When President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act -- the breakthrough
education bill of 2001 -- he secured a significant domestic policy achievement
for his administration. The legislation was not only noteworthy for its
policy changes; it was also an important political victory. This remarkable
Republican turnaround on education helped boost the president's enviable
approval ratings. As Congress prepares during the rest of his term to
overhaul federal policy on special education, education research, and
higher education, the president has the wind at his back.
What explains a Republican's stunning success on what has traditionally
been Democratic turf? Obviously, commanding the platform of the White
House helped Mr. Bush. The novelty factor was at work, too -- like President
Nixon going to China. These elements alone, however, do not fully explain
the president's success. Instead, his ability to steal a march on the
Democrats stems more from a clever move to the center, a rejection of
Republican education orthodoxy, and a surprising embrace of proposals
to expand rather than diminish the federal role in elementary and secondary
schools. In addition, many Democrats resisted real education reform, leaving
the center for Mr. Bush to claim without a fight.
In the previous decade, Republicans had taken a drubbing on education.
They seemed almost magnetically drawn to unpopular positions -- eliminating
the Department of Education, cutting education spending, championing private
school vouchers -- that had the added drawback of being poor policy. Then,
along came Bill Clinton, who focused on academic standards, public charter
schools, and greater investment in education -- all popular positions.
President Clinton established a centrist playing field, markedly changing
the politics of education just as school reform became a major concern
of voters. Rather than embrace the hysterics of widespread school failure
embodied in the 1983 study, A Nation at Risk, Mr. Clinton guided
the public and the political dialogue toward a more realistic understanding
of our educational landscape. He reminded the public of the great diversity
among our public schools; some are great, some mediocre, others failing.
Consequently, the preferred reforms of the right and the left are meaningless
in many communities. Suburban parents don't want vouchers any more than
urban parents are satisfied with the pace of reform or paternalistic promises
that just a little more money or time will turn things around in their
under-performing schools.
As early as his 2000 campaign, President Bush abandoned failed Republican
positions. He also embraced a mostly centrist agenda highlighting the
plight of minority students. When it was pointed out that Mr. Bush was
appropriating many New Democratic education ideas, the Bush team cited
it as evidence of their candidate's moderate credentials. In the end,
as Al Gore found out, it was hard to convince voters that President Bush
was wrong on education when he was hunkered down in the center.
It is, of course, amusing to remember that candidate Bush once wondered
aloud, "Is our children learning?" Gaffes aside, he said other
things that the voters loved, such as, "There is a tremendous gap
of achievement between rich and poor, between white and minority. Whatever
the cause, the effect is discrimination." Amy Wilkins of the left-leaning
Education Trust told Time: "I'm a black Democrat so it's frightening
for me to see Bush more concerned about minority achievement than Gore."
Those words angered many Democrats, but they should have been a valuable
warning to them.
The warning wasn't heeded, however. Large parts of the Democratic Party
remain hostile to education reform beyond spending increases and new programs.
That hostility plays into President Bush's hands, because it fails to
satisfy urban minority voters who are restless with public schools; it
also repels moderates. In addition, it allows Mr. Bush to use education
to bolster his "compassionate" credentials and to obscure conservative
Republican positions on a host of other issues -- such as taxes, the environment,
the budget, and economic policy.
The president's political coup undermines Democrats in crucial 2002 elections
by perpetuating, to the delight of Republicans, a debilitating view of
the Democratic Party as a tool of the teachers' unions. This is important
in the post-Sept. 11 environment. "Voters' perceptions of the two
parties have reverted to the patterns that prevailed before the election
of President Bill Clinton in 1992," says pollster Mark Penn. President
Clinton championed standards, charter schools, and other ideas that didn't
sit well with Washington's alphabet soup of education advocacy groups.
This enhanced his standing as a reformer. In today's political terms,
this means that any Democrat without reform credentials risks ceding the
issue to any Republican who isn't openly hostile to public schools -- especially
since President Bush owns the bully pulpit and uses it exceedingly well.
By opposing reforms, many Democrats wade into the education fight against
President Bush with one hand tied behind their backs. For example, it's
awkward to argue against vouchers without vigorously embracing public
school choice options. And it's hard to argue for more resources without
championing real accountability for results. Yet this is exactly what
many Democrats are doing.
But just as President Bush managed to repaint his party's negative image
on education, Democrats can quickly turn things around, too. It's a matter
of recapturing Democratic ideas. Aside from vouchers, Mr. Bush's education
agenda is largely a New Democratic one. His reading initiative is almost
indistinguishable from President Clinton's. The new education bill, which
is regarded widely as "Bush's education initiative," was largely
written by Democratic Sens. Joe Lieberman (Conn.) and Evan Bayh (Ind.),
along with other New Democrats. The president has even appointed several
authors of a special education book produced by the New Democrat Progressive
Policy Institute to his special education reform commission. This strategy
of cribbing ideas has worked well for Mr. Bush both in Washington and
in Texas, where he largely continued policies inherited from his Democratic
predecessors.
The only way to beat President Bush is to out-reform him. It's time for
Democratic candidates to make him do his own homework -- and think up his
own programs -- by unabashedly championing a centrist education agenda.
This would force the president either to the right or right into agreement
with Democrats. During debates over special education, college affordability,
and teacher quality, Democrats can propose substantial public investments,
but also offer significant reform ideas. In addition to staking a claim
to the center, this would allow Democrats to push for more funding without
appearing to be trying to spend their way to better schools. Ironically,
the failure to take reform positions will leave Democrats focused on money,
thus mortgaging the party's credibility and, worse, allowing President
Bush to dodge reasonable demands for more funding.
If Democrats challenge President Bush for the center on education policy,
they can strike the Republicans where they are weakest -- in the restiveness
of their right wing. Indeed, many conservative Republicans would bolt
from President Bush's position if they could. They grudgingly acquiesced
to the education bill only because it was a top White House priority.
Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Texas) confessed to Rush Limbaugh that he "voted
for that awful education bill" only to support President Bush. "I
came here to eliminate the Department of Education so it was very hard
for me to vote for something that expands [it]."
Democrats should not be leery of angering special interest groups. Taking
controversial positions on education and other issues is not a political
death sentence. Sen. Tom Carper's (D-Del.) position on education reform
while Delaware's governor cost him the endorsement of teachers' unions
and other interest groups in his race for the U.S. Senate. Carper won
anyway. His election, as well as that of Georgia Gov. Roy Barnes and even
of a California liberal like Rep. George Miller (who has championed rigorous
accountability and teacher quality measures), shows that Democrats do
not have to choose between doing the right thing and the politically shrewd
thing.
Blueprint Keywords: Extra NCLB
