Private school is for ego, not edu. Not that any politicians have ego issues (certainly not Arnold.)

true

If they did ...they would be better!!!

They should have the same rights as everyone else to choose, but the problem is they continue to have nothing invested into the public schools. Some of them did not go to public school nor ahve their children. How do they know the problems everyday people have with the public school if they have never had any dealings with them as a parent? How are their children's needs any different from mine? Do their children deserve a better education because they can afford it? If that is true, how do we break the cycle of poverty if the poor continue to get a poor education?

I think that choice should be up to them. We have a choice too. We can send our kids to public or private so why cant they have a choice. If you have the money you have more options. BTW my kids were in private but are now back in public. My public school is pretty good but the one difference I did see Is that you have more good kids in private with better morals than in public. Dont get me wrong my kids made some really nice~GOOD friends in public but since there are more kids they tend to come in contact with some bad choices

Elected official or not, the freedoms of this great nation belong to all her citizens. It is unfortunate that some people feel entitled to judge and restrict the liberties of our elected officials because of personal bias. The bottom line is, elected officials have the same choices available to the rest of us. They have to pay for private tuition just as any of us would. If an elected official is able to afford that, they should be extended the option without judgment. Nobody questions the CEOs of companies, professional athletes, actors and actresses when they choose private education.

There are many solid arguments for both private and public school education for the children of elected officials. In the end, however, it all comes down to personal choice and Constitutional freedoms.

It's a good question. Certainly they can't be forced to send their children to public school - but should they?
It depends. As a gesture of faith in our public schools? I thought Obama's answer as to why he didn't send his daughters to Chicago's public schools was a good one - he said - the Chicago schools are not what they should be.
Would our public schools be better if everyone used them? I think so - but I don't know how to make that happen. I think 'choice' would help - let people choose from all the public schools in their area as does the state of Minnesota. In Minnesota, you're free to send your child to any public school the only stipulation being, if you choose a school more than 10 miles from home, you will have to find your own transportation.
forcing the public schools to compete with each other in that way for students might force them to improve.

Yes. They force us to send our children to the poor performing school while they do not???? It has nothing to do with being safe. It all about maintaining power. The less education someone has the more out he/she is to vote for the Left wing big government. This allow them to stay in power while keeping the poor poor maintaning a voteing group that will always vote for them next and their kids in the future.

They force others to go to the poor schools yet they do not send thier own children???? It has nothing to do with being safe. They want their kids to get a better education than our so they will remain in power over the poor while keeping a large voyeing group to keep them in poor. The less education you have the more likely you are to vote for Left wing big government people.

Magnetmom is right. Security is the main point at issue. I was deeply disappointed when the Clintons selected Sidwell Friends until I heard their reasoning. Public schools are public buildings. Access is open to all. Private schools can bar paparazzi, tourists, and such from their property. Public schools cannot.

While the Secret service would be in a public school to protect the president's kids, they would not be involved in protecting any other child so a kidnapper/terrorist etc would likely harm other children in the way.

Hi alamedan,

This question has come up recently on GS here: community.greatschools.net/q-and-a/246630/Where-would-Obama-or-Palins-kids-go-to-school

As many of the folks both here in this thread and in the previous thread pointed out, it becomes a matter of security. I happen to live in SoCal, near a couple of schools known for having children of celebrities. Their ability to have guard shacks, armed guards and other security measures make sense to celebrities and elected officials. I know I sure as heck don't want my child in a school with armed guards. Public schools aren't equipped for that, and sorry, I'm not willing to subject my kid to that type of distraction.

It seems to me that people with money and power will always find ways to ensure their kids get a comfortable school environment. Wouldn't you?

It's been suggested that the funding of schools should be more equitable. The idea I've heard put forward is to stop using local property taxes, but instead distribute funds by some statewide formula. And then, of course, there is the voucher idea.

What I see happening, is that the funding would still be subject to budgetary constraints. So schools with less powerful constituents, would receive a basic level of funding. Those schools with more proactive populations would find a way to use the basic funding, but add to it in a variety of ways. So privilege would still beget privilege. We just don't know exactly how until it happens.

The same with requiring elected officials to send their kids to public schools. Somehow there would be created some sort of magnet school that would educate most of these kids without forcing them to attend any dismal schools.

alamaden:

I think one of the main reasons why our country's representatives don't send their children to public school is safety for their children. This is not to say that all public schools are unsafe, but honestly, these kids will not be treated "just like everyone else."

Many public schools are very good, and safe, but most likely, in a small private school, these children can be treated like everyone else in the school, but in a safer environment. I agree with 1seremen regarding income influences.

Yes, if public schools meet the need of their children and family. NO, if the public schools do not meet the need of their children and family.

I think these people are parents too. They should have a choice of a private or public school. The fact is, personal income influences politicians and others' choice of school for their children therefore, it is fair for politicians to have a choice to select a school based on the need of their children and family.

Great question!