The usually sensible Washington Post editorial board sizes up the presidential candidates' education platforms in today's lead editorial, part of its "Ideas Primary" series, but shoots and misses. It's not that its descriptions of Obama's and McCain's platforms were inaccurate; by and large, its analysis was fair. Obama wants more money and a litany of new programs; McCain seeks more parental choice, including online options, and more alternate routes to the classroom for teachers. I also have no complaint with the Post's call for national standards and tests--of course "it is madness that there are 50 different definitions of what constitutes proficiency in math and reading or of what a high school graduate should know."
Where the Post goes wrong is with its call for "something bolder."
Would either [candidate] be willing to embrace the dramatic changes needed to shake up a system that fails far too many children?.... There's a crisis in urban education. To significantly improve achievement levels among poor and minority children, scripted and predictable responses won't do.
The Post hasn't learned lesson number one of the No Child Left Behind era: what's sorely lacking in Washington isn't ambition, but hubris. The federal government (thankfully) doesn't run our schools and has little knowledge about how or capacity to turn failing ones around. What it could do is provide greater transparancy about how schools are performing--yes, through said national standards and tests. But "significantly improving achievment levels among poor and minority children" is a job for governors and superintendents, not presidents and senators. It would be refreshing to see the Post explain that.
Update: This letter to the editor of the Chicago Tribune, however, makes a whole lot of sense. (Consider the title, referring to education: ???Washington has bigger fish to fry.???) Maybe the Post should bring him on staff.
