HOME / dialogues: E-mail debates of newsworthy topics.

Who Is George W. Bush?

Posted Wednesday, March 29, 2000, at 3:00 AM ET

Evan,

OK, you asked for it. I think Bush will be talking more and more about education, so maybe it is worth the time to go through what he did about it in Texas and then talk about conservatism and character tomorrow. It's true, as Joe Nick says, that educational reform was underway long before Bush came to office. What he did, to his credit, was to shift the direction of the Texas Education Agency and concentrate its attention on a few clear goals. And, Joe Nick, yes, Texas schools are being held up as models along with North Carolina's. New York and California schools are lagging behind.

Here's Bush and education in a nutshell. Bush believes in two principles: accountability and local control. He thinks the state should set standards and see whether or not they are met. The local authorities are free to decide how to organize and run their schools as long as they meet those standards. Obviously, there is a bit of logical inconsistency here, since if the state controls the standards, the state controls the schools, but the result is that there actually is change and innovation at the local level, and there is setting and enforcement of standards at the state level, and it pretty much works.

The curriculum set by the Texas Education Agency defines what each kid should learn in each grade. Thus the standards. The tests are the way that the standards are enforced. The TEA wrote a curriculum that Bush rejected as too vague and wishy-washy. They went to work on a new set of standards. The extreme right also went to work and wrote their own set of standards. There was a big fight, and Bush prevailed. This is one of the reasons why the right in Texas hates him enough to go to Iowa and New Hampshire to try to defeat him in the primaries, and why it's so odd to see him portrayed nationally as a captive of the religious right. In fact the curriculum is a sensible three-R's program that, as Patti says, includes the kinds of things we want kids to know. The tests are the means of enforcing accountability. They hold the students accountable for learning and the schools accountable for teaching.

The biggest failure of the Texas schools was that the kids weren't learning to read. By junior high they didn't know history, geography, or much of anything else because they couldn't read. Bush set a goal of every student in Texas reading at grade level by the third grade and continuing to read at grade level until graduation. There were speeches, workshops, training sessions, etc., and it worked. The schools began moving in the right direction with a new emphasis on reading. The idea is that in the coming years there will be similar initiatives in math and science.

It's right that in Texas the governor has little real power, and that is especially true in education. But Bush set the agenda and put his energy and prestige behind it. It was a simple agenda—accountability, local control, reading—but that was its strength. Schools are better because of it, and poor schools are proportionately a lot better. It wasn't just him, and they weren't even necessarily his own ideas. But he took up the cause and made things move forward. If he takes credit for education reform here, I think he's entitled to.

Posted Wednesday, March 29, 2000, at 3:00 AM ET
Print This ArticlePRINTEmail to a FriendE-MAILShare This ArticleRECOMMEND...Get Slate RSS FeedsRSS
How conservative is George W. Bush? How capable? This week, the staff of Texas Monthly magazine allows Slate readers to eavesdrop as they discuss what kind of president Bush would make.The participants in this dialogue include Texas Monthly Editor Greg Curtis, Executive Editor Paul Burka, Deputy Editor Evan Smith, Senior Editors Skip Hollandsworth and Joe Nick Patoski, Associate Editor Pam Colloff, and Contributing Editor Patricia Kilday Hart.
COMMENTS

Reader Response from The Fray:



[Note: Should be read after most recent Dialogue entry of the week.]





I find Ms Hart's (perfectly legitimate) complaint [Wednesday] about the "news columns"--ie, that they're showing an abominable if visceral loathing of Mr Bush--quite charming in its innocence. She seems to have somehow managed to avoid realizing that such an attitude has colored reporting of the Clinton administration for years, of Mr Gore, and indeed of just about any gopher who stuck his head up far enough to be hit with a mallet. The sole recent exception---the esteemed Senator from Arizona---avoided this solely by pandering to the reporters' idiot sense of their own moral and intellectual superiority and even he would have been savaged had he had any chance of victory.



I don't particularly like Mr Bush, but he was elected twice by a real state and he did manage to generate an awful lot of money and support among real people. I'm not awfully fond of Mr Gore, but he is pretty smart and well-educated and any sensible analysis of his fundraising activities needs to balanced against a history in which Republicans outspent Democrats dramatically--it's hard not to see Republican complaints about the Clinton/Gore fundraising as analogous to their complaints about many of the administration's policies: how dare they steal our issues/our techniques?



I think they both deserve to be treated seriously, courteously, and dispassionately. The chance of this happening in the current media atmosphere is about equal to the chance I will wake up tall, blonde, and skinny. Why does not a professional journalist realize this as well?



--Alan Kornheiser



(To reply, click here.)



(3/31)





I'm not surprised Governor Bush could impress the Texas Monthly writers with his policy expertise in a friendly, sympathetic small-group discussion. Most journalists hardly study policy at all; very little expertise is required to impress them. And, there isn't a politician alive who does not look more impressive talking to a sympathetic small group than he does to a large audience.



I didn't see any recognition in their discussion that a Governor's education policy, however successful, might not be terribly relevant to the conduct of foreign relations and management of the Pentagon. Yet the next President is very likely going to spend much more time in each of these areas that in education, all campaign rhetoric to the contrary notwithstanding.



Finally, I had to laugh at the comment that a dropped "g" at the end of the word "asking" identifies Bush as a Texan. Here in Wisconsin we have a very successful Governor who uses only two "g's", the one in "Governor" and his middle initial. I promise you that no one will ever mistake Tommy Thompson for a Texan.



--Joseph E Britt



(To reply, click here.)





Uh, who the hell is Joe Nick? And what is he so cranky about? Am I missing something?



--Paul



(To reply, click here.)

[Yes you were. Joe Nick Patoski replied here, filling in with the missing entry that made everyone else think he was cranky.]



(3/28)



What did you think of this article?
Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES
TODAY'S PICTURES
TODAY'S CARTOONS
TODAY'S DOONESBURY
TODAY'S VIDEO
The end of Prohibition.58/091204_TP.jpg
Cartoonists' take on Tiger Woods.37/091204_TC.jpg
Eaking-spay in ode-cay.52/091204_TD.jpg