During the presidential election campaign the economy submerged most talk of education. But beneath the surface, a debate churned between self proclaimed education reformers and the teachers unions. By appointing Arne Duncan, Chicagos schools chief and one of his own basketball buddies, as education secretary, Barack Obama has managed to please both sides.School reformers had been edgy for weeks, noting that Obamas transition team included Linda Darling-Hammond, an education professor at Stanford University. Ms. Darling-Hammond is a vocal critic of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal law that promotes testing and accountability. Many feared that she would nudge Obama towards the unions (which favour easy-going government dispensed school education) or even become education secretary herself. If Darling-Hammond represents one end of the debate, at the other extreme are Joel Klein and Michelle Rhee, chancellors of the school systems of New York and Washington D.C, respectively. Both have supported charter (independently-run but government-funded) schools and paying teachers by results. Both have championed tough accountability. But both have infuriated unions, and Obama has opted not to pick a fight. Chester Finn of the conservative Thomas B. Fordham Institute calls Duncan a terrific pick, and Margaret Spellings, George Bushs education secretary, calls him a kindred spirit. Even Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, declared herself pleased by the choice. The worry is that the effort to reach consensus may hinder bold change. But at least Duncan may restore the spirit of co-operation that helped pass NCLB in 2001. Obama, in his announcement, criticised advocates who fail to realise that both sides have good ideas and good intentions. The president-elect is a master at charting the middle road. Time will tell whether that path leads to meaningful reform or to messy drift. Agents coming in from the cold Although the united states takes a bigger share of the international student market than any other country, with 22 percent of the total, it under-performs in relation to its size. Just 3.5 percent of students on its campuses are from abroad. What explains this? Certainly not the quality of education on offer, which is often superb. One huge factor is the way American universities shun intermediaries whose services are used by most students wanting to study abroad. Markus Badde, chief executive of ICEF, a student recruitment consultancy, says two-thirds of the worlds border-crossing students, and almost all of those from Asia, turn to ‘agents to find a university place. But hardly any important American institution will pay intermediaries. There is a real hostility in this country to the use of agents, says Mitch Leventhal, vice-provost for international affairs at the University of Cincinnati. Some universities think it is illegal — its not; whats illegal is recruiting American students via agents. Some think its unethical — but its only unethical when done unethically. We know that many students, perhaps half of all undergraduate Chinese students, for example, have paid advisers at home to help them. We have no idea what that help consists…
