Laslo Boyd, The Daily Record Newswire
In the avalanche of television ads, robo-calls and campaign literature, there was relatively little discussion about how to keep this country moving forward in the international education competition that is increasingly becoming the key to economic competitiveness.
Yet even with the sounds of silence from the candidates on this topic, there were clear and significant differences between them on how they would approach the problem.
Despite Mitt Romney’s declaration during one debate that “I love teachers,” his emphasis on cutting the federal budget would have meant that state and local governments would have been even more on their own in financing their public school systems.
As we all know, the fiscal problems of the federal government have tended to flow downhill and put increasing pressure on state and local governments to find the revenues to handle essential services, including education.
Moreover, the Republican approach, notwithstanding George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” law, has always sought to minimize the role of Washington in educational decision-making.
Contrast that with the Obama Administration’s “Race to the Top” initiative, which provided incentive funds for states that were willing to reform their schools and test initiatives in teaching and learning.
The actual share of total educational dollars from the federal government is still relatively small, but the evidence is clear that the “Race to the Top” funding has made a difference in states that have received it.
In addition, one of the key elements in President Barack Obama’s approach to bolstering the faltering economy was to direct stimulus funds to state and local governments to enable them to retain and hire teachers and first-responders.
As you look at national employment data, the decline in public-sector jobs has been dramatic and really endangers the ability of many communities to meet what had long been considered basic needs.
Different philosophies
The difference between the two candidates on their approach to public education reflects a fundamental difference in philosophies. Obama has constantly emphasized the critical need to keep investing in education as one of the essential elements of the nation’s long-term strength.
Romney, with his basic focus on the private sector doing as much as possible, gave relatively little attention to how to maintain and improve the quality of education in the United States, much less how to pay for it. His faith in the ability of local school systems to make the best decisions for students was as close to a policy position as he ever provided.
The outcome of the presidential election means that, notwithstanding the continued differences between parties in Washington, the Obama approach to investing in education will be the dominant feature of the next four years.
We debate a lot of the specifics of what works in education, but it’s hard to get around the basic truth that good teachers with strong support systems and adequate resources are the correct starting point. It’s hard to believe anyone would disagree with that prescription, but this election demonstrated that some people do.
There were also profound differences between the two candidates on how to best support and strengthen higher education. Romney, with his reflex belief in all things private, wanted to undo the direct loan program that the Obama Administration had put into effect and also wanted to cut, as part of the overall budget reduction, Pell grants and other student financial aid.
The twin problems of access to higher education and the staggering debt loads that many students end up with are major obstacles to creating a 21st century work force and to enabling former students to select jobs that don’t necessarily pay huge salaries, such as those in public service.
Attention to community colleges
President Obama also made much of the importance of providing greater support to community colleges that are generally seen as the key to retraining of displaced workers and to preparation for a number of fields in which there are more jobs than qualified applicants. This is an area that is likely to see major attention in the second Obama term.
Higher education is going to face numerous challenges in the coming years that have little to do with public policy. The gigantic leap in the availability of online courses from recognized universities is going to force all institutions of higher education to re-evaluate how they provide courses.
The continued rise in tuition costs, well above the cost of living, is going to require a reconsideration of the basic business model for universities. And the declining support from the state for public institutions is going to put even more pressure on those business models.
These last questions should be part of a national discussion about how we provide the best possible education for as many students as we can. The answers will have to include a role for the federal government — not a dominant one, but a role — and the election outcome means that the occupant of the White House is someone who agrees that these are matters of great national concern.
—————
Laslo Boyd’s experience in public policy includes government, higher education and consulting. His email address is lvboyd@gmail.com.
