A Visionary Leader

Voters who care about education face a clear choice in this election year. The plan to strengthen America's public schools presented by Vice President Al Gore '69 will be the greatest national commitment to education since the G.I. Bill. His plan focuses on the classroom, reducing class size and increasing teacher training and compensation. Texas Gov. George W. Bush's plan, by contrast, fails to make education a top priority and would make the problems our schools face even worse.

First, voters should compare the two plans based on how much money each candidate is proposing to spend. It is true that all of our educational problems cannot be solved by money alone, but how much money a candidate squeezes into his budget for which policy goals is a good indication of his priorities. Gore would increase federal spending on our public schools by 50 percent, or $115 billion over 10 years, the single biggest expansion in a generation. Bush only proposes an additional $13.5 billion in spending over five years, less than one-fortieth the amount he wants to spend on an across-the-board tax cut that would primarily benefit the top five percent of income earners.

Second, voters should consider where the new money would be spent. Gore would spend the bulk of the money on reducing class size, rebuilding crumbling schools and making early childhood education available to all four-year-olds. On these issues, the contrast with Bush is striking. Bush opposes earmarking federal money for specific purposes like reducing class size in the early grades, where research shows it makes the most difference in student achievement.

On the issue of accountability, the difference between the two plans is that Gore's plan starts with accountability, but it does not end there. It makes available new resources that schools need to meet higher standards. Gore would shut down failing schools after two years and re-open them under new management. He would give bonuses to highly qualified teachers willing to teach in failing schools, giving these schools a chance to start over. Bush, on the other hand, would take away federal money earmarked for poor children under Title I, and give the parents of children in failing schools a $1,500 voucher to use at a private or parochial school. The plan is not well thought through, because private schools have no accountability. They can hire anybody to teach anything they want. For this reason, shifting millions of dollars away from public schools and into private schools does nothing to promote accountability and amounts to abandoning our public schools.

Finally, when evaluating the two plans, voters should look to see which plan is most comprehensive. Which one tackles the difficult problems faced by low-income families? Who will break down the barriers that stand in the way of a good education for all children? The centerpiece of Gore's agenda is ensuring that every child in America has high-quality health care coverage within the next four years. He would spend $50 billion to make available universal preschool to every child. Bush fails to offer a comprehensive approach to health care and early childhood education, which are critical to making sure that kids enter school ready to learn.

There are too many schools in America where the playgrounds in which kids used to play are now covered with trailers because of the overcrowding. The current generation of schoolchildren has surpassed the baby boom as the largest generation in U.S. history. Gore is a leader, and he has a bold, visionary plan to provide this new generation with the best education in the world. Bush does not.

John F. Bingaman '01 is a social studies concentrator in Adams House. He is the campaigns chair of the Harvard College Democrats.