January 22, 2009
Opinion: Does America Need a Public-Service Academy?
By Pablo Eisenberg
The notion of public service has swept the country. Young people everywhere are expressing a desire to serve other people and their country, and President Obama’s strong support for volunteerism has prompted a wave of proposals to encourage Americans to commit their time to serving the public good.
Among the ideas gaining significant attention in Congress is a plan to create a U.S. Public Service Academy to develop a cadre of highly qualified civil servants and civic leaders.
The brainchild of two former Teach for America volunteers, Chris Myers Asch and Shawn Raymond, the academy would be a Congressionally chartered and federally subsidized four-year college patterned after the military academies and focused on public service and leadership. In exchange for a free education, graduates would be required to serve at least five years at a government agency.
There has been too little discussion about the academy to decide whether it is necessary and worth the expense.
Many other ways to promote public service are available, especially at a time when the nation is in a financial crisis. Besides, hundreds of colleges and universities already stress the importance of public service and leadership, so it is unclear why America needs a new specialized institution.
The support and encouragement of public service deserve applause, but that does not make it smart to build a costly, military-style institution, susceptible to political influence and control and potentially elitist in nature.
Supporters of an academy say the United States has a critical shortage of competent civil servants and that, therefore, the nation must recruit and train Americans to fill this vacuum. They also assert that many college graduates, saddled with thousands of dollars worth of tuition loans, cannot afford to consider a public-service job, let alone a career in government or at nonprofit groups. A free university education with a focus on public service, in their view, could be the gateway to public-service careers.
But there is no dearth of interest in public service. The enormous popularity of Teach for America and other volunteer programs reflect this desire on the part of young Americans to become involved in social change, participate in antipoverty projects, and improve social institutions.
It is not surprising that government jobs lost their sheen during the past decade. The role of government was continually undermined and attacked by conservatives and members of the Bush administration. And young people were reminded by President Clinton that the “days of big government were over.”
Now all that has changed.
President Obama has declared that government is a crucial instrument in revitalizing and transforming our society. Much as in the days of President Johnson’s Great Society programs and the War on Poverty, students and other young people find exciting the possibilities that a government job—and indeed a career—holds for them. There will be a huge demand and rush for public-service jobs. In the face of such a development, the urgency of an academy seems to fade away.
Nor is the notion that young people cannot afford a career in government because of their large loans very convincing.
The real barrier to entry-level jobs in public service lies in the nonprofit world. In recent years, nonprofit salaries and benefits for young people have been low, making it difficult, if not at times impossible, for college graduates to accept nonprofit jobs. With the economic recession, moreover, the number of such jobs has decreased as charities have cut their budgets. By comparison, beginning federal-government salaries have been substantially higher and, were it not for the poor reputation of government in the Bush years, would have been much more attractive to graduates seeking public service.
The structure of the proposed academy presents another set of questions and concerns.
The blueprint for the academy states that the institution would foster a campus esprit, culture, and pace of life resembling those of the military academies, complete with compulsory uniforms and class attendance, designed to build discipline, unity, and an ethic of service.
However, West Point, the Naval Academy, and other such institutions are training officers, or leaders, for a narrow line of activity and specialization: how to fight battles and win wars. That is not the case for public service, an immense landscape of government agencies, colleges, religious institutions, international organizations, and other nonprofit groups with their own distinctive needs, missions, objectives, operations, and styles. So why pattern an academy after the military schools that are so different in purpose and process? And why believe that specific training in public service is the way to develop great public servants and civilian leaders?
The academy would be housed within the Department of Homeland Security. It is a curious place for an educational institution that wants to develop independent public servants. Why put it in a department associated with terrorism and national security? Why not the Department of Education? Or, better yet, why not make it independent?
The president, with the advice and consent of the Senate, would appoint the academy’s 15-member board as well as its superintendent. Why should an academic institution have a board of trustees and a superintendent appointed by the president? How would it protect academic freedom?
The proposed admissions policies are even more alarming. Like the military academies, members of Congress would nominate most of the students who attend the U.S. Public Service Academy. The president would nominate 25. Why shouldn’t the academy follow the admissions policies of universities and colleges? Why should they be part of a political process? Why shouldn’t all students be able to apply directly for admission to the academy? The fact that the federal government would pay the full educational cost for students should not serve as an excuse for politics as usual or, even worse, political control.
The costs of the academy are also worrisome, especially given the state of the economy and competing priorities.
Supporters have estimated that the annual cost of operating the academy would be about $205-million. Some experts say the expenditures would be much higher. Moreover, the cost of building a new campus could prove to be a gigantic expenditure.
Plenty of other ideas for promoting public service are probably more efficient. For example, it might be smarter to offer a free medical education to doctors and dentists who agree to serve at least seven years in parts of the country that face severe shortages of such medical professionals. Such a program would produce concrete results, not the ephemeral promise of developing public servants that might be done more effectively by other institutions.
Another approach would be to establish full scholarships at colleges and universities for students interested in public service. Hundreds, if not thousands, of such awards could be available to students on a competitive basis on the condition that the students would be required to serve at least five years in public-service jobs, either in government or with nonprofit organizations. They could go to the colleges of their choice, as long as they agreed to take a certain number of courses focused on subjects related to public service.
Congress could also expand loan-forgiveness programs for students who have spent years in government or nonprofit employment. That approach would favor students from low- or moderate-income backgrounds. Yet another idea might be to provide direct grants to universities and colleges that establish programs stressing public service and leadership development.
Two other concerns cloud the proposed creation of a public-service academy: how graduates will be allocated to employers and the danger of establishing an elite group of public servants. In recent years, both issues have stirred heated debate in France about its exclusive National School of Public Administration.
Critics say the French school has given the plum, prestigious jobs within the government bureaucracy to favored students, especially those who achieved the highest academic scores. Politics may have been a factor, too, according to press reports.
Would the proposed American academy have similar problems in distributing government jobs to its graduates? What placement criteria would the academy adopt?
The National School of Public Administration has also been accused of fostering elitism and arrogance among the ranks of public servants. Its alumni include a number of powerful and influential people in France. Would an American college be similarly affected by a cult of arrogance and elitism? There are aspects of the proposed curriculum that could foster such attitudes.
While the momentum for a public-service academy is building, the concept leaves too many questions unanswered. It is time for a serious public debate about the pros and cons of such an academy. People who support public service but know little about how best to entice more public servants should think twice before pushing Congress to buy this idea.
Pablo Eisenberg, a regular contributor to these pages, is a senior fellow at the Georgetown Public Policy Institute. His e-mail address is pseisenberg@verizon.net.
Comments
Commenting is closed for this article.
Previous: Many Foundations Have Lost Almost One-Third of Their Assets, Chronicle Study Finds
Next: Gates Foundation Assets Declined 20% in 2008
Mr. Eisenberg seems to have a particularly sharp axe to grind against this Public Service Academy. His attacks miss the larger point, however. This kind of institution would send a powerful and important message about the role that public sector work plays in making our country work. No other institution could do that — certainly not Mr. Eisenberg’s Georgetown (isn’t it ironic that a fellow who teaches at a $50,000 a year school should complain about “elitism”?).
He is right about one thing — there should be more attention paid to this idea. When people look into it, they may find that Mr. Eisenberg is way, way off base.
— E Pluribus Unum Jan 22, 04:54 PM #
Mr. Eisenberg is somewhat correct—the notion of public service has swept the country. But the question is, will it last? Establishing this national institution (as the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, and Teach for America before it), would ensure that public service remains on the radar no matter what the politic climate brings.
Additionally, Mr. Eisenberg should look closer at the Congressional nomination system’s purpose in admissions. The military academies are more difficult to get into than ivy league schools. When the Public Service Academy also reaches that prestige, it too will be inundated with applicants. There needs to be a system in place to make it as efficient as possible. That’s the whole idea—making government work better for its citizens!
— mm&s Jan 22, 05:10 PM #
If one really wants to encourage civil service as a career, incentivize it. Rather than pour money into a new academy, expand debt forgiveness programs, and make pay more on-par with the private sector.
— Jim Jan 23, 11:53 AM #
I agree with Eisenberg’s concept of doctors, dentists, medical professionals getting free education with 7 years service in ruralcommunities. With not enough general practioners and too many specialists, the rural medical system may collapse.
— Tom Jan 23, 02:43 PM #
I believe the sentiment behind this proposal is positive and I support that energy. However, the strength in our democrocy is that our leaders can come from anywhere and bring diverse thoughts and opinions to the table. Federally trained civic leaders sounds good under Obama, but would we have felt the same under a Bush administration? Lock-step training is important for the military but not for positions that require creativity, diversity, and innovation. I also question whether they could still be civil servants if trained by the U.S. government – and quite frankly, I don’t want to ever have to question that.
— Brandon Jan 23, 03:39 PM #
I agree with Mr. Eisenberg in nearly all respects. In addition, undergraduate education should not be primarily vocational. The purpose should be preparation for life and learning. The world changes too rapidly these days for vocational training to be sufficient. Imagine a bureaucracy staffed with people whose undergraduate education trained them to be bureaucrats. Egad!
— Charlotte Jan 23, 03:54 PM #
Eisenberg might have a point about the cost of creating a new institution. In the interest of efficiency, it might be a better use of the money to support existing university programs focused on public service and their students. It reminds me of people who create new nonprofits without researching what programs already exist. A better method is often to develop collaborative programs, leading to greater efficiency without sacrificing impact. I think the same applies here.
We’re nonprofit professionals – we know how to stretch a dollar. I’m sure we could find ways to “send a message” about public service work for far less money, especially when facing such deficits.
— Sonia Singh Jan 23, 03:55 PM #
Mr. Eisenberg’s opinion piece starts well—asking in its title if our nation needs “a Public-Service Academy?” And he can be complimented for ending with a call for more “public debate about the pros and cons of such an academy.” Unfortunatley, the space between title and ending is replete with misguided, misinformed,or misleading statements. Ironically, they serve to reinforce Eisenberg’s contention that a clear grasp of the concept has yet to reach everyone interested in it. He apparently missed the very purpose of the proposed academy. It is not “to entice more public servants,” nor is it an idea “for promoting public service.” Rather, it will be a national institution focused on developing life-time leaders to strengthen the arena of public service in America. The answer to the question posed in the title is a resounding “yes!” Yes, if sustaining a flow of competent and dedicated leaders for our public sector is an imperative for our country in the 21st century. Yes, if the development of a stream of leaders of character is necessary for the long term health of public service in America. Yes, if our nation needs an unwavering source of selfless servants in good times and bad. So, let the debate move forward, but let it start with an understanding of the fundamental reason for the establishment of a public service academy.
— Dave Palmer, West Point Superintendent 1986-91 Jan 23, 04:59 PM #
Why spend funds to build something new that will serve to distract from filling immediate infrastructure needs (i.e., adequate resources, recruitment, screening, quality supervision, and even just work space) to engage the increased number of volunteers and potential paid employees who want to make a difference at existing charities?
None of Obama’s service initiatives directly seems to build or increase this key infrastructure which greatly influences the quality of the experiences and impact of this additional influx of people.
These people should feel needed and able to make a difference, which cannot take place if the nonprofit sector cannot welcome them into good placements AND retain them with good management so they feel that their time is being used well.
The nonprofit sector has not been about pay level for most of us; instead, it has been about making a real difference. The latter is attracting new people.
— Lori Jan 24, 01:19 PM #
I am a supporter of the US Public Service Academy. I spent ten years promoting the public service mission of higher education as Executive
Director of Campus Compact (1997-2006). I saw great strides being made in educating students to their civic responsibilities and providing
opportunities for students to serve in non profit agencies. What I rarely saw was knowledge of, and respect for, GOVERNMENT service.
Prior to my time at Campus Compact, I had a thirty year career in housing and planning, and worked for federal, state and local government, as well as non profit agencies. During that time I saw a
growing antagonism toward government. Even US Presidents ran on
“government is the problem” platforms, and in spite of innovative
programs to “reinvent” government, I saw esteem for the work plummet.
When I talk with college students today they have no idea that they
could get jobs in state budget offices which would be challenging and
very responsible. They know little of federal agencies (most of whom
have few resources to recruit, or of Mayor’s office internships (such
as NY and Chicago) and I would say most of their faculty know even less.
We need an institution which will help to restore esteem to government
work. We need an institution that will give students the skills,
abilities and attitudes essential to deliver government services
effectively, equitably and efficiently. Teach for America is great,
but it is a drop in the bucket of public education. We need
administrators who know how to change systems to meet the needs of
many. We need administrators deeply grounded in the roots of our
democracy, the interplay of the government and those it serves,
including its regulatory and partnership roles with non profits, the
private sector and citizens.
We need people dedicated to preserving the public’s interest, often in
the face of very powerful private forces.
There is both an art and science to being a good public servant and
our governments need our “best and brightest”. The US Public Service
Academy can be a beacon to lead the way in providing the very best
preparation for this important work.
— elizabeth hollander Jan 24, 07:21 PM #
So young people aren’t going into civil service because the government image is tarnished? After completing two years of public service as an AmeriCorps VISTA Volunteer, I tried applying for federal government positions, only to realize two things. 1. Attractive government jobs are extremely competitive. 2. The education and experience requirements to qualify for anything above a mail room job are very steep. In addition, the applications are incredibly confusing to follow, and the process is long, drawn out and impersonal. We have thousands of young folks doing valuable public service every year, many that would love a path into civil service. But it is not there for anyone with only an undergraduate degree. Maybe that would be different for someone who graduated from a national academy, but I don’t see how that college education wouldn’t be as attractive as my “hands on” experience working with disadvantaged communities. With an undergraduate degree and two+ years of full-time volunteer work in nonprofit world I was looking at mail room type jobs as what I qualified for.
I would rethink the application process, federal jobs website, qualification standards, push out the dead weight personnel currently limping towards their 25 year pension, and actively recruit VISTAs, Peace Corps and other national service program graduates.
— Dave Jan 26, 02:38 PM #
I see two aspects of the Public Service Academy as unique contributions. The institution would serve as a symbol that our government sees public service as an important and vital way to give back to our country, and this symbol will inspire more people than the students who attend it. Also, Academy students would receive a liberal arts education surrounded by a community of peers interesting in serving the nation (albeit in many different capacities). These two outcomes—a symbolic institution that inspires others and a pervasive culture of service on a campus—are impossible to replicate with any other programs or a scholarship initiative.
— doctoralstudent Jan 29, 02:07 PM #