Kids at Big Backyard
Police respond to shooting
St. Patty's Day celebrations
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > May > 14 > Entry
Scott Elliott: Education without politics? Not this time
The idea that U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan’s visit to Ohio last week wasn’t about politics — as both Duncan and Gov. Ted Strickland repeatedly insisted — is absurd.
Duncan is on a multi-state “listening tour” that he says will help him get a sense of concerns about No Child Left Behind before congressional Democrats and the Obama administration offer a revision later this year of that law. (One revision that is already settled on: NCLB will get a new name, Duncan said.)
Upon visiting Columbus, Duncan found himself at a “rally for education” outside the Ohio Education Association’s annual meeting at Ohio State University’s Schottenstein Center. There was Duncan, standing before a lawn full of union-activist teachers (and a few pro-charter school protesters) next to a Democratic governor who was pleading for the Republican Ohio Senate to pass a budget that would preserve his education reform plan.
Duncan expressed support for Strickland’s general approach — urging investment in education now and echoing the sentiment that after four state Supreme Court rulings, Ohio needs a constitutional funding program — but he declined to specifically endorse the governor’s plan when pressed by reporters. That’s when he fell back on his “this isn’t about politics” mantra.
Isn’t it? Can it possibly be argued that the implicit support of the Obama administration in the person of his education secretary at a rally to save Strickland’s budget at this crucial moment is not inherently political?
Beyond the stagecraft, there also were hints that Ohio could have an inside track for future financial aid for education, thanks to the Strickland-Duncan get-together. Now that $100 billion in education stimulus aid is being disbursed to all 50 states, Duncan is talking up a second pot of money — about $5 billion more — for what he calls “challenge grants.” A small group of states, Duncan said, will get hundreds of millions for following the reform directives Obama and Duncan support.
Here’s the math behind Ohio’s case for challenge grants: Strickland wants big reforms, but will need big money to balance his budget and keep his reform plan moving over the next few years. Duncan has big money and wants big reforms, some of which line up directly with Strickland’s plan.
Sound like a match?
Strickland told reporters he spoke to Duncan about the challenge grants and that he thought Duncan’s visit might help Ohio’s case. Duncan even gave advice. He said Ohio should consider applying jointly for the money in a “bipartisan coalition” of states with governors from both parties.
Just for kicks, let’s imagine an Ohio-led, bipartisan coalition of needy Midwestern states that might apply for a big education challenge grant together — say Ohio, Michigan and Indiana (where Republican Mitch Daniels is governor). Those three states also happened to be battleground states that went for Obama in 2008 and that the president is likely to need again in 2012. Giving a pile of money to that group might just be politically smart.
That’s just one scenario, but it demonstrates how separating out the political undertones in debates about education is pretty tricky. Ohio having gone blue in this time of total Democratic control in Washington is helping Strickland get his phone calls answered when he needs help. That’s just good politics.
Permalink | Comments (8) | Post your comment | Categories: Columns, Education, Scott Elliott
Comments
By Lucy
May 14, 2009 12:44 PM | Link to this
Money, money, follow the money. Just like everything else. The teacher’s union give huge sums to Democratic candidates and so will get whatever they want. Sure doesn’t mean our students will get a decent education. It just guarantees that the teachers will receive more money for less work.
By FedUp Voter
May 14, 2009 6:21 PM | Link to this
Why isn’t anyone talking about the pensions that the teachers receive. In Miamisburg, the district (taxpayers) fund 100% of their pensions at a rate equal to 25% of their gross salary. At a time when employers are no longer doing matching funds in 401K program, why aren’t the schools cutting back? Instead they trim bussing… anything to pressure parents.
By Calvin
May 16, 2009 12:14 PM | Link to this
Fedup Voter must be confusing social security with the teachers retirement system where the teachers pay into the fund. Teachers don’t get “free” retirement from the schools. The schools pay a small percentage into the retirement and the teachers pay into the retirement. If Fedup Voter believes it’s a great system, you are welcome to pay to go to college for 7 years, teach kids of people like yourself, perhaps, for 30 years, and then retire on that great, overpaid retirement. Let us know which college you are enrolling in locally to get your teaching professional license, pass the Praxis test, etc. Hehhheeeeeee. It’s nice to sit and kvetch that someone else works for something and earns it, and actually gets less than what they deserve for 30 years of professional teaching in the classroom (remember coaches seem to be different). Go enroll.
By G. Carson
July 14, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this
I agree, the schools don’t cut back except in bussing, sports and all those things that mean a lot to the kids. Then the teachers get raises and the districts hire new employees while asking for levy money. It doesn’t make sense.
By G. Carson
July 14, 2009 10:11 AM | Link to this
I agree, the schools don’t cut back except in bussing, sports and all those things that mean a lot to the kids. Then the teachers get raises and the districts hire new employees while asking for levy money. It doesn’t make sense.
By Terri Kemper
August 29, 2009 6:33 AM | Link to this
To FedUp Voter, teachers are in a state retirement system, and no Bd of Ed has control over it. Your 100% figure is totally wrong. Money is automatically taken from every teacher’s paycheck every time and put into his retirement account, too. Yes, our retirement is better than Social Security, but haven’t we earned such after being the under-paid (esp. in rural school districts) professional for up to 30 or more years? I have been saving or using mine wisely. Likewise, I agree with Calvin; if we’ve got it so good, why don’t you try it? It takes “real dedication” to deal with some of society’s worst problems and never make a mistake. A minor misunderstanding/indiscretion, and we are condemned even though there’s 20-30 “wired” kids in our classroom. Try it; you might like it.
By null
September 16, 2009 9:30 PM | Link to this
Those who complain about teachers ought to look at what they are required to do now. Not just college degree-most have masters degrees and take additional courses each year. Want to know why costs are so high? Schools are babysitters and busing is a taxi service for parents who can’t or won’t spend the time or energy to raise their own kids. Sports cost huge amounts of money and are just a way to keep kids out of their parents hair. We could all save a fortune in taxes if schools only had to educate and buses only took kids to and from school (from the same place each time.)
By irishguy
February 19, 2010 5:09 PM | Link to this
How can you expect government run schools to keep politics out of the curriculum? History became “Social Studies” and most textbooks seem to be written by lefty academics (Bill Ayers anyone?)