Bush vs. Clinton: Clear Differences on Public Education : President’s entrepreneurial instincts offer a contrast with governor’s long-held views that government can and must do better

Education in the United States has long been considered the key to upward mobility, to opportunity, to a life better than the one available to the great-grandparent who was an immigrant or child of a slave.

But public education is taking terrible knocks this year, both from the budget knife and in the perception that schools are not doing the job. There’s too little questioning about whether parents are doing the job, and about all that Americans expect the schools to do: not only teach but sometimes virtually to raise children who do not have the proper family guidance and support.

Education Is a Key Factor in the ‘Family Values’ Theme

In this presidential election year “family values” has become a campaign theme. Surely no single issue in the campaign touches values more directly than education. Education affects the young, and thereby the family. Education involves religion when churches run schools and ask for tax support, or when prayer is permitted or banned in the public schools. It involves morality when such matters as birth control and homosexuality are either condemned or handled with neutrality and, by implication, condoned. Education involves national identity when ethnic and cultural diversity is encouraged or, as “political correctness,” exaggerated.

While Vice President Dan Quayle’s feud with the entertainment industry may have received the lion’s share of the family-values publicity, in his first “Murphy Brown” speech he included “faculty lounges” on his list of places where American values are allegedly mocked. Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander, an admired Republican moderate and past president of the University of Tennessee, made the same association even more forcefully in his speech to the Republican Convention: “Elements within the media, the entertainment industry, academia, and the Democrat Party are waging a guerrilla war against American values. They deny personal responsibility, disparage traditional morality, denigrate religion, and promote hostility toward the family’s way of life.”

Because 93.6% of all tax money spent on education in the United States is spent at the state and local levels, a case can be made that the President’s principal role in education is that of symbolic moral leader. In that connection, the GOP platform positions are clear: support for a constitutional amendment permitting voluntary prayer in the public schools and opposition to “programs in public schools that provide birth control or abortion services or referrals.”

The corresponding Democratic positions are somewhat less clear because the Democrats have chosen not to portray the country as engaged in Secretary Alexander’s “guerrilla war.” The Democrats are generally opposed to the school-prayer amendment and tolerant of the distribution of information (if not “services or referrals”) on birth control on campuses.

Still in the realm of symbols rather than dollars, and stressing--as both platforms generally do--elementary and secondary education, Alexander in his convention speech made much of the six education goals set for the nation by President Bush’s “America 2000” program. These goals were established at the 1989 “Education Summit,” a meeting of the nation’s governors called by Bush. Gov. Bill Clinton chaired the committee that drafted the goals, and the Democrats officially support them (though not as “America 2000”). In goals, there is, even rhetorically, little difference between the two.

Few Substantial Quarrels in Approaches to Higher Education

Even when the talk turns to dollars, there are few sharp policy differences between Bush and Clinton in their proposals for higher education. Congress has just passed what Sen. Edward M. Kennedy calls “the most significant improvement” to the Higher Education Act since it was enacted in 1965, and Bush is expected to sign the bill, which would increase the amount of some college aid grants and make them available to more students.

Both candidates have other ideas for funding higher education. Clinton proposes a National Service Trust Fund; borrowers would repay their school loans either as a percentage of their incomes over time or, preferably, through community service.

Bush proposes allowing student loan interest as a tax deduction and permitting parents to spend their retirement money (IRAs) on their children’s college education. But it is not hard to imagine either candidate supporting the other’s ideas.

The ‘Choice’ Controversy Holds Long-Term Implications

Even regarding dollars spent on younger students, the difference between the two candidates is one of degree. Clinton promises to more completely fund the well-regarded preschool program Head Start, and Bush has increased Head Start funding substantially.

The disagreement of potentially greatest long-term consequence between the Republicans and the Democrats is that over “choice” in education. Choice means many things to many people; generally it means having parents choose which schools their children will attend and making schools more flexible and accountable. That concept is widely accepted. The controversy primarily focuses on whether choice should include private schools.

The debate about choice stems from the national anxiety about the preparedness of the nation’s future leaders and work force, a worry spurred by year after year of tests that show U.S. students lagging in key disciplines behind students of other industrialized nations. Are radical institutional changes in order here?

Bush Emphasizes Market Approach to Education Problems

Bush says yes. In his proposal, different educational providers would offer the educational consumer a choice of products, and, in the end, the best product--a better product than the United States now produces--would win. The money which the government now spends as the owner/operator of schools would go instead to parents, who would spend it where they saw fit. In Bush’s proposed “GI Bill for Children,” middle- and low-income families in a few selected school districts around the country would receive $1,000 scholarships that they could take to private (including religiously affiliated) as well as public schools.

Clinton’s Plan Would Build on the Existing Structure

Clinton, as any governor might, has broader direct experience with education than the President. He would improve the educational system we have and rely less on private enterprise. With the backing of the National Education Assn. and other teachers groups (which many education critics regard as obstacles to progress), Clinton is less inclined than Bush to speak of “revolution” or to call for “break-the-mold schools.” The governor has sponsored a number of measures that have demonstrably improved public education in Arkansas, including revoking the driver’s licenses of teen-agers who drop out of high school for no adequate reason, testing teachers and reducing class size. With regard to choice, Clinton’s support goes only as far as permitting public school students to choose among public schools. He opposes shifting public tax dollars to private schools.

Good elementary and secondary education is still the key building block of success, and thus must above all else be fair and accessible to all. The choice issue should continue to be discussed, but only as one of many ingredients of broad-based education reform.

Allowing poor families the choice to send their children to any school is no panacea if families cannot afford after-school child care or transportation costs or if public libraries have shut their doors.

Bush emphasizes that competition is what’s needed to rejuvenate schools; he says major changes must be embraced by education organizations and unions, many of which resist change just because it’s difficult or inconvenient.

Clinton believes that something as fundamental as an elementary and secondary education is something that, like public safety, ought not to be left to entrepreneurs; government in these cases has an overriding legitimate role and duty.

When it comes to improving education, Bush would rely heavily on market forces to come up with a different system. Although he wants national standards, in the end the federal government’s role would continue to be minor.

Clinton takes a more activist approach. As a governor, he has substantial education experience and has demonstrated scholastic gains in Arkansas. Clinton believes that the school system cannot be fixed without the active and enthusiastic participation of both government and private enterprise working with educators and parents.