Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

zoechen

(93 posts)
19. If a private school...
Wed Feb 15, 2012, 01:25 PM
Feb 2012

Is good enough for the president I am not sure why It would not do for my children (assuming I had any).


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/21/sidwell-friends-obama-gir_n_145606.html





WASHINGTON — President-elect Barack Obama and his wife have chosen Sidwell Frien\ds School for their two daughters, opting for a private institution that another White House child, Chelsea Clinton, attended a decade ago.

"A number of great schools were considered," said Katie McCormick Lelyveld, a spokeswoman for Michelle Obama. "In the end, the Obamas selected the school that was the best fit for what their daughters need right now."

She said Sidwell can provide the security and privacy that Malia, 10, and Sasha, 7, will need as part of the new first family and Sidwell can help with that. She also said that Sasha and Malia had become good friends with Vice President-elect Joe Biden's grandchildren, who go to the school.

Sidwell is a private Quaker school with a campus in northwest Washington for grades 5-12 and another in suburban Bethesda, Md., for kindergarten through fourth grade. Malia is in fifth grade and Sasha is in second grade, suggesting that the girls would attend schools at different locations.

Michelle Obama and her daughters visited Sidwell and another elite private school, Georgetown Day, earlier this week. The soon-to-be first lady visited both schools last week, without her daughters.

Lelyveld said that while public schools were considered, the Obamas felt that a private school was in the best interest of their children. The two girls currently attend the private University of Chicago Laboratory Schools, where Michelle Obama is on the board.

Michelle Obama went to public schools on Chicago's South Side, and understands the importance of strong public schools, Lelyveld said, and the administration plans to work hard on that issue.

Jimmy Carter's daughter, Amy, went to a public school, but Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton chose Sidwell for Chelsea. Hillary Clinton later said she received "unfortunately, good advice" that the press would bother Chelsea if she attended public school.




Sidwell Friends has already proven protective of the Obamas' privacy, refusing earlier this week to say whether the girls had visited the school after a motorcade was seen outside.

Messages left with school administrators on Friday were not immediately returned. A woman who answered the phone at the home of Bruce Stewart, Sidwell's head of school, said he was not home. But she said the school would not release a statement before Monday.

Al Gore III, the son of former Vice President Al Gore, also attended Sidwell, where tuition is $28,442 at the lower school and $29,442 at the middle and upper schools.

The quality of the school and its extra security make Sidwell Friends a good choice, said Letitia Baldrige, who was Jackie Kennedy's social secretary and chief of staff during the Kennedy administration. Caroline Kennedy attended first grade in a makeshift third-floor classroom inside the White House.

"The children are under enormous pressure from the press and their fellow students and especially the mommies of their fellow students," who are eager for their children to attend sleepovers, Baldrige said.

"I'm sure they'll both be athletically inclined and play on all the sports teams, and they'll have a lot of fun," Baldrige said. "But it won't be easy."

Rob Lippincott, a member of the board of trustees at Sidwell, where his daughter is a high school senior, said he could not confirm whether the Obama girls had chosen the school. But he said if so, students and parents will be excited.

"We're obviously delighted if that is the case. I have not heard anything officially," said Lippincott, senior vice president for education at PBS. "I'm certainly aware they came and visited. From everything I understand, they'd be a great addition to the school."

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

In a word, no, except if by 'work' ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #1
How is providing an additional funding stream robbing? If the money comes from a new federal BrentWil Feb 2012 #5
If the feds do it, why wouldn't ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #8
Because they are already running schools BrentWil Feb 2012 #11
Yes, I read the OP. But I don't see ANY ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #15
Here are the portions of the OP BrentWil Feb 2012 #16
The only alleged BENEFIT for poor children I see in your posts is ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #18
Where am I suggesting that? BrentWil Feb 2012 #23
See post #17 below. You are ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #30
While not popular on this board, there is plenty of evidence that some Dems do support BrentWil Feb 2012 #31
I DARE you to find a WH.gov link ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #35
That isn't what I said BrentWil Feb 2012 #43
Is that support for a national voucher program ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #49
What I said is that if you read some of their statements BrentWil Feb 2012 #50
So you admit your ultimate goal is to destroy public schools-- ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #51
I would assume the ultimate goal is education... BrentWil Feb 2012 #53
Arne Duncan is the worst thing to have happened to education for a long time. sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #75
Maybe... BrentWil Feb 2012 #82
There's plenty of evidence that some "dems" support all kinds of RW policies. So what? Edweird Feb 2012 #96
How is a federal program that gives money to the poor, "RW"? NT BrentWil Feb 2012 #97
Privatization is RW. Edweird Feb 2012 #100
Who is providing privatization? BrentWil Feb 2012 #101
If you can get this money, why no provide money to the schools that are poor? MattBaggins Feb 2012 #22
Because it gives the power to the poor family and actually does give them a some economic power over BrentWil Feb 2012 #24
And the kids whose parents don't bother to apply are out of luck. proud2BlibKansan Feb 2012 #34
The school would have a self interest in insuring the money is there.. BrentWil Feb 2012 #39
And what happens if every family accepts these vouchers? sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #78
Everyone in the income will and most of the money will go to Public Schools BrentWil Feb 2012 #79
How would this be a "NEW" federal funding stream? ProgressiveEconomist Feb 2012 #17
Not just no, but hell no! white_wolf Feb 2012 #2
WHy? BrentWil Feb 2012 #7
I firmly oppose any attempts at privatization of formerly public services. white_wolf Feb 2012 #10
Why? BrentWil Feb 2012 #12
because privatization doesn't work DisgustipatedinCA Feb 2012 #41
Rich kids like private schools and it seems to work for getting into Harvard, for example BrentWil Feb 2012 #44
Why don't you check out the history of the Public Schools, and maybe you can sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #80
I don't have a problem as long as they are only good at public schools and that's it. limpyhobbler Feb 2012 #3
This would not work because there is not enough room in the top schools for all the JDPriestly Feb 2012 #4
But it does give a means to pay and a reason for people to develop "topnotch" schools in poorer BrentWil Feb 2012 #13
I do not see that it would get more funding into schools that have to educate a poorer JDPriestly Feb 2012 #37
If the money is only given to the poor to use, BrentWil Feb 2012 #38
You are thinking in the abstract. JDPriestly Feb 2012 #90
No I am not... BrentWil Feb 2012 #91
You don't need vouchers for public schools. LiberalFighter Feb 2012 #6
Public schools by law have to provide a "free and appropriate education" PA Democrat Feb 2012 #9
How does it drain funds, if the funding comes from a different source? BrentWil Feb 2012 #14
Because special education is not fully funded by the federal and state governments. PA Democrat Feb 2012 #20
The tax base and the current funding streams are still there.. BrentWil Feb 2012 #26
$10K to educate a child with special needs? That is a drop in the bucket PA Democrat Feb 2012 #29
There's a point you're missing: most states fund schools based on the number of students attending Lydia Leftcoast Feb 2012 #36
If you have less students.. BrentWil Feb 2012 #46
If a private school... zoechen Feb 2012 #19
There are certain departments I believe shouldn't be privatized newspeak Feb 2012 #21
Take my word on it nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #28
10k could buy you a whole year at Sidwell. The average tuition award there is over 20k. msanthrope Feb 2012 #32
Why would anyone use such a voucher in a public school KamaAina Feb 2012 #25
Because it offers a better value then other schools in the area.. BrentWil Feb 2012 #48
This ProSense Feb 2012 #55
Because this puts the power into the hands of the poor BrentWil Feb 2012 #56
Nonsense ProSense Feb 2012 #58
A child that brings 10K to a public school would not be irrelevant. BrentWil Feb 2012 #60
Wait ProSense Feb 2012 #64
Do you know what 10K of free money to a poor school or school district means? BrentWil Feb 2012 #66
What? ProSense Feb 2012 #69
Federal money for local districts with no strings is free money, for them NT BrentWil Feb 2012 #76
That's ProSense Feb 2012 #81
Maybe... BrentWil Feb 2012 #83
Local schools and districts are the means to do that... BrentWil Feb 2012 #71
Hell must have frozen, but I could not agree with you more. n/t sabrina 1 Feb 2012 #84
We agree on most things, actually... BrentWil Feb 2012 #88
Because ProSense Feb 2012 #54
Do you really think the GOP would support a program as outlined above? BrentWil Feb 2012 #57
Actually ProSense Feb 2012 #61
Arguing something is RW doesn't make it so... BrentWil Feb 2012 #63
Do ProSense Feb 2012 #65
Why would a federal block grant to public schools that educate poorer kids be bad? BrentWil Feb 2012 #67
I ProSense Feb 2012 #68
How does does this "denigrates the concept of public education and opens the system to abuse" BrentWil Feb 2012 #70
Well, ProSense Feb 2012 #72
I woud argue that giving more funding to poor public schools allows the local school the tools BrentWil Feb 2012 #73
It's ProSense Feb 2012 #74
Still haven't answered why more funding for poorer schools is a bad thing. BrentWil Feb 2012 #77
Vouchers are a means to privatize education nadinbrzezinski Feb 2012 #27
No. We should help ALL of our low income kids. proud2BlibKansan Feb 2012 #33
I would want no real application process... BrentWil Feb 2012 #40
133% of poverty is fucking poor, those folks will not have the rest of the money for private school TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #59
Accreditation for Private schools are done by independent private bodies, I thought BrentWil Feb 2012 #62
They have to have money to operate, they operate across state lines, and credibilty is TheKentuckian Feb 2012 #86
To what end? BrentWil Feb 2012 #87
No, no, no, TEN THOUSAND TIMES NO Hugabear Feb 2012 #42
Then this would solve that problem. So there we go. NT BrentWil Feb 2012 #47
+1 proud2BlibKansan Feb 2012 #52
No! The poor need to be confined to their own Snake Alchemist Feb 2012 #45
Either very good sarcastic remarker or really bad post NT BrentWil Feb 2012 #85
School vouchers always have been and always will be a nutty idea Major Nikon Feb 2012 #89
You would outlaw private schools? BrentWil Feb 2012 #92
I'm fine with private schools just so long as I don't have to help fund them Major Nikon Feb 2012 #93
Then you will have a poorly administered national school system that only the middle to poor class BrentWil Feb 2012 #94
Local control of the school system is what has created the mess we have Major Nikon Feb 2012 #95
No Child Left behind is federal control... BrentWil Feb 2012 #98
Exactly Major Nikon Feb 2012 #99
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Could Federal Educational...»Reply #19