Does Obama Lose Either Way in Wisconsin?

As Wisconsin heads off to vote tomorrow in the recall election of Scott Walker, many pundits are looking at the results of that recall as a bellwether for the general election in 2012: a Walker victory would be good for Romney's presidential chances, while a victory by Tom Barrett, the Democratic challenger, would be good for Obama's presidential chances.  I'm personally rather skeptical of the idea that the fate of conservatism rests in Wisconsin's hands, but there's something interesting about the Wisconsin recall dynamic: whatever the result, Obama might lose face.

A strong Walker win in Wisconsin might signal that Wisconsin is getting closer on the presidential level for November.  (However, numerous Wisconsin polls that have shown Walker leading Barrett have also shown Obama leading Romney, so a Walker win in no way guarantees a Romney win in November.)  Moreover, the failure to recall Walker might depress union enthusiasm for Democrats in Wisconsin and elsewhere; the White House has kept its distance from the Barrett campaign.  If union rights are so important to the White House, why isn't it putting any skin in the game?  And if these rights are not that important, why should union members rally around the president?

That dynamic is only marginally changed if Barrett wins tomorrow.*  Should Barrett beat Walker, he can come into the governor's office knowing that he did it without the president.  Indeed, it would seem as though Barrett would owe his gubernatorial win much more to Bill Clinton, who has actively campaigned for Barrett, than to Barack Obama, who has not.  When Barrett appeared weakened, the White House let him twist in the wind.  Would a Governor Barrett really be that motivated, then, to work devotedly to ensure that Obama wins Wisconsin in November?  A union win in Wisconsin without Obama might also fracture the alliance of the White House with many big unions---if unions can win despite the White House's indifference, maybe they don't need the president as much as he needs them.

The White House likely wanted to keep a distance between itself and the Barrett campaign in order to avoid being embarrassed by a Barrett loss.  But the current dynamic might lead to a White House embarrassment no matter what.

*A Barrett win is a distinct possibility; most of the polls showing a Walker lead depend upon a partisan turnout model that is very favorable to Republicans---even more favorable than the 2010 exit polls, in many cases.  If turnout numbers are closer to 2008 than 2010, there is a real chance that Barrett can win, especially as this race appears to be tightening.  Turnout will be key for this race.

Heightening the Contraditions in Education Reform

Conservative approaches to education reform may in the next few years encounter a fateful fork in the road. One long tradition of conservative educational theory has stressed the value of vouchers as a way of decentralizing education and providing state subsidies directly to parents (rather than routed through local school systems) for their children's education. A newer movement on the right has embraced standards-based accountability, where students and, increasingly, teachers will be evaluated according to the measures of certain standardized tests and complicated (and unproven) statistical models. At the moment, these twin strategies have been used to reorient radically local public school organizations. Louisiana has become ground zero for these twinned approaches, having recently approved a massive expansion of vouchers (HB976) and new reforms making teacher employment contingent upon student performance on standardized exams and opaque value-added modelling (HB974). However, there is an increasingly obvious tension between these two approaches. The voucher movement emphasizes pluralism; current "accountability" models emphasize uniformity. Eventually, one tendency will have to win out.

Under the old model of education funding, federal and state government provided various subsidies to various school systems based on student populations and certain legal mandates. Under this model, the case for vouchers is relatively straightforward: if the government provides $8000 for a student to go to an unaccountable public school, why not give the parents this amount to send their child to an unaccountable private school? (Yes, there are numerous interesting reasons why this may not be a good idea, but let's leave those to the side for the moment.) If not entirely persuasive, this case is at least understandable. It puts power directly in the hands of the parents and encourages competition between various scholastic enterprises in something resembling an educational marketplace.

The rise of testing-based accountability measures immeasurably complicates this argument for vouchers. Under No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, public schools have to demonstrate their performance on certain standardized measures in order to receive funding. Race to the Top further centralizes educational affairs by encouraging states to adopt a nationwide core curriculum and by emphasizing a testing-driven component for teacher evaluations. The argument on behalf of such measures is that public dollars demand proof that they will be spent in a valuable way, and standardized testing is, apparently, the best way to establish this value. (Yes, this argument may be flawed in many, many ways, but let us leave that to the side for the moment as well.) If one wants to establish a centralized, federally-run public school system, No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top provide a sturdy foundation for that enterprise.

If, however, one wants to support a pluralist, voucher-driven kind education reform, this movement toward standards-based accountability could prove much more problematic. If the premise of this accountability is that public dollars require proof of effectiveness, what is the reason for demanding that a school run as a public institution (that is, a public school) should be held to any different standard than a school run as a private institution? Both would receive tax dollars from state and potentially local and federal governments: why should they be held to two different standards?

For the moment, many on the right have chosen to ignore this pressing question. Louisiana's latest round of "reforms," for instance, specifies the standards for granting teachers tenure and for removing teachers. However, these standards only apply to public schools; they do not apply to the charter and private schools that could receive voucher money. The state is effectively giving public schools less flexibility than it provides private schools on matters of personnel.

However, the Louisiana voucher bill also opens the door to further bureaucratic burdens on private schools. This bill has a provision that mandates that the state superintendent devise an "accountability system" for students at voucher schools. This aspect of the bill suggests a tendency for the future: to start to hold out to private schools the promise of government money with an increasing number of strings attached. Once you've bought into the idea that standardized testing establishes a school's quality, it becomes harder to resist the idea that public money ought to go only to those private entities that have demonstrated their effectiveness in teaching.  Moreover, these standards for accountability will, as both Louisiana and federal reforms demonstrate, tend to come from bureaucrats working in central government offices.

Under a universalized voucher program and homogenous standards system, the federal government, which would be the engine that de facto drives education policy under this "reformist" vision, would have increasing control over private schools. Why? Over a period of years, private schools would become increasingly dependent upon government tax dollars, and he who pays the piper picks the tune. Maybe not now, maybe not a few years from now, but eventually legislators and regulators could start placing further demands upon these newly dependent private schools. After all, if education is truly in a state of crisis, shouldn't government be demanding the best from schools in exchange for the taxpayer's hard-earned dollars?

This would be a dangerous road to go down from a conservative perspective. It could lead to a near-nationalization of most of the nation's schools, private and public. A proliferation of educational models has been one of the strongest parts of American education; the conversation between these models has led to new innovations and intellectual achievements. It would be no great exaggeration to say that the American university system, envied by many across the world, is the product of this conversation between various scholastic models.

Conservatives need to be careful. George W. Bush's No Child Left Behind has done more to nationalize education than any other policy measure in recent memory. By placing impossible demands upon schools (e.g., continual progress toward perfection culminating in 100% proficiency for all students), this policy laid the groundwork for the power-grab of Barack Obama's Race to the Top and federal waivers that allow states to opt-out of No Child Left Behind's requirements if they give away further local control of education to the federal government. Purportedly "conservative" policy led to thoroughly "progressive" results. Some on the right may see a combination of standardized testing and voucher systems as a way of striking at teachers unions, but conservatives may soon find this anti-union weapon turned against themselves and small-government aims. For the past decade or so, numerous "conservatives" have chosen big bureaucracy over smaller, local government when crafting education policy. As the price of this choice becomes clearer, perhaps some on the right will change their minds. At the moment, centralized, testing-driven education "reform" seems on a collision course with educational pluralism.

Unity over Division

The defeat of Ohio's anti-union Senate Bill 5 will be hailed by both righties and leftists as a defeat for conservatism. Perhaps due to my skepticism about how authentically conservative that measure actually was (here I might differ a bit with Mytheos Holt), I'm not so sure about that. But it is a defeat for a certain set of political tactics and suggests that a route Republicans recently have surged down may be a bit of a dead end.

John Kasich has no small potential as a governor. However, he has fallen into an unfortunate trap: rather than focusing on selling an economic plan that brings opportunity to all, he instead chose to back a series of reforms that had the appearance of pitting Ohioan against Ohioan. In a way reminiscent of Scott Walker's policies in Wisconsin, Kasich offered a combination of tax cuts and spending cuts and then added a capacious anti-union measure on top of that.

Unlike Walker, Kasich chose not to buy off interest groups by making his anti-collective bargaining apply to all public workers---not just clerks and teachers but also firefighters and police officers (Walker exempted the last two groups). This act of principle only made the issue seem even starker and helped unite a union coalition against this measure. Moreover, certain parts of SB5 reach far beyond cost-saving measures and offer a fundamental restructuring of key parts of Ohio's public service infrastructure. For example, banning tenure for future teachers and tying teacher pay to student performance on standardized exams would have consequences that reach far beyond the government coffers.

Though hating unions has become an increasingly "in" thing for many in the conservative base, many Americans view unions, private and public, as a bulwark of the middle class, which has been subjected to such stinging attacks over the past decade. Economic anxiety about the decline of the middle has, in Ohio and other places, been translated into a defense of unions.

Analysts left and right are speculating about the importance of union spending in tipping the balance, but we should not overestimate the effects of this political spending: a majority seems to have always supported repeal. When Quinnipiac first started polling the repeal of SB5 in May 2011, 54% of respondents backed a repeal. By late October 2011, support for repeal had climbed up to 57%, a definite increase but not a game-changing one. 61% of voters eventually came out in favor of repeal. SB5 was never a popular piece of legislation. Union spending might have increased the margin of victory, but I think Republicans needed more than slick ads if they wanted to win on this issue in Ohio.

The overwhelming victory for Issue 3 (which would ban the enforcement of a federal health-care mandate) shows that conservatives can still get commanding majorities on the question of federal overreach. The defeat of SB5 shows that union-bashing may make for viscerally enjoyable talk-radio, but it may not be the best electoral tactic. Despite propaganda to the contrary, the United States can afford a vigorous public-sector employment field and can even afford public-sector unions. (There is a case to be made against public-sector unions, but fiscal sustainability may not be the strongest grounds for it.) But such expenses can best be afforded under conditions of economic health. Republicans would be far better off working toward an optimistic vision of economic opportunity for all than trying to castigate certain portions of the American public as parasites, vermin, and thugs. Faith in the American people is an ally of small-government thinking. Ronald Reagan understood this alliance and was able to forge an electoral message that combined economic growth with a sense of national fellowship. The defeat of SB5 may yet bring conservatives and Republicans to appreciate the wisdom of this Reaganite principle.

Takers v. Makers, or Our Choices Have Consequences

Over at the WSJ, Stephen Moore laments the rise of government employment:

Today in America there are nearly twice as many people working for the government (22.5 million) than in all of manufacturing (11.5 million). This is an almost exact reversal of the situation in 1960, when there were 15 million workers in manufacturing and 8.7 million collecting a paycheck from the government. It gets worse. More Americans work for the government than work in construction, farming, fishing, forestry, manufacturing, mining and utilities combined. We have moved decisively from a nation of makers to a nation of takers...

Surveys of college graduates are finding that more and more of our top minds want to work for the government. Why? Because in recent years only government agencies have been hiring, and because the offer of near lifetime security is highly valued in these times of economic turbulence. When 23-year-olds aren't willing to take career risks, we have a real problem on our hands. Sadly, we could end up with a generation of Americans who want to work at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

It's worth noting that we have created an economic structure that incentivizes working at the DMV. Moore bemoans the state of 23-year-olds not wanting to take career risks, but 23-year-olds, just like corporations, have every right to make decisions that are in their own economic best interests.

Consider manufacturing: the de facto federal consensus over the past twenty years has in many ways been that manufacturing workers should accept lower wages. Indeed, much of the right's anger with manufacturing unions in Detroit and elsewhere focuses on the fact that these unions have won generous pay and benefits for their members. Our trade and regulation policies have, over the past few decades, further shrunk a manufacturing employment sector already diminishing due to gains in technology.

Or construction: this field has already taken a hit due to the collapse in the housing market. Moreover, construction jobs have also witnessed a significant wage decrease due to a flood of illegal immigration.

Or hi-tech fields: many large companies are perpetually lobbying to employ more and more foreign-born workers through mechanisms such as the H1-B visa. Or they are outsourcing programming work. Both of these mechanisms have hurt employment prospects and the wage growth for Americans in these sectors.

There are still plenty of opportunities in these sectors of the American economy, true. But while many economic sectors were hollowed out, government employment, under George W. Bush and Barack Obama, has boomed. Government jobs are harder to outsource or close down due to foreign subsidies. And with youth unemployment at exceedingly high levels, the young people of America are going to take any opportunity they can get.

I think our energies would be better spent not on attacking working for the government but on improving the economic conditions for the private sector. Destroying teachers unions will not turn around our economy and is not even a certain recipe for improving public education.

The weakening of many parts of our economy has in turn strengthened government, but a half-dead economy cannot indefinitely support a perpetually-growing government. Revising some of our public policies and making targeted investments in the future can be a way forward. Supporters of a vital free-market economy and of effective government are no doubt hoping that such a way can be found.

UPDATE: It's worth adding that government entities, particularly at the state and local level, are already feeling the pinch of economic hardship. State and local governments have cut tens of thousands of jobs over the past year or so. Meanwhile, the federal government is still hiring, but even its numbers are down and do not seem to be making up for the cuts in state and local workforces. So employment in state and local governments may be a more challenging prospect in the months to come. According to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, the sectors of the economy to gain the most over the past year were "administration" and "health-care" (though much of the US's health sector is driven by government spending).

(Thanks to David Frum, who rightly noted that government employment in the US has become less of a growth industry.)

Wisconsin: An Educational Failure?

CNS is running a news story that skewers the Wisconsin educational system. A few key details:

In the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests administered by the U.S. Department of Education in 2009—the latest year available—only 32 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned a “proficient” rating while another 2 percent earned an “advanced” rating. The other 66 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned ratings below “proficient,” including 44 percent who earned a rating of “basic” and 22 percent who earned a rating of “below basic.”

Moreover:

Wisconsin public schools increased their per pupil expenditures from $4,956 per pupil in 1998 to 10,791 per pupil in 2008. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation calculator the $4,956 Wisconsin spent per pupil in 1998 dollars equaled $6,546 in 2008 dollars. That means that from 1998 to 2008, Wisconsin public schools increased their per pupil spending by $4,245 in real terms yet did not add a single point to the reading scores of their eighth graders and still could lift only one-third of their eighth graders to at least a “proficient” level in reading.

Sounds pretty terrifying. Except there are a few problems.

To tackle the matter of finances first. The statistics quoted above compare apples to oranges. The $4956 CNS attributes to 1998 does not cover the total per-pupil spending---only the spending for instruction (and not for support services). The amount spent per pupil on instruction in Wisconsin in 2008 was, according to the Department of Education, $6560, or about exactly what it would be if 1998's numbers were adjusted for inflation. The total expenditures per pupil in 1998 were $9298. According to the inflation calculator, $9298 in 2008 comes out to $12,281. So total expenditures in Wisconsin for education seem to have gone up slower than the rate of inflation.

On to the role of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) tests: One of the unfortunate tendencies of many right-leaning approaches to education policy has been the elevation of standardized test scores above all (see No Child Left Behind, etc.). Especially from a classical conservative perspective (though not only from that perspective), it seems problematic at best to reduce educational success to a few test scores. Moreover, one perhaps cannot disregard the notion that certain parties inside and outside the government may have an interest in defining "proficiency" up in order to precipitate a useful "crisis." So I think these scores might be taken with a grain of salt.

But it should be noted that Wisconsin's average eighth-grader NAEP reading score of 266 is above the national average. 34% of students at or above grade level in reading may sound bad, but the highest-scoring state scored only 43% at or above level. That state happens to be the union bastion of Connecticut, which spent over $14,500 per pupil. Massachusetts and New Jersey round out the top three, both having spent significantly per pupil more than Wisconsin.

What does a low-scoring state look like in terms of scores? States like Louisiana ($10,000 per pupil), Mississippi ($7890 per pupil), California ($9706 per pupil), and Nevada ($8180 per pupil) have NAEP proficiency ratings in the low 20s (Mississippi is in the teens). The lowest-scoring jurisdiction in the USA is Washington DC, with only 13% of 8th-graders at or above level. The District spends over $16,000 per pupil.

The case of DC shows that high spending is not enough to ensure academic success, and the case of Idaho (which spends $6900 per pupil for an achievement level about equal to Wisconsin's) shows that higher spending is not necessarily necessary for scores above the national average. Many of the states near the bottom are right-to-work states, but some right-to-work states have higher scores. Meanwhile, many union-strong states dominate the top of the charts, but having a strong union (see California) is not a sufficient recipe for educational success.

Unions in public education may be bad or they may be good. But to single the public schools of Wisconsin out for a unique inefficiency and failure is rather unfair.

There are far more variables involved in the success of our schools than mere funding and union presence. The composition of student populations in a school district, for example, plays a key role in the challenges and opportunities for that school. An inner-city school with a majority of immigrant students faces a very different educational situation than a small middle-class town in Idaho---and that educational situation would not suddenly turn around if a union were abolished. Unfortunately for us, perhaps, educational policy often seems more about struggling with numerous finite particulars than grasping that golden panacea.