Debate on Candidates' Education Proposals Remains Buried Under the Campaign Rhetoric

First in an occasional series on the issues in the 1992 presidential campaign.

ANGRY RHETORIC and "character questions" have dominated this year's presidential campaign. Most issues are mentioned only in soundbites or promises, with little substantive debate.

The state of education in America is one of those issues.

Candidates in both parties say education reform is a fundamental tenet of their platforms. They agree that education is central to curing the nation's long-term economic ills.

But professors at the Graduate School of Education say that education issues have received very little attention this election year.

"It's hard to see it in the newspapers at all," says Professor of Education Jerome T. Murphy.

Education scholars agree that the lingering recession has pushed education down on the national agenda.

"Across the country, social issues, including education, have taken a back seat to the economy and the recession," says Arthur Levine, former president of Bradford College and a senior lecturer at the Ed School.

Levine adds that education is at the bottom of the ladder of social issues, beneath health care concerns and prison reform.

Although people recognize the importance of education, the issues that are at the forefront of discussion are those that affect the people most directly, he says.

"The position of education in this election is relative to the condition of the nation," says Levine.

Other scholars, including Professor of Education and Social Structure Nathan Glazer, say education's lack of exposure is less indicative of the electorate's concerns and more a result of the campaigns themselves.

"This is not the kind of campaign in which the issues are playing a big role," says Glazer. "I have not been impressed by the relative weight given to issues in this election."

OF THE FOUR ACTIVE CANDIDATES for the presidency, conservative Patrick J. Buchanan has the least substantive platform on education.

As a former public official, his record on education is nearly non-existent.

His campaign position paper devotes only three paragraphs to education.

His main stand is his support for "school choice," a system in which parents may use government-funded vouchers to send to their children to public, private or parochial schools. But Buchanan provides no details about how such a system would work.

He also calls for increased parental, church and community involvement in education, as well as a merit-based hiring and pay system for teachers.

Buchanan advocates a constitutional amendment to allow voluntary prayer, Bible reading and religious instruction in public schools.

"A nation where the Ten Commandments are ordered out of classrooms and where 14-year-old girls are given condoms and told to go practice `safe sex' has lost its moral compass," he says.

Buchanan, whose campaign slogan is "America First," also stresses a greater emphasis on U.S. history and English and American literature.

LIKE BUCHANAN, Democratic contender Edmund G. Brown Jr. has few detailed proposals for education reform.

The former California governor has spoken frequently--especially on college campuses--about his plan to replace college tuition loans with scholarships and work-study grants.

Brown says he would also increase spending on education programs and establish a "civilian conservation corps" where young people can develop skills.

He calls his entire proposal "a 21st-century educational plan."

"The purpose of education is not to produce a new generation of robots to compete with the Japanese. Education should be broadly based in literature, art, music, and the sciences. We should ... invest in accessible education as an unalienable right," Brown says in his campaign literature.

Echoing the views of many Democrats, Brown says he will immediately push for full funding of programs such as Head Start, designed to give preschool children better preparation through a combination of school and health programs.

Brown's record on education during his two-term tenure as governor of California receives mixed reviews.

His harshest critics are at the university level. During his term, Brown froze faculty salaries arguing that professors were compensated by what he called "psychic income." Several officials at the University of California system have criticized Brown's leadership, some arguing that he made the system worse.

By most accounts, public education in the state weakened during his years as governor. As the public voted in a referendum to pass a major tax-cut, funding dropped. During his tenure, California slipped from 18th to 31st nationally in per pupil school financing.

The governor threatened to constrain school budgets in an effort to inspire reform. He reportedly answered "I don't know yet" when asked what he had in mind.

WHILE BROWN presses for increased funding for education, one striking aspect of President Bush's education program is the modest increase in funding.

Instead of more money, the Bush administration highlights more experimentation with education programs and has endorsed "school choice" that allow parents flexibility in selecting schools--public or private--and introduce competition into the public school system.

The administration is basically saying it can do more with less.

His four-point program, titled "America 2000: Excellence in Education," seeks to set national educational goals and develop a community-wide strategy to reach them, establishes a "report card" to measure schools, and supports the creation and funding of "New American Schools" that experiment with innovation.

His new Secretary of Education, former Tennessee governor Lamar Alexander, has already earned the respect of Democrats and Republicans inside and outside of Washington.

Bush sees education as the vehicle for a more competitive global economy. He writes, "A better educated workforce is essential to America's economic growth and world competitiveness."

The president also proposes an increase of funding for Head Start of $600 million.

ARKANSAS GOVERNOR Bill Clinton's most dramatic education proposal is a plan to double federal spending on education, concentrating resources on the inner city and rural areas.

Clinton also supports a "service option" for students to pay off tuition loans--a work-study program geared toward public service.

Clinton says he would also create apprenticeship programs for high school graduates not planning to attend college as well as adult education programs for those without high school diplomats.

The Democratic frontrunner receives a generally positive review for his record on education. He has been credited with turning around the Arkansas school system, or at least preventing it from slipping further behind.

A 1978 University of Florida study concluded that Arkansas schools were the worst in the nation. In 1989 Time magazine named Arkansas as one of two states whose schools improved the most in the 1980s.

While high school graduation rates improved during that period, standardized test scores, per-pupil expenditures and teacher pay remain among the nation's worst.

His initiatives are a mix of old and new. He increased state funding for Head Start and set academic achievement standards. He also pushed through a proposal to test teachers for competency and fine parents who tolerated student truancy.

ALTHOUGH OPINION is far from unanimous at the Education School, most professors interviewed seemed inclined to support Clinton given the present alternatives.

And some scholars said that as far as education issues are concerned, Clinton would be the clear favorite.

"His background of knowledge in education is unmatched," says Murphy, a former associate dean at the graduate school.

"One would expect an understanding of schools from him," adds Levine.

Professor of Education Gary Orfield, whose research has focused on education opportunities for minorities, says education is an "important secondary issue" and playing an increasingly more important role in the Clinton campaign.

Orfield also says that the candidate's wife, Hilary Clinton, is a plus. She is currently the general counsel for the Children's Defense Fund.

Scholars interviewed were also disappointed with President Bush's performance as the self-proclaimed "Education President."

Levine praises Bush for experimenting with "good ideas," but says his "American 2000" program is simply inadequate.

"It is very simple answer to very complex questions," says Levine, a higher education specialist.

Orfield agrees. He says the president has set high goals but has devoted few resources to meeting them.

Although Bush has made substantial efforts in areas such as financial aid and Head Start, several professors believe more money is necessary.

Harold Howe II, a senior lecturer on education who has headed a variety of foundations and national commissions, says Bush should put more into Head Start.

"Good research has shown that it works," says Howe.

Insurgent candidates Brown and Buchanan also receive poor reviews from professors interviewed.

"Brown's record in California was not impressive," says Levine, adding that the candidate was less supportive of the university system there than former governor Ronald Reagan.

But Buchanan would be even worse, the scholars say. Because he advocates a minimist federal role, Buchanan would almost certainly reduce federal funding for schools.

"I have absolutely no idea what [Buchanan] wishes to do on education--and I would suspect that he has none as well," says Murphy.

Neither Brown nor Buchanan are "education presidents," says Orfield. "Neither of them has run a coherent campaign. So far, they are just full of slogans," he says.

SEVERAL IMPORTANT education issues are not being discussed and examined thoroughly enough this year, professors say.

Glazer points out that too many candidates and interest groups are simply calling for more money.

"The easiest thing to say is, `We need more money,'" says Glazer. But education as a whole, he says, has sufficient funding. The focus needs to shift from how much money is spent toward how that money is spent, he argues.

Different professors point to different programs. Financial aid programs, Head Start, school choice and programs designed to assist economically disadvantaged children are mentioned regularly.

Setting national standards and the quality of teachers is a concern of a number of professors, as is the touchy subject of school desegregation and the debate over whether resources should go to the poor or the middle class.

But some professors emphasize that "the education deficit" is only a symptom of a greater social problem.

"It is not as simple as this: if you fix the schools, you will fix the kids," says Howe.

"If a child does not live in a decent house, have enough to eat, have sufficient parental support, regardless of how good the school is, he will do badly," he says.