You can argue -- correctly -- that public schools are underfunded, but even an unlimited budget couldn't overcome the pernicious influence of the National Education Association. It opposes every potentially constructive reform, protecting inferior teachers at the expense of students.
Fortunately, Obama has expressed a willingness to take on one of his party's most loyal constituencies:
At a Manhattan fundraiser I attended last April, a local charter school operator asked Obama why it was so hard to be a charter school person in the Democratic Party. His answer was thoughtful and measured, but he - not the person who asked the question - identified the teachers unions as the obstacle on the political side. He noted that the American public was hungry for change and that the unions' leadership was going to have to decide whether they want to be in on it, or be completely left behind. [Emphasis added]
Now I've got a crush on Obama. Like the senator from Illinois, I'm not sold on vouchers, but I'm not against them, either -- not if they'll improve an education system that is the envy of few developed nations.
I will not allow sort of my predispositions to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn. We're losing several generations of kids and something has to be done.
Unfortunately, there's been some inconsistency in Obama's declarations, but if it's genuine change he's after, reforming America's bloated education bureaucracy would be a good place to start.
Comments