Moving ahead after November elections

Perhaps the greatest promise of the November national and state elections is that Congress and statehouses find common ground, and new leaders may emerge to move the nation toward addressing sorely neglected education issues.

The November midterm elections will no doubt bring significant changes to the nation’s political landscape. The variety of races coupled with the extreme polarization among voters sets the stage for some potentially important changes in leadership among governors and members of Congress. Election results may also indicate which way the pendulum may be swinging on key issues like immigration, the economy, and, of course, education. With 36 states electing governors in November and several important Senate and House races in play, the education sector will be paying close attention to election results for a couple of important reasons.

Consider how the outcome of gubernatorial races may affect education. In many states, governors drove the adoption of the Common Core State Standards. While detractors like to describe the Common Core as “ObamaCore” and refer to it as a national curriculum, the nation’s governors and state education commissioners led the effort to develop the standards in reading/language arts and math. In some gubernatorial races, the Common Core was a rallying point for support against incumbents who embraced the standards. For example, in New York, Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Republican opponent went to great lengths to link Cuomo to the Common Core, which he characterized as a “disaster.”

In Oklahoma, we saw a reversal of that strategy with the Democratic challenger criticizing Gov. Mary Fallin’s decision to repeal the Common Core — the same standards she championed a few years earlier. Once votes are cast, standards supporters will naturally be eager to see continuity between old and new governors so as not to disrupt these early years of standards implementation.

What remains to be seen, however, is whether any new governors distance themselves from an earlier decision to adopt the standards because of the turmoil and criticism that has clouded the Common Core.

Any Republican-led effort to reauthorize ESEA will have some clear bright lines regarding the waivers, the federal role in education, school choice, and testing.

There are certainly politicians who used the Common Core as political bait to capture votes from misinformed voters, but will that rhetoric simply fade into the background after it has outlived its utility? Part of the answer depends on the actual source of the conflict. In some places, the issue is all about federal overstep, which is a relatively simple point to yell about on the campaign trail but far more complicated to resolve. Other places have battled over more practical concerns like using Common Core-aligned assessments as the basis for high-stakes teacher evaluations or the lack of appropriate teaching materials. I suspect the states that have developed a broad coalition of support for the standards among the many factions that have a stake in education and have been responsive to their concerns will have the best chance of weathering leadership changes.

Needless politicization

The exception to that may be states where the standards are being challenged because of pure politics. In Louisiana, Gov. Bobby Jindal, once a passionate advocate for the Common Core, is not up for re-election this November, but he is clearly staking out some Tea Party ground for a future political run. He is
suing the federal government for violating federal law and the Constitution’s 10th Amendment by “forcing” states to adopt the Common Core. While there may be legitimate concerns about the standards and how they’re being implemented, suing the federal government seems to be the single most politically motivated and useless thing anyone could do in response to those concerns. The only sure thing that will result from the lawsuit is that students and teachers will suffer in the turmoil, and taxpayers will foot the bill for the legal maneuvering. We can only hope that any new governors elected in November take a more reasoned approach to evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the Common Core or any other education reform effort in their state. If there is to be a referendum on education, then let it be done with students and teachers in mind, not politicians.

In Congress, the elections may portend an entirely different chain of events for education. If the Senate remains in the hands of the Democrats, expect very little action on the immediate horizon. If the election hands control of the Senate to Republicans and the House remains in Republican hands, then it’s conceivable that momentum may build enough to reauthorize ESEA. If that does happen, Republican Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) — a former Secretary of Education and probably the member of Congress with the most knowledge and experience regarding education — will almost assuredly emerge as the leader of that effort. With that power, he will likely go after the Obama Administration’s federal waiver program.

Federal and state roles

At a Senate hearing earlier this year, Alexander told Secretary of Education Arne Duncan that the waiver program was a federal “overreach” that takes responsibility away from states, local leaders, and teachers and creates an unwanted “national school board.” Alexander also said he believes some Democrats share this concern. The waiver program has been a bone of contention for many Republicans who believe the administration simply leaped over their heads in an effort to further incentivize college- and career-ready standards. Unfortunately, the Department’s decision not to renew Oklahoma’s waiver after the state dropped its Common Core approval didn’t help assuage those concerns. It’s fair to assume that any Republican-led effort to reauthorize ESEA will have some clear bright lines regarding the waivers, the federal role in education, school choice, and testing.

If there is to be a referendum on education, then let it be done with the students and teachers in mind, not the politicians.

As we think about what the elections may bring for education, remember that every major piece of education legislation still awaits reauthorization. Unfortunately, education leadership on the Hill has been on a long sabbatical, and there is no guarantee that the elections — regardless of the voting outcomes — will end that. With the passing of education champion Sen. Ted Kennedy five years ago, the pending retirement of both Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Ia.) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), and re-election campaigns that have preoccupied other members, there is a dearth of leadership regarding education. This leadership vacuum came at a particularly bad time, too, considering how much work is needed on federal education policy.

On the brighter side, there are some pieces of legislation that may offer the possibility of compromise toward reauthorization. Perkins and the Education Science Reform Act have seen some progress and could stimulate broader conversations about areas of common ground. Since there are clearly very different ideas on the Hill regarding the federal role in education, one of the best-case scenarios after the midterms would be for several members from both sides of the aisle to emerge as education leaders, if not full-blown champions, and begin the hard work of building relationships and discussing key issues.

The federal role in education is clearly at a crossroads and will require far more effort than the political maneuvering of recent years. If we want federal education programs to support the goals and actions of state and local systems, then national and state leaders — old and new — must reflect on where we’ve been and what the path forward should look like. Even a scintilla of leadership and a willingness to work together would be a welcome change after so many months of inaction.

CITATION: Ferguson, M. (2014). WASHINGTON VIEW: Moving ahead after November elections. Phi Delta Kappan, 96 (3), 74-75.