The Tea Party and Civic Education

Make no mistake: The Tea Party is not Republican. It is a separate, anti-democratic, anarchist faction. The characterization is mine, although at least the first part is broadly shared. According to a Pew Research study*, “47% of the public says they think of the Tea Party movement as separate and independent from the Republican Party, while somewhat fewer (38%) say it is a part of the Republican Party, and 14% do not offer an opinion.” Even among the rank and file, “more Republicans view the Tea Party as a separate movement from the GOP (51%) than as part of the Republican Party (32%).”

In terms of civic education, the Tea Party provides examples of how radicalism can derail democracy. Tea Party initiatives deform our otherwise nearly universal understanding of democratic governance for the common good. Some of this faction’s actions undermine the ideal of the common school as an entity, and most Tea Party initiatives contribute to students’ misunderstandings and confusion about how American democracy is supposed to work. But there are some useful lessons to be learned in all of this.

Every political party is composed of an informal coalition of relatively likeminded individuals and groups. However, the coalition of the Tea Party and the Republican Party more closely resembles the type of coalition found in parliamentary democracies. Governing parliamentary coalitions often are composed of parties that, under other circumstances, would not share the same room. If the Republican Party, as some of its members aver, is operating from a “big tent” philosophy, then the Tea Party is setting fire to its corner of the canvas.

As bad examples go, the recent cliffhanger over government funding was a doozy. Tea Party radicals essentially held the Republican Party, the federal government, and, by extension, the American people hostage to the point of forcing a government shutdown in an attempt to defund what amounted to a small portion of the Affordable Care Act (or Obamacare). In so doing, Tea Partiers cost U.S. citizens and businesses billions ($24 billion according to Time), rather ironic considering the Tea Party platform is all about decreasing taxes, saving people money, and saving people from “big government.”

The government shutdown, any defensive rhetoric to the contrary, was wholly driven by this radical faction. Consequently, support for the Tea Party has declined. However, because the Republican Party has embraced, at least putatively, its radical rightwing brothers and sisters, the GOP has been tarred with the same brush. This does not bode well for midterm elections, where Republicans are likely to face stiff opposition in all but the most ardently conservative districts.

A couple of civics lessons in this national debacle should not be lost. (It was a debacle, though it could have been a greater one—with even more dire international consequences—had not a last-minute deal been brokered.) First, obstruction is not governance. The exercise of democratic governance requires finding common ground in pursuit of the common good, not clinging obstinately to an ideology with citizens, nation, and world be damned. Second, holding the nation hostage in an attempt to force on everyone the faction’s narrow ideology ultimately is a counterproductive strategy. In our democracy, fortunately, wiser, or at least more moderate, heads eventually prevail; and radicalism harms not only the larger society, and often the people in support of radicalism, but also the radical cause itself.

In Federalist No. 10, James Madison addresses the dangers of factions. Now might be a good time for students both young and old to read or reread this brief.

While conventional wisdom is that the Republican coalition cannot succeed without pandering to the Tea Party faction, it might also be a good time for thinking conservatives to rethink that position. By cutting loose the Tea Party, mainstream Republicanism might be revived by drawing back into their “big tent” those moderates who have defected rather than be held hostage by radicalism. This would not be a bad thing. It might well provide a lesson in how to reposition a party using reason in place of ideology.

* “Tea Party’s Image Turns More Negative,” Pew Research, October 16, 2013.

Time to Grade the School Board?

The following, written with co-authors Phil and Joan Harris, appeared as a guest column in the Bloomington, Indiana, Herald-Times, on October 9, 2013.

The 45th annual PDK/Gallup Poll of the Public’s Attitudes Toward the Public Schools was released recently. The annual poll is one way of “grading” our nation’s public education system according to the public it serves. A majority of the public (58%), for example, rejects using student test scores to evaluate teachers, and even more (78%) aren’t convinced that increased testing helps school performance. The poll is a thoughtful, well-researched, respected mechanism for gauging what the public thinks is right and wrong about America’s schools. Too bad we don’t have a localized tool to do the same.

Indiana instituted an A-to-F grading system for schools that proved to be corruptible. Even before the Tony Bennett grade-changing scandal, the best that could be said of this “system” is that it fails to say anything meaningful about the quality of public education. It is simplistic and mischaracterizes school quality.

The A-F scheme merely tells us what we already know—and ignore—about the effects of poverty on education. Researchers have identified common poverty-related factors that significantly affect children’s health and learning, and thus limit what schools can accomplish. Factors include inadequate medical, dental, and vision care; food insecurity; and substandard living environments. These and related factors correlate to many poverty-induced problems that children bring to school and manifest in issues such as attention disorders, absenteeism, linguistic delays, and bad behavior.

Given what we know and ignore about the influence of poverty on student academic growth and graduation rates, the A-F scheme has the effect of holding down those whom it purports to lift up. “Failing” schools almost invariably have large numbers of students from impoverished backgrounds. Such schools often are not failing but merely fighting an uphill battle that cannot be easily won.

Let’s admit, then, that grading schools in this way is really about labeling communities and keeping the poor in their place. Ask any realtor whether an F school is likely to encourage higher home prices. The effect of A-F labeling—not actually evaluating—schools simply stamps “POOR” on the neighborhood and perpetuates problems.

What can we do? Maybe it’s time we evaluated our local school trustees. We might choose to evaluate them simplistically, the way the A-F system does schools. We could use superficial factors, such as meeting attendance, number of school visits, minutes spent with administrators, and so forth. Or we might model our evaluation on what we have learned really matters in public education:

• Does the school board evaluate this community’s schools based on this community’s values, needs, and circumstances, rather than generalized, simplistic state criteria?
• Are school board meetings truly open, and are community members encouraged to participate meaningfully? Do our school trustees really listen and respond?
• Do our school trustees work with education experts to understand programs and projects fully in order to allocate public dollars where they are needed and will achieve real results?
• Is professional knowledge and public input the driving force behind school board decisions? Do school trustees set politics aside?
• How is our school board working to change bad education policies—national, state, or local—that negatively affect our children and their teachers?
• What is our school board doing to mitigate the effects of poverty in the schooling of our children? Are our school trustees honestly working to level the education playing field?

These are tough evaluation questions. They are not yes-no, check-the-box questions that are easy to answer but tell us nothing we don’t already know. We, the public, want real answers. The only way to get them is to ask real questions.