Ploafmaster General

Jake recommended, in the comments on an earlier post, that I read through Barack Obama’s plan for American education.

Now it’s pretty easy to assume that folks like me are simply cynical when we declare our disillusionment with the American Political System. But I decided it was worth backing up my opinions with some action and research. So I read Obama’s plan. Not just the overview, either. I actually read through the extended PDFs. So here’s what I’ve concluded, in brief, after some reading and some research:

Concerning No Child Left Behind:
1. States must create sets of standards in order to receive federal money (which the state doles out to school districts). The federal government doesn’t have a national standard, though, to which states must adhere.
2. Teacher quality guidelines are state controlled.
3. Choice of standardized tests is up to states - can be ANYTHING (and is generally whatever is cheapest), as long as all students take same test. Standardized testing only required of PUBLIC schools.
4. The bottom line is that No Child Left Behind only controls funding - it doesn’t control the details because the Department of Education has no control over the direct operation of public schools.

Obama’s Plan:
1. Requires lots of legislation since the Department of Education doesn’t control state standards and practices for education. OR it requires executive orders…but c’mon. Will Obama be able to make a strong case that all of his plans directly support Constitutional prescription? His plan talks a lot about creating this or that, or funding this or that, or setting standards, etc, but none of this is under direct control of the executive branch - almost all of it requires Congressional action and approval, and the president has no say until legislation hits the desk in the Oval Office. That means bills through Congress, debate, and earmarks.
2. I don’t think many states - even with legislators or governors supporting Obama - are going to like the idea of giving up control of their schools to the United States Government. Even if this is a good idea (and I’m not saying one way or the other), it would be a fight no president is going to win in 8 years, not when it’s been in state control for so long.

Look, a lot of what Obama has to say about education in this country is great. But that, unfortunately, is much of his plan; he talks a lot about his philosophy of education and that pads the PDFs quite a bit. There’s a lot of content that sounds pleasant, and I think that’s the point - to make readers feel good about it. But what would make me feel even better would be a candidate spending less time on a fluffy plan, and more time talking about what he’ll actually do as president.

Reading Obama’s plan confirms to me that he’s doing just what Clinton, McCain, et al. are doing. They’re all saying what they need to to get elected. They’re saying what people want to hear. Talk about education. Talk about the economy. Talk about any number of topics that are legitimate concerns of the American people. But heaven forbid a candidate talk about executive action, such as commission or judicial appointments. Why not discuss cabinet positions and policy? Diplomatic strategy (in depth)?

I’m glad Obama cares about education, because I do, too. But when it comes to choosing a president, I care more about what he or she plans to do within the powers of office. Leave the fuzzy feelings to the pundits.