Saturday, June 14, 2008

Obama on the Nile

Friedman absolutely nails it in his column yesterday.  Our long-term security depends on fewer people hating us -- and right now, worldwide hatred of the U.S. is, by far, at an all-time high thanks to this administration and its approach to international diplomacy -- an approach that McCain has backed to the hilt.

While Obama, who was raised a Christian, is constantly assuring Americans that he is not a Muslim, Egyptians are amazed, excited and agog that America might elect a black man whose father's family was of Muslim heritage. They don't really understand Obama's family tree, but what they do know is that if America — despite being attacked by Muslim militants on 9/11 — were to elect as its president some guy with the middle name "Hussein," it would mark a sea change in America-Muslim world relations.

Every interview seems to end with the person I was interviewing asking me: "Now, can I ask you a question? Obama? Do you think they will let him win?" (It's always "let him win" not just "win.")

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the Democrats' nomination of Obama as their candidate for president has done more to improve America's image abroad — an image dented by the Iraq war, President Bush's invocation of a post-9/11 "crusade," Abu Ghraib, Guantánamo Bay and the xenophobic opposition to Dubai Ports World managing U.S. harbors — than the entire Bush public diplomacy effort for seven years.

------------------------------
June 11, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Obama on the Nile

Cairo

This column will probably get Barack Obama in trouble, but that's not my problem. I cannot tell a lie: Many Egyptians and other Arab Muslims really like him and hope that he wins the presidency.

I have had a chance to observe several U.S. elections from abroad, but it has been unusually revealing to be in Egypt as Barack Hussein Obama became the Democrats' nominee for president of the United States.

Mincing Up Michelle

I had to rub my eyes and check again to make extra sure that Maureen Dowd actually wrote this Op Ed in yesterday's NYT about Michelle Obama -- not only was there no snarkiness, but it was positively glowing (well deserved, of course!):

That’s a good preview of how Republicans will attack Michelle, suggesting that she does not share American values, mining a subtext of race.

She’s a devoted daughter, wife and mother who has lived the American dream, from the humble South Side of Chicago to Harvard Law School. Hey, isn’t it totally unAmerican to complain that being a black woman in the ’80s at a class-conscious, white-bread college, Princeton, was somewhat uncomfortable?

Just as Bill and Hillary did the “Pssst! He’s black!” thing on Barry, now the Republicans will use the same tactic on the strong and opinionated Michelle.

Unlike her husband, who wrote in his memoir that he had learned at a young age to smile and charm and disarm whites of the notion that he might be a bristly black militant, Michelle has not always hidden her jangly opinions so well. She has spent more time dwelling on the ways in which society can pull down the less privileged and refers a lot to a callous but unnamed “They.”

“Michelle,” as one political observer puts it, “is a target-rich environment.”

Team Obama is hoping for the best. When she’s on her game, after all, Michelle is a knockout. And as one Obama booster enthuses: “Michelle’s story is a lot more mainstream American than Cindy McCain inheriting a brewery.”

-----------------------------------------------
June 11, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Mincing Up Michelle

WASHINGTON

Hillary and Bill are busy updating their enemies lists. And Obama is racking his brain trying to figure out where to stash his erstwhile rival.

If a President Obama put her on the Supreme Court, of course, we would have the infinite fun of hearing Bill rant about how Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts were dissing Hillary.

It’s good news for Obama that Hillary’s out of the race. But it’s also bad news. Now Republicans can turn their full attention to demonizing Michelle Obama. Mrs. Obama is the new, unwilling contestant in Round Two of the sulfurous national game of “Kill the witch.”

There are some who think it will be harder for America to accept a black first lady — the national hostess who serenely presides over the White House Christmas festivities and the Easter egg roll — than a black president.

Putting Children Last

This editorial in the WSJ about Democrats' efforts to kill the DC voucher program mentions Obama briefly at the end (and quotes from the Chairman of Democrats for Education Reform, former DC City Council member Kevin Chavous):

If the D.C. program continues for another few years, we will be able to learn more about the impact of vouchers on educational outcomes. The reason unions want to shut the program down immediately isn't because they're afraid it will fail. They're afraid it will succeed, and show that there is a genuine alternative to the national scandal that are most inner-city public schools. That's why former D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and current Mayor Adrian Fenty, both Democrats, support the program.

"Hopefully," says Mr. Chavis [sic], "Congress will focus on the kids, not the politics here." Barack Obama might call that the audacity of hope, if he finally showed the nerve to break with the unions on at least one issue and support these poor D.C. students.

It will be interesting to see if Obama weighs in on this.  I have no doubt that he understands exactly what's going on here and, personally, would have no problem extending a program that gives 2,000 poor black children exit visa from hell (and hell truly is a good description of most DC public schools -- hence the rise of charter schools to take 30% market share), but vouchers, sadly, remain the third rail in Democratic politics and this tiny program is such a big issue for the teachers unions, so I suspect Obama will sit this one out. 
 
There's always a chance, however, now that he's won the primary, that he's looking for an issue through which he can demonstrate that he's a "New Democrat" and not beholden to Democratic Party special interests.  If so, it would be hard to find a more entrenched special interest than the teachers unions, and this issue would be a great way to support the remarkable reforms taking place in our nation's capital under two DEMOCRATS, Mayor Adrian Fenty and Chancellor Michelle Rhee.
 
--------------------------------------------------

Putting Children Last
WSJ editorial, June 11, 2008; Page A22

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121314461809762739.html

Democrats in Congress have finally found a federal program they want to eliminate. And wouldn't you know, it's one that actually works and helps thousands of poor children.

We're speaking of the four-year-old Washington, D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program that provides vouchers to about 2,000 low-income children so they can attend religious or other private schools. The budget for the experimental program is $18 million, or about what the U.S. Department of Education spends every hour and a half.

This fight has nothing to do with saving money. But it has a lot to do with election-year politics. Kevin Chavis, the former D.C. City Council member who sits on the oversight board of the scholarship program, says, "If we were going to do what was best for the kids, then continuing it is a no-brainer. Those kids are thriving." More than 90% of the families express high satisfaction with the program, according to researchers at Georgetown University.

Many of the parents we interviewed describe the vouchers as a "Godsend" or a "lifeline" for their sons and daughters. "Most of the politicians have choices on where to send their kids to school," says William Rush, Jr., who has two boys in the program. "Why do they want to take our choices away?"

Good question. These are families in heavily Democratic neighborhoods. More than 80% of the recipients are black and most of the rest Hispanic. Their average income is about $23,000 a year. But the teachers unions have put out the word to Congress that they want all vouchers for private schools that compete with their monopoly system shut down.

This explains why that self-styled champion of children's causes, Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Congressional delegate from the District of Columbia, is leading the charge to kill the program. Ms. Norton contends that vouchers undermine support and funding for public schools. But the $18 million allocated to the program does not come out of the District school budget; Congress appropriates extra money for the vouchers.

The $7,500 voucher is a bargain for taxpayers because it costs the public schools about 50% more, or $13,000 a year, to educate a child in the public schools. And we use the word "educate" advisedly because D.C. schools are among the worst in the nation. In 2007, D.C. public schools ranked last in math scores and second-to-last in reading scores for all urban public school systems on the National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Opponents claim there is no evidence that the D.C. scholarship program is raising academic achievement. The only study so far, funded by the federal Department of Education, found positive but "not statistically significant" improvements in reading and math scores after the first year. But education experts agree it takes a few years for results to start showing up. In other places that have vouchers, such as Milwaukee and Florida, test scores show notable improvement. A new study on charter schools in Los Angeles County finds big academic gains when families have expanded choices for educating their kids.

If the D.C. program continues for another few years, we will be able to learn more about the impact of vouchers on educational outcomes. The reason unions want to shut the program down immediately isn't because they're afraid it will fail. They're afraid it will succeed, and show that there is a genuine alternative to the national scandal that are most inner-city public schools. That's why former D.C. Mayor Anthony Williams and current Mayor Adrian Fenty, both Democrats, support the program.

"Hopefully," says Mr. Chavis, "Congress will focus on the kids, not the politics here." Barack Obama might call that the audacity of hope, if he finally showed the nerve to break with the unions on at least one issue and support these poor D.C. students.

Launch of the Education Equality Project

This is huge: Democrats for Education Reform has joined with numerous other prominent Democrats equally committed to genuine education reform to launch the Education Equality Project, "a new organization focused on transforming America's public schools and educational outcomes for high-needs students. The Project will challenge politicians, public officials, educators, union leaders, and others to view fixing public schools as the foremost civil rights issue of the early 21st Century. It will focus America's attention on its highest needs students, who—54 years after Brown v. Board of Education—still receive far less educational opportunity and often struggle and fail in school."  Below is the press release and statement of principles.

 
This is really important because nearly all of the civil rights community, to its everlasting discredit, has been completely silent on the #1 civil rights issue of our time: the achievement gap and steps that must be taken to address it.  I never thought I would write these words, but kudos to Al Sharpton!
 
This is the teacher unions' worst nightmare: that traditional old guard Democrats like other unions and the civil rights community will finally see the light and refuse to support their efforts to maintain the increasingly indefensible status quo.
------------------------------
REV. SHARPTON AND SCHOOLS CHANCELLOR KLEIN JOIN MAYOR BOOKER, FORMER GOVERNOR ROMER, AND OTHER NATIONAL LEADERS TO LAUNCH EDUCATION EQUALITY PROJECT
 

New National Education Reform Coalition Calls Fixing Public Education the Civil Rights Struggle of the 21st Century, Aims to Challenge National Leaders to Work for Change

 

Reverend Al Sharpton and New York City Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein joined with elected officials, civil rights leaders, and education reformers from across the country today to announce the launch of the Education Equality Project, a new organization focused on transforming America's public schools and educational outcomes for high-needs students. The Project will challenge politicians, public officials, educators, union leaders, and others to view fixing public schools as the foremost civil rights issue of the early 21st Century. It will focus America's attention on its highest needs students, who—54 years after Brown v. Board of Education—still receive far less educational opportunity and often struggle and fail in school. In the coming months, the Project will seek to focus the presidential candidates on educational equality, hosting forums at the Republican and Democratic National Conventions. The founding members of the Project announced their new effort at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.

 

Founding Project members include elected officials, civil rights leaders, and education reformers. The 15 people who have agreed to the Project's "principles" (attached) include:

 

§         Andres A. Alonso, Baltimore City Public Schools CEO

§         Cory A. Booker, Newark, NJ Mayor

§         Geoffrey Canada, Harlem Children's Zone President and CEO

§         Kevin P. Chavous, attorney, author, and national school reform leader

§         Arne Duncan, Chicago Public Schools CEO

§         Howard Fuller, Former Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent, Education Professor and Director of the Institute for the Transformation of Learning at Marquette University

§         Peter Groff, Colorado Senate President

§         Kati Haycock,  The Education Trust President

§         Joel I. Klein, New York City Schools Chancellor, Education Equality Project Co-chairman

§         Marc Lampkin, Strong American Schools – ED in '08 Executive Director

§         James Mtume, KISS FM Radio "Open Line" Host

§         Michelle Rhee, Washington, D.C. Schools Chancellor

§         The Honorable Roy Romer, Strong American Schools – ED in '08 Chairman

§         Andrew Rotherham, Education Sector Co-founder and Co-director

§         Rev. Al Sharpton, National Action Network President, Education Equality Project Co-chairman

§         Joe Williams, Democrats for Education Reform Executive Director

§         J.C. Watts, Jr., Strong American Schools – ED in '08 National Spokesman

 

In the coming weeks, the Project co-chairmen will invite other leaders to join their coalition.

 

            "Today, an unprecedented coalition has come together to confront the racial disparities in education and address the issue of education as a new civil rights movement to bring equality to education in this country," Rev. Sharpton said. "We challenge both presidential candidates to recognize that we haven't come close to achieving racial equality in educational opportunity."

 

"It took our country 165 years to conclude that, under our Constitution, separate isn't equal in education, but, still, 54 years after Brown v. Board of Education, too often our schools fail our highest needs students," Chancellor Klein said. "We need to get serious about giving all children the education they need to succeed. It won't be easy—the status quo has lots of defenders—but it can be done and it is absolutely essential that we do it."

           

            "We stand at a historic time in the transformation of public education in Newark and the entire nation. We cannot let petty politics, crass opportunism, or personal agendas undermine our collective advance toward educational excellence," said Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Cory A. Booker. "The time for 'all deliberate speed' ran out 50 years ago. We must unite as a people to drive to empower our nation's youth with the mental, emotional, and spiritual strength to define their personal excellence and manifest our nation's ideals of 'liberty and justice for all.'"

 

"Our nation's economy and individual family income is tied to improving our skills through education," ED in '08 Chairman Roy Romer said. "Americans cannot afford to sit back and watch its schools fail our students. We need to raise expectations and opportunities for every single student, regardless of race, color, creed, or income. Most importantly, we need strong leaders to take initiative. Today, I am joining these influential leaders to call for change."

 

"Nationally, our public education system is failing to provide our students with the skills they need to compete for the best jobs in the global workforce," said former Congressman J.C. Watts, Jr., who serves as a spokesperson for ED in '08. "Too many of our students are not graduating from high school and too many who do graduate are not prepared to face the challenges of college, the workplace, or life. This crisis in education is destroying the foundation of our economic success and national prosperity. I am glad to join the bi-partisan coalition to sound the national alarm to improve our schools."

 

"It is not sufficient to accept small islands of excellence in our urban school districts," Dr. Andres A. Alonso, CEO of the Baltimore City Public Schools, said. "We must have the will as a society to ensure that every student, no matter where he is born, what color she is, or what parents he or she has can have access to the high-quality teachers and quality choices all children deserve. This is how we must define ourselves as a nation."   

 

"One of the first things I learned as the Washington, D.C. schools chancellor is that you can't base decisions on politics or what makes people happy," Washington, D.C., Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee said. "You have to have the courage to make decisions on one thing—and one thing only—if it will help students learn. As a country, we cannot afford to protect a system that is failing. It's time for our national leaders to start putting students front and center and start transforming our country's public schools."

 

"We're talking about a crisis that is entirely preventable, but only if leaders have the courage to say enough is enough," Joe Williams, the Democrats for Education Reform Executive Director, said.

 

The Principles, signed by the Education Equality Project members, are attached. To find out more about the Education Equality Project, please visit www.nationalactionnetwork.net or e-mail education@nationalactionnetwork.net.

 

###

 

Contact:  David Cantor - NYC Department of Education (212) 374-5141

                Rachel Noerdlinger - NAN/Al Sharpton Media (212) 876-5444

---------------------

Education Equality Project

Statement of Principles

 

1.      Fifty-four years after Brown vs. Board of Education, forty years after the assassination of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and twenty-five years after the publication of a Nation at Risk, we must confront a shameful national reality:  If you are an African American or Latino child in this country, the probability is high that our public education system will fail you, that you will not graduate from high school, that your ability to function successfully in the twenty-first century economy will be limited, and that you will have no real prospect of achieving the American dream.

 

2.      This reality is especially shameful in a country built on the core idea of equality of opportunity, a country divided for too many years by racial discrimination and injustice.

 

3.      Despite the urgency of the need and the righteousness of the cause, public education today remains mired in a status quo that not only ill serves most poor children, but shows little prospect of meaningful improvement.

 

4.      We must have an honest and forthright conversation about the root causes of this national failure.  The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result.   That is the trap we must avoid or risk losing another generation of our children.

 

5.      The sad reality is that these systems are not broken. Rather, they are doing what we have designed them to do over time.  The systems were not designed with the goal of student learning first and foremost, so they are ill-equipped to accomplish what is demanded of them today.

 

6.      Changing the system so that it better meets the needs of students will require not only a shift in our collective thinking, but also a shift in power.  As the civil rights movement itself makes clear, such transformations inevitably generate resistance and political conflict.  We must no longer shirk from that struggle. The stakes are simply too high.

 

7.      In practical terms, this means that we must take immediate steps to:

a.       Ensure that there is an effective teacher in every classroom, and an effective principal in every school, by paying educators as the professionals they are, by giving them the tools and training they need to succeed, and by making tough decisions about those who do not;

b.      Empower parents by giving them a meaningful voice in where their children are educated including public charter schools;

c.       Create accountability for educational success at every level --  at the system and school level, for teachers and principals, and for central office administrators;

d.      Commit to making every decision about whom we employ, how money is spent, and where resources are deployed with a single-minded focus: what will best serve our students, regardless of how it affects other interests;

e.       Call on parents and students to demand more from their schools, but also to demand more from themselves;

f.        Have the strength in our convictions to stand up to those political forces and interests who seek to preserve a failed system.

 

8.      Breaking through those forces requires the rest of us to declare that enough is enough. Our failure to educate our children reflects on all of us. We must call out policymakers who would never send their own children to so many of our public schools but who enthusiastically support policies that entrap other families in such hopeless circumstances.

 

9.      On behalf of all of our children, we must insist that our elected officials confront and address head-on crucial issues that created this crisis: teachers' contracts and state policies that keep ineffective teachers in classrooms and too often make it nearly impossible to get our best teachers paired up with the students who most need them; school funding mechanisms that ignore the reality that students are supposed to be the primary focus of schools; and enrollment policies that  consign poor, minority students to our lowest-performing schools.

 

10.  We can't wait another forty years to get this done. Today's children only get one chance to be well-positioned for success in our society. 

Sharpton, education plan may tear union ties

A very nice article about the launch of the Education Equality Project in the USA Today:

Decades-long ties between civil rights groups and teachers unions could be split by a new effort, led by the Rev. Al Sharpton and New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, to close the nagging achievement gap between white and minority students.

Sharpton, a Baptist pastor and political gadfly, says that for years, civil rights leaders have been silent on education equity issues. But a new group of activists, school superintendents and academics will push education in the 2008 presidential election, he said.

Unions have blocked what many reformers say are innovative ideas, such as alternative pay grades for teachers, expanded charter schools and moving excellent teachers into needy schools.

A friend had some forceful, insightful, spot-on comments on this article and the role of the unions, who pretend to put kids first, but always put their own interests first, which often acts to screw kids:
Re: article below, with all due respect, Kahlenberg is wrong ["Education historian Richard Kahlenberg said that while unions' and civil rights groups' interests "are usually aligned," this isn't the first time they've clashed. "It's been an uneasy alliance over the years."].  First, I would argue that, through their policies and practices (including dead-of-night bills like the NY State tenure deal), the unions have declared war on kids and their advocates in the civil rights community, not the other way around.  Folks like Sharpton, Klein, Williams, et al. are doing what any rational person would do under the circumstances, which is to fight back.
 
The bigger mistake would be for civil rights groups to continue to pretend that we can keep saying we are natural allies with the teachers’ unions, while they continue to screw kids.  The “elephant” in the room is not an elephant at all, it’s a gigantic donkey’s ass, because the problem here is primarily (and in some cases exclusively) on the Democratic side of the aisle.  We have been struggling with our AFT and NEA “allies” all week here in Washington: on equalizing student funding within school districts, on whether we should encourage Margaret Spellings to get tough on grad rates, and yesterday on a bill they are promoting (with the other payee organizations) as a rider to the Labor-HHS appropriations bill to suspend all the accountability provisions of NCLB until next year or beyond.  They are relentless, they do not compromise, and there is no let-up.
------------------------------

Sharpton, education plan may tear union ties

Decades-long ties between civil rights groups and teachers unions could be split by a new effort, led by the Rev. Al Sharpton and New York City Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, to close the nagging achievement gap between white and minority students.

Sharpton, a Baptist pastor and political gadfly, says that for years, civil rights leaders have been silent on education equity issues. But a new group of activists, school superintendents and academics will push education in the 2008 presidential election, he said.

Candidates Are at Odds Over K-12

DFER's Joe Williams with a great quote in this article about the presidential candidates' views on improving public education:

While the NEA waited until Sen. Obama had essentially locked up the nomination before making any endorsement, the 1.3 million-member American Federation of Teachers was an early supporter of Sen. Clinton and worked actively on her behalf.

Because neither national teachers’ union supported Sen. Obama during the primaries, he may have the opportunity to be a “different kind of Democrat,” said Joe Williams, the executive director of Democrats for Education Reform, a New York City-based political action committee that contributes money to Democratic candidates.

“He’s earned his independence so that he can really decide which of the unions’ positions he really wants to embrace and which ones he doesn’t,” Mr. Williams said. “The conventional wisdom is the time that you’ve got to pander to the unions is during the primary. He emerged victorious without [their help].”

------------------------------

 

Candidates Are at Odds Over K-12

But McCain and Obama Both Back NCLB Goals

By Alyson Klein and David J. Hoff

The presumed November matchup produced by the long presidential-primary season that ended last week offers contrasting approaches to K-12 policy, along with some common ground on the basics of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the presumptive Republican nominee, and Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who last week secured enough delegates to claim the Democratic nomination, both express support for the NCLB law’s goals and its use of testing to measure schools’ success.

But Sen. McCain would promote market forces as a way to spur school improvement, and would likely seek to freeze education spending as part of a review of the effectiveness of federal programs.

Sen. Obama, meanwhile, promises to search for new ways of assessing students and to invest significantly in efforts to improve teacher quality.

The Comeback Id (Clinton Vanity Fair article)

Here's the Vanity Fair article that triggered Bill Clinton's latest meltdown:

Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton's post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife's campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton's medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say "no." Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self.
------------------------------
Bubba Trouble

The Comeback Id

Old friends and longtime aides are wringing their hands over Bill Clinton's post–White House escapades, from the dubious (and secretive) business associations to the media blowups that have bruised his wife's campaign, to the private-jetting around with a skirt-chasing, scandal-tinged posse. Some point to Clinton's medical traumas; others blame sheer selfishness, and the absence of anyone who can say "no." Exploring Clintonworld, the author asks if the former president will be consumed by his own worst self.

by Todd S. Purdum July 2008

www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/07/clinton200807

It was a wedding straight out of Sex and the City: a rehearsal dinner looking out over the Eiffel Tower from the Trocadero, a garden ceremony and dancing reception in a grand château outside Paris, topped off by a private fireworks display. The groom was a thirtysomething American lawyer with friends in high places, the bride a dark-eyed designer with social sheen, and the guest list a mix of family and what Noël Coward once called Nescafé Society.

But the real cynosure of the occasion last August was the smiling, snowy-haired man who is the bride at every wedding and the corpse at every funeral he attends, the 42nd president of the United States, Bill Clinton. He had come to the City of Light with the motley crew that constitutes some of the post-presidential rat pack to celebrate the marriage of Douglas Band, the man who for the last decade has been his personal aide, gatekeeper, enforcer, and—more recently—counselor in the multifarious business, philanthropic, and political dealings that keep Clinton restlessly circling the globe.

Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform

David Brooks exactly nails it in his Op Ed yesterday.  You can almost always tell the difference between Old Democrats and New Democrats based on where they stand on school reform.  The former toe the teacher union line, whining about how schools shouldn't be held responsible for "those" kids from bad families and bad neighborhoods (aka, "blame-the-victim").  As Brooks writes, they argue:
that poverty and broad social factors drive high dropout rates and other bad outcomes. Schools alone can’t combat that, so more money should go to health care programs, anti-poverty initiatives and after-school and pre-K programs. When it comes to improving schools, the essential message is that we need to spend more on what we’re already doing: smaller class sizes, better instruction, better teacher training.
New Democrats and genuine school reformers, while recognizing the great challenges of educating children from difficult life circumstances, believe that schools can and should properly educate every child, not just the easiest ones to teach.  They also recognize that the primary problem is not bad kids/families/communities, but broken, dysfunctional, unaccountable systems that serve the interests of the adults in the system and the politicians who support it, but screw millions of mostly poor, minority children.  Brooks summarizes the reformers' views well:
The reformers want to change the structure of the system, not just spend more on the same old things. Tough decisions have to be made about who belongs in the classroom and who doesn’t. Parents have to be given more control over education through public charter schools. Teacher contracts and state policies that keep ineffective teachers in the classroom need to be revised. Most importantly, accountability has to be rigorous and relentless. No Child Left Behind has its problems, but it has ushered in a data revolution, and hard data is the prerequisite for change.
Brooks asks a good question: "Which camp is Barack Obama in?He doesn't know the answer and I'm not certain of it either, though I'm cautiously optimistic.  I'm quite certain that he's smart and informed enough to understand what's really going on -- the only question is whether, as President, he'd be willing to make this a high enough priority and spend the political capital to bring about real change.
 
I'm not troubled by the fact that Obama didn't rock the boat on this issue during the primary battle -- the reality of Democratic primary politics is that, just as every candidate had better support ethanol and farm subsidies, they'd also better not make enemies with the teachers unions.
 
But now it's the general election.  It's not like the teachers unions are ever going to support McCain, and Obama owes the unions nothing: the NEA tacitly supported Clinton and the AFT actively did -- see http://edreform.blogspot.com/2008/01/unions-bitterly-divided-in-democratic.html and http://edreform.blogspot.com/2008/01/judge-dismisses-nevada-caucus-challenge.html, in which I wrote: 
This judge's ruling yesterday in Nevada is very big news, not only for improving Obama's chances of winning there, but because of the story behind it.  In short, the teachers unions are burning their bridges with Obama, which will have profound -- and wonderful -- implications for education reform should he become President. 
 
Here's the latest news:
A union with ties to Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton failed in court Thursday to block the state party's plans to hold caucuses at special precincts inside casinos on the Las Vegas Strip.
I'll give you three guesses which "union with ties to...Clinton" was behind the lawsuit...  You got it: the TEACHERS UNION, as the article notes below:
Nevada State Education Association President Lynn Warne denied the case was linked to the Clinton campaign and said there would be no appeal to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco.
What's going on in Nevada is really important because when one examines which unions are backing which candidate, it's clear that this is shaping up as a fight between high-paid government workers (teachers and clerks) and private-sector low-wage workers, whose kids are forced to attend failing schools.
 
In addition, such desperate attacks on a Democrat -- especially one who's been such a great friend to labor! -- are highly unusual and underscore how threatened traditional unions are by the change Obama represents.  The teachers, in particular, are much more swayed by Clinton's "35-year history of change" (yeah, RIGHT!)because they like the status quo just fine and especially just want to make it to retirement without much changing.
So, I am eagerly looking forward to Obama staking out a bold education reform agenda -- though he may choose to wait until after the convention, given that teacher union reps make up 12% of the delegates the last I heard.
 
--------------------------
June 13, 2008
Op-Ed Columnist

Obama, Liberalism and the Challenge of Reform

Is Barack Obama really a force for change, or is he just a traditional Democrat with a patina of postpartisan rhetoric?

That question is surprisingly hard to answer. When you listen to his best speeches, you see a person who really could herald a new political era. But when you look into his actual policies, you often find a list of orthodox liberal programs that no centrist or moderate conservative would have any reason to support.

To investigate this question, I looked more closely into Obama’s education policies. Education is a good area to probe because Obama knows a lot about it, and because there are two education camps within the Democratic Party: a status quo camp and a reform camp. The two camps issued dueling strategy statements this week.

Chicago School Days

An interesting case study by Alexander Russo.  I hope this isn't indicative of how Obama might act on this issue as President (these events occurred nearly 10 years ago):
Based on Obama's actions in Chicago in 1999, it's hard to imagine him taking charge of the continuing debate over whether and how No Child Left Behind should be renewed. Forced to take a side, Obama's record suggests that, ultimately, he would be sympathetic to local autonomy. But there's not much evidence to show that he would be able to help mend deep and abiding schisms between testing hawks and local-control advocates. And without strong and unifying national leadership, our troubled public-education system stands little chance of making the dramatic improvements that it needs.
--------------------------
Chicago School Days
Obama's lackluster record on education.
By Alexander Russo
Posted Wednesday, April 2, 2008, at 3:05 PM ET

School reform advocates in Chicago have of late been heralding Barack Obama as a champion of local school councils, Chicago's hyperlocal system of school governance. Unique among big-city school districts in the United States, these independent, elected bodies at each school are made up of parents, teachers, and community members, 10 in all, plus the principal. Think of them as mini school boards, parent-teacher organizations on steroids, or condo boards for schools.

Created 20 years ago, these councils each hire and fire their own principals. Though firings aren't common, they turn out to be a very big deal. Dismissing a principal is the education equivalent of capital punishment. It's often career-ending. It disrupts a school to the core. And it sends shock waves out through the rest of the system. The councils—each dominated by six parents—are not all-powerful, however. Since 1995, Chicago has also had a central Board of Education overseen by the mayor that, among other things, has the power to close schools and open new ones.