Liam Julian

Greg Forster thinks (at least I think he thinks) that the difference between rewards and bribes is purely semantic. But semantic distinctions are born to relate and describe real distinctions and degrees, no? Otherwise, we'd have but one word (briwards, maybe) for the concept in question. I argued that Michelle Rhee's KIPP-based justification of her plan to pay students to induce their good behavior overlooks several basic points, such as the real difference between KIPP Dollars and American dollars and that KIPP rewards its students for behavior it already expects while Rhee's plan bribes students to do that which they already should.

Forster doesn't understand the difference between KIPP's rewards and Rhee's bribes. I'll explain it again, but differently. Suppose: Iran refuses to cease its nuclear-weapons development despite the world's protestations. America therefore offers to give Iran $5 billion in annual aid and lift sanctions if the Islamic nation pulls the plug on nuclear dabbling. Behold--bribery! Now suppose Iran voluntarily ends nuclear-related nonsense and, for the most part, behaves itself. America then decides to lift sanctions and transfer funds to Tehran, but only so long as Tehran continues to play by the rules. Behold--a reward!


Liam Julian

The Heritage Foundation's Dan Lips writes today, on National Review Online (where "Education Week" continues), more about the Republican eschewal of No Child Left Behind.

I'm in Scottsdale, Arizona today (projected high: 99 degrees) for an education reform summit hosted by the State Policy Network, the Alliance for School Choice, and the Friedman Foundation. Savvy readers will surmise that at such an event, "school reform" equals "private school choice," and that no keynoter would be appropriate other than the 60's-radical-turned-school-choice-godfather Howard Fuller. (They'd be right.)

Fuller is not known for dry oratory, and he gave a real stem winder of an address today. He took some shots at Barack Obama, whom he supports for president, for calling for change and yet not being willing to break with the teachers unions over choice. But he saved most of his fire for none other than my good friends Rick Hess and Sol Stern. (He went out of his way to say that he "likes Rick." Sorry, Sol.)

He argued that both think tankers quoted him selectively in recent articles (this one by Sol ; Rick's is listed here but not yet available online). For instance, in the current issue of The American , Rick writes:

Howard Fuller, patron saint of the voucher program, has wryly acknowledged, "I think


"Indiana girl clocked at 118 m.p.h. held on DUI"

She allegedly told cops she was late for school.

Guest Blogger

A post from guest blogger and Fordham writer and researcher??Emmy Partin.??

This morning in Fordham's hometown of Dayton, Senator Barack Obama promoted his education plan during a speech at a local high school.?? Education is a hotter topic in the Buckeye State than most places with Governor Ted Strickland already having wrestled control of higher education and now aiming to take over the K-12 system, too.?? Obama echoed many of the sentiments expressed by Strickland, calling for more after-school programs, longer school days and years, and teaching students to be innovative and creative.?? But this wasn't your father's union-friendly, Democratic education-stump-speech, with Obama taking moderate positions on issues like teacher tenure and charter schools, in stark contrast to the governor's positions.

Obama is calling for more accountability for all charter schools and increased funding for the good ones; Strickland sought to set-back big time the state's charter sector in his inaugural budget proposal in 2007. Senator Obama wants to increase teacher accountability for student achievement, but the details for this are yet to come.?? Teachers would be paid more under Obama's agenda and struggling teachers would get help, but...

Today's much ballyhooed Obama education speech (delivered near my hometown of Dayton) and accompanying "fact sheet" contained more than a few good ideas about where U.S. education should go in the years ahead. But as an exercise in specifying what would actually happen??to U.S. education under an Obama administration, and what is and isn't feasible for the federal government itself to make happen, it recalled Bill Clinton's second term, awash in little, crowd-pleasing programs and program ideas, nearly all of them on the periphery of the public-education behemoth and on the periphery of real federal education policy.

Under four crowd-pleasing headings in the Obama fact sheet??("scaling choice and innovation in the public school system", "investment in innovation and technology", "ensuring effective teachers and school leaders", and "responsibility for parents and Washington"), I counted??a dozen separate programs, commitments and initiatives. None of them addressed the really tough issues surrounding No Child Left Behind (who sets standards, what constitutes adequate progress, what exactly to do about failing schools, etc); or about the big Title I program that is its centerpiece; or about special ed, HeadStart, or anything else that comprises the semi-dysfunctional corpus of existing federal programs and policies. Rather, another...

Liam Julian

Earlier, Barack Obama was talking about schools??in Dayton, Ohio. (He??did so in??Dayton because it's Fordham's hometown, no doubt.) AP and Campaign K-12 cover his speech.

Liam Julian

Checker goes in search of those elusive words, No Child Left Behind, and returns empty-handed.