Helping to bring about “change”?

Is education still an issue?
Anyone who thinks it is, or who wants to learn more about Barack Obama’s background in the field should read “Obama and Ayers Pushed Radicalism On Schools“:

Despite having authored two autobiographies, Barack Obama has never written about his most important executive experience. From 1995 to 1999, he led an education foundation called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge (CAC), and remained on the board until 2001. The group poured more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.

As to why Obama is downplaying his leadership of the CAC, I think there are two reasons. For starters, the CAC was the brainchild of unrepentent terrorist Bill Ayers:

The CAC was the brainchild of Bill Ayers, a founder of the Weather Underground in the 1960s. Among other feats, Mr. Ayers and his cohorts bombed the Pentagon, and he has never expressed regret for his actions. Barack Obama’s first run for the Illinois State Senate was launched at a 1995 gathering at Mr. Ayers’s home.
The Obama campaign has struggled to downplay that association. Last April, Sen. Obama dismissed Mr. Ayers as just “a guy who lives in my neighborhood,” and “not somebody who I exchange ideas with on a regular basis.” Yet documents in the CAC archives make clear that Mr. Ayers and Mr. Obama were partners in the CAC. Those archives are housed in the Richard J. Daley Library at the University of Illinois at Chicago and I’ve recently spent days looking through them.
The Chicago Annenberg Challenge was created ostensibly to improve Chicago’s public schools. The funding came from a national education initiative by Ambassador Walter Annenberg. In early 1995, Mr. Obama was appointed the first chairman of the board, which handled fiscal matters. Mr. Ayers co-chaired the foundation’s other key body, the “Collaborative,” which shaped education policy.

As the author Stanley Kurtz argues, this work with Ayers is hardly guilt by association; “it’s guilt by participation.”
Which comes to the second reason Obama doesn’t want to talk about his work with Ayers and the CAC. The outfit promoted a radical approach to education based on Ayers’ view that student radicalism should be emphasized, and educational achievement de-emphasized:

The CAC’s agenda flowed from Mr. Ayers’s educational philosophy, which called for infusing students and their parents with a radical political commitment, and which downplayed achievement tests in favor of activism. In the mid-1960s, Mr. Ayers taught at a radical alternative school, and served as a community organizer in Cleveland’s ghetto.
In works like “City Kids, City Teachers” and “Teaching the Personal and the Political,” Mr. Ayers wrote that teachers should be community organizers dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression. His preferred alternative? “I’m a radical, Leftist, small ‘c’ communist,” Mr. Ayers said in an interview in Ron Chepesiuk’s, “Sixties Radicals,” at about the same time Mr. Ayers was forming CAC.

Little wonder Obama doesn’t want anyone to know. It’s one thing to hang out with a guy like Ayers in a bar and have a few beers. I could forgive something like that. But here he was, partnering with Ayers in a radical enterprise to indoctrinate children, by messing with their heads.
As if that’s not bad enough, they also steered money to ACORN:

CAC translated Mr. Ayers’s radicalism into practice. Instead of funding schools directly, it required schools to affiliate with “external partners,” which actually got the money. Proposals from groups focused on math/science achievement were turned down. Instead CAC disbursed money through various far-left community organizers, such as the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (or Acorn).

Of one thing we can be glad. The effort failed, because (surprise!) student test scores failed to improve.

Mr. Obama once conducted “leadership training” seminars with Acorn, and Acorn members also served as volunteers in Mr. Obama’s early campaigns. External partners like the South Shore African Village Collaborative and the Dual Language Exchange focused more on political consciousness, Afrocentricity and bilingualism than traditional education. CAC’s in-house evaluators comprehensively studied the effects of its grants on the test scores of Chicago public-school students. They found no evidence of educational improvement.

At least, I guess the fact that it failed is good. But it’s money down the drain, fed into the small c communist coffers.
Kurtz is right that there’s a lot more to this than “guilt by association.”

As CAC chairman, Mr. Obama was lending moral and financial support to Mr. Ayers and his radical circle. That is a story even if Mr. Ayers had never planted a single bomb 40 years ago.

Obama’s coverup is quite understandable. Associating with an unrepetant terrorist radical is one thing. Working with him is another.
But partnering with him to help bring about his radical educational ideas?
Appalling.
Whether the voters will ever know the details, I don’t know. Obama continues to insist that the issue is how old he was at the time Ayers and his outfit were bombing people, and that his critics are stuck in the 60s.
What ought to matter is how old he was when they were both trying to bring about “change” in the 90s.
MORE: Noting that the MSM has “quite consciously and deliberately ignored and minimized this subject,” Glenn Reynolds links the WSJ piece and also a great Hot Air post (from which I’ll quote liberally):

Kurtz’ report provides a very interesting look at the early political life of Barack Obama. He had already entered politics at the time he joined the CAC, and even at that stage had allied himself with ACORN, which has found itself at the center of more than a dozen voter-fraud investigations. Obama also allied himself with Ayers and helped the former Weather Underground fugitive push forward with his plans to radicalize an entire generation of schoolchildren in the area through the CAC. Note well the parallels to community organizing that play out in the activities of the CAC, and recall again how Obama claims that activity as a major qualification for the presidency.
Ayers wanted teachers trained to instruct against “oppression” and to push schoolchildren towards political beliefs Ayers valued — apparently valuing them higher than actual education. Barack Obama agreed, and for several years worked in close partnership with Ayers to implement that educational policy. Even had Ayers never tossed a single bomb, this kind of educational philosophy would likely raise eyebrows with most parents, who desire a real education for their children and not some sort of political indoctrination camp. With the context of Ayers’ violent radicalism, however, it makes the CAC even worse — a breeding ground for future Weathermen, ready to follow Ayers’ lead when the time comes for the revolution that Ayers and his wife (and co-terrorist) Bernardine Dohrn to this day desire.
Barack Obama not only supported this, he helped run this program for several years. What does that say about Obama’s idea of mainstream, as he has repeatedly described Ayers and Dohrn? What does that say about his own politics, his own ideas on education, and what kind of philosophy he brings to American politics?

In an earlier post (titled “What if Ayers really is mainstream?“) I speculated that the fact of Ayers being part of the Democratic mainstream is the real issue they want to hide:

Is Ayers mainstream or is he not?
I think the answer is that experienced and powerful Democrats fear that he may very well be mainstream, and that this makes the Democratic Party look bad.
Think about it. If it is “mainstream” to be an unrepentant terrorist who tramples the American flag and regrets not bombing enough, that is hardly an indictment of “the 1960s” (for the man has not changed his radical views), nor is it merely an indictment of Barack Obama.
It is in fact a horrendous indictment of what is apparently part of the Democratic Party’s “mainstream.”
So what if the Obama is right, and an extreme radical like Bill Ayers really is part of the “mainstream”?
The implications for the Democratic Party are very ugly.

I keep saying this is worse than Jeremiah Wright, and I think it is. Far worse.
You’d almost think Wright was a distraction from this, um, mainstream issue.
MORE: Joshua Muravchik, writing in Commentary, looks at the Obama Ayers collaboration and says,

“There may be much more, so far successfully hidden by all concerned; but even these facts suggest that Ayers was among Obama’s closest collaborators.”

My guess is that Obama would continue to say he hardly knew the guy.
I say “would” because I’m not convinced the Ayers questions will even be asked.