Presidential Candidates on Education: The Democrats

Most funding for public education in America comes from states, but the overarching legislation and guidance for how to allocate those funds comes from the federal government. Currently, this influence is embodied in the stultifying mandates, impossible accountability goals, and all-important high-stakes standardized testing of the No Child Left Behind Act. Strong guidance from the executive branch and legislative branches of the federal government is necessary to bring about the school and community reforms needed to begin to pull America public schools out of the uninspired quagmire that they are in. Our next president must address this dire American need.

In my previous post, I combed the office and presidential committee websites of Republicans Rudy Giuliani, John McCain, Mitt Romney, and Sam Brownback. My goal was to determine the candidates' stances on education, and my findings were unsatisfying. McCain had not a word about education on his presidential committee website, and the other three offered what I felt were cursory, superficial suggestions on what Giuliani rightly identifies as "one of the great civil rights issues of our time."

No Republican candidate recognized the empty promises and counterproductive, draconian mandates of the No Child Left Behind Act.

This time, my attention turns to the Democrats, and reviews of the positions on education of presidential candidates Barack Obama, Bill Richardson, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, and Dennis Kucinich.

BARACK OBAMA

Senator Obama was not in office when No Child Left Behind (NCLB) became law under the 107th Congress in January 2002, so by opposing it he would not be opening himself up to the simplistic flip-flopper catcalls that the legislation's former supporters (Sens. Clinton, Biden, and Edwards) may have to deal with.

However, both Obama's Senate and presidential committee websites make zero mention of NCLB.

Senator Obama does post other education goals, particularly expanding Head Start for early childhood reading, and he has proposed bills to expand summer education and Pell Grants. He is particularly passionate about the Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act, which selects specific districts to become centers of replicable good practices. The presidential committee website reads:

...Under this initiative, 20 districts across the country would get grants to develop innovative plans in consultation with their teacher unions. High-performing teachers would be eligible for pay increases of 10 to 20 percent of their base salary. These innovation districts would be required to implement systemic reforms and show convincing results.

I wonder what does Senator Obama mean by "high-performing teachers" and "results." If these positive-sounding goals are tied wholly to standardized test scores--as President Bush and No Child Left Behind would have them--then such a system will only deepen schools' poisonous commitment to the culture of high-stakes testing. Offering bonus pay for better numbers is the kind of thing that makes people obsess and cheat. The cheating scandal in Houston elementary schools exemplifies the dark underside of these initiatives.

I think Obama's candidacy has a lot going for it, but if he is truly to prove himself as the man of the people, then he must square his stance on education in the context of the current national debate; progressive initiatives can be effective, but what about the ten-ton NCLB elephant in the room?

BILL RICHARDSON

Bill Richardson, Governor of New Mexico, former Congressman and U.S. Secretary of Energy, does not list education among the seven issues on his presidential committee website.

Richardson has made strides for education as Governor of New Mexico, so the omission is baffling. In April 2005, he created the New Mexico State Higher Education Department with a cabinet secretary, and in 2006, he was the keynote speaker at 2006 National Latino Education Summit.

Richardson's committee website does give one sentence to education, nestled within the Jobs/Economy section, where he discusses creating 84,000 jobs new jobs in his home state. It reads:

We've done it [created jobs] by making a real investment in public education, paying our teachers more but tying those increases to tough standards, and by using our resources more wisely, with less money for school administration and more in the classroom.

The vague "tough standards" could be a rubber stamp for continuing No Child Left Behind's suffocating practice of standardized testing as the sole measure of a child's success. If it is--and with the standards left undefined, I assume it is about testing-- then Richardson needs to talk to more educators. If he has some progressive ideas for how to empower teachers and students with diminished emphasis on standardized testing, I think America should hear them. The absence leads one to assume he does not.

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON

Hillary Clinton's Senate website contains 4,200 words and eleven links dedicated to the issue of education, with headings for Early Childhood Education, Elementary & Secondary Education, Special Education, Higher Education, and National & Community Service. To put this volume in perspective, the most space given to education by a Republican candidate is 250 words from Mitt Romney. Quantity does not necessarily beget quality, but at the least it reveals a comprehensive interest in the issue. (Obama and Edwards both have much more text devoted to education on their websites than all of the Republicans I reviewed; Richardson does not.)

Clinton, like Obama, sits on the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. She supports Head Start and logically links the issue of unaffordable childcare for low-income families with education, co-sponsoring the Children First Act.

Her direct confrontation with the implementation of No Child Left Behind is striking:

Throughout my career, I have fought to raise education standards in our nation's schools. I believe that every child should be taught by a qualified teacher and that schools should be accountable to the parents of the children they serve. That is why I supported the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001 and continue to believe in the principles behind the landmark law. When the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) was enacted, I viewed it as a historic promise between the federal government and educators -- schools would be held to higher standards than ever before and the government would make a record investment in those schools to ensure that they would be able to meet the new expectations confronting them.

Today, that promise has been broken. President Bush's budget for 2007 provides $12 billion less than was promised by the No Child Left Behind Act, including $1.24 million less for New York. If enacted, that would mean 374,141 eligible children will be denied services. And at a time when parents are working harder and needing the assurance that their children are in safe places between the hours of 3 and 5, President Bush's budget calls for funding of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers program at over $1.5 billion below the promised amount. The President's budget leaves behind 2 million students who would receive after school services if the were funded at the level promised in the No Child Left Behind Act.

Clinton vocalizes the horror in plain sight for educators and children in America: the promise of NCLB has been broken.

Her plans for reform include smaller class sizes, pay incentives for "talented" principals to work in low-income communities, massive school renovations, student mentoring, teacher recruitment, funding for special education, better access to higher education, and a fiery statement on school choice vouchers and privatization:

I strongly oppose voucher schemes that divert precious resources away from financially strapped public schools to private schools that are not subject to the same accountability standards.

I respect Senator Clinton's recognition of the lies of NCLB. Her statements indicate a strong understanding of students', teachers', and families' needs--except that she is silent on the stranglehold of accountability through standardized testing alone. The issue of high-stakes testing has yet to surface substantially in the national political debate, and Clinton's positions indicate that perhaps she may be the one to bring it out.

JOHN EDWARDS

Former Senator Edwards's presidential committee website interestingly lists "Strengthening Education" under the banner of "Eliminating Poverty."

Edwards expresses support for Head Start, better teacher pay and stronger curriculum, more affordable higher education, and offers one particularly novel and compelling idea:

Create Second-Chance Schools for High School Dropouts: As many as one-third of all students drop out of school, and the rates are even worse for poor and minority students. Almost a third of dropouts between the ages of 25 and 34 live in poverty. Large majorities of recent dropouts regret their decision and now believe that a high school degree is the key to good jobs. Edwards believes that we should create second-chance schools, including some in evenings and at community colleges, to help former dropouts get back on track.

Edwards indicates that his head and heart are invested in reaching out to all Americans. He does not bombastically tout his civil rights mission, but rather seems to have developed an expansive and intriguing system to help Americans living in poverty, thus strengthening our country as a whole. I would like him to say more on the rotten system of accountability that No Child Left Behind has tragically cultivated.

DENNIS KUCINICH

There is one dark horse presidential candidate who actually does speak on the crisis of high-stakes testing, Democrat Congressman from Ohio Dennis Kucinich:

The current Administration wants to box our young people in with standardized tests... These days, American students are tested to an extent that is unprecedented in American history and unparalleled anywhere in the world. Education must emphasize creative and critical thinking, not just test taking.

I believe we can take our children and society in a new direction by challenging this notion that education should be so limited. We ought to be encouraging art, music, and creative writing in our schools. In doing so, we recognize and fuel the wide range of talents our children possess.

He couldn't be more right in emphasizing creative critical thinking over test taking. Unfortunately, most current polls have Kucinich's support for the candidacy among Democrats at one percent--when he even appears on the poll.

CONCLUSION

Al Gore's line on climate change fits just as snugly for public education: "It's not a political issue, it's a moral issue." American children can do much better than they are in school; the under-funding and high-stakes testing yokes of NCLB must come off and some real support must come in. Obama's Innovation Districts and Edwards' Second-Chance Schools can be great things. Richardson's commitment to higher education and Clinton's comprehensive class size reduction and building renovation plans are steps in the right direction.

But high-stakes testing is a high-stakes issue, and America's children deserve action.

High-stakes testing stunts our children's growth and attacks the culture of learning that must exist in successful schools. I call on all of the candidates to recognize and attend to this critical issue.

In my opinion, of the leading candidates in both parties, Senator Clinton's comments reveal the most clarified, comprehensive, and clear-thinking agenda for the future of public education. However, if Clinton is to be the true reformer of public schools, she must not stop short of demanding massive accountability reform for NCLB. The current one-size-fits-all system of high-stakes standardized testing is not in our children's (our future's) best interest. Parents and educators know this--we must demand our political leaders act on this truth. Which candidate will step up to the plate?