Centrist Democrats Face the Bipartisanship Test, Paul Ryan Department: Based on the Obama campaign’s reaction to Mitt Romney’s selection of House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan, one would think that President Barack Obama would find plenty of common cause with National Education Association President Dennis Van Roekel and American Federation of Teachers boss Randi Weingarten (whose reactions to the selection were equally, umm, unrestrained). But then, one wouldn’t expect much in the way of kind words from the campaign. After all, its job is to support Obama’s tough and uncertain re-election campaign, not to say anything nice about the Republican nominee presumptive — and in politics, the enemy of one’s enemy is a friend (even if neither Obama nor the two unions see eye to eye on the future direction of American public education).
But the real question is what centrist Democrat reformers, who have put their eggs in the president’s basket, will say. Their response will be telling of how well they have learned the lessons about the need for bipartisanship in advancing systemic reform.
One reason why it matters is because so little about the rest of Ryan’s nomination concerns education policy. Whether or not the selection of the Wisconsin congressman and budget hawk will actually make a difference in Romney’s likelihood of getting into the White House is an open question. After all, neither Romney nor Obama, have made compelling cases for winning (or keeping) the top job. While this generally gives the incumbent the best odds by default of winning, it also means that Romney can still make a compelling case among those voters who care about addressing entitlement spending and taxes, the two areas on which Ryan is strongest. This is especially true given that both Romney and Obama both embrace systemic reform and differ little on substance (if not necessarily on style). The Obama administration, for example, can’t argue that a Romney presidency would lead to a weakening of accountability in large part because of both the former Massachusetts governor’s past record on education — and because of the administration’s own No Child waiver gambit has effectively done so.
Another reason lies with the reality that Ryan would actually be attractive to centrist Democrats on fiscal issues. This is especially true given the impact of the nation’s own long-term fiscal woes on education, especially when it comes to the trillions in Social Security and Medicaid liabilities at the federal level, and the fast-rising costs of operating healthcare programs, and the $1.1 trillion in teachers’ pension deficits and unfunded retired teacher healthcare costs borne by states (along with districts) from decades of dealmaking with affiliates of the NEA and AFT. Add in the fact that Medicaid costs expected to increase by 32 percent alone for states (based on implementation of the Affordable Care Act), the impact of the current economic malaise on federal and state revenues, and the reality that plenty of high school dropouts and Baby Boomers will likely end up on Medicaid and Social Security rolls in the coming decade, states and the federal government will both have to revamp spending priorities on other sectors. Which puts education in the cross-hairs — and for the benefit of reformers and cost-cutters alike.
At the state level, centrist Democrat reformers and their counterparts among conservatives and Republicans have long ago conceded that the $593 billion spent annually on education is not well-spent. This includes $15 billion alone is spent on pay raises for teachers who obtained master’s degrees even though there is no correlation between graduate degree attainment and student achievement. Reformers and cost-cutting governors have already joined common cause in overhauling how education dollars are spent, with states such as New Jersey ending near-free healthcare and requiring teachers to pay more into pensions, while others are embarking on performance-based pay plans, and essentially ending near-lifetime employment.
This agreement has also been struck at the federal level too. Sure, U. S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has declared that Ryan’s budgetary aims would be “disastrous” for federal education spending. But the Obama administration has already essentially argued that the traditional formula-based funding (including Title 1) approach that has been at the heart of federal education policy is no longer worth preserving. The early success so far of the competitive grant approached as embraced in Race to the Top has already encouraged the administration to move further away from formula-based funding; this was made especially clear this year with both the administration’ s defense of Race to the Top and other competitive grant programs from efforts to kill them off by House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Kline, as well as the administration’s continuation with the newly-created State-Tribal Education Partnership pilot to build up American Indian tribal education departments. Whether if its the Obama administration retaining office, or a Romney-Ryan administration succeeding it, it is quite likely that other formula-based programs — including those funded under Title VII of No Child (some of which have come under congressional scrutiny for allegations of wasteful spending) — will also face trimming. Especially in order to redirect federal spending toward more reform-minded efforts (as well as to balance the federal budget).
These realities mean that centrist Democrats must take care in how they respond to Ryan taking a place on the Romney ticket. Hard criticism of Ryan would put them in the uncomfortable position of talking out of both sides of their respective mouths, especially given that many of the same reforms for which they advocate — especially ditching formula-based funding for competitive grant programs that can spur reform efforts — amount to the kind of fiscal conservatism (and budget-cutting) that Romney and Ryan will likely embrace in word (if not necessarily in deed). After all, many districts that don’t fully embrace the Obama administration’s reform formula would just as likely lose funding as under a more-comprehensive budget-cutting approach that Ryan has already touted in his blueprint. More importantly, the reductions in Social Security, Medicaid, and other entitlement spending that Ryan supports would actually benefit centrist Democrats and other reformers by actually giving federal appropriators and state governments greater incentives to embrace the very solutions they tout.
Meanwhile taking hard shots against Ryan would also do little more than give aid and comfort to the NEA and AFT, which are already stuck in a wag the dog situation with both the Obama and Romney coming out in favor of the very reforms both unions oppose. In fact, no matter what position centrist Democrats take, it won’t appease the two unions, which are already aiming to cut them off at the knees with the help of progressives within the activist wing of the Democratic National Committee. So helping the unions by sharing common cause does centrist Democrat reformers nothing in the way of favors.
Quietly and tacitly supporting Obama’s re-election while still offering support for the kind of thoughtful overhaul of government spending that Ryan supports would allow centrist Democrats to play both sides, remaining loyal to their party of choice while admitting that a bipartisan approach is key to advancing the transformation of American public education.
The Laughable Idea of Virginia Holding a School Reform Summit: There is nothing about the Old Dominion’s record of late on education that suggests that embracing strong school reform is on its agenda. In fact, as Dropout Nation has noted over the past couple of months, Virginia has used the Obama administration’s No Child waiver gambit to weaken accountability, especially on performance targets for its schools and districts to improve their performance in educating poor and minority children.
So it is sadly hilarious that Gov. Bob McDonnell, whose leadership on school reform during his three years in office has been lackluster at best, is holding a summit this week on advancing systemic reform. Certainly it is nice to see McDonnell host fellow governors with stronger reform credentials such as Louisiana’s Bobby Jindal (who expanded school choice, Parent Power, and teacher quality reforms earlier this year), and former governors such as Bob Wise of West Virginia, who now leads the Alliance for Excellent Education’s laudable efforts on the national level. Even the move to bring former U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, an opponent of the very waiver effort of which the Old Dominion has taken advantage, is a nice thing to see.
But like so much with McDonnell and his fellow state leaders, it is all show and no substance. The state continues to stand pat on its math curricula standards even as 45 other states and D.C. improve their own by enacting Common Core standards, and despite being rated as “clearly inferior” by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute (and not meeting the levels set by Singapore and the six other top-performing nations in that subject, according to the American Institutes for Research’s own analysis). McDonnell has expanded little in the way of political capital in order to advance school choice, Parent Power or teacher quality reforms. In three years, he has only managed to pass a lackluster voucher-like tax credit plan (which has been criticized for only allowing those providing scholarships to poor kids to write off a mere 65 cents of every dollar spent, or less than similar plans), an equally weak charter school expansion that has only allowed four new charters to be opened this past school year, and a differentiated teacher pay program that will do as poorly in bringing those perceived to be high-quality teachers to low-performing districts as similar efforts in Washington State and elsewhere.
In short, McDonnell’s summit will only be worth anything if it leads to the governor and his fellow state leaders in Virginia taking action next year. Not likely.
