Donate
Email Password
Not a member? Sign Up   Forgot password?
Business and Economics Education Environment Health Care California
Home
About PRI
My PRI
Contact
Search
Policy Research Areas
Events
Publications
Press Room
PRI Blog
Jobs Internships
Scholars
Staff
Book Store
Policy Cast
Upcoming Events
WSJ's Stephen Moore Book Signing Luncheon-Rescheduled for December 17
12.17.2012 12:00:00 PM
Who's the Fairest of Them All?: The Truth About Opportunity, ... 
More

Recent Events
Victor Davis Hanson Orange County Luncheon December 5, 2012
12.5.2012 12:00:00 PM

Post Election: A Roadmap for America's Future

 More

Post Election Analysis with George F. Will & Special Award Presentation to Sal Khan of the Khan Academy
11.9.2012 6:00:00 PM

Pacific Research Institute Annual Gala Dinner

 More

Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
10.19.2012 5:00:00 PM
Author Book Signing and Reception with U.S. Supreme Court Justice ... More

Opinion Journal Federation
Town Hall silver partner
Lawsuit abuse victims project
Press Archive
E-mail Print Since tonight’s debate won’t talk education...
Flypaper Blog
By: Eric Osberg
10.15.2008

The College Puzzle, October 15, 2008


Since tonight’s debate won’t talk education...

...I will. It’s a safe bet that education won’t be a big part of tonight’s presidential debate, so if you need to ponder what an McCain or Obama administration should or could do, two NY Times blog entries from earlier this week have some interesting thoughts.

Lance Izumi charges that Obama’s wish-list of education programs makes him seem “oblivious to the fiscal reality he faces,” and argues for McCain’s “alternative view of the way Washington should finance education”:

According to his campaign Web site, Mr. McCain believes: “Funding cannot be effectively apportioned in Washington, but it shouldn’t be a state-level official or district bureaucrat either. The money must be controlled by the leader we hold accountable: the school principal with a single criterion to raise student achievement.”

On the other hand, Bruce Fuller has a radical suggestion for a future President Obama:

If Mr. Obama is serious about public investment for innovation—focusing on inventive teachers and schools that truly boost student performance—he must cut ineffective, yet politically entrenched programs. Take, for example, Washington’s Title I compensatory education program, which channels $14 billion each year to schools that serve students from poor families.

President Bush tied big infusions of fresh Title I dollars to implementation of his No Child Left Behind Law. Yet several evaluations of Title I, which tries to improve poor children’s reading skills, have shown limited benefits, largely because mainstream classroom practices have remained the same. This huge program fails to lift children’s learning curves, and yet teachers unions and civil rights groups fight tooth and nail to protect it, a sentimental symbol of equity since the Great Society.



Cutting Title I isn’t going to happen, whoever wins. But Fuller is right that “Washington needs to simplify, without weakening its role in education reform.” Both candidates probably could agree on that.

Submit to: 
Submit to: Digg Submit to: Del.icio.us Submit to: Facebook Submit to: StumbleUpon Submit to: Newsvine Submit to: Reddit
Within Press
Browse by
Recent Publications
Press Archive
Powered by eResources