The first trend that I have noticed relates to the current status of teacher salaries. The average teacher in the US earns $39, 347 each year. Average salaries can range from just over $51,000 in Connecticut to just under $28,000 in North Dakota. Salaries in George Bush’s home state of Texas come in at $33, 537, ranking Texas 36^th in the nation. To be fair to Bush, it should be mentioned that when you adjust salaries to account for cost of living, the average salary yields a purchasing power of $37,305, which ranks Texas 25^th in the nation. Teacher salaries account for roughly 38% of all education spending.

On the surface, an average of just over $39,000 sounds pretty good. That is just over $2,000 more per year than all other government workers, and over $5,000 more than the average for all workers (according to Educational Research Service). However, when you compare teacher salaries to the salaries of educational administrators, a different story is revealed. While the average teacher makes just over $39,000, the average principal makes $72,000; and the average superintendent makes slightly over $98,000. The discrepancies between the classroom and the front office don’t end there. Even secretaries reflect this difference: central office secretaries average $5,000 per year more than average high school secretaries (who, contrary to popular belief, actually run America’s high schools).

What disturbs me about this trend is that, while much of the responsibility (or blame) for educating America’s youth lies on the shoulders of teachers, a higher degree of monetary reward is given to administrators. There are several things that could account for this: most administrators do possess a higher degree of education (i.e. a Master’s or Doctorate degree) than most teachers do, and most of them have had to achieve a significant degree of educational experience. In addition, they have to deal with a lot of the flak issues in education without getting the rewarding experience of classroom interaction with students. Nevertheless, most administrators fill positions that are teacher support positions. The administrators should exist to help teachers, who are in the trenches educating students, do their job more effectively. They have the responsibility for scheduling, maintenance, providing supplies, providing professional development, etc. The actual job of educating lies in the hands of teachers.

The second trend that has disturbed me is the commonly perceived notion that George W. Bush is the "Education Governor," and that he would go on to become the "Education President." George Bush has had some accomplishments. He pushed for legislation in 1995 that overhauled academic standards for all grade levels, and he supported legislation that put an end to social promotion. He used the bully pulpit of the governor’s office (one of the few powers he has as governor of Texas) to support the allocation of $32 million to schools to improve reading instruction. Finally, he publicly supported a large funding increase that, among other things, gave a $3,000 pay raise to teachers, counselors, and school librarians.

However, Bush’s claims that he is responsible for the significant upswing in Texas’ academic achievement are bogus. Much of the improvement can be attribute to reforms initiated by former governor Mark White and billionaire Ross Perot over 15 years ago. Among these reforms were limiting class sizes in elementary schools, competency tests for teachers, and the "no pass – no play" rule for extracurricular activities. Funding reforms during this time period are also given credit for the educational turnaround. In addition, Texas’ new accountability standards were initiated under Governor Ann Richards. Indeed, the increasing level of overall achievement and the decreasing achievement gap between white and minority students are the result of long-term, forward thinking reform. "For George Bush to take credit for academic achievement in Texas," says Gary Orfield, professor of education at Harvard University, "is like Bill Clinton taking credit for the fall of the Berlin Wall."

In addition, Bush has been reluctant to give specifics on how he will improve America’s schools, and many of Bush’s initiatives in Texas have failed. Bush failed to get a pilot voucher program passed through the legislature, and his district home-rule initiative failed when no districts adopted it. The jury is still out on the so-called "charter school" initiative, though several have had to give up in the face of scandal. Bush proposed increasing the state share of education funding to 60% across the state, but it is still hovering at 45%. Dropouts continue to be a problem.

So, given these trends, where should Bush go from here? The answer seems clear to me. Bush should not draw upon his experience as Texas governor to reshape education. Instead, he should draw upon his experience as a part owner of the Texas Rangers. This does not mean that he should trade promising young teachers out in exchange for older has-been teachers, a la Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines. Instead, he should adjust the salary schedule to reflect the important role that teachers plat. As a managing partner of the team, Bush got it right. As an administrator, he gave himself a salary of $200,000 (in addition, of course, to provisions that gave him 10% share of the price they would later receive when selling the team). Bush realized that, while he played an important role in the success of the team (planning, investing, managing resources), it was the responsibility of players on the field to make sure the team was successful. While Bush made more money in 1991 than, say, Chad Kreuter, he realized that it was in the best interest to make sure that the teams best players (guys like Julio Franco and Bobby Witt at that time) were paid well and taken care. Bush made slightly over $200,000; Franco and Witt made $2.35 and $1.5 million, respectively.

When the Yankees won the World Series last year, did the baseball writers give credit to the equipment manager, the schedule makers, or the groundskeepers and Yankee Stadium? Hell no, they didn’t. They gave credit to Derek Jeter and David Cone – the guys on the field and in the trenches. Does a good bit of the credit lie in the hands of management and ownership? Absolutely. Do Joe Torre, the scouts and trainers, and the general manager average as much in salary as the players? Nope. Why should it be different in education? The answer is, it shouldn’t.

There you have it. Mr. Bush, if you would like to be the education president, all you have to do is follow this straightforward plan that puts first things first. If you want to make teachers accountable for education success (or failure), extend accountability to the pocketbook. We can work on the trading cards later.