Here's an interesting snip from a recent issue of the Education Gadfly from
the Fordham Institute.

Much of the politics (of State Education) are similar to ours here in
Indiana, except that we have a Republican Governor. Not that anything is too
different, since the Democrats control the legislature and have been setting
the policy.

The Democrat platforms with regard to public schooling (charters bad -- more
money for teachers good) are almost identical.

It looks like, to the casual observer, what Obama is doing, is lying to the
'voters' while winking to the 'base/already decided/union teachers/educrats'
and letting them know that he really doesn't believe this "more money for
charters" crap... but he needs to lie in order to get elected.

Is it acceptable (politics as usual) for a presidential candidate to lie
about his real intentions just to get in office? The tried and true are
applauding lines that would illicit tar and feathers for a Republican
candidate saying the same thing to the same crowd. The only thing that makes
sense is to assume that the already decided don't mind being lied to,
because they know their candidate has to lie to the average undecided voter
in order to even HOPE to be elected.

Are Democrats okay with that? With so many pathological anti educational
choice people still on his side after he spits antithetical policy bits in
their faces... the only conclusion I can come to is -- YES. SOP! All
candidates lie... don't they????


(Rush is right: Liberals have to lie and obfuscate their real positions --
faking their image into the center -- in order to get elected. Otherwise the
American people would never knowingly vote for a Marxist in
Liberal/Progressive clothing.)


/s/ Benjamin Bennett - Publisher IHEN Journal
The e-mail journal of the IHEN Web Project
.................................................................
JournalStaff@...
SUBSCRIBE: IHEN-News-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Indiana Home Educators' Network:
"Helping Hoosiers Homeschool since the turn of the century."
web: http://www.ihen.org | e-mail: ihen@...

080919






----------
From: The Education Gadfly - thegadfly@...

THE EDUCATION GADFLY A Weekly Bulletin of News and Analysis from the Thomas
B. Fordham Institute

Volume 8, Number 36. September 18, 2008

Current Issue On the Web
http://ce.edexcellence.net/dsp_emailhandler.cfm?eid=141426&uid=43805


From Terry's Desk

Obama vs. Strickland?

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's head-turning education
speech in Ohio last week was notable for stepping away from several planks
in his party's traditional platform. The national audience surely paid
attention--but did his fellow Democrats in Ohio? Doubling spending on
charter schools, promoting performance pay for teachers, and removing poor
teachers from the classroom may not be new ideas. But they are light years
away from what Democratic lawmakers in the Buckeye State--including Governor
Ted Strickland--have been advocating for the last decade.

Case in point: only one elected Democrat from the General Assembly has ever
supported legislation that could be called charter school friendly, and
she--a Daytonian--became a pariah in her party and ultimately bolted for the
GOP. Yet Senator Obama sounded as if he may have snagged an advance copy of
Accelerating Student Learning in Ohio: Five Policy Recommendations for
Strengthening Public Education in the Buckeye State.

http://ce.edexcellence.net/dsp_emailhandler.cfm?eid=141428&uid=43805


This new Fordham report calls on state policymakers to:

Create world-class standards and stronger accountability mechanisms. Ohio
needs to build on its progress by aligning its K-12 standards with the
knowledge and skills needed for success in post-secondary education and
today's global economy and by benchmarking its standards against
high-performing states and nations.

Ensure that funding is fairly allocated among all children and schools. To
ensure that monies are allocated fairly, efficiently, accountably, and are
targeted at the differing needs of children, the current system should be
replaced by a weighted-funding plan. Per-pupil amounts would be "weighted"
according to the specific needs of individual youngsters and follow them to
the public schools they choose to attend.

Recruit the best and brightest to lead schools and empower them to succeed.
Ohio should recruit school leaders from many different professions and
backgrounds. These leaders should be fully empowered to lead their schools.
They should receive substantial bonuses for improving student achievement
and their job tenure should be directly linked to school performance.

Improve teacher quality. Open the doors to talented college graduates and
mid-careerists, help good teachers become great, and create a competitive
compensation system and sustainable retirement systems. Empower school
leaders to engage, deploy, compensate, develop, and retain top instructional
talent.

Expand the quality of, and access to, a range of high-performing school
options. One-size-fits-all education doesn't work. Students and parents need
the ability to choose the best school options based on calendar, academic
emphasis, pedagogy, philosophy, and technology. Public-education
alternatives also provide needed competition to traditional schools so that
all schools can improve. The state also needs to strengthen its capacity to
overhaul and close schools that persistently fail to deliver results.


Since Governor Strickland, after two years in office, has yet to set forth
his own education plan, perhaps the leader of his party can assist.
Strickland's own just-concluded 12-city "listening" tour of the state
yielded the same-old same-old establishment bromides for fixing Ohio
schools: more money, heavier regulation of schools of choice, caps on new
charters and diminished emphasis on standards and accountability.

What accounts for the difference? At least in part, it's that Governor
Strickland was hearing mainly from educationists while Senator Obama was
speaking primarily to the general public about education. But are they ships
in the night? How big will the difference between them turn out to be when
the time arrives for legislative compromising?

We note that the Illinois senator is not yet spending much political capital
to advance his proposals. He often signals that the versions of those
proposals that he could actually get behind are those that teachers (and
their unions) could support. He has, of course, been endorsed by both
national teachers' unions. And both released statements praising his Ohio
speech.

Obama is walking a fine line on education, reform-minded but not
union-repellent. Earlier this summer, for example, he told the NEA that he
supported incentive pay for teachers (and was booed for his pains) but spoke
out against private school vouchers (and was applauded). While union members
aren't likely to flock to a Republican candidate, Obama needs them to flock
to the polls if he is to win Ohio and the presidential election. So he knows
what lines not to cross.

Strickland, so far, has remained safely on the unions' side of those lines.
In return, they adore him. His first state budget,
<http://ce.edexcellence.net/dsp_emailhandler.cfm?eid=141430&uid=43805> for
example, would have decimated charters--good ones and bad ones alike. Now
there is much talk among his advisors and allies about decimating Ohio's
standards-based accountability system.

Today it appears that Barack Obama and Ted Strickland are on opposite sides
of the education policy schism that is gradually widening within the
Democratic Party, a schism relating to the role of schools, the role of
teachers and their unions, the role of choice, the role of Washington, the
role of standards, the role of technology, and much more. Yet both are
astute politicians and both have their eye on Ohio voters in November. Will
they still be on opposite sides tomorrow??

By Terry Ryan
http://ce.edexcellence.net/dsp_emailhandler.cfm?eid=141431&uid=43805