So why am I posting a new essay?
Recently, I read Popular Education and Its Discontents, 1989 by Lawrence Cremin. The author is a distinguished public education historian who has spent his career looking at American public education through the filter of history, sociology, culture and values. In his book, Cremin makes an argument that in America, education and politics are forever linked. He suggests that it is impossible to decouple American education from American politics.
Thus did education become increasingly politicized during the post-War era, and thus did various groups with differing conceptions of the good life contend with increasing vigor and occasional violence over the nature and character of education. But the question remains, Why? And the answer, I believe, lies in the longstanding American tendency to try to solve social, political, and economic problems through educational means, and in so doing to invest education with all kinds of millennial hopes and expectations (pg. 92.)If indeed Cremin is correct, and I believe he is, than we gain insight into educational reform by studying our nation's politics. He suggests that our "discontent" with education lies in our lack of agreement on what exactly our "ideal state" should be. This lack of agreement, based in differing values and beliefs, places our schools in a constant state of political flux. Every social, political, ethical issue is up for interpretation. Whether we are considering changing the funding mechanics of public education, Charter Schools, the Common Core State Standards, cooperative learning, a biology book that teaches evolution or a mathematics curriculum that uses calculators, a political discussion always ensues. The decisions that result from the political discussions of the time force schools to constantly pivot from best practices to political alignment.
If only there were agreement on our "ideal state." Let's look at a fundamental value and belief from the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.What an extraordinary pronouncement. Equality and unalienable rights that are endowed not by the government, but by a divine creator. One would think there would be widespread agreement on this ideal. But there isn't.
What does it mean that all men are created equal? By what yardstick do we measure equality?
- Is a white person equal to a black person?
- Is a woman equal to a man?
- Is an atheist equal to a Christian?
- Is a poor person equal to a rich person?
- Is a disabled person equal to a famous athlete?
- Is a Muslim equal to a Jew?
- Is a person born into poverty equal to a person born into wealth?
- Is a homosexual equal to a heterosexual?
- Was slavery a right?
- Is healthcare a right?
- Is quality education a right?
- Is public safety a right?
- Is employment a right?
- Is free speech a right?
- Is having a gun a right?
- Is capital punishment a right?
- Is having a roof over your head a right?
- Is equal pay for equal work a right?
After reading Cremin and working in public education for 35 years, I have come to the conclusion that our discontent with public education is consistent with our discontent with our local community, our state, our country and our government. I would suggest from a constitutional perspective, this discontent is a by-product of our democratic process. It is embedded in our country's founding documents and in our governing institutions. Who is in control, the President or the Congress or the Supreme Court, the Democrats or the Republicans, the federal government or the state government, the state government or the local municipality, the church or the state? From the citizen's perspective, the tension is between the power of the collective versus the rights of the individual.
The 10th amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.Thus education (schooling) is a power/responsibility that is reserved to the states (and ultimately to the people.)
The 14th amendment to the Constitution reads as follows:
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.Ensuring civil rights and equal protection under the law (specifically mentioning the "state") is reserved to the federal government.
The Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka Kansas Supreme Court ruling is a perfect example of the politicizing of public education. In the post WWII era many states legislated that whites and blacks must attend separate schools (segregation). The Supreme Court ruled that this denied equal rights and protections to black students who were receiving a sub-standard education. So although education is a state responsibility, they cannot deny the civil rights of students based on race. We are still grappling with the shockwaves sent out by this court ruling in 1954. And we still attend segregated schools (although not due to legislative restrictions.) As we all know, there remains widespread disagreement as to whether the "collective" (meaning the federal government) can overrule the desires of the individual (family, city, state).
I am not writing this essay to provide a lesson in constitutional law. I am suggesting that understanding how politics are instantiated in education is key to gaining perspective on public school issues. And since we are in the midst of election campaigns, it is not a bad time to take a look at public education through the lens of current issues being raised in the primaries.
The 2016 presidential election has demonstrated an uneasiness with who we are, who we want to be and whether the federal government is capable of meeting our needs. The presidential field started with 23 total candidates and is down to three. Two of the three remaining candidates, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders, have tapped into a huge populist sentiment in our country that disapproves of government pragmatism, cynicism and distance from the needs of the middle class. The third candidate, Hillary Clinton, is considered a Washington insider.
Elections often point out differences in belief, perception and a candidates actual record. This election is no exception. Let's take a look at "Public Education and its Discontents" through the lens of what is happening in our Federal, State and Local elections.
Federal Perspective - The Presidential Election
The Republicans
Education: A Chance for Every ChildRepublicans would get rid of the Federal Department of Education since education is a states right. The only federal funding for education is for Title I (poverty), Free/Reduced Lunches (Poverty) and IDEA (special needs, aka "disabilities"). The Republicans don't mention these programs during the primaries, but they generally like to keep costs down as they are seen as an entitlement. In fact, it would be fair to suggest that the Republican platform is anti-union, anti-public education and pro-choice via charters, vouchers, home schooling, private schools, religious schools, etc. An example of their dislike for any central educational direction pertains to the Common Core.
Parents are responsible for the education of their children. We do not believe in a one size fits all approach to education and support providing broad education choices to parents and children at the State and local level. Maintaining American preeminence requires a world-class system of education, with high standards, in which all students can reach their potential. Today’s education reform movement calls for accountability at every stage of schooling. It affirms higher expectations for all students and rejects the crippling bigotry of low expectations. It recognizes the wisdom of State and local control of our schools, and it wisely sees consumer rights in education – choice – as the most important driving force for renewing our schools.
The Republican candidates want to get rid of the Common Core Standards because it "feels" like a federal mandate. The irony is that these standards were developed by the states.
"The state-led effort to develop the Common Core State Standards was launched in 2009 by state leaders, including governors and state commissioners of education from 48 states, two territories and the District of Columbia, through their membership in the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). State school chiefs and governors recognized the value of consistent, real-world learning goals and launched this effort to ensure all students, regardless of where they live, are graduating high school prepared for college, career, and life."There is little mention of post high school education in the Republican platform. They see college as a market driven system. They believe increased competition can be used to make college more affordable. The government should not get involved.
The Democrats
Hillary Clinton has the delegate strength (with the Superdelegates) that suggests she will be the Democratic candidate. As a former First Lady, Secretary of State and and New York Senator she is seen as a Washington insider who appeals to moderate Democrats. Clinton is an incrementalist who adheres closely to President Obama's agenda. She is endorsed by both teachers unions.
Bernie Sanders is a career politician. He was mayor of Burlington, Vermont for four terms. He was a state representative to the US House of Representatives and is currently serving his second term in the US Senate. He is a registered Independent who caucuses with the Democrats in the Senate. His greatest support comes from the 21 - 35 year old population in the liberal wing of the party.
Here is the 2012 Democratic Party platform on education.
Democrats believe all children should be able to lead happy, successful lives. That’s why we’re dedicated to ensuring the next generation has access to a quality education and the tools to drive our economy forward. Our country is strongest when our workers are trained with the knowledge and ingenuity to perform at the highest levels. Every child should have the opportunity to reach that horizon and to fulfill the American Dream.
Democrats have long valued education as the key to success, both for individuals and for our nation. In 1944, Democratic President Franklin Roosevelt enacted the G.I. Bill, a landmark piece of legislation that provided World War II veterans with opportunities for higher education. The G.I. Bill helped create the modern middle class in America.
In recent years Democrats have further increased access to higher education and restructured and dramatically expanded college financial aid, while making federal programs simpler, more reliable, and more efficient for students. In 2010, President Obama signed into law student loan reform, that cut out the role of big banks. The Obama administration also doubled our investment in Pell Grants and made it easier for students to pay back student loans. President Obama has worked to reform the higher education system and invested the most in student aid since the G.I. Bill.
The Obama administration is working to overhaul the “No Child Left Behind” program and provide teachers with more professional support and resources — while also holding them accountable. President Obama instituted “Race to the Top,” a revolutionary program designed to promote innovation and provide incentives for improvement in education. As a result, dozens of states have made changes to increase standards and implement reforms.
And in 2015, the President announced a landmark proposal to make community college free to anyone who is willing to work for it, a measure that could benefit nearly nine million students each year.Both candidates support a progressive agenda on K12 education including universal preK, teacher training, support for the recent rewrite of NCLB (No Child Left Behind) which is now called ESSA (Every Student Succeeds Act). Sanders is supportive of Charter Schools (with proper oversight), Clinton does not mention them. Both will work through the states using the federal government to create incentives for states to move forward.
Both candidates are concerned about the cost and availability of post high school education. Bernie Sanders put forth a revolutionary idea of free college education for American students. He would finance this through a tax on Wall Street stock market trading. This radical proposal moved Clinton to the left on college education. She is proposing free community colleges, lower tax rates on student loans, and more financial support for public universities from states and the federal government.
Republican vs. Democrat
A quick comparison of the Republican and Democratic platforms shows fundamentally different beliefs and values between the parties.
The Republicans look at education starting in the home and community and want to provide choice opportunities for families. Their "ideal state" is small town America where the local community educates its children according to their beliefs and values. Parents are responsible for their children's education. And they choose that education based on where they live, their personal beliefs and their income.
The Democrats look at education from an equity perspective and want to provide opportunities for all Americans through universal PreK, free college tuition and creating quality teachers through training opportunities. Their "ideal state" is one where every child - no matter where they live or what their family situation is or whether they live in wealth or poverty - is guaranteed a quality education from preK to post high school.
Filter the Republican and Democratic Party platforms through the questions raised by the constitutional dilemma I discussed above.
Are we equal? In what sense? Are we rugged individualists or members of a community? Should we have equal opportunities based on a belief that we have a level playing field, or should the government provide supports to guarantee equal opportunities no matter what school district you live in or your economic class? Are we a meritocracy or a democracy? Should education be a market driven endeavor (individualistic, up to the parent) or a socialist endeavor (funded through taxes with common goals and outcomes?)
Clearly the parties and their candidates fall on either sides of these questions. The Republicans and Democrats simply do not agree on what the American "ideal" should be. The presidential election becomes a referendum on these values. And public education bounces back and forth between the Republican and Democrat ideal dependent upon who is in power in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches of both federal and state governments.
I should note that this not just a presidential primary that is going on. One of the key aspects of this year's election pertains to Congressional seats. Currently both houses of Congress are controlled by the Republicans.
- The Senate currently has 54 Republicans and 45 Democrats (including one independent - Sanders). There are 34 seats up for reelection in 2016, of which 24 are held by Republicans. Democrats will need to gain 4 or 5 seats to take gain a majority. This is possible.
- The House of Representatives has 435 seats with Republicans currently holding 246 seats, 28 more than the 218 needed for control. All 435 will be voted on this year. The Democrats would need to gain 30 seats to take control. This is possible, but not likely.
States' Perspective - Gridlock
The 2014 Governor's election in Pennsylvania resulted in a non-politician taking office - Tom Wolf. An extremely bright and successful businessman, Governor Wolf has had a rough ride in his first two years of office. He is a Democrat and both houses of the Pennsylvania Legislature are overwhelmingly Republican. As a non-member of the political class, he has little experience dealing with political compromise, making deals and getting the job done. So for two years nothing got done.
K12 public schools are a case in point. As a traditional Democrat, Governor Wolf is pro public education and heavily supported by public education advocates including teachers' unions, school board associations, etc. He is not supportive of charter schools and school choice, a traditional Democratic stance. He was elected on a platform to increase state funding for public education. Wolf was sworn into office in January of 2015. His first order of business was to craft a 2015 - 2016 state budget and get it passed by the June 30th deadline.
This is where Wolf's troubles began. The budget battle was fiercely contested between a newly elected governor (Democrat) and an entrenched (Republican) legislature. The main issues were:
- Public school funding;
- State University funding;
- The public employees (and teachers) pension plan; and
- Privatizing the state run liquor stores.
It should be noted that Pennsylvania has been criticized for its extremely low support for its public universities and public K12 school districts prior to Wolf becoming Governor. This is the result of a Republican legislature that provides choice, but not financial support (lower taxes.)
If you want to read about the Budget impasse, my blog - The Dirty Little Secret - will fill you in on the details. Long story short, the legislature and the Governor did not pass the 2015 fiscal budget (covering July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016) by the end of June 2015. In fact they did not pass the budget by the end of December 2015. Thus all funding for public schools from the state was put on hold. School Districts did not get any state revenue for the first 9 months of their fiscal year. Funding did not resume until April, 2016.
Basically, the Governor and the Legislature went to war. The elected officials continued to receive their salaries, roads continued to be fixed, state police were paid and state government did business as usual. But public schools received nothing. Many local school districts had to borrow to make payroll. Although they ultimately received their funding (which was at the same level as the previous year) they lost all the interest they paid on the loans. Overall education funding has not gone up in Pennsylvania for over 8 years.
Basically, the Governor and the Legislature went to war. The elected officials continued to receive their salaries, roads continued to be fixed, state police were paid and state government did business as usual. But public schools received nothing. Many local school districts had to borrow to make payroll. Although they ultimately received their funding (which was at the same level as the previous year) they lost all the interest they paid on the loans. Overall education funding has not gone up in Pennsylvania for over 8 years.
In essence, there was gridlock on education this year in Pennsylvania. The fundamental problem regarding this issue pertains to those same questions I asked in the beginning of this blog. The Pennsylvania state government has a core dilemma they simply cannot resolve regarding what the "ideal state" is for our children and their education. They see education as one more venue to fight over ideology and costs. That is the definition of "politics."
Local Perspective - Where the rubber hits the road
Local politics is at the bottom of the government food chain. From an education perspective, this creates havoc in our schools. Here are two quick examples.
NCLB
When the federal government passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2001, it was part of a bill that provides funds for Title I - students in poverty. Through this bill they demanded that all public schools, because they receive Title I funding, must participate in the NCLB assessment program. This was all about accountability. Every state had to create a statewide standardized assessment that was approved by the federal government. All public school students had to participate, and if a school did poorly (not attaining the state % for adequate year progress) on the assessment, they were penalized. These schools were put into categories - Warning, School Improvement, Corrective Action, etc. The test results by school district (and school) were rank ordered and published in the newspaper and on the Internet. As one might guess, the schools that did poorly served poor children from struggling neighborhoods. NCLB offered no additional funding for support to low achieving schools. The test and its reporting was simply punitive. The result of not attaining AYP, was that many schools pragmatically eliminated their arts, physical education, science and foreign language instruction in order to focus solely on the test subjects - Reading and Mathematics. The entire public education enterprise in America, Pennsylvania and local school districts was coopted by this federal legislation (that passed with bi-partisan support.) This mandate lasted from 2001 to 2014.
Lowering Taxes
Funding of schools comes from three sources - federal, state and local taxes. The graph at the right shows the national average for school districts in 2010. By 2012, the federal portion had dropped to 10% and the state and local rose to 45% each. This drop off in federal funding pertained to the end of the one time ARRA funds that were provided during the recession that began in 2009. Two years of ARRA funding allowed districts to expand, or put off budget cuts. But once the funds were gone, most districts found themselves with a deficit.
The problem is much worse in Pennsylvania. First, since 2006 PA has only contributed 35% (10% less than the national average) of the local school districts budgets. This is one of the lowest percentages in the nation. Second, when the federal government provided ARRA funds for districts, the state lowered its contribution even more. When the ARRA funds were expended, the state did not even raise their contribution to 2008 levels.
The problem is much worse in Pennsylvania. First, since 2006 PA has only contributed 35% (10% less than the national average) of the local school districts budgets. This is one of the lowest percentages in the nation. Second, when the federal government provided ARRA funds for districts, the state lowered its contribution even more. When the ARRA funds were expended, the state did not even raise their contribution to 2008 levels.
Since the year 2000, the Federal and State governments have been cutting taxes not raising them. Both the Federal and Pennsylvania governments were Republican controlled during this time. Lower taxes mean less revenues and less funding for education. As you might guess this means that local school districts must make up the difference or severely cut programming.
Here is a compendium of education articles in last week's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Filter these headlines through the questions I asked in the beginning of this blog.
Here is a compendium of education articles in last week's Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Filter these headlines through the questions I asked in the beginning of this blog.
If schools violate the
federal guidance on transgender student access, they could risk losing federal
funding or being subject to a lawsuit.
The school district’s
proposed final budget for 2016-17 includes a property tax increase of 3.1 mills
instead of 4.3 mills.
The district’s 92
teachers, nurses and counselors have been working under the terms of a contract
that expired June 30, 2015.
The district obtained
permission from the state to raise its tax rate by 1.17 mills to fund a
proposed budget of $32.5 million for 2016-17
Board members stressed
that nothing is final, and work will continue on the budget until adoption of a
final budget at the June 15 meeting.
More than 100 community
residents gathered to show support for 30 teachers who were in danger of being
laid off.
The school board voted
5-4 tonight to approve a $32.5 million budget for the 2016-2017 school year.
Through a spokesman, Gov.
Tom Wolf said the state's focus shouldn't be on layoffs but on "how to
invest in our schools.”
A state legislator from
Allegheny County touts a bill that spotlights the national motto
and ”service to a power higher than yourself.”
The board will hold
meetings on the issue at 7 p.m. Tuesday, 6 p.m. May 23 and 6 p.m. June 13.
The district’s proposed
final budget for 2016-17 calls for a tax increase of 0.75 mills, largely due to
higher pension costs.
The themes that local school districts are dealing with are clear.
- Higher local property taxes.
- Lower federal and state support.
- Teacher layoffs due to lack of revenue.
- Bathroom access for LGBTQ populations.
- Religion in the School.
Pennsylvania has one of the highest average expenditure per pupil in the nation. This would lead you to believe that we are doing a great job funding education in our state. However, Pennsylvania is rated one of the worst states at providing support for local school districts. As more and more of the burden is falling on local communities via property taxes, a budget crunch is occurring.
Our biggest problem is that three different levels of government are involved in both the financing and governance of our schools.
In some sense, the state of Pennsylvania has taken a purely political approach to education since 2000. The Pennsylvania Governor and Legislature lowered state subsidies for school districts, beat up on districts with low test scores published in local newspapers, while raising the cost of the state's pension system. These activities reek from politics. The new millennium has ushered in a Pennsylvania educational system that looks like any other line item in the budget. It's the same as how many miles of road we will asphalt this year.
Finally, revenue differences between the 500 school districts in Pennsylvania suggest that the state has little interest or concern about disparities between poor and rich, black and white, urban and rural and segregated communities. Equity, civil rights and a level playing field appears not to be a concern.
So what's the takeaway?
I doubt after reading this post you learned something you didn't know already... Education and Politics... Politics and Education... they are attached at the hip. Our schools struggle to keep up with what our society is asking of them. In fact, they are never quite sure what is being asked of them. They just know that they are on a political roller coaster that creates an educational environment that is depressing, cynical and certainly not based on the needs of our children.
Whether you support the Republican Platform or the Democratic Platform, the Founders made a promise to our children and to our country. They stated that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.
If you don't believe that a quality education for all children is what is meant by Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness than you are a cold, mean, cynical soul. If you strictly want to lower taxes because you hate the government, or you're selfish, or you believe that teachers are overpaid, or there are enough books and microscopes and classes already, or the arts are meaningless, than you will reap what you sow. An uneducated, unruly, out of work population. Then you get to spend your tax dollars on jails. Sound familiar.
Get engaged in your community. Vote. Talk to people. Support education. Invest in our children. You didn't make it by yourself. You were educated, cared for and taught by many great people. If you have Life, Liberty and Happiness, it is because you were nurtured, educated, supported and loved. What a country this would be if that was an unalienable right.
