[EPI welcomes
reader
feedback.]
Education at the GOP Convention
On Tuesday, August 1, the NEA sponsored a "Partnerships
for Public Education" Policy Forum at the Park Hyatt hotel
in Philadelphia. NEA President Bob Chase chaired the forum,
which featured Republican candidates for Congress who have
been endorsed by the NEA. The forum was cosponsored by the
Republican Main Street Partnership (RMSP) and Women in the
Senate and House (WISH), organizations that are working
closely with the NEA on endorsements.
The NEA packet included the following publications:
- The agenda
- Defining the Federal Role in Education: A
Republican Perspective, a monograph prepared by
the Republican Main Street Partnership and its Education
Task Force (and published by the NEA!)
- Modernizing Our Schools: What Will It
Cost?, a 57-page NEA publication on the need for
school construction
- Advancing NEA's Legislative Program
(July 1999), a memorandum summarizing NEA's legislative
agenda
- One-page flyers entitled:
- The Republican Convention Communique
- Charter Schools
- Safe Schools
- Block Grants
- Education Support Personnel
- Class Size Reduction
- Professional Development
- Educational Technology
- Public School Employees and Social Security Reform
- Helping America's Children to Read
- Private School Vouchers
- The Federal Role in Education
The Attendees
The identity of the attendees is an interesting question.
Some were invited or nominated by UniServ directors, perhaps
because they are deemed potential recruits for the NEA's
legislative agenda. After the luncheon formally ended,
several speakers stayed in the area to answer questions; I
encountered a retired UniServ director from New Jersey whom
I had known when I was an active supporter of teacher
bargaining. Another attendee turned out to be a non-activist
Republican teacher who was rather surprised when she was
offered an expenses paid trip to the convention. My guess is
that not many delegates to the Republican convention were in
the audience. The large number of badges that were not
picked up also suggests that the turnout was disappointing.
The NEA's press statement referred to "over 150 Republican
Convention delegates, alternates, and press," but clearly,
some attendees did not fall into these categories.
Highlights of the remarks
Senator George Voinovich (OH): Emphasized importance of
taxing commerce on the Internet because such commerce
reduces sales taxes that support education.
Senator Arlen Spector (PA): Education has a great deal of
support among both parties.
Senator James Jeffords (VT): "I'd like to praise you for
all you have done."
Representative Michael Castle (DE): "There is a growing
understanding that the federal government has a role to
play" in education. Castle devoted about ten minutes to a
proposed reorganization of the Office of Educational
Research and Improvement (OERI), which unfortunately ignores
all of the basic problems of federally funded educational
research.
Representative Nancy Johnson (CT): Urged federal support
for school construction.
The NEA press release also pointed out that about fifty
percent of the endorsements of its state affiliates in New
Jersey and Utah went to Republican candidates for state
office.
Over the years, the NEA has been very successful in
identifying Republicans in closely contested elections in
which NEA support could be crucial. This year, the practice
leads to a dilemma. If the Democrats are close to regaining
control of the U.S. Senate or House of Representatives, NEA
support for Republican candidates could conceivably tip the
scales in favor of Republican control of one or both houses.
In view of the NEA's overwhelming support for Democratic
candidates for Congress, there is no doubt that the NEA
would prefer Democratic over Republican control of both
houses. On the other hand, failure to support any Republican
candidates would destroy the NEA's image as a bipartisan
organization and isolate the NEA without any friends in the
party that controls Congress. The NEA's close ties to the
Democrats suggest that the NEA sees little chance of
Democratic control of either house despite NEA's allout
effort to elect Democrats in the swing states. It is
difficult to believe that the NEA would support any
Republicans if such support ran a real risk of losing
Democratic control of the Senate or House of
Representatives.
Governor Bush's Acceptance Speech
The most important educational item in Bush's acceptance
speech was his reference to vouchers. To summarize it, the
federal government provides funds for children of poor
families to learn. If they don't learn, parents should be
free to use the funds at another school End of statement.
Politically, the Bush position is likely to be a strong
plus; even voters who are generally opposed to vouchers will
find it difficult to demonize Bush's position, as the public
education establishment is trying desperately to do.
Justifiably, Bush did not go into the details, but the
details will not be easily resolved. Who decides when pupils
can use their federal funds at another school? What are the
criteria to be used in making this decision? What happens to
state and local control if federal statutes and officials
make the decision, and what happens if the states object to
the federal decision, or even the entire idea?
Suppose the enabling legislation is introduced at the
beginning of the 2001 Congress, and is enacted in the fall
of 2001. The legislation is not likely to go into effect
until 2002. Assume that parents can begin to use federal
funds elsewhere by the fall of 2012. How many pupils will be
able to utilize the option? How many producers will there be
to offer an option to the status quo? How long will it take
to evaluate the effectiveness of the option? The foregoing
are only a few of the practical issues that must be
resolved; not all can be resolved by the Bush administration
if it materializes.
The foregoing comment does not constitute a case against
the idea, but it does suggest that its practical effect may
be rather limited. Actually, its most important practical
effect may be to encourage supporters of more substantial
vouchers to intensify their efforts. Also, the Bush agenda
presents the public school lobby with a difficult dilemma.
If public education improves as a result of the legislation,
a plethora of states may adopt similar measures governing
state funds. And if there is no improvement, it will be
extremely difficult for the Democrats to maintain their
overwhelming margin of superiority among black and Hispanic
voters. In my opinion, the energizing effect of Bush's
position will be much more important than its demonstrable
educational benefits. The latter are more likely to be
significant if for-profit companies are authorized to
provide the services that are federally funded. Like Milton
Friedman and others who support a competitive education
industry, I believe that vouchers should not be means
tested; a means-tested voucher will not necessarily lead to
universal vouchers. It appears, however, that means tested
vouchers will dominate the political scene for at least a
few years unless one of the voucher initiatives in
California or Michigan is approved this fall.
--------
Note: As far as I know, I am not related to Connecticut
Senator Joseph Lieberman, but I have my genealogist working
on it.
| 
Building a Competitive Education Industry
