Little to like in education reform plans of Bush, Gore

Garrett Duncan, Ph.D. Asst. professor of education and African and Afro-American Studies Arts & Sciences (314) 935-8740 gaduncan@artsci.wustl.edu

A close look at education reform proposals touted by presidential candidates George W. Bush and Al Gore reveals that neither does much to address the problems of poor, inner-city public schools, according to Garrett Duncan, Ph.D., assistant professor of education and African and Afro-American Studies in Arts & Sciences.

Democratic candidate Al Gore's call for the federal government to be a "gatherer of revenues" for public schools is a way to appear to be involved in local education without really being involved, Duncan contends.

"The federal investment of funds in local schools is relatively small and will do little to eliminate the spending disparities between poorer and more affluent schools," he argues. "Gore's focus on revenue will have minimal impact on local education as it steers the government clear of its most important function, that being securing the rights of those without the power to secure them for themselves."

Duncan finds similar fault with Republican nominee George W. Bush's proposal to provide parents with education vouchers worth $1500 per child to allow their children to transfer out of low-achieving schools and into privately run institutions.

"Bush seeks to provide the state unprecedented levels of autonomy in determining how federal money is spent and in setting strict improvement guidelines for failing schools," Duncan says. "But part of the federal government's role in education is to monitor and check practices that result in what Jonathan Kozol called 'savage inequalities' -- the vast disparities in conditions among American public schools."

Duncan notes that the cost of public education generally falls within the range of $1000-$4000 per student, per school. Privately run institutions also fall somewhere close to or within this range, which generally limits the capacity of poorer families to truly exercise educational choice. Still, newer private institutions and those at the low end of the tuition range often lack the infrastructure, materials and maintenance support of even the poorest public schools, he explains.

"Lessening the federal government's role in educational affairs makes it difficult for those at the local level with less power to mount effective challenges to these inequalities," he continued. "Moreover, much of present-day inequalities can be traced directly to residential segregation that occurred largely as the federal government turned a blind eye to the unjust use of federal money at the local level."

Bush's proposals for the introduction of character-building programs as part of education reform are vague and misguided, contends Duncan, noting that the Bush proposals suggest character-building and the development of caring relationships require separate curricula.

"Bush treats character and academics as discrete features of education," Duncan explains. "This not only contributes to a very sterile notion of character and caring, it also places such curricula in competition for funding and time with curricula that are supposed to foster high achievement."

Gore's call for the addition of 100,000 new teachers nationwide is ambitious but does little to address the 2-3 million deficit in the teaching force that the federal government has projected over the next several years, he concludes.