Education Still a Vital, and Winning, Issue

Back during the 2000 presidential campaign, I had a long conversation with a Washington political reporter who wanted to know if I could think of any historical precedent for the Bush campaign's emphasis on educational reform as a political issue. What so often happens when you get these kinds of calls is that the reporter already knows what he wants to say, or what his editor wants him to say, and simply is looking for an accredited mouth other than his own to which the words can be attributed. Surely, he thought out loud, what the Bushies were trying to do had never been done successfully before, and surely it would not get any traction this time around.

I disagreed, and as a consequence my quotation never appeared in the article. But the reporter was wrong then, and would be wrong now too. Education remains an issue of massive importance, and a tantalizing political opportunity for Republicans, since it's an issue on which the Democrats have absolutely no real flexibility, given the role that the unionized public-education establishment plays in shaping its hard constituency, and given their hard-wired commitment to policies that won't change anything.

The Washington Post has an indicative editorial in this morning's edition, which points very clearly to the problems for Democrats and the prospects for Republicans. It appears that even at the University of Michigan, where the cause of institutionalized discrimination by race (a.k.a., affirmative action) enjoyed its most recent victories, African American enrollment is down---as, in fact, it is down in elite colleges all over the country. (And if one disaggregates by gender, the numbers for African American male enrollments are truly disturbing.) After some obligatory puffing and panting---the editorial is entitled "Diversity Stymied"---the Post basically comes to the right conclusion, the conclusion that should have been drawn years ago, before we wasted so much energy and goodwill and institutional integrity---and generations of children's educational prospects---in this country fighting unprofitable and divisive battles over racial preferences. They admit that "American public schools are preparing many fewer African American students -- particularly males -- for education at elite universities than those universities would like to admit." And then, after genuflecting to the idols of current affirmative-action policy, they speak the unutterable: the solution lies "ultimately in increasing the number of students ready and able to apply. No matter how committed to diversity or recruiting of minority students universities may be, they can compensate only so much for the profound failures of the primary and secondary educational systems that generate their applicant pools."

There it is. The chief impediment to "diversity" is a horrendously inadequate system of public education, on the primary and secondary levels, that penalizes those whose social and economic disadvantages mean that they cannot afford alternatives to it. Bravo to the Post for acknowledging it, however reluctantly and however late in the game. And the only answer that Democrats can offer to this dilemma is to demand increased funding for the very system that has produced this result, and to guard the system's existing perquisites with ferocity.

But education, like media, will only improve when it has to, driven by competitive forces. The Republicans are the only party that is positioned to drive this point home, and offer specific alternatives. Which is one reason why it is a matter of some concern that Rod Paige, whose strong commitment to school choice reflects a growing sentiment in the African American community, has left the President's cabinet, and his replacement, Margaret Spellings, is a bit of a "standards" maven who lacks Paige's attractive vision of reform that "empowers the clients" of educational services. Paige's vision drew on the innate aspirations of minority parents and kids, while Spellings's is more of a strategy to "tighten the screws" on quality. Both are needed. But Paige's is the one that captures the essential force of the American dream, which both simulates and directs the innate desire for self-betterment.

Back in the 2000 campaign some thoughtful observers on the right, notably David Brooks, spoke attractively of a new Republican agenda that would entail a fresh round of "trust-busting"---except that this time, unlike the era of Theodore Roosevelt, the trusts to be busted were public trusts, or rather, the institutionalization of certain interest groups that claim to represent "the public." It was a brilliant insight, and it deserves to be revived. And the chief among these trusts needing to be broken up---for its own good---is that of public education.

And if a Democratic candidate for president is looking for a Sister Souljah issue for 2008....here it is.