<p>to hmom5: I find it somewhat ironic that you sent your kids to private school and are now critical of the Obamas for not opting for public schools. As I noted, my kids were unlikely targets for kidnappers, terrorists or assassins. Since you seem to believe that public schools can be secured as easily as private schools… why didn’t you opt for public? (I mean… why hold the President of the US to a different standard than you applied for your own family?)</p>
<p>You might want to read the Constitution, hmom5. The President of the US is not “in charge of fixing the public schools”… public schools are one of those things that have always fallen under the jurisdiction of the states. As President, Obama can appoint the Secretary of the Dept of Education, which has limited authority and influence when it comes to the management of public schools. </p>
<p>The Secretary of Education does not have to live inside the DC district they can live in Bethesda or NOVA and have their pick of districts. Even so, difference choices are right for different kids and a parent should give their kid every educational opportunity they can afford. This may mean sending one to public, one to charter, and one to private. It depends on the specific needs of the kids.</p>
<p>Personally, I am a public school teacher on the way up (at the encouragement of my superiors, I am starting to complete coursework to become an administrator), I cannot ever foresee sending my kids to public school.</p>
<p>Actually, I think that the Secretary of Education should be able to spend her $191K salary however she chooses. </p>
<p>I’d note that, unlike the President & VP, the members of the cabinet are free to live wherever they choose. I understand that the public schools in Maryland and Northern Virginia are pretty good, and its an easy commute. </p>
<p>I also don’t get why it matters – we have a system in the US of free public education for all children, K-12; and the option for parents who have the means to opt for private schools instead. We also have a capitalist system that pretty much is founded on the notion that people who are able to make more money or accumulate more wealth will be able to enhance their lifestyles by spending their money to acquire whatever they want… so why should education be different? It seems to me that public money should go to public schools. </p>
<p>Despite the hysteria of the right wing during the last weeks of the campaign, Obama is not a socialist and never claimed to be one, so I don’t see why he should be held to a socialist standard. He now earns $400K a year with a job that comes with free housing, plus he’s got a huge income from book royalties – so of course he should send his cherished daughters to the best school money can buy. I hope he and his children do well and someday he and his wife can afford to pay full freight to give their daughters the Ivy League education their parents had to borrow for. </p>
<p>And I hope that he shows his support for public schools through government policies that improve the quality of schools for everyone. Where his kids attend school has absolutely nothing whatsoever do do with public education or public policies. </p>
<p>It should have nothing whatsoever to do with what one’s own kids are doing. I want my local taxes to fund public transportation even though I have a car and hardly ever have to ride the bus. (I certainly wouldn’t expect Barack Obama to ride the Metro in DC to get from one place to another, either). </p>
<p>I voted to increase my own property taxes to help the local public schools, even though my kids have long since graduated.</p>
<p>I agree, calmom. For most families, private schools are a luxury, not a necessity. Everyone pays taxes that support basic education for all, but rich people can buy luxuries if they want.</p>
<p>This is the model I prefer for universal health insurance, btw.</p>
<p>Look at what you just called it… a ‘private’ school. Private schools inherently have more control over who comes in the school, who has access to what records, what facilities, etc. If the Obamas were at a public school, anyone (specifically someone whose intent was to harm the girls or Obama himself) could move to that area, enroll their child and have immediate access to the whole place (as policies allow). The Secret Service can’t tell control the enrollment of a public school. There’s a huge difference.</p>
<p>That’s probably why they had to choose a school so quickly. Gives the Secret Service time to look into all the students, faculty and staff.</p>
<p>When we lived overseas, we once had a dinner party and invited the U.S. Ambassador. We had to submit the guest list at least three weeks in advance, and security came by our house the day before to sweep for explosives. Or whatever they do.</p>
<p>I don’t know why anyone is surprised. The girls attended a private school in Chicago. Did people honestly think that the Obamas would choose a public school in D.C.? </p>
<p>Having said that, I’m happy that we always lived in areas with good public schools when my kids were growing up. All went to public schools from k-12, even though we certainly could have afforded any private school for them.</p>