Is it hypocritical....

[Mickey'snewestfan]

Yes, but what does that say about his faith in the public schools?

I think that's a perfect example of children with special needs who can't be served by the public schools.

I live and work in a public school in DC, I've also had many opportunities to spend time at Sidwell -- here are some things that Sidwell has that no DC public or public charter school ever will have. Things I could care less about as a parent, but that Obama NEEDS for his children:

A playground set back far enough from the street to allow secret service to set up perimeter security. (This is huge -- DCPS schools generally have a playground separated by a chain link fence from major roads. Charter schools don't even have that -- many of them walk their kids several blocks to neighborhood playgrounds -- this would be a security nightmare).

A student body/parent body that's already been screened (because of other high profile families that send their children there).

An admissions procedure that can allow Secret Service to screen future potential applicants.

Space to allow the Secret Service to set up an office, or whatever it needs.

Is Sidwell a better school than the school where I teach? Maybe, I'm actually not convinced. Do they do a better job of keeping high profile kids safe than my school would? Yes, without a doubt.

If Obama had chosen to risk his children's lives on a daily basis to make a point about public education, or like Jimmy Carter, to have his child spend the whole day inside with no recess etc . . . to make a point, I would have thought less of him, not more.

 

[DizBelle]

1 - Ok, I'm not really talking about elected officials that have security concerns. I don't think I ever brought Obama up in this thread.

2 - It's kind of like the president of GM driving a Ford. If the person at the top of the organization that builds GM vehicles doesn't even drive one, he doesn't think much of their quality, does he?

 

[FireDancer]

2 - It's kind of like the president of GM driving a Ford. If the person at the top of the organization that builds GM vehicles doesn't even drive one, he doesn't think much of their quality, does he?

No, it would like the child of someone who is elected to the board of directors at GM driving a car other then a GM. I would have no problem with that either.

 

[Scurvy]

2 - It's kind of like the president of GM driving a Ford. If the person at the top of the organization that builds GM vehicles doesn't even drive one, he doesn't think much of their quality, does he?

I'm trying to see the similarity of the two situations, but I'm having trouble with it. I guess you could look at it this way. . .

A board member of Company A (CA) ideally ought to drive a CA vehicle. But maybe he and his wife have 8 kids, and maybe CA doesn't make vehicles that can accomodate a family of 10. Or he could have a farm and so he needs a heavy duty truck which CA doesn't make. This means he has a need that can't be met by CA currently. What is supposed to do? He has to fulfill that need in the meantime, which means he has to use a vehicle from another company. Maybe he sees a need that he thinks CA should fulfill, and wants to convince them to. He can stay on the board and continue to try to convince them to change, which would be good for everyone who has similar needs. He could realize that very few people have similar needs and that it would be a waste of resources for CA to focus on that small number of people, in which case he can just continue to make CA produce the best vehicles they can even if he can't use those vehicles. Or he can give up entirely on CA and quit his job just because he doesn't use their vehicles. None of those options seem hypocritical at all to me.

 

[Indiana Rose Lee]

No, it isn't hypocritical. Representing an area doesn't mean that you believe it is up to standard. It means, in theory, that you want to make it better. That also does not include the idea that some want a religious worldview for their kids.

 

[eliza61]

Is it hypocritical for an elected official to send their children to a private school instead of a public school?

Not to me. If they wanted a religious education they would not be able to get that at a public school

 

[C.Ann]

No.. They can send their children anywhere they choose - just like any other parent can..

 

[Cornhusk]

The occupation of the parent really shouldn't affect the child in this case. A parent is allowed to make whatever educational choices for their child. I also don't see how where the child goes is anyone else's business. The person in office is there because it is his JOB and bringing up their child is ridiculous. As long as the executive is doing their job, it is no one else's business.

 

[Plannin'Shannon]

The occupation of the parent really shouldn't affect the child in this case. A parent is allowed to make whatever educational choices for their child. I also don't see how where the child goes is anyone else's business. The person in office is there because it is his JOB and bringing up their child is ridiculous. As long as the executive is doing their job, it is no one else's business.

 

[laurie31]

As a parent, I am uniquely qualified to make educational decisions for my own children. I know their strengths, weaknesses, interests, learning styles, etc.

I do NOT consider myself qualified to make educational decisions for other people's children, and certainly not for large diverse populations of children. I leave these matters to professionals. I *have* spoken before the school board in favor of a certain change, but it was up to the Board to decide if it was in everyone's best interest. Or at least, in the best interest of the majority.

I don't know or care if the school board members have children in our schools or if they even have children at all. What matters is their OWN education. Are they qualified for the job? If so, then what they do with their own children, if they have them, is irrevelant.

It's like saying a doctor should have to treat all the sick people in their own family, or have them treated by fellow members of their practice. What if that illness is not their speciality? Why should they not be sent to another practice, or even another hospital. It doesn't mean the doctor doesn't think they will get good care from his associates, but rather that they can't provide the specialized care needed.

The same is true for schools.

I have friends who are Catholic who consider it almost a religious obligation to send their kids to Catholic school. They don't see anything wrong with the public schools, they are just told at their church that to be "a good Catholic" that they should provide a Catholic education for their kids. They don't expect or even want the public schools to meet that need. That shouldn't mean they can't be employed by the public school system if they are qualified for the job.

 

[Becky2005]

My principal in high school sent his son to a private school. I always thought that was a little odd. As for politicians, it would depend on each situation.

Actually, I could see a principal doing it -- I feel sorry for the principal's kids in school. I just figure that would have some extra pressures to be known as "the principal's kid" -- talk about being under a microscope!!!