Go to the mobile version of this Web site.

Login | Contact Us | Site Map | Paid archives | Electronic edition | Subscription Questions | Extras

MARANTO: Obama not practicing what he preaches on school choice

By Robert Maranto

Published October 29, 2008 at 12:01 a.m.

Text size  

More Speakout

More stories »

As Barack Obama did a photo op dropping his kids off at a Chicago private school, it struck me that Republicans support wars they would never send their children to; Democrats support schools they would never send their children to.

For years Democrats have attacked "chickenhawk" Republicans who, unlike John McCain, back wars so long as other people's children do the fighting.

Now, Republicans should lampoon the many Democratic public school dodgers who choose to send their children to private schools, while voting against school choice for us. For lawmakers like Barack Obama, public schools are strictly for other people's children.

Candidate Obama declares that "We need to fix & improve our public schools, not throw our hands up and walk away from them," the way Barack and Michelle Obama have with their own children. Candidate Obama's official education program opposes private school choice, and only under pressure gave a very qualified endorsement to public charter schools.

Instead of letting parents choose, Obama emphasizes bureaucratic programs like teacher certification. Supporters of traditional teacher certification programs, like Obama education adviser Linda Darling Hammond, want all public school teachers to be certified. They argue that no one wants children to be operated on by uncertified doctors, so why should they be taught by uncertified teachers?

Yet unlike medical certification, there is precious little evidence that teacher certification works. Those same rich people who would never send their children to unlicensed doctors choose to pay big bucks to have those same children taught by unlicensed teachers.

Just look at Sen. Obama and other recent presidential candidates.

Sen. Obama's family chose to send him to Hawaii's elite Punahou School, which does not even consider certification when hiring new teachers. (I asked their personnel office.) Barack and Michelle Obama themselves rejected Chicago's notoriously poor public schools, which are staffed by certified teachers, to send their daughters to the much storied Laboratory ("Lab") School. When asked whether she hires certified teachers, the Lab School's personnel director said "we do not look at that; it doesn't make any difference."

2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry attended St. Paul's in New Hampshire. St. Paul's personnel director told me that "We do not consider teacher certification in hiring...I would estimate that out of our 110 faculty only two or three are certified."

It's the same at Sidwell Friends, 2000 Democratic presidential nominee Al Gore's alma mater, at Episcopal High School, whose alumni include John McCain, and at Philips Academy (aka Andover), attended by both Presidents Bush.

In short all the recent major party presidential nominees are public school conscientious objectors: Their parents chose private schools with uncertified teachers. Does anyone think that Barack Obama, John McCain, Al Gore, John Kerry, George Herbert Walker Bush, and George W. Bush did not learn enough to succeed?

Scholarly research finds little evidence that students learn more from certified teachers than from the uncertified teachers who teach future presidential candidates. As Andrew Wayne and Peter Youngs reported in the Review of Educational Research, nearly two dozen scientific studies find that students learn more from teachers who studied at prestigious colleges, but in the case of certification "findings have been inconclusive except in (high school) mathematics."

Not only does Sen. Obama want to expand ineffective programs, he would kill off the evidence of their ineffectiveness. While supporting "accountability," the Obama platform derides the measurements of student learning required by the No Child Left Behind law as "forcing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests."

Unfortunately, ending NCLB's standardized testing will leave us with no way to tell whether schools are teaching children or just keeping them off the streets. We would be reduced to the sort of accountability that Enron made famous: If school officials say they are doing a good job, ordinary parents will just have to take their word for it.

But Barack and Michelle Obama are no ordinary parents. They have used school choice to send their children to a private school -- the very choice they want to keep from the rest of us.

Robert Maranto is the 21st Century Chair of Leadership in the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas.

Comments

  • October 29, 2008

    6:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    NavyChief writes:

    And this surprises you how?

    Get ready for a lot more of this type of behavior.

    As time passes, I think you will find out that on many issues, Obama, if elected, will choose a path different from his stated one. Does the acceptance of Federal Campaign money come to mind? He backpedaled on that real quick. Like all politicians, he will promise one thing and do another. He will voice approval of something and then undermine it at a later point. He isn't alone, McCain will do the same thing, it is a political certainty. Why people are surprised by it is amazing, since it has always been that way.

    And I do take issue with your comment "Republicans support wars they would never send their children to". McCain himself has 2 children in uniform at this very minute. One son is at Navy Academy at Annapolis and the other is an enlisted man, with Iraq experience, in the Marines. Marilyn Musgrave had a son that served as an enlisted man in the Navy while she was hlding office. If I had time or desire, I could probably find quite a few examples of politicians, from both parties, with children in the military.

  • October 29, 2008

    8:19 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    gatengreen writes:

    I believe that the writer of this article had to fabricate something wrong with the republicans in order to bring up the fact that Obama's promises are lacking any history of backing his campaign retoric, with the exception of the comment about wealth redistribution.

    I would like to remind him that Governor Palin's son is in Iraq right now as we discuss his lack of knowledge on the subject.

    The last I heard she was a republican

  • October 29, 2008

    8:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    eoj writes:

    Did anyone notice that Obama had zero long term friends stand up for him at the Democrat Convention?

    Did anyone notice that McCain had multiple long term friends stand up for him at the Republican Convention?

    Did anyone notice McCain PROVED he is a natural born citizen as required by the US Constitution for US President?

    Did anyone notice Obama has NOT PROVED he is a natural born citizen as required by the US Constitution for US President?

    Did anyone notice Obama has fought PROVING he is a natural born citizen as required by the US Constitution for US President?

    Are there any Democrats that care if Obama is a natural born citizen as required by the US Constitution?

    If you care send your email to 'AskDOJ@usdoj.gov'

    It sure seems like the Democrats/MSM are practicing "See no evil, Hear no evil"...

    My God is bigger than all this, I don't know the outcome BUT I bet there are millions of Christians praying that God will put McCain in the Oval Office...

    The fervent prayers of a righteous man (this does not mean perfect, just forgiven) are heard by God.

  • October 29, 2008

    8:52 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    cowboy69 writes:

    If Obama is elected, there are going to be many surprises. Bigger government, higher taxes, less for the working class. All part of his master plan. Americans are going to wake up on November 5 and realize they have put a socialist president in the white house with a racist first lady.

  • October 29, 2008

    11:26 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jay writes:

    you know...if the american taliban would drop the fight to use vouchers and public tax dollars for religious indocrination...i suspect this hole "choice" thing would be resolved post haste.

  • October 29, 2008

    12:02 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    kalonblake writes:

    The difference between Obama and most of the pro-voucher crowd is that he isn't asking for the government (i.e. taxpayers) to help him pay for it.

  • October 29, 2008

    12:37 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    arby writes:

    There is a post here that is plainly incorrect. First the state of Hawaii verified months ago that Mr. Obama was born there. Enough of that already! Secondly as was pointed out in a different post. As of the rules today anyone sending their children to a private or parochial school does so with their own money and still pays the school tax. So they are paying double to educate their children. If they think that the children are getting a better education and are willing to pay for it what does anyone have to say about it? Also people that have never had children or who have grown children must pay the school tax. In the logic of some of these posters and the author of the article this is unfair. Or is it? I don't think so.
    Whoa! Wait a minute! No one said everyone shouldn't pay to educate the future. We just said people who have enough to pay for and who consider the education of their children are eliteist. Hypocryts.

  • October 29, 2008

    12:59 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    SteelersFan writes:

    Actually, Arby, all the state of Hawaii did was verify that Obama was born. The document that Obama has provided does not list the location of birth, witnesses, the doctor who delivered him....you know all that information that was conveniently sealed by the Governor of Hawaii. Why can't we see the ORIGINAL birth certificate that is under lock and key right now? What is being hidden from us?

  • October 29, 2008

    1:54 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    krvus writes:

    Jay,
    get off it. Religious indoctrination- come on! Vouchers could be used for any school, it just happens that private schools who happen to be mostly be religious give the best education. We pay for schools no matter if we have children, or send them to another private school which Arby points out. If I am paying, I should be able to choose where my kid goes to the best education whether it's a private religious or great public school if there was one.

  • October 29, 2008

    5:21 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    Certification and class size are the usual Democratic talking points about education. These issues are pushed by the corrupt and immoral teacher unions and education lobby. The focus on these issues is to generate federal education dollars, not to make any education difference.

    If you have children in school, you should know the primary issue: disruptive children in the classroom. Just one or two disruptive children ruin the education experience for an entire class. Discipline is the primary reason that parents leave public schools. The reason is not computers, class size, certification, or new learning curriculums. No tolerance policies for disruptive behavior would improve schools more than any other policy initiative. Autistic children are a different issue. I am talking about children who do not want to learn ruining the classroom experience for others.

  • October 29, 2008

    6:43 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    MrPeabody writes:

    Jay, as usual you miss the point of vouchers. Instead, you try to redirect the discussion to your favorite villain, religion.

    Parents being able to take their kid's share of tax funds for education elsewhere would create a real incentive for public schools to improve, since they would now have to compete for customers. I know for those like you, competition is an evil word and concept but it does cause the weak to perish and the strong to survive.

    mmannino, having "been there and done that" in the classroom for several decades, I will agree about discipline causing some to leave public schools. However, many can't afford private schools and where does that leave them?

    My main disagreement is with your advocacy of "zero tolerance policies" for disruptive behavior. I can recall countless examples of ridiculous applications of zero tolerance by clueless and spineless administrators across the country. When you read of them, you just shake your head and realize why many think the schools are broken. Stupid decision making by those supposedly in charge.

    And lastly, thank you, NavyChief. You beat me to it - this elitism of preaching one thing and doing another is rampant in the Washington D.C. leadership from both parties. Nobody should be surprised.

  • October 29, 2008

    8:13 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    mmannino writes:

    MrPeabody,

    I agree that zero tolerance is not a good policy. There must a discipline policy with consequences. At some point, a child should be removed from the classroom. The other children cannot bear the cost of disruptive children who do not want to learn. School is not a babysitting service. The children who want to learn should be given precedence over disruptive children who do not want to learn. I stand by my statement that discipline is the major problem at poor performing schools.

  • October 29, 2008

    10:07 p.m.

    Suggest removal

    jbowen43 writes:

    Hey Arby! "Hypocryts" Go back to school and learn to spell.

    "My kids have gone to the University of Chicago Lab School, a private school, because I taught there," Obama responded. "It was five minutes from our house. So it was the best option for our kids."
    Barack Obama

    "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.

    Looks like the McCain surrogates are grasping at straws, too. The fact of this story have long been known.

  • October 30, 2008

    9:22 a.m.

    Suggest removal

    jmjohnson writes:

    I am an autodidact, I chose to teach myself what public AND religious private schools failed to teach me, mainly critical thought and how to learn. In public school (K-10) I was bored, debated facts with the teachers (and was usually right) and largely felt it a waste of my time and effort. In my private religious school, I was teaching the teachers things they either didn't know or didn't want to acknowledge, also largely bored there as well.

    College was an absolute joke. Higher education has been reduced to filling in bubbles on multiple choice scantron tests while sitting in classrooms with 200-400 other students.

    So NCLB is actually a fine preparation for what students will face at the collegiate level here in the US... But is that what we really want?

    Frankly ALL schools are a joke. People who can afford to attend exclusive private schools are buying the name, not the education. YOU are your own best teacher. This does require learning from others, but YOU need to set your own direction and seek out those individuals you would like to learn from and set the questions you would like answered rather than have everything spoon fed to you.

    If you have kids in public school, take them out, and teach them at home. Or better yet, give them guidelines and allow them to seek out information for themselves. I realize with our two worker families this will be difficult, but it's up to you how important your children's education really is.