John Cox Responds

Yesterday I posted John Cox's Education Policy. As I have with all of the candidates I have spotlighted, I sent a message to the campaign letting them know about the post and inviting them to share their thoughts. I was delighted to find a response from Mr. Cox today posted as a comment. The complete text of Mr. Cox's comments are republished below:

I was sent this reference and thought it important to address this note directly. First, I am a former school board president and the son of a Chicago public school teacher; I have been a teacher myself as well so I think I have some standing to discuss education. If you look at the Constitution, you will find no reference to the federal government having the responsibility for education policy. It is true that in the past the federal government has rightly gotten involved when equal protection was the issues especially, when different schools had different standards based on color, which is reprehensible to me as I hope it is to all Americans. Having said that, I do believe there can be some federal role in assisting some states with funding if they are unable due to their own unique economic circumstances to fund their own education. I believe that can be done without the huge bureaucracy in Washington DC. That bureaucracy doesn't teach children, good teachers and parents do. Second, my support for vouchers, which should be executed by the states but for which I will use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to argue for, is based upon my belief that the private sector influence of competition is the best way to provide the quality and efficiency we need for our schools, especially at the primary and secondary level. Our colleges compete with each other and essentially have voucher programs (many grant programs, etc) and they are some of the best educational institutions in the world. Our primary and secondary schools for the most part are government bureaucracies run for the adminstrators and not the teachers and students. Finally, it is a cheap shot to refer to the book I wrote. I wrote the book so people would know more about me and where I stand on the issues. It is referenced on each page as is volunteering, issues and other matters. I am not making any money on the book and all proceeds go to the campaign. I have not done any promotional tours for the book. Education may be near the back but the last chapter is on Agriculture but that doesn't mean I don't think it is a good idea to have an agriculture industry. Ordering the chapters was not some plan to communicate that education is not important. Quite the contrary, my background surely notes that I believe education is fundamental to the future success of our country. That is why I want the federal government, with its inefficient and wasteful forms and bureaucracy, to take a backseat to the important functions of local school boards, parents and teachers.

John Cox

Response: First and foremost I would like to thank Mr. Cox for taking the time to compose and post a thought out and lengthy response. The passion expressed in his response shows a much appreciated interest in Education that does not come through in the space dedicated to Education on his website. As for the content of his response, he correctly points out that the a public education is found no where within the U.S. Constitution, but rather in the Constitutions of each state. Although he doesn't call for the federal government to cut all ties with K-12 education, he suggests that through the use of state provided vouchers they could become better institutions similar to the way our universities work if you think of grants and scholarships as vouchers. However, I fail to follow that logic as the majority of college student aid (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, Federal Work Study, etc) is provided by the federal government, the majority of our nation's public universities (106) were created by the federal government with the Morrill Land Grant Act, and many of our universities depend upon the support of Federal research grants to survive -- all of this, despite the fact that you will also not find a single mention of the federal government's role in higher education in the U.S. Constitution. Shouldn't by the same strict-constitutionalist logic applied to K-12 schools Mr. Cox be in support of a "hands off" federal policy for higher education as well? Now all of this isn't to say that I disagree with Mr. Cox's ideas, but if locally managed schools can't perform even with more federal aid what makes him think they can do better with less? And if you give the students who attend those schools vouchers, which schools of higher quality are going to take those students after they are so far behind? Before implementing it nationally, shouldn't we be able to point to a place where vouchers have been tested, and work? Finally, I apologize for any hard feelings for wondering why your book was being advertised on almost every page of your campaign site -- but contrary to what your response indicated, I could not find on your website that the proceeds of the book would be poured back into the campaign (on an unrelated note: if that is the intent, shouldn't those sales be counted as contributions or are you simply earning the royalties and using the money you made from authoring the book to make personal contributions to your campaign?) In any case, thank you for your response and I look forward to hearing more of your positions on Education in the near future.

Spotlight: John Cox

John Cox is the former Chair of the Cook County Republican Party and several times failed candidate for national elected office. On his website he focus on 18 issues, with education coming in at #16:

• The War in Iraq, Tax Policy, The Illegal Immigration Crisis, Protecting our Second Amendment Rights, National Security, Standing for Life, Government Spending, Traditional Values, Religious Freedom, Standing for the Traditional Family and for Marraige, Social Security and Government Transfer Spending, Regulation and Tort Reform, Reforming Politics, Health Care, Energy and the Environment, Education, Agriculture, Free but Fair Trade

Overall he dedicates the following 71 words to education:

• The government school monopoly is the problem. Competition is the answer, not more money, which has doubled after inflation in the past 20 years without much improvement in test scores. Turn parents into consumers with vouchers, which are Constitutional and do not lose money for public schools because the child is no longer there to create expenses. Education is a local and state issue. No Child Left Behind should be repealed.

Analysis: Cox believes the federal government should stay out of education as it is a state and local issue, however, he is in support of vouchers as the solution to the "problem" which he references but doesn't define. In line with his view of who is responsible edcuation, he calls for NCLB to be repealed (and one would assume Title I, etc). No research is referenced and, with the exception of NCLB, no problems are specifically mentioned and no specific implementation steps are offered. Although this candidate doesn't believe education should be a national responsibility, I hope he understands its national importance and provides more infomation on this issue in the near future.

Interesting Observation: Almost every page of his campaign site has a link to purchase his new book, Politics, Inc. Is this a serious presidential campaign or marketing campaign?