Hey, you know who’s committed to public education? Sarah Palin!
posted at 6:40 pm on September 10, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Sandrah Loh issues a cri de coeur in the opinion pages of the New York Times today as an advocate of public education. Despite Barack Obama’s extensive, if yet secretive, collaboration with William Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge to improve public education, she discovered that the Obamas have opted out of the public system for private education. So has Joe Biden, despite his standard Democratic statements of solidarity with teacher’s unions and educational monopolists. In fact, only one candidate in the presidential campaign has committed herself to working within the system to improve it … much to Loh’s dismay:
I do not know why Barack and Michelle Obama cannot send their children to a nice public school in Hyde Park. You understand that I am a bit unstable this election season (I voted for Hillary) and I do my research by erratically Googling from home. And all I know about Hyde Park — and, readers, I’d love to be corrected if I’m wrong — is that even though real estate prices seem high, the brave little public schools in its ZIP code seem to be flailing. Their scores on www.greatschools.net are largely 2’s and 4’s (on a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the best). When you read the tea leaves as manically as I do, those low numbers suggest that few children of educated, middle-class children are attending the local schools. Rather, they’ve withdrawn, with nary a ripple, into their whispery private enclaves.
Let us not even touch the term “community organizer,” so buffeted about, by both sides, like a balloon at a rock concert. Let us just say that if Mr. and Mrs. Obama — a dynamic, Harvard-educated couple — had chosen public over private school, they could have lifted up not just their one local public school, but a family of schools. First, given the social pressure (or the social persuasion of wanting to belong to the cool club), more educated, affluent families would tip back into the public school fold. And second, the presence of educated type-A parents with too much time on their hands ensures that schools are held, daily, to high standards.
Maybe this is a good time to bring up the notion of “community organizer”. After all, the school district is usually the most local and closest political unit in any community. Had Obama wanted to commit to improving communities, why not his own? And if Obama wants to protect the educational monopoly, especially in urban areas, why didn’t the Obamas opt to send their daughters to public schools in the upscale Hyde Park area?
Loh wonders the same thing:
So it is with huge grief-filled disappointment that I discovered that the Obamas send their children to the University of Chicago Laboratory School (by 5th grade, tuition equals $20,286 a year). The school’s Web site quotes all that ridiculous John Dewey nonsense about developing character while, of course, isolating your children from the poor.
Sarah Palin provided exactly the kind of role model that Loh wants from her party:
As a Democrat I am horrified that Sarah Palin is the one who snagged the deeply profound — and absolutely ignored by professional smart people — emotional real estate of “P.T.A. mother.” I too am, in fact, not just “my kids’ mom” but their Title I Los Angeles public school P.T.A. secretary. This unheard female howl is, for better or worse, what Ms. Palin has set out to tap into; it is real, and I am sick that we’ve let the Republicans charge this ground.
Palin actually started her political career as a way to improve the education her children received. She started with the PTA, and kept succeeding until she became governor. In terms of “community organizing”, Palin succeeded where Obama retreated, and she made a real difference in her community and the lives of her children.
Loh understands the power of that grass-roots appeal. Palin got into politics for the right reasons, and committed to education in a manner that Obama and Biden never bothered to match. Loh may be “horrified” by Palin’s story, but only because she recognizes how appealing it will be to those who are tired of Washington elites doing a lot of talking without putting themselves out in the least.
You must be logged in to post a comment.

















Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
Sorry, I didn’t mean to make it sound like you were an Obama supporter. I didn’t think that.
I just think that we should shine the light on one of the few things that he says that he can improve nationally that actually exists in his community. Education is about it.
Make him hang his hat on the fact that he did nothing for his community. One of our candidates did. Dare him to say out loud, “there is a big difference between Chicago and Po-Dunk, Alaska.”
And then Sarah could say, “You are right. There is a difference. It’s called courage and leadership. And John McCain and I have both and have demonstrated both. How about you Senator? Did you choose not to help the situation in your community because it was hopeless or just because you could afford to write a check for your daughters to go to a private school?”
I’m not arguing with you here. I’m sure it is an impossible situation up there. It’s probably similar here. But you and I aren’t saying we can fix the country’s education system.
Sorry for any slight your way – totally unintentional.
JeffinOrlando on September 11, 2008 at 12:23 AM
Reading this rant, by such a whiny, snobbish, elitist biatch, burns me to no end. I don’t even know where to start.
But I do know where to end it: her article tacitly admits a fact that the Party of No Personal Responsibility slanders Republicans for making their own choices while deigning to choose for the rest of us, by law.
Vouchers are an acknowledgment that being forced to pay taxes to support public schools, when you choose to have your children attend private schools, is taxation without representation. The Dems will never support vouchers because they depend so much on the power of the education unions.
But the rich among them will send their children to private schools just like the rich among Republicans.
Only difference is, the Republicans won’t whine about it.
Wanderlust on September 11, 2008 at 5:42 AM
Maybe the Obamanation DID community organizing for education in Hyde Park, and that’s the reason it is such a DISASTER. Seems like he has the reverse midas touch in every other area he impacted.
eaglewingz08 on September 11, 2008 at 8:32 AM
The best way to improve public education is vouchers and the competition vouchers will introduce. Here’s hoping Palin supports vouchers and universal tax credits.
petefrt on September 11, 2008 at 8:55 AM
Absolutely incorrect.
I support vouchers, but the best way to improve public education is (for starters) to repeal the No Child Left Behind act.
Public Education is not comparable to a business that can change due to prevailing influences. They are hampered by bureaucracy and restricted by laws like NCLB.
Religious_Zealot on September 11, 2008 at 9:09 AM
The worst part about this is that back in February, Obama was the candidate for change in education. He supported vouchers and school choice as the only feasible way to begin education reform. Then the teachers’ union got a hold of him and his tune changed immediately.
Senator Obama said this week that he is open to supporting private school vouchers if research shows they work.
“I will not allow my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn,” Mr. Obama, who has previously said he opposes vouchers, said in a meeting with the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. “We’re losing several generations of kids, and something has to be done.”
Education analysts said Mr. Obama’s statement is the closest they have ever seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to embracing the idea of vouchers. Vouchers are taxpayer-funded scholarships that allow families to opt out of public school and use their government-allotted education dollars to attend a private school instead. They are despised by teachers unions, powerful players in Democratic politics.
When Mr. Obama filled out questionnaires for both national teachers unions last year, the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association, he told the unions that he did not support vouchers. But on Wednesday Mr. Obama opened his remarks to the Journal-Sentinel’s question on vouchers by saying he had to admit that he has been a “skeptic” of vouchers.
He said he was astonished to learn that a voucher program in Milwaukee had never been tested in a longitudinal study to find out whether it had helped children or not. “If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let’s see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works for the kids,” Mr. Obama said.
http://www.nysun.com/national/obama-open-to-private-school-vouchers/71403/
This is a big deal, this change of heart.
Upstate New Yorker on September 11, 2008 at 9:09 AM
Just a curious question… some have poked fun at Palin for going from the PTA to VP Nominee… Did either Mr. or Mrs. Obama ever have enough interest in their children and their schools to participate in the PTA?
CC
CapedConservative on September 11, 2008 at 11:07 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2