(no subject)

[commotiocordis]

Education Policy in the Debates

Obama and McCain’s policies on education reform both boil down to the same underlying principle—we need to provide all the resources necessary, in the soundest way possible, for the next generation to be able to take over our duties as responsible citizens. However, even though there is vast consensus (83% ) amongst Americans that this is a duty of the government, when 61% of voters are satisfied with the government’s current fulfillment of this responsibility to the people, education debate takes a backseat to the more controversial and immediate—“hot button”, if you will—concerns of the public. In the three debates thus far between the political camps (two presidential and one vice-presidential), none have explored education policy to any extent, making it therefore impossible to evaluate which has presented the stronger argument; however, the references that have occurred jointly encourage a number of logical missteps on the part of the American people.
In order to evaluate the reasoning and evidence behind candidates’ stated positions, a distinction between the two camps must be established. According to established positions, when it comes to educational reform, both more or less toe the party line: McCain supports No Child Left Behind and a voucher system allowing families to pull their tax dollars from public schools and use it as tuition at private schools, while Obama favors an overhaul of NCLB to reduce emphasis on testing, and places more emphasis on attracting and retaining good teachers for an overall increase of the federal education budget of $18 million. McCain seeks “a way around” teacher union contracts as obstacles to education being a more lucrative career, Obama wants to work with the unions to accomplish this . Both support merit pay for teachers and to differing extents, charter schools.
In the first debate, as part of a response when asked about what changes or initiatives might have to be delayed due to the economic state of the nation, Obama lays out his three undelayable priorities for the presidency: energy, healthcare, and education; a trifecta that Biden echoes when asked a similar question during the Vice-Presidential debate. Considering its prominence in this list, one would expect a greater showing of education policy comments during the debates, but (most likely due to the aforementioned fact that a majority are satisfied already) specific policy references were virtually absent. Perhaps understandable at a time when America’s greatest concern was the looming credit crisis, both candidates (and their respective running mates) made very generalized statements supporting improved quality and access to education “so that our young people are competitive in a global economy” . By focusing on the desired effect of education reform rather than the methods of doing so, both sides sidestep conflict on the issue entirely during the Presidential debates, and while the Vice-Presidential candidates attempted to broach the issue more fully—Palin: “Education in America has been in some sense in some of our states just accepted to be a little bit lax, and we have got to increase the standards” . . . Biden: “Gwen, I hope we'll get back to education because I don't know any government program that John is supporting, not early education, more money for it.” —their efforts were stymied by the direction of the moderator’s questioning.
Biden’s statement that “We cannot slow up on education, because that's the engine that is going to give us the economic growth and competitiveness that we need” is an accurate depiction of the sentiment expressed by both sides during the debate regarding education. Cathcart and Kline would see this presentation of the issue as a clear example of simply capitalizing on the public’s ingrained associations by throwing out the lofty, but functionally vague and empty, principle of better education: education is tied to jobs, which are associated with the economy; therefore, better education leads to better jobs which lead to an improved economy, the issue that at the time, America was most concerned with. Most likely drawing upon the microcosmic example that a person in a more educated profession tends to make more money, the logic seems to hold until it is explored more deeply. This bipartisanly echoed argument requires several hidden assumptions; first, that the makeup of the workforce is a contributing factor to the economy’s problems; second, that the problem with the makeup of the workforce is either can be helped by either a greater preponderance of educated workers or some make up of differently educated workers rather than, perhaps, more blue collar workers. And finally, the entire relevance of the appeal to the people as framed in the debate in context of the economic crisis is reliant upon the acceptance of what could easily be seen as a straw man argument (or at the very least, an unsupported association), presenting increased economic competitiveness as substitute for remedy to the failure of the American economy.