The federal government should promote more charter schools, say almost all of the candidates for the US Senate seat formerly held by the late Ted Kennedy. One exception is Michael Capuano, who says he supports charters — but only if funding formulas are changed so as not to give charters an “unjust” advantage over other public schools. Four other candidates seemed more supportive of the Obama administration’s push for more charters, though Alan Khazei cautioned that low-performing charters should be shut down and Scott Brown predicated his support on a “waiting list” of children seeking entrance into such schools. Steve Pagliuca and Jack E. Robinson used the same word — “absolutely” — to begin their responses to our question, but Pagliuca stressed “innovation” and Robinson cited “competition” as reasons to support charters.

These candidates have responded to a CW Unbound questionnaire on issues relevant to the special US Senate election. (Primaries are on December 8, and the general election is on January 19.) We posed 15 questions to all six major candidates and began posting their complete responses last week, starting with the first query, “What would be the first bill you’d like to file as a US senator?”

The campaign of Martha Coakley, a Democrat, acknowledged receipt of the questionnaire more than two weeks ago. Despite our repeated calls to the campaign, however, it did not respond.

Today we are posting answers to two questions about education, one on charter schools and one on the federal No Child Left Behind Law. Only Robinson supports an outright repeal of NCLB, which was supported by Kennedy and signed into law by President George W. Bush, though Capuano notes that he voted against the bill as a member of the House. Capuano, Khazei, and Pagliuca all call for more financial resources in education but also voice reservations about NCLB’s accountability and standardized-test requirements. Brown simply calls for the maintenance of “high standards” in public schools.

Complete responses are below.

Note: CW Unbound has put certain text in bold for emphasis.

Question: Do you support the use of federal education funds as incentives to encourage states to authorize the opening of more charter schools?

Scott Brown (R):

I support charter schools. I also think as long as there is a waiting list of children to get into charter schools that we should encourage states and communities to open more of them.

Michael Capuano (D):

I would support this only if the funding formula for public charter schools were changed. Such schools are now reimbursed on the basis of average per-pupil costs in the public system. This is unjust because public schools must educate all children, [including] those not yet fluent in English and those with disabilities (cognitive, emotional, and physical). Charter schools may cherry pick the motivated children of attentive parents — self-evidently less costly to educate.

Alan Khazei (D):

Yes. I believe that charter schools represent innovative, entrepreneurial approaches to education and that the federal government should provide financial support to encourage states to expand the number of charter schools. I embrace the fundamental concept that charter schools are meant to offer educators more autonomy in their mission to improve student achievement. Along with this autonomy comes heightened accountability, and we should be willing to close charter schools that are low performing as quickly as we are willing to replicate charter schools that are high performing.

Steve Pagliuca (D):

Absolutely — innovation is critical. We owe it to our kids to explore and test all kinds of alternative education system, including charter schools.

Jack E. Robinson (R):

Absolutely. I support any proposal that will result in more charter schools, the use of vouchers, and anything that infuses competition into the education system.

Question: What changes would you make in the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind law?

Scott Brown (R):

I support high standards, testing and accountability. In reauthorizing NCLB, I would look to make sure we maintain high standards while at the same time providing the resources necessary to implement them.

Michael Capuano (D):

I voted against NCLB because I oppose high-stakes testing and because I was sure the Bush administration would impose unfunded mandates on states and local school districts. I would fully fund NCLB, as I would IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. I would end the reliance on high-stakes testing. Testing may have diagnostic uses, but it must be combined with other, more sensitive and more inclusive, modes of assessment. I also oppose linking teacher compensation with test results, which cannot capture the significant demographic differences among their students. I would not oppose merit pay, if standards for rewarding outstanding teachers were developed with significant input from teachers, and, whenever possible, as part of collective bargaining.

Alan Khazei (D):

The changes I would make in the reauthorization of NCLB include the following:

1.) Placing a much greater focus on supporting the teaching and education profession and the quality of teaching for all students. The teaching profession makes all other professions possible, and there is nothing more important than honoring and supporting America’s teachers and treating and paying them like the professionals they are. I believe that should include higher base pay for teachers, much better support and professional development, support for outstanding principals who can support quality teaching in their schools, and finding fair and meaningful ways to reward outstanding teachers — especially those teaching in high-need schools and subject areas as well as those who take responsibility to share their practices and expertise with other teachers.

2.) We need to change the accountability policies in NCLB — continuing to truly hold schools and school systems accountable but incorporating well-done growth measures nationwide and focusing our most aggressive interventions on the worst of the worst low-performing schools. A school shouldn’t be labeled a failing school simply because it barely missed current AYP goals for one subgroup of students. At the same time, we must not give up on the goal of ensuring real accountability — and much better results -for chronically low-performing schools and school systems.

3.) We need to continue to fight for the support — and funding — our children and educators need to meet high standards. We need to invest in what works — for example, extended learning time for students, additional professional development time for teachers and principals, and innovative charter schools that meet high standards of accountability.

4.) I agree with President Obama that education reform must be carried out with teachers — not “done to teachers.” That’s why I support teacher involvement in shaping education policies of all kinds including the ways in which teachers are evaluated and rewarded.

Steve Pagliuca (D):

I think there are two important changes that need to be made to No Child Left Behind. First, we should fully fund Title 1 to put the money our schools need into the classrooms where it can do the most good. Second, we need to fundamentally rethink the rigid standardized testing requirements imposed by NCLB. Instead of these requirements, I support a broader system of school evaluations that employ such alternatives as the “growth model,” which measures student progress, teacher evaluations, and other more adaptive standards.

More generally, I have four education priorities: 1.) Passing universal pre-kindergarten — this levels the playing field for all students before the game even begins. 2.) More innovation in secondary education — I support charter schools, pilot schools, more technology-based teaching methods, and other forms of adaptive education. 3.) Better funding for college — when I was in school, a Pell Grant covered more than 70 percent of the cost of a college education; today it’s only 40 percent. That has to change. 4.) Increased job training — our education responsibilities don’t stop at age 21. We need to invest in our workforce to stay competitive as a nation and keep America working.

Jack E. Robinson (R):

Repeal it. A better approach is the Obama administration’s new “Race to the Top” program, which allocates federal funds based on state-by-state competitions in accountability and performance.