Campaign Issues Testing Ideas on Education

By GEORGE J. CHURCH

The declining quality of schooling that children receive, says Education Secretary William Bennett, "is arguably the No. 1 domestic concern of the American people." Presidential candidates have taken note. Last Friday, a few days after school bells called students to class around the country, a roster of White House hopefuls gathered at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill for earnest seminars on the subject. In separate forums, all seven active Democratic campaigners and Republicans Jack Kemp and Pete du Pont debated the single topic of how to boost the failing grades being given to American education.

The discussions highlighted a basic philosophical difference between the two parties. Democrats put much of their faith in increasing federal aid to education, which currently runs around $20 billion a year. The extra money, and some of the present aid, would be used to prompt changes in the system. Samples: Senator Joseph Biden would lengthen the academic year by 30 days; Congressman Richard Gephardt would reward school districts that show the most improvement; Massachusetts Governor Michael Dukakis would intensify federal efforts to help recruit and train teachers. When Gephardt asserted that educational reform "is going to take money -- I think all of us would agree," no Democrat dissented.

Republicans do not deny the need for additional funds; the Reagan Administration, which has reduced the Federal Government's share of all educational outlays, is getting set to propose an increase. But the G.O.P. adds a qualification stressed early by Vice President George Bush: more dollars do not necessarily mean better schools. Indeed, Bennett insists that one source of popular dismay is precisely the belief that the public is not getting its money's worth out of the cash already being showered on schools -- a record $308 billion this year in federal, state, local and private spending. To improve teaching, G.O.P. candidates favor a free-market approach: tuition tax credits and/or education vouchers for parents to send children to public or even private schools of their choice. The theory is that in a buyers' market, schools would be forced to improve to compete for pupils. At present, says former Delaware Governor du Pont, public schools are monopolies and "monopolies are notoriously inefficient. They become complacent and satisfied."

All these plans face a fundamental obstacle: state and local governments, not Washington, control what is taught in schools and how well. A President can exhort, encourage, prod and deplore, and to some extent use federal aid or its denial to effect changes. But a President Biden could not order school districts to lengthen the class year, nor could a President du Pont force them to adopt his "universal choice" plan.

However limited the leverage of the White House, though, no candidate can get away this year with the empty platitudes of past campaigns. Public discontent with education has reached a kind of critical mass, propelled by an unending barrage of reports criticizing various deficiencies in American schools. Last week a report by the Committee for Economic Development, a business and academic group, stressed improvement in education as a key to restoring U.S. industry's ability to match foreign competition. In the view of Democratic Pollster Stanley Greenberg, many voters consider a candidate's stand on all issues affecting children, prominently including education, to be a symbol of how he will deal with "their concerns about sea changes in the modern family and in the American economy."

Education is a particularly important -- and delicate -- issue for Democrats. Teachers' unions play a powerful role in the party's nominating process; some 475 of 3,933 voting delegates to the 1984 Democratic Convention were members of the National Education Association or American Federation of Teachers. Both groups have been skeptical of such ideas for improving the quality of education as competency tests and merit pay for teachers unless teachers themselves exercise considerable control over whatever plans are adopted. Democrats tread cautiously in this area; they cannot afford either to antagonize the unions or to expose themselves to the charges of catering to special interests that were hurled with such devastating effect at Walter Mondale in 1984.

When the Democrats were asked in the North Carolina debate what differences they had with the N.E.A., only Jesse Jackson gave the union a ringing endorsement. Most of the others favored some form of "accountability" for teachers, and some went further, backing the principle of merit pay. Said former Arizona Governor Bruce Babbitt: "We need the guts and creativity to pay the best teachers more." But all seven were vehement in defending the N.E.A. against the harsh attacks of Education Secretary Bennett, who shortly before the forum called the union the "most misnamed organization in America." Senator Albert Gore promised that if he won the presidency he would call Bennett on election night and "tell him to clean out his desk." At the Republican forum in the afternoon, Congressman Kemp charged, "This morning it ! was pretty clear the Democrats were speaking for a special interest."

Some of the ideas that the candidates have proposed are open to serious objection. Gephardt's plan to retarget federal aid toward the fastest- improving schools risks helping good districts to become better while leaving the poor ones to deteriorate even further. Du Pont's "universal choice" goes too far even for some Republicans who accept the principle of inducing competition among schools. Kemp charged that du Pont's plan might cost the Federal Government as much as $25 billion; he promotes choice among public schools only within a given district. But whatever the merits or demerits of the specific proposals, this campaign may demonstrate what the schools need to learn: how to stimulate fresh thinking and serious debate.

With reporting by Laurence I. Barrett/Washington