So, how ‘bout those great debates on education, huh?
Questions for my fellow American teachers: Do we have a clue about the direction that the next administration is likely to take? Has there been clear illumination on how the next president—or, really, the next Secretary, Congress and Department of Ed—will shape and administer federal policy?
Most important: How will this election change what really happens in our classrooms? Federal and state elections do have a trickle-down effect, but it’s hard to say, at this point, what substantive change might result from new faces and new ideas.
You can do a platform-to-platform comparison if you like wading hip-deep in rhetoric and large but ultimately meaningless expenditure pledges. Or you can compare proposals from the Education Advisors’ Debate at Teacher’s College, Columbia (see my colleague Renee Moore’s thoughtful take—which wins the prize for best title, as well).
Speaking of advisors, the McCain campaign has almost exclusively featured Lisa Graham Keegan speaking on McCain’s education policy. The Obama campaign changes up spokespersons; there have been at least a half-dozen, from Stanford’s scholarly Linda Darling-Hammond to Colorado principal Michael Johnston to Melody Barnes of the Center for American Progress (whose remarks on the usefulness of multiple models for assessing student growth caused Flypaper’s Michael Petrilli to have something like a cyber-infarction and set off a round of ed-policy snitblogging).
You can interpret this “one mouthpiece” vs. “many ideas” contrast as evidence of Obama’s willingness to weigh multiple policy perspectives, or as proof that McCain is consistent in his educational beliefs and doesn't pander to special interests. (This being Halloween, we might also remember Ralph Waldo Emerson’s remark about foolish consistency being the hobgoblin of little minds.)
The truth is, campaign promises don’t always become reality, especially in schools and towns far removed from the policy makers. You can, however, get a sense of what buttons a candidate is willing to push, which policy actors will be enthusiastic collaborators and which are enemies.
The first time I heard the phrase “Texas miracle” was in a campaign speech made by then-Governor George W. Bush who claimed to have data backing up his conviction that accountability and raising the achievement bar were reachable goals. I’m all for teacher accountability and raising the bar—I paid attention. Bush’s No Child Left Behind has likely had more impact on public school practice than any legislation since the first incarnation of ESEA, back in 1965.
But has the law brought us closer to fixing the things that really need fixing? No. There are principals, teachers, entrepreneurs and visionaries out there right now changing schools and making things better for kids and their learning, but NCLB has functioned mainly as another cumbersome set of governance obligations, sucking up schools’ time and resources, rather than the clear spotlight on excellence and inequality it was supposed to be. (Worse, it’s caused organizations nominally dedicated to serving high-needs schools to shift their focus to more sophisticated and expensive data analysis systems and silly arguments over portfolios--things they can control.)
Sometimes, what candidates say about education does end up being very important—transformative, even. I went back to the only presidential debate question on education, which came in the ninth inning of the third debate, and re-read the things that the two candidates said. In their single opportunity to speak about education, given a global question and about three minutes, here are their words. I edited a bit for clarity and length—and I left out most of their skirmish on D.C. public schools, because it's not particularly relevant to people outside the Beltway--but do not believe I changed the intent or meaning of either candidate's key points.
Take your time. Read them carefully. You might be getting a glimpse of the future.
Take your pick. Trick or treat.
OBAMA: [Education] has more to do with our economic future than anything. It also has a national security implication. There's never been a nation on earth that saw its economy decline and continued to maintain its primacy as a military power. We've got to get our education system right.
We are going to have to invest. Early childhood education, so that every child is prepared for school. Every dollar we invest in that, we end up getting huge benefits with improved reading scores, reduced dropout rates, and reduced delinquency rates.
It's going to be critically important for us to recruit a generation of new teachers, especially in math and science, give them higher pay, give them more professional development and support in exchange for higher standards and accountability.
I think it's important for us to make college affordable. I've proposed a $4,000 tuition credit, in exchange for some form of community service, whether it's military service, whether it's Peace Corps, whether it's working in a community.
We can't do it just in the schools. Parents are going to have to show more responsibility. They've got to turn off the TV set, put away the video games, and, finally, start instilling that thirst for knowledge that our students need.
We did the right thing by saying every school should provide education to kids with special needs, but we never followed through on the promise of funding, and that left local school districts very cash-strapped.
I doubled the number of charter schools in Illinois despite some reservations from teachers unions. I think it's important to foster competition inside the public schools. Where [Senator McCain and I] disagree is on the idea that we can somehow give out vouchers as a way of securing the problems in our education system.
We need to make sure that if we have bad teachers that they are swiftly -- after given an opportunity to prove themselves, if they can't hack it, then we need to move on.
Recently [McCain's] key economic adviser was asked about why he didn't seem to have some specific programs to help young people go to college and the response was, well, you know, we can't give money to every interest group that comes along.
I don't think America's youth are interest groups, I think they're our future.
MCCAIN: [Education] is the civil rights issue of the 21st century. There's no doubt that we have achieved equal access to schools in America after a long and difficult and terrible struggle.
What is the advantage in a low income area of sending a child to a failed school and that being your only choice? Choice and competition amongst schools is one of the key elements that's already been proven in places in like New Orleans and New York City and other places where we have charter schools, where we take good teachers and we reward them and promote them.
We have to be able to give parents choice. Charter schools are providing the kind of competitions that have upgraded both types of schools. Now, throwing money at the problem is not the answer. You will find that some of the worst school systems in America get the most money per student.
We need to encourage programs such as Teach for America and Troops to Teachers where people, after having served in the military, can go right to teaching and not have to take these examinations -- or have the certification that are required in some states. And we find bad teachers another line of work.
As far as college education is concerned, we need to make those student loans available. We need to give them a repayment schedule that they can meet. We certainly need to adjust the loan eligibility to inflation.
I'm sure you're aware, Senator Obama, of the program in the Washington, D.C., school system where vouchers are provided and there's a certain number, I think it's a thousand and some and some 9,000 parents asked to be eligible for that. And we all know the state of the Washington, D.C., school system. That was vouchers. That was vouchers, Senator Obama.
Now as far as the No Child Left Behind is concerned, it was a great first beginning in my view. It had its flaws, it had its problems, the first time we had looked at the issue of education in America from a nationwide perspective. We need to fix a lot of the problems. We need to sit down and reauthorize it.
I think the Head Start program is a great program. A lot of people, including me, said: look, it's not doing what it should do. By the third grade many times children who were in the Head Start program aren't any better off than the others.
Let's reform it and fund it. We need to reform these programs. We need to have transparency. We need to have rewards. It's a system that cries out for accountability and transparency and the adequate funding.
Town hall meeting after town hall meeting, parents come with kids, children -- precious children who have autism. Sarah Palin knows about that better than most. We'll find and we'll spend the money, research, to find the cause of autism. We'll care for these young children. And all Americans will open their wallets and their hearts to do so.
And I will support those reforms, and I will fund the ones that are reformed. But I'm not going to continue to throw money at a problem. And I've got to tell you that vouchers, where they are requested and where they are agreed to, are a good and workable system. And it's been proven.
Image: yeswecarve.com









