Last month I wrote about Barack Obama taking less popular, but bold, stances -- especially in education. Now I want to explain where Barack Obama stands on some issues in education, and also contrast that with Hillary Clinton's nauseating pandering.

To really get a gauge for where these two candidates stand, look no further than the bills they have authored for this new, Democratic 110th Congress.

Barack Obama

Right out of the gate, Obama came out swinging. On the first day of the new Congress, he introduced two bills, S.114 and S.116. Analysis of the bills is revealing.

S.114, also known as the "Innovation Districts for School Improvement Act," is a bill that will award competitive grants to ten urban and ten rural / suburban school districts. With the grants awarded, the selected districts would be charged with:

• Implementing education data systems that evaluate student progress, identify and share best teaching practices, and rigorously assess student learning
• Recruiting and retaining highly effective teachers
• Allowing higher pay scales for highly effective teachers that teach in the lowest performing schools
• Supporting teacher academies to recruit and place talented teaching candidates
• Rigorous principal recruitment and placement
• Principal autonomy to hire and fire staff

In short, Obama wants to give a select few districts the tools and support they need for all students to achieve at high levels, and give principals the authority to ensure that it happens.

This kind of reform could never happen on a large scale, at least not now, anyway. The teachers' unions are vehemently opposed to these types of reforms because teachers are in a comfortable position where, because of collective bargaining agreements, it is very difficult for a principal to hold them accountable for educating students.

That said, it could be possible to get a mere 20 districts to institute these reforms.

On an interesting side note, this Innovation Districts Act seems to be a perfect example of the way Obama approaches change. In March, The New Republic wrote a piece on Obama's philosophy for bringing about change, all of which is rooted in his Chicago community organizing days. Obama was a student of Saul Alinsky, who created a community organizing framework that works for change in the world as it exists, instead of interpreting things through an academic or idealistic prism. In other words, it's pragmatism over idealism.

You see this philosophy playing out in S.114. The only way that real reform can take place is little by little. We can talk all day about how things should be, but actually bringing them about is a long, slow process. Obama's solution: start 20 districts with these changes and study them. Find out what works and what didn't. Then refine and expand. Repeat. The case for reforming schools becomes more practical, less idealistic, and much stronger as time goes by.

Obama's other major bill, S.116, also known as "Summer Term Education Programs for Upward Performance Act of 2007" or the STEP UP Act of 2007, is a very pragmatic proposal.

"Summer slump" is a phrase in education used to describe the material that students lose between grades during the summer. At the beginning of a school year, teachers have to reteach material that kids should know, thus leaving less instructional time in the school year for new material.

The STEP UP Act is a proposal to remedy that problem by creating a grant program for states to establish summer learning programs in schools and / or youth developmental organizations for poor students and districts that need it most.

If teachers didn't have to reteach, say, a month and a half of material each year, that would leave room for 18 months of extra learning through grade 12. That's two whole extra school years of learning per student, all told.

So those are Obama's two main educational initiatives, both of which are pretty impressive. Let's compare to Hillary's proposals.

Hillary Clinton

From January 4th to March 9th of the new Congress, the only education bill that Hillary Clinton put forth was S.651, the "Promoting Lifelong Active Communities Every Day Act," or the PLAY Every Day Act. The purpose of the bill: to promote the federally recommended 60 minutes of physical activity every day.

Yes, that's right, with the new Democratic majority, Hillary's only contribution to education was to suggest that everybody get enough exercise.

Finally March rolled around and Hillary proposed S.837, the "Improving the Leadership and Effectiveness of Administrators for Districts Act," or the I LEAD Act.

The purpose of I LEAD is to create a national program to recruit better principals. Despite all of the research showing that teachers are the biggest influence in student achievement, Hillary is going after principals.

Why? Well, she's pandering to the teachers unions. Teachers often report tension with administration as one of the biggest problems at school. My read is that Hillary is pushing this small-scale program as if it will somehow alleviate tension between principals and teachers.

Not convinced that it's a politically calculated move? She followed through last week by going out of her way to rail against No Child Left Behind to the New York State United Teachers. Talk about preaching to the choir for political gain.

If only we had a candidate bold enough to say the things that need to be said instead of gaming for political scraps...