February 2008 Archives

Washingtonpost.com's Chris Cillizza says that Mark Warner, a Democrat and the former governor of Virginia, is all but assured of capturing the Senate seat made vacant by the retirement of Sen. John Warner, a Republican who is not related to the former gov. According to Cillizza and others, Warner isn't expected to get much of a challenge from former Gov. Jim Gilmore, his likely Republican opponent.

That means high school overhaul may be gaining a vocal new champion in the Senate. In 2005, then Gov. Warner made the issue a centerpiece of his tenure as chairman of the Washington-based National Governors Association. Read all about his agenda in that role here.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:25 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Good stuff you—or I!—might have missed this week:

Sen. Hillary Clinton has a new plan to cut child poverty in half by 2020 by boosting benefit levels for food stamps, making the free school breakfast program universal in all low-income communities, and creating a $1 billion "child opportunity" fund to find innovative solutions. A noble goal, and I say good luck because this is a significant barrier to education. When I was at the just-concluded winter meeting of the National Governors Association, Pedro Noguera, the executive director of the Metropolitan Center for Urban Education in New York City, said the single biggest thing that all low-performing schools have in common is a high concentration of poverty.

My colleagues David Hoff and Alyson Klein examine the Democratic candidates' education positions with a fine-tooth comb. Be sure to read to the end, to the insightful comments left by some EdWeek readers.

Sen. John McCain has a giant NEA target on his back, union watchdog Mike Antonucci details.

And read about Michelle Obama's take on No Child Left Behind (kids are being "tested to death") and raising kids while helping her husband run for president (kids are No. 1).

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

...otherwise known as the National Governors' Association just-concluded winter meeting, which I staffed in hopes of getting a good story about initiatives underway by governors to improve public schools.

Instead, I wrote this story for EdWeek: "Education Gets Short Shrift at Governors' Winter Meeting."

So, what's on the governors' minds? Other really important things, like health care, the "real ID" federal identification mandate, the federal economic stimulus package and clean, affordable energy. And then, of course, attendees and the governors at this Washington D.C. conference talked about who's endorsing whom for president and whether any of these heads-of-state might get picked as a vice presidential running mate.

Any hopes I had that education would emerge as a top-tier issue on the presidential scene were dashed. After all, if the governors aren't talking about schools—and about half of their state budgets go for K-12 and higher education—then who will?

Even the only meeting of the education committee on Sunday was sparsely attended by the governors. Of the 14 governors on the committee (and nearly all were in attendance at the overall meeting) only six sat through most of the two-hour session on turning around low performing schools. Props go to: Republican Gov. Donald L. Carcieri of Rhode Island (the committee chairman); Democrat Gov. Brad Henry of Oklahoma; Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter, a Democrat; Connecticut Gov. Jodi Rell, a Republican; Maine Gov. John Baldacci, a Democrat, and Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, a Democrat.

Missing-in-action for most or all of the meeting were: Alabama Gov. Bob Riley, a Republican; Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels, a Republican; Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat; and Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, also a Democrat. Idaho Gov. "Butch" Otter, a Republican, didn't attend the meeting at all because he's recovering from surgery. Also on the committee (and not attending all or most of it) were the governors of American Samoa, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:14 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

During the much-balley-hooed interview with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel about vouchers, Sen. Barack Obama expressed concern that there had been no long-range study of the city's voucher program.

Well, now there is, or at least the beginning of one.

Though the results are preliminary, there are some interesting tidbits in the University of Arkansas study (the first year of a planned five-year study), which you can check out for yourself. The summary is here, or a complete menu of options here.

First, vouchers haven't made a huge difference in student performance, and in fact, results are mixed as to whether voucher students perform better on standardized tests—but it's early, the researchers emphasize. The report is based on 2006-07 data, and this will serve as the baseline for comparing future years.

Second, parents in both the traditional schools and vouchers schools have high levels of satisfaction with their schools. And third, voucher schools don't appear to be skimming the best students off the top.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:54 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Yesterday's Washington Post explored the flip-flopping going on with Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. The Post id'd its top five flip flops for each candidate.

And what was No. 2 for Clinton?

Her position on No Child Left Behind.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 7:47 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., is now the frontrunner in the Democratic presidential race, both in delegates and in the popular vote. So it's well with taking a look at his team of education advisers ... these folks could well end up staffing the U.S. Department of Education under an Obama administration. We've been able to track down a partial list of campaign advisers and are hoping to add more in coming days and weeks.

But a preliminary look at some of the campaign advisers shows a mix of state policymakers, academics, researchers..and luckily, for Campaign K-12 readers, a sizeable contigent of Education Week commentary authors.

Here's a list of the folks on Team Obama, with links to some of the commentaries they've written on subjects ranging from teacher quality to international education...

Dr. Donald Stewart, former president of the College Board and former president of Spellman College. During his tenure the College Board, a New York City based non-profit organization, the board revamped its widely used SAT college-entrance exam, adjusted, or "recentered," the scoring of the test, expanded the Advanced Placement program to more than half the nation's high schools, and pushed initiatives to better prepare minority students for college, according to the Edweek archives. He wrote a commentary piece on standards and accountability, published in Ed Week back in 1994.

Dr. Fernando Reimers, Professor of International Education, Harvard University.
You can check out his views on why the United States should support the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization, the Paris-based body of the United Nations that promotes international cooperation in education, science, and culture, here.

Inez Tenenbaum, former state superintendent of South Carolina, who lost a 2004 Senate bid to now Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C.

Jeanne Century, director for Science Education and Research and Evaluation in the Center for Elementary Math and Science Education in Chicago. She wrote an interesting commentary piece last year comparing education reform to baseball. It’s worth taking a look at how she thinks policymakers should approach making changes in education.

Jonathan Crane, research director of the Coalition for Evidence Based Policy in Washington DC.

Linda Darling-Hammond, an education professor at Stanford University, who wrote about her “Marshall Plan” for teaching last year.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 3:21 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

If education voters were hoping that last night's Democratic debate on CNN might give Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York and Barack Obama of Illinois a chance to hash out their views on school choice, teacher pay, or any other hot button education issue ... they were sorely disappointed.

There wasn't a single question on education in the second-to-last scheduled debate between the two remaining Democratic contenders. Still, Obama did use one question as an opportunity to express his support for bilingual education - an issue that's likely to be important to the sizeable number of Hispanic voters who will be key to winning March 4 primary in Texas. And Obama managed to get in another dig on the No Child Left Behind Act, saying that the law's narrow focus on reading and math has edged out foriegn languages, and that he would "put more resources" into language study.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:21 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Inquiring minds in Ohio want to know: Is Obama open to vouchers, or isn't he?

That's the gist of this letter the Ohio Federation of Teachers sent to Sen. Barack Obama's campaign this week after the Illinois Democrat recently told newspaper reporters in Milwaukee that he might reconsider his opposition to vouchers if there's research to back it up, and if vouchers are what's best for kids.

The letter, signed by the OFT and the local unions representing teachers in Cleveland, Toledo, and Cincinnati, points out that Sen. Obama didn't seem nearly as open to vouchers in his responses to an earlier survey by its parent union, the American Federation of Teachers. So the teachers want to know where he really stands. (The union hasn't gotten an answer yet.)

Obama's campaign has tried to calm the flames, sending this statement to Education Week that maintains he is, and always will be, against vouchers.

Obama has already lost the AFT's endorsement to his rival, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. Still, it's worth emphasizing that these are Ohio teachers wanting answers. And, the Ohio union says many of the members are in fact, undecided. And many of them will be voting in the pivotal March 4 primary that could further determine the fate of the two candidates.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:26 PM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

Barack Obama dared to declare that he might be open to vouchers if there's evidence to back up this controversial education reform effort and, more importantly, if it's what's "best for kids."

Imagine that—a presidential hopeful being in favor of a program if there's research to support it, and if it helps kids!

Well, now the Obama campaign is in damage-control mode because vouchers are one of the most polarizing issues in education reform, and fiercely opposed by the teachers' unions. After all, the National Education Association's endorsement is still up for grabs.

Obama's campaign sent Education Week this statement, offering a different interpretation of Obama's interview last week with the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. According to the campaign, Obama "repeated his longstanding opposition to vouchers." Not quite. What Obama did was give a six-minute, thoughtful response indicating he was a skeptic of vouchers, but that he might change his mind if there was research to back it up.

That's anything but a ringing endorsement of vouchers. But it stands in stark contrast to his Democratic rival Hillary Clinton's not-under-any-circumstances opposition to vouchers, which she claims could be used to fund training grounds for "jihad."

What's more at issue is how Obama's response has been portrayed in the media and blogsphere. Joe Williams of Democrats for Education Reform called this a Holy Sh*t moment. I thought it was an "eyebrow raising" moment, since Obama's in a tough race for the nomination and dared to use the "V" word.

But on the flip side, there are those who think Obama's statements weren't that big of a deal. Union watchdog Mike Antonucci made the good point that Obama was speaking to reporters in a city with a voucher program, in a state where he needed to win. (And Obama did win the Wisconsin primary last night.) Alexander Russo said he's heard Obama's take on vouchers before. And the Core Knowledge Blog is a skeptic as well.

The Obama campaign maintains that the news reports have been "misleading." However, perhaps what the campaign should be doing is emphasizing Obama's statement that he would do "what's best for kids" if the research supports it, regardless of any "preconceptions" he might have. Isn't that what we would like our candidates to say?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:53 AM | Permalink | 4 Comments | Recommend

My colleague, David Hoff, devotes a fair amount of space in Education Week to unearthing as much as he can about Sen. John McCain's views on education.

It's becoming a more difficult task since the campaign office of the Republican frontrunner won't return phone calls.

Not to Hoff.

Not to me.

Not to The Arizona Republic, which wanted to know his specific views on the No Child Left Behind Act.

So, I think this quote from Hoff's story says it all:

“I don’t think he has a strong track record of putting education at the top of his priorities,” said Frank Davidson, the superintendent of the 8,000-student Casa Grande Elementary School District in Casa Grande, Ariz.

While Hoff's story notes that a federal hands-off approach may be appealing to some education advocates, it would still be nice if Sen. McCain would offer some more detailed insight into his views on NCLB. Like it or not, if elected, Sen. McCain would have to deal with the law.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:53 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

That's the question I started thinking about given the flap over Sen. Barack Obama's "plagiarism" of some lines from a speech of Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, a big-time Obama supporter.

I'm in grad school now, and as a student, plagiarism (or the borrowing of another's work and claiming it as one's own) is strictly prohibited. Even unintentional plagiarism is grounds for course failure or even expulsion from school. Simply put, as a student, you're supposed to cite from where you get your information—even if you get "permission" from the original source, as Obama said he did. I suspect the same is true in high school, and at any grade, for that matter.

(UPDATE: Dave, a school administrator and a great Ohio blogger, reports in the comment section of his blog item on this subject that if a student did what Obama did, he would be disciplined—as would the student who knowingly gave his work to another student.)

Clearly, politics is different. And originality is difficult to find in political rhetoric. Obama points out that his chief rival, Sen. Hillary Clinton, borrows some of his signature phrases, such as "turning the page." Still, I'd say politicians are not role models for how you should—and should not—attribute information.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:32 AM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Got a minute? Take a spin through these campaign-related posts and tidbits from this week:

The Hoff digs up some good information on John McCain. Perhaps I will have to change the the "Incomplete" grade I gave the Republican senator from Arizona.

Joe Williams offers a thoughtful analysis of Obama's openness to school vouchers.

Advocacy group Pre-K Now wants "Sam" to go to school, so they've launched a national campaign dubbed "No School for Sam" urging the presidential candidates to make universal pre-k a national priority. That's a far easier sell to Democrats than to Republicans.

An Eduwonk guestblogger wants his ED in '08 T-shirt. Perhaps ED will send him one?

Speaking of ED, Roy Romer makes the case that good schools=strong economy. But does presidential involvement=good schools?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:01 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Yesterday, I asked if Democrat Barack Obama would stand up to teachers' unions and embrace policies that they would oppose.

Well, it seems he's doing just that.

In an eyebrow-raising statement to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the Illinois senator said he's a skeptic of vouchers, but that he might be open to them if studies show that's "what's best for kids." (UPDATE: Watch the video here.)

The entire passage is worth repeating, since even an "openness" toward vouchers is a major departure for a Democratic presidential candidate:

Obama said he has been a strong supporter of charter schools "as a way to foster competition in the public school system."

He pronounced himself a skeptic of private school vouchers, saying: "My view is you're not going to generate the supply of high-quality schools to meet the demand."

Obama said he was surprised to learn from Gov. Jim Doyle that "there was no assessment process" for the Milwaukee program but indicated he might be open to supporting voucher programs if studies show they work.

"If there was any argument for vouchers, it was 'Let's see if the experiment works,' " Obama said. "And if it does, whatever my preconception, you do what's best for kids."

I'm sure that as you read this, the folks at the pro-voucher Friedman Foundation and the Alliance for School Choice are assembling a binder full of studies to send Obama.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:52 PM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

If you could grade the presidential candidates on their education platforms, what would you give them?

Newsweek magazine did just that after getting the opinions of Education Sector's Thomas Toch and the Center for Education Reform's Jeanne Allen.

Former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, a Republican, fares the worst, earning a D+ in part because Arkansas' academic benchmarks are "the pits," according to Toch.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, a Democrat, earns a B- despite "currying favor" with the teachers' unions (in Allen's words), although Toch predicts she may embrace the idea of merit pay for teachers if she becomes the nominee.

Sens. Barack Obama of Illinois and John McCain of Arizona tie for best grades, with each getting a B+. Obama, a Democrat, gets points for being "well intentioned" and talking about merit pay.

McCain, a Republican, gets high marks for his pro-charter school and pro-private school voucher stances. But Toch asks an important question regarding McCain's mention of improving high school graduation rates: "How exactly do you do that?"

Perhaps a more appropriate grade for McCain would be an "I" for incomplete. He's the candidate who has said the least, so far, about education.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:39 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

That's essentially the question The Politico asked of Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, in this interview posted last night.

The question came about when the interviewer remarked that Republican frontrunner John McCain has often bucked his own party (on issues such as immigration) and has the battle scars to prove it. So, The Politico reporter asked, will Sen. Obama be willing to stand up to his own party?

Obama says yes, and he offers education to prove his point. In the interview, the Illinois senator professes his support for charter schools and "looking at how we can reward excellence in the classroom" (which sounds a lot like merit pay, an issue the teachers' unions oppose.) He admits that the unions haven't been "thrilled" that he's talked about such issues. He says: "I’m not going to be bound by just a certain way of talking about these things, in order for us to move forward on behalf of our kids."

That's not exactly music to the National Education Association's ears. But then again, what remains to be seen is if Sen. Obama would be willing to put the full weight of his candidacy (or presidency), and the momentum and excitement that may accompany him, behind such thorny issues.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:34 AM | Permalink | 4 Comments | Recommend

Ex-Bushie and Fordham Foundation VP Michael Petrilli has made me feel a little bit better about Arizona Sen. John McCain's fast-track pace to the Republican nomination.

To be sure, I'm not worried about a McCain nomination because of his politics, but from a pure education-blogging perspective. As Petrilli notes in his latest article for the National Review, McCain has "zero interest in education," which will make the jobs of edubloggers (and ED in '08) that much more difficult.

However, Petrilli notes that perhaps McCain will delegate the job of education policy to an education secretary who actually has a flair and passion for talking about curriculum, students, and teachers. Mike Huckabee, anyone?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:22 AM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Can't get enough interesting tidbits on the presidential candidates? Then keep reading:

The questions blogger Jim Horn would really like to ask in debates, at the Education Policy Blog.

Baltimore Sun education reporter Sara Neufeld joins the long, long list of people lamenting the state of education in the campaign.

And check out a couple of good posts on specific candidates.

Update: Don't miss Mike Antonucci's post on Hillary Clinton's inconsistent stand on No Child Left Behind.

On Sen. Barack Obama, Alexander Russo picks apart the Illinois Democrat's work in 1999 as a state senator on legislation regarding Chicago principal hirings-and-firings that's still controversial.

And Swift & Change Able ponders Obama's themes of "transparency" and inclusive policy-making and how those fit into his specific proposals for NCLB.

Eduwonk asks, and answers: Will all the Republican education policy wonks flock to John McCain? Of course they will!

Speaking of Sen. McCain, my favorite Ohio blogger and school administrator recounts Day One of the McCain campaign.

Meanwhile, my colleague, David Hoff, who waxes poetic on NCLB, examines the Bill Clinton factor.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, a Republican who had assembled a who's who list of education advisers and one of the more detailed education agendas of the GOP presidential candidates, is calling it quits.

Now who in the presidential race will say nice things about No Child Left Behind?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:55 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Lost in the Super Tuesday hoopla was the fact that California voters agreed to expand tribal gambling in their state by adding 17,000 slot machines to further tempt people. The proceeds will go to help prop up the state budget. Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who supported and helped broker the gambling deal with the legislature last year, even appeared in television ads (included below) with state superintendent of public instruction Jack O'Connell. (And those two don't always see eye to eye). The message? More slot machines=more money for schools.

This isn't just a California issue. In Illinois, the state is considering legalizing a land-based casino in Chicago and expanding its riverboat casinos to provide money for schools.

In Nevada, the state teachers' union is campaigning to put a question on the November ballot that would increase taxes on Las Vegas casinos to raise more money for teacher salaries schools.

Maryland is considering legalizing slot machines in racetracks to help shore up its budget (which includes K-12 education).

What's more, states and politicians such as those in California are using schools to sell the notion of gambling. Some states, such as North and South Carolina, call their lotteries the "Education Lottery." In fact, The North Carolina Education Lottery is catching heat this month for filming an ad featuring 15 children, who are black and white, in a prekindergarten program. One legislator is accusing the lottery of exploiting black children to sell more lottery tickets. You can read more about this here.

Lotteries, slot machines, and casinos are seen as easy ways for states to make some extra money—considerably easier than raising taxes. Gambling revenue is more volatile than say, a property tax—often ebbing and flowing with the peaks and valleys of the economy. Lotteries are particularly expensive to run. So states may tread into a danger zone when they start relying on the unpredictable world of gambling to fulfill fundamental government responsibilities, like educating children.

Are states this desperate for cash?

Apparently, yes.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:00 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

In the wake of the Super Tuesday results, which showed no clear favorite among Democrats, the 3.2-million member National Education Association wants to remind Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that the union's endorsement is still up for grabs.

With that endorsement comes access to hundreds of thousands of NEA volunteers, who could prove crucial in the political ground game.

In a press release issued this morning, NEA President Reg Weaver said neither Obama nor Clinton has made the case that would earn them the association’s recommendation. “There have been dozens of debates but less than a handful of questions about the future role of the federal government in public education,” says Weaver.

He continued: "If they haven’t made education a central part of their campaigns, how can we feel confident that they will make education a central part of their administration?”

Perhaps the NEA should be doing more to support the efforts of ED in '08, whose goal is precisely that: to make education a central part of presidential campaigns.

The NEA has probably heard enough about the Democrats' education ideas, but is hedging its bets for fear of endorsing a losing candidate. Or maybe the NEA is as divided as the rest of the Democratic Party.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:51 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

No matter what you think of the presidential candidates, you have to respect the enthusiasm that the tight Democratic and Republican contests have sparked, which played out in results from the Super Tuesday primaries.

The youth vote is proving crucial, particularly in the Democratic primaries, where voters have the opportunity to elect either the first woman or African-American to the White House. Exit polls from the primary states that voted yesterday show just how involved young people are.

In Georgia, for example, 11 percent of young people ages 18-29 voted in 2004. This year: 18 percent.

In Tennessee, 7 percent in that age group voted in 2004. This year: nearly double, or 13 percent.

In Massachusetts, 9 percent voted in 2004. This year: 14 percent.

The day of the American University rally in which Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama, an early version of a Washington Post story noted:

The stamp of approval from much of the Democratic Party's most legendary political family was significant even to the many young people in the crowd, including Rachel Haas, Wynne Anderson and Casey Thevenot, 17-year-old students at Walt Whitman High School in Bethesda, Md., who walked out of class at 9 a.m. to come to the rally.

While skipping class isn't unusual, skipping class for politics is another story. And even a civics teacher might appreciate that.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 6:00 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton is perhaps the only presidential candidate who talks about special education on the campaign trail—and that's probably a wise move, since about 6.8 million children in the United States have disabilities. That represents about 12 percent of students nationwide—a not-to-be-overlooked proportion of American families.

Last night, during Clinton's national town hall meeting broadcast on the Hallmark Channel and online, the first question she fielded was on education.

She used this as an opportunity to bash the No Child Left Behind Act as an unfunded federal mandate that has resulted in schools full of "little test-takers" and "test givers."

But she also reiterated her support for fully funding the federal portion of special education. She correctly said that the federal government pays about 17 percent of special education costs, when the original funding goal was set at 40 percent back when the nation's special education law was passed in 1975.

Funding special education doesn't end there, either. Clinton should also take a look at looming Medicaid cuts from the Bush administration that threaten some of the services—such as speech therapy—for which schools currently are reimbursed.

Special education is one of the most complex, important parts of the K-12 system—and you can read more about it at edweek.org's new blog, On Special Education, by fellow reporter Christina Samuels.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:34 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley and longtime state Education Czar Nancy Grasmick look like they're about to sign a peace treaty between two warring countries.

Almost.

These two arch enemies are now pretending to be friends after the Democratic governor backed down Monday from his demands for legislation that he get to appoint his own education superintendent. If you'll remember, he was all riled up that the state board of education renewed her contract over his opposition.

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

Unless Mitt Romney can pull off a N.Y. Giants-esque upset on Super Tuesday, Republican John McCain seems destined to claim the Republican presidential nomination.

And so I went searching again for more insight into how Sen. McCain might change the No Child Left Behind Act. On his Web site, you can find a little bit about his education ideas, including a video where he extols the benefits of school choice. But I'm still left wanting to know more about what specific changes he'd like to make to President Bush's signature education law.

Perhaps most telling, in March 2007, the senator's hometown newspaper, the Arizona Republic, did a story on the state Congressional delegation's views on NCLB and McCain did not respond to "repeated requests for comment."

In 2005, McCain told CNN's Larry King the act was a "major milestone."

A campaign spokesman told The Hill last year that McCain generally supports NCLB, but would like more emphasis on math and science. The spokesman then said that McCain could withhold support for renewing the law depending on what's in the bill. Thanks -- that helps a lot.

According to this National Education Association account of a town hall meeting in New Hampshire last year, Sen. McCain advocated for more flexibility in measuring progress in students with disabilities and English-language learners.

What I've found in various news stories and speech transcripts is that Sen. McCain feels NCLB is a great start. Well, then, where does he think the law needs to go from here?

(UPDATE: A colleague reminded me of the EdWeek story we did back in 2000, which might shed some more light on this topic.)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:05 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

ED in '08 is back in the news again, and this time, the Washington Post is assessing the group's effectiveness at making education a top-tier presidential campaign issue in a story today.

The story calls attention to ED in '08's split from the country's largest teachers' union in endorsing some form of performance pay for teachers.

The biggest "ouch" factor is at the end of the story. John I. Wilson, the National Education Association's executive director, says:

"They have a nice slogan. They have nice bumper stickers and pins. They try to get their logo in pictures. But it just hasn't risen to the level of a $60 million campaign."

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:43 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

That's Bill Clinton, not Hillary.

In this story, the former president is blaming Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy, one of the architects of the No Child Left Behind Act, for the "train wreck" that he says the law has become.

Hmmmm. Could this be President Clinton's payback for Sen. Kennedy's endorsement of Hillary Clinton's chief opponent, Barack Obama?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:21 PM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

Did you catch last night's relatively tame debate between Democratic presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama on CNN? Education got only a passing mention.

However, as I listened to the two candidates, it occurred to me that perhaps the single most important thing that the next president can do for schools has little to do with education, at least on its face.

And that's reforming health care.

I argue this for two reasons. First, there were 8.7 million uninsured children in the U.S. in 2006, according to the latest Census data. That's enough students to fill about 350,000 classrooms. And we all know that healthier kids make better students.

And second, and perhaps more important to schools as a whole, health care costs for teachers and retirees are eating up a tremendous part of school districts' budgets. In California alone, school districts spend more than $279 million a year just on health care for retirees—and that doesn't even count current teachers. What's more, that figure only covers 475 of the 1,036 districts surveyed by a California commission studying the issue.

Los Angeles Unified spends $211 million a year just on health care for its retired teachers, which is 4 percent of the payroll. That's enough money to give each of its 768 schools an additional $274,379 for programs. And imagine what LA Unified's health care tab is when you add in current teachers!

This isn't just a California issue.

A study by Kentucky's Prichard Committee, a citizen's advocacy group, found that school districts were expecting to spend $484.2 million on health care this year, up from $160 million in 1992 (and that figure is adjusted for inflation). What's more telling: 83 percent of the growth in state spending on education from 1992-2004 was eaten up by health care and retirement benefits.

School finance lawsuits have been waged across the country, including in Kentucky, to win more money for schools, and many of those lawsuits have been victorious. But these health care numbers tell me that the fight shouldn't just be about more money for schools. Because right now, that "more money" seems to be funneled into benefits payments, including health care.

For more on the candidates' health care proposals, read Obama's plan here, and Clinton's here. On the GOP side, check out John McCain's plan here, Mitt Romney's here, and Mike Huckabee's here.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:25 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend