The Education candidate

[Chiwas]

At last something else than just economy or terrorism.

The last paragraph is great.



Who's the Education President?
Bush and Kerry stress their differences on education, but there are a lot of similarities in their plans
By PERRY BACON JR.

Thursday, Aug. 05, 2004
When the schedule of prime-time speakers for the Republican National Convention was announced two months ago, it was full of the some of the party's top stars, many of them moderates: Arnold Schwarzenegger, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani. But it also included an obscure Cabinet member who earlier this year referred to a teachers' group as a "terrorist organization." Education Secretary Rod Paige was surely picked to in part because the party wants to show its diversity. But Paige, who is black, also highlights what the Bush campaign feels is one of the highlights of the President’s domestic record: No Child Left Behind, the education law Bush signed that requires mandatory testing for students in grades 3-8 and allows kids to transfer from schools that consistently do poorly on those tests.

Americans traditionally trust Democrats will improve education much more than Republicans, but in 2000, after Bush spent much of his campaign talking about his "compassionate conservatism" and his education reforms as governor in Texas, Americans ranked he and Al Gore as equal on the issue. This year, with teachers and some parents angry about how No Child Left Behind has played out, John Kerry has an opportunity regain some ground with voters concerned about education.

Education is less of an issue than in 2000, but in a tight campaign, it could make a difference at the margins. "The big issues of the campaign, terrorism, Iraq and the economy are crowding out education," says Tom Loveless, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. Still, Bush and Kerry talk about education constantly. Bush officials see No Child Left Behind as a way to both appeal to moderate voters and show the results Bush has delivered. They also see it as another opportunity to portray Kerry as a waffler. When it was signed two years ago, the Massachusetts Senator embraced the law and even bragged that it came from ideas he had suggested much earlier. But during the campaign he has labeled it as a "one size fits all" testing model that sometimes turn schools into "testing factories." "It's been interesting watching Senator Kerry's evolution on this," said a Bush campaign official. "He voted in support of the bill, then came out attacking, now has come around as of late. We're not sure if he's going to flip the other way." And they say Kerry's' vague complaints about the law suggest he would weaken the high standards it imposes on schools. Those are popular with the public, which wants to see the billions spent on education result in improved schools.

The consistent response Kerry has given, along with a chorus of Democrats like Bill Clinton as well as teacher groups and some school districts, is that Bush hasn't provided enough money for his reforms. On the stump, Kerry attacks Bush "for breaking his promise" on education. The facts on this work for both sides. Bush has drastically increased education funding from about $24 billion in 2001 to $36 billion this year, but at the same time, with many states suffering from budget deficits, school districts are still short of the money they need. And a General Accounting Office study last year found that states didn't have enough money to implement the type of tests many of them wanted to under No Child Left Behind. Kerry has called for $200 billion in funding on education paid for by rolling back Bush's tax cuts on those making over $200,000 A year. Kerry's campaign has depicted the choice in the election as between taxes for the rich and education for all children.

So far, the Democratic attacks appear to be working. Opposition to No Child Left Behind grew from 8% in 2003 to 28% percent this year, while support dropped slightly from 40% to 36%, according to a poll by the Public Education Network. (A large number of those polled didn’t know enough about the law to respond) A recent Washington Post/ABC News poll showed Kerry leading Bush on which candidate would do a better job on education 52% to 39% among voters.

Looking to reestablish his standing on the issue, Bush aides say their candidate will start talking even more about education. After focusing on elementary and middle schools in his first term, if reelected Bush would look to increase accountability in high schools, but also add in more funding for college-level courses in high school and improved reading, math and science programs. Kerry, for his part, has sought to brandish his centrist credentials on this issue, calling for increased pay for new teachers but requiring them to pass rigorous tests and making them eligible for some bonuses only if their kids show learning improvement, a reform Democratic-leaning teachers' unions haven't traditionally embraced. He also proposes to take away drivers' licenses for kids who drop out of school.

Still, on education the differences between a Bush and Kerry Administration would likely be small. Both candidates support holding schools to federal standards in exchange for increased funding. Kerry would offer billions more in federal dollars for education than Bush and focus more on improving conditions and pay for teachers, as Democrats typically do. His campaign has been vague on the issue, but he would likely look for ways to define fewer schools as "failing," one of the accountability measures Bush embraces. Bush, befitting the Republicans views on education, would hold firm on labeling schools that are failing and instead focus on allowing kids to leave low-performing schools and go to charter schools or use vouchers to attend private schools.

But for the campaign, look for the pair to play up their differences. Polls show the public wants both increased accountability and more funding, so Kerry will say Bush wants accountability without funding, while Bush will say Kerry wants to waste taxpayer dollars on schools without accountability. The best man in the argument will have a strong standing on an issue many voters consider crucial.

[dude1394]

So bush raises federal spending from 24Billion to 36billion and the argument that 33% increase is not enough. Pretty amazing. He goes against his constituency and it gets him nothing, less than nothing in fact.