04-29-2000

EDUCATION: Elementary Politics

Sue Meier symbolizes the electoral battleground over the education issue.
Although she is content with the education her three children receive from
the local public schools, Meier, who lives in the Chicago suburb of
Naperville and considers herself a political independent, worries about
problems in other public schools across the country. Among her chief
concerns: bad teachers, a lack of focus on "the basics," low
student achievement, insufficient early-childhood education, too much
emphasis on test scores, and not enough parental involvement in the
schools.


Polls show that education has topped the public's list of concerns for the
past year. But so far, Washington's response to voters' demands for reform
has been partisan bickering and little policy change. In early May, the
Senate plans to take up the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which
guides a third of the Education Department's budget and shapes much of the
federal role in education. But many lawmakers on Capitol Hill are saying
that this year, again, education is more likely to become a political
pinball than a policy-making topic.


These predictions don't shock Meier, who expects as much from politicians.
"I know in the political arena they do talk about education because
it attracts everybody's attention," said Meier, who works as a
substitute teacher. "But sometimes I don't think they know what
they're talking about, because they're not teachers."


Ironically, members of Congress, Hill staffers, and policy wonks agree
that the heightened public interest in education, especially in an
election year, is making it less likely, not more so, that Washington will
respond to voters' education concerns. Several reasons explain
Washington's paralysis. Important among them are the true ideological
differences between the parties about how involved the federal government
should be in education, differences that are amplified because lawmakers
perceive education to be both a top voter concern and a political
opportunity. Each party is also making election-year calculations about
education policy in an effort to claim the White House and the House of
Representatives. Combine those factors with a dash of lawmaker ego, and
the result is a roadblock to reform.


If the Elementary and Secondary Education Act does not pass this year, it
would be the first time since its passage in 1965 that it was not been
reauthorized on time. The practical impact of a failure to reauthorize
would be minimal because the current programs would still be funded
through the appropriations process. But federal education reform would be
stalled for at least another year.


"American voters should say, `A pox on both your houses.' The
American voters should be upset that they're being taken for a big fat
ride," said Amy Wilkins, a principal partner at the Education Trust,
an advocacy group for poor and minority students that is considered by
both parties to be an honest broker on the issue. "Both sides will go
home and say `I wanted to bring you an education bill; it's the other
side.' It's the big game of pass the buck."


Some lawmakers echoed Wilkins' concerns-almost verbatim. "When I go
home, we run the risk of people just throwing up their hands and saying,
`A pox on all your houses, all you do is worry about the next election.
Nothing gets done.' And as a result, what happens? No one votes
anymore," said Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., who is co-sponsoring an
education bill with Sen. Joseph I. Lieberman, D-Conn., that they hope will
be a vehicle for compromise. "People are checking out of our
democracy in droves, and that is a troubling sign as well. What's the
ultimate answer to that? I think to show real progress on things that
people care about, and they show they care about education more than
anything else."


Sue Meier has not checked out of American democracy, but she has checked
out of American idealism. "Of all the elections I've been through
talking about education, I've never seen it filter down to the school
level," said Meier, 41. "It might bother me if my children lived
somewhere else. By the time you hit 40, you understand what to listen to
and you understand the fluffy stuff. When I was younger, I believed
everything they said they were going to do. Now I think they just say what
they need to say to get elected."


A Tale of Two Education Agendas


Although a laundry list of issues-everything from technology to gun
control-will be debated when the Senate takes up the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, the crux of the policy debate will be ideology.
Republicans want to release states and local school districts from federal
requirements in an effort to spur greater innovation in education reform,
while Democrats say that a larger federal role, coupled with programs to
address specific problems in education, is the best way to drive
reform.


Republicans argue that recent federal investments in education have not
produced desired results, so an overhaul is necessary. They want to make
federal programs more "child-centered" by giving parents a
greater say in how federal money is spent on their children. And
Republicans want to give local school districts more control over the
money they receive from Washington. "There are very deep
philosophical differences here," said Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who is
taking up the Republican cause in the Senate. "If you send the money
back to the states and require them to account for achievement by kids,
[and] give them flexibility but make them accountable for kids' actually
learning within a defined area of activities, you get better
results."


Worried that states and local governments do not properly serve
disadvantaged children, Democrats counter that the federal government
should identify key priorities for federal investment and establish
programs that address those priorities. "They want to hand over the
money to the states and schools with virtually no responsibility, no
accountability for how it's spent," Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.,
said of the Republicans. "You've got to remember that 93 percent of
the support for schools comes from state and local sources. With the 7
percent that we provide, I just want to make sure that specific goals are
addressed and that clear-cut objectives are achieved."


To begin untying federal strings, Gregg is offering his "Straight
A's" proposal. It would be a 15-state pilot program that puts 14
federal education programs into one pot and hands it to each state in
exchange for a contract that spells out to what degree student achievement
would be improved. Democrats argue that the contract would not ensure the
money will translate into higher student performance, and they worry that
some state laws would allow the money to be used for private-school
vouchers.


Gregg is also proposing a "portability" program, which would
begin as a 10-state pilot that would allow federal money for disadvantaged
children to go to each low-income child rather than to schools that have a
high proportion of low-income students. Democrats charge that this
proposal would also lead to private-school vouchers. In addition to
Gregg's proposals, Republican teacher-quality legislation would eliminate
the President's $2 billion program to hire more teachers and reduce
classroom size. Instead, their legislation would make class-size reduction
one of several options for which schools could use federal funds.


The Democrats have translated their ideology into programs addressing
specific problems. They tried unsuccessfully in the Senate Health,
Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee and will try again on the Senate
floor to authorize President Clinton's class-size reduction program, as
well as a separate teacher-quality proposal. They are also pushing the
President's initiative on school construction, which would provide $1.3
billion to help rebuild run-down schools, $1 billion for after-school
programs for disadvantaged children, and $150 million for new technology
programs aimed at closing the "digital divide." Republicans
contend that these programs are not a federal responsibility, are too
prescriptive, and focus more on inputs than results.


In the House, Republican leaders decided to break up the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act into four bills. Last year the House passed the
first three measures, which addressed teacher quality, educating
disadvantaged children, and the Straight A's proposal. In April, the House
Education and the Workforce Committee approved the fourth piece-a catchall
bill that rolled several education programs into a block grant. The panel
rejected efforts to include the President's programs for class-size
reduction and school construction as freestanding programs.


For those hoping for bipartisan cooperation, the committee debate was not
encouraging. A debate over school construction dissolved into
finger-pointing over which party was responsible for the savings-and-loan
scandals in the 1980s. It is unclear if and when this last education bill
will make it to the House floor.


Political Education


The backdrop to the ideological debate is Election 2000-both the
presidential campaign and the struggle for control of the House of
Representatives. Election years promote either cooperation or
confrontation, and with the races for the White House and the House too
close to call, both parties have opted for the latter. The result has been
over-my-dead-body statements about class-size reduction and Straight A's
and indecision about the political benefits of passing a bill this year.
"Given that this is the No. 1 or No. 2 issue [for voters], and we
have a Republican who is getting a lot of good press on education, it's
unclear if both sides want a bill," said one Senate Republican
aide.


Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are increasingly pessimistic about
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act's prospects this year. "My
sense right now, to be very honest, is that we'll probably end up with a
political confrontation rather than an agreed-to bill," said Gregg.
Democrats are also signaling an impasse. "If the Republicans insist
on block grants, which are nothing more than a blank check, President
Clinton will be right to veto any bill," said Kennedy, who has taken
up the Democratic mantle. "If we don't reach an agreement, we would
probably just continue the funding, have an election, and await the new
Administration."


Part of the legislative stalemate can be attributed to the presidential
polls. Because Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore are
running neck and neck in horserace polls, as well as in ones that ask
voters which one would do a better job on education issues, neither
Democrats nor Republicans believe they need to make concessions.
"Bush was leading a lot more last June, and Democrats had more of an
interest in passing a bill," said an aide to a Republican Senator.
"If Gore surged ahead, it's possible that we [Republicans] would push
a bill more."


Republicans want to look strong on education without giving up too much to
the Democrats, and especially the President. "We don't want to vote
for class size both for policy and political reasons," said a Senate
Republican staffer. "Certainly that's a fall-on-the-sword issue for
Clinton."


The Democrats, confident that their proposals poll well, do not want to
hand Republicans a victory. They fear losing ground on an issue that has
traditionally been theirs. If gridlock continues, Democrats would blame it
on Republicans' inability to govern. "It's a pretty important
statement about the leadership of the party," said a House Democrat
committee aide.


In fact, both Republicans and Democrats could take comfort in failure to
enact an ESEA bill. "I hate to say both sides win, but neither side
loses if it gets vetoed," said a Senate Republican aide.
"Democrats only want the status quo, which is a very good message for
us.... We'll pitch it as the status quo. They'll hold us up as [for] block
grants and [against] class size."


If Republicans decide to hand the President a bill they know he'll veto,
they will run the risk of getting out-maneuvered by the President. "I
think in a veto, Clinton always wins," said Wilkins of the Education
Trust. "He has always spun it better. He'll call it block grants and
vouchers and the end of Western civilization."


Even some conservatives question a Republican veto strategy. "The
President can easily turn around and say the bill did not have what we
wanted-class size, school construction, after-school [funding]," said
Nina Shokraii Rees, senior education policy analyst at the Heritage
Foundation, which helped develop the Straight A's proposal. "I don't
know that a veto would play to their advantage unless they make a stronger
case in the court of public opinion. Straight A's does have some
interesting themes in it. I just haven't noticed a lot of members talking
about it eloquently."


Still, Democrats warn that their party should be careful about assuming
they can successfully tag Republicans as "do-nothings." Some
argue that having a Republican presidential candidate who talks
confidently about education reform takes the pressure off Hill Republicans
to pass a bill. For their part, Republicans say they'll have an effective
counterattack if Democrats try to label them as do-nothings. "Just as
easily, we can say, if George Bush were in here, he would have signed this
bill," said a Republican staffer.


Wilkins also noted that an element of ego comes into play, which stifles
compromise. "They're not just pursuing an ideological agenda,"
she said. "They're pursuing agendas about who is going to be the
leader on education."


Concerned about their own re-election prospects, members of Congress may
also be forced to cater to their constituent groups more, which could
further block an agreement. Republicans have to keep the governors in
mind, while Democrats have to attend to the teachers' unions. "We're
going to be very actively involved in this," said Diane Shust,
manager of government relations at the National Education Association.
Having already papered the Hill with position statements, Shust said NEA
is prepared to fight hard for Clinton's class-size and school-construction
programs and against Straight A's and portability.


Some Democrats worry that their party has become too beholden to education
groups at the expense of reform, which would make the education issue
vulnerable to a Republican takeover. "They go to the groups and they
say, `What should we do about the education message?' " said a
Democrat close to Capitol Hill who asked not to be named. "It's like
the warden going to the inmates and saying, `What do we do to stop these
escapes?' The groups say you should talk about more money."


Shust said that the NEA supports accountability, but she struggled to
define a set of rewards and sanctions that would be acceptable beyond the
reforms made when the Elementary and Secondary Act was last authorized in
1994. "All of those people who are actually involved in the process,
like teachers, believe that progress is being made," Shust said.
"It just seems to be politicians in an election year who call this
the status quo."


And veteran observers such as Arnold F. Fege, president of Public Advocacy
for Kids, a nonprofit public education advocacy firm, aren't optimistic
about prospects for reform. "My feeling is, we're now going to do
education by piecemeal," he said. "What you do is a poll of the
American public and find out what issue to go for. It's policy by
polling."


Charging Down the Middle


One of the ironic twists in this year's debate is that Republicans and
Democrats aren't that far apart on many education issues. Both sides agree
on the importance of setting standards and measuring results, of improving
the quality of teachers, and of offering parents more choice about where
their children go to school. "They don't know how to deal with an
issue in which both sides are starting to see the same solutions,"
Wilkins said.


Enter Lieberman. He and Bayh are touting their New Democrat proposal as
the ideological "bridge" in education. Their "Three
R's" proposal consolidates federal programs-a top priority for
Republicans-and it boosts by 50 percent the federal investment in
elementary and secondary education for poor children-a chief concern for
Democrats.


The plan would channel all federal money governed by more than 50 programs
in the Elementary and Secondary Act into five performance-based grants
that require states to demonstrate improvement in each of five
areas-educating disadvantaged children, improving teacher quality,
teaching English to non-English-speaking students, expanding public school
choice, and developing "innovative strategies"-or risk losing
administrative money. The performance-based grant for disadvantaged
students would require that 90 percent of students in each school
receiving federal money show "adequate yearly progress" as
defined by state assessments. The teacher-quality component includes the
President's class-size reduction program. In return for improved teacher
quality, the federal government would add $35 billion to the education
budget over five years.


Several Republicans have said Lieberman's bill offers the greatest
potential for compromise. "There's significant merit to what Senator
Lieberman has proposed," said Gregg. "Unfortunately, within his
proposal, in order to mediate some of the people on his side, he has taken
some of the categorical initiatives such as classroom size and buildings,
which would be hard for us to swallow on our side. But he's also taken
ideas that we strongly support-accountability and achievement, child-based
initiatives. If there is a middle ground, his ideas are where it would be
found."


But Lieberman and Bayh face resistance from both ends of the political
spectrum. Thus far, they haven't been able to get any Republicans to sign
on. A bipartisan work group that had planned to put forth an alternative
fell apart last year. And on the Democratic side, Lieberman and Bayh face
opposition from the teachers' unions and their allies, who see the
legislation as a block-grant bill. When asked specifically about the
Lieberman approach, Kennedy chose his words carefully. "Look, the
Vice President will be the principal spokesman for our party in this
election," he said. "We [traditional Democrats] have the better,
more focused approach, building on the important success we have already
had in recent years."


Lieberman defended consolidation, saying that if the categorical programs
are good, the states and local school boards won't get rid of them.
"Some of the critics felt that once you begin to go away from the
categorical grants, you begin to lose your hold on funding,"
Lieberman said. "There are a lot of people both outside of Congress
and inside that feel ownership. I don't mean that too harshly, but they
were part of creating these programs, and they believe in them. Our answer
is, if they're good and they meet the priority needs of the state and
local systems, they will be continued."


The NEA, which has already circulated a letter in the House urging members
not to sign on to a bill similar to Lieberman's (which has not been
introduced yet), is concerned with the leeway Lieberman's approach would
give charter schools in the hiring of teachers without credentials and
what Shust called "overly prescriptive" accountability
mechanisms. "Where did they pull this 90 percent from? Where is the
data?" Shust asked of the requirement that 90 percent of students
show adequate yearly performance. "It's just too stringent. You're
coming down too hard, and you're not really fixing the
problem."


In the presidential campaign, support for Lieberman's approach is coming
from an unlikely quarter. Bush is touting a proposal very similar to the
Lieberman bill (see NJ, 10/16/99, p. 3000), and Gore is opposing
consolidation of education programs.


The fate of Lieberman's measure may hinge on his group's ability to hash
out a deal with sympathetic Republicans. But Senate staffers trying to
broker a deal recognize that even if they come to agreement, it may be
tough this year to rally a sufficient number of Senators to win
passage.


For his part, Lieberman is willing to think long term. "At this
point, I would say that the odds are that no single proposal has a
majority support, so the immediate prospect is that we will have a debate
without a result," Lieberman said. "It is better not to do
anything this year if we don't have a consensus for reform than to
reauthorize the current ESEA-the status quo-for five more
years."


Next Year's Encore: Welfare Reform


Regardless of what happens on education policy this year, the issue will
probably be revisited in 2001 after a new President is inaugurated. The
debate could go in any number of directions. One possibility would be to
follow the path taken by the 1996 welfare reforms, which bridged
differences between the approaches of centrist New Democrats and
conservative Republicans.


New Democrats believe that if there is sufficient public dissatisfaction
with the education system, public pressure to overhaul it will force the
parties to compromise. They predict that the accountability provision in
their plan would have the same kind of appeal as the stringent time lines
instituted under welfare reform, which required recipients to find work
and get off the welfare rolls. The New Democrats believe they can use
their plan as a starting point, pick off the best parts of the
Republicans' plan (such as their emphasis on local decision-making), and
claim victory for Democrats.


Republicans make a similar argument for Straight A's, saying that they can
add Democratic pieces to their Republican proposal and still claim
victory. Republicans say Straight A's applies the welfare-reform
concept-whereby desired outcomes are set at the federal level and states
choose the avenue they believe will work-to education reform.


Both New Democrats and Republicans have expressed a desire to refocus the
current system around fewer but broader, and more measurable, goals.
Republicans have cited the sections of Lieberman's bill dealing with aid
to disadvantaged children and bilingual education as particularly workable
and have also expressed a willingness to find a middle ground on
Lieberman's accountability components. For Republicans, class-size
reduction will remain a sticking point. Likewise, New Democrat staffers
have said they would be willing to look at those Straight A's pilot
programs that had a more detailed measurement of results, a stronger focus
on disadvantaged children, and greater rewards for success and
consequences for failure. New Democrats have also said they might be
willing to compromise with Democrats by adding mechanisms to preserve a
few of their priorities, such as after-school programs.


Lieberman sees the presidential campaign as a potential catalyst for
future reform, even if it's temporarily disruptive. "Surprisingly I
suppose, but encouragingly, education has become a central issue in the
presidential campaign, and that is actually quite constructive," he
said. "To the extent that presidential candidates want to put forth
their ideas for education reform and improvement, it raises public
awareness of reform. It increases the probability that ultimately we will
accomplish education reform, but it may not be this year."


If Lieberman is right, and Washington can move from win-lose scorekeeping
to policy-making, lawmakers may begin to reconnect with Sue Meier on the
education issue. "It would be wonderful if they could get something
done," she said. "It's a lot harder than you think. You want to
fix the schools in Chicago? What do you start with? It's so overwhelming.
Even pouring money into it doesn't really help." But until then, she
says, she's more likely to vote on how candidates stand on gun control,
where she believes federal policy really affects her life, than on
education.


Correspondent David Hess of National Journal News Service contributed to
this report.


Siobhan Gorman

National Journal