Obama vs. Romney 101: 5 differences on education

President Obama says his policy initiatives are helping teachers, schools, and students. Mitt Romney advocates more school choice and private-sector involvement. Here is a look at how the two differ on eduction issues.

4. Teachers and unions

Jacquelyn Martin/AP
Wearing a shirt that says 'Educators for Obama 2012,' Marsha Fabian, a teacher, of Lancaster, Pa., claps during the National Education Association's annual convention in Washington on July 5.

The differences between Romney and Obama’s policy proposals on teachers are subtle, but their rhetoric is miles apart.

Romney’s education plan decries teachers unions for “opposing innovation that might disrupt the status quo while insulating even the least effective teachers from accountability.”

Obama’s policies haven’t been uniformly praised by unions, but he’s tried to emphasize the need to work with them to forward education reform – and he’s receiving substantial support from them in his campaign.

Obama has used competitive funding and other incentives to encourage states and school districts to reform their teacher evaluations and reward teachers for increasing their students’ achievement, measured in part by standardized test gains.

This summer Obama pitched a $1 billion plan to launch a master teacher corps specializing in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). 

Romney proposes to consolidate current federal teacher-quality programs, instead giving states flexible block grants if they eliminate or reform teacher tenure; establish evaluation systems that focus on advancing student achievement and rewarding effective teachers; and prohibit seniority-based transfer and dismissal policies, including “last in, first out” layoffs.

Romney also wants to remove “highly qualified” teacher certification requirements from NCLB because he says it prevents too many people in other career fields from becoming teachers.

4 of 5

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.