New Obama ad: Romney really can’t relate to wanting the best education for your children

posted at 11:21 am on August 22, 2012 by Erika Johnsen

On the campaign trail on Tuesday, President Obama accused Mitt Romney of aloofness in his understanding of the burdens of student debt and touted the utter importance of a college education — and today, the Obama campaign took the education battle down to grade level with a new ad (to air in just Virginia and Ohio) yet again purporting that Romney can’t relate to the concerns of average Americans.

The ad accuses Mitt Romney of supporting larger class sizes and charges that the Ryan budget cuts education spending by 20 percent.

“These are all issues that really he personally cannot relate to. To be able to afford an education, to want the very best public education system for your children,” the ad’s narrator says over a shot of Romney in front of Donald Trump’s plane.

Firstly, just wow — really well done, Team Obama. That shot of Mitt Romney in front of Trump’s plane was about as unsubtle as it gets. I suppose that’s meant to semi-subliminally imply that, because Mitt Romney is wealthy and sent his own sons to private school, he can’t possibly understand or care about the concerns of middle-class parents in sending their own children through the public education system. Yes, because dropping the dimes it takes to send kids to private schools probably does mean that you have zero understanding of the rotten public school system and can’t relate to wanting the best for you children at all.

Secondly, one of President Obama’s more vocal “jobs” platforms has been about injecting more money we don’t have into state and local governments so that they can hire more cops, firefighters, teachers, and etcetera (a.k.a., more unionized public-sector workers). This whole argument about “class size” is just a convenient way to justify preserving the terrible status quo in which teachers’ unions maintain their “it’s for the children” power to frustrate public school reform. As easy as it is to demagogue the heck out of anyone who would dare suggest we impose spending cuts upon the oh-so-noble Department of Education, but we do not need more top-down mandates and federal education initiatives to improve the American education system — we need the competitive, bottom-up solutions that are never going to happen if the federal government just keeps throwing money at the problem. Washington has been doing that for years, but somehow, our education system miraculously fails to yield better results:

Begin with Head Start, a nearly $8 billion program that’s politically untouchable, not only because it deals with education, but it’s for preschool kids. It’s almost tailor-made for demagoguery, with anyone who’d dare trim — much less eliminate — the program practically begging to be declared a rotten so-and-so who hates even the littlest of children.

But the fact is there’s no meaningful evidence the program does any good. In fact, the most recent federal evaluation found that Head Start produces almost no lasting cognitive benefits, and its few lasting social-emotional effects include negative ones. Only the people employed by Head Start money — and the politicians who appear to “care” — are really benefiting.

This is repeated in elementary and secondary education, only with a bigger bill. In 2011 Washington spent almost $79 billion on K-12 education, and the latest federal data show inflation-adjusted federal outlays per pupil ballooning from $446 in 1970-71 to $1,185 in 2008-09. Meanwhile, scores for 17-year-olds on the National Assessment of Educational Progress — the “Nation’s Report Card” — have been stagnant.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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: 1 2

And Obama and the DNC can’t be bothered paying for use of schools in Nevada when he campaigns there.

Romney, on the other hand, pays the school district, in advance.

Great article from the Nevada Journal…

http://nevadajournal.com/2012/08/21/obama-returns-school-district-stiffed-his-campaign-four-years-25000-tab/

Stiffing strapped schools? What a cheapskate.

marybel on August 22, 2012 at 12:37 PM

Do you know why “class size” has become such an issue? Because kids are undisciplined–starts in the home, where there all-too-frequently is only one parent–and because teachers aren’t allowed to effectively punish the rabblerousers.

I went to grammar school in the glory days of parochial education, and we routinely had 50-60 children in our classes. Some Catholic schools had to go to double shifts. My younger sister’s second-grade class had almost 100 kids in it.

And guess what? They learned. Because the nuns didn’t take any crap, and when the kids were disciplined they went home to get another dose from mom AND dad, who always sided with the nuns.

A stable home life and caring, disciplining parents are far more important than “class size” or any of the other supposed educational failings the Dems like to shout about (all of which are evidently caused by lack of money and too few unionized teachers).

BTW, who do you think had a more stable and loving childhood, Mitt or Barry?

Meredith on August 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

When I was in elementary school in the ’60s, we generally had 30 or more students in each class, and it wasn’t a problem.

Ward Cleaver on August 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Me, too, but teachers were allowed to “paddle” back then. :)

Fallon on August 22, 2012 at 12:40 PM

My kids ages 7 and 12 are in a K-8 parochial school in Oregon. The school’s tuition rate letter puts the “actual cost” to educate each child for a year at $6,783.20. If you contribute to the parish you get a subsidized rate (about 25% less). This school can manage to give my children a great education (including music, art, PE, computer classes, etc.) while the public school system here spends about twice that much per student. The max class size is 30 although not every grade is full (my daughter only has 17 in her class); the younger grades have a teacher and assistant while the older grades have one teacher. The teacher with the longest tenure at this school is going on 30 years… most teachers have been there more than 10 years, and I doubt they’re there for the money. These claims that “more money will fix the education problem” are crap. Our family might be able to buy more, travel more, have a bigger house or new cars if we weren’t paying for tuition. I say we’re not sending our kids to private school because we’re rich, but we’re poorer because we do and it’s worth every penny.

kmid219 on August 22, 2012 at 12:45 PM

Time for a Romney ad featuring DC charter schools.

hawksruleva on August 22, 2012 at 12:46 PM

All I want is the option to send my children to the same publik skule Owebama send his kids to.

ImageSniper on August 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM

Do you know why “class size” has become such an issue? Because kids are undisciplined–starts in the home, where there all-too-frequently is only one parent–and because teachers aren’t allowed to effectively punish the rabblerousers.

Meredith on August 22, 2012 at 12:38 PM

Nah – it’s just the unions looking for a way to increase union membership.

hawksruleva on August 22, 2012 at 12:49 PM

If Romney and Company can’t hit this out of the ballpark, they’re not ready for prime time. There has been no single group that have been worse for American education than the Democrats. All you have to do is look at Washington D.C.

bflat879 on August 22, 2012 at 12:56 PM

Firstly, just wow — really well done, Team Obama. That shot of Mitt Romney in front of Trump’s plane was about as unsubtle as it gets. I suppose that’s meant to semi-subliminally imply that, because Mitt Romney is wealthy and sent his own sons to private school, he can’t possibly understand or care about the concerns of middle-class parents in sending their own children through the public education system. Yes, because dropping the dimes it takes to send kids to private schools probably does mean that you have zero understanding of the rotten public school system and can’t relate to wanting the best for you children at all.

Yeah, and what kind of schools is Obama sending his primogeniture to? this man must be the biggest hypocrie in existence….

jimver on August 22, 2012 at 1:02 PM

When I was in elementary school in the ’60s, we generally had 30 or more students in each class, and it wasn’t a problem.

Ward Cleaver on August 22, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Me, too. And my teachers were amazing. They were dedicated ladies [and I mean - ladies], who concentrated on the fundamentals. And it was obvious that they loved us. And, part of the reason that class size was irrelevant – just chewing gum was a major offense. They didn’t stand for any disruptions, or disrespect. They had time for us, because they demanded respect, deserved respect and got respect.

I have the most wonderful memories of my elementary school experience.

OhEssYouCowboys on August 22, 2012 at 1:12 PM

Funny. If I relied solely on the school(s) to to prepare my boy for life, he would be on welfare, food stamps, and unemployment. i.e. STIMULUS! ergo CHAINS! These folks are a joke, and a really bad one at that.

rocker98 on August 22, 2012 at 1:13 PM

 
How ’bout

Romney Plays Down Value of Indonesian Kindergarten
 

ignatzk on August 22, 2012 at 1:20 PM

Here is the difference between now and when Mitt Romney went to school, and now and when all the liberal baby boomers went to school: In those days all the scholarship money and student loans for higher education went to merit scholarships, and students on the basis of merit – for the best students at a college. Even liberals I know do not know this until their own kids go to college. They also wonder why their bill is so big.

Today all the money is wasted giving underprivileged students a chance, but it is a two year chance that wastes money, and more often requires paying college level fees to take high school courses that the students could not pass then, over again. That is a waste of money. No Pell Grant should be used to pay for high school level courses. Those students should have to pay for their remedial classes themselves, to prove they can do them.

The schools cannot get rid of under performing students until they have their sophomore grades, so the kids get Pell grants and loans for two years, then maybe drop out.

And some of the accrediting agencies for higher education FROWN upon giving middle class parents a break with merit scholarships. They want all the scholarship money given to the Pell Grant students, who may not have the high school grades and SAT scores that the other students have.

Plus the colleges charge a lot more to the full paying students, to cover the expense of having NON paying students on campus. Several admissions offices that I know of, cannot be in the RED for the next year unless they attract their correct number of full paying parents. If it were true that other parents were not paying for the kids that cannot pay, then it wouldn’t matter how many full paying parents were admitted. The cost of a year of private college is at it’s MAX because you are paying for other people’s children.

All of the Pell Grants and Subsidized loans are given out without regard to a students Merit, the best students are not rewarded nor are they helped to go to college. So, if you just cut out the students that are not qualified for college, not the best in their class, not the best in their high school, you could probably save 30-50%, not just 20%.

And today, Obama is playing strange games with the Nationalized Student loan business, taking more out of students and parents, with the profit going to the Treasury, than when George Bush was president, and almost anyone could get a 3-4% Parent Plus loan. Is he still blaming the Banks? Is he still blaming republicans? Republicans did not set the confiscatory rate that the Ford Loan program is charging, and the idea of PAYING FOR subsidizing the loans…paying the government to lower the interest rate? or where does this imaginary PAYMENT go?

Fleuries on August 22, 2012 at 1:22 PM

Methinks Romney’s sons attend(ed) private schools PRECISELY BECAUSE he/they understand the crappy school situations.
Doh !!
Dems are so dense.

pambi on August 22, 2012 at 1:24 PM

I’m puzzled!

Obama went to private schools, his daughters have only gone to private schools. So what is the difference??

If Obama is for small class sizes, how come he is against home schooling, you don’t get much smaller than 1.

WTF??

KenInIL on August 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

“If you like your madrass, you can keep your madrass.” – Barack Obama

NoDonkey on August 22, 2012 at 1:42 PM

The ad is citing this piece to claim that “Romney says class size doesn’t matter,” which is a complete distortion. Romney merely suggested that class size alone wasn’t the key factor—there are other problems that need to be addressed.

wgant on August 22, 2012 at 1:50 PM

I’m puzzled!

Obama went to private schools, his daughters have only gone to private schools. So what is the difference??

If Obama is for small class sizes, how come he is against home schooling, you don’t get much smaller than 1.

WTF??

KenInIL on August 22, 2012 at 1:38 PM

Those kinds of questions only ‘muddy the waters’, as Dems used to say.

Now, about Seamus and those tax returns that steal money from education… /snark

Liam on August 22, 2012 at 1:51 PM

Because spending more money on education has worked so well up to now. Shame on R&R for wanting to pull that funding./s

A few stats if you don’t mind: from http://www.dailyplunge.com/tag/per-pupil-spending-by-country/

# 1 Denmark: $6,713.00 per student
# 2 Switzerland: $6,470.00 per student
# 3 Austria: $6,065.00 per student
# 4 United States: $6,043.00 per student
# 5 Norway: $5,761.00 per student
# 6 Italy: $5,653.00 per student
# 7 Sweden: $5,579.00 per student
# 8 Japan: $5,075.00 per student
# 9 Israel: $4,135.00 per student
# 10 Australia: $3,981.00 per student
# 11 Netherlands: $3,795.00 per student
# 12 France: $3,752.00 per student
# 13 Germany: $3,531.00 per student
# 14 United Kingdom: $3,329.00 per student
# 15 Spain: $3,267.00 per student

Strange that we are 4th in spending and yet so low on the list of countries. 3rd from the last by grade 12. This from:

http://4brevard.com/choice/international-test-scores.htm

Sorry for so much but this really chaps my hide. We do not need to spend more, we need to educate more.

landowner on August 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM

Sorry for so much but this really chaps my hide. We do not need to spend more, we need to educate more.

landowner on August 22, 2012 at 1:52 PM

I see your point, but I have to add it’s more the kind of education offered. The quality of it has gone down the tubes a long time, like with ‘self-esteem’ classes and so-called curricula that have nothing to do with getting ahead.

Heck! In MA, scores in soccer games aren’t kept and everybody gets a hand-out of praise. Years ago, and it may still happen, kids get points on a test for spelling their own names correctly. Everyone can get educated in something. What matters are the quality, value, and relevance of what is offered.

Liberals, as usual, offer nothing of substance, nothing that can build and make for a good and lasting life.

Liam on August 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

More class warfare. More stupidity. These guys stink when they’re up against real competition they can’t get disqualified.

jan3 on August 22, 2012 at 2:04 PM

I just saw a picture of Romney with his sons and their families. He has 18 grandchildren. That picture alone is worth a thousand words in response to this ad. Also, I assume his 5 sons all have college degrees. To say Romney does not care about the education of this country’s children is ludicrous.

Successful business people believe in a good education. This is a really dumb line of attack, IMO.

Mayday on August 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM

Ok, so compare now to 1970′s.

test scores are flat… how is spending?

In inflation adjusted per-student dollars, we’re at almost 2.5 times the spending we had in 1970.

http://a2.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc6/182894_10100539150180594_8377576_71209127_7907890_n.jpg

We’ve increased the “staff to student” ratio by 70% in favor of staff, and reading & math are flat (science is down).

I’m guessing adding spending and staff won’t help, or it would have helped at some point in the past 40 years.

gekkobear on August 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

I’m sure Romney knows nothing about education for children. I mean after all he and the Mrs. only raised and educated 5 kids along the way…

How many kids has Obama sent through college? But he’s an expert on the subject we know, well maybe for foreign students….
(or whatever Jarrett tells him to think)

Why do democrats and liberals lie so much?

Answer: They are losing and they know it. Anything goes in their book.

RockyJ. on August 22, 2012 at 2:13 PM

Head start is not education. It’s free daycare.
Kindergarten is, too.
In reality, it is the parents’ job to teach their children.

All these early childhood education programs do is indoctrinate children. That is all.
And the reason Head Start is geared toward poor families is bcs it gets them to bite the dependency carrot bcs they are poor & daycare costs a lot of $$.
Here at one of the screwls I teach in we got a large grant bcs we’re failing AYP (yup!) to hire people & implement an afterscrewl program to ‘help’ kids do their HW.
So more paid daycare AND they are even looking into feeding them supper!
If you’re gonna do this $hit right, just yank the kid from home at the age of 3 or so & stick them in learning institutions where they only get to visit their parents on the weekends & holidays.

Badger40 on August 22, 2012 at 2:16 PM

Class size DOES matter when you’ve got half of the kids on IEPs for ‘emotional learning disabilities’ etc.
IT causes more chaos.
I have a large class for where I teach: 22 freshmen. Every seat is filled & it’s a small room.
I’ve got a bunch on IEPs. I can handle them. That’s not the point.
But it is true I physically find it impossible to do as many labs as I can with a smaller class just bcs managing that many students in a small space at one time takes way more time.
The time has to come from somewhere.
I think special ed needs to go back to what it was. This inclusion garbage discriminates against ALL students.
Bcs the IEP kids can’t get the attention they need & the others always get disrupted by the the IEP kids.

Badger40 on August 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I think special ed needs to go back to what it was. This inclusion garbage discriminates against ALL students.
Bcs the IEP kids can’t get the attention they need & the others always get disrupted by the the IEP kids.

Badger40 on August 22, 2012 at 2:22 PM

I agree. I was a reading tutor in a couple of schools for a number of years. There was a child in one of the classrooms who had the learning capacity of an 18 month old. The child was non-verbal and was not potty trained. The mother insisted the child be in a regular classroom and was upset when the child did not show marked improvement throughout the year. At the end of the school year the child was able to call to the aide with a guttural “Ma.” It was sad and ridiculous.

It was an extreme case, but that teacher had to teach to the normal range of children for that grade and to, basically, a baby. Political correctness run amuck.

Fallon on August 22, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I think there should be a rule at Hot Air that if you make a post about Obama and education policy, you must mention that he killed the DC voucher program.

NukeRidingCowboy on August 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Liberals, as usual, offer nothing of substance, nothing that can build and make for a good and lasting life.

Liam on August 22, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Agreed. Back to basics. 3 R’s.

I am sick to death of the everyone gets a trophy crowd. If everyone gets a trophy…it’s not a trophy.

My kids could read, write and do basic math when they entered the school system. From there I watched while the standards were lowered year after year to accomodate the non-english speaking and the vunnables.

Had enough of both. I skipped over 2 grades in the 60′s and 70′s and watched others get held back. Do they even do that anymore?

Arrrgghh!

landowner on August 22, 2012 at 3:12 PM

I think there should be a rule at Hot Air that if you make a post about Obama and education policy, you must mention that he killed the DC voucher program.

NukeRidingCowboy on August 22, 2012 at 2:43 PM

Yep, and it cost about as much as little Bammie blows on White House Wagyu Beef and Lobster parties in a month.

slickwillie2001 on August 22, 2012 at 3:15 PM

As Jerry Pournelle has pointed out: the literacy rate of the US has remained flat since the days of poor Johnny not being able to read.

The cost of education has skyrocketed in comparison.

When you are putting more money in and getting NO BETTER RESULTS then perhaps it is not money, nor class size, nor any of these things but the quality of the educator and the education itself. If we can do no better than children in a one room school house in rural TN in the 1920′s or the relatively packed schools of the early 1950′s, then perhaps our modern school system is the problem, not the remedy of the problem, and we should go back to thriftier and smaller methods of education… that requires these people known as ‘parents’ to step up to the plate to do their share. Remember them, the other supposed ‘adults’ involved in this formula?

ajacksonian on August 22, 2012 at 3:44 PM

Why is “small class size” important to the lunatic-left?

Small class size = more unionized socialist indoctrinators (what used to be jokingly called “teachers”) = more union dues = more union contributions to the d-cRAT socialist party.

TeaPartyNation on August 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Speaking of education…the president and his capos are dummies.

Schadenfreude on August 22, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Dummy in Chief

Schadenfreude on August 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM

8+% Unemploymnet, $16T in debt, a $1.5T deficit, and the POTUS is campaigning on class-size.

Good thing he has his eye on the ball.

CycloneCDB on August 22, 2012 at 4:18 PM

because dropping the dimes it takes to send kids to private schools probably does mean that you have zero understanding of the rotten public school system and can’t relate to wanting the best for you children at all.

Don’t Obama’s daughters go to Sidwell Friends — an exclusive and very expensive private school?

And didn’t Obama shut down the D.C. voucher system that allowed parents with less money than Barry and Michelle Obama to keep their kids out of the festering sewer that is the D.C. public school system?

Talk about people who live in glass houses . . . .

AZCoyote on August 22, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Here’s a Washington Post article about Sidwell Friends, the private school the Obama daughters attend.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/21/AR2008112103248.html

According to the school’s website, this year’s tuition for the upper grades was @ $33,000, per kid.

AZCoyote on August 22, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Obama didn’t even send his kids to public school before he became President. They attended private school in Chicago. Wonder why?

weaselyone on August 22, 2012 at 4:37 PM

Dummy in Chief

Schadenfreude on August 22, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Odummbo is a pathological liar who is willing to stoop to any level to win. The sad thing is that he actually believes his own lies and thinks anyone who calls him on the lie is the “bad” person.

Sure sign of a pathological liar with a Narcissistic and/or Antisocial personality disorder, or a combo of both.

avagreen on August 22, 2012 at 4:40 PM

TeaPartyNation on August 22, 2012 at 3:50 PM

That’s also why the Democrats wanted Obamacare so badly. It won’t reduce Americans’ health care costs (the CBO says it will cause costs to go up even higher), it won’t improve Americans’ access (CBO says many Americans will have less access to health care as providers stop accepting Medicare and Medicaid patients), but it will add millions of health care workers to union rolls — and filling those union coffers is what it’s all about.

http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/19/book-obamacare-law-designed-to-unionize-21-million-health-care-workers/

AZCoyote on August 22, 2012 at 4:43 PM

This ad brought to you by sidwell friends

daddytype on August 22, 2012 at 5:59 PM

First, I have cousins who went to a 2 room school house, in the 50′s, with 8 grades, so let’s not talk about class size. I would defy a teacher today to teach a room with 40 kids in 4 grades, I’m just saying.

Secondly, if Obama wants to claim Romney is out of touch, why didn’t he send his kids to D.C. schools? The school system with one of the highest, per student, budgets is not a really good example for what Democrats can do.

bflat879 on August 22, 2012 at 6:54 PM

Class size is a problem when the ACLU wants all kinds of misbehavior tolerated in the classroom, and forbids discipline.

Fleuries on August 22, 2012 at 8:42 PM

There’s another reason why large classes aren’t working today: we don’t track kids by ability and achievement. If all the kids in a class have roughly the same ability, they will help each other. If some are capable of working three grades above level and some struggle at two grades below, the teacher has to teach five or six different classes at once, and that’s hard to do with more than five or six students.

njcommuter on August 23, 2012 at 12:36 AM

First let me say I come from a long line of educators: my grandmothers were Normal School grads at the turn of the last century. A cousin and her father taught with a drive for hispanic education, in Denver.

The current crop of teachers are just unionized time-servers. They had a choice to be professionals or shills for the current fashion in social policy and chose the latter. I am 65 and most people who went into education were not the strongest students.

The best teachers are those who know their subject best and smart people more easily each smart people. Why not scrap the current structure and hire based on accomplishment. Private schools do that, pay less and get better people. In part because they get to exercise a profession, and the company is better.

We need someone to break the teachers’ unions like Reagan broke the air traffic controllers.

Denver Bob on August 23, 2012 at 11:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2