President Obama has spent much of his brief time in office talking about the economy and foreign affairs. If the president turns his attention to education matters, he could have a significant impact on kids and families, for better or for worse. That’s the assessment of John Locke Foundation education policy analyst Terry Stoops, who discussed the issue with Donna Martinez for Carolina Journal Radio. (Click here to find a station near you or to learn about the weekly CJ Radio podcast.)
Martinez: So, in general, give us the quick overview of President Barack Obama’s view of the K-12 education system in this country.
Stoops: Well, right off the bat, it has to start way before “K” for Barack Obama. He is a big proponent of pre-K. In fact, his program is called “Zero to Five.” So he wants to start immediately, funding publicly, programs for kids – virtually right out of the womb. Not only that, he believes in general that the education system is under-funded. So, that’s going to be one of his initiatives. And he’s a guy that believes that some alternatives are good. He tolerates charter schools but not vouchers or school choice. He paid some lip service early on in his campaign to merit pay for teachers, although he’s backed off of that a little bit. So we find sort of a mixed bag with Barack Obama. His support of charter schools is admirable, but on everything else, he follows the union line.
Martinez: Let’s talk a little bit more about those very young years before we get into K-12 a bit more. Education Next, in the fall of last year, had a very interesting feature on the two major candidates’ views of education, and you talked about how Barack Obama thinks that the system is under-funded. Well, apparently, he had campaigned on actually doing a lot. He also talked about affordable and high-quality childcare. So this goes beyond the parameters of education really.
Stoops: Yes, well, this would be a full support. It would be childcare. It would be healthcare. And it would be education for pre-K kids. It would be a comprehensive program, a very expensive program, and much more than what we have in place right now with the federal Head Start, or in this state, we have More at Four and Smart Start. It would be way beyond that. It would be a comprehensive program that would be extremely expensive. And, as you say, it would cost billions and billions more than we’re committing to those programs right now.
Martinez: Very interesting as well that, when he was a child, President Obama had quite a varied experience in terms of his early education. He, at one point, went to public school. He went to a private school. There was even a point at which his mom had him enrolled in a correspondence course. So one would think that he would be rather open-minded about the fact that what works for some kids might not work for other kids.
Stoops: One would hope, but unfortunately, this is certainly lost on him. His daughters attend Sidwell Friends School in Washington, D.C., which is an exclusive private school. But despite that, he doesn’t want to give anyone, really — other than the wealthy — the ability to go to a private school like Sidwell Friends. So, we have him going to private school, his children going to private school – and he can certainly afford it, and that’s a choice that he made for his kids – but unfortunately, not everyone is as wealthy as he is, and not everyone has those choices.
Martinez: So is it fair to say that he is going to be welcomed by the teaching establishment in this country?
Stoops: Well, he certainly has been welcomed. In fact, him backing off of the issue of merit pay for teachers — which is something he really, really came out strong for at first — shows that he has become a little more attuned to getting the teacher unions on his side. And certainly, his desire to increase funding, both for pre-K and K-12 education, has been the complaint of unions for decades, and they certainly like the fact that he’s going to do that.
Martinez: Also, in his campaign, he talked about intervention strategies in middle school. He talked about wanting to make sure that we are recruiting math and science graduates to get into classrooms. How do you feel about those positions?
Stoops: They’re certainly good positions, but I don’t think that the federal government is in the best position to be able to analyze a state’s middle-school situation or their situation with being able to recruit and retain high-quality math and science teachers. I think some kind of federal initiative on those subjects would be really just disastrous, with so many differences between states in their being able to recruit math and science teachers. For example, I don’t know how a federal program would work. It would probably work like most federal programs do, which is to not work.
Martinez: So, it sounds as if you believe that he is going to champion programs and efforts that have the federal government in a very strong role versus the states or local entities.
Stoops: Absolutely. This is especially true in pre-K. He wants to get to these kids as early as possible. And these would be – the federal dollars would be substantial. Right now in North Carolina, for example, it’s mostly state dollars. But the amount of money that’s going to be poured in from the federal government if Obama gets his plan passed would perhaps rival how much we spend here in the state.
Martinez: Let’s talk about No Child Left Behind, Terry. This seems to be the law that is just wrapped around virtually everything that states are doing now. It’s about accountability and testing. [It has received] all sorts of criticism; you have also criticized the law. What is going to happen with No Child Left Behind, in your view, during the Obama administration?
Stoops: We’re going to see changes to requirements for meeting certain standards. I think what’s going to happen to it is that states will of course be able to use their own tests to meet the federal standards, but there’ll be a lot of flexibility for states, which will of course render those standards practically meaningless because the more flexibility you give to states, the more that they’re going to try to get around those requirements and make themselves look better than they really are. So we’re going to see a little chaos, I think, with the No Child Left Behind. And it’s going to result in a lot of money going to a lot of bad programs.
Martinez: Let’s say you’re sitting in the Oval Office right now. The president is sitting across the desk from you. He is saying, “Terry, what should I do? What are the first one or two things that I should do when it comes to trying to strengthen public education in this country?”
Stoops: I would tell him to stop — stop spending, stop the bills. Let’s stop the money that’s going from the stimulus bill, for example, to school construction. We need to really reconsider the federal role in education. Education is not mentioned in the Constitution. The federal government has taken its liberties with funding K-12 education, and I think it’s something that’s best left to the states and the school districts because they’re the ones who ultimately deal with the students, and they’re the ones that ultimately educate their students, for better or worse.
Martinez: Do you predict a friction point on that very issue right there — federal control versus state and local control?
Stoops: I actually don’t. The Republicans are going to want to throw more money at education just like the Democrats. There would be friction between me and President Obama on that point. But unfortunately, I’m the minority.