Then the argument should be that the children of public servants must go to public schools.

Meaning:

* the people who fund reelection campaigns get to opt out of public education.

* politicians before and after their political careers can opt out.

* a quick change to the law is all that would be required for politicians to opt out while theyre in office.

It would be enough to make them care a bit more, but only an outright prohibition would make them truly committed to public education.

This argument can be applied to anything: “everyone must have or experience the same government thing because otherwise the government provided good will be shitty.”

The counter-argument is the same in all places too, which is that: “freedom is good, so you should have a really good reason for restricting it and restrict it as little as possible, and this isn’t a good enough reason because it probably won’t work out like you intend”