There’s a lot of uncertainty about federal education policy today. How does it really work? What’s changed? Well, uber-insider Vic Klatt has just stepped back from a storied career and is perfectly situated to give the inside scoop. He’s worked on federal education policy since 1989, starting out as a senior official for congressional affairs at the Department of Education under President George H. W. Bush, then serving in a senior role on the House education committee, and eventually helping to found the Penn Hill Group. He was named one of Washington’s most influential people by Washingtonian magazine in 2022 and 2023. Here’s what Klatt had to say.
—Rick
Rick: You’ve had a long career as a prominent education lobbyist in the nation’s capital. What does a lobbyist actually do, anyway?
Vic: Yes, Rick, I’ve been around a long time—thanks for reminding me! I recently capped off a 40-year career working in and outside of the federal government. About half that time was spent as a lobbyist on education policy. Lobbyists, like my former colleagues at Penn Hill Group, advance policies for our clients by crafting, and sometimes blocking, provisions in laws and regulations, developing relationships with key leaders, obtaining funding, and keeping our clients informed of the latest developments in D.C. This last point is especially important—we go beyond the headlines to explain what is really happening and advise clients who are impacted by federal policies. With so much noise coming out of Washington nowadays, we help people find the signal.
Rick: What do people in education not understand about the inner workings of D.C.?
Vic: In D.C., the details really matter. More often than not, people hire lobbyists because they are focused on very specific details of a law or regulation that rarely find their way into full public view. Sometimes, those details can make or break a business or nonprofit; other times, they can mean a difference of millions of dollars coming to your state, community, or institution; still other times, changing a word or two can determine who’s eligible for a scholarship, grant, or contract. For example, a minor provision in the Q&A section of an Education Department guidance rule required a client to divest from a whole line of business. Understanding the details requires knowledge of policy specifics, the decisionmaking process, the people involved, and the politics at play. It’s not easy, and it’s not just about attending a fundraiser or taking a government official to lunch, as is often portrayed in the media.
Rick: Over the years, what’s surprised you?
Vic: The most undervalued aspect of federal policymaking is process. It does not matter how great your policy is or how much support it has if there is not a procedural path to getting it done. A notable example of this is “Workforce Pell” legislation, which would allow Pell Grants to be used for short-term workforce programs. Despite broad bipartisan support from the public and in both chambers of Congress and at least moderate support in past presidential administrations, a handful of senators have used procedural roadblocks to stymie the bill for more than 10 years. We have also seen recent presidents bypass Congress altogether to implement their initiatives through executive orders, rulemaking, and other procedures in ways that would have been unthinkable in years gone by.
Rick: How much has polarization changed the way D.C. works?
Vic: The ideological extremes of both parties have become much more prominent over the years. Both parties focus almost exclusively on playing to their bases, which makes compromise more difficult and far less politically advantageous. As a result, both parties nowadays seem to focus much more on controversial social policies: DEI, transgender participation in sports, content in books, and so on. Sadly, whether or not kids are actually learning gets lost.
Rick: What’s it like to be a Republican lobbyist in a federal education community that tends to lean left?
Vic: Being a Republican in a policy world dominated by Democrats has been a defining aspect of my career. I quickly learned that if I wanted to get things done, I needed to develop relationships across the ideological spectrum. It also did not take long for me to realize that people are people, whatever their policy affiliation. As simple as it sounds, making friends, listening to others, and presuming people’s beliefs are sincerely held, even if you disagree, is a good thing. I also learned that compromising on a particular issue does not have to mean compromising your core values. As the saying goes, half a loaf is better than none.
Rick: You started out at the U.S. Department of Education under George H.W. Bush. Obviously, a lot has changed since then. What’s changed the most?
Vic: A lot has changed. On K-12 policy issues, it is particularly sad for me to see how the education reform movement has lost its mojo. In the not-too-distant past, major civil rights groups, business organizations, and a sizable portion of the education community worked closely together to make important, bipartisan, policy changes on issues like accountability, choice, and support for low-performing schools. Today, the consensus on issues like testing and accountability, school choice, and the importance of education research has broken down. Without the backing and full-scale involvement of “reform” coalitions outside of the education establishment, support for public K-12 education withers, funding dries up, and learning outcomes suffer.
Rick: Have you seen any organizing narrative while working in education policy?
Vic: At the federal level, the story has been of power shifting from the legislature to the executive. When I first started, Congress regularly passed authorization and appropriations bills that had a significant impact on education policy. This is no longer the case. Laws are not regularly updated, appropriations bills are not passed on time, and Congress rarely asserts itself. Policymaking has shifted to the executive branch. The Biden administration’s attempt to forgive student-loan debt and the Trump administration’s executive order to close the Department of Education are both examples of this. The executive branch gaining more power is a wonderful thing if you support the president’s policy, but not so much if you don’t. However, when the Resolute Desk changes hands, policies not passed through Congress can be, and often are, swept out to make way for a new president’s agenda. Often, this happens just as the old policies are starting to take effect. Being whipsawed with completely new policies from one administration to the next is a real disservice to people trying their best to adhere to federal mandates.
Rick: I frequently hear from people who think the Republican approach to education is more combative than it was a decade ago. Do you think that’s true?
Vic: It is. In my view, the biggest reason is that the new breed of “Member of Congress” is much more ideological and media-focused; few see anything to be gained by working across the aisle. I also think many Republicans believe there is little hope that the education “establishment”—especially the teachers’ unions—would ever support them, because the Democrats will always one-up them and support more of whatever the establishment is looking for.
Rick: Is this trend only evident among Republicans, or do you see it among Democrats, too?
Vic: No, this is not unique to the Republicans. You see it on both sides. One example is the issue of charter schools. The Federal Charter School Program was established with bipartisan support during the Clinton administration, and that support continued through the Bush, Obama, and Trump administrations. Yet, due to pushback from unions and other parts of the education establishment, many Democrats have abandoned their support for what was once one of the most bipartisan education programs created in the past several decades.
Rick: Republicans have talked of abolishing the Department of Education for decades. Why is this getting so much more attention this year than under prior Republican administrations—including during Trump’s first term?
Vic: I’m honestly not sure why, other than that it has been a long-standing goal of some of President Donald Trump’s key administration appointees, particularly those from the Heritage Foundation. That said, without the necessary support from Congress and the public, the Education Department is likely here to stay. I’ve also never quite understood how transferring all the big education programs to other agencies accomplishes the goal of abolishing the department. However, the Trump administration is attempting to downsize the department, its staff, and some of its programs. If it’s the “end of the world as we know it,” like many opponents of eliminating the department claim, then these cuts should cause a lasting outcry which could, in theory, drive the administration to backtrack. However, if this whole effort meets with a big yawn after the initial clamor dies down, then a reduced federal role—with or without the Education Department—may be here to stay for some time.
2025-07-08 10:00:00
Source link
