering what their mother does for a living and the double standard she applies to the "lesser orders" as an education reform grifter of the first order. The post was about Her Majesty and her pampered, reptilian ex-consort, not their unfortunate children.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)while she works to destroy free education, which most kids have to use, she has hers set up just fine. To hell with her elitist ass.
Alcibiades
(5,061 posts)They are paid for by property taxes, which fall disproportionately on renters, since the rates are usually higher for rental properties than owner-occupied homes.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)Especially Punahou.
It's very typical here.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)duffyduff
(3,251 posts)That's a lot of teachers sending their kids to private schools.
It's bullshit, of course.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)in the stats, people like Arne Duncan.
Then they use rhetorical fog to elide the difference between teachers and administrators, as dkf has also done here (you note that the only 'teachers' she mentions by name are actually top administrators).
There are certainly teachers who send their kids to private schools. They are not the typical case.
What a silly post.
How can a public school teacher in the states afford to send their kids to a private school.
Again---weird post.
dkf
(37,305 posts)Answer: The only figures we've seen reported were released in 1995 in "Where Connoisseurs Send Their Children to School," by Denis P. Doyle. That report, based on 1990 U.S. Census data, showed about 45 percent of public school teachers in Honolulu sent their children to private schools, compared to 31 percent of the general Honolulu population.
http://archives.starbulletin.com/2001/10/10/news/kokualine.html
Nearly one-fifth of students in Hawaii attend private schools, a figure significantly higher than the national average.
One of the more controversial aspects of the disproportionate use of private schools is how many legislators and other public education decision-makers have removed their children from the public schools.
A KITV4 survey earlier this year revealed half of Hawaii's policymakers send their children to private schools, and that "nearly two-thirds of state lawmakers never had a child enrolled in the public school system they oversee."
Yamauchi said many public school teachers and principals also send their children to private schools.
http://www.civilbeat.com/articles/2010/10/04/4031-the-impact-of-private-schools-on-public-education/
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)based on 1990 census data.
http://heartland.org/policy-documents/where-connoisseurs-send-their-children-school
man, that's a pretty obscure reference. i wonder how you happened to put your finger on it.
still waiting for the 'source' for your claim 'especially punahou'.
dkf
(37,305 posts)I also had several teachers who sent their kids to Punahou and both our current Superintendent and BOE chair sent their kids to Iolani, Punahou's main rival.
http://www.honolulumagazine.com/Honolulu-Magazine/May-2012/Hawaii-Education-Q-A-with-Don-Horner-and-Kathryn-Matayoshi/
trumad
(41,692 posts)I have a family of school teachers who in no way can afford to send their kids to very expensive private schools.
dkf
(37,305 posts)But you don't need to be rich by yourself to do it all. My best friend from Elementary school sends her three kids to Punahou. They can do that because they are living in a relative's house for either a very reasonable amount or possibly even rent free. Her husband went to Punahou because his grandfather paid for it.
My uncle paid for my cousin to go to private school as her parents couldn't afford it.
We have a heavy Asian influence here that believes very strongly in education.
trumad
(41,692 posts)and we all believe in a public education because we all come from a public education.
Are you trying to tell me that your family is better educated than mine because they went to a private school?
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)So teachers aren't going to be any more inclined to send their kids to hoity-toity private schools which aren't better than public.
You need to talk about things you have some knowledge of, and education and Social Security are not it.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)I live out west, where public school enrollment is even higher.
I knew plenty of private school teachers who did it because they got reduced or free tuition.
onpatrol98
(1,989 posts)My husband teaches in a public school. We sent 3 to public and 1 to private. People send kids to different schools for different reasons. Rhee may be horrible for public schools, but, I don't give a care where she sends her kids to school. I have a friend now who has a child in both. The tuition is painful for her, but her son was thriving in the same school that her daughter was suffering in. Now, both are succeeding in different schools. She went from failing to honor roll. The change was astounding. Her problem was social, being bullied, fights, etc.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)dkf
(37,305 posts)And you know numerous teachers who sent their kids to private school and you hear from people in the DoE say the same thing it becomes pretty obvious.
From what I hear it isn't the Teachers they are getting their kids away from, it's the other kids.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Not only that, but the entire state of Hawaii IS a school district, so dkf's assertion is a lie on its face.
That's your source?
Try harder.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Got news for you: The truth is public school teachers are MORE likely to send their kids to public schools than private schools.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Since Hawai'i teachers are paid well, relative to the dominant industry of tourism, it stands to reason that more of them would be able to afford private school.
Hawai'i had absolutely no tradition of public education before the overthrow of the monarchy and subsequent annexation by the U.S. And for generations afterward, the elite made it very clear that the public schools were to be good, but not too good, lest their graduates someday compete for power. This pattern persisted until well after World War II.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)That's why the only names of 'teachers' with kids in public schools dkf can come up with are the top education administrators in hawaii.
I'm sure some teachers *do* send their kids to private schools.
Most don't, even from dkf's bogus "Heartland Propaganda Shack" stats.
And those who do aren't the ones forcing policies on everyone's kids that are diametrically opposed to the policies they want for their own kids.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)No one understands better than teachers that the most important thing you can do for your kids is secure the best possible education for them. They also know that when it comes to admission to the top ranked colleges/universities, that students from well-ranked private schools have an historic advantage. (They're called "prep" schools for a reason.) That advantage carries through to post grad admissions to medical schools, law schools, MBA programs, etc. and eventually to job opportunities. That is, a graduate from an Ivy, or top public university like UVA is far more likely to go the head of the line for admissions to post-grad programs, as well as employment interviews.
When I was a grad student at a public university (Pitt), I did my master's thesis on the impact of McCarthyism on academic freedom at American colleges and universities. As I studied the American university system, I learned about the different levels of universities/colleges and how they are regarded by employers, and how strong & influential their alumni networks were. I couldn't afford private prep school for my kids, but I moved into one the country's top-ranked public school systems. At the time my kids went there, it was one of the top ten in the country, which brought it up to the level of top prep schools, in the eyes of college admissions offices. Subsequently, my kids were admitted to and earned 2 or 3 degrees (with honors) each from Columbia, Yale, Stanford and George Washington University. There were a lot of student/parent loans, and student work assignments - but they each got excellent educations, well-paying summer job opportunities, internships with prestigious organizations (National Audubon Society, US Congress, White House Fellow, etc.) and well-paying professional jobs, even in the current dismal job market.
Reason Two:
Very few teachers have the option of choosing to be employed by/live in one of those top public school districts which can compete with private/prep schools in terms of student/teacher ratio, large number of AP classes, less "security" issues, better facilities/IT equipment, excellent athletic facilities, etc. If I'm teaching in a "needs improvement" or even an average-but-not-outstanding public school system, I'm sure as hell looking for a good private school which offers financial aid (most of them do) for my kids.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Public school teachers cannot afford to send their kids to private school... PERIOD!
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Last edited Mon Mar 11, 2013, 09:24 AM - Edit history (1)
You know, Trumad, I've generally enjoyed your posts for many years on DU, but you do seem totally closed to considering another perspective on this topic.
Parents have different value systems - particularly those who have no knowledge of or personal experience with the impact of having a degree from a prestigious school. Teachers are parents who DO understand it. I'm a single parent who sacrificed a lot financially to help my kids with their college costs. At one point I was working 3 jobs. I believe some parents just don't understand what a lifelong impact the quality of one's education has upon lifetime earnings, job satisfaction, overall quality of life, when they tell their kids to lower their ambitions - "State college was good enough for me and it's good enough for you, by God!" Or even, "Yeah, our state university (local branch) is better than that snooty Harvard." It is NOT better. If a family is already making a sacrifice to afford state university, that's fine. But don't kid yourself that the education is just as good there.
Just a few weeks ago, I was discussing this with a new acquaintance, who happens to be a retired special ed teacher. She has a nephew with a master's in engineering from MIT. He showed up at a major corporation for the first round of interviews. There were over 20 candidates in a waiting room - most of whom had degrees from Penn State. The corporate representative came in, looked around and said, "Who's the guy with the MIT degree?" The young man replied, "Me". And she took him in to be interviewed ahead of all the rest. (And this was years before the Jerry Sandusky outrage.)
trumad
(41,692 posts)Show the percentage?
Divernan
(15,480 posts)My research shows this is a popular question for conservative think tanks - probably because they have a winner on this topic. I would welcome any studies refuting these numbers, should you provide them (rather than your own opinion). I would think that the teachers' unions would have challenged these findings, if they could. So yes, this is a quote from the Washington Times, referring to a study by a conservative think tank. I repeat, can you come up with any studies to refute these percentages? Have at it!
Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children, the study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found. More than 1 in 5 public school teachers said their children attend private schools.
In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.
In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.
Michael Pons, spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study’s findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/#ixzz2NFCYsapg
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Nationally, public school teachers are MORE likely to send their kids to public schools than private schools.
Private schools are NOT better than public schools.
Response to Divernan (Reply #113)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)up to recently, a Moonie owned publication started in order to promote far right wing ideas.
However, so what if a few PS send their children to private schools?
What is in question here is why someone who has profited greatly from trying to destroy the PS by turning them over to private business, claiming that these private businesses are doing a better job of education children, doesn't send her own children to these marvelous, educational institutions she is pushing for everyone else.
This isn't about teachers, it is about Rhee, a hypocrite, an enemy of the PS and totally unqualified for any job related to education.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Neither the National Education Association or the American Federation of Teachers, in nearly 10 years, has come up with a survey/study to challenge it. I know the general low opinion of the Washington Times and conservative think tanks. That's why I stated:
And we still have posters here referring to "hoity-toity" private schools and making the blanket statements that "private schools are not better than public schools". They admit that smaller classes/lower teacher student ratios/more science programs/better technology are all better, then turn around and say that private schools (and I'm not including those ripoff religious charter schools) which offer all those things are still not better than public schools with crowded classrooms, minimal AP courses, etc. Obviously a very touchy topic.
hughee99
(16,113 posts)I know kids can go to the private Kamehameha schools for under $4k a year.
Also, sometimes a public school teacher marries someone who ISN'T a public school teacher. Wasn't Laura Bush a public school librarian and teacher? I'm pretty sure her kids went to some swanky private schools.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)Parents make choices on how to spend their income, based upon their values and circumstances. If 2 full time teachers have only 1 or 2 kids, I think they could easily afford private school tuition. Parents have total control of the decision. Heaven knows some 14 year old kid is not going to understand the long range implications of where they go to school.
In my state, average starting salary for public school teachers is over $47,000 and average salary is over $60,000. In Hawaii, those numbers are over $45,000 and over $55,000. I submit a family with over $120,000 income can readily pay private school tuition for at least 1 kid.
http://www.teacherportal.com/teacher-salaries-by-state/
One couple I know made a choice that one of them was going to temporarily retire from their law career until their two kids were older, so that there would be a full time parent at home, because they believed that one of them would do a better, i.e., more conscientious and loving job raising their kids than some minimum wage aide in a daycare center, or an uneducated, low cost "nanny" from a 3rd world country. For them, it meant not living in a McMansion or driving luxury cars. They were fortunate they had the economic leeway for one of them to stay home - an option not available to many parents, and especially single parents.
alp227
(33,095 posts)hughee99
(16,113 posts)I guess as a public school teacher, she couldn't afford to send them to a private school. 
Though I did google it and found out that her children also went to a private middle school at about $15-20K per year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Andrew%27s_Episcopal_School_%28Texas%29
nessa
(317 posts)The same with some of the other teachers in our school.
trumad
(41,692 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)And I asked you to show me any data contradicting those stats. And you haven't.
Evidently accepting the demonstrated reality challenges your world view.
Try to focus and read:
113. DC (28%);Baltimore(35%);Phillie(44%);Chicago(41%)teachers w/kids in private schools
My research shows this is a popular question for conservative think tanks - probably because they have a winner on this topic. I would welcome any studies refuting these numbers, should you provide them (rather than your own opinion). I would think that the teachers' unions would have challenged these findings, if they could. So yes, this is a quote from the Washington Times, referring to a study by a conservative think tank. I repeat, can you come up with any studies to refute these percentages? Have at it!
Nationwide, public school teachers are almost twice as likely as other parents to choose private schools for their own children, the study by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute found. More than 1 in 5 public school teachers said their children attend private schools.
In Washington (28 percent), Baltimore (35 percent) and 16 other major cities, the figure is more than 1 in 4. In some cities, nearly half of the children of public school teachers have abandoned public schools.
In Philadelphia, 44 percent of the teachers put their children in private schools; in Cincinnati, 41 percent; Chicago, 39 percent; Rochester, N.Y., 38 percent. The same trends showed up in the San Francisco-Oakland area, where 34 percent of public school teachers chose private schools for their children; 33 percent in New York City and New Jersey suburbs; and 29 percent in Milwaukee and New Orleans.
Michael Pons, spokesman for the National Education Association, the 2.7-million-member public school union, declined a request for comment on the study’s findings. The American Federation of Teachers also declined to comment.
Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/sep/22/20040922-122847-5968r/#ixzz2NFCYsapg
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)who sent their kids to private schools or to charters.
However, I knew of plenty of PRIVATE school teachers who sent their kids to private schools because they got reduced or no tuition.
I am SICK of lies being spewed about public school teachers not sending their own kids to public schools. It is a LIE.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)If you're going to call long time DUers liars, the least you could do is come up with a link to some study supporting your insult.
Response to nessa (Reply #114)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)many private schools there, especially the numerous church-run ones, do not charge astronomical tuition. And even those that do offer scholarships, like Punahou did to "Barry" Obama P'79.
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)A lot of the posts on this thread seem to focus on denying that private education is, on the whole, better than public education. And that is a losing argument given the criteria by which quality of education is measured - such as class size, performance on SATs, number of AP classes, offering classes in the arts and music, etc.
I hear a lot about teachers unions battling over salaries and perks - never see them raising hell about bringing public school performance up to the level of private school performance. Do they go on strike about class size? Expanding the science programs? Updating the students' computers or access thereto? Adding more counselors?
timdog44
(1,388 posts)for the reasons you say they don't. I will not be able to give you any records on this, just opinion. I come from a big family of public school educators. They are always concerned about class size, expanding programs, updating computers. All the things you talk about. Problem is, when they go on strike, all the MSM is concerned about is $$$. And a big movement out there is that teachers already make too much for the "little amount of time they spend on the job". Maybe they should try to bring the focus to those other issues, but they can not make the media print what they don't want to print.
The thing that needs to be done, as someone mentioned earlier, is to make public schools into the kind of schools that would make private schools not that attractive. Barring the religious private schools where people send their children because they think they will get a better education (but not always). Public schools are not funded enough to do what they are designed to do. And the policies set into motion regarding public schools by the corporatist faction in this country has made it even more difficult.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I know that in my community, all public comments/editorials/letters to the editor are largely focused on the school property tax. There seems to be no community leadership, let alone the superintendent or a member of the school board who dares speak up in favor of improving the quality of public education. It's all about not increasing the millage for the property tax.
In the long run, I believe we all benefit every day from public education - a rising tide floats all boats, so to speak. I wonder how many of the people who get defensive at the suggestion that private schools have advantages over public schools, are willing to pay higher property taxes to improve public education.
I also agree with your comment that children in private religious schools do not always get a better education. I went to Catholic schools through grade school, high school and Jesuit university. I was taught a very narrow view of the world and some distorted history, which I overcame by travel, prodigious reading and getting a second bachelor's degree, and 2 graduate degrees from public universities.
lolly
(3,248 posts)Good grief, are you even reading the stuff you're posting before putting it up there?
Now teachers unions are to blame for taking arts and music out of the schools?
I'm sure it had nothing to do with the "reformers" who are pulling money out of private schools and demanding ever more reliance on standardized testing of a few subjects.
Of course private schools that offer a 1:8 ratio are doing well. Show me a public school teacher who would complain about having the teacher/student ratio reduced.
Of course private schools that have extensive art and music programs are doing well. Show me where teachers unions are demanding that schools stop wasting time teaching art and music.
As for those private schools that DON'T have 1:8 ratios and don't have credentialed teachers and don't offer music and arts? They don't do any better than public schools.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)Did you not read the multitude of threads about the Chicago teacher's strike of not long ago, which was in part about class size? Teachers don't choose class size. There's nothing they'd like better than smaller classes, and one of their big complaints is having too many kids per class. Another teacher complaint is about having to "teach to the test" and not being able to do more interesting things, like expanding science programs. Do you think teachers decide what technology is available?
There's just so much ignorance here. It's frustrating.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)If you would be so kind as to re-read it, you will see that nowhere did I refer to what individual teachers do or don't do. Did I say they were responsible for the size of their classes? No. did I say they decide what technology is available? No. Did I say teachers have power to expand science programs? No.
I'm a union member myself, and my grandfather was involved in fighting the Pinkertons in organizing the coal miners. The purpose of unions is strength through numbers, and to pressure employers, in part through public opinion.
Look. On the one side you have the school board, members of which don't get re-elected if they approve tax increases, side by side with superintendents who typically suck up to the school board to keep their jobs. On the other side you have the teachers, represented by their unions, who know what works for maximizing the quality of education. While I didn't fault individual teachers for not speaking up; or refer to individual teachers at all, I did fault the unions for not getting the word out to the community to build up support for funding improvements. And by improvements, I do not mean salary increases in excess of cost of living adjustments. I mean increasing staff to reduce the class sizes and broaden the scope of course offerings, and improving technology. Another poster courteously pointed out to me, teachers' unions do negotiate for such things,but the main stream media only report on the salary aspects of union negotiations. Teachers' unions need to do a more aggressive job of educating the public and getting the word out.
No, I did not follow what went on in Chicago - I live in a different part of the country. I did, however, include a post on this thread pointing out Rahm Emanuel's hypocricy in sending his kids to an elite private school which opposes the changes he's imposed on Chicago schools.
reteachinwi
(579 posts)In grades 4 and 8 for both reading and mathematics, students in private schools achieved at higher levels than students in public schools. The average difference in school means ranged from almost 8 points for grade 4 mathematics, to about 18 points for grade 8 reading. The average differences were all statistically significant. Adjusting the comparisons for student characteristics resulted in reductions in all four average differences
of approximately 11 to 14 points. Based on adjusted school means, the average for public schools was sig nificantly higher than the average for private schools
for grade 4 mathematics, while the average for private schools was significantly higher than the average for public schools for grade 8 reading. The average differences in adjusted school means for both grade 4 reading and grade 8 mathematics were not significantly different from zero.
Comparisons were also carried out with subsets of private schools categorized by sectarian affiliation. After adjusting for student characteristics, raw score average differences were reduced by about 11 to 15 points. In grade 4, Catholic and Lutheran schools were each compared to public schools. For both reading
and mathematics, the results were generally similar to those based on all private schools. In grade 8, Catholic, Lutheran, and Conservative Christian schools were each compared to public schools. For Catholic and Lutheran schools for both reading and mathematics, the results were again similar to those based on all private schools. For Conservative Christian schools, the average adjusted school mean in reading was not significantly different from that of public schools. In mathemat-
ics, the average adjusted school mean for Conservative Christian schools was significantly lower than that of public schools.
http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2006461.pdf
Private schools have higher NAEP scores than public schools. When social and economic conditions are factored in, the scores are about even. It seems to me, to assert that private schools are better than public schools is saying that segregation by race and class is better for the kids who attend schools that spend $20,000 per year on each kid than the schools that spend $10,000 per kid. Well...
Divernan
(15,480 posts)I am not saying that segregation by race and class is better for the kids who attend the more expensive schools. Your figures prove that there is a direct correlation between the amount spent on a child's education and the child's achievements, and therefore if we want our children to have a better education, the whining property tax payers need to quit nickle and diming their local public school systems, which will only result in the further dumbing down of Americans - great for pressuring young people into enlisting in the military and becoming cannon fodder, but not for raising the levels of education and employability of the American workers.
Your figures also document that private education (with the exception of Christian fundamentalist schools) is better than public education. All those posters who have defensively and angrily stated that private education is not better than public education are just whistling in the dark, and are just plain wrong.
The primary factor "segregating" kids in the education system (public vs. private) is money, plain and simple. The race/class aspects are secondary to that. The scholarship/financial aid kids at private schools also get those higher scores, regardless of their family's social standing or race.
We need a leader like Lyndon Johnson to ram through a catch-up program for poorly funded public school districts.
reteachinwi
(579 posts)"A lot of the posts on this thread seem to focus on denying that private education is, on the whole, better than public education. And that is a losing argument given the criteria by which quality of education is measured - such as class size, performance on SATs, number of AP classes, offering classes in the arts and music, etc. "
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Fact-free posts tend to be your specialty.
jmowreader
(52,863 posts)In the school I went to, the teachers' kids were the main bullying targets...get a bad grade in Mrs. Smith's class, go take it out on John Smith. And there's always the perception of favoritism; the biology teacher never gave his honor-roll kids higher than a B because the idiot parents tried to get him fired when he gave his son an A.(He had to teach his son because there's one high school in the town I grew up in.)
And there is such a thing as a private school scholarship.
Response to dkf (Reply #2)
devilgrrl This message was self-deleted by its author.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)My guess.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)He must have had somebody pulling strings to get him into law school.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)Kolesar
(31,182 posts)The manager put him in charge of a department of engineers. He sucked. He sent his daughter to an exclusive boarding school so that she would have "connections" after she graduated to get a super job referral.
She got her degree, married a Frenchman, and effectively retired.
enough
(13,680 posts)with a B.A. His english degree from Swarthmore would be preparation enough to take the LSATS, apply to law school, and get in.
Kolesar
(31,182 posts)He said that prelaw was what they wanted. Then again, my brother is a paranoid slacker. It was probably for another reason that he was denied, like that his grades sucked. You are probably correct. I still think having connections helps.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)certification, and two MA degrees. None of them were pre-law. In fact very few people I went to law school with did pre law. Ask your brother with his LSAT score was.
DevonRex
(22,541 posts)will get you admitted to law school. Period. Your relative must not have met one or both of those requirements. You can get admitted with a good GPA and a great LSAT score. Or a fantastic GPA and a good LSAT score. There are even some law schools who take people with with good/good ratios. And then there's Liberty University where you have to have a degree, take the LSAT and be a Christian.
Or there's the online degree route in California. No clue what the requirements are there. Ask Orly.
JVS
(61,935 posts)Well it's those courses that let law schools know that graduates with degrees like English, Chemistry, or various other fields not directly related to law are capable of processing information and conducting research well enough that they can handle a law program.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)alarimer
(17,146 posts)These people think public school aren't good enough for THEIR kids and they want to make them worse for everyone else's by their "reforms."
Hypocritical elitist assholes.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)what about ANY democratic party member who sends their kids to private schools? an interesting double standard seems to exist here.
sP
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)local public school district had significantly fewer options for her then the local private schools.
I think it's disgusting involving peoples minor children in political battles.
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)school in order to have a disability accommodated.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)child's prospective pre kindergarten teacher indicated that my daughter's advanced literacy would be a problem for her... nothing in her contract required her to give enrichment in Pre K. Other prospective teachers balked at having an autistic child in their class without a full time aide. Never mind that my daughter didn't need an aide, and was perfectly fine without one. So we went private.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)i think they should be able to go to the best school option they have... whatever best means for them. apparently some people here don't believe this...
sP
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)private. I guess calling Rhee a hypocrite on that point is a failure.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)parents believe they have the right to make for their children's education. And profits from it at the same time along with her ex husband.
Do you not find it disgusting that a woman like this who has demonstrated her lack of knowledge in the field of education should make other people's children the source of her very profitable income?
And no, there is absolutely nothing wrong with asking her why she has so little faith in the methods she advocates for everyone else's children who she brought into the discussion, decides they are not good enough for her own children.
Do you find it equally disgusting that she constantly brings minor children into a discussion which, as it turns out, has been extremely profitable for her and her ex husband, who also knows zero about their needs?
She is using children to for her own financial benefit. I find that disgusting, especially from someone who is so completely unqualified for the job.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)when Obama was elected. There were quite a few people here upset he didn't send his kids to a public school because it smacks of hypocrisy. It was definitely discussed.
ProdigalJunkMail
(12,017 posts)and i was here... but the problem is that there is a certain myopia when it comes to the public vs. private school choices.
sP
roody
(10,849 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)choose private school all the time because of religious, social, and personal reasons. Their children should not be political statements.
Bringing the minor children of a political opponent into the discussion is disgusting.
Westboro Baptist protested outside of Sidwell because they thought it was politically relevant. This is nasty, and beneath Democrats. Do you think this helps the cause of teachers?
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)The "children" aren't brought in to the discussion but the teaching philosophy,
method, budget, and other relevant details are.
Do you get paid to write this stuff?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)wants to address that part of the equation, because it doesn't fit the narrative.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)The two children aren't really the focus.
The difference in educational philosophy -- critical thinking vs. 'tests' -- is what screams, "hypocrisy."
But since you ask, one child is probably still in public school because the private school only accepts kids for grades 5 through 12. The article says that it's the older daughter that's enrolled there.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bringing the kids into it at all.
But, if you are going to bring the kids into it--get the facts straight.
Some posters might wonder why the OP chose to not point out certain facts.
mojowork_n
(2,354 posts)olddots
(10,237 posts)
Dark n Stormy Knight
(10,480 posts)this powerful parent's apparent hypocrisy. It is about her dishonestly in saying, "I would rather … I keep my comments to I’m a public school parent." In, other words, "I only wish to talk about the part of the equation that does not expose my hypocrisy."
Whatever her reasons, let her share them rather than obfuscate. What will help teachers is for the proponents of privatization to be exposed as being motivated by the opportunity to destroy public education so that private companies can profit.
laundry_queen
(8,646 posts)Not surprised at the poutrage though.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)
jeff47
(26,549 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)If you were a top surgeon and took care of some kids in a field hospital, it wouldn't mean you have to treat your kids or even the kids of the rich in a field hospital from then on.
This argument is a waste of time and allows her to play victim. Simple argue against whatever evil Republican policy she is advocating.
lolly
(3,248 posts)It works more like this:
If you were a hospital administrator and insisted that your hospital followed specific procedures, protocols,a and hiring practices--
Then sent your family to another hospital that bragged about NOT following those guidelines, and seemed a superior choice because it didn't follow those guidelines
Then you would be a hypocrite.
EVEN IF YOU ONLY SENT ONE OF THOSE KIDS TO THAT OTHER HOSPITAL.
treestar
(82,383 posts)That's just a reality. If you're against the existence of private schools, good luck.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)Rhee brought all of our kids into this political fight. It is appropriate to question why she advocates so passionately for a failed program to which she doesn't subject her own children.
She is nothing if not a rwnj and the conservatives love her, so sad she is going to be outed, not.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)no idea what the needs of these children are. None.
The Westboro Baptist Church thought that protesting outside of Sidwell was appropriate because the president's policies affect us all. They had no concern for the welfare of these minor children.
I dislike visiting the sins of the parents upon the children...I don't think that's a democratic value.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)Also irrelevant, because TFA schools are legally required to accomodate special needs children. The fact that they often exclude such children is interesting, however.
Likewise irrelevant, because their father is likewise part of the TFA cult. So why does neither parent want their children in one of these amazing TFA schools at which all things are possible?
I know that you think that you've set a noble goal for yourself in defending these children from comments appearing on an anonymous and public internet forum; it would be nice instead if you showed similar concern for the millions of children harmed by Rhee's publicly funded policies.
Spare me your mock outrage.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)lead to those decisions. It's a private family matter.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)I'm not terribly concerned about the whys and wherefores behind her choice to protect her own children from her damaging policies, though I'd be interested to learn why she thinks that her children are so special and everyone else's are not.
Let her explain her reasoning. She's not some private citizen making private choices with private implications; she has been well-paid to enact public policies that have directly and detrimentally affected entire public school systems.
Therefore she is on the hook for her decisions in a way that you or I would not be.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)where her kids go?
Do you have children? Because that line indicates to me that you do not.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)I didn't say that. I wrote--and maintain--that I'm not concerned about the whys and wherefores, though I'd be interested to learn why she thinks that her children should be protected from her own damaging polices. That's a very different concern from what you describe.
How so?
She is a public figure making public decisions affecting public policy. I'm not and you (presumably) aren't, either. Therefore she is on the hook for her decisions in a way that you and I are not.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)child is in a private school.
And rather than talking about those policies that you think are damaging, you are talking about Rhee's motherhood, family, and personal choices. That's what bringing the kids into it does. It obscures the public policy debate in a way that is distasteful.
I presume, then, that you do not have kids?
Orrex
(66,590 posts)And, as I noted elsewhere, it's for grades 5 through 12. If the younger daughter is below that age, then that explains why only the older girl is enrolled there. If you have reason to suspect that the older child has special needs or other unusual requirements, I would be interested to hear it.
Previously I have talked at length about Rhee's damaging policies. Now I am talking about her hypocrisy. I am not talking about her motherhood at all.
Why would you presume anything at all about whether or not I have kids? Why is it relevant here, where we are discussing Rhee's hypocrisy and disastrous policies?
kurtzapril4
(1,353 posts)
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)
truth2power
(8,219 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)points out of the water.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)Let her explain why the child is in private school. Because of behavior issues? Because of special needs? Public schools are famously required to accomodate children with such requirements, so I'd be interested to learn why her children deserve extra-special treatment.
She is a school-reform celebrity and enjoys considerable wealth and prestige because of her celebrity. It is entirely appropriate to question her actions when those actions represent or create the appearance of hypocrisy as it pertains to the polices that she advocates so passionately. She can't simply issue her divine edicts from on high and expect to be above scrutiny.
Even if, as some dubiously assert, her decisions are private and none of our business, it is still in her interest to eliminate any impression that she feels that her children deserve consideration that others' children do not.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)accomodate her. You think I want to pay both my property taxes, and school tuition? But as every parent of disabled child knows, what you are entitled to, and what you get are two very different things.
Orrex, public schools are required to 'accomodate' but they aren't required to do it well. I used to teach in this district. No one could have forced my child's prospective pre-K teacher to provide enrichment, (she said it wasn't in her contract.) And when other teachers expressed dismay at having my autistic daughter in the classroom with them, without an aide, well...no one could have forced those teachers to behave better. So rather than keep her in a system where it was plain she wasn't wanted, I took the advice of the district psychologist who administered her IEP and enrolled her in a private Quaker school where she is loved and valued.
I am going to presume that you do not have children, because I think you woud have more compassion for the very difficult, and very private decisions that some of us have to make.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)If the child does not, then your entire disgressive objection vanishes.
If, however, Ms Rhee's child does have special needs, and if she legitimately feels--as you do--that those needs can't be met by the public school system, then let her reveal this. She is not a private citizen in a vacuum; she is a public figure creating public policy and acting in a way apparently directly inconsistent with her stated goals of improving public education. She is on the hook in a way that you and I would not be.
Let her propose methods for improving accommodations for special needs children in public schools, rather than proposing methods for destroying the effectiveness of those public schools for all children.
You've intimated that her older child attends Harpeth due possibly to special needs. I've been reading about Harpeth and I've found no indication that the school offers any accomodation at all for special needs children. Therefore I must ask why you assume that her child has such needs?
You ask why I don't display compassion for the two children (very likely with no special needs) of a wealthy and powerful public figure who makes her money by destroying public school systems. I would ask instead why you display no compassion at all for the millions of children daily and directly harmed by her policies.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)of what they are, are not your business. They just aren't. Her children do not have to give up their privacy to anyone. You may think she is on the hook, but her children are not, and are not answerable to you. Nor does Michelle Rhee have to answer for her private family decisions.
Compassion for millions of school children isn't shown by violating the privacy of other kids. Leave her children out of it.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)My objections stand, and you have offered nothing to refute them.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to satisfy their mother's political opposition. You are the one who should defend why you can't come up with a cogent critique of Michelle Rhee that does not involve her children.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)The criticism is directed entirely and appropriately at Rhee and or hypocrisy. For some baffling reason you continue to value her children's privacy over the well-being of millions of other children advsersely affected by Rhee's policies.
You advocated passionately on behalf of her child whom you presumed--with no evidence whatsoever--to have special needs. You allowed and continue to allow that advocacy to distort your argument of the larger issue, that Rhee is a hypocrite for destroying the public education for others' children while protecting her own from her policies.
Her policies are rightly criticized for being disastrous to the public schools where they are implemented. She is rightly criticized for being a hypocrite.
You can continue to make the issue about her children, but it is not. It is about Rhee and her policies and her hypocrisy.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Diane Ravitch is down to--attacking the minor children of a political opponent, she's not going to win.
Diane already went off the deep end with her Sandy Hook commentary. That was bad enough. But to involve minor children in political fracas is to accept that the NRA had a point when they invoked the Obama daughters in a commercial.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)No one is attacking her children.
No one is attacking her children.
No one is attacking her children.
Get it?
No one is attacking her children.
We are correctly attacking her policies.
We are correctlly attacking her hypocrisy.
Are you truly unable to see the difference?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)That was her choice. She could have simply noted that the child attended a 'private' school.
If you read Ms. Ravitch's blog, you will read references to Rhee's oldest daughter, naming her. This is also Ms. Ravitch's choice.
Her off the deep end commentary regarding Sandy Hook (which I get why you wouldn't want to talk about that!) indicates that like the NRA, Ms. Ravitch has decided that the minor children of one's opponents are fair game.
It's despicable. And it detracts from her message. See this thread for an example....
Orrex
(66,590 posts)But if your issue is with Ms Ravith's blog, then I suggest that you take it up with her.
Also, you're comparing the NRA's false claims about school attended by the President's children to the true claims about Michelle Rhee, which makes no sense at all.
I haven't read her blog beyond the current article. If you think that certain passages are relevant to the current discussion, please link to them.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)attempting to defend the indefensible to any Democrat, Rhee, someone whose goal it is to destroy the Public Schools while profiting from those funds herself.
And as always, the facts win. Rhee dragged all of our children into this debate, therefore asking where she decided the best place for her children is, considering she claims to know the best place for our children, is totally relevant. She doesn't want to answer. Because even she knows she is a hypocrite. And as always when people refuse to answer simple questions, they actually DO answer.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Public schools are subject to the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). (So are charters, by the way, but most of them honor it in the breach.) Private schools are not.
So assuming, for the sake of argument, that one daughter has special needs, it is likely the one in public school, which would imply that Rhee is cherry-picking, taking advantage of mandated IDEA services in public school but enrolling the child who doesn't need them in a private school that doesn't have to deal with messy things like IEPs and such.
Progressive dog
(7,566 posts)from the local school district. What state are you from?
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)children, they have to want to. You can't make teachers extend themselves...they have to want to. My child's prospective pre-K teacher was upset that she would have had to provide enrichment to my child....she said it wasn't in her contract. The other Pre-K teachers expressed their displeasure at the fact that my autistic child would not have a full-time aide--she didn't need one. They could not wrap their minds around that.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)special needs children whose parents felt their needs were better met in private school. The PS funds special needs children who cannot be accommodated in PS and provides other services for them also. We work with the PS on these issues and in some cases, the children do return to PS and I have found many wonderful PS teachers who are more than willing to help the children make the transition back into PS.
My nephew was in PA when he was in kdg and grade school and was a special needs child. He attended both public and private schools there depending on his needs at various stages of his development.
But none of this has anything to do with Rhee's hypocrisy. She claims to be an expert on what is good for everyone else's children but refuses to answer why she doesn't have the confidence in what she advocates for other people's children for her own.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)"Rhee brought all of our kids into this political fight".
It's curious that so many on this thread seem to think it's not ok to ask whether Rhee operationalizes her supposed beliefs in regard to her own child{ren}.
IMO, Rhee is nothing but a grifter who is enriching herself on the backs of the public school students of this country.
As someone said in the comment section of Diane Ravitch's blog, linked above:
"She talk the talk but she don't walk the walk". And that is relevant.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)walks half the walk...and by bringing in her kids, you've obscured discussion of her policy, and made it personal and therefore, petty.
truth2power
(8,219 posts)HelenWheels
(2,284 posts)You are correct, Orrex. She spouted an educational system that does not work and ruined the DC schools in doing so. She is supported by educational gurus like Oprah who had some difficulties with the school she started.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)They kept it pretty general to just the name of the school and some demographic/cost data about the school.
But on the other hand, in the realm of handling someone's Personally Identifiable Information, this info would be Medium Business Impact, or High Business Impact, even without a phone number, or address, or something exotic like a SOC...
So...
Damnit. Idunno, I guess I have to agree with you after all. If Rhee herself admitted anywhere in public where one of her kids went, that would change the game. I don't see where she has. So this is info that should have remained unknown, even though it is oh so juicy on the hypocrisy scale.
RedstDem
(1,239 posts)all i remember her doing was attack the teachers.
like she's just a set up by the anti union folks..
Brickbat
(19,339 posts)mountain grammy
(28,615 posts)no_hypocrisy
(54,123 posts)commute each way. And I didn't want to socialize with rich kids. (I was leaning left even in high school.)
I couldn't dissuade them from going forward to take me out of my local high school and put me in the new place until I hit a novel argument that won the day: I solemnly challenged them to enroll me in the private school outside our community and they would pay the price, particularly my mother.
Why?
Because my mother was a trustee on the local community Board of Education. I hypothesized about the guaranteed criticism of her hypocrisy of sending her child to a school outside the district, suggesting that the public schools that she was promoting weren't good enough for her.
I graduated from high school with my mother (now President of the Board of Education) giving me my diploma.
Michelle Rhee is oblivious to the hypocrisy.
MyTwoSense
(46 posts)Children? The article states that "one of her daughters attends public school in Nashville" while "her older daughter goes to an excellent private school, Harpeth Hall School..." But the article makes it sound like both children attend Harpeth.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Orrex
(66,590 posts)Harpeth Hall School is a private facility for grades 5-12.
If her younger daughter is below that age, then that pretty much explains why the girl's not in that school.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Arctic Dave
(13,812 posts)Greybnk48
(10,659 posts)treestar
(82,383 posts)If she is advocating for something, isn't she arguing that what is now is not good?
But at any rate, if she can afford to send her kids to a nice private school - doesn't mean she cannot work in public schools and try to improve them.
If the policy she advocates is something we disagree with, we can disagree with that.
Now if she were successful in getting the policy she wants, in theory she should transfer her own kids to this wonderful school of her invention, because she believes in it - then if she doesn't, she can be suspected of not really believing what she is advocating.
lolly
(3,248 posts)Read the excerpts from their promotional material--
Nothing about endless rounds of standardized testing. Lots about critical thinking, personal attention, etc.
Meanwhile, public schools are asked to do more and more with less and less money.
I'm guessing all public school teachers would love to have a 1:8 ratio. Why isn't Rhee working to implement that in public schools?
treestar
(82,383 posts)Though we can never expect public schools to be the same as private schools, so what may be best in public schools could be different.
Don't private school students have to pass standardized tests also?
Blecht
(3,806 posts)She needs to be shouted down everywhere she goes.
"Con artist! Huckster! Charlatan!"
I try not to get too worked up these days, but I truly despise these "reformers".
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)Good!
K and R
midnight
(26,624 posts)"One can hardly blame her for choosing Harpeth Hall. It has an 8:1 student/teacher ratio, with a median class size of 13. Class sizes in public schools in Nashville and other cities are much, much larger.
I bet that Harpeth Hall does not give standardized tests and does not evaluate teachers based on their students’ test scores.
Wouldn’t it be wonderful if Michelle Rhee became an advocate for small class size, and for the same goals and purposes for all children that she wants for her own child?"
Pisces
(6,150 posts)this private school if I could afford it. What this says to me is that she can afford it and that maybe she is seeing how much richer this education is versus
the one currently provided.
I don't agree with Michelle Rhee on many things, but I don't see how attacking her children or bringing them up is good political policy.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)We're pointing out that Rhee has decided that the public school reforms she advocates are bad for (at least one of) her children.
That's not an attack on her children. That's an attack on Rhee. If her reforms are so great, then wouldn't she be sending her kids to a school that follows her program? Instead, she's choosing a school that is the antithesis of the reforms she pushes.
And I love your avatar.
Pisces
(6,150 posts)anyone would think that nothing more needs to be done. Any reform would be in a beginning. She has one in public school, but I am sure this is a school with a high rating. I find this line of attack ridiculous. Attack the policies, attack the reforms etc.
Putting a child in private school is something I wish I could do, but that in no way says I don't think everyone should have
the same education. I know that in the real world, not utopia that there will always be some schools that are better with more
technology, better teachers, more equipment, more extracurricular activities.
Why is it hypocritical for her to have 1 in public and 1 in private? I would have both in private without an ounce of shame.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)She has not. She has described them as the end-state. "Do this, and your schools will be great!"
Or simply too young for this prep school.
Except she isn't just some parent that wants the best education for her kids.
She's arguing that a particular path will lead to better educations for everyone. And then puts her kid in a school that is the complete and polar opposite of that path.
- Her plan is to eliminate all the "wasteful" classes like music and a host of other similar programs. The programs that this school emphasizes as making them better than public school.
- Her plan is for lots and lots of high-stakes testing. Which this school does not do.
- Her plan is to greatly reduce the qualifications required to be a teacher and to pay teachers less. This school brags about their teachers having much higher-than-average qualifications.
Because 1 is greater than 0.
Your career does not consist of reforming public schools.
SomeGuyInEagan
(1,515 posts)lolly
(3,248 posts)Thank you!
Why is this point so hard to get across?
midnight
(26,624 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)while what you say may be correct, that she want's a 'richer education' for her own children, she denies it for everyone else. Why does she deny what she apparently recognizes as a superior education for everyone else's children? She advocates the failed NCLB 'teach to the test' with no enrichment programs, for everyone else's children.
jsr
(7,712 posts)Divernan
(15,480 posts)Unlike occasional teacher union opponent Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel does not send his kids to public schools. Instead, Emanuel's children attend one of the most elite prep schools in Chicago, the University of Chicago Lab School, where the annual tuition is more than $20,000. (Emanuel has repeatedly refused to answer questions about why he eschews public schools for his children, telling reporters that it is a private family decision.)
https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/09/12-1
Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel eschews the city's public schools in favor of the University of Chicago Lab School, whose director eschews Emanuel's idea of "reform." (Zol87/Flickr/Creative Commons) The conditions at the University of Chicago Lab Schools are dramatically different than those at Chicago Public Schools, which are currently closed with teachers engaged in a high-profile strike. The Lab School has seven full-time art teachers to serve a student population of 1,700. By contrast, only 25% of Chicago’s “neighborhood elementary schools” have both a full-time art and music instructor. The Lab School has three different libraries, while 160 Chicago public elementary schools do not have a library.
One of the key sticking points in union negotiations is that Emanuel wants to use standardized tests scores to count for 40 percent of the basis of teacher evaluations. Earlier this year, more than 80 researchers from 16 Chicago-area universities signed an open letter to Emanuel, criticizing the use of standardized test scores for this purpose. “The new evaluation system for teachers and principals centers on misconceptions about student growth, with potentially negative impact on the education of Chicago’s children,” they wrote.
CTU claims that nearly 30% of its members could be dismissed within one to two years if the proposed evaluation process is put into effect and has opposed using tests scores as the basis of evaluation. They're joined in their opposition to using testing in evaulations by Magill.
Writing on the University of Chicago’s Lab School website two years ago, Magill noted, “Measuring outcomes through standardized testing and referring to those results as the evidence of learning and the bottom line is, in my opinion, misguided and, unfortunately, continues to be advocated under a new name and supported by the current [Obama] administration.”
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)Somebody needs to correct the author for the inaccuracy.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)they're magnet schools with selective enrollment, ensuring that the children of DC/virginia elites won't have to mix with the proles.
blackspade
(10,056 posts)That is just bad.
Great job pulling all that together!
KansDem
(28,498 posts)You can work your butt off all through school and do well but if you don't have the connections, you ain't going anywhere!
You might get lucky and land an excellent job, but if you go to one of these prestigious schools, your dependence on "luck" is greatly reduced.
That's what pisses me off most about the "elite." It's all about the connections you make at these institutions.
Just my observation...
Smarmie Doofus
(14,498 posts)And the elite working full-tilt to preserve... and widen the class divide. Jeepers. These people must be really *smart*. How'd they get to be experts on public schools without ever setting foot in one?
>>>And you can’t get much more remote from a situation than the leaders of the modern school “reform” movement are from public education . The president, for example, is “batting a thousand” in this regard. Not only did he reach adulthood without having ever set foot in an American public school, he made certain that his own kids escaped that hideous fate as well. ( Until 2009, both Obama girls attended the private and exclusive University of Chicago Lab School ; in DC they are tucked away at Sidwell Friends, along with their peers, the children of the Washington political and economic elite.) But the president is far from alone. Last year in the New York Times (4/17/11) , Michael Winerip rummaged thru the bios of a dozen or so of the nation’s most prominent , self-styled school “reform” experts, none of whom whom had ever set foot —not as student , not as teacher; not as consumer, not as provider — in a single public school classroom. Most of the big names were there, along with their alma maters: Rhee, Duncan, Gates. (Respectively: Maumee Country Day- Toledo, U of Chicago Lab School, Lakeside School- Seattle.) The wonderfully incongruous former New York City Schools Chancellor, Cathie Black. ( Aquinas Dominican - Chicago). David Levin ( Riverdale Country -NYC), CEO of the nation’s largest charter school chain: KIPP. ( Yup. They’re now coming in “chains”; just like Pizza Hut or Banana Republic.) And so on. I started to notice this weird correlation myself about 5 years ago when school “reform” was still basically the exclusive proving grounds of the aforementioned billionaires, conservative pols and incredibly well-endowed right-wing think tanks.>>>>
http://paulvhogan.wordpress.com/2013/02/10/pass-the-remote-obama-and-education/
duffyduff
(3,251 posts)who are horribly paid, are sending their kids to private schools.
It's bullshit, and these people ought to be ashamed of themselves.
DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)After all, if Yale was half as good at making leaders as their propaganda said they were, they would have never let W. Bush come onto Campus, but they churn out him and the financial whiz kids that crashed the economy!
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)DonCoquixote
(13,939 posts)It is about:
The choices Michelle Rhee gets to make: she could afford private school
The choices Rhee IS TAKING FROM US: said priovate school does nto want to do half the things she wants, and seems to treat it's own teachers better.
And lastly,
the fact that she LIED about where her children go to school because it would highlight the other two points.
Orrex
(66,590 posts)Why oh why are you attacking her children? Why? Why?!? Why?!?!?
Oh, wait. You aren't.
And neither is anyone else.
Funny thing, that.
gollygee
(22,336 posts)She says she's a public school parent, but that's really deceitful. The deceit should be pointed out. It isn't the kids' fault, obviously, and their names should not have been printed.
Dawson Leery
(19,510 posts)Highly paid and trained teachers. All the right connections for advancement.
None of Rhee's scam schools (charters) offer this.
iamthebandfanman
(8,127 posts)its always the folks who are sending their children to private schools that want to further defund and break the public educational system.
....
its the classic right wing tactic to destroying anything the government has its hand in...
say its broken, and never stop...
never actually do anything to fix the problem...
then defund it all and watch it collapse and say
'See! I told ya government sucks!'
lolly
(3,248 posts)Find a way to make sure private corporations can profit from the collapse of the public entity.
In this case, fork over all the money that used to go to public schools to private corporations.
(for reference, just look at what they've done with the prison system)
And that is the real goal. The rest is just the means to the end. And that is what Michelle Rhee is after, not improved education for any of our kids.
Blue_Tires
(57,596 posts)When her movie first came out, Rhee had so many DU cheerleaders it was sickening...
moondust
(21,177 posts)hay rick
(9,311 posts)Let's not pick on Michelle Rhee's kittehs!
Next up: I belabor and belittle the poster for misspelling Swarthmore.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)
Orsino
(37,428 posts)Teamster Jeff
(1,598 posts)
SunSeeker
(57,439 posts)michigandem58
(1,044 posts)Reform is becoming fairly mainstream in the Democratic party, all the way up through Arne Duncan and President Obama. I tend to support those things as well, and see no reason to demonize Rhee.
Her decision to send her children to public or private school doesn't disqualify her. Many teachers and prominent Democrats' children attend private schools.
YoungDemCA
(5,714 posts)Which is unfortunate at best, disgusting at worst.
Egalitarian Thug
(12,448 posts)
LiberalFighter
(53,544 posts)Stinky The Clown
(68,914 posts)
tilsammans
(2,549 posts)He trashes NJ's public school teachers, yet his four children go to prestigious Catholic schools, where the tuition is $20,000+ per year.
Starry Messenger
(32,379 posts)
Turbineguy
(39,792 posts)hard work. It takes effort and effort over time. But they have a good chance of succeeding. Of course, kids who attend schools like Harpeth will grow up to manage the plantation.
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)LeftyMom
(49,212 posts)It's a fair bet that there are a few more snobby private schools in this fair city than in Nashville, as well.
In my experience it's somewhere between unusual and unheard of for a mother not to have primary or shared custody without being a flaming car wreck of a human being. Hell, people who've had their kids taken away by CPS usually get weekly supervised visitation.
Mr. Huffman must know where the bodies are buried.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)was living in nashville, i was speculating about a rift between her and the mayor.
Response to HiPointDem (Reply #274)
proud2BlibKansan This message was self-deleted by its author.
HiPointDem
(20,729 posts)
proud2BlibKansan
(96,793 posts)Could have sworn I read just a few weeks ago that they were separated.
I'll keep looking.