Maybe it’s a good thing that the President-elect hasn’t chosen his education secretary yet. While education buffs are chomping at the bit to be the first to have predicted the winner, and ready to read into the selection (in error) what will happen to education over the next decade, we’re thinking that the trouble in Chicago may not bode well for a leading contender, Arne Duncan.

We’ve not been the biggest cheerleader, even before the feds whisked away his Governor in the middle of the night. Duncan is praised for upsetting the status quo but in reality, he’s been a reformer-lite.  Don’t get me wrong. I’ll take a little over none any day. But Duncan’s Renaissance 2010 was carefully scripted to close down only the very, very worst schools (not all the bad ones) and to replace them with only a handful of  new  providers, who have  to contend  with many of the  same rules that  have  long interfered with  well-intentioned  efforts in  urban school  systems.  Chicago’s charter environment – 30 strong  - is stuck there, thanks to a legislative environment that has capped its growth. We can’t find much evidence that Duncan has been roaming Springfield’s halls trying to lift that since he arrived. He thinks he has enough authority to do what it takes. We disagree. The proof is in the figgy pudding – Chicago school kids are thankfully no longer in the worst school district in the nation (1987, Former Ed Secretary William J. Bennett) but they are still pretty near rock bottom. 

More “Not So Fast”

Eduwonk’s otherwise smart and honorable leader Andy Rotherham told a major charter group recently - in terms of a president Obama - “if education is your issue you have nothing to worry about.”

Really?

Just a few days ago, Democrats for Education Reform blogger Whitney Tilson, also a smart, honorable (albeit partisan ☺) guy, had this to say about the candidates on education:

“… but I give him credit in one area: what he said about education, in which he hit all the right buttons: education as the main civil rights issue today, the alarming number of failing schools, the need to shake up awful bureaucracies, empowering parents with choice, including charter schools, etc.”

Fearless Whitney continues:

“This led one of my friends to write: ‘This decision is going to be tough…. VERY tough for us single issue voters. As powerful as an Obama candidacy is, and as much as I disagree with our misguided involvement in Iraq, there just simply is no contest between McCain and Obama on education reform. Did you hear him tonight? McCain gets it. I am sad to say that I STILL don’t know if Obama does.’”

I won’t address any other aspect of this campaign, but on this issue, Whitney’s friend is on to something. Want to know why? Click here to read our analysis of the presidential candidates. Our single-issue focus necessitated this in depth look.

(from CER’s 2008 Education Reform Voter’s BLOG)

In response to our Candidate Scorecard released earlier this week to assess the degree to which candidates for the U.S. Senate support education reform, we have received a landslide of commentary from across the great state of Colorado suggesting that we were too hard on Bob Schaffer. Citing his strong record as a school choice advocate, the role he played in the formation of Colorado’s original charter school law, and the fact that “all five of his children have been educated in charter schools,” many have gone so far as to demand that we revise our scoring in his case and “correct your mistake in a public forum.” First, a quick overview of the facts:

More “Our take on Bob Schaffer”