David Brooks:

And let me say right away that I do think Obama is doing a good job. The issue I care most about is education, and his education policy is the best of any president in American history.

The breaking news right now on the Post’s website:

President Obama will seek to extend the controversial D.C. school voucher program until all 1,716 participants have graduated from high school, although no new students will be accepted, according to an administration official who has reviewed budget details scheduled for release tomorrow.

The budget documents, which expand on the fiscal 2010 blueprint that Congress approved last month by outlining Obama’s priorities in detail, would provide $12.2 million for the Opportunity Scholarship Program for the 2009-2010 school year. The new language also would revise current law that makes further funding for existing students contingent on Congress’s reauthorization of the program beyond its current June 2010 expiration date. Under the Obama proposal, further congressional action would not be necessary, and current students would automatically receive grants until they finish school.

Seems like the right move. Vouchers aren’t the answer to D.C.’s - or the country’s - education woes, but as Secretary Duncan has noted, forcing students to leave the schools they already attend doesn’t make sense, and it was also a dumb political move that the right could whine about. Though something tells me this won’t end the whining …

Or they’re just really dense. But more likely they’re being dishonest, because deliberate misrepresentation seems the only possible explanation for this analysis of the Reverend Al Sharpton’s remarks on Wednesday morning at the National Press Club:

Don’t think for a second the election of a Democratic African American president would silence the Rev. Al Sharpton. He was his usual self Wednesday, ripping into the new administration.

“They appear like smiling liberals, but they are all a bunch of condescending bigots,” Sharpton said while speaking on an education panel regarding the release of McKinsey & Co.’s report, “The Economic Impact of the Achievement Gap in America’s Schools.”

Good thing U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan left the event immediately after giving his remarks preceding the panel.

He compared those in charge to then-Alabama Gov. George Wallace …

Sharpton did say those things, but in no way did he indicate he was talking about the administration. In fact, pretty much everyone in the room thought he was referring to the teachers’ unions, and the first question from an audience member asked him if he was talking about the NEA and AFT. Sharpton said no. He declined to clarify exactly who his remarks were aimed at, beyond mentioning those who protect “inept teachers and principals.” Which is not something President Obama and Secretary Duncan are known for. Which is why no one in the room thought Sharpton was talking about the administration.

In yesterday’s Gadfly, Checker reflects on Obama’s view of America and what sort of example it sets for American schoolchildren. He has some nice words for the Obamas’ performance as First Parents and Obama’s gratitude to the troops in Iraq, and he makes sure to note that he’s not suggesting that Obama is unpatriotic. Of course not. He’s just writing an editiorial entitled “Patriotism, Education, and the Obamas” which asks:

I wonder, though, how they approach the value of patriotism…What examples are the Obamas setting for fifty million other American kids and their teachers and parents?…Is America, in their eyes, “the last best hope”? A place that doesn’t always live up to its ideals but comes closer than anyplace else? A place worth defending from all enemies, foreign and domestic? And is that something they believe is important for grownups to impart to children? Or do they think it’s the proper role of parents and teachers to emphasize the country’s shortcomings?

I’ll look past the strangeness of questioning if our Commander-in-Chief believes America is worth defending (we all know Obama does, and if he doesn’t, then things like national standards and the fate of the D.C. voucher program aren’t really going to matter, are they?) and focus on what Checker wants: a president who “signal[s] to one and all that he loves and is proud of his country and wants his kids and our kids and grandkids to feel that way, too. Insisting that they understand what evokes that pride as context, in part, for understanding what still needs to be set right.”

Read the rest of this post >>>

Some interesting results from a new Rasmussen poll:

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided.

Some of this shift is obviously due to the devastation unregulated capitalism has wreaked on our economy. But I think there are two big and related takeaways with implications for education.

The first is that most people really have no idea exactly what socialism is. (Or, among older generations, know what it is only in the context of, “oh, that’s some scary thing the Soviets did.”) Some right-wingers tried to take advantage of this ignorance by trying to paint Obama as a socialist. Which he is not. (Given the ridiculousness of some of the Obama’s-a-socialist claims, it’s likely some of the accusers themselves didn’t really understand socialism - though they were probably just being dishonest).

Some are citing the poll as evidence that these smear attempts failed (which, of course, they did) or to explain why they failed. But I think that misses the second important point: the poll is in large part a result of these failed attempts. Approval of socialism is higher because Obama is popular, and when right-wingers tried to link Obama to socialism, it backfired. In other words, people who weren’t exactly sure what socialism is didn’t associate Obama with scary socialism, they associated socialism with popular Obama.

How does this relate to education reform? Well, most Americans don’t know a whole lot about the nitty-gritty of charter schools, performance pay, teacher quality, the student loan industry, etc. Their minds are waiting to be made up. They know our schools aren’t doing a good enough job, just like our financial system. And they like Obama. A lot. So if Obama says we need performance pay or tenure reform, there’s a good chance the American people will start to find those measures more palatable. Things won’t change overnight, mind you. But the discourse and public mindset will begin to move in that direction. Andy Rotherham recently wrote about the importance of symbolism in movements; the poll is a reminder that even beyond his policies and the stimulus dollars, Obama is a symbol to a lot of people, and as such is a great opportunity for reform.

I’ve heard Diane Ravitch speak twice at Fordham debates and both times came away highly impressed. But I’m less impressed with this argument:

Charter schools are now represented as a panacea for public education, but in fact their track record is no better than that of regular public schools. Some do a great job, some are abysmal. Just as one can find excellent public schools, one can also find excellent charter schools. And there are plenty of terrible charter schools. AOL is currently running a feature story about “the 50 worst schools in America,” and number 1 and 2 on that list are charter schools.

“Charter schools are now represented as a panacea for public education.” By whom? Chubb and Moe? Ultraconservatives? Ravitch’s post is in response to President Obama’s speech; if he thought charters were a panacea, he wouldn’t have mentioned early childhood, standards and assessments, merit pay and all that other good stuff.

Sure, there are good and bad charter schools. There are good and bad teachers, too, but we don’t lump them all together (we shouldn’t, at least). There are good and bad public schools, but we don’t hold the failure of those in Detroit against those in Fairfax or Westchester. That would make no sense. Whatever we’re talking about - charter schools, public schools, teachers, tests, school lunches - we want more good ones and fewer bad ones. We’re smart enough to distinguish between each type and treat them accordingly.

The same goes for regulations. Ravitch laments that charters “are an effort to remove schools from the normal regulatory structures of government.” I’m far from a free market ideologue, so I share some of her concerns. We need charter accountability and regulation. But not all deregulation is bad when it comes to education. Some regulations are useful and necessary (for instance, to guard against the terrible charters of which she speaks) while others stifle innovation and educators.

From Bill Bennett’s blog:

President Obama concluded yesterday: “So here’s the bottom line: Yes, we need more money; yes, we need more reform; yes, we need to hold ourselves more accountable for every dollar we spend.”  But I ask President Obama to meet Secretary of Education Arne Duncan who, interviewed in the Washington Post last week said, “History has shown that money alone does not drive school improvement, Duncan said, pointing to the District of Columbia, where public school students consistently score near the bottom on national reading and math tests even though the school system spends more per pupil than its suburban counterparts do.

I’m pretty sure they’re in agreement already, but to play along:

Obama: Hi.

Duncan: Hey yo.

Obama: I believe in money and reform. And parents doing their job. That’s what I said in my speech yesterday.

Duncan: Me too! That’s what I told the Washington Post last week - money alone isn’t enough.

Obama: Man, sounds like we’re saying the exact same thing.

Duncan: Yeah, weird that your ed secretary would agree with you. So then why did Bill Bennett ask you to meet me?

Obama: Beats me. Hey, haven’t we already met?

Duncan: Yeah, you picked me for ed secretary. Because we agree on things like this.

Obama: Oh, that’s right.

Duncan: Hey, wanna play basketball sometime?

Obama: Yeah! I’ve got a sweet J.

In President Obama’s remarks before the 
US Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, he continued his “caps off to charter schools” praise by calling for removing all caps:

That leads me to the fourth part of America’s education strategy – promoting innovation and excellence in America’s schools. One of the places where much of that innovation occurs is in our most effective charter schools. These are public schools founded by parents, teachers, and civic or community organizations with broad leeway to innovate – schools I supported as a state legislator and United States Senator.

Right now, there are caps on how many charter schools are allowed in some states, no matter how well they are preparing our students. That isn’t good for our children, our economy, or our country. Of course, any expansion of charter schools must not result in the spread of mediocrity, but in the advancement of excellence. That will require states adopting both a rigorous selection and review process to ensure that a charter school’s autonomy is coupled with greater accountability – as well as a strategy, like the one in Chicago, to close charter schools that are not working. Provided this greater accountability, I call on states to reform their charter rules, and lift caps on the number of allowable charter schools, wherever such caps are in place.

The Center for Education Reform released their 2009 Accountability Report: Charter Schools yesterday, which found that of the more than 5,250 charter schools ever opened, 657 have closed since 1992.   Of those school closures, “only 14 percent of the nation’s charters have been shut down for poor academic performance—meaning they reached a point at which meaningful measures could be used to close a school.”  Granted, it is difficult to close a school, but given the added accountability for student performance, superficial limits on the number of charters are counterproductive.  There is no reason to arbitrarily legislate against quality educational opportunities presented by public charter schools.

Mike and Checker have a new piece in the National Review about Obama’s speech and the education part of the stimulus package, and I agree with them that we should generally try to fire bad teachers and pay good ones more. But they also say of Obama:

Sooner or later, he’s going to have to pick sides on the toughest issues in education. He’ll actually have to decide rather than appease.

Now, waffling as opposed to taking action is one thing. But where, oh where, does this idea stem from that we always have to pick sides? How productive is that, really? Isn’t making progress, as with all political processes, going to involve a certain amount of appeasement of one side or the other? Why, exactly, does Obama have to pick sides? Stepping back from this specific situation (in which I agree: we shouldn’t be throwing away money to keep bad teachers in classrooms) isn’t it possible that Obama could do some things that teacher unions will like and also do some things they won’t like? Can’t you be a reformer while also advocating for more money for early childhood education, which every child deserves, and to make colleges more affordable? I’d like to think you can.

We do this all the time, creating divisions and arguments and dwelling on them. The other day I attended a debate between 21st century skills and core content knowledge. Well, wouldn’t any reasonable person say children need to learn both content and skills? This isn’t meant to be think-tank hate but sometimes we all get a little too caught up in ideological lines in the sand when the answers are usually more complex. One of my favorite moments of the year was when Geoffrey Canada of the Harlem Children’s Zone said that it’s a waste of time to argue between the Education Equality Project and the Broader Bolder Approach. Because, yes, we need better schools to make no excuses in lifting students out of poverty - but children also need better health care and productive out-of-school opportunities.

Read the rest of this post >>>

It is appalling that “some 691,000 children went hungry in America sometime in 2007,” according to Agriculture Department.

I don’t know about everyone else, but I can always tell when I am hungry: I get a little irritable, easily distracted, and if I’m in a meeting or presentation, I  incessantly watch the clock counting down the minutes until lunch, and I’m an adult. Fortunately for most of us, this is not a regular occurrence (usually just poor planning) and more importantly, there is relief: we go home and make dinner or grab a mid-morning snack.

But, for nearly 700,000 children that is not the case; for many, their only meals are the ones they get at school if their parents filled out the free and reduced lunch program forms.

In his Presidential Campaign, President-elect Obama made ending domestic hunger a top priority, and the aim is by 2015.  If his administration succeeds in this endeavor, I believe it will have a major influence on academic achievement for children from poverty. How can we expect them to focus on learning when they are starving?