Candidates Have Learned Lesson on Education Issue

The candidates for governor are reading the polls and hearing the voters. They’ve also gone to school on Kathleen Brown’s blunder and learned they can’t ignore education.

In 1994, Brown was the ideal candidate to exploit the voters’ growing frustration with public education. She was a former L.A. school board member, a Democrat and a mom. But Brown neglected the smoldering issue, taking for granted that she’d receive the votes of people primarily concerned about schools. What she failed to do was “drive” the issue into a primary concern of most voters--and, at the same time, demonstrate that she really did “stand for” something.

That’s history--history that the current Democratic contenders don’t intend to repeat. And because of that, neither can the GOP gubernatorial nominee--presumably Atty. Gen. Dan Lungren--be a truant on the subject of education.

A recent Times poll found that education, overwhelmingly, is “the most important issue” voters want the gubernatorial candidates to address. This is particularly true of women, who account for 56% of the Democratic voters.

“Education is by far the most intense issue,” says Darry Sragow, campaign manager for Democrat Al Checchi. “It just blows everything else away.”

*

Therefore, Checchi’s first major policy speech--Tuesday to the San Francisco Commonwealth Club--will be devoted entirely to education and “the forgotten child.”

According to Checchi sources, the airline tycoon’s proposals will include:

* Teacher rewards and punishments. A 20% increase in starting pay. Forgiveness of college loans for career teachers. Higher salaries after more training. But mandatory competency tests every five years. “We will weed out the bad teachers,” he vows.

* A focus on fundamentals--math, reading, writing, speaking. This includes spelling, grammar and handwriting. “Job skills.”

* Mandatory summer school for students who don’t pass annual achievement tests.

* A two-year limit on bilingual education, coupled with intensive preschool English instruction. In fact, preschool for any child.

* A 10% cut in the state bureaucracy, generating an additional $500 million for schools.

Two other Democrats--Lt. Gov. Gray Davis and U.S. Sen. Dianne Feinstein--also have sketched out education programs in recent speeches. He’s an announced candidate; she’s a probable candidate.

On the GOP side, Lungren hasn’t settled on a school plan. But he has talked a lot about paying more attention to community colleges, where “you get the better bang for the buck.”

*

While there are distinct differences between the four, in some respects they all sound alike. All four denounce California’s K-12 system as a failure. They demand “radical change,” not “tinkering.” They insist on “more accountability.” And they want to eliminate “social promotion”--when a kid automatically is bumped up a grade despite low academic skills.

None supports bilingual education as it now exists. But neither has any endorsed the anti-bilingual ed initiative, although Lungren probably will eventually. Davis advocates a three-year limit on bilingual ed.

Only Feinstein has endorsed the so-called 95-5 initiative that would prohibit school districts from spending more than 5% of their money on central administration. The others support the concept, but worry about small districts.

Feinstein and Checchi advocate paying good teachers more. “A society that pays plumbers more than teachers will only see their children’s future flushed down the drain,” says Feinstein.

Checchi would lengthen the school day. Feinstein would lengthen both the school day and the school year. California kids spend only 172 days in class, she notes; in Britain it’s 190 and in Japan 220.

Davis would require parents to promise--in writing--to help their kids do homework. And he would make each district hires an auditor to root out fraud. “Many schools pay the same bills two or three times,” he asserts.

Private school vouchers separate the Democrats from Lungren. They’re opposed. He’s for them, but only in due time. First, he wants to “empower” public schools so they can “compete.”

Everybody wants to empower local boards and parents. Two ways, they say, are to dramatically increase the number of charter schools and to allow parents a wider choice of public schools.

Another way, say Democrats, is to reduce the requirement for passage of local bonds from a two-thirds vote to a simple majority. Lungren’s not so sure.

There’s plenty to argue about here. But at least it’s worth arguing over--unlike a lot of garbage candidates shovel out that doesn’t mean diddly to voters.