Major differences in education between Obama and Romney
There could be major differences for students and schools, depending on who is elected President. That became clear after reviewing websites of Governor Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama, listening to their debates, and reading about recent exchanges between their education advisors. Here are several key issues:
Early childhood education: President Obama has put millions more into early childhood education. Minnesota has received some of that, to help evaluate existing programs, share results with families and expand access to the most effective ones. Obama says he would put more money into early childhood education in a second term.
In a recent debate between Presidential education advisors, Romney advisor,
Phil Handy, former chair of Florida State Board of Education, criticized Head Start, which is the major, federally funded early childhood program. According to a story in USA Today (and other accounts), Handy commented, “”Head Start has been allowed to go on for decades not as an academic experience, unfortunately, but much more as a social experience, not preparing children for school.”
Not all Head Start, or early childhood programs are equally effective. However, some have produced dramatic gains, especially for children from low-income families, and for youngsters who do not speak English in the home.
Looks like an Obama administration would mean more information about, and more support for, high quality early childhood education, than a Romney administration.
School choice:
Both President Obama and Governor Romney have endorsed expansion of strong charter public schools and choice among public schools. However, there is a big difference on tax support for private and parochial schools. Obama has opposed this. Romney has suggested allowing families to use federal funds currently designated for use with special need students, and those from low income families, to help pay tuition at private schools. Obama also opposes and Romney supports, a tax-supported Washington, D.C. program allowing low-income families to attend public, private and parochial schools.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB):
Both candidates want changes in NCLB, which has become an unpopular law. Ironically, it passed with bi-partisan support including Senator Ted Kennedy, Education Committee chair and President George Bush.
President Obama has encouraged changes in the law, but Congress has not agreed. So the Obama administration has given “waivers” from key provisions to many states, including Minnesota. Previously states had to publish a “needs improvement” list of schools that included any public school serving a certain percentage of low-income students, in which a small sub-group of students did not meet state standards. Waivers given to Minnesota and other states mean that list is longer published. The focus has shifted to schools that have the lowest achievement with students from low-income families.
Romney advisors last week criticized these waivers as allowing different standards for different groups of students. They indicated Governor Romney might cancel the waivers and attempt to change the law itself.
Federal Funding: Mr. Handy reported that Romney would spend the same amount on education, except for an increase in educational research. The Obama administration has suggested increased spending in several areas.
More information is at http://www.mittromney.com/
While there are many important issues, I think students and schools would benefit more from a second term for President Obama.
Joe Nathan, formerly a public school teacher, administrator, and PTA president, directs the Center for School Change. Reactions welcome, joe@centerforschoolchange.org
Craig Richard McDonald
November 5, 2012 @ 4:02 pm
BA – Math – 1973 Carleton College
Teacher (1974-1986 Hastings, Nebraska)
Spouse teaches Special Education (1974-current)
MS – Kinesiology – 1990 Indiana University
Lifelong interest in American Education
Educators change their minds too often. In the 1960’s and 1970’s it was modular scheduling and bussing for social equality; in the 1980’s and 1990’s it was a return to basics/academics and block scheduling. In the 2000’s we are adopting balanced scheduling (year round school), vouchers, charter schools and schools run by corporations to improve our educational system. When a new piece of educational research comes along educators chase a new perceived panacea-we abandon weekly spelling lists for antonyms and synonyms (the latter are on yearly standardized tests, spelling is not); teach reading without phonics, and then return to phonics; adopt thematic units, technology high schools, and complete use of group projects. Some of these approaches have a place in the curriculum, but not as the core approach. Educational policy makers think educational problems can be overcome by altering the school day, the yearly schedule and the curriculum. Frequently changing learning approaches confuses the students and parents. None of these changes address the underlying problems of poverty and social environment which vex all of the attempts to improve learning, and as a result educators seek another “magic bullet” solution.
We must give public education consistent funding. Politicians have played a shell game with taxes in order to get elected. They promise a tax cut of some kind at the expense of consistently funding our school districts. In many states the funding has shifted from the property tax to the state income tax or sales tax. When the economy was depressed in 2007, the income for schools was also drastically reduced. School districts (in Indiana) were faced with reducing the number of teachers and services or passing special local school district bond issues to maintain services. Less than 50% of these referendums passed (in Indiana). If the parents in affluent suburbs and private Eastern schools were required to send their children to intercity schools, I suspect tax structure support for schools would change. More money doesn’t guarantee improvement, but let’s at least level the playing field. Sending children to “private” corporate run schools doesn’t equate with sending an affluent population to an Eastern private school. It’s not the type of school; it’s the type of background the student comes from. “Private” doesn’t make the school good. “Public” doesn’t make the school bad.
“No Child Left Behind” ignores that not all students are college bound – nor should be. Our schools must have appropriate educational paths for both college bound and vocational students. We would have a much more practical and successful educational system and non-college bound students would leave high school with skills needed in manufacturing and technology. Politicians lament the fact that we are falling behind the rest of the world. The countries we are compared with do not put all of their students on a university/college curriculum. U.S. schools look “bad” statistically because we have an all-inclusive high school population compared with a selective college bound population in other countries. Other countries see the need for vocational education starting at an earlier age and direct those students into other educational opportunities. What has happened to vocational education in the U.S. in our junior and senior high schools? As more and more emphasis has been placed on academics and funding cuts have occurred, it has been squeezed to a minimum or in some school districts it has disappeared. With no vocational training many students become disenfranchised with school and become drop outs.
Conservative politicians want to dismantle public education because they perceive most teachers as Democrats. Teachers can never accomplish the mandates of “No Child Left Behind”, even with all the resources in the world. However, teachers are given the blame. Some governors have even blamed teachers for the economic difficulties of their states; collective bargaining has allowed them to be overpaid. Therefore dismantle the schools, they are failing, teachers are overpaid. Wrong!! It’s all politics. Politicians need to be kept out of education…they will do much greater damage than any teacher.
There are people that are not good teachers, even though they aspired with the best of intentions to be an educator. Administrators need the tools and training to identify such teachers, to help them improve, or if improvement is not made, to fairly remove them from the profession within a 2 to 3 year probationary period of time. Administrators need to draw parents into supporting their local schools and give them a stake in their children’s education. Parents need to monitor and make their children accountable for school work.
If we stop chasing the magic bullets and use the best practices proven over time, consistently fund education, train teachers and administrators, depoliticize education, restore vocational education, and work together as parents, administrators, teachers and students…who knows what can happen…
Craig McDonald
Indiana University
OVPUE and University Division
Director of Data Services
Franklin Hall 116B
855-3371