You currently have javascript disabled. Please enable it to continue using this site.
[ X ]
Invalid submission.
Topics Homepage> Publicly elected officials should send their children to public school

Publicly elected officials should send their children to public school

PRO (5 assertions)


Elected official: A representative of a government (funded or run) organization associated with education.

Public school: Any U.S. government-funded school that covers any grades from kindergarten to twelfth grade.

The Plan:

We will implement this as a job requisite for a government education-related official, in which, in order to accept the job, they understand the sacrifices made. Thus, after signing the approval, we are not taking away their human rights.

1. Assertion: Elected officials would have a personal stake in the state of our educational system

Reasoning: By creating this law, elected officials would have a personal stake in the United States Educational System. If a mayor sends his/her kids to a public school, then that elected official will have an actual, personal stake in the way our public school system turns out. It puts a human face (their kids) on a pressing issue (fixing our public schools) and forces politicians to take action. Now, they have a loved one who will be affected firsthand by their decisions, and forces them to take personal accountability for the actions they make.

Evidence: A plan similar to this was enacted in Ohio; the officials of the districts affected reported an increased rate in interest - a pole conducted by the local newspaper revealed that 79% stated that they cared more about the public education system after sending their children there, compared to the previous.

Dr. Kelly Jason, with a Ph. D in adult psychology, states that “adults care about their children. It is a natural process in nature that the mother takes care of the child, and it is the job of the father to defend. When an adult is directly tied to a child’s program, such as school, or a certain club, they tend to make more relevant decisions than they would otherwise.” In an evaluation of a book, Ohio lawyer Larry Elkins says that “this finding reveals much about how parents feel about their child’s education. If we were to take this finding and apply this to the government system, I strongly believe that we will find a better education system in America. The problem nowadays is that most of our officials, elected publicly to represent, send their children to private school, and frankly do not care about the situation of most children in the country.”

2. Assertion: Children can give direct feedback to the parents

Reasoning: A child can constantly tell the parents what is happening at school and what is wrong with the education system. Thus, politicians will have the “inside scoop” as to what schools are really like.

Evidence: There are numerous examples of elected officials who have campaigned to improve education after receiving a viewpoint from their children. Let’s take a look at Chicago, Illinois, where 98% of public high schools and 60% of public middle and elementary schools currently fail the national math and reading proficiency tests given every spring. According to the Chicago Tribute, in 2010, after Former Board President Gery Chico sent his two daughters to Chicago public schools, he proposed the idea of increasing the school day by 2 hours and the school year by 25 days, as well as creating alternative schools for at-risk students. Clearly, this board president saw how the education system was affecting his children and strengthened his resolve to repair it. This is what we need from every single politician in America, and requiring their children to attend public school would satisfactorily serve that purpose

3. Assertion: This should be mandatory due to the very nature of the officials job

Reasoning: Officials’ income comes from the people, in which the people entrust the officials with their vote so that they may represent them better. Instead of having officials that send their children to private schools, we need officials who actively understand the situation parents are in. Not only that, but each private school is different, so in reality the majority of officials are representing only 3.8% of the population- the percentage that sends their children to private schools. ~ National Center of Education Statistics.

The nature of a publicly elected official is to do everything in order to assist the public and represent them in nature. As such, enacting this plan would not go against the Constitution in any sense; the nature of the job makes it easy to deduce that if it facilitates the representation of the people, then we should enact it.

If you weigh this with the current situation, a large portion of government officials currently aren’t associated with the public educational system. Even though being in a private school is also part of the educational system, the majority of students go to public schools, so the officials wouldn’t be representing the maximum. Furthermore, each private school differs, so the official would only be truly representing a small amount of the population: 3.8 Percent, as we pointed out earlier.

4. Assertion: Public officials need to show faith in school system in order to improve it

Reasoning: The fact that public officials don’t send their kids to the public schools they’re supposed to be fixing shows their lack of faith in the school system. This just further discourages teachers and students and especially parents looking at school options. It sends a message to people that is not well received, and as someone elected by the public to lead, this official must make a few sacrifices for the country that elected him- namely that he shows faith in our school system by putting his kids there.

Evidence: If you played on a sports team and your manager placed a bet on you to lose, you’d be pretty discouraged. Same thing.

Chicago Sun Times- “Mayor Emmanuel’s choice [of private school] for his own children speaks volumes.”-- “I am really committed because I’ve put my money where my mouth is that I will go to the Chicago Public Schools. My kids went there and I hope that my grandchildren go there. … I believe in the Chicago Public Schools,” Chico said at the time. “If you’re going to run for the mayor of Chicago and you’re going to pronounce big plans for the Chicago Public Schools, I believe that a mayor has to have the conviction to want to get behind that program.”

Assertions #5

CON (3 assertions)

Rebuttal To: The opposition is arguing that all elected officials’ children should have to follow this proposed procedure, but the proposition side points out that elected officials in offices that do not concern education should not be forced to send their kids to public school in their district because it is irrelevant to their job.

Reasoning: Offices like attorney general, district attorney, and sheriff are not relevant to education at all, yet according to the proposition’s plan, they too would have to send their children to public school in their district. This will produce absolutely no positive effect on the country, state, or district: in fact, it will produce a negative effect, which is discouragement of parents to run for office, as stated earlier. There is absolutely no reason to implement this rule to the kids of elected officials in the United States


Rebuttal To: They Say: Derp…It will make *change*!

Assertion: Actually, the fact of the matter is that over 92% of publicly elected officials in Texas do send their kids to public school. So, my opponents point about change should already be occurring if it was true that sending your kids to public school would positively effect our educational system. Using my opponents logic and the fact that 92% of officials already send their kids to public school, our educational system should be fixed already! But it ain’t.

Evidence: Texas Tribune

1. Assertion: Forcing children of elected officials to attend public school jeopardizes the children

Reasoning: The elected officials make controversial statements. This jeopardizes their kids safety when hooligans attack them.

Evidence: There have always been violent enemies of politicians. For example, according to CNN, threats to President Obama and his family have seem to skyrocket the longer he stays in office, as assassination threats to the president himself increased by 4 times in the first two years after his inauguration. Because the children of elected officials are subject to the most threats and danger because of their parents’ political views, they need to go to the safest schools. Studies have proven that private schools in the United States are overall safer than public schools. According to, the number of U.S. private schools who require uniforms, which have been proven to increase school safety in multiple ways, has always exceeded the number of public schools who do so. Threats like those already made on Sasha and Malia Obama have been enough for elected officials to put their kids in private school. Judge, do we have to wait for a child to be injured or die before we set this matter straight? Elected officials should have the right to place their kids in the safest school possible, and any violation of that right puts the children in considerable danger.


2. Assertion: The requirement in consideration would discourage parents from running for office because their child’s education would be compromised

Reasoning: What good parent would sacrifice their kids for a four year, bad-paying job to serve the people? Don’t these officials already make enough sacrifices? The good politicians are few and far between, and by making the law the PRO proposes, this would discourage even more applicants from applying to be government officials.

Evidence: Parents can often be among the best employees in government offices. According to a CBS News interview, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi shared that raising her five children was the best preparation for the highly visible job as the presiding officer of the House. In January, the Washington Post reported that Carly Fiorina, former CEO of Hewlett-Packard, said that “Parents make great employees because they’ve mastered two of the most critical tasks of successful management: multi-tasking and prioritizing.” However, if running for office meant that one’s child would have to switch to public school in the district of the official, countless parents would decide not to run because they value their child’s education over political fame and success. Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels can sum this up perfectly for us, Judge: “I love my country,” he said in a May speech at American Enterprise Institute, “But I love my family more.”

3. Assertion: They are still parents; and parents have the right to decide where their child goes to school

Reasoning: Under the Constitution, everyone is entitled to the choice of where their children gets educated. Despite their jobs as publicly elected officials of the United States, they still have rights as human beings. Therefore, they should be allowed to choose public or private despite their societal value.

Evidence: UN Human Rights Declaration states that parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education their child shall receive. Forcing the officials to send their children to public school is not American in any sense; and the fact that they have to go to school in the SAME school district, then they would have actually NO choice in their child’s education.

This is a blatant violation of people’s human rights!!!