« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

A Closer Look at Mitt Romney’s Education Plan

By: Brad Jackson (Diary)  |  May 24th, 2012 at 10:00 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

Download Podcast | iTunes | Podcast Feed

On today’s edition of Coffee and Markets, Brad Jackson and Ben Domenech are joined by Joy Pullman, to discuss Mitt Romney’s education plan, his school choice proposal, and how he would change higher-ed.

We’re brought to you as always by Stephen Clouse and Associates. If you’d like to email us, you can do so at coffee[at]newledger.com. We hope you enjoy the show.

Related Links:

A Chance for Every Child
Romney Comes Out for School Choice
Romney’s Boldest Education Idea Would Never Become Reality
Joy Pullmann at The Heartland Institute

Follow Brad on Twitter
Follow Ben on Twitter

Subscribe to The Transom

The hosts and guests of Coffee and Markets speak only for ourselves, not any clients or employers.

Tags: , , ,

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • commonsenseobserver

    While I am in favour of school choice, I am rather wary of how he could implement this on the federal level without making the system more complicated and the reach of the Feds larger, and how he would reconcile this with conservative opposition to Race to the Top. I expect the Governor to further detail his plans in the coming days, because even his policy paper on this issue does not make the fundamental principles of reform clear enough.

  • KevinM

    When are these so-called conservatives going to get it that the word “education” is no where to be found in the U.S. Constitution. His education plan should real simple. Eliminate the Department of Education and have the government stay out of it.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Even if this issue does not require a federal solution, it is still a national concern. The federal government would do well to promote innovation on the part of the states, even while minimizing its actual role.

    I am more worried about how he proposes to achieve that- at the expense of the second condition?

    • http://libertynews.com/ mbecker908

      The United States had the best system of education in the world when education was a family/local concern. It became a “national concern” and it’s gone to hell in a handcart since.

      Until parents both demand quality education (and I’m not talking about sports programs in their schools) and have the ability to insure that their children can get the best education available by being able to choose the school their kids attend, we’re going nowhere.

      School choice and locally – NOT federally – funded vouchers for K-12 have to be goal. “Public schools” have long outlived their usefulness and they must be made to compete for every student. On a local basis, the NEA/AFT need to be locked out of the process and teachers/school/union employees must be barred from serving on school boards because it’s a clear conflict of interest.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Education is certainly a national concern, it has tremendous impacts on the national level, and everyone throughout the nation should be worried about this issue. Whether the federal governments the right tool to solve this, and how it will be used to solve this- that worries me. Of course, ultimately, it’s up to students, families, and communities.

        Advocating school choice is good, but Romney’s method of implementing this may more than outweigh its advantages. He’ll have to work harder to convince voters, for sure.

        (And keep the DC program because DC is federal!)

        • lineholder

          the potential to increase the quality of education is much greater if it is dealt with at a local/state level rather than a local level.

          Big government is taking the same approach that big business often takes, i.e. “one best way”. Having guidelines, policies and procedures can serve a positive purpose, but when something goes awry, then it can easily become a quality issue. Sometimes, resolving that quality issues means deviating from the SOP (whether temporarily or permanently).

          People on the “front line”, i.e. people who deal directly with the quality issues on a day to day basis, are the best line of both defense and offense in addressing quality issues. The issue get resolves much more quickly and efficiently by front line personnel than it does directing it back to an entity that is removed at a distance from the issue and may not understand all the factors involved.

          Unions don’t want any deviations from the “one best way” SOP because they play a significant role in that process. Neither are they much inclined to encourage an attitude of continuous improvement in processes because it means that their control over the process decreases.

          There is a tremendous amount of potential to increase the quality of education,and the young people of this country deserve no less from us than to pursue it every chance we get. More or less, we should be taking a “leave no stone unturned” attitude on education. If that means breaking the hold that unions have on education, then so be it. If it means coming up with a different process for funding it, then we should be considering that as well.

          • lineholder

            .

      • davenj1

        in the collective sense. However, the solutions clearly HAVE to be local. George Will had a great article about a year ago showing how when the federal government became involved in K-12 education under the Johnson Administration standardized test scores (the equivalent of the NEAP today) either declined or stagnated. The old liberal paradigm of throwing money at a problem has been proven wrong. In any school district’s budget, about 9% of the money comes from the federal government. For that, they get a disproportionate share of the input through mandates and standards. That is wrong and solves nothing.
        Regarding parental choice, Romney stated that he was not going to increase federal funding, but that federal dollars would follow the student to other schools. He stated that if a state allowed those dollars to follow the student to a private school, then that would be so. It seems like he is going with block grants to states based on a per pupil expenditure formula. I wrote in another article that its a start, but the federal government needs to disengage totally from K-12 education. A four-year weaning program is better than that which now exists.
        It is a “national concern” when overall test scores are dragged down nationally. And I believe most state constitutions guarantee a public education (certainly not the federal Constitution).

        • commonsenseobserver

          That this needs to be handled at the local level ultimately, but what I worry about is that Romney hasn’t really said what would happen at the end of that “weaning period”, or whethe rit will continue indefinitely.

        • sulmak

          Who my boss might lay off might be my concern, but it isn’t, and shouldn’t, be my call.

          Just because it is a national concern doesn’t mean the feds should have any say over it.

          • commonsenseobserver

            “There is a difference between a national concern, which education is, and a federal government solution driven by Washington.”.

            Which is why I’m concerned that Romney’s plan does not shrink the role of the federal government sufficiently to actually distinguish the two.

  • westcoastpatriette

    as he tinkers with the system (in an attempt to please everyone) and in the end, maks it worse.

    Perry had a better idea. Abolish the DOE.

    • commonsenseobserver

      At least, he does not appear to be trying to…

    • davenj1

      Just not in K-12 education. Combine, condense, consolidate teacher training programs and put it under DOE instead of spread over other departments; make them responsible for higher education grant/scholarship/aid programs. I know a lot of people here hate the idea of Head Start, but as a teacher, I have seen the good effects. But, even that program needs massive reform. Likewise, move school lunch program from Agriculture to DOE. But, that is it. Reorganize the role and functions of DOE but get them totally out of K-12 education!!!