June 2008 Archives

Because respondents in a new Associated Press poll list it as the most significant problem facing their child's school.

Forty-seven percent think getting and keeping good teachers is a "very serious" or "somewhat serious" problem. Teachers are a bigger issue than overcrowding, lack of student discipline (which came in second), and school violence. Teacher quality also outranks the condition of school buildings, outdated textbooks, placing emphasis on the wrong subjects, low expectations of students, students not spending enough time in school, and thankfully, availability of athletic fields (26 percent think this is a serious problem!)

A good chunk of Barack Obama's education plan revolves around teachers—recruiting them, paying them better, and giving them mentors. We'll have to wait until the fall to hear what Sen. John McCain's plans are for improving the teaching ranks.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:44 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

A new poll out today reaffirms the obvious: Voters are really worried about their pocketbooks. Education ranks third as the most important issue this year, behind gas prices, and jobs and the economy, according to a poll taken last month by Lake Research Partners and sponsored by the Public Education Network.

If you read the poll more closely, you can find some interesting nuggets about adults' attitudes toward the No Child Left Behind Act. (The most detailed polling information is in the PowerPoint presentation found here). First, adults don't seem to be nearly as opposed to the law as some presidential candidates may make you think (although both John McCain and Barack Obama seem to agree with the goal of NCLB, but want some big changes). About one-third of those polled think the law is hurting schools, one-third think it's helping, and the rest think it's making no difference.

The folks who are the most positive about the law are Republicans (no surprise there), Latinos, and blacks.

So who seems to hate NCLB the most? White independents.

They even beat out Democrats. And if you remember, the Democratic candidates during the primary used NCLB as their favorite punching bag.

Forty percent of adults who classified themselves as political "independents" (the highest rate of disapproval) thought the law is hurting schools, compared to 32 percent of Democrats and 28 percent of Republicans.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:50 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

No, this isn't a merit-pay plan to reward teachers for performance. But, it's along those same lines—and I'm thinking this might be a good idea.

John McCain is offering a $300 million prize to someone who develops a car battery that will "leapfrog" the current technology that powers our traditional cars and even newer hybrids. The goal, of course, is to drive down oil prices. In his remarks yesterday, McCain pointed out that many advancements—such as the mapping of the human genome—can be traced back to American inventors, and "often to the foresighted aid of the United States government."

Money is a grand motivator—including in education. After all, some schools are using money to encourage students to do better on state tests. Other schools use money as incentives for teachers. The $1 million Broad Prize rewards success in urban districts. Could McCain's plan work?

Many people ask: If the country can turn out brilliant minds who could develop a nuclear bomb, and send a man to the moon, why can't we develop a better, cheaper technology for powering cars and then sell that technology all over the world?

Perhaps McCain can turn some of our country's great minds—and research universities—to this task, if he does, indeed, come up with this $300 million prize. Or, perhaps as important, McCain could extend his reasoning to education, and put aside his no-more-money-for-education mantra and come up with a similar prize for improving public schools.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:57 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

There are a lot of freshmen on the House Education and Labor Committee, but only one shows up on The Fix's latest list of most competitive House races: Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, D-N.H.

The No Child Left Behind Act was one of Shea-Porter's favorite targets back in 2006, when she unseated Rep. Jeb Bradley, a Republican. (He wasn't in Congress in 2001, when the law was passed). Shea-Porter equated the law with President Bush and pledged to work to scrap it. She called it an attempt by "right-wing Republicans" to “undermine our confidence in our public schools" to create a federal private school voucher system.

Bradley is back for a rematch this year. And it will be interesting to see whether Shea-Porter tones down her rhetoric on the school improvement law, now that she's spent some time with NCLB co-author Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House education panel. (He even visited her district earlier this year to answer educators' questions about the law).

Shea-Porter's campaign Web site is in the "coming soon" stages, but the "issues" section on her congressional site offers some pretty bland "views" on education:

Investment in education is an investment in the future of American families and the middle class. A good education leads to good jobs and allows people to provide well for their families. Without a strong, accessible, affordable educational system, the middle class cannot stay strong and help our economy grow

Definitely a departure from her earlier statements. I'm wondering if that trend will continue. And if Shea-Porter is less stridently anti-NCLB this time around, will that help her or hurt her?

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:06 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Jeb Bush and Margaret Spellings.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 10:09 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

One of the most disturbing things I heard today during a press conference about state budget conditions was this: the economic downturn in many states could last three or four years.

That's about as long as the next president's first term.

Even if the national economy takes an unexpected upward swing, states are always slower to come out of slumps. Ray Scheppach, the executive director of the National Governors Association, explained that it's because states typically don't feel the negative impact from unemployment (which means fewer dollars coming in from income taxes) until months after job losses hit their peak. For example, even though the recession in the early 2000s officially ended in 2001, states had to make huge budget cuts in 2002 and even into 2003. The NGA and the National Association of State Budget Officers unveiled the latest edition of their fiscal survey today, which is quite gloomy (unless you're in an energy- or food-crop-rich state like Texas, Wyoming, or North Dakota.)

When considering the national economic woes and the presidential candidates, it's important to look at state budgets for several reasons. First, states (and their local governments) are responsible for paying nearly 90 percent of the tab for K-12 education. Second, K-12 education is the biggest line-item in a state general-fund budget. And third, states are often the incubators of education reform. (If you need another reason, then consider that Obama is meeting with Democratic governors on Friday to involve them in the larger discussion about the economy.)

I can think of plenty of ways that a drawn-out slowdown in the states could affect the education plans of the next president, whether it be Sen. Barack Obama or Sen. John McCain.

For one, Sen. Obama's promised $4,000-a-year tax credit to offset the cost of college tuition won't go nearly as far if higher ed institutions jack up tuition and fees because state lawmakers cut their funding. (Higher ed is traditionally cut long before K-12 education is.)

Sen. McCain's pledge to freeze discretionary spending, including Title I money that accompanies No Child Left Behind, would be even more painful.

States and school districts, though always welcome to new money, are often hesitant to start new programs if they worry the funding source might disappear. Overall, I wonder how any new programs proposed by either candidate—whether it be funding to expand technology (which McCain's camp has talked about) or devoting more money to recruiting teachers (Obama's plan)—will be embraced if states are still struggling to pay for the basics. It will be hard for education leaders who are involved in the day-to-day running of schools to think about revolutionizing K-12 when they're struggling to pay the salaries of their existing teachers, or the fuel to bus kids to and from school.

Just one more reason why the economy and education are so closely tied together.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:08 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

Sen. Barack Obama visited a community college in Michigan yesterday to talk about college affordability, reiterating his plans for a $4,000-a-year tax credit to help pay tuition. (I posted his speech below.)

More affordable, two-year community colleges, which are often overshadowed by their four-year counterparts in higher ed, can be an important part of the solution, the Illinois Democrat and presumptive presidential nominee has said. And his education plan even includes a fair amount about how he would beef up community colleges.

While Obama is talking about making it easier for students to go to college, states are making it harder—for undocumented students, that is.

Over at the Learning the Language blog, my colleague Mary Ann Zehr has chronicled the growing number of states that are restricting undocumented students from not only getting taxpayer-funded financial aid, but also from even attending college. South Carolina is one. North Carolina is another.

This is relevant to Obama's town hall meeting because the Hispanic population often turns to community colleges first for higher education. At a time when a college degree is more important than ever to future financial success, and when the country is trying to reinvent its workforce to be more innovative and globally competitive, it doesn't seem advisable to bar students from higher education.

Obama has supported the DREAM Act—which stalled in Congress but would have given undocumented students a path toward citizenship. Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, meanwhile, has flip-flopped on this issue.

No matter who wins, it seems imperative that the next president figure out how to address the issue of undocumented students in higher ed and then get that solution through Congress.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 8:30 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

So it looks like David Brooks' commentary on Sen. Barack Obama's education proposals generated quite a bit of debate among New York Times readers.

The paper published four letters-to-the-editor today responding to Brooks' question about whether the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee falls into the education "reform" or "status quo" camps in the Democratic Party, as represented by the signers of a statement from the Education Equity Project and the "Broader, Bolder Approach to Education," respectively. (You can read all about those statements, and Obama's decision to essentially endorse both of them, in my colleague David Hoff's Edweek story).

Some of the writers of the "broader, bolder" statement wrote in to dispute Brooks' characterization of their coalition as defenders of the status quo. And Frank J. Russo, from Long Islanders for Education Reform, suggested that Brooks left out the Republican prescription for schools: expanding school choice. (He says Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., would support vouchers for private schools, including parochial schools. Not sure his campaign has actually said that.)

And two of the letters, from Clifford Konold, a research professor at the University of Massachusetts and Stephen Weaver, a New Brunswick, N.J., resident, say it's okay for Obama to straddle the line. In fact, Konold suggests there may not even be a line. He writes:

I’ve spent a career trying to improve learning in the schools, so I was a little confused when I couldn’t figure out which team I was on. I contacted several colleagues, including ones I often argue with, and they couldn’t locate themselves either in this portrait. Mr. Brooks has painted a clear border through a complex landscape and then concluded that Mr. Obama is wishy-washy because he has footprints on both sides.

What do you think? Is Obama trying to have it both ways by endorsing both statements? Or does it make sense to use ideas from both camps? Are there even two camps? Or is it more complicated than that, as Konold says?

Hit up the comments section.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:53 AM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Rep. Timothy J. Walz, D-Minn., a freshman and former teacher who won his seat in an upset victory in 2006, is co-sponsoring a bill that would suspend the accountability provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act, according to my colleague, David Hoff, over at NCLB Act II.

If that sounds like a bold move for someone facing a potentially tough re-election battle ... it actually, well, isn't. At least two of the three Republicans vying to take on Walz in the general election have said they would scrap the NCLB law, according to this news report. Still, it's telling that, at least in this contested congressional district in a swing state, the candidates seem to have a similar take on the NCLB law. Namely, that it's not working.

I'm not sure yet if that sentiment is unique to Minnesota--nearly every member of the state's congressional delegation opposed the law even back in 2001--or if it's a trend that will play out in tough races nationwide. I'll be watching this as House races heat up, but let me know what you think in the comments section below.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:30 PM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Joel Packer isn't the only new face on this blog.

Frequent contributing blogger Alyson Klein is now officially a part of Campaign K-12. We will share the duties of blogging about the presidential election, plus Congressional, state and local races.

Alyson is a federal beat reporter at EdWeek who manages to add some spice to the world of the federal budget (by, for example, talking about the science of ice skating in an otherwise routine budget story!) She's has already offered valuable insight (and a lot of ellipses...) on this blog—on everything from the West Wing TV show imitating real life to whether McCain's ban on employing registered lobbyists will affect his education policy team. She trekked all over my home state of Indiana for an Obama story, and her late-night TV-watching paid off with this gem about Al Franken on Letterman.

She'll likely specialize in blogging about Congressional races and tracking Sens. McCain's and Obama's every move in Congress.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:35 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

The New York Times' David Brooks sounds very much like John McCain's education adviser Lisa Graham Keegan when he challenges Sen. Barack Obama's plans for education reform in an op-ed piece that appears today.

Yesterday, Keegan laid out the presumptive Republican presidential nominee's vision for reporters, and said he shouldn't apologize for not having unveiled his education plan yet. "It's very easy to write a detailed program for an old system," Keegan said in criticizing Obama's plan, which has been on his Web site for months.

Brooks makes a similar point: "He proposes dozens of programs to build on top of the current system, but it’s not clear that he would challenge it. He’s all carrot, no stick. He’s politically astute — giving everybody the impression he’s on their side — but substantively vague. Change just isn’t that easy."

And Brooks continues: "But when you look at the actual proposals Obama offers, he’s doesn’t really address the core issues. He’s for the vast panoply of pre-K and after-school programs that most of us are for. But the crucial issues are: What do you do with teachers and administrators who are failing? How rigorously do you enforce accountability? Obama doesn’t engage the thorny, substantive matters that separate the two camps."

Obama, though, has dipped his toe in some of those thorny issues. He dared to mention vouchers to a newspaper editorial board, and even talked about merit pay before the National Education Association convention. But that was before he was the presumptive Democratic nominee. Now that he is, will that give him more—or less—license to tackle these difficult issues?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:14 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

Sen. John McCain's education adviser, Lisa Graham Keegan, sat down today with several reporters for a rapid-fire Q-and-A session hosted by the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation, and she laid out the most details yet about the Arizona Republican's plans for the No Child Left Behind Act. And yes, a more formal education plan is coming, she said, but not until "back-to-school" time in the fall, when people are listening.

I'll go into more detail in a bit, but I wanted to highlight two important things I thought Keegan said. First, McCain's plan to freeze discretionary federal spending applies to education programs, including the largest program under the NCLB law, Title I. Though as president he may seek to re-allocate money between programs, McCain believes the NCLB law is "adequately funded," Keegan said. So states and schools shouldn't look for any additional federal dollars in a McCain budget.

Second, Keegan said that while the senator is a big supporter of vouchers and private and public school choice, he does not support using Title I money for private school vouchers. She didn't rule out that he would not come up with some sort of private school choice plan, but this doesn't seem to be a focus for him.

As far as other specific plans for NCLB, Keegan hit on three big themes. First, McCain supports using growth models to measure student achievement—but specifically wants to ensure that subgroups of students are making overall progress (and not just toward the goal of every child being proficient by the end of the 2013-14 school year.) For example, she said McCain wants to make sure gifted students are improving, too.

McCain also wants to move away from sanctions and instead use tutoring and public school choice as "opportunities" for children and families rather than as punishments for schools. And perhaps more importantly, he wants to make the aid available to families immediately without waiting two or three years. And maintaining the current sanction of restructuring schools at five years if they are failing to meet adequate yearly progress isn't a priority for him, either. In addition, McCain will work more closely with governors to come up with other options for addressing failing schools, she said.

McCain also wants to move away from the 2014 proficiency deadline, as many other education advocates support.

In defending McCain's perceived lack of interest in education, Keegan said that it wasn't because the candidate is not passionate—but because he believes a "renaissance" in education is possible and that his plan will be more meaningful, and more at odds with the current public education system. (Update: Margaret Spellings declared that education was not McCain's passion.)

"It's very easy to write a detailed program for an old system," Keegan said in criticizing Sen. Barack Obama's plan, which has been on his Web site for months.

As far as McCain's education plan to be unveiled in the fall, Keegan said it will focus on standards, accountability, delivering information on these issues to the public, and more direct intervention. He will "insist" on giving principals the power to use differential pay for teachers. And, expect the issue of international benchmarking to appear in his plan, too, she said.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:50 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

For the American Federation of Teachers, Hillary Clinton's concession on Saturday means that it's time for the union to repair any lost love and throw its full support behind Barack Obama. Although the Obama campaign will certainly appreciate the AFT's organized foot-soldiers, the union will have to work a little harder to wield any influence since it spent the last several months aligned with Clinton—and is a late-comer to the Obama bandwagon.

Unlike the National Education Association, at least the AFT endorsed a candidate when it still mattered.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:39 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

Now that we know who will be squaring off in this presidential race, it seems relevant to examine more closely the differences between the candidates. For a good summary of what we know so far, check out my colleagues' story in this week's issue of EdWeek. Campaign K-12 blogger Alyson Klein wasn't able to squeeze everything from her notebook into the story, so this blog seemed a good place to add some additional perspective on the National Education Association's better-late-than-never endorsement, especially since it involves Joel Packer (the man with ALL of the answers!) Alyson writes:

In its endorsement, the NEA has pledged to work for Sen. Obama during the general election campaign, and one union strategist said he’s found much to like in the presumptive nominee’s rhetoric on the school improvement law.

"He’s raised some significant criticisms of [the NCLB] law" including that "tests shouldn’t be the be all and end all. ..that kids have to have a comprehensive education and access to a rich curriculum," said Joel Packer, the union’s chief NCLB lobbyist. "We’re pretty pleased with most of what he’s saying."

Another good read: For some really interesting reaction to last week's debate between education advisers for Obama and John McCain, check out David Hoff's post over at NCLB: Act II.

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

Today, Sen. Barack Obama delivered a major speech on the economy and offered this education tidbit:

"I’ll be talking in more detail next week about how we can make our workforce more competitive by reforming our education system, but there’s also an immediate squeeze we need to deal with, and that’s college affordability."

He reiterated his plan to give $4,000 a year in tax credits for tuition, but I'm most intrigued by any new ideas he'll have next week to link education reform with the economy. Stay tuned here for updates next week.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:08 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

One interesting little factoid I left out of my post on the Association of Educational Publishers election forum Friday came from Lisa Graham Keegan, Sen. John McCain's education adviser. At a press conference following the event, Keegan said that the presumptive Republican presidential nominee has a core of about 15 education advisers, many of whom I think are listed here. But apparently, he also has about 100 people in total, working on education for the campaign across the country. That sounds like ... a lot. Even Keegan described it as "unwieldy." Maybe that's why they haven't yet put out anything comprehensive on education ... they say a camel is a horse designed by a committee...

Jeanne Century, director of science education and the director of research and evaluation at the University of Chicago's Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education, who represented the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill. on the other hand, didn't even go to the press conference, because the Obama campaign apparently didn't let her, folks at AEP told David Hoff. She did take questions from reporters during the forum, though, we didn't get the chance to ask her as many questions as we got to ask Keegan.

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

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

So this morning I attended the Association of Educational Publishers election forum in Washington. Lisa Graham Keegan, former Arizona schools chief turned adviser to the presidential campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., squared off with Jeanne Century, director of science education and the director of research and evaluation at the University of Chicago's Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education, who represented the campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

They managed to cover a lot of ground without getting into a lot of specificity, in very campaign-like fashion.

They both seem to agree that there needs to be some form of federal accountability for education, although I left the forum not really feeling like I had a clear idea of what they would keep in the No Child Left Behind Act and what they would ditch. They're both for growth models (big surprise) and like the idea of "rich, rigorous standards" but didn't seem inclined towards supporting national standards. Keegan did say she'd like to see states voluntarily "benchmark" standards against each other, though. And McCain is apparently going to put forth a more comprehensive education policy in a few weeks ... so ... be as specific as you can, senator.

Here are some of the areas where I saw the most defined positions, and the starkest contrasts:

Reading First: There was definitely a major difference in the way the two campaign representatives viewed "scientifically based reading research," an important, but little talked about, part of NCLB and a cornerstone of the reading program. Keegan, for the most part, embraced the concept. And she made it clear where she stands in the reading wars, saying that whole-language programs have left some children "illiterate." Century appears to think that the principles behind scientifically based reading research are too limiting, in terms of the types of studies that can be considered.

Merit Pay: Obama got into hot water with some folks when he talked about this at the National Education Association's convention last year. But Century basically clarified his stance, saying that Obama favors merit-pay programs that support "classroom excellence" as defined by, I believe, districts, schools, and teachers. So it sounded like that means individual districts could do merit pay tied to achievement, if they worked that out with educators. McCain on the other hand, supports pay increases tied to student achievement, Keegan said. And he doesn't seem to think teachers' unions need to be at the negotiating table for merit-pay plans.

Funding: Keegan gave a standard GOP-line on funding for NCLB, noting that appropriations for Title I and other federal programs has increased dramatically since its enactment in 2002. She said the federal government needs to make sure it targets its resources towards practices that work. (I couldn't help thinking that she was borrowing a page from Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings' standard budget-day speech, in which she refers to some of the programs in the Education Department as "a thousand flowers blooming.") Century didn't explicitly call for more money. But she did say that schools need more qualified teachers, a richer curriculum, and better assessments, and that an Obama administration would decide whether schools were getting enough money to do that. I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that probably means spending increases ... if the federal government can afford them.

Thanks to all of you who submitted questions for us. Keep them coming. I have a feeling that this forum may have been the first of many on education.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 12:45 PM | Permalink | 2 Comments | Recommend

As some astute readers have noticed, there's a new face on my blog. Look up!

It's the NEA's Joel Packer, who is proclaiming in the above advertisement to have ALL of the answers.

While I don't have anything to do with Joel's smiling face appearing there, I thought I'd use this opportunity to ask the answer-man some important Campaign K-12 questions, since I only have SOME of the answers:

1. Obama won the Democratic nomination without the NEA's official endorsement. Will the NEA hold much power with Obama or his advisors?
2. Will the NEA spend more than ED in '08 to get Obama elected?
3. Will the NEA exorcise the "V" word (aka "vouchers") from Obama's vocabulary?
4. Has the NEA pinned Obama down on what exactly he means when he talks about merit pay?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:06 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

The general election debate over education policy, that is. Federal reporter extraordinaire David Hoff and I will be attending a forum tomorrow sponsored by the Association of Educational Publishers. It's being billed as the first chance for some the education advisers of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama to square off.

The representatives are:

Jeanne Century, Director of Science Education and the Director of Research and Evaluation
University of Chicago's Center for Elementary Mathematics and Science Education, representing Obama, and Lisa Graham Keegan, principal with the Keegan Company and former state schools superintendent in Arizona, representing Sen. McCain.

The moderator will be Frank Catalano, senior vice president of marketing for Pearson's U.S. K-12 education businesses

They'll have a panel of questioners that includes:

Sara Davis, manager of education resource development for USA Today; Neal Goff, president of the Weekly Reader Publishing Group; Margery Mayer, president of Scholastic Education; Joel Packer, the director of education policy and practice for the National Education Association; and Bernice Stafford, a consultant with the Center for Interactive Learning and Collaboration. Here's a link to some of their bios.

And apparently, Century and Keegan will also be taking questions from the press. Can't make it to the forum, but have something you'd like us to ask them? Let us know in the comments section.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 10:46 AM | Permalink | 12 Comments | Recommend

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

The National Education Association is finally planning to endorse Sen. Barack Obama, now that he has enough delegates to claim the Democratic presidential nomination. Way to go out on a limb there, NEA.

(Hat tip to Mike Antonucci, who I've linked to above, and Mike Petrilli at Flypaper).

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:54 PM | Permalink | Leave a comment | Recommend

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

Last night kicked off the general election in earnest. And, although neither Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois nor Sen. John McCain of Arizona focused in detail on education in their speeches (big surprise), their general election arguments on education began to take shape. And both speeches were just as notable for what they didn't say as what they did.

Sen. Barack Obama , now the presumptive Democratic nominee, said he wants to provide more resources to schools, particularly for teacher training:

"If John McCain spent some time in the schools of South Carolina or St. Paul, Minnesota, or where he spoke tonight in New Orleans, Louisiana, he’d understand that we can’t afford to leave the money behind for No Child Left Behind; that we owe it to our children to invest in early-childhood education; and recruit an army of new teachers and give them better pay and more support; and finally decide that, in this global economy, the chance to get a college education should not be a privilege for the few, but a birthright of every American."

While Obama mentioned that there needs to be more money put into programs authorized under the No Child Left Behind Act, he didn't say that the law itself needs to be scrapped or even significantly rewritten. He has mentioned "fixing" the law in other stump speeches, and I wonder if that line just didn't make it in ... or if he is going to be more pro-NCLB now that the general election has effectively begun. Stay tuned, I guess.

McCain repeated his calls to make government in Washington more efficient and to "freeze discretionary spending until we have completed top-to-bottom reviews of all federal programs to weed out failing ones."

Presumably, the plan to freeze spending would include Title I grants for disadvantaged students and other major NCLB programs. That would be huge for school districts that say they haven't seen a major increase in Title I aid in years - and it might make it difficult to gain the support of Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., the chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, who has said President Bush's refusal to increase education spending has essentially deadlocked NCLB negotiations this year.

But, despite his criticism of the expansion of the federal government during the Bush years, McCain also did not attack No Child Left Behind, a program that many conservatives consider the embodiment of federal overreach. The law is so closely identified with President Bush that criticizing it may give McCain a chance to show he's Not Bush, a point he made over and over in his speech last night. And even some conservatives have taken him to task for seeming to stay so close to the law's core principles, despite opposition in his own party. We'll see if McCain's essentially pro-NCLB strategy continues to hold throughout the general election campaign.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:48 AM | Permalink | 1 Comment | Recommend

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

Today is finally, finally the last day of the Democratic presidential primary.

After South Dakota and Montana finish voting tonight, there will be no one left to decide the Democratic contest except the party's superdelegates. There aren't too many out there who remain uncommitted, just 160 left, according to politico.com. Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has 2,074 delegates in total, according to realclearpolitics, while Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has 1,915. The number needed to clinch the nomination is 2,118.

So, it appears to be up to the superdelegates to put the nominee over the top. And a handful of the folks who will make that determination are members of the House Education and Labor Committee or the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee.

They are: Reps. Jason Altmire of Pennsylvannia, Susan Davis of California, Rush Holt of New Jersey, Dennis J. Kucinich of Ohio, John Sarbanes of Maryland, and John F. Tierney of Massachusetts.

And in the Senate: Sens. Sherrod Brown of Ohio, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Jack Reed of Rhode Island.

I'm betting these folks are probably looking at electability, at which candidate won their state or congressional district, and at which has the highest pledged delegate count after the final primaries today. But, you never know, they could also be looking at education policy ...

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