The Rantings of a P.T.A. Mom

Series logo

Sandra Tsing Loh, a writer and a performer, is the author most recently of “Mother on Fire,” a comic memoir of her struggle to find a school in Los Angeles for her child to attend. (Full biography.)

As usual, Bruce Fuller and Lance Izumi , my fellow Education Watch contributors, make some fascinating points, none more startling to me than Lance’s casual throw-away that Barack Obama sends his children to private school. As a rabid public school Democrat, I crumpled in despair at the news.

Look, I am not in politics, I get no money from foundations, I do not get invited to lecture on third world eco-sustainability on luxury cruises. I have no highly placed blue-state friends and I will soon be a divorced woman because my die-hard Democratic husband will not brook any dissent, public or private, about our party.

Fair enough, fair enough, but here’s the thing: 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 Rather, they’ve withdrawn, with nary a ripple, into their whispery private enclaves.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.

But the significance of educated families opting in to their local public schools goes deeper than that. Research done by Richard Kahlenberg, a senior fellow at the Century Foundation, indicates that poor children benefit hugely by mixing, daily, with middle-class children (particularly those from families who value education). Conversely, as long as the deleterious effects of poverty, like rampant absenteeism and serious health issues, do not overwhelm the school culture, middle-class children suffer no ill effects. Furthermore, studies have shown that new immigrant children learn English faster and master the complex linguistic skills they need to succeed on standardized tests when they are in classrooms with native English speakers. Sadly, because of the widespread flight of higher-minded families, ethnic segregation (not to mention class segregation) in public schools today is so extreme that only one in five immigrant children will have even one native English-speaking friend.

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. A pox on them and, while we’re at it, a pox on John Dewey! I’m sick to death of those inspirational Dewey quotes littering the Web sites of $20,000-plus-a-year private schools, all those gentle duo-tone-photographed murmurings about “building critical thinking and fostering democratic citizenship” in their cherished students, living large on their $20,000-a-year island.

Meanwhile, Joseph Biden, the Amtrak senator, standing up boldly for the right to be a Roman Catholic, appears to have sent all three children to the lovely looking Archmere Academy in Delaware. Archmere’s Web site notes some public school districts allow Archmere students to use public school buses. Well, isn’t that great — your tax dollars at work in the great state of Delaware because with $18,000 a year in tuition, they can’t afford their own buses.

Then again, a spot of happy news for the Democrats: not only did John McCain’s four children attend elite private schools in Arizona, but collective donations to their children’s private schools between 2001 and 2006, totaled $500,000.

And yes, I know I appear to be ranting on like a pit bull without lipstick, which brings me to the final nail in the coffin in this sorry election year. 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.

Sarah Palin’s children went to what looks like a humble little public school: Iditarod Elementary on Wasilla Fishhook Road. The school’s score on www.greatschools.net is a 4. That’s a lot of street cred, for a gun-totin’, snow-mobilin’ creationist-lovin’ lady.

Oh, I’m such a depressed, Democrat P.T.A. mother.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

The fact that the Obama’s decide that it is best for their children to attend a private school of better education is entirely up to them. It is wrong to criticize parents who only want the best for their children. Mr. Obama is aware of the failing public educational system. He is so aware of it, that he finds it suitable to take his children out of that environment and into something better. Many families would do the same if they could afford it. And he is aware of this. i urge u to read his policy on education. you can find it in the political section of cnn.com

DO NOT criticize him on his families wealth. For he worked his way to earn every single dollar. And for him to spend lavishly on his childrens education is far more acceptable than his incumbent John McCain. Who finds owning 7 pieces of real estate a good way to throw his money around.
Now the way john Mccain obtained this fortune, was not by being a POW. No, he divorced his 1st wife(whom he had 3 children with) and married a very rich Beer heir.
If being a POW, and loving your country is what the republicans consider the perfect qualifications for president…. well then need i say more about their standards and judgement?

The Obama girls go to private school because they got free tuition when their father taught at the University of Chicago Law school.

I think he discusses this decision in The Audacity of Hope, and as I remember it was as much because he wanted to take his daughters to school when he was going to work as anything else.

He’s a strong supporter of public education and was a great champion of Chicago Public Schools back in Springfield.

I read your commentary at the DNC, and now this posting. You are normal! You should run for public office. You live a real life, and can see what is really going on to the middle class. (I’m being sincere.) I’m an Independent/Republican known to vote for a Democrat. You would bring some much needed sanity and perspective to the Dems, who think they know how the middle class lives because they see it on tv — like we know how tribes live in Africa based on National Geographic specials..

I have a lot of reservations about the power couple Obama, but keeping their kids out of the local and dysfunctional public schools doesn’t necessarily add to them. It would take a village of U. Chicago and Obamaite power elite families to organize locally and commit their children to the Hyde Park system, and then devote less of their time to their careers and more to their community to raise the schools’ standards from 2 and 4 to, say, 6 and 8.

What’s the cost-benefit? Ms. Loh posits the benefits, which would be wonderful. On the other hand, there’s one’s career, exchanged for the frustration and satisfaction of a PTA divided between the values and interests of upper-middle and lower-class parents. Then there’s the physical safety of your children. Sociologists have noted that one of the differences between blue- and white-collar culture is the willingness to fight someone physically rather than verbally. Do the Obamas or their peers want their kids to come home with the odd bloody nose or scratched face? That would certainly help them later cross the unspoken class divide in this country that has already tripped up so many elite Democratic candidates.

Still, how much of your child’s health are you willing to risk in the inner city? The new president at the urban private college I attended sent his daughter to the local public high school as a sign of his commitment and good will to the community. All went well until the last day of the school year, when she was badly beaten in a bathroom. As much as I appreciate my small-town public school education, I wouldn’t hold the Obamas to the school test any more than I would expect Palin to force the nation’s girls to birth the offspring of their rapists.

Mrs. Loh makes a good point. Obama who professes to be a community organizer should have sent his daughters to a public school just like my wife and I did, so did my brother’s family and my sister’s family and several other of our friends. And I paid atention to school board elections and the school programs. Obama’s could have done that. Of course I cannot compare that with the public school in Wasilia that Sarah’s childen attend(ed). Because of the small community environment, may be the schools are safe and under control of the parents. And that is what Sarah is appealing to. How are Obamas and Bidens address these I am not sure. But Obama can take immediate action seting an example for all parents. If he and Michelle cannot improve one school, how is he going to improve the country’s education? Like Obama said, we should use power of example rather than power of force. Let hime begin where his mouth has been.

I was a student at the University of Chicago a few years ago. So here’s some local insight. Hyde Park is a very small area, and while it may have a few elementary schools that serve only hyde park students, once you get into the older years, hyde park residents share schools with kids from the surrounding neighborhoods, which (besides south Kenwood – a center of African American affluence in the city) are poor and have relatively high crime rates. In my 4 years in Hyde Park, there was a period of many months when a group local high-schoolers were beating up people for fun multiple times a week during their lunch breaks, and an incident where a kid shot himself accidentally on the bus on the way to school. He had a gun in his pocket. There were many other similar incidents. While the local schools are by no means among the worst in the city, they are not equivalent to the good schools in many suburban neighborhoods. The Lab schools are regarded as very good, and I believe that people with university affiliation, like the Obamas get a discount. The competition to get into magnet schools in Chicago is very high. If the Obamas can afford to send their kids to private school, why not let families who cannot have those spots? And good for Obama, valuing his children over a political stance. The goal is for public schools to give all kids a quality education, however, whatever the real-estate prices in Hyde Park, that is not the reality. Instead of proudly declaring your haphazard research and ignorance, why don’t you actually get the necessary information (not hard) before making your claims.

Gee thanks, Sandra. I’m sure all the Obama supporters will thank you for pointing this out to all the readers of this fine paper.

Your memoir of trying to find the best L.A. public school for your own child attests to the fact that L.A. public schools aren’t what they used to be in the 1970s when we were growing up there. In fact, I’ve had friends move back to Australia rather than send their children to a California public school.

Shouldn’t you bemoan the fact that our public schools can’t rate a perfect 10 no matter what neighborhood they’re in? What will it take to improve American public schools for children of all socioeconomic levels? Money, lots of lots of money that millions of Americans do not want to provide. We give lip service to public education and “oh, it’s for the children” but will never put any money where our mouths are. You’ll even get right wing/fundies screaming about how “it’s socialism and that’s evil” if anyone even tried to improve public education with actual money. Complaining and moaning about parents who are smart and financially able to give their children better educations outside of public schools is akin to blaming the victim. Believe me, when it comes to the public education in this country, we are all victims. Isn’t our sinking economy testament enough?

easy to scream about this when you don’t have alternatives. but when it’s your kid and the public school turns out to be a nightmare and you have the alternative, you go with the private school and campaign for better schools on the side. i did it in 1968 when my kid was in one of those “little hyde park public schools” in first grade and the nightmare hit. and i had the alternative, with 1/2 tuition because i worked at the university. and i felt guilty. but i still sent him to the lab school. as you would if you had the option, i bet.

Don’t all taxpayers support public education with each the sales, property and income taxes they pay to the local, state and federal government? And don’t all parents have the right to make a personal decision regarding the education of their children? The fact of the matter is that poor performing schools struggle with poorly qualified, often inexperienced teachers and a plethora of other dilemmas that cannot be corrected without major education reform. Rather than attack the Obama’s personal decision for their kids, much like the cars they chose to drive, the neighborhood they chose to reside, and the stock they opt to purchase, we should expend energy decifering whether NCLB, the mortgage crisis, unemployment rates and the high school and college dropout rates need America’s attention. The Obama’s personal investment in their girls’ education is not the general public’s major concern.

You have hit the nail on the head as to why women are flocking to give Sarah Palin some love. Michelle Obama lost me when she said her girls never have to miss their ballet lessons,, the implication to me was “I have so much money, my girls have the best of everything”.

I am another depressed, Democrat PTA mother.

I completely disagree with your column.
I firmly believe that a child should never be used as a toy to “lift up…their one local public school, but a family of schools.”
You do not know why the Obamas did not send their child to public school, so don’t assume that you can tell by googling statistics.
The best thing that happened to me when I was a child was transferring from a “good” public school in a “good” town where students terrorized other students and teachers looked the other way to a private school where I was safe and could learn.
The school I left behind was later the scene of a highly publicized gang rape.
Perhaps the Obamas did not want to use their children politically, but were more concerned with their immediate needs. I don’t know and neither do you.

Why wouldn’t Barack Obama send his children to a public school? Well for one thing, it wouldn’t fit in with the life styles of the people whose circles he runs in. Another thing is that he probably doesn’t want his girls socially affected by the regular kids who hang out there. They might come home talking like a ghetto kid. He also probably wouldn’t like to give his girls extra money each day to pay protection to the homies that will insist that they need to. You know; these are just troubles that only the bitter people are suppose to face. Private schools don’t have these kinds of troubles.

Yes, why doesn’t he give his children a horrible education? What’s wrong with him? Don’t be absurd.

Oh god. I can’t believe I just typed that. I wouldn’t vote for the man if I had to choose between that and death.

One of the reasons you try hard to achieve for yourself is so you can give back to your family and friends. And you want to penalize him? Good lord. That’s just disgusting.

If you want to find fault, it doesn’t take much. But he didn’t send his children to a failing school! Ah! Oh dear!

What next? He doesn’t send his mother to a failing nursing home?

This rant doesn’t even make sense to me. Any parent who does NOT send their child to the school that best meets that child’s needs is irresponsible. If I can afford a school that does a better job than another school, why in the world would I not do so? No child should be a political prop, their well-being sacrificed to make a point. This is the same criticism that was tossed at the Clintons in 1993 when they sent Chelsea to a private school in D.C. Working to improve schools doesn’t mean sacrificing your child’s future. If it does, you’re a poor parent.

I get it that public school is a great social bootstrapping device. And my kids go to a pretty good public school. But isn’t it enough that I vote for progressive politicians, and support high property tax rates that pay for our schools? Would I also have to toss my kids onto the social hand grenade of a lousy local public school, even if I thought it was bad for them and I had $20K for tuition?

This seems so uncalled for after all the recent charges and counter-charges over education policies when one is so lacking in the country. Even if it’s all well-intended, does such voting with one’s feet really work? And how many U of C professors would not send their kids to the “lab” school-a school that was set up by the university for the community? But to try another tack, how many presidential candidates have voiced the hope that we actually get RID of the Dept. of Education as a government body?

Oh dear. This isn’t good news for the Democrats and any hope they have for credibility on improving education. I can just picture Alaskan Pitbull locking her jaws onto this one during the VP debate and shaking Biden back and forth a few times until he’s nice and bloody.

This seems so uncalled for after all the recent charges and counter-charges over education policies when one is so lacking in the country. Even if it’s all well-intended, does such voting with one’s feet really work? And how many U of C professors would not send their kids to the “lab” school-a school that was set up by the university for the community? But to try another tack, how many presidential candidates have voiced the hope that we actually get RID of the Dept. of Education as a government body?

(this is a slightly changed version of recently sent comment)

I am not a believer in sacrificing my children for the potential–but not certain–benefit of society. So I see no problem with the Obamas making a similar decision and consider it a pretty fair bit of chutzpah to suggest that they ought to do so.
Furthermore, the idea that if the Obamas had sent their kids to the public schools in south side Chicago, those schools would miraculously have metamorphosed into great schools is utterly absurd.
If you–or anyone else–wants to change the schools, we must start by doing precisely what Obama is suggesting: change a culture that supports disrespect of education AND fund that education as fully as it needs to funded.
Any good Democratic PTA mother should be able to get behind that agenda.

Look at the education Palin’s children got: son spent 2006-7 playing hockey at a high school in Michgan because he and his friends may have deflated and unplugged 40 school buses causing $10,000 in damages in Dec 2005 and then he joined the Army instead of going to college. Her daughter transferred to Anchorage High is the middle of the school year and still got pregnant- is she graduating this year on schedule? Sarah took 6 years in 5 different colleges to graduate when her parents were public school teachers. She spent more taxpayers money building a hockey rink than improving Wasilla’s schools.
McCain, Obama, Chelsea Clinton, and the Bushes went to private schools too.
In towns with good public schools houses cost 20-30% more and the towns can collect more taxes.
Security for a politician’s children is probably better in a private school.
I am a doctor and my children went to good suburban public schools and have done very well since.

I can’t say for sure why Obama sends his kids to the Lab School, however, I want to correct your assumption about the property values in Hyde Park. Having lived there for several years I can tell you that it is a decidedly mixed-income neighborhood and that it is surrounded by some of the worst neighborhoods in Chicago – neighborhoods that share school assignments with some children living in Hyde Park.

Normally I would argue that having mixed SES backgrounds in a school doesn’t have to matter, but since you’ve conflated school quality with neighborhood SES (“why does a neighborhood that has high property values have bad schools?”), I’ll use your assumption to refute your claim. Hyde Park schools serve students from neighborhoods other than Hyde Park. They are actually quite heterogeneous in this regard. By your logic, this should explain the relatively poor performance of the schools, not some rich kid flight to private schools.

Furthermore, the high school Mr. Obama’s children would have to go to is barely functional. I should know, I almost taught there.

Finally, your assertion that you can “read the tea leaves” and infer educational and social trends in a neighborhood you’ve never been to based on misleading income data and a semi-arbitrary ranking makes me cringe. Clearly you have no concept of “evidence” or “statistical inference”. It is truly a pity that your complete lack of expertise is touted in a space supposedly devoted to actual educational issues and viewpoints.

My guess is that it’s the basic duality that humans possess about trying to improve the group situation (i.e. better public schools) while taking care of those closest to us (i.e. private school or moving to a better district). Like you, I went to private colleges for both undergrad and graduate school (even Caltech!). Why didn’t I go to public universities…not the best choice for me. Do I support strong public universities? Absolutely.

While I appreciate the sentiment you express, I am startled by your surprise that two Harvard educated professionals with an income of 350,000 dollars would be sending their children to a private school.

The research you cite, that there is no ill effect on the middle class children schooled with poor children, does it account for the social effects, the lack of networking opportunities afforded both the upper middle income parents and their children, the students?

And what of Sarah Palin? What alternatives to public schooling could the mayor afford for her children? What options are available to residents of a town of 9000 in a state of 600,000? Where do you think the children of a Vice President Palin will be schooled?

The elite will behave as the elite behave, whether they be liberal or conservative. Any member of the US Senate is a member of the elite, and being an Illinois state Senator with aspirations to higher office is likely to inspire similar behavior.

Children are not sacrificial lambs for the greater good. As someone who attended public school all her life, and managed to get into and graduate from the University of Chicago with the help of lots of financial aid, I would have loved to attend the Lab School. The fact is we talk and talk about every child getting a good education, but we aren’t willing to pay for it. This is a major public policy issue that will require real investment, not merely an empty “heroic” gesture. You ought to compare the Republican and Democratic platforms on education instead of criticizing the candidates for trying to provide their children with the best education they can. After all, isn’t that what poor parents want for their kids, too?

I’m a strong public school supporter too, but I’m not going to ask Senator Obama (or anyone else, for that matter), to put their policy goals ahead of their responsibilities to their children. You cite plenty of reasons that the local public school would benefit from the presence of the Obama’s and their children, but there is not one word about any benefit the girls themselves would derive from attending a neighborhood school instead of the one they’re enrolled in. Politician or not, isn’t it the Obama’s obligation do do what they feel is best for their own children? To suggest otherwise is to suggest that they should use Sasha and Malia as instruments of change for their own political ends. What makes someone a parent is doing their utmost to ensure their kids get the best possible start in life, regardless of what they might want themselves.
Also, having worked at an inner-city elementary school, I can assure you that the stalwart presence of 1 or 2 successful families in a school of struggling children doesn’t guilt scores of other affluent families to enroll, drive up test scores, reduce truancy, or anything else. If that was all that it took, we’d have a lot less struggling schools.