The Obama School Scandal?

National Review Online: Public Schools Are Unacceptable To Pretty Much Anyone, Liberal Or Conservative

(National Review Online)  This column was written by Jonah Goldberg.

---

Hypocrisy is an overblown sin. Better to be a hypocrite who occasionally violates his principles than a villain who never does.

I bring this up because the usual, and entirely expected, round of conservative complaints about Barack Obama’s public-schools hypocrisy has begun, and I’m finding it all a bit tedious.

The Obamas will send their two daughters to the expensive private school Sidwell Friends. Yes, that makes him something of a hypocrite because he is a vocal opponent of giving poor kids anything like the same option.

But you know what? Who cares? Personally, I would think less of the Obamas if they sent their kids to bad schools out of some ideological principle. Parents’ first obligation is to do right by their own kids.

In Washington, we have these arguments every time a rich Democrat sends his kids to private schools, which is very often. The real issue is why the public schools are unacceptable to pretty much anyone, liberal or conservative, who has other options. Maybe in the rich suburbs of New York or Los Angeles, wealthy opponents of school choice run less risk of being labeled hypocrites; they can skip the pricey private schools because their public campuses aren’t hellholes.

But most Washington public schools are hellholes. So parents here - including the first family - find hypocrisy a small price to pay for fulfilling their parental obligations.

According to data compiled by the Washington Post in 2007, of the 100 largest school districts in the country, D.C. ranks third in spending for each student, around $13,000 a pupil, but last in spending on instruction. More than half of every dollar of education spending goes to the salaries of administrators. Test scores are abysmal; the campuses are often unsafe.

Michelle Rhee, D.C.’s heroic school chancellor, in her 17 months on the job has already made meaningful improvements. But that’s grading on an enormous curve. The Post recently reported that on observing a bad teacher in a classroom, Rhee complained to the principal. “Would you put your grandchild in that class?” she asked.

“If that’s the standard,” replied the defensive principal, “we don’t have any effective teachers in my school.”

So if Obama and other politicians don’t want to send their kids to schools where even the principals have such views, that’s no scandal. The scandal is that these politicians tolerate such awful schools at all. For anyone.

The main reason politicians adopt a policy of malign neglect: teachers unions, arguably the single worst mainstream institution in our country today. No group has a stronger or better-organized stranglehold on a political party than they do. No group is more committed to putting ideological blather and self-interest before the public good.

Rhee has been pushing a new contract that would provide merit pay to successful teachers. The system is voluntary: Individual teachers can stay in the current system that rewards mere seniority or opt to join a parallel system that pays for superior performance. Many talented teachers would love the opportunity.

Alas, the national teachers unions insist that linking pay to results is an outrageous attack on the integrity of public schools. They have insisted that D.C. teachers not even be allowed to vote on the contract.

The Democratic Party continues to tolerate this sort of thing because public school teachers continue to be reliably liberal voters. And their unions cut big checks.

Obama, however, bragged about being different during his campaign. He declared himself independent from teachers unions and boasted his support for Rhee. But his recent appointment of Stanford professor - and teachers union apologist - Linda Darling-Hammond to head his education transition team is seen by many as a sign that reformers like Rhee can expect little support from the new White House.

And where are the Republicans? Well, if you want a good example of why hypocrisy isn’t the worst thing in the world, just look at the GOP. Because the party supports school-choice vouchers, it’s simply out of the debate. School choice has much to recommend it. But it’s no silver bullet, and vouchers will never gain full acceptance in rich suburbs.

School choice does immunize Republicans from the charge of hypocrisy, however. So rich Republicans can send their kids to ritzy private schools without fear of violating their principles. Good for them. Unfortunately, their principled insulation also makes them largely irrelevant to a debate in which people like Rhee could use all the help they can get.

[cbsespo]

I do not see it as hypocritical at all. The security issue as well as the disrupting of normal school life for others make this a very easy decision.

[llarsonl]

I will never cease to be amazed at the partisan press and their spin on issues. My children went to public and private schools and the private schools were much better run and at less cost per student. If the people that fund and administer these institutions will not use them what does that say about them? Change is needed not the status quo.

[enkidu_the_atheist]

As a public school teacher, I would ask that principal why he hasn''t fired incompetent teachers. It can be done and it is done in my district. But it requires a principal who will do his job. Observe the teacher, give clear written evaluations documenting deficiencies, then begin termination procedures if the teacher doesn''t improve.

Perhaps the bigger problem is finding a replacement. Who wants to spend six years in college in order to work in a "hell hole" when that same effort gets you more pay and better working conditions in any other industry? Perhaps the principal won''t or can''t fire incompetent teachers because the pay and working conditions make it unlikely he can find anyone better, or that nobody could succeed in a "hell hole."

Free enterprise requires you to pay for what you get, and if you are not getting the quality you want, you need to pay more or put up with the status quo. At least that''s the way it works with CEOs, engineers, lawyers, etc. Perhaps Michelle Rhee has part of the solution, perhaps not, but you don''t get a Ferrari if you''re only willing to pay for a ''67 Dodge Dart.

[david-12345]

So where is the "Change"? Where is the "Yes We Can"?

The teachers union as a special interest is more important to Obama and Democrats than actually educating the children of America.

Same old politics, again. And I thought we voted for change...

[ardiva1]

I agree with cbsespo.
Security is definitely a priority for the First Family.
Good for the Obama''s in choosing a private school.

[david-12345]

Jonah Goldberg - you forfiet your integrity when you push this blather as acceptable reasoning.

Let''s make a list of all the situations of the last 8 years when you argued it was OK to be a hypocrite. How long is that list??

Trying to deflect and diminish valid criticism reveals your priority of partisanship over the best interests of our nation.

[laoma-2009]

Ardiva1, the mindless partisan babble that you expose us to is very Rove-worthy, but insults the intelligence of every one of the rest of us. Save it for the Republican "pro-American" hate-rally, OK?

[Eric W]

The idea that school vouchers would give poor students the same access to private schools as the Obamas, or other rich people for that matter, is indefensibly ludicrous! Not all private schools accept the vouchers, and if they do, they aren''t required to take just any student that applies. They get to cherry pick. This program has devastated the Milwaukee public school system for this very reason.

Finally, there are a lot of reasons why teachers unions don''t approve of merit-based pay schemes, chief of which is that bureaucrats and politicians want to base most of these systems on standardized tests. These tests reward the ability to pass a test, but not necessarily promote learning.

In actuality, Mr. Goldberg was closest to the mark when he noted that of the amount of money allocated for students, 50% of it was spent on administrator salaries. Those salaries do NOT include the salaries of teachers. They are the costs for superintendents, principles, secretaries, consultants, etc. You want a real shocker? Try looking at your school system''s superintendent''s employment contract sometime. Even small, poor districts pay nearly six figures with outrageous insurance and benefits packages. And you can bet dollars for donuts that "merit" has nothing to do with their pay scale.

[redamerican1]

Most, if not all, Democratic elites are hypocrites including Kennedys, Gores, Kerrys and Obamas. On one hand, they defend failed public schools and their teacher union leaderships, but on the other hand they send their children to expensive private schools. Mark my words, like all other Democrats Obamas will keep talking all talk on almost everythings, but at the end they would not walk the walk. This is just a small sample before January 20, 2009! More to come!

I make this comment not because I want to defend private schools. Not all public schools are bad and ours are among top 4% in the country. We actually sent our children to public schools before colleges.

[argotmay]

Scandal, my butt. Who wouldn''t do the same in thier place? I am happy because minorities, esp. black families will have an example and a sense of ''no ceiling'' for a change. Can''t you find something important to write about? I could.

[ramos937]

Jonah Goldberg, assuming you have children, where do you send your kids to school? If you lived in DC and had kids, where would you send your kids for an education - the DC public schools? Or a private school?

[ridenm]

So Goldberg himself wrote:
"More than half of every dollar of education spending goes to the salaries of administrators."

and then he wrote:
"The main reason politicians adopt a policy of malign neglect: teachers unions, arguably the single worst mainstream institution in our country today. No group has a stronger or better-organized stranglehold on a political party than they do. No group is more committed to putting ideological blather and self-interest before the public good."

In other words, more than half of the per-child spending (by the way, Jonah, it''s per-child, not "for each student" - go back to ENG 102 if you can''t figure out the difference) goes to people who have no direct impact on teaching. Then Jonah goes after the union for trying to improve the lot of the very people who DO teach the kids.

Does anyone else see a failure of logic here?

[jenbrooke]

Here''s the problem with school choice. To use some nice small numbers, suppose there are 100 kids going to 5 schools in an area (20 per school). Lets say that 3 of these schools are considered awful, 2 are wonderful. Clearly all 100 kids would choose to go to the wonderful schools *but* they can only take 20 students each...maybe 25 each (increase of 25% enrollment & class size) if the admin is willing to do that to the students and teachers already there. So - which 10 of the other 60 kids are the lucky ones that get to "choose" those two schools? And...what about the others who are told the schools they want to go to are full? Well...they''re stuck in their awful school with marginally smaller classes. Meanwhile, the nice schools have substantially larger classes, making it slightly less nice than before.

If not everyone can actually choose where they go to school, guess who is going to get the short end of the stick again anyway...the poor with working parents who can''t be at the target school every waking hour to advocate for their children''s admission, who can''t "choose" a school farther away due to lack of transportation. It''s just a reshuffling of people to get those with means and those without more separated once again. Not everyone can be in small, nice schools with great teachers, because there are a lot of kids and an undersupply of teachers and decent facilities.

[euki2]

jenbrooke: what you describe is not real school choice. School choice is where instead of having a school system that spends $13K per kid per year, the city gives each parent a $13K voucher that the parents can spend at any school they choose.

Taking your example of the two good and three bad schools, if you''ve got a lot of parents with $13K vouchers ready to spend, you''re universe is not limited to the five schools. New, better schools will open. It might not happen in the first year, but within three or four years, enough new schools will open such that either the bad schools will be forced to improve or they''ll close because they won''t have students. Even better, schools will be able to specialize more and focus on kids that have special talents or special needs. By handing out vouchers to every student''s parent, you are creating a massive market for good schools, and I''m certain that there are plenty of smart, able people out there ready to exploit that market.

It''s beyond sad that poor parents have so little power to improve their schools in the current system. Giving them a voucher is the ultimate in empowerment.

[renonv5]

This is a bullsh!t article. Those two little girls became targets the moment their father became potus. They HAVE to be protected daily and a private school can do a much better job at that than a public school. Obama has no options on this front.

[W.W. Terry]

Public schools must be working right. After all look at all the wonderful sleazebag politicans in congress who are elected and reelected term after term. They certainly want the present system to work otherwise they would be unemployed sleazebags. Of course journalists are also to blame because they also came from schools (universities where free speech is not allowed if you dare to question political correctness). Holy ***! What kind of future do our children have? Caio! wwterry

[imnho]

A lot of the people pushing vouchers are not concerned with the quality of education. The are hell bet on distroying unions and politizing the teaching profession. If they get rid of unions then they will be able to get rid of any teacher who does not agree with there extereme poitics

[kazoodan]

So where is the "Change"? Where is the "Yes We Can"?

The teachers union as a special interest is more important to Obama and Democrats than actually educating the children of America.

Same old politics, again. And I thought we voted for change...

Posted by david-12345 at 12:29 PM : Nov 30, 2008

What''s this ''WE'' stuff. I doubt you voted for Obama.

[macusweil]

"A lot of the people pushing vouchers are not concerned with the quality of education. The are hell bet on distroying unions and politizing the teaching profession. If they get rid of unions then they will be able to get rid of any teacher who does not agree with there extereme politics."

Yes, so true, almost without exception so-called conservatives have a hidden agenda.

When cons talk of vouchers for equality when what they really want is to dismantle public education so they can control the curriculum for all students. Instead of simply brainwashing their own children they want to brain wash yours and mine too.

When cons say support our troops they mean support our extreme views of a new world order. They could care less about whether the fighting men & women have proper equipment, training or man power. Certainly don''t them expect to pay their fair share of taxes to pay for adequate GI health care or transition benefits to returning troops.

When they say "drill baby drill" it''s to insure greater profits for BIG oil and has nothing to do with energy independence.

When they say "protect free speech" they mean protect their use of public airwaves for spewing for profit hate speech. The last thing they would want is to have grant equal time less someone might present hard facts to expose their right wing propaganda.

[spinproof]

I do not see it as hypocritical at all. The security issue as well as the disrupting of normal school life for others make this a very easy decision.

Posted by cbsespo at 12:00 PM : Nov 30, 2008

I agree with cbsespo.
Security is definitely a priority for the First Family.
Good for the Obama''''s in choosing a private school.

Posted by Ardiva1 at 12:38 PM : Nov 30, 2008

I agree, its all about "SECURITY", Obama has received so many threats his Secret Service detail had to be increased. Security for the Obama kids trumps other related issues.

[dowjones20k]

The last thing they would want is to have grant equal time less someone might present hard facts to expose their right wing propaganda.

Posted by macusweil

HAHA

It is amusing how some folks seem to hold the opinion that talk radio is ''controlled'' by the right wing media ... the airwaves can support anyone who is entertaining or tolerable ...

Seems that these programs make MONEY, something Air America has not done ..

I listen to NPR (National Pinko Radio) & Air America .. and their shows are just the same rhetoric only from a left slant ... Tom Hartman (Socialist), Ed Schultz (Far lefty), Stephanie Miller (Almost funny lefty) ... these folks are the same partisan, lying ilk as the right wingers ... but they dont seem to make any money ...

Folks can whine about Limbaugh, Hannity and the other conservative talking heads ... but they still own the airwaves .. and until the left can get folks who exemplify middle America .. they wont succeed .. and how pitiful that they must depend on the government to force radio stations to air idiots that no one will listen too ...

I would be careful what one wishes for ...

NPR and air America will be in deep trouble if they are forced to have a conservative every other hour ...
exposed for the ridiculous content they represent ...

[jonnigood]

How on earth would the secret service make any public school, bad or good, safe for the president''s kids? Even if the DC area schools were half-way decent, the logistics of getting the girls through the day safely would be a nightmare. I think people need to get real.

[hdc77494]

The hypocracy is not in sending their kids to private school. It is politicians doing so while voting to deny vouchers to anyone who want to take their children out of a non-performing public school and enroll them in a private or charter school. Conservatives don''t have a dog in this fight because we agree parents should be able to fire their school if it''s not doing a good job for their kids.

Libs want strong unions, small classes (more union members) no performance accountability (some kids don''t want to learn), and the control to endoctrinate kids with their chosen agenda. Like the NY teachers complaining they couldn''t wear an Obama pin to class.

It''s about the kids. Not the unions, teachers, or agenda.

[hdc77494]

Worried about right wingers Politicizing the teaching profession?? You MUST be kidding. Everyone knows 90% of teachers are libs. Heck, I''m surprised a conservative can get a job as a garbageman in a public school.

[nordeck52]

All humans are, by virtue of being human, hypocritical. The difference lies in how much of a hypocrite somebody actually is.

[Cas2dy]

Why on earth is this even being bandied about? The President''s children simply cannot attend a school that is not equipped to handle their Secret Service detail and everything that emcompasses what having a detail reqires. I mean, even if the most unknown person earth were to suddenly find themselves ridiculously rich, they couldn''t send their kids to the neighborhood store anymore...someone would kidnap them and hold them for ransom.
The world is not a very nice place and there are many who would take pleasure in upsetting the history we have seen made. Leave the Presidents children and his wonderful parenting decisions for them...alone.

[jimbob133]

wHY IS IT THAT ANY WEAR THERE ARE LARGE NUMBERS OF BLACKS THE SCHOOLS ARE HELL HOLE BUT ITS NEVER THERE FAULT

[jimbob133]

Who cares.

[jimbob133]

Why is it that any wear there are large numbers of blacks the schools fail and its not the student or parents fault.

[centerfall94]

wHY IS IT THAT ANY WEAR THERE ARE LARGE NUMBERS OF BLACKS THE SCHOOLS ARE HELL HOLE BUT ITS NEVER THERE FAULT

Posted by jimbob133 at 05:12 PM

"ANY WEAR"? Speaking of schools, are you ignorant by choice or by design?

[sanfelz]

As is usual for NRO columnists, Goldberg has his facts incorrect.
AFT, in fact, supports various versions of merit pay.
Michelle Rhee cannot support any of her supposed successes in Baltimore or DC with data.
I suppose NRO would advocate guns for tweens if the children were threatened while in an unsecured public school environment.

[lalabradle]

I don''t see what the big deal is. His beautiful daughters are already in private school, and if any one of us were president, we would do the same thing. There are plenty of children whose parents are not rich or famous and their children are in private schools. But really, the president''s children should be for many reasons.

[lucy20081]

There are a couple of missing points regarding the subject of choosing a school for President-elect Obama''s children. One, is for the school to support and have a good track record working with senior politician''s children and the "security and safety" needed to protect them. The secret service works well with the school that the Obama''s chose. Although the education quality is very important, the risk of kidnapping or assassination is far more important. The Obamas, because of their background and the circumstances of the election, are at even greater risk. I don''t know about you, but safety for my children would be top on the list.

[centerfall94]

Ahh, more attempts by the NRO to invent "scandal" where none exists.

Why do the neocons hate America so much?

[dnsallday]

Why is it that any wear there are large numbers of blacks the schools fail and its not the student or parents fault.


Posted by jimbob133
************************************************************
It appears either you went to a failing school or you failed in a nonfailing school.
Your fault?

[drbob10001]

Conservatives have all become a bit tedious. Your time is over wingnuts, you''re gone the way of the Wigs. Get over it, shut up, and go away.

[chad55555]

Why is it people can''t see the truth, America was great ubtil we accepted ham''s people,Now the crime is out of control and school''s
are usless.America''s decline can be traced back to equal rights and lowering standards and calling it equal. NOW AMERICA IS A JOKE TO THE WORLD, WE TURNED OUR BACK ON THE GOD THAT STARTED THIS COUNTRY AND ON OUR FATHERS THAT GAVE THEIR LIVES TO GIVE AMERICAN CHRISTIANS A BETTER LIFE. WE DESERVE WHAT HAPPENS TO AMERICA FOR BEING SO STUPID AND GIVING OUR COUNTRY AWAY TO ANY MUSLIM THAT RANS FOR AN ELECTION.SCHOO MEANS NOTHING ANYMORE,GOING TO SCHOOL MEANS A FUTURE,america has no future,

[ausus-2009]

As a person who went to American public schools in small towns, I managed to survive. In the end I got postgraduate qualifications at one of the leading overseas universities.

The concern is that Washington DC is not small town America. It is a city with huge crime problems and a seemingly substandard education system. In such circumstances Obama has no choice about the school for his daughters.

[kansas1946]

I am not sure that I support vouchers, but I do support choice in where you send your kids to school in your area. I know in my home town, you can send your kids to any school you want provided you get your request in early. That is elementary school. We only have one midde school and one high school, so if you don''t want to send your kids there, you have to pay for a private school. I think it would probably be crazy for the Obama''s to send their kids to public school with the security requirments for those kids. Public schools can do a lot better than they are, but they have got to be allowed some flexibility, and that means less power and control coming from the NEA. In high schools, the kids would really benefit from having industry people teaching some of those classes, but the NEA refuses to let anyone teach without a teaching degree. That is really hurting our kids and needs to stop.

[wgh922]

I agrea with them. If they''d wannt to put their kid in a Privacy School then thats up to thems. You know if they be like a republican then nobody aint'' going to be say nothing ebout it. I cant not be waitin becaus next year I know the government gonna take care of my morgage and my benefits go up. This is gonna be a change I can believe and.

[nursehope]

SECURITY IS THE REASON!....what is wrong with the people?

[sparks224]

Is this the biggest "scandal" the NRO can come up with?

How sad.

[janeyre-2009]

The Obama''s had their children in private school in Chicago. They don''t owe an explanation for their choices. Their children should get the best. Both parents are well education and have the money. So what? They aren''t asking the public to pay for their children''s education. Sounds like a bunch of cry babies again. Gee, people, get over it. Shut up.

[jbright9]

Obviously it is not true everywhere but there is not a private school in my area that could compete with the public schools as they are excellent. The only people I know whose kids aren''t in the public schools are those who want their religion taught. Those schools are inferior when it comes to teaching academics.

[hotwitch]

Obama = hypocrit. Security is not the reason, stop trying to convince yourselves by repeating that over and over. The Carter''s sent Amy to public school in D.C. What, Jimmy Carter can do what Barack Obama can''t? Or have D.C. schools gotten so bad in the past 30 years? In which case, even more of an arguement for vouchers.

[david-12345]

So where is the "Change"? Where is the "Yes We Can"?

The teachers union as a special interest is more important to Obama and Democrats than actually educating the children of America.

Same old politics, again. And I thought we voted for change...

Posted by david-12345 at 12:29 PM : Nov 30, 2008

What''''s this ''''WE'''' stuff. I doubt you voted for Obama.

Posted by kazoodan at 02:53 PM : Nov 30, 2008
___________________________________________________

Whether I voted for Obama or not doesn''t matter. He was elected President and I''m an American. There aren''t two Americas, only one.

What is important is change. We don''t need generations of under-educated Americans.

I think you would agree that Obama promised change. It''s time to deliver.

[flreason]

For all of the people who support vouchers...you do realize that if there were vouchers, then our tax dollars might not just support kids going to parochial Christian schools, but also Muslim private schools. The best reason to support public schools with your tax dollars is because public schools bring together children of diverse backgrounds, which allows them to learn tolerance. When you start separating the kids by religion or ideology, you support intolerance. There is no reason why tax dollars should be applied to parochial schools. But there are very compelling reasons for public schools. If Americans would support their schools with tax dollars...and demand that their tax dollars go to teaching instead of administrators...public schools could be successful again.

[runningralph]

Obama''s first duty will have to be to the US taxpayers. Along with that duty will be the responsibility to not let his family become a security risk. That means protecting his family is part of his duty to the American taxpayers. The real issue here is why the public schools are so bad. The reason for that is that liberalism for the past sixty years has allowed criminal culture to fester in US cities. Obama truly wants to lift people out of the low down life. To do that he will have to seriously crack down on his own political base.

[jimmydonn]

Hahahahahahaha! So this is the best they can come up with? The Obama%u2019s are paying for the best education of their two girls not the US taxpayers but it is a problem? Someone mentioned Carter sending his kid to public school and please remind us how many years ago that was when schools were less violent?? Spoil losers who just cannot understand or accept the will of the people who voted for President Elect Obama on November 4, 2008. To those who want to force their brand of democracy in the form of the Bush *** please explain to us again your love for this country? How can you say you love this country yet you are against what makes this country unique? So with that said......DEAL WITH IT.

[justsane-2009]

"D.C. ranks third in spending for each student, around $13,000 a pupil, but last in spending on instruction. More than half of every dollar of education spending goes to the salaries of administrators."

but you want to blame the inadequacies of the public school system on the teachers??? it''s not teachers who change the curriculum on a regular basis; not teachers who mandate more assessment time than actual instructional time; not teachers who determine class size, the length of the school day, or any of the rest of a myriad of issues that impact student achievement. those things are controlled by administrators, who are answerable to politicians.

the teacher''s unions are no more responsible for the deplorable state of public education than the uaw is responsible for the demise of the big three auto makers. in both cases, highly paid people in executive positions made poor decisions for years, and when their systemic failures came to light, they blamed it on the workers on the front lines. that''s so much easier than accepting responsibility, don''t you know, and union-bashing is really quite popular, so it all works out...except that the problems never get solved!