Campaign K-12

NPR this morning did a segment on just how bipartisan John McCain and Barack Obama really are. (Hat tip to Liam, over at Flypaper.)

As an example of just how willing Obama is to break ranks with his party, NPR points to an interview the Illinois Democrat gave to Fox News Sunday, in which he pointed out that he embraces the not-so-Democratic ideas of charter schools and some sort of merit pay for teachers.

But this Obama interview on Fox News was from the end of April. That was more than two months ago, before Hillary Clinton dropped out of the race, which seems like a political eternity ago. Then, the American Federation of Teachers had endorsed Clinton, and the larger National Education Association was still holding back (though the union is poised to formally endorse him on Friday.) Now that Obama is getting all chummy with the NEA, I wonder how much he'll play up his support of charter schools, and merit pay for teachers, when he addresses the teachers' union on Saturday?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

As the National Education Association's annual convention gets started, the nation's largest teachers' union unveiled its plan to fix schools by 2020. The crux: get rid of the No Child Left Behind Act, diminish the federal role in education while still giving states lots of money.

More specifically, the NEA wants the federal government to focus grant money on recruiting, training, and supporting teachers in hard-to-staff schools, better fund Title I and special education, and require states to develop adequacy and equity plans to address funding disparities among school districts. The six-point plan also calls for revamping accountability systems to take into account socio-economic factors (such as access to health care in high-poverty schools), improving education research by decoupling the Institute of Education Sciences from the Education Department, and supporting the federal role as a clearinghouse for good school-reform ideas.

In return, the NEA commits to supporting a national White House-sponsored education summit, helping to design public-engagement programs to drive school reform in states, helping states develop new accountability systems with less focus on standardized testing, and better partnering with the U.S. Department of Education.

In a press release, the NEA says that Sen. Barack Obama (who will address the convention on July 5) likes the plan, describing it in a letter as "critical starting points for a new educational compact.” I can't post the letter--the NEA won't hand it out because officials say they can't use members' dues to distribute campaign material. But as soon as we get it from the campaign, we'll post it here.

Expect more insight on this from my colleagues and fellow bloggers David Hoff and Vaishali Honawar (who is live-blogging the NEA convention.) UPDATE: Read Vaishali's take here and The Hoff's take here.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:27 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

There's been a lot of dust-up over the fact that sometimes, Barack Obama doesn't wear a flag pin on his lapel. So in hopes of assuring people that he really, really is patriotic, he delivered this speech yesterday about patriotism, in which he emphasized the role of schools in turning kids into good Americans:

The loss of quality civic education from so many of our classrooms has left too many young Americans without the most basic knowledge of who our forefathers are, or what they did, or the significance of the founding documents that bear their names. Too many children are ignorant of the sheer effort, the risks and sacrifices made by previous generations, to ensure that this country survived war and depression; through the great struggles for civil, and social, and worker's rights.

This reminds me of some debates I've seen involving patriotism in schools. Just as some people think Barack Obama should always wear his lapel pin, some legislators think classrooms should display the U.S. flag, and students should have to say the Pledge of Allegiance (which contains the sometimes controversial phrase "under God"). For instance, in Arizona last year, many school districts had to raise private funds to pay for a new requirement that they hang a flag in every public-school classroom, grade 7 and up. Even John McCain has weighed in on the merits of saying the Pledge in school.

These debates seem to suck up a lot of political energy in statehouses, and it seems to me that there's a bigger issue than whether a presidential candidate wears a flag pin, or, in the case of schools, whether classrooms must contain a U.S. flag, or whether students must recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Perhaps a better use of political capital would be to argue the merits of civic education in schools, and where the lessons of history and patriotism can be squeezed in amidst all of the demand for more math and science.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 9:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

ED in '08's Roy Romer and Sen. Barack Obama have now entered the hugging phase, which brings me to the following question: How nonpartisan can an organization be when its leader and chief spokesman is so partisan?

Before Obama delivered his major education speech at a school outside of Denver on Wednesday, he got an enthusiastic introduction from former Colorado Gov. Romer, and a hug, as pictured in the AP photo above.

Romer, who is also the chairman of the nonpartisan ED in '08 campaign, introduced Ilinois Democrat as the "next president of the United States" and praised him with these words: "This is a man who has an ability to look at problems in a new way. We need that in this country."

Earlier this month, Romer, who is also a Democratic Party superdelegate, announced he was throwing his support behind Obama. At the ED in '08 blogger summit I attended earlier this month, Romer defended this by explaining that he was acting individually and not on behalf of ED in '08, fulfilling his role as a citizen in this democracy. He pointed out that Marc Lampkin, ED in '08's executive director, is a supporter of John McCain for president. (And Lampkin told me separately that he was helping raise money for the senator from Arizona and presumptive GOP nominee.)

But Wednesday, Romer took his role a step further by going out on the campaign trail and championing Obama before the senator made a major speech on education policy in Colorado, considered by many to be a "must-win" state for the Democrats in the general election.

Interestingly—and I'm not sure whether this was on purpose or not—Romer explained at the blogger summit that ED in '08 is "bipartisan." That's a subtle yet distinct difference from being nonpartisan. And sometimes, it's perception that really counts.

ED in '08 hasn't had much success getting the candidates to focus on education during the primary, which has so far focused on Iraq, sky-high energy prices, and worsening economic woes. Perhaps this is part of a larger strategy to get close to the inner circle of the campaigns in hopes of having more influence over the education debate. But how close is too close for a nonpartisan public awareness campaign?

(Photo caption and credit: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, right, hugs former Colorado Gov. Roy Romer before talking to students and invited guests during a town hall meeting in Thornton, Colo., on May 28. Jack Dempsey/AP)

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:45 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From contributing blogger David Hoff:

In response to Sen. Barack Obama's education speech yesterday, the McCain campaign is circulating the following sentence I wrote in 2007:

In his eight years in the state Senate and two years in the U.S. Senate, Mr. Obama hasn’t made a significant mark on education policy.

I'd like to remind the campaign that earlier this year I quoted an Arizona superintendent saying this about McCain:

I don’t think he has a strong track record of putting education at the top of his priorities.

Read the Obama story and the McCain story and you can decide who has a better track record on K-12 issues.

Posted by David J. Hoff, edweek.org at 11:30 AM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Sen. Barack Obama was in Colorado today, talking about education at Mapleton Expeditionary School of the Arts in the town of Thornton. The school is one of 17 small learning environments in the 5,800-student Mapleton School District.

Here, all 44 of the school's seniors were accepted to college—which stands in stark contrast to the dismal dropout rates in many high schools across the country. So Obama used this as an opportunity to talk more about his education plan, including teacher-recruitment initiatives, "fixing" the No Child Left Behind Act, and a $4,000 tax credit to help students pay for college. He also put on his "Obama Knows Best" cap and emphasized the role of parents in student achievement.

But clearly, his choice of schools was telling. The principal, Michael Johnston, founded the school (called MESA for short), which was funded by the Gates Foundation. MESA is a college-prep high school that uses students' interest in the arts to increase achievement in the core subjects of English, mathematics, and science. Johnston is a Teach for America alumnus who spent his tour of teaching duty in the Mississippi Delta and wrote a book about the experience.

In his speech, Obama talked of breaking free of "tired thinking" and making a "truly historic commitment" to education. He spoke of innovation in learning and leaving the old debates of "money versus accountability" and "vouchers versus the status quo" behind. He held up MESA as an example of education done right.

So what exactly does that mean? That was the question from one audience member who wanted all of this rhetoric translated into policy. Put simply, Obama said he'll attach federal money to education innovation.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:14 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Maybe.

Read union watchdog Mike Antonucci's post here, in which he reveals that the National Education Association's PAC Council approved a "conditional" endorsement of Sen. Barack Obama.

You can't really get more conditional than the NEA's conditions. They're endorsing Obama only if he captures the required number of delegates to win, or if Sen. Hillary Clinton drops out of the race. They don't even appear to be endorsing for the general election, just for the Democratic primary! In other words, they'll endorse Obama only when he's the last Democrat standing. Wow. That's really going out on a limb.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination, planned to introduce a bill today...on education!

The measure, which is sponsored in the House by Rep. Mike Honda, D-Calif., is aimed at better coordinating the myriad of programs geared toward improving math and science education. For instance, it would establish an Office of Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education within the U.S. Department of Education.

The political message behind the legislation could be a three-for-the-price-of-one for Obama. It could paint him as an advocate of good government, a proponent of improving teaching and curriculum, and a policymaker with his eye on the all-important global competitiveness issue.

Here’s hoping that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., or Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., decide to get in on some of that action by putting out their own education measures….

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:30 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia endorsed Democratic presidential contender Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois today. Byrd oversees the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee, so he'll be working closely with the next president (whoever that may be) on education spending. At this point in the race, the endorsement is mostly meaningful in that it puts another superdelegate into Obama's column.

Still, looking much further down the road, the endorsement could be a positive sign for relations between the appropriations committee and the White House under an Obama administration. That could only help the bottom-line for programs that Obama has championed on the campaign trail, such as improving teacher preparation.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 2:42 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

ED in '08 Chairman and superdelegate Roy Romer today announced he is endorsing Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois for president. (Hat tip to Flypaper on this one.) Romer, a former Colorado governor and Democratic National Chairman, leads the nonpartisan ED in '08 group that's trying to make education a prominent issue in the election.

To be sure, Romer isn't saying ED in '08 is endorsing Obama. In this ABC News story, he says: "My partner here, Marc Lampkin is a Bush Republican, a McCain Republican, so we are still one Democrat and one Republican who will be working even handedly." (Lampkin is the executive director of ED in '08, and I didn't know he had endorsed a candidate. I'll certainly ask him about that at the ED in '08 blogger summit I'm attending on Thursday.)

But in that same story, Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said the campaign will seek the counsel and advice of Romer on education issues.

Should the chairman of the nonpartisan ED in '08 campaign, which is receiving an unprecedented $60 million from the Gates and Broad foundations, really be advising a Democratic candidate?

Just asking.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 4:59 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

Now that Obama seems poised to wrap up the Democratic nomination with a victory in North Carolina and a narrow miss in Indiana, the pundits are starting to examine where Obama goes now.

And if he wants to win, that means Obama needs to start pivoting to the center, some say. Fordham's Mike Petrilli writes on Flypaper about what that could mean for his education policy stances.

As a personal aside, I have to say that I was surprised that Obama did as well as he did in Indiana. I was expecting Hillary Clinton to more soundly beat him, and that's because, of all the candidates, it's obvious that he is the one who most represents change. And if there's one thing Hoosiers don't readily embrace, it's change. One of the most heated battles I ever witnessed as a Statehouse reporter in Indianapolis was when Gov. Mitch Daniels dared in 2005 to suggest Indiana should switch to Daylight Saving Time. (We Hoosiers thought it was silly to change our clocks to get an extra hour of daylight, even if the almost the entire rest of the country did.) After months of passionate, sometimes nasty debate, the bill passed the legislature by a single vote. So now Indiana switches its clocks like everyone else. But people still gripe about the change.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 12:11 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

If Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton weren't in a fierce political battle for their party's nomination, then students like Brian Griffin and Kaci Gardner probably wouldn't have gotten so involved in the campaign.

Growing up in a state like Indiana—as I did—you realize that presidential candidates don't pay much attention to you when your electoral votes are a foregone conclusion. (I think Indiana's electoral votes—there are 12 now—have gone to the Republican nominee since the dawn of time.)

Of course, it was mildly exciting when Indiana provided George H.W. Bush with his vice president. (That would be Dan Quayle.)

But that's nothing compared with the enthusiasm being generated in Indiana this week by Clinton and Obama. So as the Democrats slug it out before the May 6 primary, it's refreshing to see a state like Indiana become relevant—and its students become politically engaged—even if such relevance is likely to be short-lived.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 11:04 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

Last month, I took John McCain to task for declaring that there's strong evidence linking autism and vaccines. I questioned what evidence he was referring to since research has found there's no such link.

Well now, Barack Obama has waded into this controversy, declaring the research has been "inconclusive".

Are the candidates reading the research? While they may certainly argue that more research is needed into the causes of autism, they should also acknowledge what the research has found—and that's no link between the mercury found in vaccines and autism.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 1:22 PM | Permalink | Comments (2) | TrackBacks (0)

It's very important, if you look at the lively comments being posted to a blog item that I wrote earlier this week in response to a Barack Obama speech. However, some of the commenters also pointed out that it's important not to overlook bad teachers. And one writer took exception to Obama's tone. Check out the dialogue going on, and please weigh in!

Posted by Michele McNeil at 2:04 PM | Permalink | Comments (5) | TrackBacks (0)

Alexander Russo offers an interesting case study in Slate on a 1999 dispute over who hires and fires principals in Chicago—and what Sen. Barack Obama's actions mean for changes in education policy if he wins the presidency.

Essentially, Russo paints a picture of an Obama who stood on the sidelines as then-Chicago Public Schools Superintendent Paul Vallas went to the Illinois Legislature in an effort to wrest more control over his principals from local school councils. The story quotes a Republican state legislator who said Obama wasn't really that bold, or creative, when it came to education.

Russo writes:

The story of Obama's involvement suggests that on similarly contentious fronts involving national education policy, like the No Child Left Behind Act, he might respond the same way—holding back when powerful interest groups collide, only to support the status quo of local control in the end. The candidate's Chicago record on education also raises questions about his much-vaunted ability to bring different sides together to find lasting solutions.

And:

Obama didn't really have to stand up to anyone—not the groups he was affiliated with, not Vallas, not Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley. He was just approving the final result. He remained loyal to his roots, but only when it was easy to do so.

So Obama stood back while the real negotiations went on, jumping in only at the end, when it was easy, according to Russo.

This might be a pattern with Obama. Just last week, The Washington Post detailed a 2006 incident in which a bipartisan group of senators had hashed out a deal on immigration policy. While heading to the press conference, these senators encountered Obama, who said, according to the Post story: "Hey guys, can I come along?"

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:03 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

....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 | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

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 | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

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