During his first weeks as president, George W. Bush has fulfilled his primary campaign promise & immediately proposing education reform initiatives.

“The principle here is a basic one,” said President Bush in a Chicago Tribune article. “If schools do not have the freedom to change, then they cannot be held accountable.”

Emphasizing accountability and incentives for poor schools to improve has become the theme of his proposal.

If schools fail to improve, parents or guardians of students would be given more control over their education through a “voucher” system. The system will somewhat privatize education taxes in giving the guardian a voucher of a predetermined percentage of their state and federal taxes that can be used for personal education preferences & another public school, private school or tutoring.

Although many primarily private school participants have praised privatizing education taxes, they have received much criticism from the opposite side of the educational spectrum: public school administration. They question the plan’s treatment of students and teachers and call it a simple answer to a complex problem.

“Arrogant,” said Cheryl Kish, assistant chair of NIU’s Department of Teacher Education. “Politicians are attempting to treat education like a McDonald’s and they assume the hard-working teachers do not have enough motivation. It takes intense involvement to help a struggling child learn. Simply testing them every year and then shipping them off to a more expensive school when they fail is not going to help.”

Under the plan, public school students will undergo national tests once a year in an attempt to accurately record the results of the school’s performance and teaching methods.

Cynthia Nelson, research associate at DeKalb’s Center for Governmental Studies, has mixed feelings on school vouchers, but is pleased with the prospect of giving parents more control of where they send their children to school.

“The notion of school vouchers and frequent testing is appealing,” Nelson said, “and although I do not like public education funds going into private schools, giving parents more choices is a step in the right direction.”

If the school improves within that three-year period, it will receive increased federal funding as determined by the magnitude of improvement. If schools do not meet the base national requirements, however, it has three years to improve at the risk of losing its funding.

Donna L. Wiseman, Morgridge endowed chair in Teacher Education, was educated in public schools and has spent her career in public education. She believes the plan is far too simple for such a complex problem involving many different circumstances.

“It is an attempt at equality,” Wiseman said, “but it does not really focus on the children who are having a difficult time. There is a reason teachers do not do things, and that is a lack of resources, especially in a lot of the inner-city public schools. Struggling students need more money put into their schools, not taken away.”

A new set of problems could emerge if a local public school closes which include religious preferences, transportation and a possibility of the voucher not being worth enough money to cover the entire cost of private school tuition or a tutor. Educators also question the tests used to determine if a school is failing at helping children learn.

“How are these children going to get to their new school if it is far away?” Wiseman said.

Nevertheless, President Bush’s quest to “leave no child behind,” which is the theme of his proposal, is proving to be a bold move containing many complexities and possibilities.