Skip to footer

Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 differences on education

President Obama says his policy initiatives are helping teachers, schools, and students. Mitt Romney advocates more school choice and private-sector involvement. Here is a look at how the two differ on eduction issues.

2. No Child Left Behind/accountability

Mary Knox Merrill/The Christian Science Monitor/File
Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney reads through class assignments with Jeremiah E. Burke High School sophmores in this 2005 file photo.

  • By Stacy Teicher Khadaroo Staff writer

Obama has proposed revisions to the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law to focus more resources on turning around the lowest-performing schools and emphasize standards that prepare students for college and careers. 

With the law long overdue for a rewrite but stuck in partisan gridlock, Obama has granted NCLB waivers to 33 states, allowing them to create their own accountability plans – as long as they meet criteria such as focusing on students’ preparation for college and narrowing achievement gaps.

“Romney wants to dial it back further and really gut the provisions of NCLB … make it more of an information mandate rather than a school intervention/turnaround kind of mandate,” says Patrick McGuinn, a political science and education professor at Drew University in Madison, N.J.

Romney proposes to replace school-intervention aspects of NCLB – such as offering tutoring or replacing the staff at chronically failing schools – with a requirement that states provide more transparency about school results.

He wants school and district report cards that show scores both from state tests and the National Assessment of Educational Progress – a sample of student achievement that is thought to set higher standards than many states currently do. He would also require detailed public information on school and district spending.

2 of 5
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.