In tapping former Gov. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee to be the next Secretary of Education, President Bush chose someone with a long and deep track record on education issues and substantial credibility in the education community.
Educators and political observers, both nationally and in Tennessee, say Mr. Bush has also chosen a master salesman and a savvy political player who will be an articulate and energetic spokesman for education reform.
鈥淚n my view, he鈥檚 the first real Secretary of Education,鈥� said Denis Doyle, a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute. 鈥淔inally, we have what I would view as a genuine effort to appoint a mainstream person with superb education credentials, a genuine education agenda, and no personal ax to grind.鈥�
鈥淲e鈥檒l just have to see whether it鈥檚 as good an appointment as I think and hope it will be,鈥� Mr. Doyle said.
Jeanne Allen, education analyst for the Heritage Foundation, added: ''He has an enormous head start, because he knows everything from the buzzwords to the players. It鈥檚 also important that he is a former governor at a time when governors are playing a crucial role in education reform.鈥�
Mr. Alexander, who served as governor from 1979 through 1986 and who has been president of the University of Tennessee since 1988, was among the first governors during the 1980鈥檚 to take an active interest in education, pushing through the state legislature an ambitious package of reforms in 1984.
His national prominence peaked in 1985 and 1986, during his tenure as chairman of the National Governors鈥� Association. Mr. Alexander was the driving force behind 鈥淭ime for Results,鈥� the nga report issued in 1986 that called for a comprehensive package of education reforms.
Among its numerous recommendations for state and national policy, some of them highly controversial, 鈥淭ime for Results鈥� called for a national teacher-certification board, merit pay for teachers, parental choice among public schools, year-round use of school buildings, and state 鈥渢akeovers鈥� of 鈥渁cademically bankrupt鈥� school districts.
At the heart of the document is a concept the Bush Administration has since championed: giving schools more freedom from regulation in exchange for greater accountability.
鈥淭he governors are ready for some old-fashioned horse trading,鈥� Mr. Alexander wrote in the document鈥檚 introduction. 鈥淲e鈥檒l regulate less, if schools and school districts will produce better results.鈥�
A National Reputation
Although the n.g.a. has produced four annual follow-up reports detailing state reform efforts, observers note that it is difficult to tie specific actions to Mr. Alexander鈥檚 initiative.
In education circles, however, the so-called 鈥�1991 report鈥� is generally considered an important milestone in the reform movement.
鈥溾�楾ime for Results鈥� is second only to A Nation at Risk as the most important education document of the 80鈥檚,鈥� said Chester E. Finn Jr., professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University. 鈥淚t arguably catalyzed many things that have happened since 1986 that otherwise wouldn鈥檛 have happened.鈥�
Mr. Alexander added to his national reputation by serving on numerous advisory panels and task forces, including the Southern Regional Education Board and a committee that recommended in 1987 that the National Assessment of Educational Progress be expanded so that comparisons could be made among states.
As president of the University of Tennessee, Mr. Alexander has continued to speak and write on precollegiate reform issues.
He is currently a member of President Bush鈥檚 advisory committee on education, and is the chairman of a panel that is organizing a national summit on mathematics assessment.
Last year, he and U.S. Energy Secretary James D. Watkins announced joint ventures to train retired scientists seeking new careers as teachers and to provide summer training for prospective science teachers.
As nominees for Cabinet positions traditionally have done, Mr. Alexander has declined all requests for interviews until after he is confirmed by the Senate.
Tennessee Reform Package
Mr. Alexander is best known in his home state for the reform package he called the 鈥淏etter Schools Program.鈥� Not all the reviews are favorable.
鈥淚 think most people here would consider it a mixed bag,鈥� said Willis D. Hawley, director of the center for education policy at Vanderbilt. 鈥淐ertainly he contributed to significant increases in spending on education and introduced a pretty comprehensive reform plan for the state.鈥�
鈥淚t has not transformed the schools,鈥� he added. 鈥淭hey are better, but I don鈥檛 think they鈥檙e as good as they need to be. However, you have to realize that the tax structure here doesn鈥檛 yield enough revenue to do that much.鈥�
Some educators still complain bitterly that Mr. Alexander鈥檚 plan was 鈥渋mposed from above鈥� with little consultation, and did not address their real concerns. In interviews last fall, many observers--including those who had supported Mr. Alexander鈥檚 plan--contrasted his efforts unfavorably with the reform plan now being pushed by the current governor, Ned McWherter. (See 澳门跑狗论坛, Oct. 17, 1990.)
Under Mr. Alexander鈥檚 plan, requirements for teacher certification were strengthened, alternative schools for disruptive students and summer programs for outstanding high-school students and for educators were created, large numbers of computers and other supplies were purchased, and the school year was increased from 175 to 180 days.
But attention was riveted on one particularly controversial component: a 鈥渃areer ladder鈥� that allows teachers evaluated as 鈥渙utstanding鈥欌�� to earn as much as $7,000 a year more than their peers.
The Tennessee Education Association vigorously opposed this 鈥渕aster teacher鈥� idea, but grudgingly supported the bill when the plan was made optional for existing teachers.
Career Ladder Criticized
The system has since been substantially altered, but is still in place, and a large majority of the state鈥檚 teachers are participating.
Tennessee observers agree that the system is far from perfect, and some criticize it sharply.
鈥淚t depends on who you ask,鈥� said Cavit Cheshier, executive director of the T.E.A. 鈥淭hose who apply for it and make it speak highly of it. Those who don鈥檛 make it have problems with it, and some even quit because of it or become emotionally distraught.鈥�
鈥淢any teachers feel that what鈥檚 evaluated is irrelevant to what they鈥檙e doing,鈥� he said.
Agreed Nelson Andrews, chairman of the state board of education and a supporter of the Better Schools Program: 鈥淭he evaluation program is still pretty weak. It was done much faster than it should have been done. It didn鈥檛 originate with teachers but was jammed down on them.鈥�
Mr. Andrews also thinks the career ladder was 鈥渙versold.鈥�
鈥淚t has to be understood in its rightful place,鈥� he said. 鈥淟ike choice, it鈥檚 not a panacea. There is no quick fix.鈥�
Others think the changes have hurt, not improved, the program.
鈥淚t started out as a relatively pure form of professional assessment of professional capability,鈥� including such subjective elements as a portfolio, Mr. Hawley said. 鈥淎 lot of discretion was taken out of the evaluation system, making it more mechanized.鈥�
鈥淚t ends up being a way of giving teachers more money,鈥� he said. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 what happens with most merit-pay plans.鈥�
鈥淭he unions and other interests have chipped away at the changes ever since he left,鈥� said Mr. Finn, who was a resident professor at Vanderbilt before being tapped as an assistant secretary of education in 1985, and advised Mr. Alexander. 鈥淚f there鈥檚 an incomplete success, it鈥檚 because the people running the programs didn鈥檛 really want them to work.鈥�
But other elements of Mr. Alexander鈥檚 reform plan are more generally praised, with most criticism focusing on ideas that were left out.
鈥淚t ignored the fact that we didn鈥檛 have elementary-school counselors, ignored the fact that we didn鈥檛 have adequate textbooks, ignored the fact that our state was known for huge class sizes,鈥� Mr. Cheshier said. 鈥淚t didn鈥檛 address the funding issue.鈥�
Managerial Abilities Praised
Observers who worked with him in Tennessee unanimously praise Mr. Alexander鈥檚 intellectual and managerial abilities. Even Mr. Cheshier of the tea called him 鈥渁 very capable man, articulate and a good organizer, a relentless worker with a great capacity and a great memory.鈥�
鈥淲hether he will be a good or a bad secretary depends on what he advocates and how practical it is,鈥� Mr. Cheshier said. 鈥淚 trust that in his new position he will seek the advice of practitioners more than he did here.鈥�
Several observers predicted Mr. Alexander would develop a specific agenda and persistently pursue it.
鈥淗e is directive in his thought processes,鈥� Mr. Andrews of the Tennessee board said. 鈥淗e will get good advice, pick a few things he wants to do, and focus on them.鈥�
鈥淗e will give a lot of thought to planning out what he and the Administration should be doing in the education area,鈥� said Douglas Bailey, a Republican media consultant who advised Mr. Alexander. 鈥淓very program in the Department of Education probably has its champions, and a lot of them will be disappointed.鈥�
Political Savvy Cited
At the press conference where Mr. Bush formally introduced him as his nominee for Secretary, Mr. Alexander said one of his priorities would be adult education and worker retraining. He is also expected to continue the Administration鈥檚 advocacy of parental choice among schools, an idea he championed as governor--several years before it became fashionable.
His acquaintances predicted that Mr. Alexander would be an adept occupant of the 鈥渂ully pulpit,鈥� and that his political skills would make him more successful in selling his proposals to educators, the public, and the Congress than his predecessors.
鈥淚n the 25 years I鈥檝e been in the political consulting business, his is the best combination of intellect, energy, personability, and political savvy that I鈥檝e ever seen,鈥� Mr. Bailey, the media consultant, said, offering passage of the controversial Tennessee education legislation as an example of Mr. Alexander鈥檚 political skill and his ability to focus on a goal.
鈥淗e left some flexibility on the details, but not on whether it would happen, and the legislators had to deal with that,鈥� Mr. Bailey said. 鈥淚f it didn鈥檛 happen, they knew they would have to deal with Alexander for the rest of their political lives.鈥�
鈥淚t came as close to a single-minded effort as anyone has ever seen in politics,鈥� he said. 鈥淓ven he would agree it was done at the expense of other things that might have been important.鈥�
鈥淗e鈥檚 no rookie,鈥� said Mr. Andrews, noting that Mr. Alexander began his political career as an aide to then-U.S. Senator Howard Baker, and later worked in the Nixon White House. 鈥淗e knows the Washington situation, and he will be a player.鈥�
Calling the Shots
Washington observers agreed that Mr. Alexander would almost certainly play a more active role in setting policy than did his predecessor, Lauro F. Cavazos. Some predicted that he would clash with Roger B. Porter, the President鈥檚 domestic-policy adviser.
鈥淚f he were allowed to lead, I think he could help the President,鈥� said Representative Bill Goodling of Pennsylvania, the ranking Republican on the House Education and Labor Committee. 鈥淏ut I don鈥檛 know whether Lamar will call the shots.鈥�
Gov. Roy Romer of Colorado, chairman of a panel charged with monitoring progress toward the national education goals, said John H. Sununu, the White House chief of staff, assured him that Mr. Alexander would be taking 鈥渁 lead role鈥� in implementing the goals, which has been almost exclusively Mr. Porter鈥檚 domain.
Others think the relationship will be more cooperative.
鈥淚鈥檓 sure he will play more of a policy role, rather than Porter leading the whole effort,鈥� Ms. Allen of the Heritage Foundation, said, adding: 鈥淚 think he will be working closely with the White House. He鈥檚 been a governor; I think he knows how to avoid a turf battle.鈥�
Mr. Finn added, 鈥淚nstead of thinking of it as a zero-sum game where more department means less White House, think of it as a grand partnership where we have more in total.鈥�
Mr. Porter said he is 鈥渆nthusiastic鈥� about the appointment.
鈥淚 have known him and admired him for many years, and look forward to working closely with him,鈥� Mr. Porter said.
鈥楬igh Expectations鈥�
The appointment was also well-received in the education community and on Capitol Hill.
鈥淲e have high expectations for Lamar Alexander,鈥� the National School Boards Association said in a statement, praising his understanding of 鈥渢he enormous challenges that confront the public schools.鈥�
鈥淕overnor Alexander has a distinguished record in education, and earned bipartisan respect for his role in stimulating education reform in the states,鈥� said a statement from Senator Edward M. Kennedy, the Massachusetts Democrat who is chairman of the Labor and Human Resources Committee.
Confirmation hearings had not been scheduled as of late last week, but the nomination is expected to win easy Senate approval.
鈥淚t would be hard to oppose this one,鈥� one Democratic Senate aide said.
The only lukewarm response from the education community was that of the National Education Association, whose statement noted that union members 鈥渉ave not always seen eye-to-eye鈥� with Mr. Alexander. The union would have preferred someone with classroom experience, the statement added.
