Definite Choices on Schools

Fixing the public schools leads political opinion polls, a fact not missed by either major presidential candidate. Both Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore propose strong education agendas. What the next president needs to do most of all is change the narrow way in which Americans think about education.

Local control of schools is a 350-year-old tradition dating back to Colonial America, and no one wants the federal government to run local schools. However, educational standards should be set in the national interest. American competitiveness depends on student achievement, and that should not depend on the state or city or school district where a child happens to live.

The federal government currently funds only 7% of spending on public education. That figure, under either a Gore administration or a Bush administration, is expected to rise. But more important, the next president must use his bully pulpit to raise expectations of all U.S. students. This must become an ongoing campaign that extends far beyond November.

Improving education is a central campaign theme for both Vice President Gore and Texas Gov. Bush, and the debate on their plans is good for the nation.

Gore’s plan is focused on a popular idea, and one that’s clearly correct: Teachers need more support. He wants Washington to fund the recruitment of 1 million teachers in 10 years, subsidize raises, pay for teacher training and underwrite bonuses.

While Gore mouths reformist education ideas, there’s nothing in his record to indicate that he would stand up to education unions and take some of the bold steps that strongly encourage change. Of course everyone wants qualified teachers in the classrooms. But, contrary to what Gore suggests, certification alone doesn’t make for a great teacher and lack of certification doesn’t automatically confer incompetence on a teacher.

His “cradle-to-grave” education plan promises something for just about everybody: universal preschool, smaller classes, more charter schools, new school construction, more teachers and more college tuition aid. The cost would be an astonishing $115 billion, which would be financed from federal budget surpluses that may not materialize at the predicted levels.

Bush has a more real-world feel for education. He takes issue with some silly pet issues of extreme elements in his party, such as the notion that the federal government should have no role in education. He emphasizes accountability, higher expectations, more rigorous academic standards and closing the achievement gap between low-income and more affluent students. On this issue, he is largely his own man.

Bush’s reading plan targets poor children and their teachers in the primary grades. His mandatory state testing proposal for grades three to eight is better than Gore’s proposal for voluntary tests or mandatory national student-sampling tests limited to two grades starting in 2004. Students should be tested yearly on exams tied to standards, like the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills, to give teachers and administrators the information they need to ensure that more children make the grade.

Like most governors, including California Gov. Gray Davis, Bush focuses in his home state on demanding education reforms. Such reforms are paying off in Texas with rising test scores and a significant increase in the number of students mastering the basics in reading and math. Poor children, black children, Latino children, children who are learning English and children who are the lowest achievers in their schools are making progress.

Under the Bush plan, high-poverty schools that fail to improve for three years would forfeit federal aid known as Title I. That money would be given to parents in the form of vouchers. The approach assumes that losing money would motivate poor schools to improve and that just $1,500 would allow poor parents to transfer a child to a better public school or put him or her in private or parochial school. How would Bush demand accountability from those schools? It’s a part of his education plan that doesn’t seem thought through.

All told, however, Bush’s leadership quotient in education is more impressive than that of Gore. The Texas Republican has been more willing to take the risks necessary to build bridges across what used to be enemy lines. His tenure as an “education governor” shows him to have promise as a turnaround leader. On education, Bush’s determined focus, even if imperfect on some of the specifics, is preferable to Gore’s “something for everyone” promises.