Amy:

At this point, I'm thinking Joe Biden will be the Dem nominee.

Probably. And the party that claims to be sick of rich, old, white men is giving us a rich, old, white man.

Not that it matters. History shows that we don't switch rudders in an economic boom. Donald Trump has this. And Creepy Uncle Joe will be simply be this election cycle's punching bag.

This is not a woman noted for her honesty and truthfulness. Remember the "Fauxcahontas" flap and her insistence that she was Native American, but never used that for her own advantage. Remember the "fired for being pregnant" claim.

Now there's the "my children went to public schools claim. According to factcheck.org, her son attended private schools from the fifth grade onward. Her daughter, however, did attend public schools for most of her education. So, the boy-child gets a private education while the girl-child must make do with a public one? Patriarchy anyone?

As for "taught at public schools," she taught special ed at one public school for a year before going to law school. She later taught at public universities, so make of that claim what you will.

Like her self-professed history, the woman's policies are complete fantasies. She has yet to come up with a viable plan to fund her public healthcare giveaway. Her CFPB is a bureaucratic dictatorship, not answerable to the executive or to the legislative branch of the government. If she abolishes private and charter education, an already-strained public school system will break down under the weight of the number of students transferring into it. Look for her to demand taxpayer funding to cover that mess.

Now, she wants to be elected to her second term by popular vote, having done away with the Electoral College in her hypothetical first term.

Once, long ago, our country produced great politicians. Some were panderers, some were bullies. Some were brutes, some were effete. But they all towered above the masses. Today, we produce pipsqueaks. As Jake Holman wondered in The Sand Pebbles, "What the hell happened?"

Sounds like a case of "you gotta dance with them what brung ya."

The Haverford School, by the way, is located in a very ritzy area along U.S. 30, west of Philadelphia, called The Main Line. Nearby are The Baldwin School (a girls' day school; cost for high school is $38.8K per year), and The Shipley School (a coed day school; cost for high school is a bit over $39K annually).

Children of servants and the remaining unwashed attend Lower Merion High School, about a mile away.

Private schools are a luxury. Not everyone can afford luxuries. I can't afford this particular luxury for my kids either. I'm not quite sure why people who normally don't think people are entitled to luxury feel that people should be entitled to this particular one.

"This is not a woman noted for her honesty and truthfulness. "

I think we've seen enough to conclude that Warren is a compulsive liar. I don't know if it's a character defect or a mental disorder. But from the standpoint of Joe Voter, it doesn't matter. The fact stands that her word is untrustworthy.

And, as Conan pointed out, Warren's baby, the Consumer Financial Protection Board, is probably going to be ruled unconstitutional in the current or next SCOTUS term. (I'm not sure where the case is, as far as making its way up the appeals ladder.) I agree with Amy that Creepy Uncle Joe is going to wind up being the Democrat candidate by default. (Actually, I think the reason will be the same reason that Hillary got the nomination last time: Biden is better at working the smoke-filled-room party politics than any of the other candidates.)

"I'm not quite sure why people who normally don't think people are entitled to luxury feel that people should be entitled to this particular one."

Not the same thing. Charter schools, in the U.S. sense, are not private schools. They are sort of alternative public schools. The idea is that if you choose to send your child to a charter school, then the taxes you pay to support public schools go to that charter school instead.

I don't know if you realize how bad many of the public schools in the U.S. are. And the worst ones tend to be in areas with high concentrations of minorities. It's the national scandal that no one wants to talk about. Many charter schools are popping up (or trying to) in those areas.

Private schools are a luxury. Not everyone can afford luxuries. I can't afford this particular luxury for my kids either. I'm not quite sure why people who normally don't think people are entitled to luxury feel that people should be entitled to this particular one.

NicoleK at December 5, 2019 7:03 AM

Charter schools are not necessarily private schools. They just don’t operate under the layers of bureaucracy and red tape that most public schools do.

Public schools were starting to fail in the early seventies where I grew up. Math, usually taught by the football coach, was a particular sore spot.

I suspect the big draw of most charter schools in the inner cities is that they they can remove kids who don’t want to learn, and don’t want to be there. This benefits everyone. Teachers, students and parents.

Conan:

Now there's the "my children went to public schools claim. According to factcheck.org, her son attended private schools from the fifth grade onward. Her daughter, however, did attend public schools for most of her education. So, the boy-child gets a private education while the girl-child must make do with a public one? Patriarchy anyone?

First, if she was caught in a lie about this, by all means, shame her sharpen your fingers until you wear your skin off. But am I the only person who thinks not having the children of our federally-elected officials in public schools is a pretty good idea?

If I heard Bill Clinton say that Chelsea was attending a public high school (which she did not; she attended Sidwell Friends), I would assume that Bill Clinton had taken leave of his senses.

It not only seems like a dumb thing to worry about, but it seems like the preferred direction (i.e. the kids in public schools) is the wrong way to go.

I remain unconvinced that Quid Pro Joe[*] has the mental and physical stamina to continue campaigning for another 11 months.

On the other hand, ask Andrew Gillum how many votes from the "black mom whose kids go to charter schools" block he pushed into the Ron DeSantis column. My sense is that was enough to doom his chances at winning the Florida governorship.

[*] he also has a really big Ukrainian problem, as well as Romanian and Chinese problems via his wayward son

*I remain unconvinced that Quid Pro Joe[*] has the mental and physical stamina to continue campaigning for another 11 months.*

The democrats in their frantic search for both a platform, and a candidate to beat Trump, has done nothing but step on their own dicks.

Expect the yelping and the circular firing squad to continue for another five years.

But am I the only person who thinks not having the children of our federally-elected officials in public schools is a pretty good idea? ~ Patrick at December 5, 2019 8:21 AM

I'm not sure what your point is here. If the federally-elected officials are demanding all of us send our children to public schools, then they should send theirs to public school, too. They should be subject to the laws they enact for the rest of us, doubly so.

And if Warren or her ilk succeed in destroying charter and private schools, look for formerly exclusive private schools to open in foreign countries and rich people to send their children to them. Philips Andover will become Philips Bermuda.

My only point is, I have no objections if federally-elected officials wish to send their kids to private schools. Given their profiles, I understand the need for extra security for their children. Private schooling, even homeschooling, is fine with me as far as their kids are concerned.

Private schooling, even homeschooling, is fine with me as far as their kids are concerned. ~ Patrick at December 5, 2019 10:08 AM

Fine with me, too - as long as the rest of us have the same options. It's when they advocate reserving elite options only for themselves while sticking the rest of us with sub-standard options that I have issues.

Education is too important to let government touch it.
"Public" [sic] schools need to be abolished and political government (which also needs to be abolished) shouldn't be allowed to interfere in education ever again-- not by running or controlling schools, and not by handing stolen money ("tax money") to any schools of any kind. Death to kinderprison!
My appreciation for education explains my opposition to schooling.

Charter schools as envisioned by Albert Shanker were fine.

The problem has been the implementation of charter schools as for profit money grabs that do not actually innovate in the way that was proposed.

The entire proposal was for charter schools to test out new ideas and innovate... then to proliferate what worked to the rest of the educational system and to limit the impact of failed educational initiatives.

They were supposed to be mini educational laboratories.

That doesn't really describe the charter schools we are talking about today which are instead advertised as the equivalent of publicly funded private schools.

Warren and all progressives hate choice. They want to tell you, in detail, how to live. The Ming Dynasty in China specified what clothing and haircuts were allowed, what houses should look like, everything. Of course progressives do not mean "themselves"--just the rest of us.

Charter schools are popular in inner cities because black kids succeed there and go on to college. Warren wants to remove the lifeline for black success in order to regiment everyone into public schools to make the teacher's unions happy. By the way, it shows you what the teacher's unions really value when they oppose schools that clearly work just because the teachers there are not union. ugh

Charter schools as envisioned by Albert Shanker were fine.

The problem has been the implementation of charter schools as for profit money grabs that do not actually innovate in the way that was proposed.

The entire proposal was for charter schools to test out new ideas and innovate... then to proliferate what worked to the rest of the educational system and to limit the impact of failed educational initiatives.

They were supposed to be mini educational laboratories.

That doesn't really describe the charter schools we are talking about today which are instead advertised as the equivalent of publicly funded private schools.

Artemis at December 5, 2019 12:08 PM

Educational funding is controlled largely by the states and the school districts within. Why don’t you let them worry about how they spend their taxpayer’s money instead of encouraging the federal government to dictate a “one size fits all“ policy on behalf of the teachers unions?

Charter schools, or the lack there of, aren’t really any of the feds business.

The post was talking about private schools, which I assume means private school vouchers, not charter schools. Did I read it wrong?

"The post was talking about private schools, which I assume means private school vouchers, not charter schools. Did I read it wrong?"

She's talking about eliminating all school choice for the masses, whether it be public-charter, private or home school. You will send your kids to the public school that the government has assigned them to. Unless you are politically powerful like Elizabeth Warren... then you can send your children to exclusive private schools that the public does not have access to under any circumstances. Even if the average Joe had the means to write a six-figure check every year to Sidwell Friends, they aren't going to accept his children.

"The entire proposal was for charter schools to test out new ideas and innovate."

No, the idea is to provide alternatives to failed public schools. Everything else is secondary to that.

Cousin Dave Says:

"No, the idea is to provide alternatives to failed public schools. Everything else is secondary to that."

Then you do not actually understand the history of the original plan for charter schools.

You need to go and actually do your research before asserting that your priority for charter schools was in any way shape or form the same as the original set of priorities.

You have confused what charter schools have turned into as compared to what the original proposals were for... where do you think the whole idea of a "charter" was for?

The charter itself was intended to describe and outline the new and innovative educational features of school so as to document what new ideas were being tested.

"Charter schools, or the lack there of, aren’t really any of the feds business."

They are funded by public money in the form of taxes.

Since when is an institution funded by taxes not subject to oversight by the government?

"They are funded by public money in the form of taxes."

STATE taxes. The statement was that they aren't any of the FEDS' business.

bw1 Says:

"STATE taxes. The statement was that they aren't any of the FEDS' business."

There are 2 problems here:

1 - I never even mentioned the federal government or any government in my original post so if you want to concern yourself with the details of statements then Isab's response to me was unrelated to anything I said in the first place.

2 - Charter schools are funded by a mix of federal and state money. The DOE also provides money that is directed to charter schools.

Conan: "According to factcheck.org, her son attended private schools from the fifth grade onward. Her daughter, however, did attend public schools for most of her education. So, the boy-child gets a private education while the girl-child must make do with a public one? Patriarchy anyone?"

In the interest of fairness (even for Fauxcahontas): Her daughter was born in 1971, and her son in 1976 or '77. When Warren put her son in a private school for 5th grade, her daughter would have been part-way through public high school already, and perhaps it did not make sense to change that. Or possibly her new job at the U of Pennsylvania in 1987 finally paid enough to put _one_ kid in a private school, and the younger one got it - because he would benefit more from 7 years of it than his sister would from 1 or 2 years, or because he was struggling in school.

Warren was promoted to an endowed chair in 1990. Her daughter should have graduated high school by then, so the increased pay came just in time for the daughter's college.