Going to school on the new regime

His tilt toward tested leaders rather than sound-bite experts fresh from a think tank is reassuring. It suggests a pragmatic team with the smarts to get things done. ...

While every cabinet nomination is subject to the Senate's approval, two of them -- John Ashcroft and Gale A. Norton -- demand painstaking scrutiny. (Ashcroft's) ... long record includes troubling points. Mr. Ashcroft twisted the record of Missouri Supreme Court Judge Ronnie White while sinking his nomination for a federal judgeship in 1998. His attacks on this African American jurist as "dangerous" and "pro-criminal" were simply over the line. ...

Senators who support abortion rights have expressed concern that Mr. Ashcroft's opposition to abortion might undercut enforcement of the federal law protecting women against harassment at abortion clinics. ...

Searching questions must also be asked of Interior-designee Gale A. Norton, who served at Interior in the bad old days under James Watt. ...

John Ashcroft and Gale Norton deserve close, fair-minded scrutiny. If their views really prove to be hostile to the stated mission of the departments they would lead, they should not be confirmed.

The Washington Post, on education:

President-elect Bush will soon give the new Congress an opportunity to do what the last Congress wouldn't: set new ground rules for the basic forms of federal aid to education from kindergarten through high school. ... As the debate gets underway, a couple of points are worth remembering.

The first is that federal spending is only a tiny portion of the overall cost of elementary and secondary education. State and local governments already foot the bill for more than 90 percent of that effort, and that means the most important policy decisions will inevitably remain at the state and local level. ... At best, federal leverage on elementary and secondary education is largely on the margins.

Within those limits, federal aid has always aimed at those most in need. The biggest chunk of federal education spending, Title I, has been targeted to the poorest students and the poorest schools. That is a link the new administration and Congress must maintain.

To get it right this time, the new administration and Congress need to reach agreement on a straightforward test: the approved proposal must not result in a shift of resources away from poor children. If anything, it should do the opposite. Gov. Bush has set an admirable goal of leaving no child behind. A fundamental part of meeting that goal is to make sure the federal government keeps its commitment to those most in need of its help.<