If you believe that honest government is part of the solution and not, as Ronald Reagan famously said, ‘the problem,’ and if you believe that public education matters, then perhaps you would like America to have an ‘Education President’ who would use the awesome powers of the Presidency to support and improve public schools.

After all, public education is way out of whack.  Some public school students seem to have it all: 3-D printers, air-conditioned facilities, lots of Advanced Placement courses, even climbing walls, while other students attend dangerously crumbling buildings, where they are taught by uncertified teachers, perhaps using textbooks so out of date that man hasn’t been to the moon!  And to say that spending on students is uneven is the worst of understatements. For example, Boston (MA) spends $31,397 per pupil, while Meridian (ID) spends $6,941. 

Could an ‘Education President’ level that playing field? Could he or she see that all children have an equal shot at a decent education by putting the power of the U.S. Presidency be firmly behind an improved public education system?

Spoiler Alert: NO, the United States doesn’t need an “Education President.” We’ve tried that, and it hasn’t helped.  What we do need, however, are more leaders, laws, and policies that support children, youth, and families.  

Let’s begin with some history, starting with George H. W. Bush, who dearly wanted to be known as the ‘Education President.’  He convened the nation’s first ‘Education Summit’ in 1989, which 49 of the 50 state governors attended (only Minnesota’s Rudy Perpich stayed home.) Out of that historic Summit came six ‘National Education Goals,’ all to be achieved by 2000.

His Secretary of Education, Lamar Alexander, wrote approvingly about his former boss thusly:  “When the dust settles and the history books are written, President George H. W. Bush’s leadership in education will be recognized as among his most significant and lasting contributions. Instead of relying on federal mandates, Bush in 1989 convened a national summit of governors to establish six national education goals focusing on improved graduation and literacy rates; student achievement; school readiness; and the elimination of drugs and violence in schools. 

But my personal experience casts doubts on Mr. Bush’s claim.  Early in his term, I was asked to apply to be his “Education Advisor,” and, with the blessing of Robin MacNeil and Jim Lehrer, I went to the White House for a series of interviews.  I was star-struck at first, eager to be involved in helping write the National Education Goals that the President was talking about.  “Not your job,” I was told. “We’ve already written them.”  I was told that I would not be advising the President. Instead, I would spend half of my time on the road doing PR for the President’s education plans and the other half  ‘advising’ the White House on science!  ‘Education Advisor’ was a half-time job, a sham, the workplace equivalent of a Potemkin Village.  President Bush was a cheerleader for public education, and, while that’s a good thing, he wasn’t an ‘Education President.’

One who aspired to be an ‘Education President’ was James Garfield. The Williams-educated Garfield, a college professor before being elected President, believed strongly in the power of education and, had he not been assassinated early in his term, apparently would have tried to persuade Congress to support education programs for enslaved people and freed slaves, one step toward ending slavery.

Garfield didn’t live long enough, and Bush was as much smoke and mirrors as substance, but, as I see it, we have had two ‘Education Presidents,’ one a Republican and the other a Democrat.  Unfortunately, those two did more harm than good to public education, making me skeptical about future ‘Education Presidents.’ 

First, some background: Education is a state issue, not a federal one.  That’s because the word ‘education’ appears nowhere in our federal Constitution, and, per the 10th Amendment, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”  That was made crystal clear in 1973, when the Supreme Court ruled, 5-4, in a case known as San Antonio USD vs. Rodriguez that US citizens do not have a constitutional right to an equal education. 

While it’s possible that a (very different) Supreme Court could overturn that 1973 decision, today every state constitution includes language establishing public education, and at least 15 state constitutions contain language affirming that education is “essential to the preservation of rights and liberties of the people.”  

Even though education is not Washington’s official business, many Presidents have figured out how to get involved.  Andrew Johnson established a Department of Education in 1867 to collect information and statistics. Not Cabinet-level, it became known as the Office of Education and was later nestled in the Cabinet level Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW). Fulfilling a campaign pledge to teachers, in 1979 President Jimmy Carter created a Department of Education, which every Republican president since has tried to eliminate. 

However, serious federal dollars actually began flowing to K-12 education much earlier, when Dwight Eisenhower was President, under legislation known as the National Defense Education Act (NDEA).  National and Defense are the key words. When the Soviet Union launched Sputnik, the first artificial satellite, in 1957, America was scared, and Ike had the political wisdom to tie money for education to national security, which was enough to get Congress to act.  A few years later, Lyndon Johnson used a different strategy to send federal dollars to public schools. He earmarked the money to help educate specific groups of children, the disadvantaged, in the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. He might have done even more had he not fallen into the swamp of the VietNam war.

While Ike and LBJ figured out how to pump federal dollars into state public education systems, and while Carter elevated education to Cabinet status, the two Presidents whose administrations turned public education upside down were George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

It was Bush’s 2001 “No Child Left Behind” legislation that changed the rules completely. Although he had been a ‘States Rights’ supporter as Texas governor, he couldn’t resist trying to use the power of the Presidency to fix what he felt was wrong with public education.  His NCLB established in law that, in every school receiving even one federal dollar, all groups of students (Black, brown, white, disabled, English language learners, boys, girls–everyone!) had to make what NCLB called ‘Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).’ And if all groups did not move forward, the school could be sanctioned–staff could be replaced and the school could be closed!   Progress, naturally, would be measured by scores on standardized multiple-choice tests.

With the stroke of a pen, the federal government–which was providing less than 8% of the money–was calling the shots in every public school in the country. And because AYP was determined solely by standardized test scores, schools downplayed or eliminated classes and activities that weren’t directly related to test scores. Away with recess, phys ed, art, music, theater, even foreign languages! 

It didn’t work. Test scores did not go up, but this strategy did have two unfortunate unintended consequences: Measurable increases in 1) cheating by teachers and administrators and 2) student absenteeism.  

NCLB should be recognized as a bipartisan disaster, because most Democrats had supported the legislation.  What happened next, a catastrophe known as “Race to the Top,”  is on the Democrats.  As far as I can recall, Barack Obama never expressed any interest in becoming an “Education President.” It happened by accident, because the Congress screwed up by giving his Secretary of Education a huge pile of money with no strings attached: He could spend it as he wished. His money, his rules.

You will remember that Obama had inherited Bush’s near-Depression economy, and the new President and the Congress passed the Economic Recovery Act of 2009, providing an unprecedented $800 billion stimulus for the reeling economy, including nearly $100 billion for education.  Congress earmarked about $95 billion of the education dollars but that left Education Secretary Arne Duncan with $4.35 billion to spend as he saw fit.  That single chunk of so-called ‘discretionary’ money was more than all previous Secretaries of Education had, combined!  

Desperate for dollars, states and school districts were willing to do whatever Secretary Duncan said was necessary.  He set up a competition and required state and local educators to come to Washington to plead their cases.  The Gates Foundation and McKinsey, the consulting company, helped many applicants write the latter day equivalent of their college application essay.  It was, some told me, a humiliating beauty contest.

Some applicants disagreed with his specific priorities, wishing he had emphasized, say, kindergarten, pre-school, and the arts, instead of rewarding states that promised to open more charter schools and to use test scores to evaluate teachers.  His sharpest critics, however, objected on principle to having any U.S. Secretary of Education making any rules for any locally-controlled public schools. Arne Duncan was not, his critics said, the National Superintendent of School……even though NCLB had effectively given the U.S Department of Education veto power over much of what goes on in schools and classrooms. 

The backlash to “Race to the Top” was severe. As soon as they were back in power, Republicans in Congress put lots of restrictions on future Secretaries of Education, making it clear that they don’t want a ‘National Superintendent of Education’ or, for that matter, an ‘Education President,’ whatever political party he or she happens to belong to.

Perhaps because he was Vice President during the disastrous “Race to the Top,” Joe Biden hasn’t aspired to be an ‘Education President.’  While he has forgiven billions in student debt, for more than three years his Secretary of Education has been largely invisible. Most recently, the U.S. Department of Education botched what is arguably its most important responsibility, streamlining the process for allocating financial aid to college students.  As Time Magazine reported:   “A botched rollout of a new application process for FAFSA has caused chaos for millions of current and potential college students. As many high school seniors wait for financial aid packages, some are left deciding where to attend without a clear idea of how much they might be expected to pay.”  It may actually be worse, because apparently many low-income students are simply deciding not to go to college at all.

While we should not want an “Education President,” electing leaders who care deeply about children, youth, and families would be a plus.  Future Presidents could ask Congress to pay for the things it makes public schools do, like provide fair opportunities for handicapped children.  Funding these ‘unfunded mandates’ wouldn’t make that occupant of the White House an ‘Education President,’ but it would help public education.  A future President could ask Congress to fund all-day kindergarten and free pre-school (sending block grants to the states). A future President could ask Congress to revive and make permanent the Child Tax Credit (CTC) expansion that helped drive child poverty to a record low of 5.2 percent in 2021. A future President could work with Congress to strengthen programs that provide a ‘safety net’ for children, including housing and health care legislation. In other words, future Presidents can do more to improve children’s health, nutrition, and housing than he or she can regarding their schools.

But education is a matter for families and local schools and states. Washington, D.C., is too far removed from public education to be able to make a significant difference, and so what states need are  ‘Education Governors,’ leaders who will increase state support for public education.  These ‘Education Governors’ would also aspire to eliminate, or at least minimize, the huge disparities in opportunities and expectations across their state.  

Excellent public schools make financial sense.  Right now states compete for business and industry by offering tax breaks, but enlightened business leaders know their workers want decent schools for their children.  States that close the Opportunity Gap and the Expectations Gap in education will end up with public education systems that attract businesses and highly educated residents.  

But, unfortunately, state-wide support for public schools will be a heavy lift in most states, because many Governors (generally Republicans) are undercutting public education for all in favor of vouchers, charter schools, and homeschooling. They believe in choice and competition.  Rather than embracing the idea that “A rising tide lifts all boats,” they are saying to parents, “Build your own damn boat!”  

Supporters of public education should not expect Washington to solve that problem.