Let's hope for the school's sake he doesn't get embroiled in any major scandals while he's in office!

But like it or not, the liberal illuminati have been making a great deal of decision lately based on race.

I think Chelsea Clinton attended the same school,so the people there are on board with the kind of security issues that will be ever present.
Putting any President's kids in a public school would be disruptive and a security nightmare for the Secret Service.This isn't elitism-it's good common sense in this day and age.

Joe Bernstein,

Chelsea Clinton did attend the same school.

I second your thoughts on the security issue requirements.

Too bad he won't give other minority families living in sucky school districts (like DC) the same choice he and his wife have.

THAT would be something approaching leadership. Instead, more of the same- do as I say, not as I do.

Joe is correct. The sercurity issuses trump all others for the children.
EMT is a good example of the new self styled conservative who wants to get on the dole when it comes to the selection of schools. The choice all of us have to pay tution if we wish to have our children attend private school.

Phil is a self-styled liberal who believes in freedom of choice, except for the choice of minorities go to the same schools as well-off white kids.

The dole? What is it that leads you to believe that EMT doesn't pay any taxes, Phil?

A year from now, when Obamacare is being debated, are you going to claim that anyone who wants to choose their own doctor, instead of having the government choose one for them also wants to be on the dole?

Andrew
EMT tax paying is none of my business. I don't care if he is a millionaire who thinks he pays too much or some backwoods volunteer who hardly pays anything. My commemt about the dole is in reference to the funding for so called "School Choice". The primary recipients would be families with children who would use my tax dollars to send their children to private schools. Or worst they would send their offspring to religous organizations for religous indoctrination. I don't think that I should be made to support private schools or the religous practices of others. All children have access to public school and that is to whom I expect to pay my taxes. If you or EMT wish to send your precious progeny to private academies or madrassas thats your business but pay for it yourself.
By the way EMT should be careful as to his/her assumptions about others. Particularly on the subject of race.

No, you made it your business when you accused EMT of seeking the "dole" when all he wants is some reasonable control over how his share of tax dollars are spent when it comes to his family's education.

You are assuming an inherent superiority -- a superiority that does not exist -- for the position that the top priority of education policy should be funding geographic-monopoly bureaucracies, rather than providing the best education opportunities to the most people.

I don't want my tax-dollars used to send kids to inferior schools, when better options are immediately available for the same price.

Andrew

There are people who pay taxes who have never had children to send to school. Their taxes along with our taxes fund public schools. If an adult decides that their school aged child should not attend a public school they have many choices including "home" schooling. The taxes collected for public schools should continue to fund public schools and not the private, religous or home alternatives. Public schools share resources with all the alternative school choices I have mentioned that include gym, after school programs and busing. Let EMT answer for him/herself.

There are also people who have never had children but are expecting to collect lots of Social Security money from other people's kids in a few years. Should we factor that into whether we should use tax dollars to put money directly in their hands to use in whatever way they want? Or should we try and design programs that are most effective in achieving their goals?

Taxes should be used make the best services available to the public. In fact, it’s the duty of government to make the best services available to the public that it can, and not to declare that a single financing structure is the only ideologically acceptable means for funding schools and that people therefore must accept poor performance even when better alternatives for the same price are available.

At the very least, RI needs to move to an open-districting system and allow more charters and restructure its education finance so that dollars follow the choices that parents and students make. It's worked in other cities, like that hot-bed of right-wing, people-can-make-better-choices-than-government ideology known as San Francisco.

And Phil, in many ways I like the edge you bring to the comments section here, but don't tell me what I should and shouldn't comment on. That line of discussion is not going to go anywhere good.