Those were the words that caught my attention as I walked through the Takoma Park Street Festival yesterday, blue skies beaming, my son Nico strapped to my chest, my wife Meghan at my side, rays of sun bouncing off approximately 517 “Obama for President” buttons (not to mention a “Farmer for Obama,” button, a “Labor for Obama,” button, and a “McCan’t” button). So of course I turned around to find out what that was all about.

“Help Barack Obama become the next president,” the man said, as he handed me a florescent-green flyer. And lo and behold, here’s what it said:

PARTY TO SAVE THE WORLD

Congresswoman Donna Edwards,

Obama Education Advisor Jon Schnur

Tom Perez & Jamie Raskin

Takoma Park & Silver Spring for OBAMA

Food & Beverage Provided

Music by the Bush Doctrinaires and Minor Thoughts

The flyer also listed the event’s sponsors; among a few dozen were the names “Alice Johnson Cain”—one of Chairman George Miller’s top education staffers—and “Dianne Piche”—of the Citizens Commission on Civil Rights.  

So what? Other than having fun as a bit of a spy—I’m pretty sure I’m the only “former Bush Administration official” living in the people’s republic of Takoma Park—three points come to mind. First, I’m not the only one who thinks Jon Schnur has a real shot at being the next education secretary; he’s turning into a bona fide superstar. Second, it’s pretty amazing that a far-left party for Obama would feature an education reformer like Schnur, not, say Reg Weaver. The times they are a changing? And third, let us not pretend that “policy” is distinct and apart from “politics.” Perhaps that goes without saying, but I’ll admit to defining myself as a “policy wonk,” not a political animal, and looked for allies in the Department of Education (during my time as a Bushie) who were likewise “separate” from the dirty world of electoral politics. (That wasn’t hard to do; many of the policy wonks in the Bush Department of Education entered as registered Democrats, myself included.) But let’s face it; that’s all bogus. There’s no way to push forward bold policies without a political mandate, which is what Obama’s supporters seem to be working to achieve right now.

What can it be called other than an October surprise? As last night’s vice presidential debate was nearing its close, none other than Governor Sarah Palin steered an unrelated question to education—and even managed to mention No Child Left Behind in the process. And boy, did she have a lot to say, even though much of is was, how to put this, a little off message (from the perspective of both the McCain campaign and the newly defunded Ed in ‘08 effort):

You mentioned education and I’m glad you did. I know education you are passionate about with your wife being a teacher for 30 years, and god bless her. Her reward is in heaven, right? I say, too, with education, America needs to be putting a lot more focus on that and our schools have got to be really ramped up in terms of the funding that they are deserving. Teachers needed to be paid more. I come from a house full of school teachers. My grandma was, my dad who is in the audience today, he’s a schoolteacher, had been for many years. My brother, who I think is the best schoolteacher in the year, and here’s a shout-out to all those third graders at Gladys Wood Elementary School, you get extra credit for watching the debate.

Education credit in American has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax and we have got to increase the standards. No Child Left Behind was implemented. It’s not doing the job though. We need flexibility in No Child Left Behind. We need to put more of an emphasis on the profession of teaching. We need to make sure that education in either one of our agendas, I think, absolute top of the line. My kids as public school participants right now, it’s near and dear to my heart. I’m very, very concerned about where we’re going with education and we have got to ramp it up and put more attention in that arena.

Funding needs to be “ramped up”? Teachers need to be paid more? We need to put more of an emphasis on the “profession of teaching?” Who let Reg Weaver write her talking points?

To be fair, this is pretty consistent with her record in Alaska, where she did boost education funding (which, of course, is sometimes a reasonable thing to do). But it doesn’t jive with John McCain’s plans to freeze federal education spending—a fact that didn’t slip by Senator Joe Biden:

Gwen, I hope we’ll get back to education because I don’t know any government program that John is supporting, not early education, more money for it. The reason No Child Left Behind was left behind, the money was left behind, we didn’t fund it.

Not that it would matter if McCain supported spending more money on schools. One sure lesson from the early years of the Bush Administration is that Republicans can never outbid Democrats when it comes to education funding. No matter how much the GOP puts into schools, Dems will always call them miserly.

And what about Palin’s NCLB comments? She’s right—the law was implemented. I for one am glad she didn’t say (as she probably meant to say) that “the law is great but implementation was a problem.” Because implementation wasn’t the problem, or at least the whole of it. And now we know what the McCain-Palin team thinks: NCLB is not doing the job and needs more “flexibility.” (Or wait, maybe that’s just what Sarah Palin thinks...)

One thing is for sure: David Hoff is going to have to write another post this week about No Child Left Behind, after all.

To:            Andrew Rotherham, Jonathan Schnur, Michael Johnston,
                 Robert Gordon
From:        Mike Petrilli
Re:            David Axelrod’s statements about Reading First

Good morning, gentlemen. As key advisors to Senator Barack Obama, as well as bona fide education reformers, I urge you to correct the statements made by campaign manager David Axelrod on Sunday’s Meet the Press, which were highlighted in yesterday’s Education Daily.

Although David Axelrod, an advisor for Democratic presidential candidate Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, did not specifically name the Reading First program when asked Sunday on Meet the Press about programs Obama would cut in light of the economic crisis, [Richard Long of the International Reading Association] said Axelrod alluded to it.

“We’re going to have to look at the budget, and Sen. Obama said he’s going to go through it line by line, and he’s going to get rid of things that don’t work,” Axelrod said on the TV show. “We have, for example, a reading program that was installed by the Bush administration that turned out to be a big boondoggle. It’s not helping any kids learn. We ought to say, ‘That doesn’t work, let’s get rid of it.’”

While taking a scalpel to ineffective federal programs is no easy trick, killing a program that is helping millions of children learn to read would be a national disgrace. Of course, thanks to Democrats on Capitol Hill, the wheels are already in motion for that tragic story to come to fruition. If anything, the Reading First saga is a great example of the Washington “politics as usual” that Sen. Obama has promised to change.

If you’ve read Sol Stern’s report about the program, you know the facts, but let me repeat them. Reading First is based on the tenets of scientific, non-partisan research. This research was shepherded for many years by Reid Lyon, who by all accounts is a liberal Democrat (as were most of the people involved in the implementation of the program). The program’s authorizing language was watered down during the legislative process, opening the door for non-scientific programs to be adopted by local districts—as had happened during President Clinton’s Reading Excellence Act initiative, which ended without much result. So officials in the Bush Administration had a choice: either let “anything go” or work to ensure that only rigorous programs be adopted. They chose the latter, and for this have been prosecuted with charges of favoritism and cronyism. When, in fact, all they wanted was for poor children to have access to good reading programs. But this is today’s Washington.

And what have been the results? Yes, the interim findings of one federal study raised concerns about the program’s effectiveness, but this study has been widely criticized, even by the director of the Institute for Education Sciences, which released the study. Meanwhile, the program is wildly popular with educators, evidence is mounting that state and local reading scores for the neediest children are going through the roof, and just the other day the Southern Regional Education Board issued a report crediting Reading First for the big gains being made by states throughout the South (a region with a disproportionate share of the African-American and Latino students targeted by Reading First).

It’s understandable why a non-education-expert such as Axelrod would believe Reading First to be a “boondoggle,” since that’s what’s been reported in the media. (Of course, by the same count, he might also think that charter schools are ineffective, because that’s what the New York Times has reported.) So I’m asking you to clarify for Axelrod and other key officials in the campaign—and perhaps even the candidate himself—that if they are looking for examples of failed programs eligible for elimination, Reading First should not be one of them.

Now that the financial markets have steadied themselves a bit, and Congressional leaders have started putting Humpty-Dumpty together again, it’s easier to look at the demise of the bailout bill on Monday with cool detachment. And what’s clear is that three factions were responsible for the bill’s defeat: liberals, conservatives, and members from swing districts, particularly freshmen. What’s interesting to me is that these were the same factions that rebelled against Chairman George Miller’s No Child Left Behind reauthorization bill last year—and that would likely kill a similar bill today if it were brought to the floor.

Seven years ago, when the original NCLB made its way through Congress, it benefited from strong presidential leadership (in the wake of 9/11), plus liberal and conservative bases mostly willing to go along with their party bosses. Obviously those dynamics have changed.

As I write, leaders in Congress are working to tweak the bailout plan to get a few more votes on either side of the aisle so the bill can make it out of the House. Likewise, what would it take for an NCLB reauthorization bill to succeed? It seems to me that there are two choices for Democratic leaders, who will maintain their control next Congress. First, they can opt for a party-line vote by loading up the bill with lots of goodies for the teachers unions (i.e., more spending) while stripping out most of the accountability and school choice provisions from the law. That would be bad for school reform and (I suspect) bad for Democrats over the long-term, putting them on the side of the special interests against meaningful change. But it could work legislatively.

Or Democratic leaders could try for a “grand bargain” that would bring liberals, conservatives, and moderates on board. Here’s the deal: devolve key provisions back to the states, such as the minutia of how “adequate yearly progress” should work, or whether and how students with disabilities and English language learners should participate in testing. That will appease states-rights conservatives and pro-union liberals. Then, to placate the center, add incentives for states to sign onto rigorous, common standards and tests.

In other words, turn NCLB on its head, with a “tighter” focus on what students should learn, and a “looser” approach to what happens if they don’t get there. Not only is this good politics, it’s good policy, too.

No, I refer not to the failed bailout, but to the extension bill or “continuing resolution” needed now that Congress has failed to pass a 2009 budget prior to the end of the 2008 fiscal year (today). This summer, Mike offered “three cheers for broken government,” noting that a continuing resolution would at least let Reading First survive another year, defying its recent death. Unfortunately, Ed Week’s Alyson Klein reports that it might not be that simple:

But the stopgap bill doesn’t mean federal funding of the program will be continued. The money would not be allocated to school districts until July 1. If Congress decides to eliminate the program when it returns to the education spending bills in March, schools won’t receive any new Reading First money.

The extension “is essentially a moot point,” said Richard Long, the director of government relations for the Newark, Del.-based International Reading Association.

So Reading First may really be dead after all, unless our new president dares heed Mike’s plea to fund programs that actually work.

It still makes me gag to see people I think well of—Roy Romer, J.C. Watts, Joel Klein—sharing a letterhead with the lamentable and reprehensible Al Sharpton. Much as I agree with the core principles of the Education Equality Project and pleased as I would be if they and the Strong American Schools (aka ED in 08) crowd successfully persuade the moderators to inject education into the two remaining presidential debates, Sharpton’s name on that press release carries a most unpleasant whiff of racialism, anti-Semitism, exploitation and corruption that taints the entire venture. (See here and here.) Aside from all that, the paltry place that education occupies this election season is symbolized by the letter’s pleading tone. (Please, sir, could I have some more?) Sure it would great to hear the candidates say more on the topic—after they’ve dealt with the Wall Street meltdown, terrorism, Iraq, Afghanistan, health care and climate change.

Alyson Klein at Education Week’s Campaign K-12 picks up on my “scalpel” post to dig into the likely candidates for Barack Obama’s knife, were he to win the presidency.  After referring to “my” list of federal education programs that don’t work (actually, it’s the Administration’s list, based on a systematic review of their evidence of effectiveness or lack thereof), she writes:

But many of the programs on this list are absolutely, never ever going to be on the chopping block during an Obama administration and not just because Congress isn’t likely to go along with the cuts, but because Obama himself has championed them.

She mentions the Teacher Quality Enhancement grants, Even Start, and the Parent Information Resource Centers. And surely Klein is right—Obama is unlikely to kill any of these. Which is a real shame, coming from a candidate who argues that budgeting should be based on our “values.” Yes, we value teacher quality, and an even playing field, and parental involvement. But we should also value results, and these programs haven’t achieved them, over many many years. So which matters more? A program’s intentions, or its outcomes? Senator Obama?

In the debate Friday night, Barack Obama responded to John McCain’s idea of freezing federal spending by arguing that “the problem with a spending freeze is you’re using a hatchet where you need a scalpel.” Then, on Face the Nation (pdf) on Sunday, he furthered his case: “The president has to make choices, and those choices mean that when you deal with a budget you don’t take an axe to it, you use a scalpel. There are programs in our government that do not work...”

Yes, there are. And for the better part of seven years, the Bush Administration has been tallying them and calling on Congress to eliminate them. Here’s the list of the Department of Education’s ineffective programs, for example.

$3.2 billion isn’t a lot of money in Washington, but it isn’t chump change either. And guess what, Senator Obama: Congress has been ignoring President Bush’s pleas to kill these programs for years. Even though he’s used his “scalpel” to go line by line through the federal budget and find programs that don’t work, all he really gets to do is wield a hatchet called a veto-for entire appropriations bills that come across his desk. (Only recently has he begun to do so.)

With all due respect, you don’t just need a scalpel (nor an axe nor a hatchet); you need a club to beat Congress over the head for authorizing and funding stupid programs. Oh, and you need some thick skin, because you’re going to be called all sorts of nasty names when you propose to eliminate fuzzy-sounding programs like “Even Start” and “Reading is Fundamental” and the “Underground Railroad Program,” not to mention Senator Kennedy’s “Exchanging with Historic Whaling and Trading Partners” (motto: “Whales: The other white meat”).

A “spending freeze” might be an empty political slogan, but so is this talk about wielding a “scalpel.” Until the president gets line-item veto authority (which would probably require a constitutional amendment), or until Congress gets serious about protecting taxpayer dollars, our federal budget is likely to be overloaded with all manner of wasteful excess. And there’s very little that the president—any president—can do about it.

According to Campaign K-12, Senator Barack Obama told the Clinton Global Initiative gathering today that he would invest $2 billion to close the international “education gap” by 2015—which I think means he’d work to get all kids across the world into schools by that date. The sentiment is fine but the presidential candidate might want to pick up a copy of Clay Christensen’s book before he settles on a policy. He might discover that desperately poor children, particularly those in remote rural areas, could be best served through online learning opportunities. Investing $2 billion in the infrastructure and virtual materials to make that happen might be a smarter move than building thousands of schools and hiring millions of teachers.

I’ve been musing for days (here and here) about who should be the next Secretary of Education. And then along comes David Brooks (writing about Sarah Palin) and crystallizes it all for me:

It turns out that governance, the creation and execution of policy, is hard. It requires acquired skills. Most of all, it requires prudence.

What is prudence? It is the ability to grasp the unique pattern of a specific situation. It is the ability to absorb the vast flow of information and still discern the essential current of events - the things that go together and the things that will never go together. It is the ability to engage in complex deliberations and feel which arguments have the most weight.

How is prudence acquired? Through experience. The prudent leader possesses a repertoire of events, through personal involvement or the study of history, and can apply those models to current circumstances to judge what is important and what is not, who can be persuaded and who can’t, what has worked and what hasn’t.

So what kind of experience matters most for potential education secretaries? It strikes me that there are two big parts of the job-education policy, and executive management-and thus the ideal person would understand (a) education; (b) policy (especially federal policy); and (c) management.

Rod Paige, for example, was very strong on (a) and (c), having led a major  urban school system. And he had good instincts on (b), but because he was new to the Washington game his views (particularly in the early days of NCLB’s formation) were often overlooked.

Margaret Spellings, on the other hand, is very strong on (b) but weak on (a) and (c). She never really worked in schools, nor had she run anything sizable before, so it’s not surprising that she’s known as a “policy wonk,” not an executive or an educator. (Nor is it surprising that she’s considering a run for governor or the Senate; she’s a political animal, in the end.)

So what about candidates for the job under McCain or Obama? Does anyone have the full package? There’s former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt, with his deep education policy track record and lengthy executive experience. (Other governors, such as Pawlenty or Napolitano, have these same attributes, just to a lesser degree.) But for all of his work on education, he was never an educator, and thus might miss blind spots such as the likely unintended consequences of policy decisions.

And superintendents, such as Arne Duncan, have similar profiles as Rod Paige-good on education and good managers, but newcomers to the halls of Congress.

Perhaps the strongest case could be made for Jon Schnur, who runs a sizable organization (New Leaders for New Schools) that is involved in the nitty-gritty  of schools and who already worked in a policy position at the Department of Education. How ironic that someone who’s barely 40 years old could be considered to have the most relevant experience of them all!

About this post, several smart reporters have written in to ask, don’t I know that Arne Duncan will be the pick as Secretary of Education if Barack Obama is elected president?

Well, no, I didn’t realize it was a done deal. And I have my reservations. I think Duncan is a very good superintendent, and I understand he’s a personal FOBO*, but his resume has a number of drawbacks. First, while Chicago has made some moderate progress in recent years, it certainly hasn’t been home to dramatic improvements. So I’m not sure he’d even have as much credibility as Rod Paige first did when he entered the office. Second, and more importantly, it’s not clear that Duncan has the experience or the aptitude to be a force on Capitol Hill, which is a necessity if Team Obama wants to reauthorize the No Child Left Behind act.

Remember the days when education secretaries were former governors? Partly that’s because the education reform action was happening at the state level. (You could argue that the momentum has shifted to the districts now.) But former governors have another asset going for them: they are politicians. And the Secretary of Education job is, first and foremost, a political job-garnering public will to make policy change in a political system.

It’s great that Duncan shoots hoops with Obama, and that he supports charter schools, accountability, merit pay, and the rest of the school reform agenda. But who is more likely to get recalcitrant House Democrats to sign up for a rigorous NCLB: a former superintendent none of them have ever heard of, or four-time North Carolina governor Jim Hunt, who knows how to get elected in a conservative state? You do the math.

*Friend of Barack Obama

I just got off the phone with a reporter wanting names of the primary contenders for the Secretary of Education spot if either Barack Obama or John McCain wins in November. Here are my thoughts:

John McCain

— Lisa Graham Keegan has to be considered the front-runner, if only because she’s McCain’s most trusted and visible education advisor (and has been for years). Plus she was a great state superintendent in Arizona, is telegenic, loves school choice and accountability, and is loved in return by the conservative/libertarian base. The only problem: her tenure at the Education Leaders Council ended in a mess, which might make Senate confirmation challenging.

— Tim Pawlenty is a real contender too. Passed over for the V.P. slot, he’s still got one of the highest profiles on education of any GOP governor, in part because he chairs the Education Commission of the States. He also pushed a major merit pay program in Minnesota and is good on choice and accountability. Surely he’ll get a job in a McCain Administration; the only question is whether this will be the one.

— I still think Mike Huckabee could be on the list. (Read more here.) He also chaired ECS, made support for art and music education a major piece of his presidential campaign, and might want a high-profile post with which he could stay in the national spotlight. (Younger readers: when Bill Bennett was secretary of education, it actually was a high-profile post.)

— What if McCain goes for a Democrat for this slot? He’s already promised a bipartisan cabinet. Still, conservatives will scream if he appoints anyone cozy with the teachers unions or opposed to school vouchers. So how about Cory Booker, Newark’s mayor? He’s a young up-and-comer who is happy to bash the unions and promotes all manner of school choice. And, yes, he’s a Democrat to boot. (He supports Obama for president but if McCain ends up winning...well, who knows?)

Barack Obama

— Janet Napolitano, Arizona’s governor, is someone I’m hearing more about lately. As the chair of the National Governors Association, she promoted “competitiveness,” including through education. She chaired the Center for American Progress’s task force on education, and she’s generally considered a tough manager. I’m not sure she would excite either side of the Democratic schism (the unions or the reformers) but she would make for a safe pick.

— If Obama wants to side with the reformers, Jon Schnur might be the selection. He’s been one of Obama’s most visible surrogates on the education issue, runs New Leaders for New Schools, and served in the Clinton Department of Education. He might be considered too young, though, or too chilly towards the unions.

— Linda Darling Hammond is the right choice if Obama wants to solidify his base. But I strongly doubt he’ll go this way for his top pick, as it would indicate that he’s a conventional Democrat, after all. No one in the U.S. has done more to try to kill the Teach For America program—the bastion of the liberal education reform crowd.

— Former North Carolina Governor Jim Hunt is a better pick if Obama wants to appeal to both the unions and reformers. He’s a masterful politician, a Southerner, and widely respected on both sides of the aisle. He’s also passionate about national standards and tests and could conceivably be the one person capable of making that idea a reality.

Am I missing anyone? Let me know.

“NEA Applauds Sen. Obama’s Comprehensive Approach to Education Reform“

The Heritage Foundation’s Dan Lips writes today, on National Review Online (where “Education Week” continues), more about the Republican eschewal of No Child Left Behind.

In today’s speech (see here, too), Barack Obama said:

For decades, [Washington's] been stuck in the same tired debates over education that have crippled our progress and left schools and parents to fend for themselves. It’s been Democrat versus Republican, vouchers versus the status quo, more money versus more reform.  There’s partisanship and there’s bickering, but there’s no understanding that both sides have good ideas that we’ll need to implement if we hope to make the changes our children need.  And we’ve fallen further and further behind as a result.    

If we’re going to make a real and lasting difference for our future, we have to be willing to move beyond the old arguments of left and right and take meaningful, practical steps to build an education system worthy of our children and our future. 

Those lines might have made sense a decade ago, but is he forgetting No Child Left Behind? There’s plenty to criticize about the law, but there’s little doubt that it was a bipartisan effort that moved “beyond the old arguments of left and right.” Where are the props for George W. Bush and Ted Kennedy?

Today’s much ballyhooed Obama education speech (delivered near my hometown of Dayton) and accompanying “fact sheet” contained more than a few good ideas about where U.S. education should go in the years ahead. But as an exercise in specifying what would actually happen to U.S. education under an Obama administration, and what is and isn’t feasible for the federal government itself to make happen, it recalled Bill Clinton’s second term, awash in little, crowd-pleasing programs and program ideas, nearly all of them on the periphery of the public-education behemoth and on the periphery of real federal education policy.

Under four crowd-pleasing headings in the Obama fact sheet (”scaling choice and innovation in the public school system”, “investment in innovation and technology”, “ensuring effective teachers and school leaders”, and “responsibility for parents and Washington”), I counted a dozen separate programs, commitments and initiatives. None of them addressed the really tough issues surrounding No Child Left Behind (who sets standards, what constitutes adequate progress, what exactly to do about failing schools, etc); or about the big Title I program that is its centerpiece; or about special ed, HeadStart, or anything else that comprises the semi-dysfunctional corpus of existing federal programs and policies. Rather, another whole layer of programs would apparently be added, several of them reaching far beyond anything Uncle Sam has ever gone near before, like getting states to issue individual report cards to every parent on the educational progress and prospects of every child in the land.

Just picture federal bureaucrats trying to manage that one!

A post from guest blogger and Fordham writer and researcher Emmy Partin. 

This morning in Fordham’s hometown of Dayton, Senator Barack Obama promoted his education plan during a speech at a local high school.  Education is a hotter topic in the Buckeye State than most places with Governor Ted Strickland already having wrestled control of higher education and now aiming to take over the K-12 system, too.  Obama echoed many of the sentiments expressed by Strickland, calling for more after-school programs, longer school days and years, and teaching students to be innovative and creative.  But this wasn’t your father’s union-friendly, Democratic education-stump-speech, with Obama taking moderate positions on issues like teacher tenure and charter schools, in stark contrast to the governor’s positions.

Obama is calling for more accountability for all charter schools and increased funding for the good ones; Strickland sought to set-back big time the state’s charter sector in his inaugural budget proposal in 2007. Senator Obama wants to increase teacher accountability for student achievement, but the details for this are yet to come.  Teachers would be paid more under Obama’s agenda and struggling teachers would get help, but those who don’t improve would be replaced.  Strickland seems bent on watering down Ohio’s academic accountability system so that not even schools and districts, let alone teachers, are actually responsible for their students’ performance.

Senator Obama’s ideas are headed in the right direction but the devil’s in the details.  And it’s unclear how his federal policies would impact schools and students here in the Buckeye State.  Ohio’s charter sector certainly could be improved, but if Governor Strickland pursues the agenda of dismantling the charter program altogether, all the federal start-up funding in the world and Obama’s encouragement won’t help these schools of choice.  And issues of tenure and teacher pay are decided at the state and local levels.  Federal efforts, like the Teacher Incentive Fund, are small-scale drops in the bucket and are still beholden to the approval of local teacher unions-and Ohio’s are the most militant in the nation.

Ohioans eager for real education reform will be watching Obama, but keeping one eye on Governor Strickland as well.

Earlier, Barack Obama was talking about schools in Dayton, Ohio. (He did so in Dayton because it’s Fordham’s hometown, no doubt.) AP and Campaign K-12 cover his speech.

The Obama campaign has released a new advertisement that hits John McCain on education:

“When they grow up, will the economy be strong enough?” asks the announcer in the 30-second spot, titled ‘What Kind.’

“Barack Obama understands what it takes to make America No. 1 in education again. John McCain doesn’t understand.

“John McCain voted to cut education funding. Against accountability standards. He even proposed abolishing the Department of Education. And John McCain’s economic plan gives two hundred billion more to special interests while taking money away from public schools.

“We can’t afford more of the same,” the announcer continues, as the screen fades to the traditional closing image of McCain and President Bush together.

The funding line is pretty typical election-year stuff. Democrats want lots more money for the schools; Republicans don’t. (Though the GOP certainly went on a spending spree in the early years of the Bush Administration.) As for voting to abolish the Department of Education, well, that’s true enough, if ancient history now. (It’s kinda like saying that many Democrats voted against welfare reform. They did, but they’ve mostly moved past it.)

But saying that McCain voted “against accountability standards”: I’ve not a clue what that refers to. But one thing is clear: “No Child Left Behind” remained unspoken.

Checker goes in search of those elusive words, No Child Left Behind, and returns empty-handed.

There’s sure to be lots of buzz about this Paul Tough article in yesterday’s New York Times Magazine, which, among other things, aptly describes the great schism within the Democratic Party over education, with unions on one side and reformers on the other. A Democratic-reformer-friend I saw the other day said that this fight is for real, it’s getting nasty, and if Barack Obama wins in November it’s still not clear which side will prevail.

But let me officially lodge a complaint with the editors of the magazine, who put this teaser on its cover:

Counterintuitive Campaign Issues: Republicans Need to Take Income Inequality Seriously, By David Frum; Democrats Need to Move School Reform Out of the Schools; By Paul Tough

I’m sorry, but since when did arguing that “schools alone” can’t close the achievement gap-that we need to also invest in a stronger social safety net*-become an unusual position for Democrats? It’s the Republicans who generally believe that, if we provide all kids a decent education, then society has pretty much fulfilled its responsibility to offer a “fair start” in life. Let’s face it: The Times just found an excuse to plug two Democratic ideas, which, for that media outlet, is hardly counterintuitive.

* By the way, doesn’t the “broader/bolder” crowd, which includes the unions and most of the education establishment, understand that, in a tight economy, arguing for investments in out-of-school interventions means arguing against investments in k-12 education? Maybe this is just a conservative plot to drive down school spending...

Seems that Miami’s superintendent, Rudy Crew, who starred on the cover of our Leadership Limbo report (though I’ve long suspected that Crew, second from left, is actually flouting limbo rules and bolstering himself with Arne Duncan-obscured hands), won’t be hanging around South Florida much longer.

Nothing new to report from the RNC:

Education is the civil rights issue of this century. Equal access to public education has been gained. But what is the value of access to a failing school? We need to shake up failed school bureaucracies with competition, empower parents with choice, remove barriers to qualified instructors, attract and reward good teachers, and help bad teachers find another line of work.

When a public school fails to meet its obligations to students, parents deserve a choice in the education of their children. And I intend to give it to them. Some may choose a better public school. Some may choose a private one. Many will choose a charter school. But they will have that choice and their children will have that opportunity.

Senator Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students. And when I’m President, they will.

Education Sector’s Kevin Carey—a friend and occasional co-host of the Education Gadfly Show—hits the American Prospect this week with a provocative piece, “How the Dems Lost on Education.” (Subscription required—how progressive is that?)

Mostly his essay is a call for Democrats to get on board the school reform train, particularly when it comes to NCLB-style accountability, charter schools, and public school choice. And he sticks it to the unions pretty good too. And for that, we reformers on the right should be glad, yes? But he also argues that the Democrats’ “education policy failures” create “numerous political opportunities” for the GOP.

Well...I don’t mean to be ungracious, but if we’re talking about winners and losers, there’s a strong case to be made that NCLB has been a boon to the left and an embarrassment to the right. What with its race-based accountability system, Great Society-style aspiration for “universal proficiency,” disdain for the needs of high-achieving students (not to mention white and middle class kids), and enthusiastic expansion of the federal role in education, it looks to me that the Dems are winning big on education lately. And here’s the kicker: they get to promote progressive policies and regain their historical political advantage on the issue to boot.

Compare that to the “Republican” scorecard. How are we doing on promoting educational excellence? Cutting red tape? Promoting private school choice? Making the public schools system more efficient? Getting rid of terrible teachers?

A more appropriate article for 2008 would be “How the GOP Lost on Education.” Hmm, maybe I should write it.

Last week the Democrats had some fun at the teachers unions’ expense, but yesterday it was the Republicans’ turn. First there was Margaret Spellings:

I do not think [John McCain's] going to be worried about the teachers’ unions and the equities of grown-ups.

And then Mitt Romney:

Is a government liberal or conservative that puts the interests of the teachers union ahead of the needs of our children? It’s liberal.

Let’s face it: just like Republicans can never outbid Democrats when it comes to school spending, Democrats can never outdo Republicans on teachers union bashing. But it’s great that they’re trying!

She wasn’t forthcoming on the policy side, but she did say something, at least. Talking about her newest child, Trig, who has Down Syndrome, she opined:

And children with special needs inspire a special love.

To the families of special-needs children all across this country, I have a message: For years, you sought to make America a more welcoming place for your sons and daughters.

I pledge to you that if we are elected, you will have a friend and advocate in the White House.

Nothing we didn’t predict but I’m curious what policies she’d advocate.

All the talk is about Sarah Palin. But this is (largely) an education-related blog, and the Republican who spoke last night most fervently about education was Mike Huckabee (scroll forward to 10:20 in the video), who elocuted about a teacher in Little Rock who, on the first day of school, removed from her classroom all the desks and then made her students guess why. “You get a desk in my classroom,” Huckabee said the teacher said, “when you tell me how you earn it.” (Umm, our parents pay taxes?) By day’s end, news cameras were arranged outside and no student had yet correctly picked out how they could retrieve their classroom furniture. Then... through the door walked 20 veterans, each carrying a desk which he quietly restored to its original position. “You don’t have to earn your desk,” the teacher reportedly told her students, “‘cus these guys—they already did.” As his four-minute story drew to a close, Huckabee solemnly said, “John McCain helped me have a schooldesk.”

So, there. And some of you thought the Ed in ‘08 campaign was wasting millions of dollars. (By the way, didn’t Mike once endorse Huckabee for U.S. Secretary of Education? Might the Arkansan try to take this Ozark deskectomy reform nationwide?)

The folks at Education Week deserve lots-o-kudos for their phenomenal coverage of the conventions. I have to admit that I’ve wondered of late whether Ed Week could survive the downturn in the journalism business. That’s still an open question—and it’s pretty clear from the outside that EW is increasingly dependent upon foundation grants. But with its embrace of blogging, on-the-ground reporting, and now even video, here’s hoping that the answer is yes. Particularly as schools receive less attention from the media writ large, it’s important to have American education’s “newspaper of record” not just surviving, but thriving.

Mike, first lady Laura Bush mentioned No Child Left Behind last night at the Republican Convention—although, if memory serves, she never actually uttered the phrase “No Child Left Behind.”

A few days ago I told Education Week that the nobody at the GOP convention was likely to mention No Child Left Behind, except for President Bush. Well, even he didn’t mention his beloved law—or education at all—during his satellite address last night. Representative Mike Castle, a leading Republican moderate and passionate education reformer, explains why:

“You’re not going to hear it here,” Castle said. “Politically, it’s not popular.”

“If you look to Congress, you’re going to find a lot of experienced members who support No Child Left Behind, Republicans and Democrats alike, relatively newer conservative Republicans who will not support it under any circumstances, a number of conservative Republicans who won’t support it, and a number of liberal Democrats who won’t support it,” Castle said. “I think a majority of Congress would support the right changes in No Child Left Behind, but a very bare majority. Therefore, I don’t think you’re going to see it much in the campaign.”

That’s a safe bet from a smart man.