Liberal in the Land of Conservative

Inspired by commentary at MNBlue on the United States Senate race here Minnesota, I thought it was high time we had some comparative analysis of these three DFL contenders on various issues. We begin, then, with the issue of education for our first installment in a series of posts on the issues.

While each of these three candidates herald the public school system and recognize that on the federal level the problems of NCLB and unfunded mandates are the primary cause for concern, they have varying methods of addressing the issues in question.

Franken describes the need to move away from evaluating schools based on the results of one test. However, there is no explanation of how such a student portfolio system would operate and how much flexibility schools across the country would have in implementing this system. Also, there is little discussion of how to effectively evaluate growth from year to year. The Ciresi campaign seems to understand far better, that comprehensive evaluation across grade levels is far more sensible than comparing students in one year to the students the following year.

This statement is somewhat odd given the previous support for moving away from testing based assessment. The question becomes, what role will testing play in the student assessment proposed by Mr. Franken? If testing is pared down to just one, haven't we essentially moved back to a system of one test determining the "progress" of our students? Franken has essentially adopted the reform platform of Education Minnesota, NEA, and AFT. If that is the case, it makes me wonder how much of it he truly believes versus how much he simply wanted to gain the support of the unions.

I have to admit that I was somewhat disappointed to notice that Ciresi does not have a K-12 education statement on his issues page. While the issues facing higher education are prominently displayed and important, I cannot understand why Ciresi, who has done much through his private foundation, doesn't have an issue statement on K-12 education.

There is some evidence as to his education beliefs in the video section of his campaign website, so we will use those statements in this analysis.

Ciresi does much to explain what is wrong with No Child Left Behind. Unfortunately, he does not offer solutions on what initiatives or proposals he has to replace the program. Much like Franken, Ciresi touts the need to find another method of evaluating children beyond the punishment system of NCLB. He does, however, tout some of the ways he has involved himself in education. Specifically, through the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation Board and his own private foundation, the Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Foundation for Children. While it is important to understand the problem, it is equally important to offer solutions to those problems. Education solutions appears to be a weak point for the Ciresi campaign.

Nelson Pallmeyer essentially sticks to the topic of funding education and avoids the topic of education reform. While it seems feasible to accomplish the rollback of Bush tax breaks, I simply do not see how he will accomplish reducing military spending. Taking on military spending during a rather contentious time of war v. peace speaks to the willingness of Nelson Pallmeyer to take on the big fights. However, as a realist, I think we need to address extracting ourselves from Iraq before we jump headlong into issues of military spending. At the very least, Nelson Pallmeyer has thought about how he might pay for the programs he supports rather than simply just proposing them. Neither the Franken or Ciresi campaigns appear to offer ways in which they will pay for unfunded mandates or new initiatives.

With respect to education, I am going to have to give the edge to Al Franken. Purely based upon the comprehensive nature of the issue statement on his campaign site, Fanken has the advantage. While I have concerns about the level to which he is simply pandering to the education union and how much he truly believes in the rhetoric found there, it is hard to deny that he is offering the more specific solutions and revisions of NCLB. Ciresi and Nelson-Pallmeyer, though, have an advantage over Franken that they really ought to be highlighting with respect to education. Nelson-Pallmeyer as an educator with experience in the classroom and Ciresi through his education advocacy work should both be using these tools when touting their message.

I encourage anyone who supports one of these three candidates to comment about the positive aspects of their candidates education positions. Perhaps I missed some policy statements or other evidence highlighting what your candidate will do in terms of reforming education.