Campaign 2008

Public Service Announcement

Sara Mead — Wed, 25 Jun 2008 14:32:00 -0400

As early education analysts, we DO NOT RECOMMEND this. But it is pretty funny. Based on our, admittedly nonscientific, survey of the available data, Sen. Obama seems to be winning the key demographic of people who put politically oriented videos of their babies on YouTube. Maybe if Sen. McCain outlined an early education agenda he'd get more support from the tech-savvy infant and toddler demographic.

Campaign Watch: Barack Obama Links Early Ed to America's Economic Well-Being

Sara Mead — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 14:44:00 -0400

In a major economic speech this Sunday, Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama made clear that improving America's education system is one of his top economic priorities. The speech is noteworthy for the direct connection Obama drew between education and economic progress. Equally noteworthy, Obama laid out an education agenda that combines significant new investments--including a proposed $10 billion investment in early education programs--with reforms like charter schools and teacher pay for performance. Last week David Brooks criticized Obama for being "all carrot, no stick," talking in greater detail about the education investments than the reforms he'd support, and challenged Obama to support "real reform." In reality, as we discussed last week, improving education takes both investment and reform. We'd like to see more details about some of the reforms Obama discusses--particularly his proposals to hold education schools accountable and streamline certification, as well as how he would ensure quality and accountability for early educaiton programs he proposes investing in. But by spotlighting education reforms, along with investment, at the center of a major economic speech, Obama appears to be answering Brooks' challenge.

Senator McCain, the ball is in your court.

Here's what Obama said about education on Sunday:

This agenda starts with education. Whether you're conservative or liberal, Republican or Democrat, practically every economist agrees that in this digital age, a highly-educated and skilled workforce will be the key not only to individual opportunity, but to the overall success of our economy as well. We cannot be satisfied until every child in America – and I mean every child – has the same chances for a good education that we want for our own children.

And yet, despite this consensus, we continually fail to deliver. A few years ago, I visited a high school outside Chicago. The number one concern I heard from those students was that the school district couldn't afford to keep teachers for a full day, so school let out at 1:30 every afternoon. That cut out critical classes like science and labs. Imagine that – these kids wanted more school. They knew they were being short-changed. Unfortunately, stories like this can be found across America. Only 20 percent of students are prepared to take college classes in English, math and science. We have one of the highest dropout rates of any industrialized nation, and barely one tenth of our low-income students will graduate from college. That will cripple their ability to keep pace in this global economy, and compromise our ability to compete as a nation.

Senator McCain doesn't talk about education much. But I don't accept the status quo. It is morally unacceptable and economically untenable. It's time to make an historic commitment to education– a real commitment that will require new resources and new reforms.

We can start by investing $10 billion to guarantee access to quality, affordable, early childhood education for every child in America. Every dollar that we spend on these programs puts our children on a path to success, while saving us as much as $10 in reduced health care costs, crime, and welfare later on.

We can fix the failures of No Child Left Behind, while focusing on accountability. That means providing the funding that was promised. More importantly, it means reaching high standards, but not by relying on a single, high stakes standardized test that distorts how teachers teach. Instead, we need to work with governors, educators and especially teachers to develop better assessment tools that effectively measure student achievement, and encourage the kinds of research, scientific investigation, and problem-solving that our children will need to compete.

And we need to recruit an army of new teachers. I'll make this pledge as President – if you commit your life to teaching, America will pay for your college education. We'll recruit teachers in math and science, and deploy them to under-staffed school districts in our inner cities and rural America. We'll expand mentoring programs that pair experienced teachers with new recruits. And when our teachers succeed, I won't just talk about how great they are – I'll reward their greatness with better pay and more support.

But research shows that resources alone won't create the schools that we need to help our children succeed. We also need to encourage innovation – by adopting curricula and the school calendar to the needs of the 21st century; by updating the schools of education that produce most of our teachers; by welcoming charter schools within the public schools system, and streamlining the certification process for engineers or businesspeople who want to shift careers and teach.

We must also challenge the system that prevents us from promoting and rewarding excellence in teaching. We cannot ask our teachers to perform the impossible – to teach poorly prepared children with inadequate resources, and then punish them when children perform poorly on a standardized test. But if we give teachers the resources they need; if we pay them more, and give them time for professional development; if they are given ownership over the design of better assessment tools and a creative curricula; if we shape reforms with teachers rather than imposing changes on teachers, then it is fair to expect better results. Where there are teachers who are still struggling and underperforming, we should provide them with individual help and support. And if they're still underperforming after that, we should find a quick and fair way to put another teacher in that classroom. Our children deserve no less.

Finally, our commitment cannot end with a high school degree. The chance to get a college education must not be a privilege of the few – it should be a birthright of every single American. Senator McCain is campaigning on a plan to give more tax breaks to corporations. I want to give tax breaks to young people, in the form of an annual $4,000 tax credit that will cover two-thirds of the tuition at an average public college, and make community college completely free. In return, I will ask students to serve, whether it's by teaching, joining the Peace Corps, or working in your community. And for those who serve in our military, we'll cover all of your tuition with an even more generous 21st Century GI Bill. The idea is simple - America invests in you, and you invest in America. That's how we're going to ensure that America succeeds in this century.

Reforming our education system will require sustained effort from all of us – parents and teachers; federal, state and local governments. The same is true for the second leg of our competitiveness agenda – a bold and sustainable energy policy.

(emphasis added)

Campaign Watch: And Then There Were Two

Sara Mead — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:23:00 -0400

Last night, Senator Barack Obama earned a majority of Democratic delegates, clinching the Democratic presidential nomination for 2008. Last night’s end of the primary season also marked the start of the 2008 general election. Obama’s Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, kicked off his general election bid with a speech last night.

As we move into the general election campaign, expect to hear more from the candidates on education issues, including early education. During the Republican primary, McCain paid little attention to education issues, and he still hasn’t released any education proposals. But as he moves to appeal to independent and Democratic voters in the general election, he’s going to need to speak more to voters’ concerns about education—because Obama will be.

Obama already spelled out a detailed education policy agenda during the primary, but signs from the campaign suggest he’s going to be focusing a lot more on education as he shifts to the general, playing up areas where his views on education break with some traditional Democratic positions. The Washington Post reports:

Heather Higginbottom, who runs Obama's policy office at the campaign's Chicago headquarters, cited education as one area in which Obama offers ideas that are not traditionally Democratic, arguing that the problem is not all about schools or funding, but about parents who let their children watch too much television. She said his proposal to give teachers bonus pay if they receive special training or if their students score high on standardized tests is an idea that some liberal-leaning teachers unions oppose.

Just last week, Obama gave a major education speech at a Colorado high school, in which he argued for both significant reforms to No Child Left Behind, and new, aggressive education reforms—particularly in the areas of teacher training, induction, and compensation, as well as college outreach and preparation—to improve our educational performance and close the achievement gap. Moreover, Obama argued that real education reform will require policymakers to “move beyond the stale debates that have paralyzed Washington for decades: Democrat versus Republican; vouchers versus the status quo; more money versus more accountability.”

While Obama didn’t address early education in that speech, his early education proposals are a clear complement to that message. Early education is one area where education reformers and more established education interests, who are often at odds over policy questions, actually tend to agree. Further, Obama’s early education proposals offer a good example of the shared responsibility for student outcomes—between parents, educators, policymakers, and citizens—he has called for. New investments in pre-school early education are essential because schools can’t close the achievement gap all by themselves—especially when half of the achievement gap already exists before children even begin school. Yet early education investments are no silver bullet—they have to be accompanied by reforms in the early elementary years and beyond that can improve student learning to sustain the gains youngsters make in quality early education programs. And programs like Nurse Home Visiting, which focus on parents as well as at-risk children, address some of the parental responsibility themes Obama’s been sounding recently.

So, expect to hear Obama talking about early education, as he did last night, in the context of his larger education agenda.

Most observers don't expect McCain's early education agenda, which advisors plan to roll out this fall, to contain a significant early education component. We think that would be a mistake. While K-12 education policy debates have become highly polarized politically, early education doesn't have to be a partisan issue. As we've noted, Republican elected officials at the state and local level--including several potential McCain running mates--have played an important role advancing quality early education at the state and local level. Early education investments poll very well, particularly among women who are likely to be the swing voters in this election, and Obama has a very ambitious early education agenda. No one's expecting McCain to propose a similarly ambitious early education program, but proposing some modest, but smart, early education reforms could be highly beneficial here.

And there are plenty of smart early education ideas that would compliment McCain's broader reform message. Last night, in one of only two references to education, McCain said that the nation needs to “rethink, reform, and reinvent the way we educate our children,” in the context of a broader call for reforming American institutions. In fact, early education might actually be an easier area than K-12 education for McCain to propose bold, innovative reforms in right now, given the strong opposition to federal involvement in education among some conservatives. And our patchwork system of early childhood care and education, not to mention the lack of linkages between that system and our K-12 schools, is certainly in need of some rethinking.

Both presidential nominees have an opportunity to use early education to reinforce their broader messages, and to advance smart early education ideas, in this election season. Senator Obama has already put forward and ambitious agenda, but Senator McCain has yet to seize this opportunity. Expect to hear more from the candidates on education in the coming months--and to see plenty of coverage of early education in the campaign here.

Campaign Narnia: A Deeper Magic?

David Gray — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 14:22:00 -0400

Prince Caspian, the much anticipated second movie based on the books of C.S. Lewis' Narnia series, opened earlier this month. It follows the The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe.

As I watched Senator Clinton speak after the Montana and South Dakota primaries last evening, I can't help but think of that first Narnia book.

On first glace, John McCain would seem like the lion. Strong willed, sometimes to a fault, with a sturdy constitution that has withstood great pressure and pain. Lions lead battles. They are kings of the wild. In the books, the lion in Narnia has existed "since before the beginning of time." That is not far from the description Senator McCain uses for himself, "I'm older than dirt," and in the spirit in which the Senator from Illinois reminds Americans of every time he thanks Senator McCain for his "more than half century of service."

Senator Obama is like the wardrobe, something magical that helps bridge between two worlds. In the wardrobe's case, one in England and one of Narnia. People come in contact with the wardrobe and are transported to a new place in time. Obama's personal story, racial background and post-partisan outlook places him between two worlds. In the case of the Pevensie children in Lewis' books, the wardrobe helps take them from life as usual in war-time England to a new hopeful world of dreams. Obama's appeal, in part, is his ability to transport his audiences to a new place of possibility. Even dreams for some.

That would leave only one descriptor left for Senator Clinton. Described too often as icy and tough and literally described by Don Imus in 2006 as a witch, Clinton would on the surface play the White Witch in campaign Narnia.

However, watching Senator Clinton over the past few weeks, she seems to be more of the lion who comes back to life. Hardball's Chris Matthews said it well in watching Senator Clinton's victory speech following the West Virginia primary, she looks like "she knows something we all don't know." We saw that same smile following her win in Kentucky and we saw it last night in her speech in New York.

I have to agree. The campaign is over and yet she continues to campaign, and she seems to have an odd confidence - as if she knows something we don't know.

Have more delegates than we know privately endorsed Clinton, allowing her to reveal them at the convention? Maybe there are more Democratic superdelegates available than the public knows of? What if there are super-duper delegates in the Democratic primary who can trump the super-delegates? The Clintons have, after all, been through Presidential campaigns before. Maybe they know things; things we don't know.

At the end of The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe, the lion is seemingly killed by magic, but comes back to life in order to win the great battle.

The lion's opponents are stunned. Their jaws drop and all they can say is, "No!"

The lion explains, "that though the... knew the Deep Magic, there is a magic deeper still which....did not know."

For all Senator Obama's magic, Senator Clinton continues to smile. Is there a deeper magic still that we don't know?

Campaign Watch: Spotlight on Two Early Education Laggards

Sara Mead — Tue, 03 Jun 2008 17:17:00 -0400

Today's final Democratic presidential primaries have focused public and media attention on South Dakota and Montana, two largely rural western states that get the last vote in the 2008 primary season. Here's something else these two states have in common: They're both early education laggards.

South Dakota and Montana are two of only 11 states without any kind of state pre-k program. (Great Plains and Rocky Mountain states comprise the majority of laggards here--North Dakota, Utah, Idaho, and Wyoming also lack pre-k.) Nor are they among the 9 states that provide full-day kindergarten for all children. In fact, both states' finance systems actually create a disincentive for school districts to offer full-day kindergarten, because school districts receive the same money per kindergartener regardless of whether they offer half- or full-day kindergarten programs. South Dakota, however, provides the same amount of state funding for kindergarten as it does for other grades, while Montana provides school districts with only half as much money per kindergartener. And neither state rates well on the National Association of Child Care Resource and Referral Agencies' ranking of state standards and oversight for childcare centers and family care homes.

Nor has the political climate in these states been particularly hospitable to increased investment in early education access or quality. Earlier this year, the South Dakota legislature shot down a proposal to allow the state Department of Education to set voluntary preschool standards, even though nearly two-thirds of South Dakotans supported the idea. Debate over the measure illustrated that "culture wars" opposition to preschool, from conservatives who view it as a gateway to government intrusion in the family, is still alive and well in some states, particularly those that lag on early education.

But there are some positive signs. In 2007, the South Dakota legislature approved $700,000 in funding for a pilot preschool initiative in Sioux Falls (a local businessman ponied up half the costs). And Montana has in place a quality rating system that identifies higher quality childcare providers.

Both Democratic presidential candidates on the ballot in South Dakota and Montana today have proposed substantial new early education investments that would provide both an incentive and additional funding for states like South Dakota and Montana to get more involved in supporting early education. These states also illustrate an important trade-off that both candidates have made--in different ways--in designing their plans. Senator Hillary Clinton's plan, which would provide funding only to states that have pre-k programs that meet quality standards, would create an incentive for these states to invest in pre-k. But children in these states wouldn't be able to benefit from that funding if their legislators continue to buck pre-k investments--although other parts of Senator Clinton's early childhood plan could help these youngsters. Senator Barack Obama's plan would meet these states closer to where they are, providing funding that could be used for a wider array of early education activities. But Obama's plan would also require states to create Early Learning Councils that could serve as a starting point for developing state pre-k or childcare systems in these states.

Both South Dakota and Montana have lower rates of poverty, and higher levels of school performance, than the national averages, but both also suffer from significant pockets of rural poverty and poor educational performance. In addition, rural families in these states have a particularly difficult time accessing pre-k or quality, affordable childcare. Increasing support for early education is an important strategy for addressing these problems and strengthening both states' futures.

Separation of Church and Pre-K?

Sara Mead — Thu, 29 May 2008 00:35:00 -0400

Florida voters face a referendum this fall on whether or not to repeal the state’s Blaine Amendment, a state constitutional provision that prohibits direct state aid to religiously affiliated schools. All but 11 U.S. states have similar constitution al provisions (which are called “Blaine Amendments” after former Maine Senator James Blaine, who sought and failed to pass such an amendment to the U.S. Constitution in the 1870s). The Florida Supreme Court struck down a private school voucher program in 2004 because it violated the amendment, so school choice advocates are seeking to repeal the provision in order to clear the way for voucher programs in the state.

The Florida vote raises questions about the role of faith-based providers in publicly funded pre-k programs. Faith-based providers play a major role in delivering pre-k under Florida’s universal pre-k program, and Patricia Levesque, who pushed to put the Blaine referendum on the ballot this fall, has told reporters that the Blaine amendment could imperil these arrangements. Others, including the head of the Florida ACLU, disagree with this interpretation, however, saying that social service providers--including pre-k providers--who offer largely secular services in a nondiscriminatory fashion are legally in the clear. So far, no one has used the Blaine amendment to challenge Florida’s universal pre-k program, and such a challenge is highly unlikely.

Faith-based organizations play an important role in providing child care, including nursery school programs, in the United States. So as states have sought to build systems of publicly funded pre-k that integrate existing and community based providers, faith-based organizations have been a part of that. This reflects a contrast between the child care field, where faith-based providers play a central role and are generally viewed as non-problematic recipients of public funds, and K-12 education, where provision of public funds to religiously affiliated schools is highly controversial. Because most state pre-kindergarten programs have grown out of the state’s existing child care infrastructure, inclusion of faith-based providers has been largely uncontroversial. But as pre-kindergarten becomes increasingly universal, increasingly integrated with K-12 education, and increasingly taken for granted as a part of the public education system, this perspective may change.

Prevalence of options and respect for parental choice are important positive feature of the child care and early education fields that the K-12 public school system would do well to adopt more of. Many faith-based providers have long records of delivering quality early care and education services, and policymakers should preserve these options for parents in building new publicly funded early education systems.

However, policymakers do need to think about the extent to which religion and public funding need to be separated in state pre-k programs. In his book The Sandbox Investment, David Kirp takes a close look at Florida’s universal pre-k program and finds examples of faith-based providers, receiving state funding, who rely heavily on religiously-oriented curricula and discriminate against potential students who do not share their faith. These examples are particularly problematic. Rather than ignoring thorny questions about the role of faith-based providers in publicly funded pre-k and other early education programs, state policymakers need to engage with these questions, with frequent reference to evolving debates about school choice in K-12 education and the role of religiously affiliated providers there. Putting in place policies and practices to prevent against potential abuses is the best way to prevent problems down the road and ensure that faith-based providers can continue to play a valuable role in early education as states build their preschool and early childhood education systems.

Campaign Watch: Democratic Candidates Push Early Ed In Indiana and North Carolina

Sara Mead — Tue, 06 May 2008 17:26:00 -0400

Voters in Indiana and North Carolina cast their presidential primary votes today--a big day for Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, who are battling it out for the Democratic presidential nomination. Over the weekend, both Clinton and Obama gave significant speeches in a final push to make their case for the presidential nomination to Indiana and North Carolina voters. Both mentioned early education.

At the North Carolina Democratic Party Jefferson-Jackson Dinner in Raleigh, N.C., Hillary Clinton said:

When I say solutions, I mean giving children of all backgrounds access to world-class education. Education must remain the passport to opportunity. We'll start with universal pre-kindergarten. We'll go all the way to affordable college. And I will end the unfunded mandate known as No Child Left Behind.

And here's Obama at the same event:

When I say that I want to make sure that every child gets the best education this country has to offer from the day they are born until the day they graduate from college, investing in early childhood education to close the achievement gap, paying our teachers more and giving them more support, and giving a $4,000 tuition credit to every student every year in exchange for national service so that we invest in them and they invest in America, we need to let the American people know that it is not just rhetoric.

Speaking in Indianapolis, Ind. about the economy, Obama also said:

And if we want our children to succeed in this global economy--if we want them to be able to compete with children in Beijing and Bangalore--then we need to make sure that every child, everywhere gets a world-class education, from the day they're born until the day they graduate college. That means investing in early childhood education. It means that we need to recruit an army of new teachers by not just talking about how great teachers are, but rewarding them for their greatness with better pay and more support. and it means that in this country--in this global economy--we will not create a small class of the educated few by allowing thousands and thousands of young people to be priced out of college year after year.

Ironically, Obama highlighted early childhood education as a response to global competition in Indiana--one of just 12 states nationally that doesn't have a publicly funded pre-k program! Governor Mitch Daniels hasn't proposed increasing spending for pre-k, either. All in all, Indiana doesn't have a great reputation when it comes to early education. But the state is making some progress, providing $58.9 million for the full-day kindergarten grant program for the 2008-09 school year.

In contrast, North Carolina is well-known in early education circles for its Smart Start early childhood program, started under the leadership of then-Governor Jim Hunt in 1993. Smart Start is a public-private partnership that provides local partnerships in every county in the state with funds they can use for a variety of activities to improve childcare quality, access, and early learning--a model that has much in common with Obama's state early learning challenge grant proposals. Because Smart Start was one of the first such initiatives nationally, North Carolina became known as a national leader on early education. In 2001, the state added a "More at Four" state-funded pre-k program to complement Smart Start by providing high-quality pre-k to at-risk four-year-olds; today the program serves 15% of North Carolina four-year-olds and is one of only 2 states to meet all 10 of the National Institute for Early Education Research's state pre-k quality standards. It's also one of only 9 states that guarantee universal access to full-day kindergarten.

Because of its leadership on early education, the Tar Heel state would be well-positioned to take advantage of both Obama's and Clinton's early education proposals, should one of them become president. The Hoosier State, in contrast, has a lot of work ahead on early education.

Don't Tell Us There Are No Substantive Differences Here

Sara Mead — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:01:00 -0400

New York Times campaign correspondent Adam Nagourney, responding to complaints about the lack of substantive policy questions in last week's Democratic debate, writes:

For all the concern voiced about the lack of discussion about issues like Iraq and health care, it seems fair to say that even the most slightly attuned Democratic voters already have a well-formed sense of the views of Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama. Further, one of the central dynamics of this campaign — and why things have seemed so strained as the candidates have sought areas of difference — is that these are two Democrats with fairly similar views of the world. Thus, there is a premium on trying to find out new things about these candidates’ views and how they might react to the problems of the day.

Iraq and health care— not to mention the economy—are certainly high on voters' minds this election season, as they should be. But they're hardly the only substantive policy issues subject to debate. There are many other issues on which Senator Clinton and Senator Obama have made substantive, even ambitious, policy proposals, and on which there are significant differences between them. Early education is one such issue—and it's an issue that matters to middle- and working-class parents in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Yet it's been virtually ignored by the media in this election cycle. For example, Nagourney has written more than 80 articles about the Democratic primary campaign in the last 6 months, and not a single one of them so much as mentions pre-k or early education—despite the fact that the candidates mention it in virtually every stump speech, Barack Obama rolled out an education policy agenda in November that included early education as a central component, and Hillary Clinton also unveiled some new Zero-to-Five proposals since then.

We're not under any illusion that early education is a front burner issue in this campaign, but if debate moderators or journalists are really looking for ways to "find out new things about these candidates’ views and how they might react to the problems of the day" asking them about their differences on early education seems like a good place to start.

Campaign Watch: An Early Ed Agenda John McCain Could Love?

Sara Mead — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:41:00 -0400

We've spent a lot of time over the past two weeks talking about the Democratic presidential candidates' early education agendas, so today we're going to devote some time to the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain. So far, McCain hasn't said much about education issues, and hasn't offered any sort of education policy agenda. That's hardly surprising, as McCain has never been particularly involved on education issues in the Senate, and education issues were not a major issue in the Republican primary campaign. Richard Whitmire reports that McCain's advisors are about to start unrolling a series of education proposals-but predicts they won't include a significant early education component.

There are lots of good reasons for McCain's advisors to incorporate an early education component in the education agenda they're formulating. For starters, it would be counterintuitive, and it would also help cast a more positive light on some of the areas where McCain is weaker.

Further, it's probably easier for Republican politicians to support innovative ideas on early education than on K-12 reform right now. Conventional wisdom within the pundit class holds that teachers unions make it difficult for Democrats to advance compelling school reform ideas. But the politics of school reform are equally fraught for many Republicans. The conservative base loathes NCLB with a passion to rival that of the most strident teacher unionist and strongly opposes any expansion of the feds' role in schooling. Moderate Republicans know that the suburban parents they represent aren't thrilled by NCLB or reforms that might shake up a status quo that works pretty well for them now. And, as the Sol Stern controversy demonstrates, the conservative constituency for education reform is increasingly divided between choice-niks who think vouchers are the only answer, and devotees of curricular reform. In other words, for a politician who's never evinced a particular passion for education issues, the waters can't look too appealing in K-12 reform.

Early education looks much more favorable. Because we have a diverse delivery system in early education, new early education investments can flow to a variety of providers-including private schools, for-profit providers, and faith-based organizations-not just the existing public school system. Economic arguments have convinced leading business conservatives, such as CED president Charles Kolb, to support early education. And Republican governors, such as Bob Riley in Alabama or former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee in Arkansas, have been leaders in fighting to expand pre-k funding at the state level.

To be sure, fiscal conservatives, including McCain, are unlikely to embrace large federal universal pre-k programs. But there are plenty of things that McCain-or other candidates-could propose to improve early education without huge new expenditures. Last fall we released 10 low- or no-cost proposals to improve early education in the No Child Left Behind Act. We've thought of a few more early education ideas that might fit in well with a McCain education agenda:

Provide pre-k for children of active duty military personnel: Today, in our all-volunteer, professional military, more than 40 percent of active duty service members have children-and 40 percent of those children are under age five. The military has created an impressive system to provide high-quality childcare for children whose parents serve in the military. But military preschoolers should also have access to high-quality pre-k aligned with early elementary programs-something many currently don't get, or have only sporadically due to high mobility and differing state pre-k eligibility criteria. Both Texas and Kansas have policies that make children from military families eligible for publicly funded pre-k, and Maryland is considering similar legislation. Senator McCain could encourage more states to do the same by offering one-to-one matching grants to states that expand pre-k programs to serve children from military families. This investment would support quality education for military children and complement the military's current investments in childcare, and might cost around $500 million annually.

Support charter schools that provide high-quality pre-k: Charter schools can play a valuable role in delivering high-quality, aligned early education programs in diverse settings. Senator McCain's education advisor, Lisa Graham Keegan, supports charter schools, and his home state of Arizona has the highest percentage of students in charter schools in the country. So it would seem natural for McCain to promote charter schooling as a strategy for improving early education and expanding access to pre-kindergarten. McCain could propose policies to expand the number of early education charter schools by: amending the federal charter schools program to support pre-k charter schools, encouraging states to remove barriers that prevent charter schools from offering pre-k, and requiring the Secretaries of Education and Health and Human Services to work together to help charter schools access federal funding streams for child care and early education.

Support parent choice in early education: Senator McCain supports greater parent choice in K-12 education. Parents already have a diverse array of choices in early education-but they often have trouble finding good information to help them make the best choice for their child. A growing number of states are creating online resources that provide parents with lists of childcare providers in their area, as well as access to quality ratings, inspection records, and other information to help them judge the quality of providers. And the privately operated Savvy Source for Parents offers profiles of local pre-k providers to help parents make informed choices. Senator McCain could support parent choice in early education by offering grants to states and private groups to create or improve online resources that help parents access reliable information about the quality of child care and early education providers.

Expand programs for preschoolers, toddlers, and infants with disabilities: In the Senate, McCain has voted on multiple occasions for full funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. IDEA provides grants to local school districts to help with the costs of educating school-aged students with disabilities. But it also includes programs to serve infants, toddlers, and preschoolers with disabilities. These programs are important, because early intervention is key to helping children with disabilities-especially those with severe disabilities such as autism-meet their full potential. Senator McCain could propose to expand these programs and also to allow states to use up to 15 percent of funding from them to provide preventive services for young children who have not yet been identified with a disability, but are at high risk for one-something IDEA already allows school districts to do with funds they receive for school-age students. We could expand these programs substantially for relatively modest amounts of money, and the investment could ultimately save money by supporting early interventions that reduce the need for more costly services later on.

Create high-quality alternative certification models for pre-k teachers: Whitmire notes that McCain supports Teach for America, which recruits talented recent college graduates to work in high-poverty schools. McCain could support a Teach for America-like initiative to expand the supply of high-quality preschool and early childhood education teachers. As states across the country expand universal pre-k programs and raise quality standards for them, many are facing difficulties in recruiting qualified teachers. Many experienced early educators have valuable skills but lack formal credentials. In order to keep these individuals in the classroom, build their knowledge and skills, and ensure and adequate supply of high-quality early educators, we need new, streamlined models of early educator training that focus on developing the skills and knowledge research has shown affect young children's learning. Supporting the creation and expansion of alternate route programs-such as Teach for America-for pre-k teachers would be a great way for McCain to support states' efforts to improve early education.

These are just a few, relatively low-cost proposals for things that conservative candidates and legislators could support to improve early education. Stay tuned for more coverage of early education in the election as campaign 2008 continues.

Photo of John McCain by flickr user PaisleyPitbull, used under a Creative Commons license.

Debate Watch: Early Education Questions for the Candidates

Sara Mead — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:41:00 -0400

Last week, we looked at early education proposals from Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Tonight, Clinton and Obama will debate one another in Philadelphia, Penn. Early education would be a great topic for moderators Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos to ask them about, because it's a substantive topic, which hasn't been addressed in any debate so far, and on which the candidates have both serious proposals and real differences. Here are a few questions we'd love to hear the candidates answer on early education:

You've both proposed substantial new investments in early education, but you seem to have very different ideas about how best to go about improving early education for young children. Senator Clinton, your proposal focuses on helping states establish high-quality, educationally oriented, universal pre-k programs for four years—with the suggestion that they might eventually expand these programs downward to serve younger students. Senator Obama, your proposal focuses on helping states improve quality and coordination across the variety of childcare, education, and family support programs serving children from birth to age five—you suggest that expanding pre-k might be a part of this, but it isn't the focus. These proposals reflect competing theories of action within the early education movement, and seem to align with other policy differences between the two of you—such as on health care. Please explain why you think your approach to improving early education is better.
How do the early education investments you are proposing relate to the reforms you've proposed for the K-12 public education system? What policies will you support in the K-12 system to ensure that the benefits of high-quality early education don't fade out as students progress through their schooling?
Each of you has proposed spending about $10 billion annually on new early education investments—substantially more than either of you has proposed spending to improve K-12 public education. Why have you chosen to prioritize early education over K-12 public education investments?
The investments you have both proposed in early education are substantial: They would roughly double federal investment in early education, and are equivalent to 15 percent of this year's budget for the entire Department of Education. If fiscal and political restraints require you to settle for smaller investments, which early childhood investments would you prioritize with limited funds?

We're not holding our breath for Gibson and Stephanopoulos to ask any of these questions. But they are important questions that other journalists—and voters—should be asking Clinton and Obama about their early education proposals in this campaign season.