Although a compelling issue
in the 2000 elections, educational issues have been eclipsed by security
concerns in the War on Terror and growing fears about America’s global
competitiveness. “In a July 2007 Harris poll, [2000 polling] had fallen
from 25% to 7%, naming education as one of the top two issues they wanted
the federal government to address,” noted American Enterprise Institute
scholar Frederick Hess at a March event. Hess pointed out that the percentage
of Americans considering education the most important election issue
dropped from 16% in March 2007 to 4% in October of the same year.

Another speaker, Chester Finn,
author of Troublemaker: A Personal History of School Reform Since
Sputnik, attempted to explain why the American populace is disaffected
from Presidential education policy. “If the country is at war and
is heading into recession, those things swamp everything else, and nothing
else compares,” he said. He added, “Additionally, people are weary
of education talk and you add that to the fact they’re interested
in these other issues, and I think it’s not hard to understand why
education might sort of take the sidelines.”

However, the influence of the
education lobby on the 2008 election may not be as low as advertised.
“The goal of engaging the candidates to understand the risk proposition
about not continuing education is the real target, and the fact is that
we have had some degree of discourse-and smart discourse,” said
Ed in ‘08 Executive Director Mark Lampkin. He argues that education
needn’t be a primary topic in order to affect the election.

Differences in education policy
priority may simply differ by party. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack
Obama provide detailed legislative agendas on their campaign pages.
Hillary Clinton’s online issue section lists “Improving Our Schools” five spots
down out of 14 total issues, and Obama’s website places education in fourth place out of more
than 20 issues.

In contrast, John McCain’s
website lists education near the bottom, ranking
11 out of 15. His web page emphasizes the importance of teacher excellence,
school choice, and accountability, but provides no specific policy agenda.
McCain’s issue brief is decidedly vague, stating that “As president,
John McCain will pursue reforms that address the underlining cultural
problems in our educational system-a system that still seeks to avoid
genuine accountability and responsibility for producing well-educated
children.”

The media has not been granting
education policy the seriousness it deserves this election cycle, argues
Lampkin. He noted that 21 presidential debate questions have involved
education. “You know, one question on education has been about who’s
your favorite teacher. That is the mainstream media asking the people
that want to be President of the United States a question about something
that affects tens of millions of kids in this country-who’s your
favorite teacher?,” he said. Lampkin also argued that Americans have
“let the presidential candidates devolve into ‘nothingdom’ about
all issues.”

One of the more surprising-and
inscrutable-educational developments on the campaign trail has been
Obama’s Milwaukee statement in favor of school vouchers. Elizabeth
Green, reporter for the New York Sun, quotes Obama as telling the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
that “If there was any argument for vouchers it was, all right, let’s
see if this experiment works, and then if it does, whatever my preconceptions,
my attitude is you do what works for the kids.” Green’s February
15 article also noted that Obama had indicated to two national teachers
unions, the National Education Association (NEA) and American Federation
of Teachers (AFT), in 2007 that he opposed school vouchers.

On February 20, the Obama campaign
issued a statement declaring that his alleged pro-voucher stance is
the product of “misleading reports” which take his statements “out
of context.” They write that “Senator Obama has always been a critic
of vouchers, and expressed his longstanding skepticism in that interview…[he]
has laid out the most comprehensive education agenda of any candidate
in this race-an agenda that does not include vouchers, in any shape
or form.”  

In early February, Obama told Politico that he prides himself on
contradicting the party line on charter schools. “I’ve consistently
said, we need to support charter schools,” reads the February 11 transcript.
Echoing his Milwaukee statements in favor of “experimentation,”
Obama says “I think it is important to experiment, by looking at how
we reward excellence in the classroom.” But, as with school vouchers,
no mention of charter schools makes it into Obama’s $18 billion K-12
legislative agenda. A single line alludes to the possibility of “public
school choice options for students” in coordination with school-family
contracts.  

This may exemplify a disturbing
trend of Obama’s continued and often unchallenged policy flip-flopping. A recent article by Family Security Matters exposes
Obama’s hypocrisy on NAFTA. According to Jonathan Strong, an Obama
aide told Canada’s CTV News that Obama’s anti-NAFTA posturing was
“merely campaign speak, and should not be taken seriously.” The
original comment, attributed to University of Chicago professor (and
Obama advisor) Austan Goolsbee, sparked controversy in both nations.
CTV reports Goolsbee as saying the memo was a
“pretty ham-handed description of what I answered” and “in no
possible way was that [statement] a reference to NAFTA.” 

If the CTV News memo holds
true, however, it highlights that Obama is a candidate more than willing
to tell his voters whatever fits their preconceived notions of “change”—and
then pursue an alternate agenda as president.

Share This

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

About the author