As the Fall and cooler weather approaches, the debate in Washington over education funding will heat-up. On one side are most congressional Republicans trying to square the circle of appearing pro-education without actually spending much money on schools. On the other are many liberal Democrats who have never met an education spending increase they did not like. Caught in the middle of this seasonal ritual are those legislators with the temerity to suggest that it is possible to be fiscally responsible and increase investment in education. Of course, the task before these moderates -- reconciling fiscal sanity with new education investments -- is a daunting one because of unrealistic demands from advocates, lackluster revenue growth due to a shaky economy and President Bush's tax cut, and the urgent demands of national security.
These moderates were obviously the target audience for a recent poll of 777 registered voters conducted by Ipsos-Reid for the Committee for Education Funding (CEF). CEF is a coalition of interest groups that lobbies for increased federal spending on education. The poll, not surprisingly, found that nearly four in five Americans say a candidate's position on increased federal spending for education is "an important factor" in whether they would support that candidate in this fall's Congressional elections. But the alleged finding of note, gleefully trumpeted to all who would listen, was the finding that voters said they would back a candidate who wants to spend more on education over a deficit hawk by a 60-percent to 37-percent margin.
That might be true if the election were held in a vacuum, but it grossly oversimplifies the issues and inadvertently undermines efforts to increase investment in public education. For starters, the poll posed questions designed to produce the desired response. It read:
Which ONE of the following candidates for Congress would you, personally, be more likely to support?
A pro-education spending candidate, who feels education funding is a more important priority these days than almost any other federal program, and should get one of the largest budget increases this year. Students in school today cannot wait for another year -- they need money for their education now.
OR
A pro-deficit reduction candidate, who feels deficit reduction is a more important priority, and says education does not need an increase now.
We're quite sympathetic to calls for increased education spending, but public relations stunts like this prevent rather than promote that goal by antagonizing thoughtful legislators and oversimplifying the debate to the benefit of those opposed to more education spending. For education funding to be taken seriously its proponents must offer serious evidence about what the problems are and how they can be remedied.
Anyone with even a modest understanding of public opinion and voter behavior will understand how irrelevant this poll is to actual decisions that lawmakers face. American voters generally tell pollsters that they would like to see significant increases in every category of domestic spending. For instance, in the CEF poll, about as many respondents (34 percent) endorsed making prescription drug benefits the top domestic non-security priority as endorsed education (35 percent). Further, voters will tend to back almost any concrete program over the abstract benefits of fiscal prudence and deficit reduction. We obviously believe education is important and so does the public, but legislators should, and will, consider spending needs in this multifarious context and with an eye to what the nation can afford. Single-issue groups that try to wish away this reality are likely to marginalize themselves and their causes among politicians and the public at large.
Voters who care about education worry that many students are receiving inadequate schooling, and want to see action taken. (With some noteworthy exceptions, they more generally believe action is needed for children outside of their community, rather than for their local schools.) However, substantial polling shows that voters also are unclear and conflicted about reform strategies. Consequently, in survey after survey, particularly when not asked to choose among alternatives, they will embrace any program or candidate that promises to do something to improve schooling.
Unfortunately, this poll provided respondents with only one choice if they wanted to promote school improvement: spend more money. This gives a false sense of the extent of support for additional education spending and it also may create confusion about just what voters are willing to support. Essentially, it creates a phony binary choice when the real environment facing lawmakers is one of multiple choices and difficult trade-offs. By promoting spending in this manner -- in isolation, as a reform strategy -- CEF actually lets opponents of education funding off the hook by setting the bar for the debate pathetically low.
CEF will presumably use these numbers to encourage legislators to support new expenditures. Voters are less concerned about expenditures, however, than they are about educational results and other issues (this finding was even buried in the back of the press packet accompanying the poll). Candidates who support initiatives to, for example, increase teacher quality, enhance pre-K education, expand charter schooling, improve special education, or bolster school accountability can readily meet such voter demands and marginalize those who only favor new spending.
To be clear, none of this is to say that increasing investment is not an important component of education reform, but the CEF poll offered no way to compare voter attitudes regarding various education proposals. On a macro note, as a methodological matter, it would have been far more useful for policymakers had the survey asked voters to choose between new educational expenditures and new spending on creating a prescription drug benefit, enhancing airline security, extending unemployment benefits, or improving homeland security. Such comparisons can provide a more reliable estimate of relative public support for programs.
As a political issue, demonizing legislators who want to reduce the deficit is just boneheaded politics. Even voters with only the foggiest grasp of economics remember that times were pretty good when the government had its fiscal house in order just a few years ago. Moreover, as President Clinton demonstrated at the national level and as pragmatic governors from both parties have shown at the state level, the choice before lawmakers isn't deficit reduction or investment in education. A prudent approach to fiscal policy allows for both.
Pitting education spending against deficit reduction is a false choice, poor policy, and bad politics. Spending alone will not improve schools, it will only be helpful as part of a coherent strategy. Nor is it much of a stand-alone electoral strategy -- the key is linking spending to meaningful improvement.
More immediately, a responsible strategy realizes that the nation has many needs, and that policymakers must always juggle resources and attention to meet each in turn. Especially today, with the nation facing enemies abroad and depleted coffers at home, education proponents can best serve children by using this opportunity to focus on improving school quality while avoiding exorbitant claims on the public purse. Historically, voters have rewarded such discipline with heightened trust and long-term support. And long-term support rather than temporal political appeals is the key to increasing investment in teachers and schools.
