By: Mary Mostert, Analyst, Original Sources
Perhaps the major legislative issue in Washington these days is education. Both Democrats and Republicans say they are FOR education. After that, there is almost total disagreement and that is what is holding up the massive $500 billion appropriations bill which is keeping both sides from being able to go home and campaign for re-election.
This is an issue on which there are massive philosophical differences. According to Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, the main sticking point was the administration's plan for $1.1 billion to hire 100,000 more elementary school teachers. Republicans say the proposal smacks of more federal bureaucracy, and, while agreeing to the money figure, want to give local schools control over the money, particularly to hire special education teachers.
Clinton and the Democrats want to use the "100,000 new elementary teachers" like they used the "100,000 new cops on the street" as a campaign battle cry to prove they care about education. Of course, that "100,000" new cops on the streets never happened and 100,000 new teachers wouldn't happen either - if for no other reason than they aren't available. States, like California, which recently lowered class sizes have also had to lower teacher qualification standards to find the necessary teachers.
What does that sort of political jargon actually mean? Basically, the Democrats want the bureaucracy in Washington to call the shots. As an example, let's look at what is going on in the California race for Governor between Dan Lungren, Republican and Gray Davis, Democrat.
Both candidates recognize that the California schools have problems - but they differ radically on what to do about it. Gray Davis says, "I believe our public schools are broken and as Governor, my first priority will be to fix them." And how would Democrat Gray Davis fix California Schools? Pretty much the same way Democrat Bill Clinton would fix the schools - by spending more money at the bureaucratic level. Davis says "In an exhaustive national study released earlier this month by the publication Education Week, California's public schools ranked among the lowest of the low.
"We rated an "F" - absolute last among all 50 states - in overall school climate. Last year, the same study gave us a "D-" in the same category. The highest score we achieved in the latest study in any category was a "C+".
"In recent national tests, California's fourth-graders surpassed only those in Mississippi and Louisiana in reading proficiency. In 1996, only 11 percent of our students were deemed proficient in math."
Is the state simply miserly with funds? Well, California, the world's 7th largest economy, spends 55% of its tax receipts each year on education , yet, the actual physical structures - the buildings themselves - in California often lack amenities that are taken for granted in most Eastern schools - a real lunch room, an auditorium, etc.
What would Gray Davis, who has no children himself, suggest be done about the problems? "I have called for requiring parents to sign contracts with their children's schools, committing them to help their kids with homework and participate in regular school meetings." Davis makes it clear who he believes should be in charge of the kids - the State, of course. Nowhere in Gray Davis' website does he suggest that the low test scores he cites could possibly be traced to the policies and demands and behavior of the teachers and their union, or the incredible number of administrators in California Schools, compared with the number of teachers. In fact, he calls for a NEW group of administrators - "I propose," he said to the Commonwealth Club in San Francisco "to place in every one of the 1,000 school districts in California a chief financial officer who is both an MBA and a trained certified public accountant."
Do the elected school boards across the state really think they need to spend more money on more administration? Who knows? Gray Davis didn't ask. Like Clinton, he thinks he knows more than the parents and that the PARENTS need to be brought to heel by the school administration by requiring them to attend school meetings to learn how to raise their kids.
On the other hand, Dan Lungren, the father of three children, said in a speech on education, "First and foremost, a school must be safe. If students are not safe on campus, if teachers are not safe in their classrooms, no significant part of any educational reform, any educational mission will ever be achieved." Spoken like a parent. All the money and bureaucrats in the world won't help kids get educated, if they are being terrorized to and from and while IN school - which is the case in many California Schools.
Second, rather than require the PARENTS to place themselves under the direction of the school, via contract, Lungren suggests, "Let's also require that every new teacher in California pass an examination in their chosen subject matter before they receive their credential. Incredibly, that is not the case right now. And why not? I mean after all, it's only common sense. Every heart surgeon has advanced training in cardiology. Every airline pilot completes thousands of hours of study of aerodynamics, of the workings of advanced aircraft. Every newspaper's political reporter has to hone his or her skills by studying and observing campaigns and elections.
"Every teacher who can't pass competency exam in their subject has no business in the classroom and shouldn't be let in until they are able to pass that."
And that, folks, is what the big fight over education in Congress is all about. Dan Lungren, father of three, thinks parents may actually know what is best for their children without taking orders on the subject from State or Federal education bureaucrats. Gray Davis, who has no children - at least none he acknowledges on his web site - thinks the School administration needs more people and that parents should be required sign a contract agreeing to abide by the wishes of the school administrators and teachers - whether or not they know anything worthwhile to teach their children.
In a nutshell the education issue in Washington and in the California Governor's race this fall boils down to: Should parents have control over their children's schools or should the schools have control over the children's parents?
It's not money they are arguing over - it's who should be raising the children - the parents or the village school.
To Comment: mmostert@originalsources.com