First let me thank TPM for hosting this discussion and Paul for inviting me to participate. Paul has a lot of fans in the education policy community because his work at the Times Magazine has elevated the discourse around education a great deal, and everyone who cares about education is in his debt for that. Our corner of the policy world doesn't often get lights like this shined on it.

That's why Whatever It Takes is a wonderful book. It's a great story; Geoffrey Canada is just one of those magnetic people in life. It's an outstanding and accessible look at the complicated intersection of social policy, education policy, race, and class. And it couldn't be better timed. Although education is a second tier issue in a presidential campaign where the economy, foreign policy, and energy are understandably taking center stage, the school reform debate is quietly coming to a head.

Paul and Alex both wrote about the debate between the "Bigger, Bolder" reform coalition and the "Education Equality Project." The former a coalition put together by the Economic Policy Institute of academics, activists, and educators, and the latter a coalition of policymakers, policy leaders, including several big city mayors, and activists put together by New York Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and Al Sharpton. The EPI group focuses on the out of school issues affecting student achievement while the Klein - Sharpton coalition puts forward specific things that policymakers can to do improve public school performance.

Sure seems like a false choice, and Paul and Alex both, understandably, land on the obviously commonsense take that the answer is both. And of course it is. The nation needs both high performing and effective public schools and a robust set of social policies that ensure good pre-natal, infant, and children's health care as well as the kinds of supports that Harlem Children's Zone is putting in place.

But what the debate is really about is sequencing, or the "all else equal" question. I'm pretty sure you'll search in vain for anyone who signed the Education Equality Project principles who doesn't support an expansion of children's heath insurance, better pre-natal care, dental care, and so forth, for low-income youngsters. But you will likewise search the "Bigger and Bolder" manifesto in vain for any specifics about accountability, especially any accountability measures that implicitly or explicitly imply that maybe some of the adults in the public school system have some culpability in today's problems. That's not to say that there are not people who signed the manifesto who wouldn't agree on the role of the adults, only that the manifesto is conspicuous in the way it downplays one of the key education policy debates today: Accountability for whom and for what? That's not by accident and illustrates the subtle politics at work here.

Now it's sort of pointless to speculate about what Geoffrey Canada, the subject of Paul's book, would think of this entire debate. Not pointless because he's a cipher but rather because he signed the Education Equality Project's statement of principles (and I should note for readers that I did too). At the same time, Paul relates to us in Whatever It Takes that while Canada doesn't believe schools can do everything on their own they can do a lot more than they do now. That's the essence of the EEP principles: All else equal we can expect a great deal more from our public schools than they're delivering today. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to do more on the other issues that affect achievement, but that in the meantime educators should seek to do more today in the realm they directly control - the schools.

Fortunately, in addition to seeking to expand the Harlem Children's Zone idea into twenty cities, Senator Barack Obama has signaled that he'll hold the line on accountability in education and also supports a variety of important social policy changes. If those are the politics going forward it could redefine this debate and genuinely make this question a false choice. That would be good for kids and good for politics on the Democratic side.