As a Pennsylvania resident, I was perplexed by Gov. Tom Corbett’s persistent unpopularity which led ultimately to his political defeat when he sought reelection. To be more specific, I saw many reasons for the citizens of the Commonwealth to oppose him, but most of those reasons applied with equal or greater force to Republican governors in Maine, Florida, Ohio, Michigan and Wisconsin who all managed to maintain better approval numbers and who were all ultimately given a second term in office.
Eventually, through talking to knowledgable people who are more engaged in state-level politics than I am, I came to understand that Corbett had crippled himself in his first year in office by how he handled education. In doing a post-mortem on Corbett’s defeat, G. Terry Madonna and Michael Young made this exact point.
Every governor to seek re-election but one since 1968 had a bad first year, and all won re-election. Milton Shapp, Bob Casey, Tom Ridge and Ed Rendell all had tough first years and low job approval ratings. But each recovered by the end of his second year. Corbett never did. Corbett’s major first-year challenge was the education budget that dominated the press coverage and the polls, ultimately becoming fodder for campaign commercials, and framed subsequent political discussions. Corbett lost control of the narrative that he needlessly cut education spending, resulting in property tax hikes, faculty layoffs and program curtailments.
Democrats are frustrated that they couldn’t stop the confirmation of Betsy DeVos to be the Secretary of Education, but (setting aside the damage she will surely do) this could be a very pyrrhic victory for the Republicans. There were already big problems with the Democratic Party before the stunning election loss in November. Primary among them was that the party was built to win presidential elections but increasingly incapable of winning control of the House of Representatives or control of most state legislatures. But, just as their blue Electoral College wall unexpectedly crumbled in Pennsylvania and parts of the Midwest, the Republicans advantage in supposedly red districts could fall apart over how they handle our public schools.
We’re already seeing formally dormant citizens erupt into political action over Trump’s immigration policies and attacks on health care. Public education is a potentially potent catalyst, as well, and one that knows no red/blue dividing line.
The Democrats did themselves a favor by unanimously rejecting DeVos and forcing Vice-President Pence to cast the deciding vote. The Republicans now 100% own DeVos and the resulting incompetence and most likely deeply unpopular changes to education that are coming.
Corbett learned the hard way that screwing up public education can undo your political coalition and end your career, and it looks to me like the congressional Republicans just Corbetted themselves.
Federal austerity has really reduced transfer payments to the states, “Greeking” them, iow.
This does confuse me…”Corbett lost control of the narrative that he needlessly cut education spending, resulting in property tax hikes, faculty layoffs and program curtailments.”
Wouldn’t education cuts result in less need for property tax hikes? Don’t yours fund education?
Just guessing that a drop in state-level funding forced local counties (or is it townships in PA?) to increase property taxes to make up the difference. Also another guess: were the cuts in education spending made at the same time the 1% in PA got a big break on their taxes?
Seriously?
Ah, I get it.
Most education is funding by LOCAL property taxes. A cut at the state level means local property tax hikes to makeup for the difference.
Don’t let reality get in the way of the narrative.
Facts are such a problem.
According to the U.S. Dept of Education website, in 04-05, state and local funds paid 83% of K-12 school costs (45% state, 37%local), while the Federal government contributed 8.3%. (https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html?exp). Don’t know what the breakdown was for PA.
Still digging for more recent data . . . .
Right below your quoted portion is this header…”Growth in Federal Spending in the States was Driven Largely by Benefit Payments to Individuals” IOW, that money is never part of the state’s to disperse.
There is not a lot of direct federal aid legislated to state education. Only a few categories–education of military kids, special education, hi-poverty schools, etc. There are grants, but they usually have a particular mandate. Like TESTING.
“Federal education dollars dried up as well, thanks in part to the across-the-board spending cuts known as sequestration. When adjusted for inflation, the amount of money for Title I, the pillar of the federal K-12 law that provides aid to school districts with large numbers of poor students, has decreased 11 percent since the recession.”
(http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-mine/2015/12/10/state-education-funding-hasnt-recovered-from-r
ecession)
Not disagreeing with you — the Federal gov’t is not (and in my opinion should not be) heavily involved in funding State K-12 education.
But even a loss of 8% of funds can have a significant impact.
In the end how much does the DOE actually do? She can propose private school funding but I would be shocked if that happened at the national level. She could end the scrutiny of the for profit universities. The point isn’t that she isn’t terrible – the point is her ability to screw things up doesn’t look to me to be of the same magnitude as at the EPA or the DOJ.
Most funding and policy on education is set at the state level. At the state level you do see very different governors pursuing the same policies. Both Rick Scott in Florida and now Senator Maggie Hassan froze tuition at their respective state universities. Though surely an advocate of charter schools, Scott was pretty careful to increase public funding as Florida emerged from the recession.
Education is one of the few places where even a few very conservative governors don’t want to be tied to education cuts.
The DOE will become the driving force behind school vouchers, errr, public funding of religious schools.
That will be a YUUUGE get for them.
Betsy DeVos will also be a big Republican mouthpiece who identifies teachers’ unions as the enemy of education.
Cruella DeVos was a Pence pick on many levels: the family connection, the Christian Dominionist level (aka the American Taliban) and of course the attack on unions level.
And just wait for the massive grift to start. All that sweet, sweet, taxpayer dollars going for
church schoolsvouchers orfor profit scamscharter schools that I’m sure will have no connection to anybody in the Administration.The Bushies created the template for the kind of grift that will now commence at the Dep of Ed.
Also too, you’d be surprised at how much of that money filters into school districts to help special needs kids. It enables school districts to serve a small but expensive group.
That’s what I see happening, which I don’t think will rebound against Trump.
DeVos was huge gift to the fundie/evangelicals by Trump. They want vouchers for their Christiany schools bc heaven forfend that their spawn get taught anything real, like science.
Carrot and stick has been the approach.
I’m not so sure about this analogy. I have a feeling that DeVos will be a big win for Trump amongst his constituents most of whom want to cut and gut public school education in favor of charter schools and vouchers for religious education.
If I’m wrong, I’ll be happy, but I’m not seeing it at this point.
Charters, in my view, are not necessarily a bad thing. It all depends on the regulations. They are public schools. Just another variety. The law can be set up to hold them to the same standard as conventional public schools. With a level playing field, why not allow teachers and administrators to form their own schools?
My son attended an excellent charter high school. It was responsive to his intellectual, emotional and social needs. It was a small community where there was almost no cliquishness and bullying was not tolerated at all. I know because, as a parent, I served on the disciplinary committee and later, after my son graduated, I served on the board. It was a labor of love because that school truly served the needs of its students.
Such a place could not have existed but for the charter movement. It was founded by three teachers from the highest income district in the area. They got tired of the b.s. at that high school and left to create their own. They worked incredibly hard and signed on other teachers willing to work really hard too.
This community of teachers was willing to go above and beyond because they wanted the richness of serving in a school where they could contribute in meaningful ways. They had felt hemmed in by the conventional public school bureaucracy — even though it was supposedly the best district in the region.
The large public schools serve the needs of some students but not all. Lots of kids fall through the cracks. We tolerate school culture in which there are jocks, brains, stoners, losers, etc. But in reality these categories are a symptom of a truly dysfunctional culture. The charter my son attended had none of that. The coolest kids recognized that the nerdiest kids were part of their community and they learned to treat each other with mutual respect. This was an expectation of the community but it didn’t take kids long to adapt to it. The first month of so of each new freshman class was a journey as those kids feeding from conventional public schools had to learn to fit in. Kids coming from Waldorf and Montessori schools fed in more easily.
Excellent post. Both my children attended a charter school though 8th grade (getting a facility for a H.S. took years), and it was the best thing for the reasons you mentioned, along with one other: parents were encouraged (and sometimes required) to spend time at the school helping during class hours. This helped create a very robust community.
Thanks for your comment. I’m as liberal as anyone on most issues but occasionally there’s an issue where it’s worth taking something from the left and the right. Charters need to be well regulated to prevent private for-profit interests from taking over. But empowering teachers to create great schools is a wonderful thing.
Agreed — I am aghast at all the for-profit “charter” schools. Well regulated (i.e., spending monitored, no outrageous salaries, etc.), charters can do awesome things.
I don’t care if they are good or bad. The charters are not governed by the Board of Education. Since the Board does not control them, they are free to do stuff that a Board would not allow.
Like pay the principle huge salaries.
Like enter into corrupt deals for supplies.
Like hire untrained and uncertified teaches.
Charters are PSINO – public schools in name only. While I understand your point about teachers controlling the schools, that doesn’t happen in charters. Usually some outside group controls the charters.
Take the Harmony system, run by that Turkish lunatic Gulen. He uses the H-1B mechanism to bring in thousands of Turks to teach English to Americans. He siphons off money from the teachers – they are required to pay him 40% of their salaries. These schools are corrupt top to bottom, undermine the American educational system, and do not deliver a better education.
And further, please explain why parents are a good judge of education. Parents can tell when teachers are not doing one kind of a good job. Our daughter’s 5th grade teacher assigned a make-work assignment of copying from the dictionary. I allowed it for 3 months, then wrote a note saying that my daughter would no longer participate as I did not see the value. That ended that.
I don’t like charters. They are as frequently more crappy than public schools as they are better. They satisfy the “anything is better” nonsense. I favor eliminating them.
Charters where? In what state? In Maine at least they are governed by the state DoE…
I am talking the local Board of Education. The Board of Education, a body elected by the voting populace, governs public schools. In most or at least many states, charters are not governed by the Board of Education. No one supervises the spending of MY TAX MONEY.
I won’t support a tax levy when a charter or vouchers are involved, and I suggest that you consider the same.
Public schools in cities like New York and Philadelphia are governed by the Board of Education and they function more for the benefit of teachers than students and more for the benefit of administrators than teachers and more for the benefit of politicians than any of them. The results are often atrocious. My father was a teacher in the New York City system for 30 years. My father in law worked in the Philly system. Anyone who thinks these schools operate for the benefit of the children is delusional. Well regulated charters offer a way of forcing much needed competition. Yes, it can be done poorly. It can also be done.
My son attended an excellent charter high school. It was responsive to his intellectual, emotional and social needs. It was a small community where there was almost no cliquishness and bullying was not tolerated at all.
Notice what you wrote there? It’s a small community. Try that in bigger cities and it will never work, especially when you have Democratic politicians who are afraid of soaking the rich. Also, too, rich people don’t want accountability of them and their cohort. So most times they’re not going to be held to the same standard as public schools. Ever notice why big city school systems are always in a budget crisis these days?
Right now so much of what drives districts to build enormous schools is sports. Communities want their kids to compete in the highest echelon league. We’ve got the sports tail wagging the education dog. Kids who are not athletic suffer as a result. It’s a ridiculous system.
I think there should be a variety of education choices because one size does not fit all. If done smartly, kids can benefit and schools need not suffer any degradation in per-capita funding.
I have found myself thinking that out of all these loses a victory will be built.
The concern is how much will it cost, who will be paying the price, and will the Republicans be able to build a firewall around their brand and lay all the blame at Der Trump’s feet.
That’s why this vote is perfect. It took a combination of the White House and the congressional Republicans to push DeVos over the top.
The fixation with Trump is a mistake. The strategy to define him as out of the Republican mainstream has been tried and failed.He defines Republicanism.
He is the GOP and the GOP is Trump
(and I am the Eggman!)
I agree with most of the comments above that Federal education policy is not a deal breaker for most states because its direct impacts are limited to helping poor students and pushing national educational standards (both Bush and Obama). Health care, social safety net and public/environmental health far more important. DeVos can advocate for taxpayer funded private schools but it’s not up to the feds to make that happen and I don’t actually see Ryan budgeting large federal tax subsidies for that, which leaves it up to the states. Outside of LA and some of the other really backward states, I don’t see governors robbing Peter (public education) to subsidize Paul (private education).
There are 2 or 3 unknowns here.
I can only imagine the harm she will do. Soon the only educated members of our work force will be immigrants. However, if a swift and powerful backlash comes, perhaps the harm can at least be mitigated. This directly affects the next generation of my extended family, so I am more than casually interested.
Dems have to remember their roots, come together and fight this administration. Equally important, they must create and articulate a progressive vision for our country that will appeal to the majority of voters out there looking for reasons to support us. GOP light isn’t going to cut it anymore.
“Soon the only educated members of our work force will be immigrants.”
Well that’s the genius of Trump – he wants to outlaw the immigrants – problem solved.
Arnie Duncan means none of us can complain about DeVos unless you voted for Bernie, which makes up for it.
Is a vote for Rahm Emanuel a bonus or a deduction?
Duncan was one of the more appalling Cabinet level picks by Obama, granted.
But, what differentiates him from Cruella is the American Taliban element.
Boo:
I think it was that combined with Corbett sticking the knife in Joe Paterno’s back. Paterno was a Republican, as I’m sure you’re aware, and knifing the popular coach, even if he shielded a pedo, wasn’t a popular move among Pennsylvania GOP voters.
If anybody doubts the kind of scorched earth campaign Cruella will now lead the Dep of Ed into, read this piece on Misery’s own:
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/04/12459/show-me-money-meet-multimillionaire-squeezing-missouris-sc
hools
There’s your roadmap. This bastard’s “country home” is about a 20 minute drive from us here in central Misery. We once had guests at our B&B who know him. I came out from the kitchen with their breakfast and said “so what’s it like knowing a man who wants to gut public education here in the state?”
Their nervous laughter made that question even better. And no, they’ve not come back. At least they didn’t hammer us on Trip Advisor.