The Edjurist - Information on School and Educational Law

That was the question posed to me this morning by a colleague of mine that is planning to go to a Barack Obama rally tomorrow. The question she is planning on asking (if given the opportunity) is:

"The Supreme Court decision about school segregation last year limited
a school's ability to promote a diverse student body. Without being
able to racially diversify our schools, how do you propose we overcome
structural racism in this country?"

Anyway, it got me thinking about the question I would ask. Here is what I came up with:

For Obama: (video)

Given the movement toward national standards witnessed under the Clinton Administration and the recent openness to the idea by some governors, and given your position as a former Constitutional Law professor, what do you feel the Federal Government's role is in education should be given that it is not mentioned whatsoever in the Constitution?

For McCain: (video)

Given you limited statements on education during this campaign cycle and in the past, would you eliminate, as President Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Ron Paul, former Secretaries Bill Bennett and Lamar Alexander among others have suggested, the Federal Department of Education? And if not, what do you view its role as?

Obviously both of the questions are federalism based. For one, I think the redefinition of federalism in education has been a defining characteristic of educational reform in the past few decades and this era will be remembered as the era when education became a national (and perhaps global) enterprise. But, more importantly, the role of the federal government in education is something the President actually has some control over. The President, even if he or she wanted to, cannot cure most of what ails education. However, the President can control the federal bureaucracy ... in fact, that is pretty much their primary job.

The federalism question is particularly interesting to me because of Sen. Obama's status as a former Constitutional Law Professor at the generally conservative University of Chicago. He is no doubt intimately aware of the fact that the Constitution does not mention education ... at all. Looking at the history of the Constitution, this does not seem to be a mere oversight but rather an intentional omission on the part of the Framers to keep a decentralized system of education in place, which they viewed as superior. I am not the Constitutional Law Scholar that Sen. Obama is, but in my view the Constitution is pretty clear that education should be left to the States. You can see this not just in Conservative Republican rhetoric, but also from Democrats when they do things such as proposing a Constitutional Amendment on Education. A few months ago Checker Finn was giving a speech on education that included support for national standards. I asked Checker at that time whether the Constitution should pose a barrier at all to nationalizing perhaps the most central element of education, the curriculum (as determined by the national standards). Checker said the Federal Government can do whatever it wants in education and that the Constitution poses no barrier whatsoever, as it has not for some four decades now.

There is real confusion right now about what the federal government should be doing related to education issues. Consider that NCLB was passed with wide bi-partisan majorities and almost universal approval by policy folks in 2001. Now, less than a decade later, all three Presidential candidates are backtracking as fast as possible from it and there is pretty wide agreement among educators that it has hurt schools. If the federal government can't get it right even when everybody agrees, what evidence is there to lead us to believe that they can get it right in the future?

Anyway, that would be my question. What would be yours?