The American Spectator

home
ADVERTISEMENT
Print Email
Text Size

A Further Perspective

Second Front Alliances

Republican divisions on education reform will make for some strange bedfellows in the next Congress.

For President Barack Obama and U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, incoming House Education and Labor Committee Chairman John Kline will likely be as much a thorn in their school reform efforts as the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers. The suburban Minnesota congressman has already made it clear that he will oppose additional funding for Race to the Top, the $4.3 billion initiative that has spurred 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. Kline is also pushing to eliminate the accountability provisions within the No Child Left Behind Act — a fact that pleases the nation’s two largest teachers’ unions and suburban districts embarrassed by revelations of their academic mediocrity.

Nonetheless, Obama and Duncan will have some unlikely allies in Republican governors Mitch Daniels of Indiana, tough-talking Chris Christie of New Jersey, and newly elected Rick Scott of Florida. These governors share common cause with the president on challenging teachers unions and their fellow defenders of traditional public education. This, in turn, highlights the disagreement on education policy (and school reform) in GOP ranks, one that is as wide as that between centrist reformers and teachers unions within Democratic Party ranks.

Certainly Obama and Republican governors will square off on other issues. Daniels is considered a possible (if longshot) candidate for the Republican presidential nomination. Along with their allies in Republican-controlled legislatures, they will also gerrymander congressional districts in order to ensure a Republican majority in the federal lower house for years to come, leaving Obama with less of a network to draw on in his own re-election efforts.

But when it comes to school reform, the administration and the governors share similar playbooks. If anything, Obama’s sly (if not always successful) approach to federal education spending — along with the use of bully pulpits — has helped Republican governors make their own school reform proposals stick.

In Indiana, Daniels and the state’s Superintendent for Public Instruction, Tony Bennett, have already spent the last two years beating back the state’s once-powerful National Education Association affiliate to pass a series of teacher quality reforms that include expanding the number of alternative teacher training programs and requiring aspiring teachers to pass a test before taking education school courses. Daniels and Bennett particularly used the lure of Race to the Top to their advantage in 2009, stopping an effort by the NEA essentially to cut off funding to charter schools.

Now, with the Republicans gaining full control of the state legislature, Daniels and Bennett are pushing through a 20-point agenda that includes the creation of a charter school board that will authorize more of the publicly-funded, privately-operated schools. They are also looking to ditch the Hoosier State’s arcane school funding formula for something called “weighted student funding.” It could end the practice of restricting students to a school in their particular neighborhood — and even pave the way for school vouchers — by allowing state education dollars (which now account for nearly all of operating funds for Indiana’s schools) to follow the student to whatever school he attends.

In New Jersey, Christie has spent the past year successfully beating back the state’s bellicose NEA affiliate over his effort to require teachers to contribute a modest 1.5 percent to their pensions funds, and has helped rally taxpayers to vote against increases in local school district budgets. Christie is now looking to bring private sector-style performance management to education by reforming how teachers are evaluated and ending near-lifetime job protections. He’s getting help from a Democrat-controlled state legislature more willing to turn its back on the Democratic Party’s teacher union allies.

The most-intriguing work may come out of Florida, where two decades of reforms begun under Lawton Chiles and Jeb Bush will now be taken further by Scott. This will likely include the revival of efforts to abolish tenure, the work status that has made teaching a near-lifetime job at the expense of both students (who must put up with laggard teachers who can’t be easily removed from their jobs) and taxpayers (who pick up the tab for lousy work). Scott’s predecessor, Charlie Crist, vetoed such a similar Race to the Top-inspired measure earlier this year in order to win over teachers unions, a move that all but ended his wishy-washy career.

Republican governors (and even their Democrat counterparts) have also embraced a measure originally spurred by Race to the Top called Parent Trigger. It allows 51 percent of parents to either replace school principals and teachers with new staff or convert it into a public charter school. In the past year, Parent Trigger laws have been enacted and considered in California and Connecticut to the consternation of school districts and teachers unions alike; similar measures are being proposed next month in 10 more states — including such teachers union strongholds as Pennsylvania and Michigan.

All of these reforms challenge the concept of local control of education by school district bureaucracies championed by Kline and some of his fellow congressional Republicans. From where they sit — and as championed by think tanks such as the Heritage Foundation and the Cato Institute — No Child, Race to the Top and other expansions of federal education policy championed by Obama and predecessors George W. Bush and Bill Clinton are overreach. In their minds, reform efforts will best be accomplished in local school districts and the communities they serve. 

The fact that districts, along with the NEA and AFT, are the most-obstinate opponents of the school choice and teacher quality reforms they support never factors into their thinking. They also remain silent when it is noted that other Republicans are talking about reviving the now-defunct D.C. Opportunity school voucher program, a federal program launched in the last decade by another generation of congressional Republicans. (No Child, by the way, is also a Republican party creation.)

Meanwhile Kline and his allies fail to realize that for all but a few Republican governors, federal education policy hasn’t exactly been all that burdensome. If anything, No Child has helped force states to accept their full responsibility for America’s public school systems.

Although education is perceived as a local concern, schools and districts (along with busted teacher pensions) are actually creations of state constitutions. Although state governments played passive roles for most of the 20th century, that has changed since the 1960s, when teachers unions successfully lobbied for state laws requiring districts to sit at the bargaining table and states became the main forces in shaping school policymaking. This role expanded in the 1970s as school funding equity lawsuits and property tax reforms such as California’s Proposition 13 led states to pick up larger portions of the school funding tab.

These days, state governments account for 48 percent of education spending. But the heft of the NEA and AFT, with their vast campaign coffers and rank-and-file numbers, and the clout of local districts have made it difficult to enact any school reform or choice measure. This has led reform-minded governors to look to the federal government, which has had a more prominent role in public education — from the formation of land grant universities in the 19th century, to the Sputnik-inspired National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act — than most actually realize.

For GOP governors and school reformers in both parties, school reform is no longer a matter of philosophical difference.  Particularly for GOP governors in Rust Belt states, overhauling public schools is part of efforts to foster economic development and eliminate the drag of long-term unemployment. As a result, the governors are more than willing to team up with Obama, big-city mayors, centrist Democrats, and conservative think tanks outside of the Heritage-Cato axis to advance a more-expansive federal education policy. Kline will find a few governors tapping on his shoulders before he bangs his gavel.

About the Author

RiShawn Biddle the editor of Dropout Nation , is co-author of A Byte at the Apple: Rethinking Education Data for the Post-NCLB EraHe can be followed at Twitter.com/dropoutnation.

Letter to the Editor View all comments (13) |

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.22.10 @ 9:20AM

Mr. Biddle,
I'm sorry. I am a college educated reader, (Baylor), and a bestselling author. I only say that to suggest you take the above article back to the drafting board.
I have rarely read such a jumble.

bobmontgomery| 12.22.10 @ 12:20PM

Ken, I think issues like this are similar to the debate over the stimulus. We had Republican leaders saying "Pshaw, we could have done the stimulus for $500 billion instead of $800 billion!"Uh, no, that's not the point, boys. We are not here to debate the finer points of education reform, we would like the Department of Education to be abolished.

Alan Brooks| 12.22.10 @ 5:49PM

Reform wont go anywhere because people only care about their own children.
How long has education reform been talked about? since the late '70s?

Bob| 12.22.10 @ 9:40AM

Daniels is a bald-headed runt with a wayward wife and Christie has a fat head in more ways than one.

Notary Sojac| 12.22.10 @ 10:26AM

Egad sir, what an elegantly turned riposte! I am in awe of your wit.

Ken (Old Texican)| 12.22.10 @ 1:27PM

Notary,
Bob is one of our resident communists, (pardon the shorthand).
Read his words very carefully in order to get an accutrate site-picture of your enemy.

Bruce Michael Anderson | 12.22.10 @ 2:56PM

I am Not so sure the Leadership of Mitch Daniels is worth seeking to run for Obama's place. I will surly not vote for him, I was not very happy to find out that Indiana has such a High Number of Veterans on back Logs with the Va we are looking about 6,000, many of them have Been awaiting for many years just do penssion's many have had food stamp Cut Backs, Section Eights Cut's and Left Homless, then I found out that a Place Called Stone Belt of Bloomington Indiana was having to take Cuts of 700,000 its a place that cares for the Adult Mentaly HAndycap in Bloomington Indiana many of them are having food stamp Cuts as well,

All the While Before Obama come into office Indiana government was Helping the Colts and the NFL and the Building of the Lucs Oil Stadium and the Over long term Maintaining of as the NFL makes Millions a year...how was they Helping the Government raised State and County Taxes... Hikes --that have Not been Stoped or forced to pay back. Again Why They Make millions

Neal McCluskey | 12.22.10 @ 5:40PM

Mr. Biddle,

I can't speak for the Heritage part of the "Heritage-Cato axis," but I can tell you that Cato education analysts do NOT celebrate local control of public schooling. We have long explained that full school choice -- not a government monopoly at any level -- is the key to fixing American education. That said, there is zero evidence that federal control of public schooling is better than local control, and appreciable evidence in the other direction. Oh, and the Constitution -- that old thing -- gives the federal government no authority to meddle in education other than to prohibit state and local discrimination in provision of schooling and exercise jurisidiction over Washington, DC. And no, we at Cato have NOT been silent about the DC voucher program.

Rep. Kline would do well to listen to Cato analysts on education, as would you before you mischaracterize our positions again.

RiShawn Biddle | 12.22.10 @ 6:43PM

Thanks for responding, Neal. Two responses:

1) Certainly, Cato is no big fan of local control (and the piece didn't say as much). But it, along with Heritage, is part of the wing of the school reform movement that opposes expansive federal policy. This is clear based on the numerous pieces you and your colleagues have written. While, as a small-l libertarian, I am sympathetic to the position (and don't disagree with it in theory), I am also a realist on education policy. More importantly, contrary to your assertion, the latest round of expansive federal education policy (No Child and Race to the Top) has been effective in opening more eyes to the problems within American public education and pushing towards the solutions -- including free-market solutions such as vouchers -- that Cato generally supports. You can disagree with the assertion, but you would be hard-pressed to prove otherwise.

2) No, Neal, Cato hasn't been silent about the D.C. voucher program. It has championed it. Yet, as a few folks would argue, it is a bit of federal overreach into local education concerns, the type of activity that Cato generally deplores. In some sense, supporting the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program is ideologically inconsistent with Cato's general stance. Based on Cato's overall viewpoint, if D.C. voters want a school voucher program, they should demand that of their government and vote accordingly.

Note: I am a supporter of the D.C. voucher plan, as I am a supporter of all school choice. The traditional model of public education -- districts, school boards, and the like -- is antiquated, ineffective and not worth preserving. We need to move from the bureaucracy model to a model in which the dollars taxpayers pay finance the best educational options for all kids. But as seen in D.C., this is unlikely to happen without some sort of federal or state intervention. This may not square with Cato's worldview. But that may mean the worldview should better reflect what is happening in that thing called the real world.

RiShawn Biddle | 12.22.10 @ 6:47PM

By the way: Neal: I also didn't write Cato was silent on the D.C. Opportunity scholarship; we're talking about the overall anti-federal policy group. Plain and simple. I can re-read it for you just in case you need help understanding this.

More Articles by RiShawn Biddle

More Articles From A Further Perspective

http://spectator.org/archives/2010/12/22/second-front-alliances

ADVERTISEMENT

SPONSORED LINKS

FLASHBACK TO: 1995

Clip of the Day

ADVERTISEMENT