It Begins (?)

A colleague and I were debating education policy the other day at work. If we can transfer that debate here, this blog might actually live up to its name and purpose!

This post is going to be about big picture education ideas, so if you want more specifics from me, look here (be warned, it is probably far more detail than you want). But the big ideas we will talk about get at fundamental philosophies of public education.

Let me start with the least controversial idea (at least in the context of a debate between two avowed liberals). I think if we really want to improve education, we need to spend a lot more money. There is a reason people with means spend $30,000 on private education. They clearly feel that the education is worth that much money. In an ideal world, we would be able to spend that much money per student on public education. And based on how private schools spend their money, we use that money to get much smaller class sizes, more teacher support, and more subjects.

But we don't live in a perfect world. Unfortunately, we live in a world with trade-offs and budget constraints. So while I will always advocate for more money for education, I recognize that significant increases are unrealistic in the near term.

While we are not, and cannot, spend as much as we need on education, we need to have policies that give all families the freedom to make educational decisions that are best for their children. And the best way to give families choice is through charter schools and vouchers.

Before I continue, I should say that I do not believe that charter schools and vouchers will necessarily improve the community public schools. My faith in choice and markets is not that blind.

Instead, I believe all families should have the ability to take their kids to other schools - be they charter, secular private, or parochial - when the local community school is failing them. In situations where the local public school is not delivering, middle and upper income families find ways to get their kids out of those schools. High income families usually find private schools while middle income families move to another neighborhood. Lower income families however are often trapped because they cannot afford either option.

The really big problem is that they don't have to be trapped. We could give them the opportunity to attend a comparably priced private school or charter school. Many liberals however believe that by letting poor kids leave public schools, we are hurting the failing public school by taking motivated kids out of the school. I do not think it is fair to require low income students to stay in a bad school in hopes that it won't get worse when we don't require middle or upper income kids to do the same.

That line of thinking seems to rest on the assumption that the government's goal is to protect public schools. I disagree completely. I think the government's goal is to educate children. Allowing children and families the choice over how they are educated fits perfectly within that goal. Protecting public schools that do not provide a good education does not.

I also think, although this argument is on shakier ground, that by giving families choice over their education, you can make them more motivated. After all, if a family's only choice is a terrible public school, what motivation do they have to spend a lot of effort on education. Instead, I can imagine families being more motivated and engaged when they have the choice between the local school, charter schools, and private schools. I of course cannot back this up - it is just a theory of mine.

Some on the left are concerned that vouchers would violate the establishment clause of the constitution since they would allow children to use public money to attend parochial schools. I don't think this argument has any merit whatsoever. Providing funds for children to attend private schools of their choice cannot reasonably be construed as the government establishing the religion of any or all of the parochial schools the children choose.

I am also not convinced that charter schools or vouchers will hurt public schools - at least financially. Most public schools (especially in city and county-wide school districts) are funded based on per pupil formulas. When children move out, the school's budget decreases. So the same thing happens whether a child moves to a different town or uses a voucher to attend a private school. We aren't up in arms about schools losing money every time their population decreases, so we shouldn't think it would be a catastrophe when the same principle is used with vouchers.

The only way that I could see vouchers hurting public schools was if the vouchers were not means tested. If we start subsidizing families that were going to send their kids to private school anyway, it is likely that significant money would leave public education.

I do recognize the problem with "skimming off the top." It is likely that the better and more motivated students would leave the poor performing public schools. But I feel that freedom and choice for the family is a greater concern. And again, I don't see why we should hold low income motivated students hostage at bad schools.

The bottom line is that I believe that all families should have the ability to choose the nature of their kids education. (On a slight tangent, this is why I oppose a national curriculum, even if I was confident that it would be a progressive curriculum. While I want my kids educated in that way, I think parents should be free to chose a different form, even *gasp* one that uses rote learning.) And so it is with vouchers. Low income families should have the same ability to chose what type of education their child gets as middle and higher income families do. They should not be anchored to failing schools in a misguided belief that we need to protect public schools. Giving every kid, or as many as we possibly can, the best education possible is government's goal.

Still Hyper-Partisan

I have already said that I am growing tired of the hyper-partisanship. Unfortunately, I am not sure who to blame, whether it is actually more than usual and whether there is really any way around it. First, let's start with who to blame.

You won't be surprised to hear that I give a fair amount of the blame to Republicans. There definitely seems to be political calculation to deny Democrats any victories instead of trying to moderate their policies. I think the Republican voters deserve a fair share of the blame - as they attack anyone who has worked with a Democrat and refuse to acknowledge the necessity of the bank bailout.

While the Republicans seem to reject everything - I am not convinced Democrats are willing to compromise. The health care summit reinforced to me, instead of changing my mind, that Democrats are not willing to compromise. They are clearly perfectly happy to pass something that is more liberal, without any Republican support, and then try to paint Republicans as "the party of no."

I also want to say that I am unimpressed with President Obama's ability to be bipartisan. But then again, maybe I shouldn't have expected much based on his campaign. Obama said we could "disagree without being disagreeable." But you don't achieve that through rhetoric (even so, he hasn't done much to tone down the rhetoric), but by creating a different environment.

I was watching a Biography of Ronald Reagan recently and saw a clip of House Speaker Tip O'Neill congratulating Reagan on winning one of their fights (I think it was a budget or tax bill). The battle was over, and the Speaker accepted defeat and remained cordial. That video is anecdotal evidence of how we hear Washington, DC during and before the 1980s described. We hear that Congress used to fight their fights during the day, but would still be friendly across the aisle at night.

This doesn't seem to happen anymore. There are apparently far fewer friendships across the isle and our fights never end even after the legislation is passed. The culture wars of the 1990s and 2000s might be partly to blame. But Obama could do a better job at reversing this - something he campaigned on. He could create good relationships with Republicans even if they disagree. Unfortunately, it seems Obama isn't as personable as we want to think. He wasn't friendly with McCain, and so the campaign wasn't friendly at all. And he doesn't seem to be friendly with current Republicans either.

On top of that, President Obama has decided he wants to be transformational, specifically by expanding government. He wanted to pass major health care reform and wants to pass financial services reform, major global warming legislation, and immigration reform. It is harder to cool the tempers of partisanship while also being transformational.

Granted, part of the anger towards Democrats expansion of government is from the financial bailout, which is actually mostly a Bush program - one that Obama clearly agreed with also. Now, maybe it would have been wiser to lay low during the financial crisis - not work on health care - and make some small progress on government at a time when voters would be extra sensitive to further spending. That's probably what I would have done. But I guess I am not destined to be a transformational leader.

Early June Update on 2010 Elections

First of all, I don't see the Democrats dropping below 50 seats (I think we'll win Cali and Washington). So at least it will be split with the Vice President breaking any ties. In fact, though, Democrats could go as high as 52 (Pennsylvania, which I am doubtful about but the Times shows leaning Democrat, and Connecticut which might get better after it gets worse for the Democratic front runner who misled voters about his military history). Illinois doesn't look good right now and neither does Arkansas.

The house is a bit harder to tell, but seems safe to remain with the Democrats. In order to lose the House, Dems would have to win less than 54 of the 64 seats that the Times says are leaning Democrat and all of the toss-ups.

Of course, there is a lot of time.

I also want to say I don't know if I would mind a switch of power in one or both houses. It might lead to some decent compromises and might actually bring out (or force) Obama's bipartisan spirit. Then again, that wasn't the case in Albany, so maybe it is hopeless. I don't have a good frame of reference since I was a little young during Clinton's presidency. After 1994 he worked with Congress on Welfare Reform, but Newt Gingrich and the Republicans were really divisive. I should also consider that a Republican Congress, or even one house, would make it much harder for Obama to fund some of the necessary social programs like housing vouchers.

So maybe I would mind. I don't know. All I know is that I am really tired of the ridiculous rhetoric. More on that later.