WSJ: Say, Jindal’s education reform works pretty well, huh?

posted at 11:35 am on January 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey

What a great time for the Wall Street Journal to bring up this topic.  After all, the Republican candidates in the nomination battle have focused their arguments on actual competition-based reform and results, right?  Oh, wait … we’ve been too busy discussing 1997, 2003, and the finer points of class-warfare attacks on private enterprise and consulting.  That may be the reason for the WSJ’s attention:

Louisiana is already one of 12 states (including Washington, D.C.) that offer school vouchers, but its program benefits fewer than 2,000 students in New Orleans. Governor Jindal would extend eligibility to any low-income student whose school gets a C, D or F grade from state administrators. That’s almost 400,000 students—a bit more than half the statewide population—who could escape failing schools for private or virtual schools, career-based programs or institutions of higher education.

Funding for these vouchers (“scholarships” is the poll-tested term) would come not from a new fund, as in New Orleans, but from what the state already spends on public education per capita. So every student leaving a failing school would take about $8,500 (on average) with him, hitting the bureaucracy where it hurts. This is called competition, that crucial quality missing where monopolies reign.

Post-Katrina New Orleans is already the nation’s leading charter-school zone, with 80% of city students enrolled, academic performance improving dramatically, and plans to go all-charter by 2013. To spread the model statewide, the Governor would create new regional boards for authorizing charters and offer fast-track authorization to high-performing operators such as KIPP. He’d also give charters the same access to public facilities as traditional public schools.

As for tenure, Mr. Jindal would grant it only to teachers who are rated “highly effective” five years in a row, meaning the top 10% of performers. And tenure wouldn’t equal lifetime protection: A tenured teacher who rates in the bottom 10% (“ineffective”) in any year would return to probationary status. Ineffective teachers would receive no pay raise. Louisiana would also ban the “last in, first out” practice under which younger teachers are dismissed first, regardless of performance.

Wouldn’t this be a great topic for Republicans to discuss during the campaign?  Conservatives have tried pushing competition as a way to reform the public-school system for two decades.  No Child Left Behind originally included that as a key component, but George Bush retreated on it in the face of entrenched opposition in Congress.  A candidate who might be looking to burnish conservative credentials might think carefully about working in ways to support Jindal’s reforms as part of their own platform.

Of course, that might not be the only hint the WSJ has chosen to drop:

Louisiana used to be one of America’s most ill-governed states, but Mr. Jindal pushed major economic and ethics reforms in his first term and is now starting his second with his education moon shot. It would be one giant leap for Louisiana students.

Regardless of who wins the nomination, that makes a pretty good resume for a running mate, does it not?  An outside-the-Beltway reformer with a successful track record of reform, who is also a Southern governor, a staunch pro-lifer, and a young star in the party already on his second term?  I’d call this a not-so-subtle hint on several levels from the WSJ.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

Apparently no lawyers @ HA yet today yet, I’ll just check back later.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 1:48 PM

queue F**K the birthers Constitution…

bannor on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM
FIFY

annoyinglittletwerp on January 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM

What you really meant.
Appropriate name, btw.

Dexter_Alarius on January 31, 2012 at 1:54 PM

veep!

reliapundit on January 31, 2012 at 1:54 PM

Let’s see, students fail -> school fails, Students get vouchers to private schools or other -> Move enmasse to private schools -> Private schools now fail. der

jake49 on January 31, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Full disclosure: My mother was a career educator.

The Bringer on January 31, 2012 at 1:42 PM

God, I’ve waited so long to hear that. Its not as good as coming from an actual teacher, but close enough.

My wife and I actually discussed leaving Dallas before our youngest reached middle school. A charter school opened up one block away and they increased grade level one year younger than our daughter (she couldn’t go). I remember going to the middle school in the district where we live. At that time it wasn’t only the roughest in Dallas, but the whole state (I survived and maybe that is why I am the way I am). There was no way I was going to let my daughter go there. She, and my wife, toured the school and I was outvoted. It is now among the best. Competition from nearby charter schools made it that way. There is a person at the school whose job is to guide willing students to the right curriculum and help students apply for grants scholarships and entrance into the better schools. Teachers move to the area to send their kids there.

The high school is just as good, with grants from local businesses to pay the entire cost of a college education for the top 5% (State public college, and the top 1% any college they get accepted by, they don’t advertise this and until my daughter graduates I want it kept that way), with no regard to ethnicity or economic circumstances.

Let the schools compete, and be able to get rid of the problem students waste of space kids.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM

queue F**K the birthers…

bannor on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM
FIFY

annoyinglittletwerp on January 31, 2012 at 11:54 AM

Nice…. NOT… Look if you don’t like the requirement get it changed. Till then if you don’t frickin mind can we follow the rule of law for a change? A valid question deserves a valid response not SA comments from a peanut OWS gallery.

landowner on January 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Portability is a strong message to use against the Democrats. They used the term when fighting for the healthcare bill. They said that employees were trapped by employers who either offered a plan that they didn’t like or no plan at all.
It’s time to use their words against them. Why is it okay to have portable insurance, but not portable education? Let’s watch them squirm trying to either defend it or explaining how insurance is a right and education isn’t.

djaymick on January 31, 2012 at 2:08 PM

Ed, you write: “A candidate who might be looking to burnish conservative credentials might think carefully about working in ways to support Jindal’s reforms as part of their own platform.”

No republican presidential candidate should EVER make education an issue in the campaign. There is absolutely no benefit to doing so. Even if the evidence from Louisiana and other locations is clear that education needs to be reformed, if a republican or conservative expresses support for Jindal’s reforms, liberals and the MSM will accuse the candidate of destroying education and abusing children. They shouldn’t even try.

OneArmPaperHanger on January 31, 2012 at 2:09 PM

A valid question deserves a valid response not SA comments from a peanut OWS gallery.

landowner on January 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM

A valid questioner would have looked it up for themselves if they thought it important.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 2:16 PM

With eligibility questions aside, Jindal might not be the best choice for VP, since he is not a charismatic campaigner. But he DOES get things done, and would be a great Cabinet pick in a Romney or Gingrich Administration. If the nation’s gain would be Louisiana’s loss, what would Jindal do?

Steve Z on January 31, 2012 at 2:39 PM

If the nation’s gain would be Louisiana’s loss, what would Jindal do?

Steve Z on January 31, 2012 at 2:39 PM

Louisiana has had a taste of non-corrupt government and it hasn’t quite returned to pre-Katrina voter make-up. The state may have a chance to still do better when Jindal moves on.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 2:49 PM

Let’s see, students fail -> school fails, Students get vouchers to private schools or other -> Move enmasse to private schools -> Private schools now fail. der

jake49 on January 31, 2012 at 2:00 PM

Brilliantly put, and exactly what I was trying to say.

The Bringer on January 31, 2012 at 3:05 PM

Let the schools compete, and be able to get rid of the problem students waste of space kids.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 2:05 PM

Competition is always good, BUT the real issue here is the problem students. Solving campus discipline problems would go a long way towards increasing class productivity, and as such, reducing the perceived necessity for voucher programs.

The Bringer on January 31, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Jindal is doing a great job here. He is not afraid to catch flack for doing the right thing. He is cutting education at the top because the system is incredibly top heavy. The problem is the colleges and Bese board refuse to make the cuts in upper Mngt. Instead they are cutting teachers and classes hoping to turn the public against him.The Teachers Unions are in a uproar because he is going after the tenure issue. Of course they would be against voucher`s because private school teachers don`t typically belong to unions. This is a right to work state. Its not just education he has to cut, we are dealing with a huge budget shortfall due to no revenue from all the shutdown oil rigs last year, due to BS moratorium.

LSUMama on January 31, 2012 at 3:24 PM

Could one of the lawyers here at HA bring me up to speed on this. My understanding from one of the law folks here is that Jindal has a Constitutional issue regarding natural/native born requirements. What can you tell me to help clarify?

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 11:52 AM

I’m just going to re-post this in case any lawyers come along that may have missed it. And no I am not a birther. Some folks on this thread seem to think that any one curious about the validity of Jindal’s status is a birther. Not true for me. I’m not a lawyer however and have had trouble wading through this. http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_citi.html Thank you.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 3:25 PM

I will cut you some slack. But only a little.

Relevant passage:

Natural born:

Anyone born inside the United States *

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

Even a kid born of illegals is technically eligible under current law.

When one does…sparks will really fly.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Jindal’s education ideas are awesome! And they’ve proven to be effective.

But the GOP apparently has no interest in proposing policies that work, cost less, and promote conservative values.

hawksruleva on January 31, 2012 at 3:36 PM

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

This is where i respectfully disagree.

I am not a lawyer and like Bmore would like to know a lawyer’s take on it.

* There is an exception in the law — the person must be “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States. This would exempt the child of a diplomat, for example, from this provision.

The reason a diplomat’s kid is not eligible is because he is subject to the jurisdiction of his parents citizenship. so an illegal would be subject to their parents country of origin.

That is my take on it any. Wouldn’t mind having a more definitive answer.

Achele175 on January 31, 2012 at 3:50 PM

This is where i respectfully disagree.

I am not a lawyer and like Bmore would like to know a lawyer’s take on it.

Achele175 on January 31, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Okay, but lawyers have already hashed this out (when it comes to eligibility) and they cannot agree.

As for “subject to the jurisdiction”. Only diplomats with immunity are not subject to jurisdiction. Everybody else, is.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM

As it happens, Louisiana will always be home to me, no matter how long I remain away from it. And, for good or ill, in toto, Jindal’s been very good for the state so far as I can tell.

Logus on January 31, 2012 at 12:40 PM

my apologies Logus. Those first two posts looked like projections with the references to friends that were disgruntled. I was wondering why you didn’t just come out and give us your opinion of the guy, which you clearly did in your response.

I too have great fondness for Louisiana, have relatives there and my parents were married in Venice in 1946. I am so glad to see the state finally shake the Mexico of the US political image.

As you were.

DanMan on January 31, 2012 at 3:57 PM

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 3:56 PM

Re: subject to jurisdiction

You are correct… brain fog on my part, sorry.

Wish the founding fathers would have been a little clearer on the “natural born” citizen thing.

back to lurking for me.

Achele175 on January 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM

Achele175 on January 31, 2012 at 4:08 PM

No problem.

If the founding fathers had made everything crystal clear, the constitution would be mess by now with all the amendments.

They couldn’t think of everything.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 4:14 PM

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

Thanks cozmo, I had a lawyer attempting to explain the finer details of the ? the other evening. That commenter was quite convinced that neither Jindal or Rubio are eligible. They seemed to have a strong command of the subject. I just thought I would see if anyone else might be interested in weighing in on it. I didn’t bother posting the same ? on the Rubio threads today, frankly because I’m a little busy today and wouldn’t be able to fight off the attackers(nutballs) well enough. Not fair to the nutballs and no fun for me. If I see the commenter later this evening on a thread I may ask him to re- explain his position. HeII, I have trouble reading the fine print on a car loan, little loan being able to adequately interpret the Constitution. Just so you don’t think me lazy like water, I have been looking around elsewhere on the web for different takes on it. As near as I can tell none agrees on the correct interpenetration.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

P.S. I liked your comment up-thread on the schooling issue. I have to confess I don’t see enough comments like that from you. More please. I know nutballs keep you busy. But that was a nice take.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 4:34 PM

I don’t see enough comments like that from you. More please.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Heck, I used to even try to engage the nutballs until even my thick head realized it was an exercise in futility. All of the reputable links in the world are ignored by nutballs. If there is a subject that I have a little knowledge on (usually geeky one’s), I ain’t afraid to share.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 4:42 PM

Logus on January 31, 2012 at 11:40 AM

Your friend isn’t giving the entire truth.

In my neighborhood (behind Lee High in Baton Rouge) there are a number of LSU profs. Yes, there is angst about cutbacks of state funding. However, when it gets down to it, they are all rather perturbed with all the special interest groups which, by constitutional amendment, get funding. They all know it was Edwards who got much of this through and will admit that Jindal really had no other choice.

Kermit on January 31, 2012 at 4:47 PM

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 4:42 PM

I’m with ya there my brother. I still don’t get the nutball with the rock. I can’t for the life of me see why people here like him.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 4:31 PM

Yea all those “jail house” lawyers incited by a DUI specialist from Jersey and a dentist from California. Real authorities in the matter.

Here is how it was explained to me by an attorney who has had 11 cases before SCOTUS and has a 100% win rate there.

There are two schools of thought, Blackstone & Vattel on what constitutes being natural born. Both are correct, but lowest common denominator wins in the end. FYI, Blackstone was “THE” reference used by the “Founding Fathers” ALL OF THEM, not just a handful. Blackstone – born in the country = natural born. Thus, Blackstone is the lowest common denominator and what was used a legal reference during last half of the 1700′s and into the 1800′s.

Kermit on January 31, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Kermit on January 31, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Thanks Kermit, I’ll take your lead and do some research, one other commenter had mentioned a case involving a chinese man. I am still working on that one.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I’m with ya there my brother. I still don’t get the nutball with the rock. I can’t for the life of me see why people here like him.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 4:51 PM

Wait-a-minute…wait-a-minute, you were actually giving chupachudi and jailbreak even a sliver of a benefit of any doubt.

If one of those nutballs says the sky is blue, go make sure for yourself.

As for chupachudi, a person usually has to pay good money to beat up a nutball. chupi enjoys getting beat up so much, he keeps coming back. Enjoy the masochistic nutball for as long as he lasts. And never address him without mentioning his love interest…the racist rock.

I’ll take your lead and do some research..

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I novel idea, to bad more folks don’t go this route.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 5:14 PM

Lol, that’s what I was talking about earlier. I love doing research, part of it is done here.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 5:23 PM

Dude, print this out and tape it to your monitor:

Some nutballs can actually have an informative debate, ON SOME SUBJECTS.

The rest of them only deserve to be beaten about the head and shoulders with a thorny stick.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 5:42 PM

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 5:42 PM

I wrote it in sharpie on the primary monitor. I used a post-it note for this; Stock up on thorny sticks.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 6:10 PM

If Jindal was chosen to be the running mate for the Republican nominee, then at the VP debate we would find out if Biden can go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin Donuts Presidential debate without having a slight Indian accent…

Glenn Jericho on January 31, 2012 at 6:12 PM

Even a kid born of illegals is technically eligible under current law.

When one does…sparks will really fly.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 3:30 PM

But that doesn’t pass the common law definition of “natural born” nor subject to the jurisdiction.

Hence natural born means “born in the USA/Territories to American parents” This would preclude cases where 1 or both parents are not a US Citizen (doesn’t have to be natural born) at the time of birth.

Subject to the jurisdiction covers both the States and territories under control of the US Govt. IOW, wherever the ultimate law is US law, whether on reservations, public or private land. As Puerto Rico is under Federal control, as was Panama, Philipines for a time and all the other protectorates, an American born there would be eligible, but not if born to natives that were not US citizens.

Based on the above common law definitions and what I know of their bio, neither Oboobi, Arnuld, Jindal or Rubio qualify. I haven’t looked it up, but if Mittness was indeed born in Mexico, then he’s not eligible either. This is just a strict reading of the ‘Rule of Law”

But if we-the-people wish to contort definitions (as the left has done to the 1st, 2nd & 10th Amendment) to suit our desires, the be prepared when down the road, the opposition uses the same tactic to reverse the tables.

Personally, I am ambivalent about it as a partisan issue – I just wish that we were more obsessed about the rule of law than trying to ram a cult of personality down the throats of the rest of us.

Until Oboobi came along, my son always knew he couldn’t grow up to be POTUS. Now, he can, thanks to the Zero, since the precedent has been set.

Now we wait for some kid who was dropped during the night on the US side of the Rio Grande to grow up and win the WH for the La Raza party, once they subsume the DNC.

We deserve the Govt we get. Sigh!

AH_C on January 31, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Based on the above common law definitions and what I know of their bio, neither Oboobi, Arnuld, Jindal or Rubio qualify. I haven’t looked it up, but if Mittness was indeed born in Mexico, then he’s not eligible either. This is just a strict reading of the ‘Rule of Law”…

AH_C on January 31, 2012 at 7:11 PM

Let me see if I can put this delicately. If you

wish to contort definitions

go right ahead.

I just wish that we were more obsessed about the rule of law

May I suggest you start with yourself.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 7:25 PM

A candidate who might be looking to burnish conservative credentials might think carefully about working in ways to support Jindal’s reforms as part of their own platform.

No, a candidate should be proposing to get the federal government out of education and let the states take care of it.

rhit87 on January 31, 2012 at 8:19 PM

Well looks like the lawyer folks were a no show. Some other time perhaps.

Bmore on January 31, 2012 at 11:32 PM

Let me see if I can put this delicately. If you

wish to contort definitions

go right ahead.

I just wish that we were more obsessed about the rule of law

May I suggest you start with yourself.

cozmo on January 31, 2012 at 7:25 PM

Frankly, I’m disappointed in your response. Or more precisely, what an a$$.

If everything was as clear cut as you deem, then we wouldn’t need a SCOTUS, since they would rule 9-0 on everything. Oh wait, even they reverse themselves now and again.

But do go on with your edification… You really showed me the error of my position.

To whit, in “Vattel’s Law of Nations or Principles of Natural Law as Fed Common Law Defines “natural born Citizen“, we have this bit of background

… In both of these cases, the Supreme Court did not look to the Fourteenth Amendment to define what a “natural born Citizen” is. Rather, both courts said that the meaning of that term must be found by resort to the “common law.” What do both of these Supreme Court decisions tell us? First, they show that there is a difference between a Fourteenth Amendment “citizen” and an Article II “natural born Citizen.” If the two terms were the same, the Supreme Court in both of these cases would not have said that the meaning of a“natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution, for the Fourteenth Amendment was already part of the Constitution and the Court could have easily said that the definition of a “natural born Citizen” is contained right in the Fourteenth Amendment.Second, the Supreme Court in both of these cases also said that the meaning of an Article II “natural born Citizen” is not contained in the Constitution but rather in the “common law.” Here we have clear evidence that the United States Supreme Court itself has recognized that the Fourteenth Amendment does not define what an Article II “natural born Citizen” is and has stated that its definition may be found only in the “common law.” Hence, we can see that simply being declared a “citizen” under the Fourteenth Amendment does not make one an Article II “natural born Citizen.” Neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor Congressional Acts has changed the meaning of a “natural born Citizen,” for these sources address only the question of what is a “citizen” and do not touch upon what is a “natural born Citizen.” “The Fourteenth Amendment and the domestic citizenship statutes necessarily mean that Congress left determination of what categories of citizenship are “natural born” to other law. . . .” Gabriel J. Chin, Why Senator McCain Cannot Be President: Eleven Months and Hundred Yards Short of Citizenship, Arizona Legal Studies Discussion Paper No. 08-14 (2008). Also, for one to be declared an Article II “natural born Citizen,” one must satisfy the “common law” definition for that term. The question then becomes to what “common law” are we to look for the definition of an Article II “natural born Citizen?”

Read more here (approx 19 scribd pages).

Like I said, I don’t think it’s a partisan issue. We just need clarity and consensus to define the terms and stick to it. What if the FF had said that only a subset of people could be POTUS? Then those are the rules until we formally decide otherwise.

By the same token, I don’t care if we the people decide that before the end of 2012, we will officially welcome the first 200 million (yeah I said 200 million) to immigrate here and become citizens forthwith. Nor would I really care if we went on lockdown and banned all forms of immigration forthwith. If that’s what we-the-people decide, then so be it. Even if as you and I know it, the so-called “wise” can be dead wrong.

That’s the bone of contention I have with politicians playing with the rule-of-law for their own games. If there is a law on the books, we need to follow it or formally overturn those laws we find inadequate. All these conniving games of hiding records, etc only serve to undermine the rule-of-law and in turn encourages the people to ignore that which they find inconvenient. And that should be troublesome to any conservative.

AH_C on February 1, 2012 at 12:10 AM

2011 re-election campaign

Jindal ran against four Democrats, a Libertarian and four independents. Jindal received 66% of the vote in the first round, thereby winning election in the first round.

RightKlik on February 8, 2012 at 10:43 PM

Comment pages: 1 2