President Barack Obama and his Secretary of Education,
Arne Duncan, have spent the past two years beating
back the National Education Association, the American
Federation of Teachers, and their allies to reform the nation’s
woeful public schools. By November 3, Obama and Duncan may find
themselves with a different obstacle in the form of Republican
Minnesota Congressman John
Kline. With Republicans poised to win back control of the House
of Representatives, the former Marine Colonel and think tank
executive will be reshaping federal education policy as chairman of
the House Education and Labor Committee.
A former Marine helicopter pilot who once commanded air
operations during the occupation of Somalia, Kline is most fond of
talking about his time carrying the nuclear “football” for
President Reagan and flying the presidential helicopter, Marine
One. Kline can also thank Obama for his current spot as Ranking
Republican on the Education and Labor Committee; it was Obama’s
appointment of Kline’s former House colleague, John McHugh, as
Secretary of the Army last year that prompted the musical chairs
that led to Kline ascending to the position.
But unlike current education committee chairman — and
Obama favorite — George Miller, Kline won’t be carrying anything
on his behalf. Kline has long opposed Race to the Top, the $4.3
billion competitive grant initiative that is the centerpiece of
Obama’s reform efforts. From his perspective, “it was
irresponsible” for congressional Democrats to give Secretary of
Education Duncan $5 billion “with no strings attached.” Kline also
doesn’t like that the administration required adoption of Common
Core, a set of academic standards in English, math, and science, to
win Race to the Top funds; he calls it a step toward creating a
national curriculum.
Kline isn’t likely to go for Obama’s request to
increase Race to the Top funding by another $1
billion. Says Kline: “Why should Congress give more money to a
program that hasn’t proven itself?” The skepticism is warranted.
Race
to the Top, along with the willingness of Obama and Duncan to
use their respective bully pulpits, has convinced legislators in
states such as California, Michigan and Massachusetts to eliminate
restrictions on the expansion of charter schools and on the use of
student test score data in evaluating teachers. But in choosing
states such as Delaware (which weakened reform measures to gain NEA
and AFT support) and Maryland (which didn’t even offer much in the
way of measurable reform), the Obama administration has
disappointed school
reformers of all stripes,
especially those championing
more serious
measures.
With Kline in the chairmanship, Obama will have less of a
free hand (and less backing) for the more expansive elements of his
agenda. Kline in particular is ready to ditch parts of the No Child
Left Behind Act, the federal education law that has been the bane
of teachers unions and school districts alike, proclaiming that it
is overreach into an area that shouldn’t be a federal concern. This
stance, along with his support for vouchers, charter schools, and
other school choice measures, is certainly pleasing to the ears of
conservative school reformers and their more movement-oriented
allies in the Republican grassroots.
BUT CONSERVATIVE SCHOOL REFORMERS won’t necessarily be
pleased with the rest of Kline’s plans. He also argues that the
best way to reform education is to return to local control or
essentially letting traditional school districts do as they please.
These districts, as even Kline admits, are among the most fervent
opponents of choice, along with teachers unions and other defenders
of traditional public education. After nearly two centuries, local
control has proved to be of little value to students (who get stuck
in mediocre schools) and taxpayers (who pay all too dearly for
them). Choice advocates, who have battled with school districts for
the past three decades, will be particularly displeased.
School reform-minded Republican governors such as
Indiana’s Mitch Daniels and Kline’s fellow Minnesotan, Tim
Pawlenty, may also disappointed with Kline’s emphasis on dialing
back the No Child Left Behind Act. As with Race to the Top, No
Child has actually expanded state authority over education;
governors have successfully used the accountability rules,
mandates, and statistical measurements to rally support for their
efforts and defeat school districts and teachers union
affiliates.
Kline also opposes Obama’s effort to apply the clever
competition model at the heart of Race to the Top (the reason why
states embrace school choice and subject teachers to private-sector
style performance management) to the rest of the $152 billion spent
annually by the federal government on public education because he
feels it will further politicize federal funding. But the
competitive grant approach appeals to conservative school
reformers, who, like many centrist Democrats, feel that the
traditional program-centered approach to federal education funding
is wasteful and hasn’t improved quality of education.
Some conservative reformers already have mixed feelings.
“In sum, the old GOP education agenda isn’t what 21st century
America needs and recycling it, while surely easier and perhaps
safer than thinking anew, isn’t going to do the job,”
proclaim Chester Finn Jr. and Michael Petrilli of the Thomas B.
Fordham Institute, the leading think tank among conservative
reformers.
This dissonance isn’t surprising. There is almost as much
disagreement on education policy (and school reform) in GOP ranks
as there is among centrist reformers and teachers unions within
Democratic Party ranks.
School choice supporters such as the Heritage Foundation
and Cato Institute scholar Andrew Coulson — who embrace a
small-government philosophy — constantly bicker with organizations
such as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, which advocate with
centrist Democrats for a stronger federal role in enacting more
rigorous curriculum standards. Both, in turn, have fought with
suburban Republicans — including congressional leaders such as
Kline — who count on support from school superintendents, parents
who still think public schools are still doing a fine job of
educating their kids, and (to a lesser extent) teachers-union
bosses.
The reality is that for all the small government rhetoric,
Republicans and conservatives alike have supported expansive
federal education policy when it suits them. It was the Reagan
Administration that nurtured the modern school reform movement in
1983 with the publication of A Nation at Risk, which
called for improving (and standardizing) curricula and academic
standards. Obama’s own reform efforts are a continuation of those
of his predecessor, George W. Bush, who, with the help of
then-education committee chairman John Boehner, passed No Child.
Another pet project of conservative reformers, the now-shuttered
D.C. Opportunity school voucher program, was established by the
then Republican-controlled Congress in 2003 (admittedly, at the
behest of residents frustrated with the woeful school
district).
Kline’s ascension could prove to be as vexing for school
reform-minded conservatives as it will be likely be for Obama and
his centrist Democrat school reform allies. He may also be less
successful in expanding the kind of school choice options
conservatives hold dear. Instead, Kline and other congressional
Republicans may end up forcing the GOP ranks into the kind of
uncomfortable conversations that have fueled civil war among
Democrats.
The only beneficiaries may turn out to be the very
teachers unions both Kline and Obama count as their
opposition.
