Back to School: The Ethics of Education

When this fall arrived, it could only mean one thing for 75 million Americans: back to school. For the leading presidential candidates, the month signaled something entirely different: back to the stump. But for the voters who wanted to evaluate each candidate's commitment to public education but did not have time to delve deeply into the congressional record, where candidates chose to send their children provided a proxy.

On the campaign trail, Sens. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and John Edwards (D-N.C.) pull out position papers about “strengthening our public schools to maximize our country's greatest natural resource” and “two school systems that are separate and unequal,” respectively. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) points to the lack of funding for the No Child Left Behind Act, legislation which she describes on her Web site as a “promise [that] has not been kept” and is in need of serious reform.

But behind the scenes of the school-themed stump speeches lie the presidential candidates’ school-age children. Involuntarily pitted against each other in the race for the title of First Kid — alas without Sinbad as a bodyguard — the children of the leading contenders may become unintended players in the election. They are at the center of what could serve as a superficial, albeit symbolic, reinforcement of or contradiction to their parents’ attitude towards education in the United States. How candidates approached the decision of where to send their children to school may point to how they might approach, as president, the challenges facing America’s school system.

Of the seven Democratic candidates who participated in the CNN/YouTube debate moderated by Anderson Cooper this summer, Clinton, Dodd, Edwards, Gravel and Kucinich emphasized their children’s public school credentials. Looking at the leading contenders, however, reveals a more mixed picture.

Malia and Sasha Obama have always attended private schools in Chicago, a decision their father attributed to convenience and proximity during the CNN/YouTube debate.
“There are some terrific public schools in Chicago that they could be going to,” Obama said. In Dreams of My Father, his memoirs, Obama highlighted his efforts to “take on the public schools” but failed to explain his decision to send his children to private school in The Audacity of Hope, his most recent book. Obama’s apparent inconsistency raises the question of whether his choice of private schools for his children reflects a willingness to spurn public schools when the stakes are higher — and personal.

Although Clinton initially disputed Cooper’s statement during the debate that “[she] sent [her] daughter to private school,” Chelsea, did, in fact, attend a private Quaker high school in Washington, D.C. According to her autobiography, Living History, the former first lady and her husband chose Sidwell Friends over public school in order to protect Chelsea’s privacy. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton also mentioned it in his own autobiography, My Life, that Chelsea “had always been in public schools, and there were some good ones in the District of Columbia.”

Both Clintons have characterized the decision to move their daughter out of the public school system as a painful but necessary choice. Obama’s remarkably similar acknowledgement of the strong public schools his daughters could theoretically attend suggests that he may harbor similar regrets.

Of the top three Democratic contenders, only Edwards, who has two children in public elementary schools in North Carolina, can say that his children’s experience directly reflects his commitment to the public education system.

Audrey Waters, a spokesperson for Edwards, said in a recent telephone interview that the former senator’s decision to send his children to public schools reflects his consistent support for the public school system, which 9 of 10 Kindergarten through 12th grade students attend, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

The Clinton and Obama campaigns did not return repeated calls for comment.

Although Edwards has not made this public education distinction a visible part of his campaign thus far, he could potentially highlight the issue in the coming months. Whether Obama and Clinton’s choice of private schools for their children will lead dedicated advocates of public education to favor a candidate whose commitment is personal as well as political is still in question.

In a telephone interview earlier this month, Anthony Daniels, chairman of the National Education Association’s student program, emphasized that “it’s really too early to tell.”

While education is certainly “one of the top domestic issues,” Daniels said that the NEA cares more about candidates’ voting records, specifically on the No Child Left Behind Act, than where candidates send their children to school: “We’re not necessarily looking at that.”

Daniels did say, however, that education will play a key role in the 2008 election. Indeed, education has surpassed national defense on the list of America’s priorities this year, according to a July survey by the Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance. In fact, 44 percent of Americans surveyed by CNN in May described education as “extremely important” to their vote for president in 2008.

Janet Bass, spokesperson for the American Federation of Teachers, said in a telephone interview that the type of school a candidate’s children attend is generally considered a personal choice unless the candidate supports vouchers.

“We don’t think public taxpayer dollars should be used for private school tuition,” she said. “What we want is for there to be quality public schools.”

None of the presidential candidates seems to be losing union support on the basis of where they send their children to school, as the major teacher unions do not rank the issue high on their priority lists. However, as with all hot-button issues, the candidates’ inconsistent private decisions and public policies on education could potentially prompt otherwise undecided individual voters to take a moment’s pause. Democratic candidates seeking to win votes from supporters of public education may find it helpful to explain seemingly contradictory decisions.