Politics K-12

From contributing blogger Alyson Klein:

So the big news is that former Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, the one-time Democratic presidential candidate, is expected to endorse Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois for president tonight. In terms of the nomination, this might mean that Edwards' 60-some delegates will go to Obama - a seemingly small number, compared to the 2,026 needed to win the nomination, but every little bit counts in this close Democratic contest.

It might mean that some of the anti-poverty programs that Edwards supported will become part of Obama's platform. That included a number of education programs, such as raising pay by up to $15,000 annually for teachers in high-poverty schools. And it wouldn't surprise me (or anyone) if Edwards were offered a role in Obama's cabinet. According to the Times article, he's interested in attorney general (or even vice-president).

But, if that doesn't pan out... Edwards' passion for workers' and health issues would suggest Secretary of Labor (where he'd oversee JobCorps, a vocational training program aimed at 16 to 24 year olds) or Secretary of Health and Human Services (where he'd oversee Head Start).

And...as long as I'm speculating on cabinet positions...I should mention that Edwards' had some pretty fiery anti-No Child Left Behind Act rhetoric on the campaign trail, even suggesting "ditching" the law at one point. As far as I'm aware, he's never expressed interest in becoming Secretary of Education. But you never know...

Posted by Alyson Klein at 5:58 PM | Permalink | Comments (1) | TrackBacks (0)

The field is narrowing. John Edwards, the former senator from North Carolina, and former New York City mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani are expected to drop out of the presidential contest today.

Edwards had, arguably, been the most critical of NCLB of the three Democrats left, even suggesting at one point that lawmakers might want to consider "ditching" the law, a six-year-old reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. His rivals, Sens. Hillary Clinton of New York, and Barack Obama of Illinois, both advocate for “fixing” the measure, but neither has suggested scrapping it entirely.

UPDATE: Read the remarks John Edwards made today from New Orleans, where he said that the two remaining Democrats have pledged to make ending poverty central to their campaigns.

Giuliani never developed an education platform much beyond his call to expand school choice. Of the three Republicans left in the race, Sen. John McCain of Arizona is perhaps the least prone to discussing education. It’ll be interesting to see whether his former governor rivals, Mike Huckabee of Arkansas and Mitt Romney of Massachusetts, try to use their experience overseeing their state education systems to prove that they’re better equipped to lead on this issue than McCain. If they don’t? It might be further proof that education is a backburner issue in this race – at least for many Republican primary voters.

Posted by Alyson Klein at 11:31 AM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)

During Tuesday's Democratic debate in Las Vegas, sponsored by MSNBC, the three front-runners were asked a very serious question about education.

To what do you attribute the high dropout rate among African-American students, and what would you do about it?

The question went to Illinois Sen. Barack Obama first, but eventually, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards answered it, too. Their proposed solutions were similar, and complementary: universal prekindergarten, after-school programs, "second-chance" schools for dropouts, promoting fatherhood, etc.

But did you notice something in common about their answers? In response to a question about kids who drop out of school, the candidates barely mentioned any thoughts they have on helping kids while they are actually in a school, during the traditional school day. After all, students are most at risk of dropping out during their freshman year of high school.

To be sure, the Democratic solutions can all be considered very important. In fact, I've blogged before about how fixing America's education crisis won't be accomplished just by fixing what goes on inside a school building.

But did Sen. Clinton forget that she's the only candidate who actually has a dropout plan that she maintains will cut the number of kids who leave school in half? She didn't even mention it.

Sen. Obama did mention paying teachers better and reforming No Child Left Behind (with little explanation), but he hung his answer on pre-k.

There's little doubt that high-quality prekindergarten is beneficial for students, particulary those at risk of failure in school. But there's also little doubt that prekindergarten programs need to be high quality. How would the next president ensure that funds are used on high-quality preschool programs, particularly for students who need help the most?

In addition, for the candidates who say pre-k will solve the dropout problem, I wonder how that helps the students who are in school now. Even if prekindergarten for every child was available this year, that does little to help the kindergarteners, and older students, who are in the system now, moving from grade to grade. Along the way, 1 million drop out each year. That's at least 12 million kids—the population of Ohio—dropping out over the next dozen years while the candidates pin their hopes on prekindergarten.

In the debate, when asked about the economic and mortgage crisis, Sen. Clinton said: "We need to move urgently. We have a lot of big agenda items ... universal health care, college affordability -- but we can't wait. We're going to lose another, you know, million Americans in home foreclosures."

What about the million students we lose every year from high schools? Does that require us to move urgently?

Posted by Michele McNeil at 5:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (6) | TrackBacks (0)

Boosting teacher pay is a hot education reform topic on the presidential campaign trail, especially for Democrats. Barack Obama even talked about it last night during his second-place-finish speech in the New Hampshire primary, saying, "We [need to] stop talking about how great teachers are and start rewarding them for their greatness."

It's a popular message with unions, whose members are a key voting bloc. Teacher pay is relatively easy for voters to understand in short sound bites. Plus, many voters find it hard to argue with the need to pay teachers more money for the vital, and difficult, public service job they perform.

But if the end game is, indeed, to recruit and retain new teachers, then EdWeek's new state-by-state "Quality Counts 2008" report suggests the solution is far more complicated than anything that can fit in a 15-second sound bite.

And this means the teacher-pay proposals of the candidates merit more scrutiny. For the most part, this scrutiny is limited to Democrats, who are the only ones seriously talking about teacher pay issues.

New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson's plan to make the average starting salary for teachers in America $40,000 could be seen as overly simplistic. And that's because, according to Quality Counts, teacher pay varies widely by state and is a bigger issue in some parts of the country than others. Montana and Rhode Island, for example, have median teacher salaries that are above those for comparable jobs. But teachers in North Carolina and Missouri make far less than peers in similar jobs. So the solutions may be different for different states.

Sen. Hillary Clinton, of New York, has been rather vague on teacher pay issues, except to make it perfectly clear she thinks merit pay for teachers is "demeaning." Though she may not like merit pay, it is clear, from what the Quality Counts researchers found, that good teachers now have little hope of making big salary gains, which could hurt efforts to retain the best educators.

And speaking of money, former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards' plan calls for giving teachers $15,000 bonuses for teaching in high-poverty schools. But money may not be enough, as explained in the Quality Counts story, "Working Conditions Trump Pay." Teachers also want good building leadership, support from their colleagues and bosses, and classroom resources.

Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois has one of the most comprehensive plans, which touches on everything from supporting mentoring programs and common planning time to recruiting teacher-candidates for high-needs schools. But even he overlooks a common problem for states: data quality. Quality Counts revealed that only 20 states have, and can verify, their ability to track the number of highly qualified teachers overall, and the number in high-poverty schools.

Without good data collection, it will be hard to gauge the effectiveness of any new teacher programs. But try getting the words "data quality" or "data collection" in a voter-friendly, 15-second sound bite.

Posted by Michele McNeil at 6:00 PM | Permalink | Comments (3) | TrackBacks (0)

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

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

Listen to John Edwards:

Posted by Michele McNeil at 3:28 PM | Permalink | Comments (0) | TrackBacks (0)