When Vice President George Bush campaigned for the presidency in 1988, he promised to prioritize education. Now, 12 years later, his oldest son is running for the same office and has made education a central focus of his campaign.
This parallel raises questions about how the two Bushes approach education and how Governor George W. Bush of Texas, the Republican nominee this time, would follow in his father’s footsteps and where he would diverge. While it is challenging to make broad generalizations, it is evident that the younger Mr. Bush, if elected president in November, would bring a different style and, to some extent, substance on school matters compared to his father. "It’s a matter of the experiences they had," said Bruno V. Manno, who was the assistant secretary for policy and planning at the Department of Education under President Bush from 1991 to 1993. "This is an issue [Governor Bush] is deeply invested in. It’s ingrained in him in a way it could never have been for his father."
Two Approaches to Education
"For today’s students, we must improve existing schools and hold them accountable. For tomorrow’s students, the next generation, we must create new American schools. For all of us, the adults who believe our school days are over, we must become a nation of learners – recognize that learning is a lifelong process." — President Bush, April 18, 1991, national address on his America 2000 education strategy. "The federal government must be humble enough to avoid intervening in the day-to-day operation of local schools, wise enough to grant states and school districts more autonomy and freedom, and strong enough to demand proven performance in return." — Governor Bush, September 2, 1999, speech to the Latin Business Association in California.
That being said, some analysts argue that the two Bushes share a similar governing philosophy when it comes to education. "While the details may vary, I would say the principles are alike," said Roger B. Porter, who served as President Bush’s assistant for economic and domestic policy from 1989 to 1993. He noted that both men have emphasized accountability, flexibility, and school choice. "The apple doesn’t fall far from the tree," agreed David V. Evans, who was the staff director for Democrats on the education subcommittee of the Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee from 1978 to 1996. "There is definitely a certain legacy in terms of the attitude" that the federal government should play a role in supporting schools, even though Governor Bush is more open to federal action in education, he added. However, some argue that these similarities are problematic. "Both have made a lot of empty promises regarding public school improvement without offering a vision," said Mary Elizabeth Teasley, director of government relations for the National Education Association, which supports Vice President Al Gore, Governor Bush’s Democratic opponent.
During his campaign this year, Governor Bush has outlined a comprehensive range of education proposals, including educational technology, after-school programs, teacher training, and support for charter schools. The cost of these initiatives was estimated at nearly $50 billion over ten years. Some of the most notable proposals include a five-year, $5 billion reading program, a plan to provide federal vouchers to students in consistently failing public schools, and an overall emphasis on strict accountability by requiring state testing in grades 3-8 to demonstrate improved student achievement. In contrast, Vice President Gore has proposed spending $115 billion over ten years on various education initiatives, such as smaller class sizes, higher teacher salaries, increased accountability, and school construction.
A Changing Landscape.
The father and son both supported publicly financed school vouchers, but in different ways. President Bush proposed a $500 million initiative called the "GI Bill for Kids," which would provide $1,000 vouchers for middle- and low-income families. However, he failed to convince a Democratic-controlled Congress to support the idea.
On the other hand, the Texas governor introduced vouchers as part of his campaign, specifically targeting failing schools. Under his plan, if a failing school that received federal aid for disadvantaged students did not improve after three years, families of its students could receive a portion of the school’s federal funding in the form of vouchers to use at another school, whether public or private.
Since President Bush’s time in office, a lot has changed. Federal budget deficits have turned into surpluses. Some suggest that President Clinton, who followed the elder Mr. Bush, has influenced the political landscape in a way that puts Gov. Bush’s campaign in a different context compared to his father’s.
"Clinton has completely shifted the debate about the federal government’s role in schools," said Chester E. Finn Jr., the president of the Thomas B. Fordham Foundation and a former assistant education secretary during the Reagan administration. He believes that today’s candidates should focus on how to best spend federal money and structure education programs, rather than questioning the propriety of federal involvement.
There are different views on President Bush’s education legacy. Some argue that he didn’t put enough effort into education to gain support for his top legislative proposals. Andrew J. Hartman, the staff director for Republicans on the House education committee during President Bush’s tenure, said, "It wasn’t my experience that he was investing a lot of political capital into education."
However, President Bush’s most significant contribution to education, according to many, was the summit he organized in 1989 with the nation’s governors. This summit led to the establishment of national education goals and influenced policymakers across the country. Christopher T. Cross, a former assistant education secretary, called it a key event in promoting the concept of national goals and standards.
Although President Bush’s legislative legacy in education is unclear, his focus on education in Texas has been notable. During his time as governor, he prioritized improving education through standards, testing, and accountability. He implemented initiatives to improve reading proficiency by the 3rd grade and supported ending the promotion of academically unprepared students. However, critics argue that he took credit for successes that were initiated by his predecessors.
Sandy Kress, an advisor to Governor Bush’s campaign, believes that his emphasis on education in Texas would carry over into a presidential administration. According to Kress, education would be a personal priority for him as president.
