We know you don't want Checker to write the From the Readers section, too! So give him a break. Send YOUR thoughts to [email protected]. And watch this space for more From our Readers as we hear more from you.
Andy Rotherham is ordinarily a keen observer of the education scene, but in "Faith without works" he threw two unwarranted mud balls in the direction of the Oval Office and left readers with an erroneous impression of John Kerry vis-??-vis education.
First, Rotherham joined in the canard that Bush has failed adequately to fund the No Child Left Behind act. Horsefeathers. After the largest increases ever in federal education spending, everything required by NCLB is amply funded. What may not be, in some places, is the cost of successfully educating children, but that's the obligation of those who run and pay for schools, namely states and communities, not Uncle Sam. It's ridiculous to suggest that locals should pay for educational failure while Washington bears the cost of success.
Second, he faulted the Department of Education for not having "its act together" and thus bringing about the recent, misleading, teachers union "study" of charter schools. Nonsense. The Department posted the NAEP charter-school achievement data on its website in timely fashion, there for all to see and use. But nobody - including Rotherham's generally fleet-footed Progressive Policy Institute (or the sometimes fleet-footed Fordham Foundation, for that matter) - had the wit to notice and examine those data until after the American Federation of Teachers did so. Sure, it would have been nice if the Education Department had announced their availability, nicer still if the National Center for Education Statistics had expedited the release of its own analysis of those data. But the main blame here lies not with the Bush administration (whose political echelon likely didn't even know these data existed) but with the "charter movement" for being asleep at the switch.
Rotherham also sought to persuade Gadfly readers that a Kerry administration might be a more vibrant source of education reform than a second Bush term. His ardor, however, was notably contained. Observe, for example, this sentence full of negatives: "There is no reason to believe a Kerry administration would not be at least equally productive on education." He then cites a few lame examples from the Kerry-Edwards campaign and recalls a speech that Senator Kerry gave six long years ago.
The fact is that John Kerry has been a United States Senator for a very long time and has no legislative track record in education nor has he left any visible fingerprints on U.S. education policy. Yes, he gave a swell speech - six years ago. But I defy Rotherham or anyone to spot anything he's accomplished, or seriously striven to accomplish, by way of improving American education. Even to supply evidence that he's deeply conversant with the issue - and not under the unions' thumbs.
By contrast, George W. Bush strode into the Oval Office with a strong record as "education governor" of a major state that made measurable achievement gains on his watch. Seventy-two hours later, he unveiled the farthest-reaching federal education reform initiative in four decades. Then he spent a year lobbying it through Congress (albeit much altered). Sure, the administration is to be faulted for its stubborn insistence that NCLB is fine as enacted and needs no repairs. And there's the much remarked fact that, beyond NCLB, the administration has pursued no major education agenda these past four years and has not yet signaled much of one for a second term. Rather, they're playing this as a no-risk campaign issue, saying nothing that will agitate anyone, even when their larger themes imply bold education initiatives. The "ownership society," for example, is made to order for school choice. But the White House isn't going there, presumably for fear of waving red flags.
There's ample cause, in other words, to wish for more from George W. Bush when it comes to future education reforms. But Rotherham's mud balls miss the mark. And his feeble effort to turn John Kerry into an impressive reformer falls way short. Though this election is obviously not going to be decided over the "education reform issue," if it were I have no doubt the incumbent would win a landslide. He's the first GOP president in history with solid accomplishments in this field. His Democratic rival has none.
Chester E. Finn, Jr.
President, Thomas B. Fordham Foundation
