Like millions of other Americans, the third and last presidential debate on October 15 reinforced our impressions of each candidate, provided additional policy details, and revealed more insights into the character of each. McCain did surprisingly better, in my opinion, than in the previous rounds, playing the aggressive underdog with little to lose. Obama played it cautiously, not unexpected when in the lead, but he did not make a major error. No clear winner.

 

What particularly pleased me was the attention on education. It is heartening to see that both candidates recognize that the nation’s future depends on educational investments and improving schools. There were points of agreement during the debate, but there certainly were differences, particularly on vouchers. McCain and Republicans favor greater individual choice that would create market-type pressure on public schools. Obama and Democrats look suspiciously on this approach, due perhaps to the belief that not all individuals can equally benefit from vouchers and that public schools should be reformed rather than endangered. Same concerns but divergent approaches anchored in disparate ideologies about the role of the state and the market.

 

What is disappointing was the lack of attention to vocational education during the debate, particularly given the repeated references to “Joe the plumber.” America needs both a well-educated population and a highly skilled labor force. Unfortunately, high-school vocational education is often treated as a residual, failing to receive the attention, respect and resources needed to provide first-class training for those going directly into what some call “the trades.”

 

The McCain-Obama exchange highlights that the sad fact that the larger political discourse on post-secondary education has focused on access to college, particularly to the better institutions, at the expense of improving post-secondary vocational education. No doubt, we should have world-class universities, and all should have an equal chance to attend based on ability and interest. This type of education, however, is not necessarily for everyone. The public school system and public higher education provide too little training for “Joe the plumber” and his employees, as well as numerical-control machinists, operators of sophisticated office equipment, and workers in scores of other occupations. The training is not only valuable for those entering the labor market but also for those who must upgrade their skills to keep up with technology and those forced to change jobs and careers. The failure to offer adequate educational opportunities to all segments of the population and labor force makes the United States less productive and therefore less competitive in the global economy. Hopefully the next president will give equal billing to vocational education as an integral and essential component of a well-rounded education policy.