I enjoyed reading Mike Petrilli's recent article "Parties like its 1999" (November 29, 2007). But I wonder if the lens Petrilli uses to evaluate the education proposals of presidential candidates fails to factor in a consideration of the federal role versus the state role in education. Apart from Obama's mention of federal funding for research and development and Richardson's support for a federal "Gold Standard" for standards and accountability, most of the candidates' proposals seem to relate to policies that states are entirely capable of deciding and handling themselves. It seems that the candidates are not talking a lot about providing federal money for states and locals to spend on whatever education program they think they need. Instead, they are talking about federally-mandated, narrowly-tailored programs that overstep state and local discretion--and that, thus, must be federally run.
Yes, presidential candidates always talk about dreamy goals they will accomplish (regardless of whether they can or should), but I remember, during the lead-up to the 2000 election, candidate George W. Bush talking about evaluating education quality based on outputs, not inputs--more federal funding and accountability with less federal interference. The plans Petrilli discusses don't seem to match this goal (regardless of whether Bush saw his vision realized), and that seems to be a substantive difference between the 2000 and 2008 campaigns.
John Kraman
Senior Policy Analyst
Achieve, Inc.