Bush Shows Flexibility in Education Plan

President Bush’s chief domestic policy advisor signaled Wednesday that the White House is moving toward concessions on its education plan to meet concerns among both Democrats and Republicans in Congress.

For Democrats, the White House acknowledged it would seek an increase in spending for disadvantaged children--already the largest federal education program. And it would show leeway in the plan to let children in failing schools use federal money to seek remedial help away from their neighborhood schools.

For conservatives, the administration indicated a willingness to consider alternatives to the controversial use of a uniform national education test to determine whether states are properly checking students’ progress each year.

The emerging positions were disclosed by Margaret L. LaMontagne, Bush’s domestic policy chief, in an interview with The Times’ Washington bureau. They suggested a closing of the gap between the president and the diverse political constituency that is focused on one of his central issues.

LaMontagne also suggested federal spending on education could grow in a number of areas--for school construction, special education programs and tutoring.

A week ago, a bipartisan Senate group began considering the outlines of a plan intended to overcome the impasse over letting parents use federal support to help pay for private school tuition--the heart of a voucher proposal. That plan would let students in failing public schools transfer with greater freedom to other public schools. It also would give their parents help in paying for after-school tutoring and other educational assistance.

Bush proposed to pay for the vouchers by diverting federal aid from public schools. An alternative Democratic plan would instead provide additional money to pay for after-school services. On Wednesday, for the first time publicly, LaMontagne signaled that the administration would accept the Democrats’ approach--which also has stirred interest among Republicans in Congress.

Now, LaMontagne said, “there’s some consensus emerging around this whole notion . . . for a new pot of money.

“There would be a pot of money so that resources for failing kids could get ‘voucherized,’ if you will, and they could go off for several mornings to a tutor” or to receive other help, LaMontagne said.

Asked whether Bush, who already had begun showing a willingness to compromise on vouchers, would support such a solution, she said: “Well, I think it’s a great start . . . certainly that’s a step in the right direction.”

Several times, however, she said the amount of money that would be available--whether for tutoring, school construction or for disadvantaged students, known as Title I programs--remained uncertain.

The subject of testing has been particularly thorny. It is at the root of what Bush and others portray as the need to hold the entire education system--students, teachers, and administrators--responsible for progress. Under Bush’s plan, students would be tested in grades three through eight to determine if they are making proper progress in math and reading.

Conservatives have objected to the idea that the states’ tests would then be measured by a single, specific national test--known as the National Assessment of Education Progress. The exam is given to a sample of students to determine whether the state tests they take accurately measure their work.

Objections are built around concern that the national assessment could lead to establishment of a national curriculum, and the federal government then would have too great a hand in local schools.

Under the plan, which Bush presented during the first week of his presidency, distribution of federal funds would depend on students’ progress. The national test, checking on the states, is intended to get around concerns that the states would have an incentive to administer easy tests.

If the quality of the students’ work is not confirmed by the national test, the federal funding could be restricted.

LaMontagne suggested the White House may be backing off from using the test as a national standard. “If it makes conservatives happy to do some other kind of test . . . I think there are ways to get there,” she said.

*

Times staff writer Ronald Brownstein contributed to this story.