March 2008 Archives

Perhaps John McCain is finally ready to start talking about education—on his own terms.

In his big get-to-know-me speech as part of a nationwide biographical tour, the GOP nominee brought up education without being asked. And that's remarkable for a candidate who seems to talk about education only when he has to.

In his speech in Meridian, Miss., McCain talks for a good while about government's role in children's lives, and says this about education:

Government can't just throw money at public education while reinforcing the failures of many of our schools, but should, through choice and competition, by rewarding good teachers and holding bad teachers accountable, help parents prepare their children for the challenges and opportunities of the global economy.

These certainly aren't new ideas. But the bits and pieces we've been able to dig up about Sen. McCain's education views have come from You Tube videos from town hall meetings, or from debate transcripts when he's asked a question about the topic. Here, he's highlighting children's issues and education in a major speech—without being prompted.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:01 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

While the next president will play a key role in figuring out the future of the No Child Left Behind Act, the membership (and leadership) of the two education committees in Congress - the House Education and Labor Committee and the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee - is also going to be very important to reauthorization. And it looks like there's going to be some interesting match-ups this year for voters concerned about education.

In the House, just on the Democratic side, 28 members were elected to Congress this year by a margin of less than 55 percent, according to Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball. And five of them are on the House Education and Labor Committee: Rep. Joe Courtney of Connecticut, Rep. John Yarmuth of Kentucky, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter of New Hampshire, Rep. Dave Loebsack of Iowa and Rep. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania.

Also, teacher-turned-congressman Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota just barely won his race. (Rumor has it Walz sought a seat on the education committee this year, but didn't get it. He might have better luck in 2009).

Judging from my observations at the many, many, marathon committee hearings on NCLB this year, these five vulnerable panel members are fairly engaged on the school improvement law. And it appears that their presence (and that of other freshman) on the committee has already had an impact. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, proposed new flexibilities in a draft NCLB bill released in August, including a local-assessment pilot project championed by Yarmuth.

But it remains to be seen whether that dynamic will continue and what kind of support these folks get from Democratic-leaning education voters in their districts (i.e. unions and folks more along the lines of Democrats for Education Reform).

Over the next couple of months, we'll be monitoring these races and will let you know how NCLB is playing out in these districts, who these Democrats are getting support from, and what (if anything) their opponents have to say about the law.

And we'll look at Who's Vulnerable over on the Republican side of the aisle and in the Senate.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:12 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

There's something to be said for starting with a blank page.

But the Department of Education is taking this to new levels and violating the spirit, or perhaps even the letter, of the federal Freedom of Information Act. This law is supposed to ensure that government business (which is funded by you, the taxpayer) is conducted out in the open. There are exceptions, of course, for things like national security and records on juveniles, for example.

For background, read Kathleen Kennedy Manzo's recent story about her fruitless (so far) quest to get public information out of the Ed Department about a new panel that's supposed to examine reading research. As part of her coverage of reading issues, Manzo asked for e-mail records in search of more insight into the Commission on Reading Research—such as what kind of expertise this panel would have, what the purpose of it is, etc. Reading has been a hot topic for the Ed Department. If you'll remember, President Bush's flagship reading program, Reading First, was at the center of one of the biggest education scandals of his administration.

The records Manzo got in response to her request were laughable. Here's a sample of some of the e-mails I had scanned in so you could see for yourself. Lots of salutations and "have a great weekend" but absolutely nothing of substance about the reading commission was contained in dozens of pages turned over to EdWeek. And these examples contain more words than many of the pages, which were turned over completely blank.

Manzo told me today that's she's filing an administrative appeal with the agency.

It's not like this is a first for the Bush administration.

Here, Manzo details the plight of a foundation wanting records on the Reading First program. And this September 2004 report on behalf of Democrats to the House Committee on Government Reform details how the Bush administration reversed the Clinton administration's presumption that all records should be disclosed if possible. (Advance to page 14 of the file to read more about this.)

Making sure the public's business is done in public is an issue that transcends education. Manzo's story illustrates how it's not just about what kind of education policies the presidential candidates stand for, but also how they would run the bureaucracy of the education department.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:44 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a daring guy who jumped out in support of John McCain when practically everyone else had counted the Senator out, is boosting his education creds.

Pawlenty is the new chairman of the Denver-based Education Commission of the States. He follows Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius, a Democrat.

Pawlenty, who is also chairman of the National Governors Association, has been suggested as a VP pick for McCain, who could certainly use a running mate who believes education belongs on the national agenda.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:59 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

....who would it vote for?

Turns out, that's not such an absurd question, because ED in '08 chairman Roy Romer is a superdelegate.

Although ED in '08 has struggled to raise the level of dialogue about education, it may have some leverage since Romer, a former Democratic national chairman, is a superdelegate who hasn't committed to either Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. In such a tight race, both candidates are scrambling to boost their delegate tally, and are vying for votes from each state's "superdelegates."

Interestingly, ED in '08 makes the point over and over again that it's a nonpartisan advocacy group, yet Romer finds himself in the unlikely situation—as all superdelegates do—of potentially having significant input on the outcome of the Democratic primary. And this USA Today blog item makes the case that Romer, who was a supporter of Bill Clinton's presidential campaigns, may be an Obama supporter.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:07 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

The AFL-CIO—a traditional Democratic ally—hasn't decided who to campaign for. Leaders are reportedly torn between Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

But, they know exactly who they want to campaign against: presumptive Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona.

As the Democratic primary battle wages on, the union is helping the Democrats make their general case against McCain by distributing information to their members on a range of issues, from the economy to health-care to yes ... education. And its materials are targeted. For instance, members of the American Federation of Teachers (which has endorsed Clinton) will get information on McCain's education views.

And in this more general brochure, "John McCain Revealed", the union takes McCain to task for opposing $1.6 billion in school constructing funding back in 2002. Also, in a section stating that McCain "doesn't like unions," the AFL-CIO cited the senator's criticism of teachers' unions.

The brochure also cited this New York Times article, from February 2002, in which McCain said:

It’s time to break the grip of the education monopoly that serves the union bosses at the expense of our children.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:38 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

It's already starting! Al Franken, who is challenging Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, for his Senate seat in the swing state of Minnesota, showed up on David Letterman on Tuesday night ... and bashed No Child Left Behind! On late night TV! Shockingly, Letterman wasn't nearly as excited as I was .... he seemed only slightly more amused than Jon Stewart did when Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings brought up "growth models" during her appearance on the Daily Show last year.

Franken was much wonkier (and not nearly as entertaining) as a senate candidate than as a comedian. I think he's trying to show his serious side. Still, it does look like education is going to be a central part of his campaign - and, hopefully, Coleman's. Franken's even got an ad featuring his fourth-grade teacher, which he played during the show.

We've already written about the differences between Franken and Coleman on the NCLB law. Franken brought up many concerns folks on the left (and some on the right) have already voiced about NCLB, namely that it narrows curriculum and forces to teachers to "teach to the test." Even though such criticisms are nothing new for those of us who closely follow federal education policy, it's good to see these issues talked about outside of a congressional hearing room or National School Boards Association conference - particularly since there's been so little discussion of them in the presidential campaign.

It's probably too much to hope that Coleman will show up Leno next week, talking about voluntary national standards and tests...right?

UPDATE: You can watch most of Franken's appearence on Youtube here, but unfortunately, the clip doesn't include the full segment with his NCLB remarks. We're still searching for a full video clip.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:41 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., yesterday released a statement that amounted to a back-handed compliment of the U.S. Department of Education's plan to allow up to 10 states to use "differentiated consequences" in implementing the No Child Left Behind Act.

"While a small pilot, this is a long overdue step in the right direction. By allowing states to differentiate between schools that need modest improvements and those that are chronically failing, this pilot will provide some much-needed flexibility," Clinton said in the March 18 statement. "This step, however, should be just the beginning. No Child Left Behind is a failed policy that needs fundamental overhaul - not tinkering around the edges."

There's broad support in Congress for differentiated consequnces, which would permit districts and states to use seperate sets of sanctions for schools that missed the law's achievement targets for most of their students, as opposed to those that failed to make progress with one or two subgroups, such as students in special education. Clinton's support of the proposal isn't a surprise.

What's more intriguing is that Democratic presidential candidate's statement on the pilot takes her recent anti-NCLB rhetoric up a notch. She says:

"As president, I will work with Congress to end the No Child Left Behind Act, and put in its place a more sensible law that stops micromanaging our schools from the federal level and provides real support to struggling schools."

But it's still unclear just how Clinton (or the other presidential candidates) would revamp the law. Would we still have an NCLB-like federally driven accountability system, just with a different name? NCLB is a reauthorization of the decades-old Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I find it difficult to imagine that any president would completely scrap that law.

Still, if nothing else, the statement shows that Clinton (or someone in her campaign) is paying attention to the implementation of NCLB. That's probably a good political move, given that the National Education Association's endorsement is still up for grabs.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:32 AM | Permalink | 6 Comments | Recommend

Education issues - and specifically the achievement gap between low-income and minority children and their more affluent peers - made a cameo appearance in Sen. Barack Obama's highly anticipated speech on race, delivered in Philadelphia today. Obama acknowledged that schools in many parts of the nation remain racially segregated, even 50 years after the U.S. Supreme Court's landmark Brown v. Board of Education school desegregation ruling.

No policy prescriptions (that wasn't the point of the speech) but in his remarks, Obama appears to frame educational quality as a civil rights issue, particularly in this passage, in which Obama urged listeners to avoid focusing on racially polarizing distractions:

"At this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, 'Not this time.' This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can’t learn; that those kids who don’t look like us are somebody else’s problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time."

Posted by Alyson Klein at 4:57 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

...like academician, psychometrician, statistician.

Democratic Ohio Gov. Ted Strickland last week hurled those labels at his state schools chief, Susan T. Zelman. Hired by her board of education in 1999, Zelman is well-liked in her state, and nationally as well. But from Strickland's perspective, she's not "visionary" enough, according to this report of Strickland's visit to the Cincinnati Enquirer's editorial board. (Hat tip to Ohio blogger ohdave.)

Strickland, who like a lot of governors wants to have more direct control over education, wants to essentially do away with her office and have his own education czar. And Zelman isn't his choice.

But when you start making it personal—about Zelman—and not about the structure of government, then you're bound to get pushback. And now, people are starting to rally around Zelman.

In Dayton Daily News reporter Scott Elliott's blog, Elliott includes a letter of response from a state school board member, Carl Wick, who throws his own labels at the governor: "not dignified, virtuous or professional." The board has reason to be angry, too, because Strickland wants to strip them of their powers and make them advisors only.

In Maryland, Gov. Martin O'Malley tried to take down his chief—the venerable Nancy Grasmick. It didn't work.

When I was working on a story for this week's issue of EdWeek about how state boards of education are under siege, and having their power diluted, Brenda Welburn, the executive director of the National Association of State Boards of Education made a good point. It went something like this: Just because Eliot Spitzer screws up in New York doesn't mean you get rid of the office of governor, you get rid of him.

Politics is personal, and personalities in office change. So Welburn's point is that governors should think hard before they start wanting to do away with an office entirely just because they don't like who's currently serving in it.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:31 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

If you were as fascinated as I was with the Eliot Spitzer scandal, then you may have missed these noteworthy reads:

The Democrats for Education Reform will be among the first to get a sneak-peak of the new governor of New York, David Paterson. (Hat tip to Eduwonk for flagging this story.) Before Spitzer's troubles became public, the DFER had planned a March 20 fundraiser for Paterson in New York City's Harlem neighborhood. And, DFER's Joe Williams told me, Paterson has re-confirmed that he plans to attend.

With so few major pieces written about education in the presidential race, it's important to check out The New Republic's take on Barack Obama's education agenda. The piece makes the case that Obama is really more of centrist than a liberal on education, although you may not know that from his predictable campaign stump speeches of late, which tend to focus on bashing the No Child Left Behind Act. And the story explores the concerns some have over Linda Darling-Hammond's role as one of his education advisers.

And speaking of Obama, Alexander Russo's Chicago blog has a good post on the senator's congressional earmarks. From what I can discern, Obama had released his latest earmarks, but until now, hadn't released them for fiscal years 2005 and 2006. Sen. Hillary Clinton hasn't released hers, so far. For more about education earmarks in general, read my colleague (and Campaign K-12 contributor) Alyson Klein's story from earlier this month.

And finally, after a monthslong search, I've found a place where education is actually a big campaign issue. Delaware!

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:47 AM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

Hoping to hear a lively - and maybe even substantive - debate between two federal candidates over the future of the No Child Left Behind Act? You might be in luck ... if you live in Minnesota. Mike Ciresi, a laywer who was vying with the comedian Al Franken, at right, for a chance to take on Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican, dropped out of the Democratic primary race this week, putting Franken in a strong position to win his party's nomination. That means we might start hearing a real discussion on NCLB in the general election campaign because it seems that Franken and Coleman could not be further apart on the issue.

Coleman has demonstrated his support for a strong federal accountablity system that keeps the law's major tenets intact. He was one of three sponsors of a bill that would largely implement the recommendations of the Aspen Institute's Commission on the Future of NCLB. Sen. Coleman's bill would permit some new flexiblity in the law (mostly broadly supported ideas such as growth models). But it also would call on the National Assesment Governing Board to develop a (voluntary) system of national standards and tests.

And it would call for states to set up longitudinal-data systems that tracked individual student progress, and link that performance to teachers and programs. States would be required to develop a definition of highly effective teachers that relies chiefly on student achievement.

Franken, on the other hand, says on his campaign Web site that the law needs to be "dramatically reformed or scrapped altogether." He says he'd like to see states be allowed to use student portfolios to measure progress, among other signficant changes.

The federal law is likely to be an issue in the Senate race. Minnesota's congressional delegation opposed NCLB even back in 2001, when the law had broad, bipartisan support in Congress. Nearly every member of the Minnesota congressional delegation voted against final passage NCLB. (The lone expection was Rep. Bill Luther, a Democrat, who is recorded as Not Voting).

The Senate race is going to be closely watched nationwide, in part because Minnesota is a swing state and Coleman is considered a vulnerable incumbent... and in part because, well, Franken is a former Saturday Night Live cast member and writer, and radio talk show host on the liberal Air America network. Who doesn't want to see what Stuart Smalley is like on the stump?

Here's hoping all that attention helps fuel a national debate on NCLB ...

Posted by Alyson Klein at 1:43 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Here at Education Week, we divide up states among reporters, who are then charged with keeping tabs on education reform ideas in those states. We monitor the legislatures, the state chiefs, and the governor, especially around budget and State of the State times.

New York is my state. And so I gathered around the TV, with my colleagues, about an hour ago to watch Gov. Eliot Spitzer resign from office, in such an unfortunate and untimely way.

The "Sheriff of Wall Street" had great promise when he took office last year. After all, observers wondered what would happen if Spitzer were to concentrate his political capital and his desire to fix-what's-wrong-with-the-world into education reform? At a Jan. 29, 2007 speech I attended for this story, he said: “We are poised to begin implementing what may be the greatest reform agenda directly tied to the largest infusion of resources in our state’s history."

After that speech, education commissioner Richard Mills (who is hired by the Board of Regents), told me that the mere fact that Spitzer delivered that speech in the education building, and invited board members, was a sign that Spitzer wanted to work together to improve education. Educators were encouraged.

To help achieve this 'great reform', he enlisted the help of Manuel Rivera, the former Rochester, N.Y., superintendent who was going to take charge of Boston Public Schools before Spitzer tapped him to be his chief education adviser. Perhaps now Mr. Rivera will be persuaded to take that No. 2 job at LA Unified if offered.

Spitzer was tasked with helping make the state's school funding constitutional after years of court rulings that had indicated otherwise. He proposed more funding and changes to the overall school-funding formula, and was making progress. And he also crafted a "Contracts for Excellence" plan that attached strings, and accountability, to additional funding for schools.

He's also has been praised for lifting the cap on charter schools in New York, which advocates had tried to accomplish for years.

More recently, Spitzer has taken some heat for proposing a budget that education advocates said didn't provide enough additional money for schools, especially in light of court rulings.

So what happens to Spitzer's most ambitious reform agenda?

Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who is legally blind and will become the nation's second serving African-American governor, will take over and put his own stamp on it, starting Monday. So I'll keep you posted as I learn more the education priorities of New York's new governor. (UPDATE: Read my colleague Christina Samuels' post on her Special Education blog.)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

I think Joe Williams at Democrats for Education Reform gets a medal for being one of the first ones out of the gate—if not the first one—to offer a statement on what the pending resignation of New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer means for K-12. The statement was posted on his blog at 9:37 a.m. today and hit my email in-box at 10:30 a.m. today.

Perhaps this is Joe's journalistic instincts taking over. Spitzer is expected to announce his resignation today at 11:30 a.m.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:56 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Given the problems that have befallen New York's caped crusader against corruption, Eliot "Client No. 9" Spitzer, it seems appropriate to examine what's at stake for education, and the guy who might replace him.

New York is at a pivotal point in education, as Gov. Spitzer has championed and succeeded in investing more money in public schools—prompted by court rulings declaring that the state wasn't spending enough money to provide kids with an adequate education. At the same time, he's demanded accountability in exchange for that money.

There's no indication Democrat Lt. Gov. David Paterson (pictured) would halt the momentum should he become governor in the wake of the Spitzer scandal. When I traveled to Albany for stories on Spitzer's school-funding plans, Paterson was always nearby to show his support.

What's more, Paterson, who is legally blind, also has been a champion for students with disabilities.

He's also been a supporter of charter schools, and in this 2006 New York Observer story, earned praised from voucher advocate Clint Bolick for being a friend of school choice. However, if you keep reading, you'll see that while Paterson supports the idea of choice, he's not particularly keen on the tactics of the school-choice movement.

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

...from Lisa Graham Keegan, a former Arizona state schools chief who will start devoting more time to Sen. John McCain's campaign as one of his education policy advisers, according to this Arizona Republic story.

Already part of a team of five education advisers, Keegan will take on a greater, more time-consuming role now that McCain is the GOP nominee. Note in the story that even his education advisers haven't spent much time talking about education issues with Sen. McCain, who has largely avoided the issue on the campaign trail.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:33 AM | Permalink | 3 Comments | Recommend

...then you must add this story to your reading list:

"The Lost Years," written by my colleague Mary Ann Zehr, who traveled to Jordan to chronicle the lives of Iraqi children who fled their war-torn country. If you think the war in Iraq is just about bombs and oil and fighting terrorism and getting out as quickly as we can, then this is a heart-wrenching eye-opener about the devastating affects of war on a child's education. You don't hear the candidates talk much about this when they speak of the Iraq war.

Also good reads:

Mike Petrilli and Checker Finn try to school John McCain. The Arizona senator should probably take their advice if he wants to woo conservative voters.

And this story by my colleague Lesli Maxwell tells me that you should not mess with home-schoolers. They are a political force to reckon with and, if you remember, a force that helped catapult Republican Mike Huckabee to political stardom.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 7:39 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Here’s some inside baseball on those retirements of congressional Republicans I wrote about earlier this week: Their departures may have an impact on the bottom-line for some education programs. A number of the retiring Republicans have helped control the purse strings for education as members of the House Appropriations subcommittee overseeing education spending. In fact, four out of the six regular GOP members of the panel are retiring.

The retiring members are:

Rep. James T. Walsh of New York, the ranking member on the subcommittee overseeing education funding. He's been a supporter of funding for special education , offering an amendment to boost funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act last year when the full Appropriations Committee considered the education spending bill. And he voted to override President Bush's veto of the fiscal 2008 education appropriations measure, and called attention to it in a speech on the floor of the House.

Rep. Ralph Regula of Ohio, who served as chairman of the subcommittee from 2000 to 2006. He’s supported alternative pay plans for teachers.

Rep. John E. Peterson of Pennyslvannia, another member of the subcommittee. He recently voiced his support for vocational education, a program President Bush is again seeking to cut. And he defended earmarks in a recent Education Week story.

Rep. Dave Weldon of Florida, who supports a bill sponsored by Rep. Pete Hoekstra, R-Mich., that would allow states to “opt” out of No Child Left Behind’s accountability provisions.

The departures mean there will be a lot of new faces on the Republican side of the aisle in the House subcommittee overseeing education spending starting in 2009. The Democrats are likely to retain control of Congress and, therefore, the subcommittee, so their priorities will likely prevail.

But the new Republican members' views on No Child Left Behind, alternative pay for teachers, and other programs will help influence how much money those programs get. As the Minority Leader, Rep. John A. Boehner, R-Ohio, a key architect of the No Child Left Behind Act, will have a major say in who gets those coveted open slots – and he’s a fan of school choice, performance pay, and accountability.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:54 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Now that John McCain is the Republican nominee for president, a lot of people are paying far more attention to what he says on the campaign trail.

And although he doesn't talk much about education, he may have stepped on a landmine when he waded into the controversial area of what causes autism. Specifically, he said there's "strong evidence" that a preservative in vaccines is causing autism.

What strong evidence?

As my colleague Christina Samuels points out in her blog post, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention say there is no link.

For more on this and other special education issues, read Christina's special education blog.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:30 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

What an election night! Two candidates who, at one point or another, were practically relegated to the political graveyard had big nights.

Some education highlights:

Alexander Russo wonders whether Sen. Barack Obama's wishy-washy stance on private school vouchers hurt him in Ohio, which is home both to powerful teachers' unions and a state-funded voucher program in Cleveland.

Obama, in his speech last night in Texas, pledges that no child should attend school where there are more rats than computers.

And finally, we must bid farewell to former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, the affable Republican who actually made education a campaign issue.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:34 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

When I read my colleague David Hoff's post about Barack Obama's views that No Child Left Behind has "narrowed" the curriculum, my eyes bugged out at one line in The Hoff's post:

"He (Obama) also suggested that testing should happen at the beginning of the school year so the results can help the teacher and that accountability decisions should be made based on student growth."

Believe it or not, spring versus fall testing was one of the most contentious education issues in the Indiana Statehouse, and one I wrote about often for The Indianapolis Star. Many years ago, Indiana's standardized test, called ISTEP, was given in the spring, but some education leaders thought there was too much teaching-to-the-test going on in the school year. Plus, Superintendent of Public Instruction Suellen Reed said over and over again, in support of fall testing, that educators needed to find out what kids knew, and not what they had memorized in the months leading up to the test. So, in 1996, the legislature switched the test to the fall.

Well, some people didn't like fall testing either, in part because schools and teachers could be penalized for low test scores that were more reflective of what the students learned the year before. What's more, many districts were starting their school year earlier and earlier in August to give students and teachers more prep time for the fall test. But that was difficult for the big, urban districts, such as Indianapolis Public Schools, because many schools there didn't have air conditioning. So for years, teachers' groups and policymakers lobbied the legislature to change back to spring testing. It even became an issue in the 2004 governors' election for Republican Mitch Daniels, who won the seat. He eventually twisted enough arms to get the State Board of Education to switch back to spring testing, which went into effect the following school year.

When I left Indiana in 2006, I hoped I'd never hear another debate about giving kids their standardized tests in the fall versus the spring.

Leave it to Barack Obama to bring this up again!

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:14 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

This is from guest blogger and EdWeek assistant managing editor Mark Walsh, who took a break from his own blog on education law to provide this Campaign K-12 dispatch:

Education won't be any more prominent of an issue in the in the general election campaign for the White House this fall than it has been in the party primary season.

That was the view of two of the three panelists at a symposium on Monday at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

"This is the first time since 1980 or '84 that education has not loomed large, or at least largish, as a presidential campaign issue," said Chester E. "Checker" Finn Jr., the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and a former U.S. Department of Education official under President Reagan. "If any of today's candidates thought education was a winning issue, or even an important issue, I think we'd know it by now."

William A. Galston, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and a White House domestic-policy adviser under President Clinton, said, "Not only has education not been a big issue in this presidential year, it's not going to be a big issue in this presidential year."

The two overriding issues relate to peace and prosperity, aka the Iraq war and the economy, and when both of those are "on the table simultaneously, that is the election," Galston said.

Finn, the author of the new memoir Troublemaker: A Personal History of School Reform Since Sputnik , offered several theories on why education has taken a back seat in this election. The most obvious is that issues such as the war, the economy, health care, and global warming have hogged the spotlight. Or, people may have grown exasperated with talk of education reform in the presidential elections.

But the theory he seemed to favor was that people have figured out "that education is no longer a winning issue because when all is said and done, a president doesn't have that much leverage over the schools."

The dissenter on the panel was Marc S. Lampkin, the executive director of Strong American Schools, which is running the ED in '08 campaign to push education as an election issue.

Lampkin said the ED in '08 effort has been successful in establishing "some degree of discourse" with the presidential candidates' advisers. And while polling of the electorate has shown that education was, at best, in the middle of the pack as the top concern of voters, the group's own polling shows that "education is the No. 1 issue for Hispanics," Lampkin said.

Education Week reported on the challenges faced by the ED in '08 effort in this story in December.

While the AEI event was billed partly as a look at how education has played historically in presidential campaigns, there was very little of that. Instead, the panelists were eager to discuss what effect the election could have on the future of the No Child Left Behind Act, regardless of how much attention the issue receives on the stump.

Galston, who was involved in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (of which NCLB is the 2001 version), said there has been a "collapse of the congressional center" around the federal school accountability law.

"If there is a Democratic president, I don't think that NCLB will survive in anything like its current form," Galston said. He added that he believes that the next Congress, assuming Democratic control and a Democrat in the White House, would pass a renewal of the ESEA, but it would be "more likely to look like the 1994 version than the 2001 version."

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, who is the likely Republican nominee, is on record in support of NCLB and could be expected to try to maintain it, the panelists said. Almost needless to say, they did not seem to think that Congress would hammer out an agreement on reauthorizing the law before this election year is out.

Posted by Mark Walsh at 3:09 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Last month, I wrote about how Ohio teachers sent a letter to Sen. Barack Obama, seeking clarification from the Democratic presidential hopeful on his stance on vouchers.

Well, the Ohio Federation of Teachers got a response, and just in the knick of time, since the pivotal Ohio primary is tomorrow.

What prompted Ohio teachers to write to Obama was a dust-up over his statements to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in the run-up to the Wisconsin primary in which he suggested he might change his mind on vouchers if research backs it up, and if it's what's best for kids. Ohio has a publicly funded voucher program for students in Cleveland's school district that's similar to one in Milwaukee.

In his letter to the Ohio teachers dated Feb. 29, Obama blames a "misleading" article for causing the commotion, but it's hard to blame the paper when you're on video saying that you might reconsider your position on vouchers under certain circumstances.

Obama says he's consistently been an "outspoken" opponent of vouchers. But the Ohio teachers' group told me they're not yet convinced.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:35 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Will the Democrats, who recaptured the House of Representatives in 2006, be able to hold on to their majority? Political analysts are betting they will - in part because the Republicans will have to defend 25 "open" seats previously held by GOP members.

Two of those members are running for Senate, including Rep. Heather Wilson of New Mexico. Edweek's Erik Robelen profiled her 2004 congressional race. She defended the No Child Left Behind Act, which her opponent attacked.

But most of the open GOP seats are the result of retirements.

Who's retiring and what might those departures mean for education? Here's a quick first look:

Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia - Helped champion the District of Columbia's voucher program in the House.

Rep. Tom Tancredo of Colorado - A forrmer 2008 presidential candidate, on a strong immigration enforcement platform, he refused to participate in a Univision debate because his remarks would be translated into Spanish. You can read more about it in my colleague, Mary Ann Zehr's blog, "Learning the Language." Tancredo was also a regional representative for the U.S. Department of Education from 1981 to 1993.

Rep. Tancredo, Reps. Rick Renzi of Arizona, John Doolittle of California, Duncan Hunter of California, Dave Weldon of Florida, and Wayne Gilchrest of Maryland, who lost his primary bid, are all supporters of a bill sponsored by Rep. Pete Hoeskstra, R-Mich., that would allow states to "opt-out" of the No Child Left Behind Act's accountability requirements. The measure has 65 co-sponors. It will be interesting to see whether these lawmakers' successors follow their lead in supporting that legislation.

Just six seats previously held by Democrats will be "open" in Nov. 2008.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:34 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend