Obamas Choose Sidwell Friends for Malia and Sasha

by Bethany Sanders (Subscribe to Bethany Sanders's posts) Nov 22nd 2008 2:00PM

Categories: Celeb Kids, Celeb Parenting, Education

President-elect Barack Obama and his wife Michelle Obama chose a school for daughters Malia and Sasha this week -- Sidwell Friends School. Michelle Obama said she'd been considering D.C. public schools, as well as Georgetown Day School, but that the family felt Sidwell Friends was the best fit.

The school has a long history of educating First Children. Chelsea Clinton, President Nixon's daughter Tricia, and Vice President Al Gore's son, all went there. Vice President-elect Joe Biden's grandchildren also attend, which is said to have played a part in the Obama's decision. Malia and Sasha have grown close with the Biden's grandchildren.

No doubt the Obamas will be criticized by some for not choosing a public school. But Barack and Michelle Obama have made no secret of the fact that they will do whatever it takes to make life as normal as possible for their girls. Privacy and security are going to be two issues they'll constantly be juggling, and Sidwell Friends obviously has a lot of experience educating Presidential children.

What do you think of the Obamas choice?

First Kids(click thumbnails to view gallery)

Source

Comments (24)

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)

Katty 11-22-2008 @ 6:11PM

I think that choosing a school is a personal choice for any family, President Elect or not. I think in this case, security was a factor, plus they have become friends with Joe Biden's grandchildren and they attend Sidwell as well.

I know a lot of people will criticize them for not sending the girls to public schools, but I don't send my son to public schools either, but yet, I do support public schools and have no problem paying taxes towards it even if my own son doesn't attend. If I choose to send my kids to private school, then I have to pay.

I wish the Obama children the best and hope they settle in well, it must be hard to change schools in the middle of the year, I did it in 5th grade and its rough.

Amy 11-22-2008 @ 8:17PM

Sidwell Friends is a great school. It sounds like there were a lot of factors that were in play and they chose carefully. And, in my opinion, DC public schools (unfortunately) are hurting. There have been a number of superintendents over recent years and they've struggled to keep buildings worthy of being occupied and teaching positions filled. I taught for 5 years in the county beside DC and am somewhat familiar with the public and private schools in the area.

superman's mom 11-22-2008 @ 8:31PM

As parents, you have to do what's best for your children irregardless of what other people may think. I think it's a personal choice and they should not be criticized for their decision. Whether it be for security reasons or educational reasons, I'm sure their children will flourish at Sidwell Friends. Both Barack and Michelle Obama are highly educated and most likely want the same for their children. With that being said, I'm sure this wasn't a quick decision for them. They obviously did the research to support it.

Heather 11-22-2008 @ 9:57PM

I will admit that I did not vote for Obama, however, he should of course choose a private school for his girls. They would have absolutely no privacy at a public school.

SKL 11-23-2008 @ 3:36AM

I don't care where he sends his kids to school.

But I do believe he should be subject to criticism since he believes in one rule/priority for his own kids and a different one for everyone else's.

Privacy aside, he would not have sent his kids to public school. They have never attended public school. His kids are too good for public school. Dear Auntie lives in the projects, but Malia and Sasha are too good for public school. Yet Obama is against school choice for most taxpayers.

The libs have figured out how to give B.O. another free pass - call it a "privacy" concern. B.O. can do no wrong.

notfooled 11-23-2008 @ 8:19AM

SKL - For someone who says you don't care where his kids go to school, your continued bitterness toward the Obamas borders on disgusting, particularly when discussing what is best for innocent children. How does Obama believe in "one rule/priority for his own kids and a different one for everyone else's."? He pays for his kids' private school education just like anyone else who makes that decision would. And he' pays taxes to support the public school system just like everyone else does as well.

Yes, his kids have always gone to private schools, and none of us know the exact reasons for this. Maybe the public schools can't offer as much as the private schools in the ways of languages, computer sciences, arts, etc. Maybe his kids do better in the much smaller classes that private schools can offer. Maybe they don't want to deal with the large beaurecracy (sp?) that comes with public school systems (i.e. see the various discussions about the pledge, dress codes, inadequate teachers supplies, etc that have gone on here in the past).

"School choice" (your term) is just a way for people who can't afford private school to try and get taxpayers to pay for their children to get something their parents could not otherwise afford. (I'll bet Joe the Plumber would think that's socialism!!) I pay for private school and there is no way I expect public taxpayer dollars to help me out with that choice. Taxpayer dollars for education should go to the system that benefits the public; not to me or you, if we choose private schools instead.

p.s. you say the "libs" have given Obama a free pass on the private school decision. Howver, in my kids' private schools, the parents are OVERWHELMINGLY Republicans - do you think they are as critical is you are about his decision?

Amanda 11-23-2008 @ 9:35AM

SKL - Let go of the anger over all things Obama. If you don't, you may not last the next 4 years.

Most presidents & vice presidents who have had school-age children during their terms in the WH have sent their kids to private school. I am not sure about Amy Carter, but both of Nixon's daughters as well as Chelsea Clinton have gone to private schools. Why do you think the "libs" are giving a "free pass" to Obama when he makes the same decision? Besides, why should you or I care, since we aren't the ones paying the bill for their schooling?

You say you don't care where he sends his kids to school, but from the tone of your post, it most certainly seems that you do care. If only because of your irrational hate of Obama and any decision he makes.

SKL 11-23-2008 @ 11:25AM

Why do I bother here? Some people are either dumb or willfully ignorant.

I do not care where Obama sends his kids to school.

I do care about his stance on school choice.

Most of the people who have to send their kids to public schools ARE taxpayers, hello. It's not a matter of wanting to take other people's tax dollars and put them to private use, but being able to direct some of their OWN tax dollars to carry out a public responsibility - the elementary / secondary school education of their children.

If the education of my kids isn't a public matter, then why is the education of my neighbor's kids a public matter?

What it boils down to is that school choice means that the teachers' unions (run by libs) don't get to make every decision about how my kid will be schooled. And they don't get to be paid / rewarded for running a school that is unacceptable to parents.

Obama believes in school choice, but he is more concerned about catering to the teachers' unions than doing the right thing. That's what this is about. Otherwise, he would have made it a point to put his kids in public school back in their hometown, if not in DC. Many other politicians who believe in his educational policies have their kids in public schools.

kate2 11-23-2008 @ 12:51PM

Oh Come ON, SKL!! If Obama had decided to send his children to public school, you would have bitched and moaned about the inconvenience to the teachers, students, parents, traffic, etc. who would have had no choice but to deal with the security issues etc. No matter what he does over the next four years, you are going to find criticism for it. Do you really think Sarah Palin would have sent her kids to public school (assuming they could have passed the entrance exams for private school, lol, after being homeschooled by her and "the first dud", I mean, "dude")?

And "hello" but we ALL contribute our tax dollars to support public schools. Why should you get to "divert" yours for private school just b/c you can't otherwise afford it? The education of your children AND your neighbors children IS a public matter (i.e. ALL children must be educated) therefore our tax dollars pay into the public system. If you can afford another option, then go ahead, but that doesn't excuse you from supporting the public school system. Why is this so hard for you to understand??

What it "boils down to" is that you can't afford private school and this pisses you off - so you want a govt handout!!

Sandyone 11-23-2008 @ 2:02PM

SKL wants a govt handout? Heh, heh, you don't know her very well, do you?

Read very slowly, if it helps you to understand better:

Obama is all about handouts. He's all about 'choice', but only when it comes to when a mother wants to kill that 'punishment of a baby', not when it comes to school choice. He wants to use tax dollars so that everyone can get an abortion, but he wants the tax dollars to stay only in the govt school system.

Obama has the good fortune to be able to afford a good school for his kids. There are many people who do not have the ability to choose a good school and Obama's education policies will keep it that way. Those who can afford it can get great schools. Those who can't afford it have to settle for what the govt dishes out.

Really, it doesn't matter where he sends his kids. He seems a bit disingenuous when he talks about sharing the wealth...except where education is concerned.

kate2 11-23-2008 @ 2:23PM

"Heh, heh" she wants to govt to use tax dollars to send her kid to private school vs. the federally-funded public school. So, yeah, I call that a "handout". If she can't afford private school then why should she all of a sudden be able to self-direct her tax dollars? The term "school choice" is SKL's term she selected to use. I only used it in context of the private vs public school debate b/c she did. It has NOTHING to do with medical choices. So you're saying your tunnel vision so narrow you think all federally-funded medical assistance comes only in the form of :"everyone getting abortions"?! Sorry, no matter how "very slowly" that comment is read, it's never going to make sense to me or anyone else!!

SKL 11-23-2008 @ 3:11PM

OK, first of all, Sarah Palin's kids DO go to public schools, not that that is relevant here. She probably would send them to private schools if she lived in DC - nearly everyone would if they could - but she isn't the one denying school choice to others.

Secondly, I can afford to send my kids to private school. Is it possible that some comments here might be about overall government policy rather than one's personal agenda? School choice is good for our country as well as for individuals.

I would like to send my kids to public school, though, like everyone, I have reservations and need to do more research. I have no intention to send my own kids to a charter school or the like. I am more likely to choose public school, parochial school, or home schooling - at least I have an income and an address that provides me with an actual choice. This is not about me wanting a government handout. Though it would be nice to get back a little of the hundreds of thousands of tax dollars I've paid in, particularly if my kids don't end up partaking of the government-provided educational opportunities.

In Chicago, where Obama began and ended his sought-out "African-American" experience, charter schools with nationally-renowned results are literally going out of business because the families there can't afford the tuition, and the government won't help. These families pay taxes. The public schools there are a miserable failure. Teachers who try to reform it are laughed out of the building. The teachers' union responsible for the poor performance of the average Chicago public school student has worked hard to kill errant teachers' efforts to apply approaches that really work, either in PS classrooms or in charter schools. Families have a right to demand better. When the school system and government won't act, they should be able to vote with their pocketbooks - some of their tax money for education should be portable.

Public school is a benefit to me only if kids are getting a real education there. Presumably my neighborhood is then safer and my business has a chance to employ people who can read their job descriptions. In many places, that's what is happening, and families are happy to put their kids in public schools. In many other places, public middle and high schools are basically thug hangouts. My tax dollars should be put to better use.

Obama thinks his kids deserve a better education because he can afford it. Unfortunately, this is how many Americans think. I personally want my kids to be able to attend a fully inclusive school, even if it means the quality isn't the greatest. I can make up for moderate quality through family activities. At some point, I would have to say no to a violent, negative, immoral, and even anti-education environment. If I were in government, I'd work to fix those problems. Not just paying both good and bad teachers more money, but holding them accountable. One way to hold them accountable is to create some real-life competition - the same thing that makes private schools and many charter schools better. Screw the teacher's unions. If they really had the kids' best interests in mind, achievement wouldn't be getting worse and worse and they wouldn't blame every single problem on everyone else. Since I am not in government and those who currently control the government turn a deaf ear to my concerns, I may unfortunately have to choose a non-public school alternative for my kids. But that doesn't mean that just because I can do this, everything is OK for those who can't.

Does anyone remember when the US public school system was a model for the entire world? Yeah, it wasn't all that long ago. I sure wish I could send my kids to the (big-city) public school my mom went to.

Karen 11-23-2008 @ 3:21PM

So, let me get this straight. Tax dollars are for public schools even if that public school doesn't meet the needs of my children. And my children's needs are only important if I can afford to send them to private school?

Hogwash.

All parents should have the option of choosing the school that best firts their child's educational needs - public or private. Not just those that can "afford it." And those of us that want vouchers, only request a PORTION of the money that the school system uses.

It sounds like BO choses the school that best suits his kids needs. I'd just like all parents to have that choice, just like he wants all children to have health care, etc.

Why don't you apply the same standards of being able to afford it to health care, etc.? Why is it only school that has to be a one size fits all.

Teacher 11-23-2008 @ 3:36PM

Education is a right. Private education is a luxury. If vouchers were wide spread (even if money was divereted for only a portion of tution) that still means public schools get less money. Which means all those kids who can't use vouchers (becuase the private schools are still going to pick only the students they want) have less resources. Why is your kid more important than anyone elses that you get to take money away from them?

LS 11-24-2008 @ 12:48PM

Perhaps a voucher system would cause the Great Sucking Hole we call the "Public Education System" to balance their books and spend money wisely, rather than continuing to lobby for more teacher pay for teachers who can't spell.

In nearly every situation it's tried, competition improves the product. It worked with the automobile, it worked with the space program, it worked with computers, it works daily in medicine. WHY wouldn't it work for education?

SKL 11-24-2008 @ 1:16PM

If education is a right, the public school system is severely infringing on that right. If all the failing public schools were shut down and the money spent on them put back in the hands of the parents, I can't imagine our educational results could be worse.

Abe Lincoln spent less time in school than many US kids spend in Kindergarten. Obviously monetary "resources" are not the main problem in our schools.

Teacher 11-25-2008 @ 7:59AM

Are you suggesting I do not deserve my job because I spelled a word wrong on the internets?

SKL 11-25-2008 @ 9:37AM

Actually, you spelled several words wrong and made a couple grammatical errors in one short paragraph. These are not college-level mistakes, either - these are words / rules that are expected to be mastered in elementary school.

And I'll bet you believe you deserve a pay raise.

Will your spelling and grammar improve if your pay check increases?

Do you realize how angry parents feel when they receive notes from teachers containing elementary-school-level mistakes and complaining about the kids' shortcomings or demanding that the parents spend more time teaching their kids at home?

If you think being taught by a teacher whose own achievement level is above the 8th grade is a "luxury," I'm pretty sure you are in the minority. Maybe you're in the majority within the teacher's union though. I say it's a shame. As a consumer of the public schools, I want a refund or replacement of this defective product.

Teacher 11-25-2008 @ 4:56PM

My first year teaching I made about $28,000. I had just completed 4 and 1/2 years of college, had bills to pay, etc. I worked in a "poor" district and spent at least $5000 outfiting my classroom. I had to buy books for my kids to read, I had to buy paper for my students to write on, pencils for them to write with, crayons, markers, glue, staples, sticky notes, etc. etc. etc. I have moved to a different district, my pay has increased (not with inflation though) and the district I work in gives me some money for supplies, but I still have to buy a box of snack every week for kids whose parents can't afford them, I still buy things for the kids to do at the holidays, how can I ask a parent who can't afford to feed their kid for $5 for the field trip? How many other professions require you to spend a good chunck of your money just to do your job? So, yes I would like a pay raise. And yes my spelling and grammer are AWESOME when I send notes home to parents. This is the internet and parent dish...I don't really care if I didn't proof read my comment.
Part of what teachers are trying to do when we ask parents to help out with homework at home is to give the kids a connection with their parents and to keep the parents involved with their child's education. Out of my 18 students I have 2 parents I have spoken to more than once, and that is not from lack of contact from me.

SKL 11-25-2008 @ 7:02PM

Well, I'm not sure what benchmark you are using for pay. I made $32,500 at my first permanent job, and I had a law degree and MBA from a prestigious university on top of my 4.5 years of undergraduate education. I think $28K for a bachelor's degree in a field that isn't all that challenging, with months of vacation each year, is pretty good. (Yeah, my undergrad was in elementary / special education, so I know how not academically challenging it is.)

But even if you have great spelling and "grammer," you can't deny that the average teacher that is protected by the teacher's union has lots of room for improvement. I never hear teachers admitting that. That's the reason parents are demanding educational alternatives - because the profession doesn't hold itself to high enough standards, and without competition, nobody else can either.

| 1 | 2 | Most Recent | Next 20 Comments