It’s a bit of a stretch to make sweeping generalizations about what yesterday’s election results mean for President Obama’s overall policy agenda, let alone what they mean specifically for education. Not that it will stop people from trying.
Last week, Erik Robelen of Education Week speculated that a Corzine defeat might bode ill for Obama’s education reform initiatives such as merit pay.
But last night’s results probably have very little to do with education or Obama. Still, there may be some lessons. Some points to consider:
● Obama remains popular in New Jersey with an approval rating of 62%, well above his current national average which has been hovering in the low 50’s.
● Corzine’s approval rating has been stuck in the basement all year, and was already low even before Obama took office - high 30’s to low 40’s since mid-2008. Corzine never went above about 40% in pre-election match-ups with Republican candidate, now Governor-elect, Chris Christie. The race became close only because Christie’s numbers went down after a barrage of negative ads, disappointment with Christie’s highly unspecific policy agenda, and the entry of independent candidate Chris Daggett.
● Corzine’s education policies were 180 degrees from Obama’s proposed education reforms. Other than presiding over what is arguably the best early childhood education program in the nation, Corzine’s education policies were astonishingly stale and regressive. His most visible and self-touted "reform" in recent memory was a change in the state funding formula, which shifted money away from high-poverty urban districts to high-growth suburbans. The latter didn’t notice, and community leaders in the former were not appreciative. Bad policy, bad politics.
● Corzine let a number of other weak points in the state education system - especially in high schools - fester (see our review: here). For many observers, the Governor’s neglect of these issues crossed over sometime during his term from failure-to-notice to refusal-to-act.
● Corzine alienated key Democratic constituencies (on issues like the environment as well as education, jobs, and taxes), and at the very least his failure to address deplorable conditions in high-poverty, high minority schools in Democratic strongholds did not help. In the primaries, Corzine only garnered 70% of the Democratic vote in places like Camden, home to some of the state’s worst schools, against candidates who were neither well-funded nor well-known. County-by-county turnout results which will emerge over the next few days will provide further clues.
● As recently as a week ago, Christie bragged about the fact that on issues like charter schools and merit pay, his policies were closer to Obama’s than were Corzine’s. If one really wanted to really go out on a limb, one could say that Corzine’s defeat was if anything an endorsement of Obama’s education policies, rather than a rejection of them.
● Democrats in New Jersey now have time to regroup and figure out how to come up with a fresh education agenda that addresses the state’s shortcomings and appeals to voters. Smart money says that agenda will be much more reform-oriented than the one state Democrats have embraced the last 4 years.
———————
On twitter, @Dyrnwyn aka Derrell Bradford of E3 put it this way: "I’d argue that Corzine’s ed reform failure is 1 of embracing the adults over the kids…it’s that simple."

Arne Duncan will deliver a speech to the National Association of State Boards of Education in Ohio today in which he continues to flesh out some of the themes the Administration has been sounding on school reform via Race to the Top, I3, and ESEA reauthorization.
He’s speaking before a somewhat skeptical audience. In its "Race to the Top" comments, NASBE basically argues that all states should get RttT grants, which flies in the face of RttT’s entire premise, summed up by President Obama’s comments at Race to the Top’s official roll-out in June:
“I’m issuing a challenge to our nation’s governors, to school boards and principals and teachers, to businesses and non-for-profits, to parents and students: if you set and enforce rigorous and challenging standards and assessments; if you put outstanding teachers at the front of the classroom; if you turn around failing schools – your state can win a Race to the Top grant that will not only help students outcompete workers around the world, but let them fulfill their God-given potential…
“We’re saying this is voluntary. If there are states that just don’t want to go in this direction, that’s their prerogative."
The difference goes beyond the 50 state entitlement perspective of NASBE and others.
The word "teacher" appears only 3 times in NASBE’s RttT’ comments. The word "effective" appears only 2 (other synonyms like "outstanding" don’t appear at all). Never does any word like "effective" or "outstanding" etc. appear together with the word "teacher," even though NASBE’s comments generically acknowledge the state role in setting "standards" for certifying teachers.
You can do your own word finds on other issues (hint: don’t bother with "turnaround" either), but suffice it to say that the President’s and the Secretary’s priorities are not closely aligned with the stated concerns of state school boards, at least not with those represented by NASBE.
In his speech, today, Duncan will elaborate on the themes President Obama set out in June, which appear to be in response to criticisms that RttT is "overly prescriptive," a term which those opposed to change have somehow deftly applied to a $5 billion competitive and voluntary program that follows a $95 billion fed to state education "freebie."
After a short history on the role of federal government extending back to the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, Duncan goes on to sketch out a nuanced policy for the fed-state-local role: giving adults freedom to succeed, but taking urgent action to free students from schools that are clearly and unequivocally failing:
"Now that I am in Washington, it’s even clearer to me that education reform starts locally…. I want to be a partner in your success, not the boss of it…
"But I’m not willing to be a silent partner who puts a stamp of approval on the status quo. I plan to be an active partner…
"We need to find a way to give state and local officials the freedom to intervene in schools that aren’t achieving their goals..But I want to be clear that when we see dropout factories, when we know that in some schools that students are falling behind every year – I don’t want the federal government to be a silent partner…
"In cases where children are being underserved or neglected, we have a moral obligation to intervene, and we won’t allow fear of over-reaching to stop us. Kids have only one chance for an education. They can’t wait years or decades for reforms to take hold."
There’s lots more in the speech, and it’s recommended reading for clues as to where the Administration is heading on its broad and ambitious education reform plans. Two things are clear: it’s full speed ahead, and it’s still about the kids whose lives aren’t going to be put on hold while adults argue (yet again) for another decade.
"LCCR believes that NCLB is a civil rights law, and that some of the requirements of NCLB constitute, in essence, the rights of children to obtain a quality education. The NCLB Recess Until Reauthorization Act calls itself a ‘temporary suspension’ of those same requirements. Even a temporary suspension of a civil rights law, and therefore of the civil rights of our children, is unconscionable."
:: Next >>