That title is a bit of a provocation, but this former Bush Administration Education official believes there was nary a difference thematically in the K-12 education section of Obama's speech last night than that which could have been said by 43.

He talked about high standards, closing the achievement gap, rewarding good teachers (even if he didn't utter the words "merit pay"), charter schools, and a pledge to "end education programs that don't work." Good luck with that last one. There are a host of smaller such programs under the Department of Education's authority with pretty sounding names yet negligible results. Congress has a habit of protecting those audibly nice programs - who could be against "Safe & Drug Free Schools"? Bush could already tell you how Congress will react; Obama will soon find out.

Either way, if Bush was more business Republican than libertarian stalwart on K-12 education, Obama is - rhetorically at least - positioning his Presidency very much in the DLC wing of his party, rather than the NEA/status quo branch.

In doing so, there is an increased chance the eventual re-authorization of No Child Left Behind will leave that law structurally intact. Yes, as with any re-authorization of a large piece of federal legislation there will be notable changes and amendments. Yet, signs increasingly point to the possibility of the core principles of No Child Left Behind - tests, high standards, accountability for results, etc. - being entrenched under Obama, not substantively weakened. Along the way, that means more emphasis on pressing the status quo to re-examine why achievement gaps persist (thanks to the law shining a light on them) and exploring other options, such as charters and merit pay, to empower reform-minded educators at the state and local level.

Speech footnote:

Conservatives need to be clear and continually honest about one thing: Obama gives a great speech. He is not only a powerful communicator in such formats, he is increasingly and obviously comfortable in them. That only adds to the potential impact of what he seeks to accomplish - as troublesome as that is in many respects. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton both proved how durable effective communicators can be, no matter how mad they drive the opposition. It also means that our eventual standard bearer in 2012 faces the very hard task of matching up with that formidable political communicator. As Bobby Jindal discovered last night, that's a difficult bar...even if I would argue Jindal strikes me as a much better debater and interviewee than speech giver.