SAVING OUR SCHOOLS; LUNGREN OFFERS REAL REFORM; DAVIS' PLAN JUST A FACADE.

Byline: Matthew N. Klink Local View

CALIFORNIANS of all political persuasions agree that reforming the state's public schools is the top issue for November's gubernatorial election.

Campaign rhetoric from Republicans and Democrats alike proclaims that education has reached a crisis point that demands immediate attention. In recent national tests, California's fourth-graders surpassed only those in Mississippi and Louisiana in reading proficiency. Any time that California is compared to these two states, unless we are talking about fishing, you know we're in trouble.

In the current gubernatorial race, the state's voters face profoundly different approaches to solve our most glaring embarrassment. From a purely political perspective, education has historically been a Democrat-dominated issue. However, given the utterly deplorable state of public education coupled with GOP-sponsored education reform efforts throughout the United States, improving a state's public education system is no longer dominated by one party.

This should not come as a surprise since Republican governors also pioneered welfare reform that helped to break the cycle of ``Washington knows best.'' Republican elected officials and candidates are now applying this same vigor to education reform as they did to welfare reform - and Democrats are fighting it every step of the way. These facts bode poorly for Gray Davis and put a sparkle in Dan Lungren's eye.

Why does the Lungren campaign believe that education is an issue ripe for a Republican gubernatorial candidate's picking? The answer is simple. California's educational system is deficient and Davis has no substantive reform proposal. Unlike his opponent, Lungren doesn't propose window-dressing solutions that tinker around the edges of education reform. Instead, he offers a bold plan to jump-start public education.

Lungren is a leader in the voucher movement. He believes that parents should be empowered to make schools better. He was one of the original supporters of charter schools, institutions where teachers and parents have wrested control from the education bureaucracy.

Lungren also favors teacher competency testing because if teachers cannot pass an objective test, they should not be teaching our children.

Finally, Lungren supports merit pay for teachers so that educators performing above and beyond the call of duty get rewarded financially for excellence.

Davis' education reform proposals are meek by any stretch of the imagination. It is one thing to say a candidate wants greater accountability and increased responsibility, but words must be met with action. Davis' proposals champion the preservation and expansion of the failed status quo.

It is easy to understand why Davis offers such tame reform proposals when one looks at his campaign contribution list. As of June 30, Davis has accepted more than $250,000 from the California Teachers Association, the union representing the state's teachers. This powerful, cash-flush union, which opposes any true reform that could hurt the group's prosperous education monopoly, has bought and paid for candidate Davis many times over. Davis, in campaign commercials and public speeches, tries to talk tough about education but his rhetoric is nothing more than a facade.

His prescription for the state's public schools stresses accountability and responsibility, but accountability and responsibility from whom remain a gigantic mystery. His ``plan'' stresses adding up to 1,000 chief financial officers to the state's school districts, a one-size-fits-all solution which would cost $50 million to fund. Unfortunately, it would also expand the already bloated education bureaucracy but do absolutely nothing to improve the quality of our children's education.

Davis, who attended a posh San Fernando Valley private school, states, ``the ultimate responsibility for a good education falls to students and their parents.'' If Davis believed that statement, he would support vouchers which allow parents to have true choice and responsibility to hold schools accountable for their children's education. But, unlike Davis' parents who could afford to send him to private school, he refuses to allow the majority of California's parents the same opportunity.

Not surprisingly, majorities of white, African-American and Latino parents support vouchers because California's public schools are incapable of educating their children. Even with a broad base of support for vouchers, Davis continues to oppose them. Could it be that he opposes vouchers because the CTA also opposes them?

What else does Davis propose? Instead of teacher competency tests, he supports peer reviews to gauge teacher performance. These reviews would be nothing more than union meetings where an unbiased assessment of teacher performance would be illusive at best. He also opposes merit pay, which would give teachers incentive to improve performance. But, again, the CTA opposes both measures so Davis toes the line.

A close review of the Davis plan shows that it is nothing more than warmed-over rhetorical platitudes that cannot and will not reform education. His plan caters to the CTA's demands but will continue to leave our state's parents and children with few, if any, real reform options. Davis believes in continuing the failed practices of years past by throwing money at union-controlled schools.

Lungren, on the other hand, seeks to fundamentally change the state's educational climate. His proposed change, which attempts to break the CTA's education monopoly, is what sends shivers down the union's spine. Lungren believes that California can do better and he plans to reform our schools by allowing competition and by giving parents a choice for their children's education - choices that both Davis' and Lungren's parents had when they were growing up.

CAPTION(S):

2 photos

Photo: (1) Dan Lungren 

(2) Gray Davis