The Candidates on Issues: Education
Filed under: 2008 elections, Barack Oama, Education, John McCain, Lead Story — Claudia, Assistant Editor on April 29, 2008 @ 12:21 am CEST
In the spirit of fighting against “gotcha” politics, I’ve decided to take a look at each of the three remaining candidates by the issues. This is the first in what I hope will be a series of comparisons. I will generally limit myself to the stated position of each candidate, without delving into each position and how consistent with voting records or reality they are. My fellow co-bloggers are invited to add to these posts (within reason) with relevant data. I will rely, more often than not, on the official campaign positions.
Today’s subject: Education
John McCain: John McCain’s central theme is school vouchers. In fact he mentions, in his official position, vouchers several times, but never once by name. Instead the positive sounding “school choice” is used abundantly. The basic vision he employs is essentially a single-payer school system, in which schools, both public and private, compete for students and the accompanying government money. He praises No Child Left Behind. He also calls for teacher responsibility, saying
…our schools can and should compete to be the most innovative, flexible and student-centered - not safe havens for the uninspired and unaccountable.
Hillary Clinton: After giving a long list of her achievements in education (which, if true, mean she can personally take credit for a large chunk of education initiatives both federally and in
- End No Child Left Behind: Before talking about ending it, she says she worked on fully funding and reforming it.
- Universal pre-K
- Recruitment of teachers to urban and rural areas
- Several programs oriented towards lowering dropout rates, including after-school programs, monitoring, and something called “multiple pathways to graduation”
- For college there is a whole new laundry list, mostly having to do with money. These include a $3,500 college tax credit, an increase to $10.000 grants for Peace Corps volunteers, investing $500 million in community colleges and getting rid of red tape in financial aid.
Barack Obama: He starts by giving a list of problems. He says that No Child Left Behind had the right idea but that they “left the funding behind” (this is a common phrase he uses for NCLB). Problems especially cited are dropout rates, low rankings in math and sciences in relation to other countries, a low retention rate for teachers, and rising college costs. He then goes through a list of his solutions. Some highlights:
- a “Zero to five plan” that is supposed to prepare very young children for Kindergarden, and that would be cantered on parental education of children.
- Reform No Child Left Behind: He doesn’t wish to be rid of it, but thinks it needs to be more fully funded and reformed to more accurately assess progress.
- A list of ideas for improving dropout rates, generally oriented towards supervision, tutoring, mentoring, after school programs, college outreach etc.
- Recruitment of teachers. He goes into more detail of what this would consist of in terms of training, retention and rewarding of competent teachers.
- A $4000 college tax credit, expanding the Pell Grant and simplifying the financial aid process.
My Take
The list of things wrong with education systems in the
Leaving aside the burning controversy about vouchers, which I don’t know enough about to weigh in on, McCain’s stated strategy is far too simplistic, or he simply doesn’t feel it’s an important enough of an issue to have carved out a full plan yet. Vouchers will not fix everything wrong with the system, not by a long shot, and the accountability that McCain speaks of from teachers sounds nice, but is barely fleshed out. As a personal pet peeve, he has waffled quite a bit on the issue of “Intelligent Design” sometimes saying that it could be a credible option to teach, though he personally believes in evolution. Being that Intelligent Design has about the same scientific credibility as the Stork Theory of Reproduction, the idea that he would lend it any credit personally infuriates me.
Obama and
1 Interested
April 29, 2008 @ 8:03 am CESTdon’t forget to update HRC’s daily.
2 C Stanley
April 29, 2008 @ 2:37 pm CESTClaudia, a couple of quibbles…
First, I don’t know everything that McCain has said on the topic of teaching evolution/ID, but that link from Wiki doesn’t sound like as much of a waffle as you think it is. Sounds to me like he once made a comment about not teaching the science as though it’s the only way to think about the origin of life, and then later when asked specifically about it he clearly said that ID shouldn’t be taught in a science class. Sounds about right to me.
And then just a general quibble: you seem to realize that the vast amounts of money being proposed for education spending by the two Dem candidates won’t really accomplish what they say it will, yet you dismiss McCain’s approach as though he just doesn’t get it. Who is it that doesn’t get it- the guy who realizes that we shouldn’t waste money but should instead keep the focus on education more at the local level and just allow the forces of competition to provide more accountability, or the two who know very well that the federal spending can’t fix the system but that parents will like hearing that they’re willing to spend to show that they ‘care’?
3 Claudia
April 29, 2008 @ 3:07 pm CESTMy quibble with McCain does not have to do with that, actually. Like I said in the post, I’m not going to weigh in on the issue of vouchers, since I would have to read far too much on the subject. My issue with him is that vouchers seems to be almost the totality of the solution he offers, and I doubt seriously that vouchers can fix everything wrong with the system. In fact, I’m almost certain that they can’t, the troubles in the system are far too profound.
As for the issue of funding, it’s much like the issue of charity. You give millions but the money often never makes it to the students. Many schools DO lack funding, but you throw millions into a system that swallows that money whole through a horrific red tape nightmare, so that those who need it never get it. I think that investment is fine, but it must be accompanied with reduction in red tape and accountability, for administrators, teachers, students and parents.
4 C Stanley
April 29, 2008 @ 3:27 pm CESTMy issue with him is that vouchers seems to be almost the totality of the solution he offers, and I doubt seriously that vouchers can fix everything wrong with the system. In fact, I’m almost certain that they can’t, the troubles in the system are far too profound.
Well, I don’t think you are getting my point (or McCain’s, or the general concept endorsed by conservatives on education.)
The federal government simply CAN’T fix what is wrong with our education system, and pretending that it can only leads to a growth of the bureaucracy and an incredible waste of funds. So, just as you say that vouchers can’t fix the system, neither can the proposals that Obama and Clinton make. But on the one hand, you have a candidate who candidly admits that the problems have to be fixed at the local level (with the fed’s role being oversight of failing schools and promoting competition to promote accountability and improvement) while the Dem candidates continue to pander about how they can really fix things- to the tune of billions more in federal spending poured down the pike.
5 Michael van der Galien
April 29, 2008 @ 3:31 pm CESTActually, education spending has increased tremendously in the US over the last decades and years, yet the quality of education has deteriorated.
Strangely, researchers can basically make the case that the more money goes into education, the worse off students are.
Strange, but true.
As for vouchers; in "School Choice," a book published by the AEI or CATO Institute, the author explains quite well why vouchers and more choice in itself will automatically result in better education quality… while the government doesn’t have to pay more.
Competition, and therefore choice, works miracles.
Good post by the way. Keep up the series.
6 PatHMV
April 29, 2008 @ 3:57 pm CESTThere are 2 fundamental factors which lead to our poor school performance. One is the disintegration of the family in the lower ends of the economic spectrum. Children growing up in poor families led by single mothers with absent or abusive fathers are much less likely to be successful than other children. There is little that government can do, directly, to change that.
The other is the bureaucratic morass which our schools and their decision-making processes have become. Let me give you an example from my personal experience. A few years ago, our local school system got a new superintendent, a woman who had been working for the system for almost 20 years, most recently as chief financial officer. In our system, about 73% of schools were identified as either poor or failing in our state’s accountability system. And yet in her first meeting with the principals and top administrators from around the system, she told them: "As far as I’m concerned, each of you is the best principal or best administrator in the world, until proven otherwise." It’s nice when the new boss let’s everybody start on a fresh foot, but not when the cost is overlooking miserable mismanagement that has been going on for decades. Invariably, the worst teachers and principals (being difficult to fire) get assigned to the poorest schools, where the parents have the least political pull to complain. "Mere" bad performance is not sufficient justification to fire a principal or a teacher, apparently.
That is what changes with vouchers. As Dr. Howard Fuller, a prominent black man who once served as the superintendent of Milwaukee public schools, puts it: "Rich people already have school choice. It’s time for poor people to have the same choice."
Right now, in the bureaucracy, the incentives are all the wrong way. There is no negative consequence on a principal who continues to tolerate a poor teacher. There is no negative consequence on a superintendent who continues to tolerate a poor principal. It’s when they try to do something about those poor performers that they face negative consequences. If they fire the principal, all the principal’s friends and relatives and supporters show up to the school board meeting and complain and angrily denounce the superintendent, demanding rigorous PROOF of wrongdoing. He LOVES those kids, everbody says so. He’s devoted 30 years of his life to teaching, how dare anybody question that. And so on ad nauseum. Why put up with that when there’s no real pressure (in terms of being fired or having your pay cut or whatever) on the other side?
With vouchers comes the pressure to actually improve performance. It’s very immediate pressure, measured every year by the number of families who choose to send their children to a particular school, or choose to take their children out of the public school system. The consumers (the families and their children) can simply make a decision. They don’t have to have some reason to justify calling bullshit on the rationalizations delivered by the school employees about why the schools are so bad and it’s not THEIR fault. They just up and move. That’s what it takes to improve the system. Vouchers are the answer.
7 Tully
April 29, 2008 @ 5:03 pm CESTAs to your first factor, Pat, I have a quibble. There’s very little the federal government can do about that. But local government can do a fair amount to help improve education at those levels, to bring a lot of those kids back into the game. Especially the school districts/boards themselves. But you have to get the people in the community actually involved and volunteering, or it’s all just feel-good talk-talk.
I am NOT saying it’s a solution–the problem itself will continue, the social pathologies are entrenched. But it can make a big difference for many kids, and overall for the results in any given school district. IOW, you can’t solve the problem–but you can fight the problem with some success, just not by the usual "throw money" approach. If the community and enough individuals in it really give a damn. If they don’t, you will get nowhere–and what does that say about that community?
The biggest initial barriers aren’t in the community, though, but within the teacher’s unions and the district administrations. Get past those, the next barrier is the community itself.
8 PatHMV
April 29, 2008 @ 5:25 pm CESTOh, I agree with that, Tully. I was saying that there’s little that government can do, directly, to suddenly turn people into good parents and stable families. But I agree with you that local communities and their schools can do a better job of reaching out to those kids in those families and helping them and their families, but I see that more as indirect help; you’re focusing on the kid, the family improves as an indirect consequence.
One of the keys to getting people involved is to let them see that they can make a difference without being totally stone-walled at every turn, which the entrenched teacher’s unions and district administrations make very difficult. It doesn’t take much to demoralize a bunch of interested community members, especially in a community that’s already on the edge.
But it shouldn’t require an activist community to get schools to fire bad principals and teachers and improve the job they’re doing. Our superintendent actually told me (personally) that the reason most of our schools were failing is, essentially, garbage in, garbage out. She didn’t put it in exactly those terms, but that was the gist. There’s little we can do, according to her, because of the poor home environments of our children. And that’s just a sorry excuse. Yes, it makes it tougher, but not impossible.
Vouchers improve the situation by not requiring organized, collective, political action to bring about change. The people provide pressure simply by voting with their feet.
9 Tully
April 29, 2008 @ 7:39 pm CESTNot arguing against vouchers (as I agree), and you nail the heart of what I was saying. You can help the kids, but the families that produced them are already broken, often beyond repair and certainly beyond the reach of a governmental fix.
And oh you bet you have to get past stone-walling first, which generally means getting the teachers and the administrators at least partially on your side. From personal experience that alone is a few year’s work in the best of circumstances.
It doesn’t help that most district supers are mobile-career people not really that attached to the community, willing to jump ship for the next better offer.
10 Jason
April 29, 2008 @ 8:41 pm CESTThis is oversimplified. Education in some segments of the United States has deteriorated severely while in other segments it remains world-class. When seperated out, U.S. students from many suburban districts rank pretty much even with the top educational achievers in the world (i.e. Singapore). It is only when the absolutely dismal performance of some rural and inner city districts are lumped in that the U.S. aggregate performance tumbles to the bottom of industrialized countries. Also, higher education in the United States, especially at the graduate level, remains the pinnacle of the world, drawing in the top students from the entire globe even in the face of rapid and broad improvements in the university systems in many other areas. (i.e. I am not bashing European colleges, but rather saying that the U.S. higher ed system remains superior even given demonstrably growing European and Asian excellence in higher education.)
So what that means is that the debate over education policy in the United States needs to move beyond the sweeping national stereotypes preferred by many when comparing the U.S. to other countries.
11 Tully
April 29, 2008 @ 10:14 pm CESTSpot on, Jason. It’s not even just between districts, but within districts. Example: Locally our IB and honors and magnet programs produce some of the finest college-bound students in the nation, while our "alternative" high schools produce graduating classes that are collectively below average compared to other high schools for college attendance and admission–but they’re starting with students who had serious problems, many of them directly in vocational programs instead of college track. Which is why they’re in alternative schools in the first place.
Yet both sets of classes count in the district’s averages.
In some nations, sub-performing students, including special-ed students that U.S. schools are required to "mainstream" to the maximum extent possible, by law, simply never reach secondary graduation, and are thus never counted against them.