Where the Candidates Stand

I've been away from the blog for a few weeks. Seems like nothing's happening on the NCLB front, with the exception of Jonathan Kozol's Hunger Strike. (By the way, the most distressing development in this is that Senator Ted Kennedy, a longtime friend of Kozol, is refusing to even return Kozol's calls now.)

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZvZd8_wNm2c"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZvZd8_wNm2c" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object> But a colleague recently sent me a link to a YouTube clip of John Edwards speaking on the NCLB, saying that this video had swung him over to the Edwards camp. It's powerful stuff, and Edwards is saying most of the right things. He's not saying repeal the NCLB, which he should be, but he seems to understand the immense problems the Act has occasioned and he's got a lot of good, if still rather vague, ideas about what to do.

He calls the NCLB "intrusive," and speaks of the absurdity of rewarding good schools that fall in their results but stay above the minimal competencies while punishing the underfunded and underperforming schools that make huge gains in their performances. Of the technocrats' mania for testing, he says, "the parameters of what we are measuring need to be more diverse."

So I decided to do a quick investigation of the other major candidates' positions on the NCLB.

First, Hillary Clinton does not explicitly mention it on her website. A summary by Margaret Paynich in the January 22, 2007, EdWeek says, "doesn't support school vouchers, supports types of performance pay, one-time testing for teachers - but no word yet on National Standards. My advice - don't hold your breath." In Clinton's publicly-released statement, she says, "While I firmly believe in the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act, the under-funding of this crucial law makes it impossible for teachers and schools to reach these goals." As I've noted previously, the only good thing about the NCLB is that it's underfunded, thus slowing down its rampage through American schools. So it seems that she's firmly behind the NCLB, not only its stated goals, which are indeed laudable, but its methods, which are dangerous. But in reality she is mostly vague, having chosen health care as the cornerstone of her candidacy.

Most disappointing to me is Barack Obama, whom I've supported from day 1 without, I guess, clearly seeing his position on the NCLB. Susan Ohanian's website (which, I should note in passing, is an excellent and thorough critique of NCLB--she has, I believe, coined the word "standardista" for people who maniacally preach standards). In her depressingly full section entitled "Outrages," she includes an article by Obama, "created by the Center for American Progress," which plays into the hands of the corporate technocrats who see the only function of education as enabling students to more fully participate in the "competition" for "global jobs." "Countries who are out-educating us today out-compete our workers tomorrow," he (or rather the Center for American Progress) writes. This is disappointing in two ways: first, that Senator Obama, as intelligent and articulate as he is (the two qualities I have admired in him), either isn't bold enough or wise enough to stand up to the corporate types who want to take over our educational system. Perhaps, it's just politicking, fence-sitting so as not to offend any powerful donors. Second, why is he allowing the Center for American Progress to write his position statements? Granted, the Center for American Progress is often progressive, and certainly sees itself as such, but its agenda is clearly economically-based--making good little workers out of our students. Its "State-by-State Report Card on Educational Effectiveness" is jointly written by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and contains troubling conclusions like "too many of our nation’s schools and students are unprepared for the demands of the 21st century’s knowledge-based economy" and "These shortcomings are unacceptable and spell trouble for the economic prospects of individual Americans and for the competitiveness of the country as a whole."

Then there's Governor Bill Richardson, who doesn't stand a snowball's chance of getting nominated. He writes, "I have a one-point plan for No Child Left Behind: Scrap it." Hooray for a voice of sanity.

And Dennis Kucinich, an original supporter of NCLB, who has seen the damage it's doing and has changed his position: "Yes, I would [throw it out now]. I would replace it with [...] a new educational structure where the focus would be on helping to bring forth the creativity of our children in stressing arts and language, music; to invite the participation of educational philosophers and psychologists and administrators and teachers and parents and children; to take a new focus on our education, to stop this incessant direction of trying to make us a nation of test-takers, of putting the pressure on teachers to teach to the test, and then school districts depending on the results of those tests for their funding."

It's trendy for the leading candidates to support the NCLB in general and bemoan the fact that the Bush administration's major failing is underfunding it. Only the second-tier candidates, who presumably can speak their minds without fear of losing the support of the wealthy corporate donors, can speak the truth about the NCLB's emperor and his garb.

Can either Clinton or Obama be shown the light before it's too late? Or can John Edwards actually win the nomination?