The White House — The top ticket is worth watching for education reformers, as candidates have different views on whether federal dollars should follow success or be awarded based on promises to pursue various initiatives.

Senate — These elections could bring about FOUR extremely pro-education reform candidates to the U.S Senate.

Governors — There are several gubernatorial candidates in the race this year who if elected would further enhance the pro-reform landscape. Perhaps most importantly, all these gubernatorial candidates are likely to stand up to teachers unions. READ MORE

Soon the presidential candidates will meet for the last time to debate and with the topic focused on foreign policy, one may be tempted to think education has no place in the discussion. But one would be wrong. There are at least two critical education questions that should be addressed.

QUESTION 1: A recent report from former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and former Chancellor of New York city schools Joel Klein found that “Educational failure puts the United States’ future economic prosperity, global position, and physical safety at risk.” The task force behind the report argued that too many young people are not qualified for the military because they do not have an adequate level of education. Do you agree with them and how would you address the issue?

QUESTION 2: Condoleezza Rice recently told a gathering of education leaders at Education Nation last month that a child in Korea learns in 3rd grade what our kids learn in 5th grade. We know that U.S. students rank 25th out of 34 on math scores among Organization of Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, with nearly one-quarter of U.S. students unable solve the easiest level of questions. Does this lack of international competitiveness concern you and what would your Administration do to address it?

In the previous two debates, President Obama and Governor Romney have talked about education in many contexts: economic, achievement, school choice, and the role of the federal government among others. In this final debate, they have one last chance to inform voters about their vision for education in the country.

###

For more on where Romney and Obama camps stand on critical education issues, head over to our Education and the Presidential Candidates page.

On education, President Obama correctly noted that his ideas for reform have been drawn from ideas championed by Democrats and Republicans, an overlap that also has drawn criticism in some quarters from allies of the president such as teacher unions.

Obama also said that his education reforms were “starting to show gains.” Such gains would be difficult to demonstrate. There are rising test scores in many states, but it’s difficult to link these to federal programs. The president has indeed favored aggressive reforms in education, but most of them are still in process as far as results.

Education historian Diane Ravitch, watching the debate, said in an email that the school-reform grants under Obama’s “Race to the Top” program have “thus far improved nothing.” (Ravitch is a disappointed Obama supporter who is strongly against Romney.) The Obama administration also has successfully pushed nearly all states to adopt year-by-year learning standards called the “common core.” The goal has been to raise academic standards and promote improved curricula nationwide, but little related to this effort has taken effect yet.

Mitt Romney spoke of education as part of his economic plan. The specifics he mentioned included simplifying the structure of the federal Department of Education. He complained that 47 training programs are housed in eight different agencies. For better or worse, job-training programs are, in fact, housed in multiple federal agencies.

He also spoke of sending education dollars “back to states,” which analysts from both parties have interpreted as a signal that he would reduce the budget and scope of the Department of Education.

Obama, in contrast, has sent education dollars from the federal government to the states via grants and direct aid, under the economic stimulus program, to save programs and jobs. Such programs have increased the federal deficit. The grants were frequently in exchange for adopting education reforms favored by the Obama administration.

Romney, in contrast, is suggesting that dollars would be returned to the states because they would not go to the federal government in the first place.

In criticizing Romney’s tax plan, the President emphasized repeatedly that his challenger’s plan would result in reduced funding for government programs, which, he said, would prove a burden for the middle class—either through more taxes or through cuts in services.

[For the Record, 7:58 p.m. PST Oct. 3: This post has been updated below following the conclusion of the debate.]

As an illustrative metaphor, Obama cited overcrowded classrooms and old, out-of-date textbooks. It’s accurate that his economic-stimulus dollars for education saved teachers’ jobs — which had the result of maintaining smaller classrooms in many places. The number of education jobs preserved is 160,000, according to the National School Boards Assn. The Obama administration puts the number three times higher.

Overall, however, the federal government provides only a small portion of the funds for public education nationwide. And the stimulus dollars were one-time assistance that could only maintain teaching jobs for about two years as a bridge to better economic conditions. This strategy worked in some states, but many teaching jobs were lost in California after the stimulus funds ran out.

This comment on the debate came by email from Jeanne Allen of the Center for Education Reform in Washington, D.C. She has generally praised Romney’s approach to education as moving away from federal heavyhandedness (and some questionable policy directions) under Obama.

“So far I’ve heard they both want to improve skills—Romney wants to make schools better—his words—and Obama wants to invest, do more Race to the Top [grants], hire math and science [teachers]. Thousands of flowers blooming organically versus lots blooming in one growing field might be one way look at it,” she said.

The debate returned to education, just over an hour into the discussion, during the President’s response to a question about the proper role of government.

“We’ve got to reform schools that are not working,” Obama said. “We’ll give you money if you initiate reforms.”

Even critics would likely concede he was speaking accurately at this point, whether they support his policy priorities or not. This approach—providing incentives—was embodied in the administration’s Race to the Top grants and other programs. The President added: “Race to the Top was not a top-down approach.”

Here, some observers from both parties would disagree, arguing that the Obama administration expanded the federal role in a way that some find objectionable.

The president also talked of plans to hire more teachers and stated that his Republican challenger “doesn’t think we need more teachers. I do.”

That characterization does not represent Romney’s position, although it’s true that Romney has criticized the federal economic-stimulus program, which provided money to preserve teaching jobs for about two years during the recession. As far as hiring or retaining teachers, Romney has said that the funding of teachers should be a state and local decision.

Who knew education would come up repeatedly tonite?

Romney: After the president opened the debate about his jobs plan, Romney introduced the education component into the debate, combining jobs and skills, which come from education.

Obama: We have to improve our education system — we have a program called Race to the Top and now we are going to hire 100,000 math and science teachers.

Romney: I agree education is key to the future of our economy but we have 27 different training programs across government not working together. (we are fact checking this)

Obama: Says he inherited 18 programs for education that were well intentioned but not working for kids; that one teacher in NV has 42 kids and 10 year old textbooks. (we are fact checking this, too!)

This smattering of their words scratches the surface of an engaging, competitive conversation that highlighted education six times (at least) before the first 15 minutes were up and despite having been asked no direct questions about education. The candidates would go on to amplify their points throughout, and eventually address the proper federal role, which, despite suggestions among education reformers to the contrary, really is very, very different. And by all twitter, news media and pundit reports, even on this issue Romney was the winner.  READ MORE…

For more information, review, and comparisons on Romney and Obama’s views on education, be sure to check out these resources:

Presidential Candidates Focus on Education

Opinion: Schooling Obama

Where Do Romney, Obama Stand on Education?

School Choice is Key Issue in Election

GOP Convention Highlights Ed Reform; Now It’s the Dems Turn

Paul Ryan: Education Pioneer

And don’t forget to check out CER’s Field Guide and Mandate for Change, which serve as guides for the kinds of reforms candidates should be embracing and talking about.

The presidential candidates offered clashing views on education, with Republican Mitt Romney delivering some of his harshest judgments on teacher unions and President Barack Obama defending them.

Mr. Obama attacked Mr. Romney for wanting to cut education spending, while Mr. Romney said it’s wrong to saddle young people with more federal debt. The conflicting views came in separate interviews for NBC’s Education Nation summit, which covered a range of education topics.

“The teachers union has a responsibility to care for the interests of the teachers. And the head of the national teachers’ union said at one point, ‘We don’t care about kids. We care about the teachers.’ That’s their right,” Mr. Romney said.

He was referring to a 2009 speech by the National Education Association’s former general counsel, Bob Chanin, who was making a different point. He wasn’t suggesting that the union doesn’t care about children, but arguing that the NEA is an effective advocate for its point of view “not because we care about children” but because of the union’s political power.

Mr. Obama, in his interview taped over the weekend, said, “I think Gov. Romney and a number of folks try to politicize the issue and do a lot of teacher bashing.”

“When I meet teachers all across the country, they are so devoted, so dedicated to their kids,” he said.

The Obama administration has taken some heat from unions by pushing for more charter schools and seeking to tie compensation to student achievement. Mr. Obama described that as trying to “break through this left-right, conservative-liberal gridlock.”

Mr. Obama said that education reform isn’t enough, though, and must be accompanied by adequate public spending. On the campaign trail, he often mentions education as one of the areas where the nation should spend more to build for the future.

“This is a big argument and a big difference that I’ve got with Gov. Romney in this election, because they talk a good game about reform, but when you actually look at their budgets, they’re talking about slashing our investment in education by 20, 25%,” he said.

Mr. Romney didn’t dispute that he wants to limit government spending.

“I’m not looking for more federal spending. I mean, I know it is the nature of politics for someone in my position to promise more free stuff,” he said. But “I care so much about our kids that I don’t want to saddle them with trillions on trillions of dollars of debt.”

The Center for Education Reform’s (CER) campaign to Take America Back to School on Education Reform continues with a web-based guide to candidate positions on education reform. Educationfifty.com is a dynamic tool that empowers voters to educate themselves about which candidates are real education reformers and which ones merely pay lip service to the idea.

Educationfifty.com compares candidate positions on three key reform issues: 1) strong charter school laws, 2) meaningful school choice, and 3) strong teacher evaluations with performance based rewards.

Currently Educationfifty.com contains information on the nation’s gubernatorial races and state superintendent races as well as the incumbent governors who are not up for election. Comparative information on the presidential candidates will be available in October.

The site, which is based on thousands of data points and comprehensive research, will be updated in real time – providing up-to-the-minute research to voters craving the truth about candidate’s plans for fixing education systems.

“Education is only as strong as its weakest link. Bold, substantive reform happens when the public holds policymakers – both present and potential – to their promises and demands answers on specific policy proposals,” said CER President Jeanne Allen. “When Governors and other state policymakers embrace real reform, great things happen. Educationfifty.com arms voters with the information they need to elect reform minded leaders who will take on the status quo and support real solutions that lead to better – and more — education opportunities for kids.”

CER is going all out this election season to educate voters about the nature of true education reform. In addition to Educationfifty.com, the Field Guide to Education Reform: How to Spot a Real Education Reformer provides voters with those important education policy questions they should be asking their policymakers. Those policymakers (present and potential) will soon be receiving their own toolkit on real education reform from CER.

I’m not entirely sure what “insiders” Whiteboard surveys, as most of the insiders I know have never been surveyed. That said, even if they were surveyed, it would not matter since Congressman Ryan has not been on education or ed reform radars recently as he’s developed an economic platform to which most ed reformers today pay little attention. Newbies would not remember that Ryan staffed the committee that evaluated options for the District of Columbia before school choice and charters were even a glimmer in their eyes, and was instrumental in influencing his later colleagues in Congress to promote reform throughout numerous vehicles.

Very provocative, Alyson. I’d venture to say, however, that most of those you mentioned know they have more power to effect real education reform right where they are. Arne Duncan’s philosophy of change lies in the notion that government can wield change in education, while the Govs and state chiefs you mention actually believe people, locally, if given authority, can wield that change — at the parent and school level first and foremost. Duncan’s defiance of statutory law in favor of giving waivers puts power back in the hands of school districts (which is government) whereas those you mention all have pushed power to parents and individual schools. There’s another problem in the quarterbacking on Ed Secretary or even the candidate’s positions that everyone is doing…much of the commentary is based on the notion that running the US Education Department can actually improve education. As we’ve often said, the last few years have seen a flurry of federal activity, but little real accumulation of snow. The progress that has been made from DC to Indiana to Florida and throughout the nation has been a result of strong Governors, strong legislators and strong grassroots momentum for change. That Secretary Duncan’s reign has thrown positive energy their way at times is politically astute — and ancillary. The only viable candidate who has already helped accomplish historic reforms and whose whose own Governor will soon be in another position is Indiana’s Tony Bennett, but whether he’d want to slay the goliath in DC over future higher state office is anyone’s guess.