December 2007 Archives

If I were writing this as a traditional news story, this would be my lead:

"Forty-two percent of voters surveyed in a recent Associated Press-Yahoo poll said they would be much more likely, or somewhat more likely, to vote for a candidate who supports teacher-led prayer in public schools."

But since this is my blog, here's what I will say:

"For the 42 percent of voters who think teacher-led prayer is such a good idea that they would base their choice for president on it, have you considered regulating such prayer? Imagine what the teachers could pray about: 'Dear God, please don't let my cheerleading routine end up on YouTube.'"

Deep within the AP-Yahoo poll, conducted Dec. 14-20 with 1,821 adults, are a few interesting tidbits about voters' feelings on education. Of those polled, 847 were Democrats and 655 were Republicans, with the rest being independent or unaffiliated with a party.

Interestingly, when voters were asked to name their top issue, education wasn't even on the list of choices they were given. However, voters were later asked more specific questions about three education issues.

Of those polled, voters seem to like teacher-led prayer about as much as they hate No Child Left Behind.

First, on prayer. While 42 percent said they'd be more likely to vote for a candidate who supports teacher-led prayer in public schools, 27 percent said they'd be much less, or somewhat less, likely to support a candidate for that same view. Thirty percent said the issue made no difference to them.

Candidates who support scrapping NCLB get similar support (good news for New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, the Democratic presidential candidate who has made this his education mantra). Forty-six percent said they'd be more likely to support a candidate who wants to get rid of the law, while 27 percent say that hard-line stance would make them less likely to support the candidate. Twenty-six percent said it made no difference. (For more about candidates' positions on NCLB, the National Center for Fair and Open Testing just compiled a list of what the presidential candidates are saying about the law.)

The poll also gauged voters' feelings toward candidates who support federally funded vouchers to send children to private schools. More voters said they would be less likely to support a candidate who favored vouchers.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:36 AM | Permalink | 7 Comments | Recommend

In Maryland, the icy and downright hostile relationship between State Superintendent of Schools Nancy Grasmick and Democratic Gov. Martin O'Malley exemplifies the ugly power struggle that can result when a governor doesn't directly control his state's school chief.

As O'Malley continues to push for Grasmick's resignation, she refuses to step down. After all, the governor is not her boss—the State Board of Education is. Reporter Liz Bowie details the duel from Grasmick's perspective in this Baltimore Sun story.

Says one Grasmick critic in the story, who wants her to bow to the wishes of Gov. O'Malley: "The governor was elected to a four-year term by the people." Yes, that's true. But the people of Maryland, through their elected representatives, at one time crafted the state law that established the education bureaucracy—and whoever was in power then clearly thought it wise to create a chain of command that does not lead directly to the governor.

While there is something to be said for giving a governor more authority over education, a compelling argument also can be made for having a state schools chief who is not at the governor's beck and call.

For about half of this country's school chiefs, their relationship with the governor is clear and this usually isn't a problem. There are 14 state school chiefs who are separately elected officials and thus answer to voters. By my count, six are up for re-election in 2008. On the other end of the spectrum, there are 12 who are appointed directly by, and answer to, the governor.

But the rest of the chiefs, like Grasmick, are caught in the middle and are appointed by their state boards of education. In some states, these boards are elected, in others, the governor appoints some or all of the members.

Most states have created some distance between governors and their state's education chiefs for a reason. Education is a responsibility spelled out in all state constitutions, so state legislatures created separate boards and chiefs to govern them. In fact, according to the Maryland state law, the governor can only remove an education board member in extreme circumstances, such as in cases of "immorality" or "willful neglect of duty."

Regardless of how a state school chief comes into that job, it's not a particularly glamorous one—after all, it's a lot of day-to-day monitoring of schools and education laws, not to mention enforcing the ever popular No Child Left Behind Act. What's more, in many states, district school superintendents make more money than state chiefs.

But increasingly, governors want, and are taking, more control over education as they realize the connection between their state economies and the quality of public schools. That's not to mention the fact education is an election issue, and school spending takes up about half of state budgets. New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat and a presidential candidate, was one who successfully sought more control over education in his state.

In Indiana, where I covered education for a decade, the elected Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen Reed, a very popular Republican who has been elected to four terms so far, doesn't hesitate to be a thorn in the sides of the legislature or the governors she's served with. And almost every year, some lawmaker files a bill to make her position appointed by the governor, rather than elected by voters. (Some view it as her punishment.) But it never succeeds, for several reasons. For one, lawmakers are hesitant to take such a decision away from voters (who also elect them.) And secondly, I think there are many lawmakers who think that checks-and-balances between vested policymakers, even if they do result in heated debates over education, are ultimately good for schools.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:07 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who resisted efforts to bring vouchers to his home state when he was governor, is now trying to say he's a school-voucher champion. Except his record, and others, say differently.

First of all, the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association thinks he's against vouchers, and used that rationale to explain why it endorsed him as the Republican choice in this early-voting state. Incidentally, Huckabee has not been out on the campaign trail, jumping up and down asserting that the NEA got it wrong.

Moreover, his record as governor in Arkansas shows just how skeptical (as the Heritage Foundation put it in 2000) Huckabee was of vouchers.

Here are just a few examples to illustrate this point:

"Huckabee questions value of vouchers in Arkansas". (Associated Press, Aug. 15, 2002). And from the story: "I'm not sure how practical they [vouchers] are. My primary focus is still on public education."

"Gov. Mike Huckabee says improving public schools is a better plan than issuing vouchers so parents can choose among schools." (AP, Oct. 1, 1998). That was in response to a recommendation (to enact vouchers in Arkansas) from a commission Huckabee established to study changes in education and other parts of state government.

And in this example, Huckabee actually corrects his opponent in the 1998 governors' race who overstated his support of vouchers. "Huckabee said his opponent incorrectly stated his position on vouchers. He said he had said in one campaign that he would be willing to test a voucher system on a limited basis, but he has concluded that vouchers are impractical for Arkansas." (AP, July 26, 1998).

This isn't the only issue on which Huckabee has found himself in hot water with conservatives. The Washington Post gave him three Pinocchios, their guidepost for measuring candidates' claims, for trying to backtrack on his support of in-state tuition for children of undocumented immigrants who otherwise meet residency requirements.

Huckabee's moderate views on such issues as school vouchers and immigration don't play well with conservatives or other Republican candidates, who maintain school choice is the answer and who think illegal immigrants shouldn't get any "special deals". But perhaps it's these moderate views and his plain-spoken, tell-it-like-it-is campaign style that are at least partially responsible for vaulting him to near the top in recent candidate polls.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:40 PM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

Although Democratic candidate Joe Biden says education will be his top domestic priority if elected president, his plan to fix public schools apparently isn't very remarkable, or memorable, at least to the Associated Press.

A story that moved on the AP wires today declared: "Democrat Joe Biden unveiled an education plan Wednesday that would provide free preschool to every child and bonuses to teachers who work in poor neighborhoods."

Except Biden, a U.S. Senator from Delaware, unveiled the same plan more than two months ago.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:20 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

ED in '08 has come out with an in-your-face public-service announcement in these days before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses.

The ad, which ED in '08 says will start running soon in key battleground states, portrays several teenagers who declare that they are the future. But the future is bleak: "I will steal your car," one student says. "I will use drugs to escape," another says. "You will support me because I can't get a job." You get the idea.

ED in '08, whose goal is to make education a top priority in the presidential campaign, still has a long road ahead of it. And not everyone agrees with the group's tactics. The most recent Washington Post national poll from Dec. 9 shows that just 1 percent of the 1,136 adults asked identified education as the single most important issue in their choice for president. That's down from 2 percent in November.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:01 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

With Oprah Winfrey's rock-star support of Barack Obama, ABC News reporter Diane Sawyer wonders what's next for the daytime talk diva if the Democratic senator from Illinois wins the presidency. Education secretary, perhaps?

Watch the video of Oprah's answer from yesterday, (fast-forward to minute 5:15), and you'll find that her evasive answer shows she's ready for politics, even if she says a government job isn't for her. She says she can't think of a more compelling job than the one she has now, which she "kinda" likes.

For now, anyway, Oprah's sights seem to be set on the monumental task of improving education not in the United States, but in another country—South Africa—an effort that has recently been mired in scandal.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:38 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani has assembled his education advisory committee, and given that he thinks school choice will turn around America's schools in just three years, his list holds few surprises.

Among the school-choice advocates on the 16-member advisory committee are Terry Moe, who is Giuliani's education chairman and a Stanford University professor and Hoover Institution senior fellow. One of the most prominent proponents of vouchers, Moe has written books on the issue and penned this for EdWeek in 2000.

Other school choice advocates are Clint Bolick, the former leader of the Alliance for School Choice and a former vice president for the Institute for Justice, which helps defend school choice programs in court.

Giuliani, who's taken a hard line against illegal immigration along with many of his fellow Republicans, has put the controversial Herman Badillo on his team. My colleague who covers English-language learners, Mary Ann Zehr, wrote about him recently, for being a lightning rod in the Hispanic community as Bill Cosby is in the black community.

Another notable name made the cut: ex-U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige, who enraged the nation's largest teachers' union in 2004 by referring to the National Education Association as a "terrorist organization."

Giuliani also tapped several New Yorkers, including one of his former deputy mayors, Tony Coles, who championed the then-mayor's attempts to bring merit pay to some New York City teachers.

For more about Giuliani's education advisers, read The New York Sun story here.

And for even more about who's advising the candidates on education, check out my previous post here about former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, This Week in Education's compilation here, and some verbal warfare over U.S. Sen. Barack Obama's picks here and here.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Not only is Republican Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor, endearing himself to a growing mass of voters, but he's gaining the support of a subset of a politically powerful bunch: teachers.

Ex-Bushie, Hoover Institution fellow, and Fordham Foundation VP Michael J. Petrilli explores this phenomenon in a National Review piece.

Petrilli raises many good points, which have been echoed by the folks I've been talking to over the last few days for an upcoming story I'm working on about the presidential candidates who were, or are, governors. Democrats in Arkansas, who are the first to admit they don't see eye-to-eye with a lot of Huckabee's politics, seem to respect him for his education record. Specifically, they point to his support of tax increases early in his term to help resolve an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling declaring the state's school funding system unconstitutional. One state legislator, Sen. Jim Argue, a Democrat, even told me that that moment in Arkansas history in 2002 — when the state had to make big decisions about how to fund schools — reminded him of another pivotal moment in state history: the historic and turbulent integration of Little Rock's schools in 1957.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:23 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Today, two news stories caught my attention that remind me of a potentially powerful political force in education politics:

"Home-schoolers rally to Huckabee," Los Angeles Times; and

"Homeschooler elected to chair state board of education," The State (Columbia, S.C.)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In the last Republican presidential debate before the Jan. 3 Iowa caucuses, two of the candidates, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, argued about which had the better education record as his state's governor.

You can read a transcript of the debate here, and you'll see that education was a hot topic—from Congressman Ron Paul's assertion that the major education problem is that judges have driven God out of schools to former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani's repeated assertion that school choice will result in an education "revolution."

But back to the issue of who's the best governor on education...There are three candidates with gubernatorial experience in the field—besides former governors Huckabee and Romney, there's current New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat.

In reponse to a question today about education, Huckabee declared that he had the "most impressive education record." He certainly has one of the longest ones—having served from 1996-2007 in Arkansas' highest office, when he presided over tumultous debates about rural school consolidation and a school funding system that had been ruled unconstitutional by the Arkansas Supreme Court.

Romney retorted that he wasn't so sure that Huckabee should make that claim—and boasted of high test scores while he was governor in Massachusetts from 2003-2007.

Coincidentally, about that same time Romney was answering that question, I was talking to the president of the Massachusetts Teachers Association about Romney for an upcoming story I'm working on for Education Week about the education records of the governors-turned-presidential-candidates. And although MTA President Anne Wass is a fierce opponent of Romney—who provoked the teachers' unions at nearly every turn with talk of merit pay and possible budget cuts to some education programs—she made a worthy point. Massachusetts, a high-income, high socioeconomic status state, had high test scores before Romney took office, while Romney was in office, and continues to have high test scores now that he's left office. (By the way, in the debate, Romney said the unions have been the "biggest obstacle" to education reform.)

But the larger question is, how much credit may a governor take—or how much blame should he get—for falling or rising test scores?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:27 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Even the presidential candidate with one of the most comprehensive plans to re-tool the No Child Left Behind Act is now saying those fixes might not be enough.

At a campaign stop in Iowa Monday, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards spoke for about two minutes about NCLB, even going as far to say that the federal education law is really just an attempt by President Bush to privatize public schools. Edwards said that even with his proposals to amend NCLB, "it may be that this just can't be fixed." And if that's the case, then it's time to "ditch it," Edwards said. This is one of the first times we've heard another Democrat besides New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson talk about completely getting rid of NCLB. (Although in a new campaign ad, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton talks about ending the "unfunded mandate" of NCLB). The thing is, testing, accountability, and data-driven decision-making are here to stay—and many states were leading the charge on this before NCLB came along.

Listen to John Edwards:

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Last night’s Republican presidential debate in Miami, sponsored by the Spanish-language television broadcaster Univision, was aimed at addressing issues important to Hispanic voters, a key constituency in swing states such as Florida. The discussion yielded an all-too-rare question on how the candidates would improve K-12 education, and specifically, how they would address the dropout crisis, which is especially prevalent in the Hispanic community.

While none said anything new, or particularly surprising, the seven participating candidates at least provided a chance to compare their proposals–and see how comfortable they are talking about education issues.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, fresh off his endorsement from the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association (does support from a teachers' union help or hinder a Republican?), had a nice line, suggesting the federal government launch “weapons of mass instruction,” including enhanced art and music to help motivate students and stimulate their creativity.

“One of the reasons we have kids failing is not because they're dumb, it's [that] they're bored. They're bored with a curriculum that doesn't touch them,” Huckabee said.

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney reiterated his support for education positions near and dear to many Republicans, including accountability, performance pay, merit scholarships, and English immersion for English-language learners. And he touted his support for rigorous standards, citing his own state’s traditionally strong performance on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP).

And … once again, former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani used a debate as a platform to showcase his support for expanded school choice.

“We should empower [parents] by giving them the money, giving them scholarships, giving them vouchers, let them choose a public school, a private school, a parochial school, a charter school, homeschooling,” he said. “Let's give the power to the parents, rather than to the government bureaucrats. And we will turn around education within three years.”

As an education reporter interested in specifics, I’m wondering how long Giuliani can continue to talk about “choice” as a panacea for all the ills facing American education without offering any substantive details. If he’s really going to “turn around” education in “three years,” as he puts it, I’d like to know exactly how.

Would Giuliani push for a federal private school voucher program for low-income students in struggling schools, similar to the Promise Scholarships that President Bush proposed in his fiscal year 2008 budget request (which, incidentally, were immediately rejected by the Democratic Congress)? Would he establish a program to help districts establish their own choice programs? (also proposed by Bush, also Dead On Arrival with congressional Dems).

If Giuliani is serious about using the issue of school choice to bolster his conservative credentials, and appeal to constituencies that he says don’t traditionally back Republicans but support school choice, such as African-Americans and Hispanics, he’s gonna have to offer more than just rhetoric. He’s going to have to actually propose a plan – and preferably, explain how he’ll pay for it and sell it to a Democratically controlled Congress.

Or, at the very least, he’s going to have to say something else--anything else--about K-12 education. Otherwise, it might begin to look like he doesn't really understand the issues at play here, at least compared with his former-governor rivals (Romney and Huckabee) who can (and do) at least point to their records on education.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:28 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

While the topic of education may be taking a backseat to other important issues on the presidential campaign trail, it's getting some prominent attention in candidates' television ads. Here are a couple of the latest:

Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who recently got the endorsement of the New Hampshire affiliate of the National Education Association in this early-voting state, talks of a "new beginning" and bashes the No Child Left Behind Act as an "unfunded mandate" that's been "difficult for so many." The ad started running yesterday in Iowa and New Hampshire.

And in this one, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, who nabbed the Republican endorsement of the New Hampshire-NEA, talks about giving children a "better America." The ad features a screen-shot listing "better schools" and "higher test scores" (I'm guessing he's referring to results from his time as Arkansas governor). The ad started airing today in the early-voting states of Iowa, New Hampshire, and South Carolina.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:16 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

This dispatch comes from my colleague, Bess Keller, who covers the teacher beat, including the National Education Association:

Last summer I saw Mike Huckabee take the stage at the National Education Association’s annual meeting and asked myself: What kind of GOP presidential candidate bothers to join the NEA’s Parade of Hopefuls?

The nation’s largest union had invited both Democratic and Republican candidates to address the 7,000-plus delegates in Philadelphia, and, not surprisingly, given the NEA's links with the Democratic Party, all seven major Dems gave speeches. But Huckabee was the only Republican to accept.

Must be, I thought, desperate. Or goofy. And yet his speech was anything but. He managed to sound sincere and secure and to pluck strings almost guaranteed to win favorable responses from the educators, such as his push for more music and art in schools. He gave the impression of a guy who saw children in the round and the human face of schools, which teachers often think policymakers miss in their quest for higher test-scores.

Afterwards, when he met with reporters and was asked about the NEA no-no of pay for performance, he gave it a moderate endorsement. Such experiments were worth trying, he said. He also pointed out that all three of his children had attended public schools in Arkansas.

So I haven’t been completely surprised by Huckabee’s newfound popularity. But I was taken aback the other night, when my lifelong-Democrat, Brooklyn-born-and-raised husband turned over in bed and said he thought he might vote for the Arkansas pastor. He had heard Huckabee’s defense of granting in-state tuition to the children of immigrants. He murmured that it was the best political pronouncement he had heard in a long time and went peacefully back to sleep.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:30 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Despite some Republican success in courting Hispanic voters over the last decade, it appears that hard stances by a number of high-profile GOP politicians and presidential candidates on illegal immigration are, predictably, causing a big political U-turn.

That's according to a study released today by the Pew Hispanic Center, which finds that the percentage of Hispanics who say they're Republicans is at its lowest point since at least 1999 —at 23 percent. That's down from 28 percent in 2004 and 2006. That's good news for Democrats: 57 percent of Hispanic voters now say they're Democrats, up from 49 percent in 2006, but still shy of the 58 percent high in 1999.

Interestingly, only one in six Hispanic voters were aware that one of the presidential candidates—New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, a Democrat—is Hispanic.

The potential sway of Hispanic voters is not to be overlooked. They will make up about 9 percent of the voting population next year, when the country elects a new president. More than one-third of the country's estimated 45.5 million Latinos are school-age (under age 18).

Education and illegal immigration have intersected on the campaign trail. Most recently, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee has deflected criticism from fellow Republican presidential candidates on his support of a bill in Arkansas (which eventually failed) that would have granted academic scholarships to children of undocumented immigrants if they meet all other requirements.

Even though immigration is a top concern for Hispanic voters, it's not the top, according to the report.

Education is.

Update: Check out the Learning the Language blog for an interesting item from my colleague Mary Ann Zehr on U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, a Republican from Colorado, who is sitting out an upcoming debate. Why? El se opone a que le traduzcan sus comentarios al español.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:39 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

ED in ’08, the national campaign to bring education to the forefront of the presidential campaigns, has gotten some attention lately for struggling to make headway in its efforts to make improving public schools a top campaign issue. (Read the EdWeek story here, and blog items here and here.) Yesterday, in fact, I suggested that the group could take a more aggressive stand on education issues if it wanted to gain traction.

That may happen if a new documentary, produced by Broken Pencil Productions in partnership with ED in ’08, generates some serious attention.

The trailer for "Two Million Minutes," (below) is without doubt, provocative. It deliberately and effectively paints a picture of the prevailing stereotypes from two education worlds—one in the United States, and the other in Asia. According to the documentary, American students are getting passed by in the global race for admission to the best universities and the good jobs that follow. The film—or at least the trailer—has a certain Inconvenient Truth-iness about it, since it shares many of the same qualities as Al Gore's environmental documentary, which sounded alarm bells on global warming.

The movie purports to illustrate the problems facing the American education system, and its youth, through the stories of six high school students—two each from the United States, China, and India—whose futures will be shaped by the millions of minutes they spend in high school. The differences among these students are stark and will inevitably spark controversy. ED in '08 will sponsor screenings of the documentary around the country, beginning in January.

The two American students are from the affluent Indianapolis suburb of Carmel, Indiana. While 17-year-old Brittany Brechbuhl, who boasts a 3.9 GPA, talks of college in terms of joining a sorority, partying, and doing some “crazy” stuff, a peer in India describes American students as living a dream, with virtually “no studying.” While Brittany tries on sunglasses in her free time, 17-year-old Hu Xiaoyaun of China says she plays the violin, does her school work, and tries to never waste time.

In another scene, 17-year-old Rohit Sridharan of India describes how he could do math problems even when he was very young. Then, in an effort to question the rigor in American classrooms, viewers see a U.S. teacher giving a pop quiz to high school students. The quiz is on calculators, of all things.

The filmmakers are clearly making a point by drawing distinctions between the (perceived) high standards and serious attitudes that pervade the education systems of Asia with the (perceived) partying and carefree attitudes of sunglass-wearing students in American schools. The problems facing many American high schools are tremendous—high dropout rates, lackluster academic standards, and an achievement gap between minority and nonminority students. But it will interesting to see the entire movie, because my guess is that Brittany (who wants to be a doctor) has a serious side to her, while the students in India and China, like any teenagers, take time to have fun, too.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:06 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, who is enjoying a surge in popularity and support, is apparently not enjoying the continued questions about his faith—and this time, he was asked about teaching creationism in schools.

According to an Associated Press story, he "bristled" when asked whether the theory of creationism, or intelligent design, should be taught in public schools alongside evolution. He proclaimed the question "irrelevant." Huckabee, a Republican, said: "I'm happy to answer what I believe, but what I believe is not what's going to be taught in 50 different states."

What he believes, by the way, according to the AP story, is that the theory of intelligent design should be taught alongside evolution as part of a broad curriculum.

While Huckabee is right—that the 50 states aren't necessarily going to follow his views on what should be taught in public schools—questions about his beliefs on evolution aren't that irrelevant. As we've seen with Reading First, which my colleague Kathleen Kennedy Manzo has documented, a president's administration can clearly have an impact on how subjects are taught.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:44 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

My colleagues Erik W. Robelen and Alyson Klein detail the struggles of the ED in '08 campaign in this Edweek story published yesterday. The group, funded with about $15 million so far from the Gates and Broad foundations, is trying to make education a top issue in the presidential campaigns.

To be sure, ED in '08 has a laudable goal. But they seem to have trouble executing and refining their message, which must compete with significant issues on the federal landscape, such as the war in Iraq, the energy crisis, and health care. Even Kanye West, who did an ad for the campaign (see below), can't overcome those obstacles. It's unlikely that giving some money away will work either, which is what ED in '08 is doing in a sweepstakes that seems to have little to do with presidential politics but offers $50,000 in college scholarships—with winners selected at random. ED in '08 chairman and former Colorado Gov. Roy Romer, in a statement in October announcing the sweepstakes, said: "We need to raise the education bar, ask more of our students and encourage them to seek higher education." But a sweepstakes, with winners drawn at random, is a curious way to do that.

Perplexing, too, was Marc Lampkin's comment (he directs Strong American Schools, which runs the campaign) in the EdWeek story that "making [education] a top issue was not the end in itself." That seems to contradict what's on the ED in '08 Web site: "Our goal is to ensure that the nation engages in a rigorous debate and to make education a top priority in the 2008 presidential election."

Because ED in '08 is a nonprofit, federal rules dictate that it can't take a stand on specific legislation, or endorse candidates. But as Alexander Russo points out in a recent blog item, the group can go further to advocate its issues. But that could be the crux of the ED in '08 problem—it may be hard to raise the level of debate about education when you aren't taking a more aggressive stand.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:58 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

This was no Iowa caucus. Nor was it a New Hampshire primary. But if the votes of 710 social studies teachers counted, there would be no need for such politicking. The presidential finalists would be:

Republican Fred Thompson and Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Those are the results of a "presidential primary" sponsored by Pearson, an education publishing company, at the annual meeting late last week in San Deigo of the National Council on the Social Studies. The 710 voting teachers had to pick a party, then got to vote for one candidate. The results showed that if social studies teachers—who are partly responsible for teaching the values of democracy and citizenship to students—are any gauge, the Republican primary field is wide open. Thompson, a former U.S. senator from Tennessee, got 23.2 percent of the vote. Former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani got 20.5 percent, and rising-star Mike Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, edged out close rival Mitt Romney, a former governor of Massachusetts, with 18.9 percent of the vote to Romney's 16.3 percent.

The Democratic vote showed more of a two-candidate race. Clinton, a U.S. senator from New York, got 41.9 percent of the vote to 34 percent for U.S. Rep. Barack Obama of Illinois. The next closest was former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards, with 12.3 percent of the vote.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:12 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Over the weekend, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney named his education advisory committee. You can see the entire list here, but the 22-member committee is clearly a who's who of GOP education policy wonks, with a healthy mix of federal and state policy experts. Thanks to my colleagues on the federal beat, David Hoff and Alyson Klein, for helping me hit on the highlights:

—Nina S. Rees is a new Romney convert. The former Bush-Cheney adviser originally was advising Republican presidential competitor and former New York City Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani, but has now joined Romney's camp as its education co-chair.

—The three other co-chairs are Paul E. Peterson, a government professor at Harvard University and the director of the program on education policy and governance at the university's John F. Kennedy School of Government, plus U.S. Rep. Howard "Buck" McKeon of California, who is the senior Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee, and U.S. Sen. Wayne Allard of Colorado.

—At least two of the committee members were big-wigs in Florida education policy. John Winn was the state's education commissioner under then-Gov. Jeb Bush from 2004-2007, while Mary Laura Bragg helped implement one of Jeb Bush's hallmark literacy programs, Just Read! Florida.

—William D. Hansen also made the list. He's a former deputy U.S. secretary of education who now works with Rod Paige, a former first-term education secretary under President Bush, and whose implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act has been criticized. Paige founded the Chartwell Education Group consulting firm, of which Hansen is a director.

—Romney tapped several Massachusetts education policy wonks. James A. Peyser, who is now a partner with the NewSchools Venture Fund of California (which has raised $100 million to help start new charter schools), was a Romney education adviser in Massachusetts, along with Robert M. Costrell, now an education reform and economics professor at the University of Arkansas.

—Eugene W. Hickok, who works for the lobbying firm Dutko Worldwide, is on Romney's committee as well. The former Pennsylvania secretary of education and a former No. 2 official in the federal Department of Education under President Bush in March paid $50,000 to settle possible conflict-of-interest charges over stock he owned in a bank that participated in the federal student-loan program.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:56 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend