The Romney Education Plan: Replacing Federal Overreach on Accountability With Federal Overreach on School Choice

Governor Mitt Romney's long-awaited education address happened yesterday, but the most telling news broke the day before, when we learned that Margaret Spellings is no longer one of his education advisors. She quit on principle, I assume, because Romney decided to turn the page on No Child Left Behind. As his campaign's education "talking points" read, "Governor Romney's plan reforms [NCLB] by emphasizing transparency and responsibility for results. Rather than federally-mandated school interventions, states would have incentives to create straightforward public report cards that evaluate each school on its contribution to student learning." (Read his 34-page education policy white paper here.)

Today, there's not a single Republican in the House of Representatives, in the Senate, or running for president willing to defend federal accountability mandates. The GOP conversation has shifted to transparency, in line with what we've called Reform Realism. What a difference a decade makes.

The thrust of Romney's speech, however, wasn't his fresh view of accountability, but a major proposal on school choice. Romney wants to make Title I and IDEA dollars portable -- a form of "backpack funding" from the federal level. (This one's very much in line with what the Hoover Institution's K-12 Education Task Force proposed in February. It's also close kin to what Ronald Reagan and Bill Bennett proposed for Title I back in the late 1980's.) He said:

As President, I will give the parents of every low-income and special needs student the chance to choose where their child goes to school. For the first time in history, federal education funds will be linked to a student, so that parents can send their child to any public or charter school, or to a private school, where permitted. And I will make that choice meaningful by ensuring there are sufficient options to exercise it.

To receive the full complement of federal education dollars, states must provide students with ample school choice. In addition, digital learning options must not be prohibited. And charter schools or similar education choices must be scaled up to meet student demand.

There's a lot to be said for making federal dollars follow disadvantaged children to their schools of choice:

• It provides incentives for good schools to attract needy kids;
• It helps those kids exit dreadful schools;
• It promotes integration by allowing federal funds to flow to schools that are socio-economically-mixed; and
• It encourages states to make their own funding more portable (a la weighted student funding) -- with all manner of benefits around equity, choice, and more.

But it's not without its drawbacks:

• It could move federal funds away from high-poverty schools (which get most Title I dollars today) to low-poverty ones;
• The money (1,000-2,000 per pupil) isn't enough to pay for actual private-school tuition, so that part isn't apt to get much real traction;
• By giving parents "private accounts" to spend on digital learning, tutoring, and the like, it could weaken schools' larger improvement efforts, which are mostly funded by these federal dollars.

The biggest concern, though, comes with having Uncle Sam try to use his 10 cents on the education dollar to force major changes on the states. We've seen how that works (or doesn't) in the context of accountability; why do we think it will work better in the context of school choice?

See this passage, in particular, from Romney's education white paper:

To expand the supply of high-performing schools in and around districts serving low-income and special-needs students, states accepting Title I and IDEA funds will be required to take a series of steps to encourage the development of quality options: First, adopt open-enrollment policies that permit eligible students to attend public schools outside of their school district that have the capacity to serve them. Second, provide access to and appropriate funding levels for digital courses and schools, which are increasingly able to offer materials tailored to the capabilities and progress of each student when used with the careful guidance of effective teachers. And third, ensure that charter school programs can expand to meet demand, receive funding under the same formula that applies to all other publicly-supported schools, and access capital funds.

Note especially the phrase, "Will be required." We've been down that road before! And note how far this proposal is from the "let states do whatever they want with their federal dollars" approach of House education committee chairman John Kline.

A better idea might be to take a page from the Obama Administration handbook and make funding portability voluntary. Give states the option to "voucherize" their Title I and IDEA funds. Make them take the steps above in order to participate in that option. May offer a little extra money on top. And see if you get any takers. That's a way to promote innovation and choice without falling into the same federalism trap that snared No Child Left Behind. And states that opt into it would very likely make their own dollars portable, too.

This plan is a good start. You've got 5 ½ months till Election Day, Governor Romney, to make it even better.

Originally published on the Fordham Institute's Flypaper blog.

 

Follow Michael J. Petrilli on Twitter: www.twitter.com/MichaelPetrilli

Comments

[shelvern]

06:23 AM on 05/29/2012

It is time to stop this nonsense about fixing the public schools. We have convinced the world that our education system is so bad that we have contracted Turkey to come into this country to provide chartered schools, several states have signed-up for this. Turkey is at the bottom of all countries, as far as education is concerned and the people they are sending speak little English. Turkey is only trying to help a country that has told the world that, we have a major problem with our system. If you keep telling the world how bad our education system is, they will believe it. First, the people in America will believes it. Turkey did promise not to teach Islam in their charter schools, if you believe that.

The chartered school contract with Turkey should be investigated by the Justice department, I can't believe that anybody would downgrade America to the point that 3rd world countries would lend a hand in fixing our program unless they were getting something out of it.

Forget about that school of choice idea it will never work. I could see parents wanting their child to go to a school in another county or state. The logistics involved in handling this would impact the budget and the lives of all Americans.

[eceresa]

06:38 AM on 05/25/2012

That's not a good start. That's doubling down on failed policies that will weaken our education system. It's only a "good start" if you think weakening and destroying our education system is a good goal.

Although, given what I've read from Michael J. Petrilli and the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, that may be precisely the goal they're pursuing.

[sanevoter]

12:53 PM on 05/24/2012

Right now public schools have to accept any student living in the school district. Private and church related schools may accept or reject any student applying for admission. Why don't we try something new? Allow all schools (public, private or church) to accept or reject a student on clear criteria and the government will pay the cost of attending the school? This puts all schools on equal footing. Might not work but might be worth a try as well.

[grammasher]

01:30 PM on 05/24/2012

What do we do with the child if all the schools reject him?

[sanevoter]

05:33 PM on 05/24/2012

not likely, there are special needs schools that would be helped by this approach.

[Allison Hertog]

05:10 PM on 05/27/2012

You're absolutely right to be concerned about Romney's plan from the perspective of kids who may have special needs. I'm a special education attorney in FL and a fierce supporter of the school choice options and special needs voucher there. But I see the following basic problems with Romney's plan, many of which have analogous results for low-income kids under the plan. 1. There may not be many good options for moderately to severely disabled kids under Romney's approach. Educating those kids is an especially expensive proposition. Private and charter schools have to be very well-funded - at much higher rates than any voucher can provide, even if that voucher includes federal funds as Romney proposes. 2. If the IDEA (the federal law mandating education rights for the disabled) is dismantled as Romney appears to be proposing, there may be only a bare bones system left in traditional public schools for disabled kids. 3. Many private schools will not want to take kids who come to them with federal funds because they will fear being subject to the mandates of federal laws, such as the IDEA. 4. If disabled kids - particularly those with moderate to severe disabilities - are not being educating to the standards mandated by law, law suits may skyrocket eating up what little funds are left after the more privileged and easier to educate leave the traditional public schools.

[nilsjames]

12:20 PM on 05/24/2012

It would be nice to see if this plan evolves between now and November. If it doesn't I would be even more interested to learn why not and how this plan is supposed to produce different results from the existing NCLB catastrophe.

[dch58]

11:21 AM on 05/24/2012

I'm concerned this approach will ultimately eliminate access to education for low income students altogether.

[Abrazing]

01:32 PM on 05/24/2012

I hate to say it but our current mess is failing them already.

[eceresa]

06:36 AM on 05/25/2012

Arguably. Those that show up and do their work are well-served by the current education system, but factors outside the schools mean that low-income students are much less likely to show up and do their work. They ARE being failed, but they're being failed by economic policy that's created a third-world level of wealth disparity, not by their schools.