Clinton and Obama on Education

Josh Patashnik has an interesting piece on Barack Obama as an education reformer. Dana Goldstein comments:

All that said, I disagree with Patashnik's suggestion that, once in office, Obama would prioritize education more than Clinton would. That could be true, but there's not a lot of evidence for it from where we stand. Neither Obama nor Clinton has injected education into the race in a deeper way than occasionally criticizing No Child Left Behind and promising to overhaul it. Supporting new ideas in white papers doesn't necessarily equal a commitment to pushing them through Congress.

In terms of pushing things through congress, I'd say the most important factor is this. Ted Kennedy and George Miller chair, respectively, the Senate and House education committees. They're the main Democratic architects of No Child Left Behind, and they're both supporting Barack Obama. Hillary Clinton, by contrast, has gotten a lot of support from the American Federation of Teachers which has been generally hostile to the broad thrust of what Kennedy and Miller have been doing. So while it's far from clear that either would-be president would, in practice, do anything noteworthy on K-12 education, an Obama administration would create a situation in which all the White House and the main legislative players regard each other as allies.

Comments

Worth noting that the feds do relatively little in the area of education, so it's always a bit frustrating to see candidates on that level acting like they can change a lot.

Posted by RM | March 13, 2008 2:38 PM

You missed Josh by a year at college! I think you two would've gotten along very well.

Once the two of us threw a Jihad together in Pennypacker. Good to see he's turned the Jihad against the enemies of education reform.

Posted by Cliff Mason | March 13, 2008 2:53 PM

This is why the Obama's candidacy has so much appeal for me. He does seem like the most likely of the three current candidates to succeed as President in working with Congress in a genuinely bi-partisan way to get something done. There will obviously be holdouts and hurdles, and he will have to give and so will Congress, but the chances are better for national progress. Given Clinton's and McCains divisive and untrustworthy* past, I just can't see how they'll be able to get as much support from the lege.

(*in that they've flipped and flopped when a their leadership in taking a principled stand would have been better for the country.)

Posted by 45387 | March 13, 2008 3:05 PM

Yep. Kennedy's NCLB was an absolute triumph. More like this, please!

Posted by lambert strether | March 13, 2008 3:33 PM

Yes, Matt having strong ties to the status quo means Obama will be the reformer!

Posted by Rob | March 13, 2008 3:47 PM

I think its important to note that Hillary effectively reformed a horrible education system in Arkansas when she was state First Lady. She also knows how to work with Ted Kennedy on children's issues. She has the record to be very good for education, and realizes that it IS at the local level - that's how she got Arkansas done.

Posted by Jackie | March 13, 2008 4:51 PM

I think its important to note that Hillary effectively reformed a horrible education system in Arkansas when she was state First Lady. She also knows how to work with Ted Kennedy on children's issues (recall s-chip). She has the record to be very good for education, and realizes that it IS at the local level - that's how she got Arkansas done.

Posted by Jackie | March 13, 2008 4:53 PM

As a teacher, I have very strong feelings against NCLB. The obsession on testing is damaging to the natural impulses of children to learn which are based on curiosity. It is correct that most education is local and state controlled but there are some things the federal government can do. Sen. Clinton has at least shown an understanding that NCLB is not worth pursuing while Sen Obama is listening to Kennedy who voted and supported Bush on this matter. Obama is also for merit pay which is often linked with test scores which is a very slippery slope in education.

Posted by elly | March 13, 2008 6:41 PM

As a teacher, I have very strong feelings against NCLB. The obsession on testing is damaging to the natural impulses of children to learn which are based on curiosity. It is correct that most education is local and state controlled but there are some things the federal government can do. Sen. Clinton has at least shown an understanding that NCLB is not worth pursuing while Sen Obama is listening to Kennedy who voted and supported Bush on this matter. Obama is also for merit pay which is often linked with test scores which is a very slippery slope in education.

Posted by elly | March 13, 2008 6:42 PM

I have heard nothing but horror stories about NCLB, I can't believe that you seem to be touting Obama's ties to NCLB backers.

Posted by bayoustjohndavid | March 14, 2008 1:46 AM

"They're the main Democratic architects of No Child Left Behind"

I think that this is a mis-characterization. 'Architecting' of NCLB didn't happen in the US Congress. As many may know, NCLB is basically a nation-wide application of a Texas program brought in with GWB. Any characterizations of architecting begin with Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education.

As far as the shape of the nationwide implementation that the US congress could be considered as playing a role, more information is required to judge whether Ted Kennedy and George Miller were positive or negative influences.

Posted by Jeff Morgan | March 14, 2008 2:11 AM