Politics, policy and philosophy all start with “p” and yet that about ends any similarities.
One might think you could track or even grade an elected official or a body of politicians, like a legislature or a Congress, by linking these p words, but it seems lately that consistency is elusive. While they often mention accountability, their actions do not quite seem to match. This is very true this year in the Florida House where a program that has served the state’s citizens since 1979 is being subjected to a series of potential changes that will harm Florida’s families, students and higher education community. The Effective Access to Student Education (EASE)Act offers more than 46,000 Florida students each year the ability to make the right choice for them in pursuing higher education options.
Under the guise of “accountability,” the proposed changes would harm students and institutions rather than boost access and improve options. For 42 years, a state-sponsored voucher has enabled students to make a choice in higher education. Over the past decade, the Legislature has applied a series of accountability measures on students choosing one of Florida’s public institutions, which was easier to do because, in those cases, state funding went directly to the institutions. These metrics were created to improve programs and not take funding away from either schools or students. Success in public policy comes from using carrots, not sticks, in bringing about improvements to valuable programs. EASE is a voucher controlled by students making a choice of school to attend and the money flows through that choice. Instead of creating accountability, which might enhance the program and raise standards, the current proposal would eliminate entire schools from the program, greatly harming all students, regardless of their progress towards degree, while ignoring the essential choices that voucher programs are designed to enhance.
Back in 2000, then Florida House Speaker Tom Feeney, in his welcoming address to a chamber filled with a majority of first-time elected representatives, said, “Good policy is good politics.” I was honored to be asked by Speaker Feeney at that time to organize and present a comprehensive policy-training program for so many new members. A major thread that ran through our many weeks of training was seeking to link the process through a consistent philosophical lens. It was a compass, if you will, for making policy decisions in a political atmosphere.
The lens suggested to use for members of the Republican-led chamber was to find consistency in their approach to public policy. Frankly, this approach should work whether you are a conservative or a liberal. Does your position on an issue follow the philosophy you ran on, are your politics consistent with your position, and does the policy for which you advocate lead to the five basic tenets of conservative governance? These are as follows; 1) will it led to less governance, 2) will your act reduce taxes, 3) will your action encourage greater personal responsibility, 4) will it enhance personal freedoms, or 5) will it lead to strengthening Florida’s families? These points were further emphasized by being essential components of every bill analysis done by committees.
Somewhere along the way, these essential points began to be less frequently used, and some complicated and longer-term changes are being done without a full, open and detailed discussion about such comprehensive changes. Entire appropriations or substantive bills are frequently taken up in committees as drafts and rarely amended. Very little of the long-term effects are fully vetted.
In these days of worker shortages in so many occupations, one would hope full consideration has been made to the longer-term effects of changing such a successful program. For example, the thirty colleges and universities where EASE is provided to students as tuition assistance, currently produce huge numbers of badly needed teachers and nurses for Florida. These are but two examples of why choice is critical in higher education. Florida is vastly short right now in producing these two occupations. Imagine, at a time of great need, the legislature deciding to eliminate a quarter of the current output.
Over the past 20 years, the Legislature has been a strong advocate for choice in education. The full range of education in Florida, from pre-K through undergraduate programs, has seen been a push to offer options that consistently serve the five principles listed above. EASE is one highly successful program that reduced the cost of government, thus leading to lower tax demands, while embracing personal responsibilities and freedom to choose the option best for the student, and in so many cases assisting families since often, students can stay at home and not have to travel away for degree programs.
I have worked in higher education for over thirty years. EASE is one of the best options I have seen to serve the needs of a state economy while helping to produce the essential talents for tomorrow’s needs. The per-student level of EASE should be increased, rather than being subject to harmful changes. This program needs to be both embraced and enhanced moving forward.
Dr. Ed Moore served for many years as the president of the Independent Colleges and Universities of Florida (ICUF) and has served in both the legislative and executive branches of Florida government. Prior to ICUF, Dr. Moore was staff director for Policy, for Worker’s Compensation, for Medical Liability and for Public Safety and Security in the Florida House of Representatives. Dr. Moore also worked in the private sector for 21 years and has experience in areas ranging from multi-state commercial development and utilities, public safety, mental health, corrections, education at all levels, to higher education.
Author
