Obama on Education

In the New Republic, Josh Patashnik tries to find meaning in the evolution of Senator Obama's views, positions, and public statements on education policy. It's a smart, well-written piece that does a good job of summing up the politics and reform dynamics currently at play. But in the end I don't think the evidence lends itself to any definitive conclusions about Obama's instincts as a heterodox reformer generally, or what an Obama presidency will mean for education. Nor do I think Senator Clinton is quite as in the tank to anti-reform and labor interests as the article implies.

For example, after losing Iowa, Senator Clinton said "We will end the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind." There two ways to do that: 1) End the mandate, or 2) End the undfundedness. When Obama won Wisconsin a few weeks ago, he said "I don't want our standards measured just by a single high-stakes standardized test, because I don't want our teachers teaching to the tests." Again, this could be accomplished by 1) Not holding schools accountable for the results of a single test, or 2) Holding schools accountable for the results of multiple tests, or a single test plus other measures.

In both cases, the ambiguity is not accidental. Clinton and Obama are using words that appeal to widespread dissatisfaction with NCLB among Democractic primary voters--"unfunded mandate," "single high-stakes standardized" etc.--without actually promising to unequivocally dismantle the law. It's not like such a position isn't available. Bill Richardson simply pledged to "Scrap No Child Left Behind." Dennis Kucinich said "My election will mean the end of No Child Left Behind as a way of achieving the education of our children."

There's simply no way that a Democrat in the middle of the tightest primary fight in decades is going to wade into the swamp of school reform politics at this point. But that doesn't mean they can't, or won't, once elected. Patashnik quotes Fordham's Mike Petrilli saying "The old rule in politics is that, if you want to get something done, you need to campaign on it." Haven't the radical policies of the current adminstration definitively refuted that notion?