A Wall Street Journal op-ed published earlier in the week brought attention back to the connection between Senator Obama and a former domestic terrorist--a connection couched in Mr. Obama's experience in education reform. So it merits asking, who is Bill Ayers and what difference should it make in our estimation of the Democratic candidate for President of the United States?

This much is uncontested: Bill Ayers participated in the bombings of several public monuments, including the New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, the US Capitol Building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972. He was a leading member of a radical, leftist terrorist organization called the Weatherman. He spent a short period of time in jail after turning himself in for these crimes in 1980. And he is affiliated with US Senator Barack Obama.

But what is the nature of that affiliation? And perhaps more importantly, what does Bill Ayers believe and how does he act today? Without question, if Senator Obama has in any way shown signs of supporting Mr. Ayers admittedly guilty and radical past, his candidacy would be suspect. But there is no evidence that this is the case.

To begin with, the connection between Senator Obama and Mr. Ayers comes down to three principal items. First, and most notably, they served together on a Chicago school reform initiative called the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, an effort designed community partnerships with local public schools that was also launched in fifteen other communities. Also serving on the board of the Annenberg Challenge in Chicago were individuals such as Patricia Graham, former dean of the Harvard Graduate School of Education and Arnold Weber, former president of Northwestern University.

How, you might ask, did a self-admitted domestic terrorist come to rise to lead a well-funded and well-reputed school reform initiative? Because Mr. Ayers, since his days as a leftist terrorist, has gone on the straight and narrow. He is currently a distinguished professor of education at the University of Chicago who has garnered attention for his academic efforts in pedagogy, along the way working with officials such as Chicago Mayor Richard Daly and others.

The second connection is that Mr. Ayers and Senator Obama also served together on the board of an anti-poverty foundation called the Woods Fund of Chicago, which continues to provide support to organizations that seek to educate and empower low-income residents of Chicago. Thirdly, Mr. Ayers contributed $200 to Senator Obama's Illinois State Senate election campaign in 2001.

So does Mr. Obama support a hyper-radical leftist ideology of domestic terrorism? Does he support some unorthodox, militant view of the role of public education? There is no evidence of it. After all, Senator Obama was only eight years old when Bill Ayers committed initial, unjustifiable acts of violence. But I'd love to hear facts about their relationship and how it might impact the next five weeks if you have evidence or conclusions that I've missed here!

Posted by Aaron Tang at 10:09 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

"I've always said you get 100 votes if you change the name." - California Congressman George Miller, the Chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, discussing the likelihood of No Child Left Behind being renewed in the next president's administration.

Representative Miller's comment sheds light on an interesting phenomenon. The American public overwhelmingly supports action to improve public education, even at the federal level. When asked in general whether they support the goals of the law--increasing student achievement and narrowing the achievement gap for low-income & minority children by holding schools accountable for student performance--large numbers of voters agree. But when you ask someone how they feel about the actual law named "No Child Left Behind"? Cringe, sneer, boo.

Need numbers? Start with last month's Phi Delta Kappa / Gallup poll, which found that 67% of Americans thought the law should be changed or scrapped. Or how about this ETS poll, which found that Americans favored the law 56% - 39% when it was explained based on its component parts and goals, but were against the law 43% - 41% when it was actually referenced by name.

Maybe that's why the No Child Left Behind is the "10,000 pound gorilla" in the room that neither of the candidates is talking about.

But how, you ask, is it the case that so much about the law rides on the name alone, and not the actual substance? Part of it is a branding issue--interest groups actually opposed to the substance of the law such as the teachers unions have done a great job equating the brand of NCLB with teaching to the test and other unsavory, if vague, notions. Another part is just a general lack of understanding about what the law actually entails; a post hoc ergo propter hoc effect, so to speak. Public schools have been struggling, particularly in low-income urban and rural areas, for quite some time in the US, but today's observers tend to attribute this failure to the most recent event in education policy: NCLB. It's no better logic than attributing my winning $10 on an instant lotto ticket because I had a banana for breakfast, but it's a common enough fallacy that NCLB would be probably unpopular regardless of its name.

One thing is for certain, though. Both candidates have been right as a strategic matter to steer clear of mentioning NCLB in their campaign speeches. It's toxic, and it's just as easy to score points by talking about education as a values issue instead of the nitty-gritty that seems to make NCLB so controversial. Seems like we'll have a big gorilla just hanging out until the election is over, when some new catchy name will be unveiled to headline a law that will most likely be strikingly similar to the existing No Child Left Behind Act.

Posted by Aaron Tang at 07:15 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

This is the time of the election cycle when things get painful. Candidates and campaign staff, on the one hand, have to dig deep to make tough decisions about tactics and targets with limited time and resources as November 4th draws close. And they do so amidst heigtened attention even after some 20 months of non-stop campaigning with hardly any sleep.

But the most painful part of the campaign season for most ordinary Americans is how we are subjected to senseless lies and irresponsible attack ads which make it virtually impossible to make any kind of accurate judgment about what the two candidates would do for our country.

One of the most disgusting ads I've seen in quite some time was put out just two days ago by the McCain campaign. Understand that I would be the first to call out the Obama campaign if they had put the ad out instead--my interest here is in challenging either candidate when they misrepresent their own positions and records on the ever-important issue of public education reform... or in this case, when one misrepresents his opponent's views. I've said it before and I'll say it again: the issue is too vital to millions of children and indeed the very future of our nation to play partisan political football with. Judge for yourself in the following 30 second clip being shown in various battleground states:

The ad basically alleges that Barack Obama thinks it is more important to teach kids about sex than it is to teach them how to read. It begins by misrepresenting a series of Education Week and Washington Post articles that actually speak approvingly of Senator Obama's maverick and reform-minded views on school reform, and then goes on to suggest in voice-over--on top of a picture of a smirking Obama--that his only accomplishment in education is a sex education bill for kindergarteners. The not-so-subtle implication is that Senator Obama is actually a run-of-the-mill sleezeball or perhaps worse, a pedophile.

The truth? Senator Obama is actually well-regarded by reform-minded education thinkers who respect his bold uncoupling of the Democratic platform on education from the narrowly-focused goals of teachers unions which have dominated Democratic views on school reform for the last half century. And the sex education bill that he passed while in the Illinois Senate? It actually supported age-appropriate sex education that would help teach children how to protect themselves from sexual predators and pedophiles. In other words, if one watches the McCain ad while considering the truth, the ad actually implies that Senator McCain is against providing children with critical information that may help them avoid sexual abuse.

But Aaron, wait! Who are YOU to say that the McCain ad is mis-representing the Washington Post and Ed Week positions on Senator Obama's education platform? Aren't you no worse than the McCain ad if you don't provide facts to back up your assertions? Fair enough. So don't take it from me that the Washington Post and Ed Week support Senator Obama. Take it from them, directly, here (the Washington Post actually fires back at the McCain camp directly for twisting its words, and here for the original Ed Week piece.

Posted by Aaron Tang at 10:51 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Give John McCain credit: he spent more than two whole minutes talking about public education in his nomination acceptance speech last night and about his general vision for improving our schools were he to be elected president. Barack Obama, for what it is worth, only spent seventy seconds in his acceptance speech last week.

Senator McCain begins explaining his views on public education in the first minute of the above video, with a bold pronouncement that, "Education is the Civil Rights issue of this century." He continues to talk about the importance of giving every child access to a good school, and the role of the government in providing families with choice if their neighborhood public school is failing. It is all pretty standard rhetoric at this point for Republican candidates--and rather appealing rhetoric at that, since even many of those who are against the controversial idea of vouchers can understand the sentiment of wanting to provide all children with the chance to get out of a chronically low-performing school.

But at two minutes and fifty-three seconds, Senator McCain fires a direct shot across the bow at his opponent, saying, "Sen. Obama wants our schools to answer to unions and entrenched bureaucracies. I want schools to answer to parents and students." A powerful charge, indeed, which the McCain campaign hopes to mount as part of a broader challenge against the idea that Senator Obama will bring change to Washington, DC. If Senator Obama only wants to make schools answer to unions and bereaucracies, after all, how will that put children in any better a position than they are today?

The problem is, the charge is patently false. Regardless of whether one has conservative or liberal leanings on public education issues, no objective observer could look at the Obama education plan without thinking that he is walking a fine line with regard to teachers unions who have long been a friend to the Democratic party. Even a full year ago, Obama was making bold and risky statements to the face of the unions themselves --such as his appearance in front of the National Education Association in July 2007 where he expressed his support for teacher merit pay, an idea that could not be more anathema to the unions.

In an election where both candidates have made unfair and at times inaccurate statements about each others' records and character, one would hope that an issue as important as the education of millions of children might be sacred ground. For the next two months, sadly, it doesn't seem that this will be the case.

Posted by Aaron Tang at 06:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)