BACK IN AUGUST, Al Gore told a Carthage, Tenn., audience, "If I was the parent of a child who went to an inner-city school that was failing, and I felt that there was absolutely no chance . . . of reform that would dramatically improve that school, I might be for vouchers also." It was a rare softening of Gore's opposition to vouchers. Intended to obscure his differences with his newly announced running mate, erstwhile voucher supporter Joseph Lieberman, the statement left Gore sounding conflicted, opposed to a policy he conceded would benefit the needy -- an odd position for a candidate committed to fighting "for the people, not the powerful."
But it wasn't the only time Gore has sounded uncomfortable discussing vouchers. In February, at the Democratic primary debate in Harlem's Apollo Theater, Time correspondent Tamala Edwards noted that Gore's own children attended private schools, then asked, "Why should the parents here have to keep their kids in public schools because they don't have the financial resources you do?"
Gore squirmed. First he expressed indignation, telling Edwards, "You can leave [my children] out of this if you want to." Then he offered a paean to public education and public-school teachers, and finally he attacked Bill Bradley's support for vouchers when he served in the Senate.
On vouchers, Gore has consistently suppressed any private reservations he may have in order to maintain his battle-tested alliance with the teachers' unions, for whom the issue is a litmus test. Never mind the growing evidence that vouchers improve children's chances for academic success, or the inconsistency with other parts of Gore's education program, or even the growing support for vouchers among black Democrats. The vice president has stood firm on this issue for many years, no matter how shaky his footing.
Gore cemented his alliance with the unions years ago. During his run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1988, he told a primary debate audience that his first action if elected would be to fire Reagan education secretary William Bennett and install a "working teacher" in the post. Like most Democrats running that year, Gore spoke vaguely of "accountability" as a way to show some independence from teachers' unions -- this at a time when American Federation of Teachers president Al Shanker himself agreed that talking about accountability made "good political sense." The same year, Gore criticized fellow Democratic contender Dick Gephardt for once supporting tax credits to offset the cost of private-school tuition (another line he would use against Bradley). And in 1992, running for vice president, Gore called private school choice "a ripoff of the U.S. taxpayer."
This year, Gore, true to form, has offered a series of proposals for elementary and secondary education that bear the teachers' union stamp of approval. In addition to opposing vouchers, he favors using federal money to raise teachers' salaries, hire more teachers, build new schools, and acquire the latest technology. While he does advocate "rigorous testing for all new teachers," he offers no specifics about how results would be measured, leaving him enough wiggle room to please both the unions and the reformers.
Gore offers plenty of specifics, however, when it comes to putting cash in teachers' hands. His plan to "recruit one million talented new teachers" offers $ 10,000 in college aid to students who promise to teach in areas with teacher shortfalls, $ 10,000 signing bonuses to "professionals who switch careers to teach," and loan-forgiveness for new math and science teachers in "high-need schools." For teachers already in the system, Gore offers $ 5,000 to $ 10,000 salary increases if their unions and districts "adopt aggressive plans to boost teacher quality."
Where schools are "failing and designated for corrective action," Gore's plan calls for "intensive professional development for all teachers." If that fails, Gore proposes shutting down schools and reopening them "under new leadership with incentives to attract an outstanding principal and team of teachers." The incentives? For principals, bonuses of up to $ 20,000, for teachers, up to $ 10,000. In short, the unifying theme of Al Gore's K-12 education plan is just what the unions ordered: more money for teachers.
Outside of elementary and high school education, however -- outside the fiefdom of the unions -- Gore is perfectly willing to take the opposite approach and put money in the hands of consumers. He proposes allowing parents or students to take a tax deduction or credit on up to $ 10,000 of college tuition. And families could establish tax-free accounts to save for higher education, job training, or other "lifelong learning." For parents of students not yet in college, Gore's plan includes a refundable After-School Tax Credit to cover up to 50 percent of the cost of after-school programs.
Gore's plan to boost university enrollment by helping families pay for the college of their choice puts the lie to his arguments against school vouchers. During the primaries, he said vouchers "represent a big and historic mistake by draining money away from public schools at a time when we need to lift up the public schools." Yet his college savings and tuition-deduction plans would subsidize attendance at private and religious as well as public institutions -- by his logic, "draining money away" from public colleges. The University of Tennessee would lose funds every time a student chose to attend Notre Dame.
Gore's approach to subsidizing education may be inconsistent, but it makes perfect sense politically. By promising to spend $ 115 billion on public schools over the next ten years, and targeting a major portion of that money to teachers, Gore pleases the unions and minorities his campaign manager Donna Brazile recently identified as two "pillars" of the Democratic party. By manipulating the tax code to provide rewards also for parents whose children are outside the reach of unionized teachers, Gore appeals to the coveted suburban parents on whose votes this election may hinge.
Meanwhile, Gore risks nothing by alienating those who have the most to gain from school choice. African-American students benefit more than any other ethnic or racial group currently enrolled in privately funded voucher programs, according to a study released in August by the Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance. That helps explain the finding from another report, by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies, that 76 percent of African Americans between the ages of 26 and 35 support publicly funded vouchers.
But Al Gore has black voters locked up -- 9 out of 10 support the Democratic party in national elections, and they're not likely to bolt over a single disagreement. Besides, many African-American political leaders, including Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and the NAACP, oppose private-school vouchers, providing plenty of cover for Democratic politicians who voice that view.
The voters for whom Gore is battling hardest this year are not minorities but white voters, in particular parents who already live in neighborhoods with good public schools and whose children account for 71 percent of current college enrollments. A private-school voucher program would be largely irrelevant to their children's education, while a $ 10,000 tax credit for college tuition would offset a healthy chunk of their college costs.
So it's poor parents whose kids attend terrible public schools or who are sacrificing to send them to private elementary or secondary schools who are out of luck. Gore says he understands their situation. But his allegiance to the teachers' unions won't let him offer any help.
Edmund Walsh is an editorial assistant at THE WEEKLY STANDARD.