Papers from the Duke University Education Leadership Summit A Horse Trade for K-12 education Mr. Alexander is ready to say, "Spend more. Take it above 7% or 8% -- if you will agree that these new federal dollars should follow middle- and low-income students to schools of their choice." That's the horse trade that helped create the best colleges and universities in the world, he argues. By Lamar Alexander

FOR THE PAST 40 years, most federal aid to schools has been based on the following horse trade: "I'll give you money, if you'll spend it my way," as in a drug-free schools program. The new Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is based on a different horse trade: money for results, as in learning to read.

Down the road, neither horse trade will justify big increases in federal spending for schools. There are already too many grants with strings attached. And President Bush is now discovering the limits of enforcing Texas-style school accountability from Washington, D.C., instead of from Austin. As a result, federal spending for schools will probably stick where it has been -- at 7% to 8% of total K-12 spending -- or diminish below that level.

So I would like to propose a new horse trade for the betterment of our children's education: put significant new federal dollars into schools that help the neediest children -- in exchange for letting those dollars follow the children to the school of their parents' choice. Such an idea already has broad support in American higher education. Since the end of World War II, when Congress created the GI Bill, federal dollars have followed students to the colleges and universities of their choice. This year, college students are receiving $15 billion in federal grants. There are another $40 billion for new student loans and $12 billion more for consolidating old student loans.

About half of the nation's college students have a federal grant or a loan that may be spent at any accredited institution, regardless of whether that institution is public, private, or religious. This federal program is one reason that no nation in the world has more of its population in college and no nation in the world has better colleges and universities than the United States. The GI Bill itself is often called our country's most successful social legislation.

Despite its spectacular success in higher education, extending this notion to K-12 education will take some work. I know because -- when I was the secretary of education -- I tried.

Ten years ago, during my tenure as education secretary, President George H. W. Bush proposed giving $1,000 federal scholarships to middle- and low-income students, which their families could then spend at any accredited school. The President called it "The GI Bill for Kids." Unfortunately, the only light of day the idea ever saw was during that spring afternoon on the White House lawn when the President announced it. Conservatives, usually opposed to federal involvement, mostly approved of the bill. But union leaders and school officials heard the words "school choice" and saw red -- even though the President was not talking about transferring money from public to nonpublic schools, the kind of vouchers now being debated in the U.S. Supreme Court. He proposed new federal dollars, most of which (we believed) would follow children to the public schools they were already attending, since their parents would be likely to choose the same schools for their children when given the choice.

"The GI Bill for Kids" was needed then and is still needed today to make more equal the amounts different schools across the nation spend per pupil. For example, in Bryan, Texas, property values are $128,000 per student. Next door to Bryan is College Station, home of Texas A & M University, where property values are $305,000 per student. So College Station can spend more than twice as much per pupil as Bryan. Herman Smith, the superintendent of schools in Bryan, aptly captured this disparity in spending when he said, "College Station is talking about cuts in programs and personnel that we could only dream of."

The federal government should help level the playing field for our public schools. To illustrate how it would work, let us assume that "The GI Bill for Kids" grants $250 to each middle- and low-income student. About 90% of Bryan's 13,500 students would be eligible. Bryan schools would receive more than three million new federal dollars each year -- more than $100,000 for a 500-student school. Bryan would still have fewer total dollars to spend than College Station, but the gap would be narrower. Even if some Bryan students spent their grants at nonpublic schools, it would still be considerably more money for the public schools -- with few federal strings attached, without raising property taxes, and without taking money away from College Station. This money would represent dollars that Bryan teachers and principals, subject to the school board and federal civil rights rules, could spend as they saw fit -- on after-school programs, on master teachers, or on smaller classes. The choice would be theirs.

Can the nation afford $250 per student per year to help all of its neediest students? Assuming 60% of children qualify as middle- or low-income students, that would be about $7.5 billion per year. Of course we can afford it if we really want to give every child an equal opportunity at the starting line.

There are important objections to consider. One objection centers on federal control. But these particular federal grants would have less red tape attached to them than any other federal assistance program, and, frankly, giving parents more choices for the education of their children should outweigh this concern.

A second objection has to do with the separation of church and state. However, for more than 50 years, students given similar grants for higher education in our country have chosen to attend such schools as the University of Notre Dame, Yeshiva University, Brigham Young University, and Duke University. These grants go to students, not schools, and the government is neutral about the college or university choices students make.

A final objection is captured by the sentiment E pluribus unum. One reason for creating common schools was to help all children learn what it means to be an American. However, state curriculum standards can ensure that students who choose private or home schools also learn about the principles that unite us.

So I am ready to say, "Spend more. Take it above 7% or 8% -- if you will agree that these new federal dollars should follow middle- and low-income students to schools of their choice." Why not borrow the horse trade that helped create the best colleges and universities in the world to help create the best K-12 schools for our children?

PDK Home | Site Map
Kappan Professional Journal
Last updated 5 August 2002
URL: http://www.pdkintl.org/kappan/k0205ale.htm
Copyright 2002 Phi Delta Kappa International