1/25/01 12:05 p.m.
W.’s A+ Plan
The right thing to do.

By Jeanne Allen, president, Center for Education Reform

eorge W.'s education plan was rolled out to a veritable who's who of education reformers Tuesday. With the new secretary of education, Rod Paige, at his side, President Bush talked forcefully of the need for the federal government finally to become accountable for the money it spends. Throughout the lengthy proposal, from early childhood programs all the way up, the theme and message are clear: There can be no accountability without consequences, and consequences require some action that's been missing from the past eight years of Department of Education rule.

Let's start with the fact that in his remarks, President Bush acknowledged clearly that American education is a mess. He bemoaned the "scandal of illiteracy" and schools "where nearly 70 percent of 4th graders are unable to read," which is a sea change from the rhetoric of the past eight years were blips on the screen in test scores were proclaimed as "turning the corner" and "30 year gains." Since the president and his education secretary acknowledge that there is indeed a major problem, one would expect that their proposals would seek to solve the problem, rather than adding more money to the status quo and allowing the unions and school boards to run business as usual.

And to his credit, Bush's education plan is thorough, demanding, reasonable, and quite respectful of the role of states and communities. It starts with the premise that money from Washington should be tied to academic performance. From schools to states, the plan sets out requirements for measurements and assessments to diagnose student, school, and district progress. Rather than take a Goals 2000-heavy-handed approach, the Bush plan allows states to select a test to use and those tests will be gauged against the highly regarded National Assessment of Education Progress to make sure states are looking for rigor and not playing numbers games. Failing schools will get assistance first, and then if there is no improvement, their children will be permitted to take the Title 1 funds that Washington spends to allegedly educate them to their own choice of school or tutoring service.

While only a small but important part of the plan, this is the magnet for the media craze that has the nation thinking that the president just introduced a major voucher plan. Let's look at the facts. Schools get millions of dollars in federal aid in Title 1 funding that by the program's own internal evaluation has found no progress. Bush is taking what some consider a tepid approach and saying those schools can continue for only three more years, and after that, if the scores are still abysmal, those kids get to be treated to the kinds of services that middle- and higher-class parents already take part in to make sure Johnny gets into the best schools. If it's a voucher, or grant, or scholarship, or conduit, or piece of paper, or plain old financial aid, what does it matter? If money is supposed to help kids and it doesn't, move it over to someone who will make it work.

Because it's so clearly the right thing to do, it's hard to believe that there will be a major fight in Congress over this provision. The Senate's education committee has long been afraid to buck the blob, so it's likely that this will be a lightening rod for them. People like Washington senator Patty Murray will cry for more classroom reduction dollars, as if there's any evidence to suggest that such a program has done anything to eradicate "the scandal of illiteracy."

The rest of the package is as noteworthy, and pushes money and decision-making more to the states. Phonics fans should cheer the emphasis on research-proven reading instruction. Messy and bureaucratic programs will be consolidated to allow more flexibility outside of Washington. There's a focus on charter schools, rewards for states that narrow the achievement gap, and a reduction of administrative funds for states that fail to meet their own standards. And there's even a special focus on promoting parental choice, to allow more exploration of programs that exist and information to parents about the wide array of options. Finally, there is a reversal of top-down focus on teacher hiring with a focus instead on allowing states to use federal money as they see fit to pursue programs, which could include efforts to break the certification log jam and to tie teacher pay to performance.

The response? The usual suspects of course were out in droves. The unions tried to temper their clear rejection of all that is not Gore and said they were heartened by some of the package but wary of vouchers, possible shifting of money, among other things. But that's to be the case, and whether the olive branch to Capital Hill succeeds will depend largely on whether or not the Bush education agenda is pushed as a package that must remain intact.

The Democrats, headed by Delaware's Tom Carper and Connecticut's Joe Lieberman have a package with similar themes but not as heavy on the accountability and missing the escape valve for children in failing schools. Obviously they want their package to succeed for not only good intentions, but for the sake of an early political victory. After all, education is supposed to be a Democratic issue, but if he sticks to his guns, this new president may finally break the perception that Republicans can't do education well. And that may be the crux of the deliberations over the next few weeks. Stay tuned.