Let's assume for a moment that the current trajectory of the presidential election remains the same and Obama wins by a significant margin, maybe even a landslide. Surely he will have a mandate for "change." And on a few issues that he put at the center of his campaign--Iraq, the financial meltdown, energy, health care--he'll have a mandate for specific legislative action. But what about education?
While he hasn't ignored the issue as McCain (mostly) has, it's been at best a second tier subject for his campaign. Let's look at what Obama has told the American people about education. During his acceptance speech at the Democratic convention, he said:
America, now is not the time for small plans. Now is the time to finally meet our moral obligation to provide every child a world-class education, because it will take nothing less to compete in the global economy.
You know, Michelle and I are only here tonight because we were given a chance at an education. And I will not settle for an America where some kids don't have that chance.
I'll invest in early childhood education. I'll recruit an army of new teachers, and pay them higher salaries, and give them more support. And in exchange, I'll ask for higher standards and more accountability.
He followed that up with a big education speech in Dayton, Ohio that promised various goodies to both camps in the Democratic party (the education establishment and the reformers). The one piece of news that broke through to the mainstream press (and thus, maybe, to voters) was his commitment to double funding for charter schools.
Then, in the first presidential debate, Obama indicated that he would protect education spending from any budget cuts, and that he was particularly committed to investing in early childhood education and math and science initiatives. (The second debate was virtually education-free.)
So what does that all add up to? Not a lot. I would argue that his "mandate" on education is to (1) boost spending; and (2) push for "reform." That's pretty fuzzy--and nowhere clear as Bush's mandate to "leave no child behind," as he made that program a centerpiece of his 2000 campaign.
So what about Obama's specifics? While he may not have a "mandate" to implement them--because he didn't say about them much, particularly in major televised forums where it really counts--he should have plenty of political capital to get his plan through Congress, at least if the early months of his Administration go well. But even those specifics are fuzzy when it comes to the major education issue of the next four years: reauthorizing NCLB. Whatever Obama promises to do on that front will be news to the American people, and thus will come sans mandate. But maybe political capital will be enough to get the job done.
However, Team Obama, if you have a clear vision on NCLB and want a mandate to get it done, here's an idea: Make sure your candidate uses Wednesday's debate to spell out his plan in some detail. (Viewers, don't hold your breath, because I suspect that plan doesn't even exist.)
