This month, Washingtonian Magazine did a two-page spread on who Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would select for their Cabinet, should they take ownership of the big desk in the Oval Office. Lots of interesting names to ponder and fuel cocktail party discussion.
But one thing troubled Eduflack greatly. There is no mention of the U.S. Department of Education. After all of the money and attention spread by Ed in 08. After the dogged pursuit of the issue by Richard Whitmire and EWA. No mention of who would lead federal education in this NCLB 2.5, merit pay, voucher/charter whack-a-day world.
So Eduflack is going to take it upon himself to fill the Washingtonian’s holes. Let’s set aside the campaign advisors that Alexander Russo so kindly provides on his Campaign 08 wiki. Let’s forget the whispers Eduflack has heard over the last year, mentioning everyone from UFT/AFT Randi Weingarten to Eduwonk Andy Rotherham to even NLNS CEO Jon Schnur. All good fun, yes, but who do we really think will be heading ED in a Democratic administration?
Eduflack’s narrowed his choice down to a top three … and a dark horse.
Candidate A – NC Gov. Mike Easley. Gov. Easley is one of the top education governors out there. He gets it, and speaks passionately about key issues, particularly school-to-work concerns. Sure, he is a lawyer by trade, but not everyone is perfect. One could see him in the Secretary Riley model, a strong southern governor who knows how to lead and motivate. The downside, as a NC governor, he will always be in Jim Hunt’s shadow on education issues. And he has endorsed Hillary in advance of the NC primary, which could hurt him with Obama later on.
Candidate B — Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm. Cut from the same cloth as Easley, Granholm is smart, articulate, and a true motivator. She’s also made major education moves in Michigan, from PreK programs to instituting a comprehensive reform to high school graduation requirements. The downside, we still time to see the effectiveness of her reforms and Michigan’s test numbers are still waiting to see the Granholm bounce.
Candidate C — NYC Chancellor Joel Klein. He has the results, he has the national recognition, and he is ripe for a new challenge. What more is there to do in NYC. He’s won the Broad Prize and test scores are up. NYC is now the model for urban reform. Let’s see what he can do on the national stage under a reauthorized NCLB. The downside, another lawyer who may try to run ED like he ran his department at Justice. Who at ED is up for that?
The Darkhorse — Rep. George Miller. We seem to look to governors to serve as EdSec. Just look at Lamar Alexander and Richard Riley. Many would say the superintendent experiment with Rod Paige didn’t work (Eduflack doesn’t believe that. In fact, Eduflack finds Paige to be one of the brightest, thoughtful educators he has had the pleasure of working with (post ED). It’s unfortunate that DC saw an overly scripted EdSec, courtesy of DPC, and not the real and true Paige. Paige has gotten a raw deal these past few years, in my opinion). NCLB needs reauthorization. ED needs someone who understands Congress. Who better than a co-author of the original NCLB law, an ed reform champion, and one who has stood up to the status quo. Let’s give the keys to Miller and let him enforce the spirit of the law he helped write in 2001. The downside, of course, is why would he want to give up the Ed Committee Chairmanship to run a tough agency during a difficult time?
Let’s see Washingtonian and the whispering class chew on these names for a while, and see what they think. If not these four, then who?
And don’t worry, Senator McCain, Eduflack has a few names for you as well. As you confer with Lisa Graham Keegan on ed issues, try floating names like Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty (if you don’t choose him for VP) or Congressman Buck McKeon. Heck, in another year, Paul Vallas may be ready for another challenge too. He could be McCain’s token Democrat in the Cabinet.
John McCain
The Next Education President?
Does a personal endorsement of a presidential candidate matter? Last week, Eduflack suggested that college presidents should play a more active role in endorsing political candidates, lending their support to those who can best help grow the institution, support the students, and improve the quality and access to postsecondary education.
This week, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy (MA) threw his support to Barack Obama, symbolically passing the torch from JFK to the junior senator from Illinois. Much has been written on the issue, particularly on whether Obama or Bill Clinton is more Kennedy-esque. It raises another question though. Is Senator Kennedy also endorsing his preference for the next “education president?”
After all, Kennedy has worked with both Obama and Hillary Clinton on his Senate Education Committee these past three years. He’s seen them both in action. They’ve both introduced legislation that has been heard before his committee. He’s campaigned for both of them in their respective Senate races. He must know more about their education policy stances than the average bear, no?
Yes, Clinton has already gained the endorsement of the American Federation of Teachers. They are strong in New York City, strong in New York State. Obama, meanwhile, spent part of his summer talking about merit pay for teachers, and issue the unions have resisted. So an AFT endorsement for Clinton, particularly last year when all assumed the race would be over by now in a Clinton blowout, was to be expected.
During the past month, Obama has picked up the endorsement of both Kennedy and House Education Committee Chairman George Miller (CA). That’s a powerful statement to the education community. Kennedy and Miller are likely the leaders who will shepherd NCLB’s successor in 2009 (assuming we don’t heed the President’s call and reauthorize this election year). As chairmen of their respective committees, they speak for education policy in the U.S. Congress, and have for some time. And they have both stood up to say Obama is their guy. That means something, particularly with the policy community and the education blob here in our nation’s capital.
What about the Republicans? By CongressDaily’s latest count, House Education Chairman Buck McKeon (CA) has lent his support to Mitt Romney. Based on McKeon’s commitment to education reform issues, that endorsement says a great deal about the possibilities of the former Massachusetts governor. On the Senate side, Education Chairman Mike Enzi is still in the uncommitted category. Maybe he is waiting on Romney or John McCain to talk about the importance of rural education for his Wyoming constituents.
What does it all mean? Will we see an Obama education platform in the fall that shows Kennedy and Miller’s full fingerprints? That certainly wouldn’t be a bad thing for teachers and kids across the country. What about a Romney education platform that shows the imprimatur of the school improvement-minded McKeon? It sure beats past GOP platforms calling for the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education.
Either way, while the candidates may not be talking in public much about education issues, these endorsements signal the candidates are listening to the right people and are saying some of the right things behind closed doors. And that is why such personal endorsements are important. None of us know what an Obama or a Romney Education Department would look like. But if they are working in partnership with Kennedy or McKeon, we have some understanding of — and some hope for — what the future of federal education policy may hold.
Presidents for Presidents!
Every four years, we see swelling lists of presidential endorsers, those individuals and organizations that are backing a particular candidate. Any savvy (or semi-savvy) political staffer (Eduflack included) knows the enormous value of such backing. The right names signal support from those in the know. Their endorsement can often bring buckets full of votes and contributions.
We get endorsements from business leaders, veterans, labor leaders, entertainers, other politicians, teachers, church leaders, environmentalists, Nobel Prize winners, past Cabinet officials, and just about any other group we can think of. Those endorsers make a choice based on what they believe is best for the nation and best on those issues they are most passionate about.
Which makes a news item in today’s Inside Higher Education all that much more interesting. Scott Jaschik reports on the president of the University of Florida endorsing John McCain. (http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/01/23/endorse)
Yes, UF President Bernie Machen’s endorsement of the Straight Talk Express is major news in higher education. College presidents just don’t do such a thing. Maybe they are above such politics. Maybe there is too much at risk, with federal research dollars riding on presidential appointments. Whatever the reason, it just isn’t done. College presidents are supposed to be non-partisan and apolitical. After all, there is more than enough campus politics to whet their appetites for a true political fight.
But it is the right thing to do? As we consider presidential nominees, do the carpenters and the longshoremen and the WWII veterans and former secretaries of agriculture carry a stronger voice than college presidents? Does the voice of a college president matter?
For the past six or seven months, the education community has been stammering and stuttering on the need for greater emphasis on education in the presidential elections. We look at presidential education platforms, and many of them are chock full of details on students loans and college readiness. We listen to speeches on the economy and job creation, and can’t shake the notion that colleges and universities are often the largest or second largest employer in their communities.
All that said, shouldn’t university presidents be coveted endorsements? And more importantly, shouldn’t college presidents be on the record as to which candidate or candidates are strongest when it comes to student finances, college readiness, research dollars, or general support for our postsecondary institutions?
As the son of a retired college president, I watched as my father carefully walked the nonpartisan college presidential line. He worked successfully with governors and senators of both political parties, winning support and dollars for his institutions, regardless of what party was in power. I knew, though, that he was also a community leader, and that people sought his perspective on the issues and candidates of the day (and it didn’t hurt that he is a presidential historian by training). His endorsement could have helped local and state candidates.
That said, leaders like Bernie Machen or University of Miami President Donna Shalala (who has endorsed Clinton) should be the norm, not the exception. If we want education to have a prime position in the debate, we need strong advocates and experts to step forward and ensure that education is at the table and heard in all corners of the room. Any union official can tell you that happens when you endorse at the national scale.
So for all those college presidents, chancellors, system heads, and even K-12 superintendents watching Campaign 2008, take note. If you want greater dollars invested in your schools, if you want more attention and resources devoted to your students, if you want your economic development investments noticed or your community programs emulated, you need to stand up and articulate what you believe in and what candidate best aligns with your mission and your successes to date. You need to tell us what type of president will strengthen your institution and your community. You need to put your stake in the ground, before all of the prime real estate is taken.
Eduflack By Patrick R. Riccards 