Chicago superintendent Arne Duncan maintains his big lead today in our education insiders poll. Former South Carolina state superintendent Inez Tenenbaum has solidified her hold on the second-place spot, a proposition that makes libertarians nervous. (Frankly, I'm not thrilled about it either.) Meanwhile, our group is warming to the prospects of Michael Lomax, the head of the United Negro College Fund. He's a higher education expert, and look--he's a fan of KIPP! But come on people, face it: it's going to be Bill Richardson, trust me.

Other folks mentioned today: Mike Easley, Freeman Hrabowski, Kathleen Sebelius, Hugh Price, Bill Richardson, Peter McWalters, Ted Mitchell, Wendy Kopp, Tim Kaine, Erskine Bowles, Jim Shelton, Alan Bersin, and Jon Schnur.

Flypaper readers know that I've been partial to the selection of former North Carolina governor Jim Hunt as the next secretary of education. But now that he's taken himself out of contention for the job, I have to look around for another favorite. And I've found him: New Mexico governor Bill Richardson. There are two things I like about Richardson. First, he's very strong on charter schools, which is why Fordham found New Mexico to be the second-best state in the country for school reform a few years ago. Second, he's pro-accountability but anti-No Child Left Behind, because, as a governor, he sees the perverse incentives it's created at the state level. Here's a man who could credibly bring governors together to work toward common national standards and tests, while also explaining to reformers in Congress why they should temper their instincts to try to regulate their way to nirvana.

It's true that his campaign platform played heavily to the teachers unions, what with its call to raise salaries across the board. But that just makes him an appealing consensus candidate. (Obama is not going to pick...

Fordham's newest book, A Byte at the Apple: Rethinking Education Data for the Post-NCLB Era, is now available for your reading pleasure. And what book on education data would be complete without a music video? Check out our take on FERPA, the latest YouTube sensation!

Yes. indeed, there are rifts nowadays, rifts almost as wide as the Great Rift Valley within both political parties when it comes to education policy, particularly at the national level.??That's??probably necessary, as both parties go through some??soul-searching and repurposing. But this weekend it feels as if the anti-reform crowd may be winning among both Democrats and Republicans.??Friday brought two distressing hints.

First, we learned that the nascent Obama administration has picked Stanford education professor Linda Darling-Hammond to lead the policy side of the transition operation at the U.S. Department of Education. She is a??pleasant and??smart woman but she surely does harbor a lot of retro ideas about education. She's Public Enemy #1 of Teach for America, for example, and for twelve years (since her report, "What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future," came out) has been the nation's foremost embodiment of the view that improving teachers ought to be America's chief reform strategy, the heck with standards-and-accountability on the one hand and school choice on the other. If her policy views dominate the new administration's education-policy stance, groups such as Democrats for Education Reform might as well take a...

Our ten Washington insiders are back at work today, making their predictions for who will lead the U.S. Department of Education. And not much changed over the weekend, though Arne Duncan has certainly solidified his overwhelming lead:

But there is some interesting news to report. Among the honorable mentions today* were Michael Lomax, the head of the United Negro College Fund, and Bill Richardson, governor of New Mexico. Lomax brings higher education experience, which is a commodity the Obama team might value. And Richardson needs to find a home if State goes to Hillary Clinton. He's already led the Energy Department and served as Ambassador to the U.N. And while he said plenty of nasty things about NCLB on the campaign trail, at the state level he's been strong on accountability and charter schools. (We found New Mexico to be among the most reform-minded states a few years ago .) Oh yes, and he's Latino. Let's see if his star rises.

* The others were Caroline Kennedy, Beverly Hall, Peter McWalters, Ted Mitchell, Tim Kaine, Erskine Bowles, Jim Shelton, Alan Bersin, and Jon Schnur....

Last week I made the fairly obvious argument that GOP governors are the key to the Republican Party's renewal, including on the education issue.

Peggy Noonan, writing in the Wall Street Journal, agrees:

I believe renewal and reform will come from the states. There will be, in Washington and New York, a million symposia, think-tank confabs, op-ed pieces, columns and cruises; there will be epiphanies on the Amtrak Acela while delayed at Wilmington; there will be polls and books, and pollsters' books. All fine and good, and a contribution. But the new emerging Republicans are likely to come in the end from the states, because that is where "this is what works" will come from. It is governance in the states that will yield the things that win-better handling of teachers' unions,* better management, more effective, just and therefore desirable tax systems. And, of course, more clean lines of accountability.

So what bold reforms could energetic governors embrace, particularly in a time of economic distress? Here are three ideas; if you have others, please post them below or send them to me at [email protected].

--??Put great curricular materials into...

Libby Sternberg, a writer and onetime Gadfly contributor, issued the right retort to Representative Pete Hoekstra*, not to mention Neal McLuskey, in the letters section of the Wall Street Journal on Saturday.

Rep. Pete Hoekstra criticizes the No Child Left Behind Act, using it as an example of the foolhardiness of "compassionate conservatism" (Letters, Nov. 14).

But NCLB was premised on a simple fiscal conservative principle: If you take federal money, you must be accountable for what you do with it. And if you don't want to live by those rules, you can opt out by refusing to take the federal money with its attached strings.

Republicans who disagreed with NCLB could have put their local-control principles into practice by voting to cut federal funding to schools entirely. But that would have been politically unpopular. So instead they joined with teachers unions and Democrats to help undermine this worthwhile, if sometimes flawed, education reform effort, making it very difficult for grassroots education reform and school-choice activists to push forward the principles of choice and accountability embodied in NCLB.

She's right; Republicans that want to kill No Child Left Behind in its entirety...

Amy Fagan

On Saturday, the Washington Post advised Barack and Michelle Obama that as they think about the pros and cons of various schools here in D.C., they might also want to keep in mind the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program, which gives District parents the same power of choice for their own kids. The Post won't weigh in on the whole public vs. private debate, of course. But the piece muses:

Let's hope the experience of moving his girls and finding the place where they will flourish resonates with Mr. Obama so that he reexamines his stance on the District's voucher program. How is it right to take away what little choice there is for needy D.C. children?

Interesting thoughts--in fact, very similar to thoughts offered up by our own Mike Petrilli not too long ago! Mike unabashedly admitted he is pulling for Georgetown Day, specifically because it participates in the D.C. voucher program.

It's one thing for Candidate Obama to oppose publicly funded vouchers on principle. It's quite another thing for a President Obama to eliminate an existing program and kick his daughters' classmates out of their beloved school.

The Post piece today echoes that sentiment. It...

The American testing system has often been blamed for the simplification of curriculum, the cutting of art, music, and physical education classes, and the decline of quality education overall. Perhaps a laser-like focus on reading and math has produced some unintended consequences but it's a far cry better than recent developments in the United Kingdom. This weekend, the Telegraph reported that traditional subjects are being foresworn for "lifestyle" classes, like sex ed, citizenship, and British national identity. In fact, one survey found the amount of time spent teaching geography has dropped 70 percent. Students certainly should have a civics curriculum, but let's not cut history to do it.

Earlier this year, we ??tapped three young promising scholars for our new inaugural research grant program, known as the Fordham Scholars. Just this week, one of them---Daniel Nadler--- co-authored a fine study, already growing into the ???Scholar??? appellation. The study, published in this month's Education Next, examined alternative teacher certification programs and found that states that offered ?????true??? alternative certification programs???meaning the ones where would-be teachers didn't have to take the same number of courses as traditionally certified teachers???generally had a greater representation of minority teachers within the ranks, as well as higher student gains as measured by NAEP. The study created an index of representation, which was the ratio of the percentage of teachers of minority background to the percentage of the state's adult population of minority background. ??In the 21 states that offered genuine alternative certification routes, the weighted average index of minority representation was 0.6, but in states with ???symbolic??? alternative certification routes, it was just 0.2. It appears that if we want to recruit more minority teachers into teaching, we'd be wise to strike down some of the barriers that keep them out. The study authors explain, ???Hardly anyone bothers...