The Curve
Given that raising teacher pay (though Richardson is the only one to give a firm figure – $40,000 – and pushing pre-K education is mentioned by all candidates by Dodd, I won’t address it away from here. Those are presumed.
Prominence of Education as an Issue
Depending on how the question is worded, education is somewhere between the third and fifth most important issue to Americans at any given time. This Rasmussen Poll places it fifth, largely by dividing Iraq and national security.
I don’t think that the order in which an issue is placed on a list is important, but I’d expect a Top Five issue to be on the uppermost tier of a candidate’s website. Here’s what I found:
Acing: Dodd has “Education” as 1 of his 8 top issues.
Passing: For Richardson “Education” is 1 of 12 top issues. Joe Biden, has “Education” as one of 18 top issues, though there is also “access to higher education” in a separate tab.
Scraping By: Obama has “Improving our Schools” as one of fourteen issues. Meanwhile, “Supporting Parents and Caring for Children” is a smorgasboard of family-type stuff that is one of the Top Ten on Hillary’s site. Education is lumped in here with a few other issues.
Failing: John Edwards lists “education” as 1 of 29 sub-headings in his issues page so I have no idea what priority it is, for instance whether it is more or less important than “Open Media”.
Stance on No Child Left Behind
In addition to shoving the federal government into territory where it has little constitutional business, No Child Left Behind has turned teaching into testing, and is a boon for private companies that write and score the tests, as well as training teachers on how to beat them. Its arbitrary nature demands perfection from public schools within the next ten years (can you imagine a law demanding that no doctor have a patient die by decade’s end?) and is modeled notably on the measures of the Houston School System, which faked a lot of its data.
I maintain that discussing education without mentioning No Child Left Behind is tantamount to not including Iraq in one’s foreign policy platform.
Acing: Richardson’s first point addresses the law (he wants to “scrap” it).
Passing: Biden would reform the law to include “more flexibility in evaluating performance”.
Scraping by: Obama mentions non-specific “shortcomings with the law” while Hillary and Dodd offer a desire to “fix” it so that the law can “realize” (Dodd) or “keep” (Clinton) its promise. This mainly involves more money.
Failing: If I will wade through issues -> sub-issues -> Q&As -> YouTube clip, I can hear that Edwards doesn’t like the law. He doesn’t have bad ideas, but I shouldn’t have to dig like a mole to find that out.
Charter and Voucher Programs
GGW loves ’em, how about the candidates. Though every candidate has declared support for various charters in the past through votes or signings, what do they say about them right now?
Acing: None.
Passing: Richardson opts for expanding charter schools, but comes out against vouchers (“cannot afford and should not spend taxpayer money to support private schools”).
Scraping by: None.
Failing: Edwards, Obama, and Biden all mention special programs — tracks that don’t follow the current public school model. But they do not mention how they would be funded, and one presumes it will be through federal public moneys. No idea how much, or what role the state would have. Clinton and Dodd don’t mention anything at all here.
Educating a Socioeconomically Diverse Population
When the public school system was designed and built, the poor and the non-white were not welcome in most public schools. Now our school populations include hundreds of first languages, and children of millionaires and children without fixed addresses sitting beside each other. If we’re going to use public schools to solve our society’s problemss, these are issues we’ll be dealing with.
Acing: Edwards reacts well to the SCOTUS decision walking down from Brown, as well as issues in rural schools. This is splattered around different “interest groups”
Passing: Obama includes a “STEP UP” program that “addresses the achievement gap by supporting summer learning opportunities for disadvantaged children through partnerships between local schools and community organizations.”
Scraping by: Biden mentions bringing the Internet to all schools, and takes credit for co-sponsoring the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
Failing: Nothing on this from Richardson, Clinton, Biden, or Dodd.
The Drop-Out Issue
On average, a student that drops out before completing high school is giving up hundreds of thousands of dollars in lifetime income, as well as increasing vulnerability to criminal activity. What do the candidates have to say about this issue?
Acing: None
Passing: Edwards pulls for “second chance” schools that would provide “one-on-one” counseling for drop-outs. A good idea, but hard to pull off on a large scale. Richardson calls for increasing intervention for students determined to be at-risk by grade 9.
Scraping by: Obama indirectly addresses this with the aforementioned STEP UP program.
Failing: Nothing on this from Clinton, Biden, or Dodd.
Extra Credit Opportunity
Not everything fits into a template, so here are a couple passing notes.
Chris Dodd and Hillary Clinton devote three sentences each to education. Shame.
Edwards pushes for more science and math in a case of Japan Envy. Meanwhile, Biden pushes better writing skills.
Major points to Obama for being the only one to focus on high achievers by expanding access to college-level courses in high school. Our high achieving students are grievously ripped off by our current K-12 public education system. Richardson also gets props for being the only candidate to bring parents into the equation.
Summary
This exercise is not the be all and end all. These candidates may have visionary intentions for education, but they’re hiding their light under a bushel, and that’s what I’m going on right now.
In the interest of disclosure, I will say that I like Bill Richardson, but I see a lot to like in Edwards, Biden, and Dodd. I’m ambivalent on Clinton, and I’ll be honest here saying that I have significant issues with Obama, though they have nothing to do with his education policies.
I like how your framed the issues and explained them. The layout is clear and useful – and I will make sure it gets seen. If I was grading, no curve as there is no comparison group, you get an “A” from me.
And others for the ideas and encouragement for this.
The way to get candidates to address this issue is by posts such as this one, and making sure the post gets SEEN. So I will do what I can as to that.
Good exercise. While we tend to see things differently, we certainly agree that the candidates are “playing it safe.”
<
p>
FWIW, in his book, Obama says:
<
p>
<
p>
By the way, this year Boston Public Schools will have a number of teachers earn more than $100,000.
…that someone who is specific on education, but not other issues gets a higher ranking than someone who has taken the time to lay out his specific thoughts on a wide range of issues. I don’t find it very helpful at all.
i’m thinking of this as one column in a grid. maybe others will do a similar review of other issues to help fill it out.
I think that in doing this post, Sabutai makes it more likely that Education will be addressed, and his sub issues not just in the presidential campaign, but also in the MA5, the 4th Middlesex Senatorial, etc.
<
p>
Because isn’t all politics local?
I didn’t think this was intended to be a single tool to help someone to decide who to vote for.
<
p>
But as a relative novice on the education issue, I appreciate the breakdown.
<
p>
I’d be thrilled if other people did them.
I don’t mind Edwards laying out lots of detail. However, if you have 29 priorities, you really have none. At some point, voters want to know what a candidate says they’re going to spend time and influence on, and it’s there that Edwards troubles me. If he could do everything he wanted, he are given a great idea of what he’d do; given the truth that he can’t I’m not sure what he’d choose to do.
…people want to know what you feel on a wide range of issues. They want an understanding of where you are coming from (no one has ever won a presidential election because of the specifics in their platform). It is laughable that you have created this construct to get back to where you started … that you favor Richardson. Great, just make the case and drop the faux analysis. Education is a much broader topic that touches economics and jobs, civil rights, health care, energy and taxation (to name just a few). If you can’t see where a candidate is going in those areas you can’t understand how they can deal with education.
<
p>
If Richardson does not get the nature of homosexuality say…why do we believe he understands the needs of the physically challenged, or learning disabled children with special needs? What is his commitment to the dignity of all…even those he does not understand?
<
p>
The idea that a President doesn’t have a roadmap on more than 29 issues is off base. Sorry, but true. It doesn’t mean that the President is introducing landmark legislation on each issue in the first 100 days. But come on.
And not what you think I wrote.
<
p>
I have no problem with Edwards having a wide range of positions, as I said. There is something admirable about that level of detail. However — and this is the key part — on his website Edwards places “Open Media” and “Asian American and Pacific Islander” issues on the same priority level as education, Iraq, and health care. Leaders need to have a hierarchy, a priority list. A President Edwards has limited time and influence, and his website gives no indication as to what he’d spend it on. From other remarks, I presume poverty and health care, but there’s nothing on the website to give an indication.
<
p>
Do you object to the idea that candidates should indicate which issues are of topmost importance to them?
I haven’t been to Edwards’s web site but it is probable that what you call 29 “priorities” is little more than what we used to call a “wish list.” I don’t have a problem with a wish list, but, as Reagan showed in 1980, a candidate has to pare down the wishes to four or five themes that he or she believes can be sold to enough of the public to get elected.
I think focusing on one issue is really useful. The trouble is, in a field this large, it’s hard (at least for me) to focus on the key differentiators. Honestly, though, I can’t recall my vote ever hinging on education policy.
on college education/funding issues or is that a topic for someone else to take on?
<
p>
Thank you for this diary. I think it’s very useful. I’m wondering if Richardson is able to be more specific because of his executive branch experience. Trying to implement programs is very different than trying to legislate them.
I may do another later, but if someone else wants to, they are invited to go right ahead.
<
p>
Frankly, Richardson has a real advantage on education because the federal government doesn’t have much to do with the issue (Obama has a similar advantage from his time as a state legislator). Dodd and Biden particularly wouldn’t have much experience dealing with the issue. I will admit Hillary surprised me a bit, as she likely saw more on education as first lady of Arkansas, but she is awfully vague on every issue on her site.
Education is one of my big issues and I have a unique perspective having been a student under MCAS and NCLB, a de school committee member, and a student mentor. At the end of the day its really a local issue since every school system has its own unique problems requiring equally unique solutions. That said Id argue that NCLB while perhaps unintentionally, is really a fastrack method to privitizing the schools.
<
p>
You keep testing kids on a universal standard level so that some local problems go unaddressed, local school fails to pass NCLB, local school gets funding CUT as punishment, local school gets worse since it has less resources, eventually vouchers and charter schools suck even more funding out of schools and brain drain its top academic performers, local school is left with a school of failures private options look viable, district gets desperate contracts private firm to bring school back on track. Etc. etc.
<
p>
At the federal level id reverse that so failing schools get more funding, resources, and assistance, id stop relying solely on local property taxes and instead fund schools on a need basis with more needy schools getting more money. Id also set up a much broader standard of achieveable goals i.e 85% of mainstream students reading at grade lvl by 9th grade that all schools should meet but give them the funding as well as the freedom to use their own local methods to achieve those broader benchmarks. For instance the Cambridge schools still have a host of issues (mostly homegrown and locally created) but implementing benchmarks have given them a universal focus/mission which is a vast improvement over the previous regime.
<
p>
you just described part of No Child Left Behind.
<
p>
billions of new federal dollars, much higher than during clinton admin, flowing exclusively to kids who quality for free/reduced price lunch.
<
p>
<
p>
actually, most urban school districts are remarkably similar.
ok…I do not have the time to find the posts from all those criticizing Edwards for not being specific enough when he talks about themes and not programmatic detail (but our host Bob did one) and now some of you are saying he is too specific because he is trying to be open and transparent about what he believes. Perhaps you should support Rudy then because of his simple to understand twelve commitments đŸ™‚ . Maybe not because he didn’t get to it until number 11.