Last week in National Review, Justus Myers and Phillip Wallach argued that conservatives are misapplying their principles to the circumstances of the moment by opposing the Student Success Act (H.R. 5), a proposed reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) that would reform some elements of the 2001 No Child Left Behind law. On the surface, their argument appears to hinge on an assumption that policymakers should always accept incremental gains whenever they appear within reach. This is a tactical approach that many conservatives, recognizing that incremental gains sometimes reduce the likelihood of more significant progress, do not accept.
But while the tactical debate is real, it masks a deeper division within the center-right that is just as important to the debate over ESEA reauthorization. As is often the case when the Republican establishment and the conservative movement disagree about the proper course of action, this dispute turns as much on disagreement about long-term policy objectives as it does on short-term steps for reform.
RELATED: Feds Play the Race Card to Crush Parents’ Revolt Against Comon Core
Myers and Wallach consider education to be one among many “issues in which the parties aren’t really so far apart,” a perspective that appears to inform their support of the Student Success Act. And unfortunately, they may be correct in that assessment. When it comes to the question of whether Washington ought to play a role in local decision-making regarding K–12 education, Republican leaders, like Democrats, support maintaining federal involvement. They simply don’t trust states and municipalities to handle the responsibility. Just take the word of Representative Virginia Foxx (R., N.C.), who recently explained her opposition to the APLUS proposal, which would allow states to opt out of Department of Education mandates, by complaining, “There is no sense of accountability there. Look at APLUS and show me where there’s any accountability.”
Given that Republican leaders don’t oppose federal interference in education in general — just the particular mandates spawned by No Child Left Behind — one can understand why they would settle for the steps taken in the Student Success Act on the Common Core and “adequate yearly progress” mandates. But since many conservatives believe that federal overreach predates the Bush-Boehner-Kennedy law, it is perfectly reasonable for them give voice to this conflict of visions by seeking bolder reforms that would virtually eliminate federal policymakers’ involvement in what should be a local matter.
RELATED: Conservatives Won’t Win Anything if They Hold Out for Total Victory in Education Fight
Now there is a real debate about drastically curbing the federal government’s involvement in local education.
Despite wielding a historic majority, House Republican leaders would not even allow votes on amendments to provide true Title I portability (in which funding under that section of the ESEA would follow low-income students when they switch schools) or allow states to opt out from Department of Education mandates. This resistance to mere debate over conservative solutions suggests how sorely needed the current conversation over long-term goals is — and how beneficial for the cause of reform it was that H.R. 5 was pulled earlier this year, precipitating the now-ongoing dialogue.
That’s the sort of thing that substantive debate in Washington — so often mistakenly derided as nitpicking over tactics — tends to do. As I argued earlier this year in National Affairs, conflict “may well be the best way for a political party out of power to draw attention to important policy debates — and it may be the only way to force members of Congress to begin the hard work of embracing controversial reform proposals. Without the bully pulpit of the presidency, few alternatives offer similar potential.”
Now we’ve got conflict. Now there is a real debate about drastically curbing the federal government’s involvement in local education. How do we move forward?
RELATED: Here’s the Right Way for Conservatives to Start Fixing No Child Left Behind
Myers and Wallach suggest that to oppose the Student Success Act at this stage would mean acting on the principle that “everything short of total victory is unacceptable.” But the case against the Student Success Act is not a case against all incremental gains; it is a case against this particular proposal. Conservatives put forward four benchmarks early in the process: 1) allow states to opt out; 2) eliminate programs and reduce spending; 3) eliminate all the burdensome federal mandates; and 4) provide full Title I portability. The Student Success Act fell short on each and every requirement. Conservatives opposed to the bill are not opposed to anything short of total victory; they merely believe that another course would improve the prospects for conservative reform that addresses each of these priorities.
The bill is a six-year reauthorization, and although it will not definitively prevent further action on education in the first term of the next administration, it makes such action far less likely. As a result, many conservatives believe it’s important to aim as high as possible in negotiating a final reauthorization. If this will be our last bite at the apple in some time, we need to get as much out of it as possible. And if a reauthorization under this president is made less likely by the effort to negotiate for more aggressive goals, the risk of holding off on action for two years could be mitigated if the 2016 election turns conservatives’ way.
RELATED: Take Back Our Schools
Injecting those goals — Title I portability and state opt-outs of all Department of Education mandates, for example — into the debate will be good for education reformers in the long term even if President Obama is unlikely to sign them into law in the next two years. But setting a higher high-water mark for our efforts in the current reauthorization debate could also be a boon not just for the prospects of long-term success but for an improved outcome in this Congress’s negotiations.
And there will be negotiations; as Myers and Wallach point out, the Senate is working on its own reauthorization at the moment, one that is marginally less conservative than the Student Success Act. One core argument that many of the Student Success Act’s proponents have advanced is that the bill is “reasonable” enough that the president might actually sign it, despite his veto threat several months ago. But the president will not sign the Student Success Act as currently written, because the bill will be further watered down in conference committee. Even then, a veto is still possible. Given that reality, why not pass a stronger bill in the House and proceed into negotiations with the Senate and the president with a more promising hand to play?
Pushing for more ambitious goals will perhaps entail greater conflict over this reauthorization than Republican leadership would prefer. But education policy should not turn on routine reauthorizations. Conservatives pushing ambitious reform can harness conflict to educate the public and secure commitments from public officials for the long term to proposals that push the envelope for education reform. That’s what the movement is doing now.
— Michael Needham is the chief executive officer of Heritage Action for America.