YOUR COMMENTS

James Holland, you ask "What would the results be if the public school system spent the same as private?"

That would involve a 30-50% spending cut in public education, so I'd imagine you wouldn't be too happy.

But if what you meant to ask was "What would the results be if the public school system spent $19,000 per pupil?", the answer is it wouldn't make one iota of difference.

Since the 1960's, per-pupil public school spending has tripled in inflation-adjusted dollars. Yet there has been no improvement. If a 200% increase in spending produces no improvement, why do you believe a <50% spending increase will do any good?

Increases in public education spending ultimately destroy education because the money goes to empowering the disgusting teachers unions, allowing them to milk the system further.

While Obama is to be commended for putting his children first, he must answer to why he seeks to deny millions of other students the same opportunity? Wet nursing the NEA might get votes, but it certainly won't improve education.
- Jim Peschke, Croydon, NH

Who cares. I wouldn't want my kids in school with his kids anyway. And in NH, some towns spend as much as $20K per kid.
- Sue, manchester

I continue to read replies on the cost of public schools being as high as $13,000.00 per student. Senator Obama has consistently paid over $19,000.00 plus taxes that support public students. What would the results be if the public school system spent the same as private?
- James Holland, Salem, NH

Ryan, Bill and Robert what you both fail to understand is long before Obama was elected President he sent both of his children to one of the most expensive public schools in the Chicago area. Sure we wouldn't want them out in public schools with a Secret Service detail tagging in the winds. However this does not put aside he has always found a way to send them to private schools. This is the same for many on that side of the isle. Public School for Thee but not for Me.
- Brian, Wakefield

There's no unexplainable hatred of teachers unions here. The simple fact, though, is that public-employee unions, if left to their own devices, will do to taxpayers exactly what the UAW has done to GM, Ford and Chrysler -- push us to the brink of bankruptcy and perhaps beyond. The automakers' management was stupid enough to agree to the contracts that are sinking them, but we as taxpayers don't have to be as stupid. We can demand accountability, results and fiscal prudence from our public schools -- and if the schools won't play ball, we can push for school-choice programs. The president- elect is just the latest in a long string of politicians who elect private school for their kids but deny educational choice to parents of modest means.
- Rick M., Portsmouth

Guy Plante says:

". . . the children of our 'representatives' in Washington always wind up going to private schools. . . "

Not true. I can think of several NH governors and a congressman who sent their children to public schools. What do Jeanne Shaheen, John Lynch, & Dick Swett all have in common? All of their children attended public schools. And, they are all Democrats.
- Matt, Rochester

Barack Obama can send his kids anywhere he and Mrs. Obama decide is best. It's that simple. Stop trying to turn everything into a political battle. Leave the kids alone.
- ed, londonderry

Good for Obama.

I send my kids to a private school too. Why does he have to send them to the public shcools?
- Chris, Bedford

If a Republican chose to send his children to private school after espousing public education for ALL, the Liberals would be all over him. And Peter, if you find the content of this paper, most particularly this article (which is quite pertinent) so pathetic, there are many other papers in the state which will suit your bias.
- JB, New London

Sorry Ryan whether I agree with the rest or not facts are facts. The President gets $400,000 and congressmen get $169,300 per year - both reps and senators.
- Robert, Deerfield

Paul - I suggest you immerse yourself in the reading of the Liberal Monitor or hang out on bluehampshire.com, if you're unhappy reading the Union Leader. It's definitely geared for your type of politics.
- JB, New London

The plight of millions of urban poor, many of them black, who are forced to send their children to government schools run by Obamacrat unions, is one of the great tragedies of our age. Obama's opposition to school choice condemns yet another generation to ignorance and poverty, and assures that we will continue to squander much of our most precious resource.

This is the price Obama is willing to pay for the political support of those unions.

Shame on him.
- Tom, Campton

First of all I can’t even believe that time was even wasted in article like this. If more people looked at common cense this wouldn’t be a huge surprise to anyone.
Todd- The President of the Untied States of America isn’t considered common folk.
I’m not saying he is better than the average American citizen. But being one of the most highlighted, prominent people in the world. I think you can justify why he would lean towards putting his kid’s safety as his top priority. This has absolutely noting to do with tax payer money. In fact Presidents make less money than you average congressmen.
Its simple articles like this that really show people ignorance. And no matter what this guys does, he can never do right by sour republicans.
- Ryan, Manchester

It's true, as one writer said, that the children of the POTUS are more easily protected from harm in a private school than in a public school; that's only common sense.
The point of the editorial is that the children of our "representatives" in Washington always wind up going to private schools while the children of the "common folk" have nowhere else to go but to the public schools; the former have a choice while the latter do not.
Again, it's the attitude of "do what we tell you to do and not what we ourselves do", and if "we, the people" don't like it we can, as Marie-Antoinette said, "eat cake."
- Guy Plante, Manchester

We’re blessed with another hard hitting editorial from the Union Leader.

Why not report on what’s happening or not happening in local schools? What is working, what is not? Why? Editorialize on approaches to improve education in Manchester. Are New York’s and Massachusetts’s standardized tests for graduating working?

You might sell more newspapers writing about how our children are doing academically. The education section online is pathetically sparse in education articles. At least half of our property taxes go into schools and you do hardly any reporting on schools, academics, new educational programs, successful students, etc. You guys are really missing the boat.

Maybe an editorial on how correcting the heating problems in city schools will save money. I don’t think we see school windows open in winter because they like being cold or wasting their funds AKA my tax dollars. Something’s wrong, figure it out and print. Then editorialize on why.

Online you have a section in education on city schools. The last article was about the Sale of Villa Augustina (July 1). June 25 you reported on teachers retiring. Pathetic.
- Peter Sorrentino, Manchester

A large part of the success of private schools is that just about all of the parents are involved and invested in their kids' education. Can we say that for public schools? If private schools get all of the riff-raff that public schools get, would it be anywhere near as successful? Are the failures of DC area public schools the fault of the parents, or is it because the schools are public?

As for the comments, there is this unexplainable hatred of teacher unions out there; the belief that if we eliminate the unions, their kids will get smarter. Contrary to that opinion, teachers care about their students and want them to succeed. If their union truly stiffled that, then the teachers would change that union. Job purpose trumps job protection.
I'm sorry, but a school's performance is much more likely a result of its community and its parenting than it ever is the teachers union. Don't blame the Little League coach if the parents don't show up to the games.
- Breyer S, Manchester, NH

More leftist hypocrisy. I am not surprised.
The rich get to make choices; but not us common folk. We get to foot the bill. Look at the bailout. The public is responsible for the debt but the profits are privatized.
- Todd, Francestown

Why should this shock anyone. His kids went to private school prior to him even running for president.

The public education system is a sham. The big union guru from NYC Albert Shanker told it best:

"When school children start paying dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of school children.”
- Don Rubby, Exeter, NH

Stick to your agenda and ignore important facts! The Secret Service would prefer for security reasons that the Obama children attend a private school.
- Bill Siroty, Amherst

Mr. Obama will be using his income to support whatever decision he makes regarding his daughters education. What school choice advocates want to do is to use TAXPAYER funds to support private schools and close down the public school system.
- Roland Tremblay, Berlin, N.H.

Right, and it never occurred to you that the protection of his kids might be more difficult and necessary than the protection of your kids? Are your kidnappers so stupid that you think it would be necessary to parade Obama's kids out on the street every day to give them a chance to grab one or both? Well, I probably agree with you.
- Robert, Deerfield