Should President Obama be sending his children to a private school?

Ah the private school issue. It's always a goodie. And when it comes to politics, it's one which becomes even more controversial.

The Obama girls have just begun their new school year at Sidwell Friends School in Washington DC (where the website is currently accepting donations for a live auction to help those on financial aid). Despite calls for President Obama and his wife Michelle to make "examples" of the girls, by sending them to state schools, they have ignored this plea, and gone for a private Quaker school with 1,097 students on the roll and not insignificant yearly tuition fees of $28,442 for the lower school and $29,442, for the middle and upper school.

Take a look at the school's website and you might see why a parent would be attracted to a school like this (and it's not just the offer of "organic baked French Fries" on today's lunch menu!). In that way, it's like so many other private schools: the facilities can be overwhelming and as parents, we always want to give our children "the best," if we can. This certainly looks fantastic.

The Obama girls were previously at a private school in Chicago, so suddenly entering a state school, particularly in Washington DC, would have been a huge shock. I couldn't see the President-elect and his wife playing with their children's education for political gain - after all, the election's already won! However, I mentioned this during the presidential campaign, and also wrote about how so many parents would like the opportunity to educate their children privately, but can't (even more so in the current economic climate).

And yet it is a fascinating topic. Tony Blair was hugely criticised for sending his kids to a grant-maintained (not private, fee-paying) school, but although President-elect Obama has had some criticism, it seems very minor compared to the abuse he would have had here. Are the rules different in the US, or is it perhaps something to do with the huge significance that Americans place on freedom of choice?

In 2007, the Heritage Foundation carried out a survey which discovered that 37 percent of Representatives and 45 percent of Senators in the 110th Congress sent their children to private schools - almost four times the rate of the general population. They argue that this is hugely relevant, saying that both Houses have rejected initiatives on expanding parental choice, via scholarships to low-income students, and add that "based on the 2003 survey, each of these amend­ments would have passed if Members who exer­cised school choice for their own children had voted in favor of the school choice initiatives."

Politics on a personal level is always difficult - just ask Tony Blair, Harriet Harman, or Diane Abbott (who went for the private option). It's all well and good to talk about raising standards for all, but while you're doing so, your own children can sway your long-held opinions, and make you do the opposite of what you pontificate. President Obama seems to be getting away with this. Should he be?

Read School Gate on:

Sasha and Malia Obama - tips for changing schools mid year.

Yes we can! US school renames itself Barack Obama Elementary

Choosing to go private - and why it's an incendiary issue in the US too

Why are US college fees so expensive?

What do American teachers want from President Obama?

Comments

[jonquil]

should obama be sending his children to private school? yes--but not for the reasoning given in the article. given who the parents are, it is easier to secure a private school than a public one.
as for school choice iniatives, one of the reasons parents chose private or public is that private schools can expell/not accept problem children. if a private school accepts federal funds as fee payment from even one child, does this mean that they can no longer pick & chose?

[Liz]

Aren't all 'first' children schooled privately with I think the exception of Amy Carter?

I think the very idea odd that 'children of politicans should go to State schools' is a very UK issue and not really the case in the US or anywhere else. Let them send their children where they like, it's an utter non issue.

[Hol]

People are looking at it purely in terms of education and public image without considering the wider implications of being a President's kid. They now require their own code names and security detail since they are newly targets for kidnappers and terrorists.
Can you imagine the hassle (and cost to the taxpayer) of making a state school secure enough for a President's children?

Half the reason that particular school gets so many White House children for students is because they already have a wide range of politicians' and diplomats' children etc. and as such already have much more security in place and know the drill.

[Rui Duarte]

I read one of Obama's books and he does NOT say that US schools are good. On the contrary. He accuses conservatives of disregarding public (there state owned) schools. Just because one think that all schools should be good doesn't mean one asserts that such is the case.
In fact, Obama and several people at CAP (americanprogress.org) and EPI (epi.org) ostensively criticise the education policies of republicans (conservatives) and their effects on the schooling of young americans.

If Obama did send his girls to state schools.. where would his criticisms of «the system» be? If Obama deemed «the system» the best for his daughters would he have any authority left to criticise and call for «change» in education?

So Obama is a realist. GOOD. The world needs politicians with their feet on the ground.

[Lila]

not a reason Hol - sounds like an excuse to me. Various prime ministers have managed various different schools here. Isn't that the point made in the article, that things are so different in the UK when it comes to schooling and tensions around private schools. Remember, Obama is a Democrat!

[Jennie]

Obama should have the choice of where he sends his kids, the problem is is that democrats have had control over the public school system and it stinks. Yet any time it is approached to be revamped or "changed" the democratic party and the teacher's union put up such a fuss that nothing is ever done. Obama is against vouchers which would give parents their "choice" in educating their children, yet he sends his daughters to a private, very expensive schools while the schools in Wash. D.C. are among the worst. This isn't a money issue, the US spends BILLIONS on education, it's liberal ideas and lack of control that is the problem. As a parent of three children, I have experienced both in LA and I can tell you that the public school system is a dismal failure from all of the liberal policies that are allowed to flourish.

[Patricia Robinson]

The reality is that, aside from the issues already raised, the girls are probably safer in a private school and their safety is a real issue that needs to be addressed, as well as their education.

[John young]

because public schools these days are run and administrated by the liberals why wouldn't the top liberal send his kids to a public school for a "change"? maybe his wife said that they were going go to a private school and he voted present.

[Rendezvous]

C'mmon, President or not, it is a decision that is made as parents for the girls education..
But, If i were The President i would be sending my kids to the best school's too !! ;)

[nick]

everyone should receive the best education possible. Dont take it out on his kids just to have a pop at him. Washington is one of the most dangerous cities in the world, the safer the better. Id sooner send my kids to harrow than a state school in DC

[Michelle]

The Obama's have the right to send their kids to any school they want. We should not be judging their decision.

[Damon]

Hey he can send his kids to any school private or public he wants, that is a decision he and michelle made. What I have issue with is liberals like Obama taking that same choice away from other american families. He and Michelle choose to send their kids to private school, yet I cannot make that same decision for my own kids? They are my kids not Obama's, not my next door neighbors, not the governments, MINE if I decide to send them to private school thats my business. If I decide to send them to government school, again that is my business.

The point is we as American parents should be able to make the same decision the Obama's just made and not forced to send our kids to whatever school the government tells us too.

[Dee]

What kind of person would sacrifice their children to please public opinion? Not someone we would want for a President. His children need heightened security and deserve to have a safe environment. Can't really happen these days in a public school system. What kind of person would not give their child the best they can offer if they can afford it, merely to please public opinion? Not someone we would want as a President. If for no other reason, though, those girls deserve to be as safe and as protected as possible from physical and emotional harm.

[Once again]

Obama? Champagne socialist - just like all liberals. What's good for others is not to his taste.

[m scarborough]

I despise Obama and his policies however I think it is understandable that he wants the best and safest educational environment for his children. What I disrespect is the Obama's charade of pretending to "look at all options" regarding schools. They knew all along they would be sending their kids to private schools so cut the c*** and be honest. They were never considering putting their kids in one of the worst public school systems in the country!

[Brian]

This is typical left-wing Hypocrisy. Obama uses 'School Choice' for his own children and chooses to send his daughters to private school. But his position for the rest of America is that you do not have the right to school choice even though it is your tax dollars that pay for you children’s education. Obama is just another left-wing elitist snob, do as he says not as he does. Dumb Americans have made a huge mistake electing this person, a person most Americans no nothing about. I just hope our country survives his Presidency.

[Brian]

That was supposed to be 'know' nothing, not 'no' nothing. Sorry about that.

[sean]

its safer for them kids, from al-keeda

[Elaine Sihera]

In a word, YES. It would be a nightmare otherwise trying to protect these children in a public school. To pretend that they are like every other kids and expose them to unnecessary danger would be criminal. There are times when principles have to give way to expediency and this is one of them.

[Rene' Esswein]

Of course his girls should go to a private school. They are already used to one. Also, He has been voted in as the President of the United States. This is what should be done. Thanks.

[dh-Tennessee]

Here we are in the middle of every kind of crises imaginable and all we can do is grip and complain about where the next president's kids go to school? People we have our priorities so displaced that it stinks to high heaven. If ALL AMERICANS DONT LEARN HOW TO CELEBRATE ONE ANOTHER, WE WILL SOON BECOME EVEN MORE DIVIDED THAN EVER. IF THIS HAPPENS,NO ONE WILL HAVE THE PRIVILEDGE OF FREEDOM IN THIS COUNTRY TO DO ANYTHING AND AT THAT POINT IT WONT MATTER WHAT SCHOOL YOU CHOOSE TO SEND YOUR CHILD TO OR YOURSELF FOR THAT MATTER, BECAUSE IT WONT EVEN BE AN OPTION. FREEDOM AND SECURITY IS COSTLY AND IF IT MEANS DOING WHATEVER IT TAKES TO KEEP HIS KIDS SAFE WHILE EDUCATING THEM, THEN SO BE IT. I WOULD RATHER PAY TAXES FOR THAT THAN TO HELP WITH FUNDING A WAR!

[April Maddox]

This should not even be questioned at all. The Obama's should make their own decisions when it comes to their children! And keep their children in a private school or have an in house tuitor. This is also about the safety of the children.

[Jennie]

To DH in Tenn. being highly upset that we must NOT be divided or we will lose our freedom...may I just make an observation...why must we not be divided? It seems to me that the governments that are ruled by dictators are all in agreement...just because the Obama Messiah has been put into office does not change the fact that he's a hack liberal from a very stinky Chicago...I would NEVER discount my ideals, morals and beliefs just because a quasi-god has been elected in part by a completely contaminated press. In four years, God willing, he will be out, along with the rest of the junk...and the price for our freedom for us to all say what we believe has come at a high cost...always...your diatribe against "war" is not very thought out...we did not ask for this war, we took up the mantle and have liberated 50 million people as well as kept our own country safe for the last 7 years which gives us all the ability to argue the new president's policy toward education. I bet you didn't gripe when we are all subjected to his bare chest with the media fawning all over him. The very idea that my taxes pay for his children to go to a very expensive school is objectionable...that's not what our taxes should go for. On the other hand, our taxes should go to the military to protect and defend our country. That's in our Constitution, not to pay for everyone's education. At least at this point in time, we are still not considered to be socialist, although we will be there very quickly with a democratic president, House and Senate. And with the help of a very few, very scared Republicans. Long live Democracy and the ability of the people to rule themselves, not to be told what to do by a few!

[daphne kenward]

FREEDOM of CHOICE, nothing to do with the public. All those who can afford private education I would strongly support it.

The tecahers in some schools is not fit to teach. After years of being dumb down, In America and in Britain.

Lack of information, teachers told what to teach, the one who could teach has become frustrated and left teaching.

I know 4 teachers who took early retirement and left the profession.

[lu tay]

Our relationship with Great Britain is good. I believe part of it is because we do not meddle in your affairs and you should not meddle in America's affairs either. What goes on in America should concern Americans only! There is plenty going on in this world that really needs attention from the world at large. However, this is not one of them!

[omg]

Who cares where they go to school???? He is still a moron.

[ShyGirl]

It's his decision! He wants what's best for his children guys! I don't think he should make 'examples' of them, they're 7 and 10 for crying out loud. They already have security people with them, pretty much 24/7 I'd guess. Imagine trying to cope with that in a typical Washington state school.

[E Vaughn]

Barack was elected President,not his children. It's okay to hold him accountable for world affairs but, a personal decision about his children's education is off limits. He should not have to give up that right. Would you like to have it taken from you.

[R Mason]

The US and the UK are two of very few countries that do not subsidise private schools. This is because they hold three conflicting beliefs, that the state should provide all schooling, dissuade other provision and that people should be prevented from choosing schools, which results in state schools for the masses and private schools that only the rich can afford. Most nations have resolved this conflict by providing state run schools and paying towards private schools so that private schools are not exclusive to the rich, the state still provides and there is choice and competition which keeps everyone on their toes. Why did not the US and the UK follow this route? I do not know much about the US but I think that UK governments really believed that comprehensives would be so attractive that they would make private schooling redundant. That being educated together and in the same way would make people the same. What they did not understand was the widely varying needs of the British population, the resistance to change or the response of the private schools to competition both with the state system and with each other so that private schools now exist for every need. Probably most damaging is the false belief that standards can be maintained by mixed ability teaching which has had catastrophic consequences for educational standards and made private schools even more attractive and exclusive.

[R Mason]

Sorry, correction:
The US and the UK are two of very few countries that do not subsidise private schools. This is because they hold three conflicting beliefs, that the state should provide all schooling, dissuade other provision and that people should not be prevented from choosing schools, which results in state schools for the masses and private schools that only the rich can afford. Most nations have resolved this conflict by providing state run schools and paying towards private schools so that private schools are not exclusive to the rich, the state still provides and there is choice and competition which keeps everyone on their toes. Why did not the US and the UK follow this route? I do not know much about the US but I think that UK governments really believed that comprehensives would be so attractive that they would make private schooling redundant. That being educated together and in the same way would make people the same. What they did not understand was the widely varying needs of the British population, their resistance to change nor the response of the private schools to competition both with the state system and with each other so that private schools now exist for every need. Probably most damaging is the false belief that standards can be maintained by mixed ability teaching which has had catastrophic consequences for educational standards and made private schools even more attractive and exclusive.

[Kait]

Jennie - 'The very idea that my taxes pay for his children to go to a very expensive school is objectionable...that's not what our taxes should go for. On the other hand, our taxes should go to the military to protect and defend our country.'

Your taxes don't pay for the Obamas' children's schooling; the Obamas pay the costs - unlike former Republican congressman Rick Santorum, who held the Penns Hills school district up for $100,000 in tuition, claiming that his children lived in PA whilst they actually lived in Virginia.

Damon: 'He and Michelle choose to send their kids to private school, yet I cannot make that same decision for my own kids?'

In the US, you can send your children anywhere you choose; the government has nothing to do with it. You can home school them, school them online, send them to religious schools, other private schools, whatever you wish. There are even scholarships available for people who cannot afford tuition. The "government" isn't preventing you from making choices.

[Jennie]

Kait, who do you think pays Obama's salary? The TAXPAYERS. Regardless of what people think, the President of the US's salary is paid by the TAXPAYERS. Before that, he was paid by the People of the State of Illinois. He's pretty much been on the public payroll since his stint as a community organizer and used Chicago politics to propel himself a state senator. The very fact that he does not support vouchers for other poor kids throughout the US is disgraceful. I don't believe schools should be funded at all by the government. We should have NO state run or government schools. We are not Communist China. Schooling is not the responsibility of the government. However, since that's what everybody seems to believe, then the system should be one of choice. The fact that he would not choose to put his girls into a DC school is not a surprise. We pour BILLIONS into the public system and it's the worst in the world. Yet when it comes to his kids, OF COURSE he wants the best. But so do the rest of us. And yes, you can choose to pay for private school, but the issue here is public school. I have paid for private and then still continue to pay for failing, stinky public schools through my property taxes. So in essence, I paid twice, through my taxes and through private funds, because I wanted my children to have a better and safer education.

Whats wrong in sending his girls in a private school? I would do the same if I were him. Besides, he can afford it, even if he is not the president of USA. Like Obama, his children are now facing risks in a public. I can´t imagine a state run school children confronted with hundred of securities. What would you and the american people say if, if Sarah Palin became a VP and send her kids in a private school? Does it make any difference?

[Brian]

KAIT, you can send you children to any school you want, but you are missing the point. We pay taxes for our children to go to public (i.e. government) schools. But if you want to send you children to private schools you still have to pay for the public schooling of your children even though they are going to private school, this is a matter of money. Many people can not afford to send their children to private schools like the Obama's who are sending their children to private schools with our taxpayer money. But at the same time Lord Obama states that he is not for school choice, meaning that you do not get to use the money that you are paying in taxes for schools at any school of you CHOICE! Without school choice you child has to go to a government school unless you want to pay for two schools, of which your child will only go to one. School choice and vouchers mean that you get to use the money that you are paying in taxes for schooling at any school of you CHOICE! Lord Obama is against this as it takes power and money away from the government and the government schools. Obama is a big government socialist and is against school choice. I do not have a problem with Obama sending his children to private schools. But to those of us who can not afford to pay for private schools since we do not have school choice, Obama is a hypocrite. He is the new age Mussolini.

[SF]

I read half of this article and stopped!! It’s up to the parents to do what’s in the best interest of their children so why not send them to private school!? If the child is bright and wants to learn they will excel in any school - my parents could afford to send me to a private school but instead I still went to a state school and did better than most people from private schools and of course my parents knew I would. Parents know their children best and should send them to the best school they can - at the end of the day we want the best for the next generation children whoever’s sons or daughters they are!

[sandra]

The Obama girls should be educated in whatever way their parents decide.
It's not up to anyone, so why bother even posing such a stupid question? Should I comment on how YOUR kids should be educated?

[AKM]

Regardless of choice, one thing that's different between Mr. Obama's kids and other kids is the issue of security. Even if he did want to send his kids to a DC public school I don't think that the US secret service would approve of that because it would be far more difficult to secure a school with larger grounds and a bigger student body. Chelsea Clinton went to Sidwell Friends so the school and secret service are experienced in security measures for the first daughters.

[Lola Mento]

Dear Editor:

The Obama's have the right to send their children to any school they choose. This is a parental right. I suggest that your newspaper should leave the children alone. I think this is an abuse. Parenting is a private matter. The questions should be: can we solve the eaconmic crisis? can we feed the hungry? can we cobat terrorists? Can we have a heath care system that is afforadable by all? Can we save teh world from pollution? Those are the issues.
Thanks

[etirpsha]

The White House sits in the middle of a ghetto. Now what parent in their right mind, especially a multi-millionaire parent, would want their child to go to a school where 73.8% of the children are from that type of home environment, have low achievement levels in standardized testing, and whose students complain on the Internet about thuggery, bullying and having their possessions stolen. I can't blame Obama, except for his hypocrisy. (Yes, even some blacks are now beginning to think he ran as a black, but now acts like a white.) Oh, and while American education began its deep slide 50 years ago, liberals, NOT conservatives, have dominated the profession and funding bodies.

[lou]

If he would have sent his kids to a public school, people would have complained that he shouldnt be spending tax dollars on himself when he's a millionaire... politics tells what politicians do wrong, and while useful for creating a free government by the people, it's often taken a bit too far...I really do not find this an issue of any type of importance at all...

[A Galvan]

I don't know why everybody is argueing. Obama can send his girls to any school he wants. He can afford it. By the way, schools are state run and overseen by the government. A poor state has poor schools and a rich state has good schools. There are private schools in every state in the country.

We are far from weatlthy, but my son went to a private Catholic school because we wanted to give him the stability of staying in one school thru his elemantary school years and it was a very good school. We sacraficed to afford this. As I see it, Obama was hired by the people to the highest office in the country. He is being paid to do this job. It is a hard and stressful job. He has the right to do whatever he wants to do with his money and if he wants to send his kids to a private school, he can. It is called freedom of choice.

Brian, you need to go back to school. Jennie, you just hate Obama and are sounding off. If we survived Bush, we can survive anything and anyone. You don't care where his kids go to school. Don't blame the government for the poorly run schools in California, blame your actor Governor and the sorry job he has done.

[john]

I reckon the Obamas should educate their children exactly as they see fit. They're his and his wife's children not the countries. Can you imagine telling any other American how he should bring up his or her kids. A finger would feature largely in the response.

[bernie]

First of all I think that we all have a chose to send our kids where ever we want to. They are the presidents kids and they need to be secure i don't think that it was a problem when the other presidents sent their kids to private school why should it be a problem for president Obama kids to go.Also they went to private school in Chicago why would their parents change and put them in public school in dc. who would want their kids to go to public school in DC when they can afford private. If you guys want your kids to go to sidwell go put your application in and see if your kids are smart enough to past the test to get in. probably not because you guys are talking all kinds of stuff, so that shows that your not smart and the apple don't fall far from it's tree. Do you guys know what school the Obama graduated from,only the best can get into those schools so like I said the apples don't fall far from its trees. Go obama's.

[Bedfordshire]

The most important part of the school equation is that not only is Sidwell Friends a great school, but equally as important the Secret Service are very familiar to them and with them.

[trudy]

Tsk, tsk, Brian. If you live in the U.S., it's your choice whether you send your kids to a public or private school, assuming they are smart enough for a private school to accept them. Public schools have to accept anyone.

The public schools in D.C. are a mess, anyone who lives there should either use a private school or home school, which by the way costs nothing.

[Andrew Hunt]

Of course Obama should be free to educate his kids in any way that he sees fit. Hoever he should be pilloried as a DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE when he sends his own kids to private school but is against other parents doing the same for their kids. Obama is against school vouchers, in other words ordinary people without his money have to put up with whatever the state provides for education.

Obama is simply another in a long line of left wing scum who demand the best for their own kids but want others to be faced with bad education from the state sector.

[Tom Franklin]

No, of course he shouldn't.

He's a politician preaching one thing, practising another.

His political values were of the "opportunity for all", everyone's in the same boat, people together of America joined in unity blah blah type. Privileged education of your kids is not inkeeping with the value system that he claims he holds, and more importantly, the value system he intends on inflicting on everyone else. Except himself of course.

If he held different political values which aimed for different goals to the ones he claims, then I'd say sure, his actions are in keeping with his values, send them to private school.

But they're not. That's the point. The person is political. He has been voted in (apparently) with a set of values and goals for society. If he's not willing to live those values in the micro sense of his own family, it's pure hypocrisy to impose them on the general population instead.

[Kaytrena]

Of course his children should go to private school?

For those of you who think your tax dollars is paying for their education, think again. President Obama uses his salary to pay for his children education. For those of you who says no. Ask yourself (1)did you question the choice of the Clinton made to send their children to a private school? (2) Did you question the choice that George W. Bush made to send his children to private school? If you find that your answer is no; then, you may be guilty of using a double standard.

The bottom line is don't expect the Obama's to settle for less because they are African Americans!!!

[Laura Roberts]

The bottom line is don't expect the Obama's to settle for less because they are African Americans!!!

POSTED BY: KAYTRENA | JANUARY 07, 2009 AT 02:06 PM

Who the hell brought their race into this debate???!!!
Some of you people are obsessed with trying desperately to find a victimisation that doesn't exist aren't you? Kaytrena, I think you'll find the whole article and all the comments centre on the guy's politics and how these fit with his schooling choice.

I suggest you do the same and refrain from protesting at an expectation in others that nobody has, and that only exists in your look-for-racism-everywhere little mind.

[Stephanie Tohill]

Etirpsha what on earth are you talking about 'acting like a white'? White is a race not a personality trait. it is not possible to act white (or act black for that matter.)

As for the piece nothing hypocritical whatsoever. I'm a socialist and have no problem with people using private education. The assertion that all socialists are against this is nothing more than a tired stereotype.

In summary I believe in the importance of education and feel that everybody should have access to this in order to achieve in life. I think like healthcare, access to it is and should be a universal right. If parents cannot afford to pay for that themselves, then the state needs to step in.

I don't believe Obama has ever said anything against private education so he is not a hypocrite.

Plus I would think considering the status of his kids and the protection they need, it is a lot easier and more straight forward to send them to the school they have chosen.

R Mason of course the Uk doesn't 'subsidise' private schools. It offers state schools. however Uk private schools do get tax relief. I'm also not sure why you think only the UK and the US do that or why you think only they are averse to private education. Why have you omitted to comment on most of mainland Europe?

[Tom Franklin]

I'm a socialist and have no problem with people using private education.
POSTED BY: STEPHANIE TOHILL | JANUARY 07, 2009 AT 03:52 PM

Then you are either a contradicting hypocrite or not a socialist. The theory of socialism rests on the enforced redistribution of wealth such that no individual is monetarily better off than any other, with absolute equality across all, and hence absolute equality of opportunity, including schooling. To retain your wealth, fail to redistribute it until you are financially down to the level of the masses, and spend it only on your children's privileged private schooling, something unavailable to the majority of others, is capitalist behaviour.

I'm a capitalist. You claim you're a socialist. Actually, I just think you're a hypocrite like most socialists.

[Rohan]

What business is that of anybody but the girls parents? They did not stand for office. Neither are they part of the package their father convincingly offered the American people. This is an utterly false debate.

[BamBam]

I am not a fan of this Socialist but cripe, what's the big deal about Obama's daughters attending a private school? Everyone knows the education is better and they definitely will be safer. Obama is doing what any good parent (that can afford it) would do.

[James]

Rohan - but he is and he's the one paying for it and it's his decision with his wife of where to send them, not theirs. That decision is hypocritical. Also, if they're not "part of the package" get them off the stage and every single item of publicity then.

[Diane]

Of course they should go to private schools. They are the daughters of the 44th president of the United States. To imply or insinuate that Obama should send his girls to crappy public schools is absurd. Obama did not create our school systems nor is he responsible for the bad condition they are in. He does not need to prove anything but the is a good parent and sending his kids to the best school possible. The question is absurd. Why would his kids not go to a nice private school?

[Diane]

Message to Jenine. Taxpayers pay the salaries of police, firemen, city workers, school teachers and the lsit goes on and on. Obama writes books for which he has income and the tax payers does not pay his wife'f salary. Obama also pays taxes just like everybody else so what is your point? Many other workers who are paid by tax payers dollars send their children to private school and they are not the president of the US. Why are we trying to hold Obama to a different standard? I don't even know why teh question was asked becuase it's just a question asked to start drama and we all fell for it hook line and sinker. We should start ignoring stupid questions and maybe these publications will stop it with the silliness.

[Celesta]

The time you are taking to write about where the Obama children should go to school, should be used to do your homework on how you can help your own children improve in the classroom and in the public.
Do you spend at least two hours with your children everyday studying even when they do not have homework? If not start now and they will do just as well as the private school student.

[Pauline B. Larach]

It is always the bickering and nosey people who try to Run and give ideas to the family of any President.
The parents have the right to make decisions for these minor kids.
America can have some very disgusting folks who can't mind their own business.

[Tom]

What is the point if you take a political decision to educate your children in state school and they end up failing in life?
Most good parents would help their children at home with their education if they have time. As President, Obama would have very little time for that. So it makes every sense to send them where they would require less, if any, parental help.
I respect Obama for not playing politcis with his children. If I have money I will educate all my children privately. I want the best for them.

[Thomas Carney]

Obama's little more than a clone of the Clintons. Obama, like Slick Willie Clinton, extolled the importance of public education, yet proved themselves hypocritical by putting their children in an elite private school. Washington DC has one of the worst public education systems in the nation.

This is just more of the Democrats' hypocrisy.

The Democratic Party talks like they're for the average man, but rules don't apply to them.

Scum.

[Laurah]

Why shouldn't he send his daughters to private school?
As he has the money to do it then its completely up to him how he wants to spend it, not the general public.

[Nicky]

Laurah, there's nothing wrong with sending kids to a private school. There is something wrong, however, when the person in question opposes other people having the opportunity to do the same, by means of, say, school vouchers. Clinton, Obama and all the democraps fiercely opposed Bush's proposal to give the freedom of school choice to regular folks. This is called elitism, dear Laurah. Forcing other people to make choices they themselves would never make. It's called HYPOCRISY. Obviously the Obamas think that public schools are great for everybody else's kids but theirs. Do you get it now?

[Colette Doucet]

Definitely. The children of the president of the United States should and must be protected against the evil learking about. I don't understand how people cannot see the wisdom in protecting the little ones of someone working hard at providing a lifestyle that the whole world admires and respects notwithstanding the adversity and dangers that come with such a position.

[anon]

Everyone seems to be missing something here. Yes, it is hypocritical to deny vouchers to middle or lower class parents so that they may send their children to private school. However, in the US, the amount of money you pay for property taxes does not even come close to the cost of private school tuition. Our child's private school tuition is 7 times as expensive as what we pay to the county in property taxes, only a portion of which actually goes to fund the public schools. So, even if the US government did say, "Ok, middle and lower classes, you do not have to pay for two schools, you can have your contribution to the public school system in a voucher" in most cases, it would not be anywhere near enough to pay for any private school. (And you must be careful about which private school you choose, because they are not all automatically good just because they are private.)

[Ann R]

Another factor not mentioned here is that the District of Columbia public schools are the worst in the country. Parents are fleeing DC for the suburbs or private charter schools.

The Carters sent Amy to a DC public school and reporters and tourists camped out on the sidewalk to get a glimpse of her, as if she were an exhibit at the National Zoo.

[prudence eely bond mcguire]

It doesn't really matter how good the education you receive is if you are stupid.

[prudence eely bond mcguire]

Obama seems to have money pouring from every edifice.
It really intrigues me as to how he has managed to accumulate so much considering he hasn't held down many jobs in his forty odd years.
No, I don't think he should educate his daughters privately as he preaches to all and sundry a different creed.
He should practice what he preaches.
As if that will ever happen!
He will always be to me 'The Changeling' in the White House- the worst thing that has as ever happened to America and the world.
To-day's heroes all seem to be utter phonies.

[Zarich]

It isn't a question of whether Sasha and Malia Obama "should" or "shouldn't" go to a private school. It is a question, as it is for ALL of us, as to which school their parents choose as appropriate for them. It isn't about money - my parents lived in a rented caravan for ten years and spent my dad's wages (he is a carpenter) putting me through prep school. Anyone can send their child to private school if they organise themselves. It isn't about security either - any school could be made secure with enough funds thrown at it. The issue here is that Barack and Michelle Obama have found a school with an ethic they like where they think their children will be comfortable. End of debate. If they'd moved to DC for Barack's job and he wasn't President, this would be the school they went to in that case, regardless of security issues or fee-paying ability.

[Marlene]

Sending his children to private school is a non-issue in the US. Every parent has the right of choice regarding their child's education, whether it be a public school(state), a parochial school (religious)or private school. Parents also have the right to educate their children at home, although each state has guidelines and standards for home schooling parents.

[Helen E.]

Absolutely not. It doesn't matter if private schools are better, if he "has the right to send his kids where he wants" (what kind of weak non-argument is that?), if public schools are rubbish: he is a man whose decisions about schooling affects every citizen of the US, whose values affect them (and the wider world in some respects) too.

Anybody in public office, who has the power to inflict their values and decisions on the public must live by these very values and decisions in their own personal life too, not live in a vulgar hypocrisy.

He wants to achieve the goals and promises he made? Then prove it and don't be a two-faced "Do as I say and not as I do" low life hypocrite.

[Libby McLiberal]

With hateful entities like Prudence Eely Stupid McGuire hanging about it is essential that the girls be protected from any hint of violence and ugliness. This would cost the taxpayer a whole lot more if they went to a public school. It's disruptive enough for these two sweet girls that they've been uprooted from their home, their community, and their friends. Kudos to President Obama for keeping order and protecting them as best he can. The taxpayers do not pay for their schooling, he's paying for that out of his own pocket. However the taxpayers do pay for their security. Sidwell is far easier to secure and less costly than a public school would be. The man is doing what's best for his dearly-loved little girls. So back off.

[Marlene]

Helen E does not understand that here in the US, the federal government has little involvement in education. Education is left to the state and local levels. Yes, the federal government provides a percentage of funding, but the government does not set the standards for learning. Each state does that. As I said before, here in the US, this is a non-issue because parents make the choice about education. I live in the wealthiest county in the US (Fairfax County, VA), which has superb public schools, yet many parents send their children to private schools because it is their right to do so.

[Tim]

Its tough job being President with young children so I would home school. Why inflict your children to the hate they will experience, can you imagine their life if they where Bush kids at the moment. I would also worry about security of the other children. Islam is not above attacking schools; remember the children of Beslan.

[Xonr8]

Inreresting that this subject garnered so much response!

Question? Is Barry O not the product of a Private School education: Columbia & Harvard University? Sacrifices were made on his behalf; is it appropriate for John & Jane Public to dictate how he should spend his after tax dollars?

[Kevin]

Hey I went to DC public schools in the 70's and
can give you the run down of what not to do......
1. Never use the bathroom - too too scary...
2. Never stay after school because they will rob you for bus money home
3.Sports teams aren't meant for the middle class school kids - you will be just a target
4.When outside stay out of inside corners....you can get mugged there
5.Any stray neighborhood dogs should be shooed away from the site from the playground because some one will actually kill it (it happened)
6. Never ever wear any rings or watches because you will not go home with them.
7. Nerdy kids and associates are recreational punching bags to the violent so don't befriend them .
8.Help the 16 year cheat on test because in 8th grade he's a father of two and does not have much time to hang out .Also he might decide that you might make a good punching bag.

Everything above is true then and now ....the only good thing is in advance classes you will have very small classes...so this is where one puts your loved one.....you have got to be kidding.....DC schools rated as one the worst in the area (see washington post article 2 days ago)

[Prudence Eely Bond McGuire. BA]

You have just proven my point Libby McLiberal, no amount of education can brighten the brain power of a subjective ignorant person.
Wait 'til the bottom falls out of the economy in the US and the rest of the world and you and your elk will be changing your hats and screaming 'WHAT HAPPENED!'
Obama is not the real deal and obviously you are just too slow to notice it.
If you have to print money to bail the Banks etc out somebody has definitely lost the plot.

[Hugh Allen]

There's a lot of hypocrisy going on here. I know that many people can't afford private education, but a lot can, but choose instead to spend their money on 2 or 3 foreign holidays a year. Are parents who spend their post-tax dollars on education any the more buying privilege than parents who takes their kids to Kenya, Greece and Brighton? Somehow the idea that kids do better in life as a result is seen as unfair? To whom is this being unfair? Didn't the parents who paid for their kids education also pay public education taxes, and did they not forgo other benefits?

[Chris]

This article has certainly unearthed some truly bitter and miserable people.

The US presidency is no longer the throne of a prosperous country, its the chopping block in a burning economy. Perhaps when you become president of a shamelessly corrupt country under threat of racial and religious radicals, you'll understand his decision.

Hoping you resolve those personal issues before our next chat. PS if you don't like the education you can afford then stop having kids and visit the open university you morons.

[ana Pereira]

As the mother of a Quaker school educated child I cannot agree more with the Obamas decision to have their children attend Sidwell Friends. Surely it's not for political gain they send them there. Childhood doesn't come back again and a parent has the duty to do what's best for one's children. The Obamas are only fulfilling their parental duty. Should we ask them for less? Do their children deserve less than an academically excellent peace loving tolerant and secure
environment ?

[Biggins]

Maybe people were more critical of Tony Blair because his was the party that promised to abolish Private Schooling at one point long ago?

[Tom Franklin]

I can't believe that the American posters here just don't get it, they don't seem to have grasped what we're debating here.

Can you stop whinging "every US parent has the right to send their child where they want" - we're not debating whether they have the right to do it or not. Understand? Of course they have the right. We're not questioning that, ok? Get that?

Can you stop moaning about where the money for the private school comes from, that's not the issue either. Don't care whether it's federal government, local government, we're not debating that. Understand? Get that?

The issue here is about the promises and values that this man claims to hold, and the kind of egalitarian, "opportunities for all" society that he throughout his campaign said was of utmost importance to him. As others have correctly pointed out - and that all the responses seem to be deliberately side stepping with the above such irrelevant retorts - sending his children to private school is completely at odds with the way forward to achieve the society he claims he wants. He is blatantly contradicting himself.

"We must make sure that people who have the grades, the desire and the will, but not the money, can still get the best education possible." - he said.

How is sending his children helping or supporting this view? How is he making sure that others who don't have the money "get the best education possible" by doing precisely that, because he does have the money, with his own kids?

It's not about whether he has the right. It's about whether his actions are in line with what he preaches. And they're not.

[NP]

I agree that it's a bit hypocritical - hence the reason that I'm not a socialist. My children go to private school because I went to state school and it was miserable. Perhaps I was lucky, some might say intelligent, enough to realise that if I worked hard I could earn enough money to give my future children a better life. Obama has worked hard, he's successful, why wouldn't he want a better life for his children? Selfish as this sounds, if you didn't save your money up rather than spending it on holidays/luxuries etc, or didn't work hard enough at school to be able to earn this money, please stop trying to take away from those who did! Up until university I had a thoroughly miserable life of stress and work, with little social life and bullying from fellow students who eventually made it big in hairdressing/decorating/Tescos etc...so why haven't I earned my current pleasures?
I wish socialists would just focus on making state schools a lot better, and then maybe we wouldn't switch over to them!

[MRSA]

I wonder, would the Obama children have gone to private school had he not been elected and remained in IL as a senator? Were they in public or private school there?

Knowing the prices of private schools in my area of the country which is an upscale area, the school they chose is more than double the costs of the best private schools here. We don't have Quaker schools and I am honestly not familiar with them.

It's their choice for their children but it does make the public school system look "not good enough" for the Obama children in my opinion. It is a bit hypocritical as another poster stated.

Children get what they want to out of a school. An driven student will do well anywhere.

[woody]

what's the big deal. No president is preaching about sending kids to public school.
Also, they were educated at a private school in Chicago - they will now be educated at a private school in DC.
Aside from the quality of education, Sidwell (and the other school that was considered)had previous kids of a president, and are familiar with having Secret Service around.
No one is preaching do as I say, not as I do. If you can afford it, go for it.

[Marlene]

Tom Franklin, You are still missing the point. Millions of American children go to private school. You do not have to be rich. Obama is not a socialist. He's a Democrat, and believes in the American system. As president of the US, he will have little say in the US education system. It is not up to the president to make the schools better. It is up to the states and local communities. You just do not get it. I voted for Obama. I do not have an issue where he and his wife choose to send their children. It is a private matter. Americans look at this is a very different matter than the British. It's really not your business to debate where the Obamas send their children to school. They chose the school best for their two daughters.

[Sarah]

The schools in DC are dirty and dangerous. Why should Obama subject his children to such conditions just because a bunch of whiners think he should. If I lived in DC, I'd do everything I could to afford private schools for my children too. I'm sure he'd agree that he's a parent first, the President-elect second.

The whole idea of private school education seems to be a red rag to people in the UK. In North America, that whole history that goes with the British public school is lacking; therefore, we don't get as worked up about people affording the tuition to send their kids to private schools. You can bet that the staffs at all the Embassies in Washington send their children to private schools as well, but you don't suppose the people in their respective countries complain about it, do you? If the private school has any educational credibility, you know your child will emerge able to read, write, and function in the world well. Is there something wrong with this?

Stop whining about private schools. And stop taking it so personally if someone else's kid goes and your doesn't. The answer is not that everyone should go to crappy public schools.

[Lili]

Barack Obama is not only a product of Columbia and Harvard, he attended the prestigious Punahou School in Hawaii and spent two years at a Catholic school in Indonesia. His wife attended Princeton and Harvard. These are people who understand the value of an elite education and who naturally want it for their children. Moreover, their decisions regarding their daughters' education are theirs and theirs alone, which is as it should be. They are not required to turn their children into a social experiment in order to satisfy some sector of the electorate.

No one with a choice would send his children to Washington public schools. Moreover, these are the daughters of the soon-to-be President. Amy Carter's experience at a public school was miserable, partly because the Secret Service restricted her activities there for security reasons; the public had too easy access to the school campus. Private schools like Sidwell offer larger and more secluded campuses, where security concerns can be better addressed. In Washington, they also offer classmates who are well-placed to understand some of the experiences and frustrations of a president's offspring.

By the way, I attended private schools on financial aid and wouldn't trade the education I received for anything. Poor and middle-class children do have access to such schools, which are often more ethnically diverse than public schools are. In fact, it wasn't until I enrolled in a private school that I had any black classmates.

[Linda]

Get a grip, Tom. If Obama needs to go to school, by all means send him to DC public schools. Maybe then some money will go their way to make them marginally safer.
His children, however, didn't run for office, were not elected, and are not his personal property. They are not required to make his statements for him. He has a duty to provide them with the best education he can find.
He could compromise, of course, by sending them to a charter school; if you want to know what those are, speak up.

[DC Mom]

I feel I must respond to comments like "The schools in DC are dirty and dangerous. Why should Obama subject his children to such conditions just because a bunch of whiners think he should. If I lived in DC, I'd do everything I could to afford private schools for my children too."

While many DC schools are shamefully neglected and much needs to be done to improve them, there are a number of excellent public schools within walking distance of Sidwell Friends. My children attend one of them and I wouldn't change our choice. I'm really tired of the wholesale indictments of the entire DC public school system by people who have no idea what they are talking about. In fact, I believe if the Obamas had looked at any of a number of schools, they might have been quite pleased by what they found. In the end, the security issue may still have led them to choose private school, but at least they would have seen that there is more to DCPS than the stereotype that constantly gets reinforced.

[pgregg]

England is a sad little back wash filled with down on their luck individuals. You can feel the agony of the missed glory days when you could rape and pilage the world on your way to empire building. What a sad example of a little country that doesn't know it's true place in the world today. Say hello to your Queen for me. How cute you are with all of your history and resentment of those who've passed you by.

[noelle]

Until you have walked the streets of DC and seen the schools you cannot fully understand this decision. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it is not a decision, it's just what you have to do. DC is always in the top three in the US for murder rate and hard drug usage, the schools are abysmal, and far from making things 'equal' he would be severely disadvantaging his children, as well as endangering their lives. This is not an overstatement.

I also think the US school system is fraught with issues the UK does not have. Where my sister graduated, the teachers were not allowed to fail students, lest the parents sue. And that was at one of the best public schools in the country. In the social context of lawsuits for every little thing, many teachers find it nearly impossible to teach, and end up doing little more than babysitting. This is not what I would want for my children either, and as Obama is stuck in the same system as everyone else, which he didn't create, I think they are doing what any sane person would do in their situation, socialist or not (for the record, I am).

[James]

If Obama's campaign rested on being anti-abortion, but he and his wife decided to abort their unborn child, I wonder what you would all say then.

Oh, it's his right to do to choose an abortion, what he says doesn't matter, it's his private life?
Oh, what his wife does with her body is nobody's business but her own, she didn't get voted into office etc etc.

Yes? You're really saying you wouldn't say hang on there, he said he was against abortion and now he and his wife are having one, what a hypocrite!

BTW: PGregg, what does your anti-England post have to do with the topic? If you want to talk about rape and pillage of the world to build an empire, I suggest you turn your attention to American forces in Iraq who have been doing precisely that.

[Chris]

James, I oppose recreational drugs on principal although I'm not going to risk a dog mauling by direct action. Am I a disgrace to my principals? No, my taxes equip the police to act.

Obama's ascendancy is a proverbial clay pigeon to white supremacists, radical islamists and anyone else with anti american sentiments.

Considering the dangerous position hes placed himself in, could you spare me your sermon. America needs a president not a matyr.

[Si W]

Regardless of Obama's obligations to put his children into state schools due to his political stance, this is such a simple issue. The idea that Obama has to send his own kids to a state school in order to justify his political stance is nonsense. It would demonstrate Obama as burying his head in the sand and 'pretending' that all state schools were fine. He may want them to be and may aim to make this the case in the next four years, but at present he is simply doing what is best for his children - they're his kids, not political pawns. It is such a ridiculous issue to criticise him for.

[Rebecca]

I'm an 8th grade teacher in Georgia here in the U.S., and I grapple with this issue all the time. I'm not a parent, but I completely understand how parents want the best for their kids in regard to their personal safety and potential academic success. On the other hand, as a public school educator, I know that the issue of many of our "dirty and dangerous" schools is that the only kids in attendance are at-risk children, either from rural communities or urban neighborhoods.

I agree that no child should have to be a pawn for advancement in a parent's career--political or not--but at the same time, something bothers me about having a president advocate public education reform and new policy making when he doesn't practice what he preaches. I believe someone made the comment that perhaps if they attended the D.C. schools--or a safer, suburban alternate--that it would encourage greater spending and commitment to really reform the American public education system.

And, without a doubt, it would let a father know the stress his daughters' teachers are under in gearing students to pass high-stakes standardized testing and meeting AYP. This issue, I believe, comes from politicians who have never walked in a teacher's shoes and who have really no idea about what education policy-making should look like.

[Helen E.]

Obama's ascendancy is a proverbial clay pigeon to white supremacists, radical islamists and anyone else with anti american sentiments.
POSTED BY: CHRIS | JANUARY 10, 2009 AT 04:47 AM

Yes Chris, actually what's behind this debate about private school education is that we're all white supremacists and anti-american. Yes, it's all because he's "black" (even though he's not). In fact Chris, let's just assume that every single word spoken against Obama over the next years, about his policies and the way the country is doing, is really just because of his race. OK? Feel better now?

Sigh.

[Prudence Eely Bond McGuire. BA]

Why is England a 'sad little backwater'?
What has this to do with where Obama's children go to school?
Now they are in a Quaker school will Obama converse with them in thee's and thou's and will he and the family become Pacifists?
Just interested as I was of the impression that this was the creed taught in Quaker schools?

[Vicki]

NO, Obama should send his children to State school. The majority of Americans go there and Obama's children should be no different.Just because he's president-elect and they have money does not mean they should have a Private education.

[Felion]

The Obama children attended a private school In Illinois it is only right to continue that. It's already a shock of moving from Ill to DC let them have something concrete they are not going off of the scale of their usual. I went to private schools my dad worked at a car plant and my mother a public educator. Never put education on the back burner and give your children the best everyone knows public schools are not the best. The Obamas are highly educated and I'm sure they want the best for thier offspring. The Obamas are the parents we are not allow these people to make thier own decisions about education

Helen, I'm saying Obama needs protecting from those who voice their opinion in murder, not from lovely people such as yourself. The last man who clung rigidly to virtue was crucified, I prefer president Obama in his business suit, don't you?