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

[May]

Our public schools cannot protect our children, how are they going to protect the President's children. It is ridiculous to send these kids to public school.

[clever]

hi i'am an african amarican i'am 10 yars old if i was 20 i would vote for you i was waching you on tv i loved your speech i alwas new that you wolud be presadent when i saw that you were running for presadent please tell your family hi
from clever

[lisa]

Well Lisa lives in America and my children attend a school district which has a high number of lower income families attending. In fact, it is a rural area, you know... out in the country. Did I somehow give you the impression that I was rich. Are you making some assumptions without knowing the facts? Interesting... Some people spend alot of time analyzing the book cover without ever reading the book. My child has special needs, and by no means are school systems easy to navigate. I have never investigated a Private School, never had to because I learned how to be an advocate for my child. I learned on my own how to deal with the school system, what my rights are, what my child is entitled to, and so on...What I didn't know I found out. I had to do this for my son's sake. And for the record, if my children's safety is constantly at risk I would find a way to move. Learned helplessness is a common problem all over. My school district has its fair share of drug use, promiscuity, and teenage misbehavior. What it doesn't have is gang violence. I am hopeful that positive changes will occur in our school systems with Obama as president. However, it takes a team of experienced, dedicated school adminstrators and a board of education who isn't afraid to speak up to really make a difference. Take a look at those schools in Washington that are ranked poorly...or anywhere for that matter...Is it Obama's fault that they are doing so poorly. Is every child in that school system doing poorly, I doubt it. What makes one child succeed in a poorly ranked school district? Could it be factors besides money?

[CJ]

Jonnie - Obama KNOWS better.It would have been a much better example to have put his kids in Public so that he can benefit the school,bring great security,and expose his kids to real kids

So what you are saying here is that because you cannot afford private school for your children that he should risk the lives and safety of those precious little girls by putting them in public school where they cannot be properly protected.

Why should he risk his children for you or anyone else - are you forgetting that on Tuesday he becomes the president of the United States and that puts a BIG RED Target on his girls. What is wrong with you? You stated we put him in office and we can vote him out - why because he won't put his little girls in public school - you should be ashamed of yourself.

Lastly, his girls do go to school with regular kids - there are many children that go to the school who receive grants to pay their tuition. Their school is open to everyone.

[JONNIE Q]

And by the way Obama works for us Americans,we put him in office we can just as easily put him out in four years.

[JONNIE Q]

Good for Lisa ! What Lisa is not telling the readers is that her kids most likely live in an Upper-Middle class neighborhood like Brentwood,CA or some other nice white suburban neighborhood.This is NOT about jealousy.America is in an educational crisis. Read statistics and learn. But I suspect that most of you have a very hard time taking off your rose-colored glasses. Obama KNOWS better.It would have been a much better example to have put his kids in Public so that he can benefit the school,bring great security,and expose his kids to real kids,not just the out of touch kids of elitists! You Brits have enough issues of your own,unless your willing to come down to the US and help out, stay out of it!

[John Savard]

There's nothing wrong for him to be sending his children to a private school. Is it hypocritical for him to oppose school vouchers for other people? I favor school vouchers as a way of giving Roman Catholics equal rights, but I can understand the claim that a voucher system would starve the public schools of the money to meet the needs of poor black children. And while there are ways around this, they would be criticized as 'socialistic' in U.S. political culture. Focusing on Obama's children is not the way to unravel this tangled issue.

[lisa]

My children are doing well academically and socially in a public school. Every school, every teacher, every experience is intepreted differently in the eyes of our children. For many families the choices for educating their children are limited for various reasons-income, transportation, willingness and ability to move to a different district, lack of resources and support...I can easily look at any school system, public or private, and identify likes and dislikes about everything from a teachers' personality, the amount of homework given, the principal's attitude, the support services, how they address behavior issues, and so on.... Just because a school is private doesn't necessarily mean that a child will have a positive, successful experience. My son has Asperger's Syndrome, he could care less what's on the school menu because he is a very picky eater. Every year has been a different experience for my children. Obama and his wife are quite aware that some americans are going to be peeved about his selection of a school for his children. Those who are speaking loudest about his choices are probably very unhappy with their child's school experience. However, school systems can't be viewed in Black and White/All or Nothing terms - each individual school experience is different for your child. If Obama's daughters "hate" homework, do you actually think that their teacher would say "that's ok, don't worry about yucky homework, we give preferential treatment to president's children." Or how about some kids who give his girls attitude, they will deal with those kinds of social dilemma's no matter what school system their attending. I'm not sure how Obama and his wife decided on this school over others, including other private schools in the area. They could have decided to have a private tutor homeschool the children if they wanted and I'm sure some americans would have something to say about that too!

[CJ]

You are all forgetting one very important FACT here. These little girls being put into a public school would be tanamount to putting a big red target on their backs. Tuesday, their father is going to be the President of The United States and you all know (or at least your common sense should know) that the PUBLIC SCHOOL System CANNOT protect these girls. What better way to get to a President than through his children.

Secondly, you CAN all choose where your children go to school - it is called open enrollment, it is a federal law that allows YOU as PARENTS to choose. You call your Dept of Education, ask for the open enrollment paperwork, choose the out of district school you want your children to attend - have them and your local school sign the paperwork and voila the next school year your children attend the school district and schools of your choice and NO VOUCHER is needed. It is free UNLESS you opt for Private School - then you must pay the tuition just like the Obama's do. Only 1 white house child has ever gone to public schol and she was so miserable that she was transferred back to private school. Presidents children are usually seen as being unapproachable because of the SS details, they are excluded from simple pleasures such as recess in a public school setting, for safety reasons other parents don't want them around their children making them a target, etc. Leave these children alone.

[Nedra E. English]

Is that any of our business? No.

It is Barack and Michelle Obama's right to determine what is in the best interest for their children. Not the public, and certainly not the media.

[HG]

"He has got the right..."

YAWN. Yes, and as somebody else pointed out, if he was anti abortion and he and his wife had an abortion, he has the right to do that too. If he was anti motorways but drove on motorways, he'd have the right to do that too and "it's none of our business". If he was anti guns and he carried a gun, he'd have the right to do that too. And so on and so on and so on.

If he did things you people didn't like, you'd be the first on here bleating he should be setting an example for the American people, how he behaves matters, he's a role model etc. No wonder you don't object, you're all just as big as hypocrites as he is.

[Reuben Sebalusu]

Leave Mr Obama alone.He have got the right to do what he feels is good as long as it is not offensive to the public.Botswana

[peter franzen]

Looking at some of the comments on here, if the standard of state education in the US is really so dire as it sounds maybe Americans should consider emigrating to a third world country such as Sri Lanka where literacy is 92% or Cuba where literacy is 99.8% or Venezuela where education spending is 6 percent of the gross domestic product (GDP).

[Catherine]

Judging by the comments from those who write how their parents worked hard and sent them to private school, it's just jealousy, don't be elitist etc etc, it's pretty clear that your poor parents wasted their time then didn't they! All that private education, and you don't seem to be able to understand basic debating points here, or assimilate properly the arguments being presented. You're all arguing against points that aren't being presented. Get back to school and do some listening comprehension until you get it into your backward skulls: it's not about elitism, it's about hypocrisy of a man who decides one thing for millions and does another for himself!

[Catherine]

Judging by the comments from those who write how their parents worked hard and sent them to private school, it's just jealousy, don't be elitist etc etc, it's pretty clear that your poor parents wasted their time then didn't they! All that private education, and you don't seem to be able to understand basic debating points here, or assimilate properly the arguments being presented. You're all arguing against points that aren't being presented. Get back to school and do some listening comprehension until you get it into your backward skulls: it's not about elitism, it's about hypocrisy of a man who decides one thing for millions and does another for himself!

[NB]

The "it's none of our business" line is just too thick and dumb for words. What kind of unthinking, passive sheep are you Americans?

[Sam]

It is completely up to Obama to choose to send his children to private school. He worked hard to get where he is, he was not spoonfed. My father is the same, from a poor rural Irish village, left school at 14, and when he had kids he decided that he wanted the best for them so worked for what he got. No elistism there, just effort.

[peter franzen]

Due to my work abroad for twelve years my three daughters were educated in private schools when necessary, but state schools whenever possible.

Indeed when I left the Middle East I pulled my children out of private schools and put them in state schools in the UK and it didn’t do them any harm at all. All three are science/medical graduates, one with a PHd. and another with an MSc.

Too much emphasis is put on education at private schools and not enough on the core values of selflessness, honesty, integrity, commitment, determination, fairness, and concern for others.

It is sheer hypocrisy and a disgrace for senior politicians who have the control over the quality of our state schools to send their own kids to private schools.

At the end of the day a private education is no guarantee of a good outcome, as Prince Harry is but one example.

[Greg]

He's the president of the United States. If he can't send his children to the best schools then who can?

[JONNIE Q]

This has NOTHING to do with religion.It is about nasty Elitism at its finest.Education is a huge issue in America, maybe you Brits don't care, look at your society(BABY P?). But to us Americans that have to pay taxes we should be able to use our taxmoney to put our kids in the schools we want. Come on down to Santa Ana,Ca, ok how about downtown Detroit,if you are working really hard why should you set up your kids for educational failure? Everyone who knows and that includes liberals,and the right wing know that the public school has been a failure. Just ask Bill Gates opinion at least even he knew better to step in and fund small charter schools in the inner citys.You Brits really should stay out of this; you have no idea what this American educational nightmare it really is.Our country is suffering and having kids get out of school so they can get a job at Walmart is terrible.We should be a nation of scientists,doctors,and engineers,all of our kids, NOT just Obama's.But what do you Brits care,you just gloat! Go back to your own important issues,like Posh's purse!

[JONNIE Q]

NO NO Way Absolutely Not! That hypocrite. He tells us Americans NO to school vouchers( to the UK citizens that is as a taxpayer your right to choose what school to send your kids private or public).No as the first African American President it is his duty to send his kids to where the majority of Americans are forced out economic hardship to: and that is the public school. Been to your local public school in America lately?

[Kim]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=215311&title=ordinary-pupils

[Kim]

Here's a video from The Daily Show with John Stuart to add to my previous post. Hope all of you who agree with me with think this is as hilarious as i did.

[Kim]

On some news station here in the US they were talking about this topic and went so far as to tell us what was being served at lunch for the next week at the Obama girls' schools. Seriously? They're taking this WAY too far. It's making things so much harder for the girls I'm sure. It's unfortunate that they're going to be put in the spotlight like this at such a young age...

Doesn't the world have much more important things to worry about than where Barak Obama's daughters are going to school?

[Graeme]

For God's sake - a persons children's education is their own business... get over the obsession with the irrelevant aspects of the private life of your public figures.

[Cerone W]

I am an American College student who is studying Mass Communication/Journalism, and I had to leave my comment on this issue that seems to have everyone thinking that they know what is best for the Obama's girls and their education. However, a parent chooses to educate their child its their buiness not the concern of others. Not because the person's involved in this case happens to be the Presidential family. You might want the children to attend a public school, but it will not happenes. If President Obama had send them to a Public he would have been doing this for political gain, but hey he has already won. It, was in the books for him to win, God had ordained it to happened at such a time. How many Presidential familes in the past has allowed their children to attend a public school? very few and i dont even think any of them even has. And I dont think that President Obama and first Lady should send their children to a public school, they should send them to a private school. Look at the pro cons people you cannot be thinking of just aspect of this matter. Those children will be targeted because of who they are associated with, and then look again, how would feel for you to have a tight security around 24/7 not being able to play with your friends. They have security at home and everywhere else give them a break. I do support the descion of President Obama and First Lady Mrs. M. Obama. Having, their children going to public or private school will not determine how President Obama runs the affair of the country. Obama all the way. One Love.

[Nicola]

I am a british university student studying early childhood studies, I felt I had to comment on this, as I have an opinion and I am 25 % American. My personal thoughts are: yes, the obamas should send Sasha and Malia to a private school. Barack obama is the president of the us (or will be in a few days). He will be the leader of the country, and whilst sending your children to the American version of a state school will make him popular with his constituents , it will not inspire people to move up a level and aim to give their children private education. A good leader must be a level up above the people to give them something to aspire to. A good leader must aspire to lead the people well and wisely, it is not neccessarily a popularity contest.Also, as for the comments about Barack being a christian, I know he has proffessed to be one , as indeed you have to say that you are to be considered in the us, but , as a practising, very enthusiastic christian myself,I cannot imagine why a man who professess to be a christian who invite an openly gay bishop (gene robinson) to say a prayer at his inuargaration given what the bible says about homeosexuality (that it's a sin). What was he thinking? That really affected my view of him. I wanted Mc Cain to win anyway.

[E]

Nothing that happens in the West Wing is any of our business. If you last name is NOT Obama you are not entitled to anything other than a worthless opinion.

[KH]

It's absolutely our business.

[Ronnie]

It is absolutely none of our business.

[Catherine]

DAVID HUNDEYIN: Whilst you were checking the URL, perhaps you should have checked the previous comments too. The points you are arguing against aren't here, you're making them up in your head.
Who is the politician making policies for others to live by? Obama? Who is doing the choosing of the school? Obama. Who is doing the paying? Obama.
Good for your Dad in sending his kids to private school! Is he elitist? Well a bit, but there's nothing wrong with that. What's your Dad got to do with this debate? If your Dad made policy that affected everyone else, put rules in place that was against some choices that he himself chose, now that's a different matter. Jealousy and bitterness? What fluffy cloud of paranoia did you pluck that from? Egalitarian? What on earth are you talking about? I'm not egalitarian, I don't believe in an egalitarian society, my argument isn't about egalitarianism.

I think if you can afford to send your child to a private school, bravo. But if you're President of the US and it's your job to provide the public schools for your citizens, and you pass policies that are against this, it's gutter hypocrisy to do so.

[Gram]

The public schools are good enough for the children of the people who voted for him. The best way to fix the D.C. Public schools would be for politician's children to attend them. The fact that this dicussion centers on the word "safe" speaks volumes for the sad state of the schools.
Sarah palin sent her son to war...why can't Obama send his daughters too?
Principles are easy to adhere too when they are never put to the test.

[Prudence Eely Bond McGuire. BA]

Oops, sorry I meant to write 'EXTERMINATE'.

[David Hundeyin]

I had to double check the address in my browser's URL because I cannot believe that such frankly stupid opinions can come out of an organisation as well respected as the Times. Who is the politician? Barack Obama or his daughters? Who ran in the election? Barack Obama or Malia Obama? What do you expect him to care about first - his daughters' future or some transient whims of public opinion like the ones you are only too willing to pull out of your backside? My dad was not a Senator or a US president - he was a poor village boy who worked hard and got scholarships and worked his way into the real estate business. Does the fact that he made sure all five of his children went to private school make him 'elitist'? Does it make me some sort of 'scion'? No. It just means he wanted the best available education for his kids, and he could afford it. Jealousy and bitterness masquerading as egalitarian thought will get you nowhere - all fingers have never been, and will never be equal. If you can't accept that, then your poisoned personal opinions and biases shouldn't be inflicted on a worldwide audience.

[Prudence Eely Bond McGuire. BA]

If public schools are so bad, as a Dalek would say -TERMINATE.
Quote from TV BBC's 'DR WHO'.

[Teresa]

First of all where he chooses to educate his children is his business. Secondly Obama is our president and he should risk the lives of his children by sending them to public school to be open targets for God knows what just to prove a point? Has any of our presidents sent their children to public school? This is the most asinine excuse for an article I've ever read!

[Bisi]

Their kids, not our decision to make

[Judith C]

If the state schools (or whatever the equivalent is in the USA) are as debased and useless and turning out morons as the ones in Britain...then yes, Obama should send his kids to private schools if he wants them to learn something.

[Kate R]

I think anyone who can afford it should send their children to private schools. The state system in the UK and in the US is appalling by comparison. Not always academically but private schools give children confidence and the opportunity to be an intellectual free thinker. Not one who is regimented by the crowd control of large classes in the state system

[ebelo friday]

The children future is of paramont importance. let the whole world encourage them to become what God has in stock for them Who knowns if one of them becomes the first female President of American. Godbless them with good memories and good life.

[Jimmy]

Just another case where the Obamas and the left uphold their policy of "do as I say, not as I do." You can't demonize the rich for political gain and then do things rich people do, then say that the Obamas "earned it." The number of rich people in the US who inherited their wealth is shrinking and has shrunk as more self made millionaires and billionaires have started their own fortunes. Who's to judge who "earned" it and who plundered it like all those dastardly entrepreneurs?

Obama is a hypocrite.

[Rhys Jaggar]

The Obama girls should be educated wherever Mr and Mrs Obama think it is most suitable for them to be educated.

It's no-one else's business for one very simple reason.

The two Obama girls did not sign up to be born to an aspirant President. And they owe no-one ANY DEBT OF SERVICE, SACRIFICE OR SELF-DENIAL during their childhood education.

End of debate.

Now back off this question and return to a form of journalism which inspires respect rather than loathing.

[John Paul Telhomme]

di butler,
Your revision of history is remarkable. You love "No Child Left Behind" but have opted to send your children to public school. To paraphrase your dismal understanding of the issues, Obama does not care about schools, like most pols, but Bush does because he, Bush, favours vouchers. Did I get it right? Bunkum! Bush lost! Deal with it.

[Nona]

I am sure the sensible thing is to send the girls to a private school.

But, if they had been sent to a public school both the quality of the instruction and the safety of all the students in the school would have improved immediately.

A great opportunity to put a spotlight on how inferior most of the public schools in American cities was missed.

Also an opportunity to demonstrate the benefits of socialism - one social class for all.

[Karen]

I cannot see why anyone this side of the Atlantic is even given the opportunity to comment. - DISGUSTEDDOROTHY

Because this is a news site and you're on a comments page. It may surprise you but people all around the world are permitted and invited to think about topics involving other countries. Indeed, I'll comment on what your post now: what a bloody stupid thing for you to say.

[di butler]

I think the big issue is the school vouchers. And to Rui Duarte, Republicans don't make the schools, or the rules for the schools. I sent my kids to $30,000 a yr private school, I couldn't care less where he sends his, but school vouchers would make the debate go away. He seems, like most pols, to not really care about schools. Mr. Bush did, but they tried to shut out every policy he tried to implement, added tons of junk to No Child Left Behind, etc. It has been a successful program, but his original 28 page proposal was much, much better.

[DisgustedDorothy]

This is no ones business but theirs.
I cannot see why anyone this side of the Atlantic is even given the opportunity to comment.
I am sick and tired of the asinine and petty political correctness exuded by the media and hypocritical journalists.
Lets go for a reality check, how about some truth ,honesty and insight into what affects this country and keeping our nose out of others?

[Rex Bradley]

A school is where the 3R's are taught not where social engineering is inculcated into young minds. Picking a proper place for one's own kids is a nightmare these days.

[Tim]

If the Obamas want their children to be educated in a productive manner they should send them to a private school, especially in DC. I don't like him or his wife, did not vote for him and am not a fan. However, he has every right to use his earnings to provide the best chance for his daughters to succeed. Saying he has to send them to an underperforming school to make you whiners feel special is ridiculous.
Once the unicorns and rainbows arrive at his inauguration I imagine that he will wave a wand and make public education perfect through more red tape and spending. Until then, he should place them in the private school.

[James]

You are one of the ignorant who continuously refuse to see any difference between socialism and communism.
POSTED BY: STEPHANIE TOHILL | JANUARY 12, 2009 AT 04:39 PM

Ha ha ha! Is this post for real? Oh please, read some political philosophy woman. You've tied yourself up in knots here in that post and the final line is just hysterical.

[James]

You are one of the ignorant who continuously refuse to see any difference between socialism and communism.
POSTED BY: STEPHANIE TOHILL | JANUARY 12, 2009 AT 04:39 PM

Ha ha ha! Is this post for real? Oh please, read some political philosophy woman. You've tied yourself up in knots here in that post and the final line is just hysterical.

[Attila]

He could have gone for state-funded schools and pay for extra private tuition.

Even with what Americans call "public" (or state funded) schools, there can be some elitism in neighborhood zoning.

Security isn't necessarily different either. Rich kids commit murder too, and rich people assassinate.

Some government run schools are better than private schools, academically. But they don't teach Christian values.

[AS]

Sending his children to private school would have created a logistical nightmare for the school, the Secret Service, and the pupils. Amy Carter was not a target the way the Obama girls are. Presidents educate their children at smaller private schools so that the surroundings are easier to control and there is as little disruption to the lives of all the children involved. Be reasonable.

[Harriette Majoros]

Living in the US, I personally think that a bigger stink should be made about him sending his daughers to a private school be it in Chicago or in the D.C. He could do a lot to improve the quality of education by being a demanding parent. Amy Carter was educated in DC schools and did well. It only shows that Obama is really an elitist and talks out of both sides of his body.

[Frank Upton]

I wouldn't think it was really practical for the girls to go to a public school because it would have to be crawling with secret service types and the invasion of the other pupils' lives would be intolerable. Every kid would have to be vetted.

[Stephanie Tohill]

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?"

Tom Franklin, please explain how wanting to help parents without the money to help themselves whilst sending your children to private school is 'hypocritical'? Seriously. I give to homeless charities, so if I am not homeless myself by your 'logic' I am a hypocrite?

Are you thinking it through before you post or are you scraping the barrel to find a way to attack Obama. Your argument seems to be that "only those who think parents who cannot afford to pay for education shouldn't be helped" has a right to use private education.

Which is a breathtakingly simplistic argument to make.

[Stephanie Tohill]

"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."

Tom Franklin please read the entirety of my post and educate yourself on socialism and its varying degrees. I am not a hard core communist, not an extreme left-winger hence there is no hypocrisy in my position.
In pretty much every single socialist country on the planet you will find the option of private schools. I am for choice but believe that education should be universally accesible. In this case I believe in the 'equality of access to education' This is not the same as believing every child should be forced to have identical education.
This does not mean the rights of parents to go private are to be denied, but that those people who cannot afford to pay for their own education will be subsidised by the rest of society.
There is nothing hypocritical about that. If I were against private education yet sent my children to private schools then you would have a point. As it is you don't.
You are one of the ignorant who continuously refuse to see any difference between socialism and communism.

[Justin]

This article seems to border on sensationalism, "(and it's not just the offer of "organic baked French Fries" on today's lunch menu!)"

As JONQUIL pointed out, "it is easier to secure a private school than a public one". For children that have secret security details attached to them 24/7 public school is a bit of a laugh.

Also, they're with other children in similar circumstances. Being thrust into a public school would more than likely cause a singling out which would hinder their development.

Would it be great if the public school system was equal to the private? Sure. But, at the same time, the parents and students at the public school would need to overcome perceived class bias as well.

[Michelle]

Hypocrisi is politicians "Thing",hope,change,and the B.S.they preach is for "Stupid". They put their kids in private schools to make them feel above the rest of us Their kids will grow to be two faces like their lowyer parents.

[James]

American presidents must be seen to be religious...
POSTED BY: JOE | JANUARY 11, 2009 AT 04:12 PM

Shocking statement. Terrifying. Backward.

[Laura Roberts]

If the same principles of giving a vote of confidence in all things state-provided, politicians would need to send their kids to inner city schools, take holidays only in UK national parks, buy British produce in supermarkets over foreign foods, seek treatment only in NHS facilities and live in council houses. People need to grow up.

POSTED BY: MARK | JANUARY 12, 2009 AT 12:38 PM

But that's not the principle at debate here. Nobody is saying he's got to send his children to state schools merely because they're state provided. People are saying he shouldn't be a hypocrite.

Using your examples, if any politician espouses a set of values and forms policy which:
- is designed to stop people taking holidays abroad, then yes, s/he should only holiday in the UK.
- penalises imports and is against consumption of foreign-produced products, then yes, s/he should only buy British produce
- penalises private healthcare, says they're against it, believes in equal healthcare for all, then yes, s/he should only seek treatment on the NHS
- since the council house example you gave relies on points and entitlement, we can't use that as a free choice example.

Rather that suggesting others "grow up", I suggest you get to grips with the actual point that's being debated here.

[Mark]

As others have mentioned, this is a non-issue. It's up to the family to decide what they believe is best for their own kids and the values they are brought up with.

The UK concern with where politicians send their children is ridiculous and always has been. If the same principles of giving a vote of confidence in all things state-provided, politicians would need to send their kids to inner city schools, take holidays only in UK national parks, buy British produce in supermarkets over foreign foods, seek treatment only in NHS facilities and live in council houses. People need to grow up.

[Lili]

PGREGG, it's Americans like you who embarrass the rest of us. While you have every right to post on foreign news sites, I wish you'd do us and the foreigners a favor and refrain.

PLEASE, in fact, the Clintons were much criticized for sending their daughter Chelsea to Sidwell, not least because she had attended a public school in Arkansas. And JOE, Sidwell isn't exactly a "religious school." While it is a Quaker foundation, students of all denominations and the children of atheists attend, too. The Obamas, of course, are not Quakers.

[Brad]

Obama's children should go to public school in DC. He should make fixing those schools a priority. It's a national shame.

There is no place for private schools in a society that claims to be based on concepts of equality. I was VERY disappointed in Obama when I learned of their decision.

[Pdev]

Choice of schools is not a private matter. Here in Oz our PM is sending his youngest son to the most expensive private school in Canberra. He could have gone to one of the excellent public schools in the Australian capital. All politicians and their families should have to use public schools and hospitals-this will keep them focused on proper provision for public services.

[Glenn]

Who can blame the Obamas for putting their children in the best school they can manage? It may not be consistent with their political opposition to school choice, but it is in their children's best interest.
The wealthy put their children in any school they please; the middle class votes for better education with their feet, moving to better systems; only the poor must suffer poor systems without recourse.
I kept my children in the best public system we could find, for a time commuting 100 km each way. My children are doing the same.
So, I may worry about the President-elect's policies, but I can not condemn him for his personal choice.

[Debra]

Obama's girls SHOULD go to private school or be homeschooled for their protection and well-being. Just like others have said, they're kids and they need to BE kids without threats of harm or disruption. Why should the President be questioned about where he sends his children to school? We certainly honored him by electing him, why should we dishonor him by questioning his choice of schools for his daughters? They deserve the best as the President's children.

[Joe]

The USA has a strict separation of Church and State. If you want your children to attend faith schools, they MUST attend private schools. American presidents must be seen to be religious, and therefore it is natural to send your kids to religious schools.

[Booya]

Obama made an excellent choice in NOT choosing a state school in the District of Columbia - they are the worst performing schools IN THE COUNTRY...the buildings should be condemned and the attitude of the pupils fills one with despair. His children would most certainly have been a target of the underclass gang adoring thugs who think they are all that and more.

[Please]

Why is this even a question. NO other president elect and current has ever been questioned on thier decision to send their children to a school of the parents choice. This is BS, why should he not send his kids there? Vice President elect Joe Biden's kids and grandchildren go there. Further more the some of the officials that are saying that his kids should go to public school. Just want to have their school spot lighted. There is a obvious safety issue involved and furthermore the private school is the best source of privacey for the kids SO THEY CAN BE KIDS. The newspapers and reporters can't get in to sneak a shot of the kids. Please this is a totally BS question. The man is the President of United States, he and the first lady can choose for their children without the intrusion of the public. It is a parental choice not a business choice.

[Ellie]

As long as we have a free country - both Britain and the US - we are free to send our children where we think best. With Obama and all the security that is needed, a private school is best for his daughters. It should not even be questioned much less criticized. As far as crime is concerned and reading some of the comments - trust me both private and public schools (State) can have problems. I had children that were in public school and private. It doesn't matter where you live these days we all have problems - Britain, US, Switzerland, France, Germany -- drugs are everywhere and with that crime comes about. It's very sad and our politicians need to crack down hard on dealers.

[Jeremy]

If safety is an issue, the surely the high level of crime should be tackled in American so his children can choose the place they believe they will be happiest at school.

[Catherine]

PGREGG, have you got the right messageboard? Why are you attacking England on a board about Obama and private school education? There has to be some connection between your post and the topic, so I'm going to assume the only link for you posting is that you're American.

You come from the country whose citizens are both the highest users of recreational drugs in the world, escaping the reality of their lives, and therapy and psychiatric services trying to come to terms with the reality of their lives. Hardly surprising your bizarre comment comes from this then.

We English never understand why Americans like you think we miss "glory" days. None of us have been brought up with even a mention of it, we're not all 200 years old you know, and you overrate our knowledge of history if you think most English people even know about that era, let alone think about it so much it permeates our day to day functioning. Rape and pillage? I think you'll find that's generally associated with the Vikings who raped and pillaged us dear. Do you know where Denmark is? Do you know what Denmark is? It's called a country. Or do you mean the rape and pillage by your ancestors against the original inhabitants of North America? I bet you feel the agony of your missed glory days don't you?

Seriously, what is wrong with you? Where do these bizarre assumptions about other countries and the way the people in them view themselves come from? What perverse world do you live in where English people miss things from before any of us were born? Is it because you do? Are you stuck in some timewarp and you think everyone else who doesn't think like you is too?

As for knowing our place in the world and resenting countries that have "passed us by". The hilarity of this made me laugh. Of course, we get on the Tube in the morning, and the conversation is rife with people putting their heads in their hands, saying "You know, what role does England have the world, that's what I want to know. I just can't figure it out and it's been bugging me for months. My life is just an endless search for this question and the pain it causes me is insurmountable." And from you, if you are an American! A country that is generally viewed as simply insane: a high proportionately low-IQ mentally insane populace voted for an insane low-IQ President who had never even stepped foot outside his own country. America is nothing, do you not realise that? You're increasingly irrelevant, what you have to say is laughed at by the rest of the world. You lie, you cheat, you screw up every country you get involved in. India, China and the Middle East are the future, but you are so arrogant you can't even see it. You're pathetic and the world pities you. The Queen says Hi by the way.

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?

[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

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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).

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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!

[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.

[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?

[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 ?

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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)

[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?