The four former secretaries of education who met here for an unprecedented panel discussion earlier this month may have occupied the same office, but they took from it divergent views on what ails the U.S. education system.
While the four agreed that the nation must focus more of its attention on education, they could concur on little else.
The speakers, who spoke on Nov. 8 at a meeting organized by the College Board as part of a conference, are the only four to have held the secretary鈥檚 post, other than the current secretary Lamar Alexander, since the U.S. Education Department was created in May 1980.
Shirley M. Hufstedler, the first education secretary and the only one to hold the post in a Democratic administration, argued that the most significant problems facing the nations schools are poor districts鈥� lack of resources, disadvantaged children who arrive at school malnourished and unprepared, and low salaries and poor working conditions for teachers.
William J. Bennett, who served from 1985 to 1988 under President Reagan, argued in his familiar combative style that the U.S. education system needs higher standards, more accountability for results, and rewards for excellence, not more money.
Lauro F. Cavazos, who succeeded Mr. Bennett and who was then retained for two years by President Bush, said the most significant problem is that 鈥渢he American people still don鈥檛 acknowledge that we have a massive problem in education.鈥�
Terrel H. Bell, Mr. Reagan鈥檚 first education secretary, agreed at times with each of his colleagues, prescribing greater public awareness and parental responsibility, more spending in certain areas, and also greater accountability through assessment.
While the three Republican appointees supported parts of President Bush鈥檚 education strategy, they spent no time touting it, and no one disagreed when Mr. Bell said that Mr. Bush had not yet lived up to his promise to be the 鈥渆ducation President.鈥�
Charlayne Hunter-Gault, a correspondent for the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour, moderated the discussion, which is to be broadcast Dec. 5 on public-television stations.
Though each of the former secretaries was given a chance to respond to each of Ms. Hunter-Gault鈥檚 questions, the debate was dominated by Mr. Bennett, who is known for his acerbic style, and Ms. Hufstedler, who answered him in kind.
Barbed Exchanges
One such exchange began as Ms. Hufstedler asserted that 鈥渟chool finance is an unholy zoo,鈥� and that 鈥渢he main problem with poor school districts is that they don鈥檛 have any money.鈥�
鈥淭he problem is not that enough money isn鈥檛 spent on the system as a whole,鈥� she said, responding to Mr. Bennett鈥檚 point that overall spending had risen.
Ms. Hufstedler ended her remarks by noting that large sums of money had been spent bailing out the Chrysler Corporation and failed savings-and-loan institutions.
Mr. Bennett responded by pointing out that the scores of disadvantaged populations have been rising, and that poor students from some Asian immigrant groups have done particularly well.
He also argued that it would be impossible to equalize funding because wealthy communities could not be prevented from spending more, and that parochial schools have achieved better results with less money than is spent in some public schools.
Ms. Hufstedler said a comparison between parochial and public schools 鈥渋sn鈥檛 a particularly helpful one,鈥� ending her description of their differences by saying: 鈥淵ou can鈥檛 expect lay teachers to do it for the love of God.鈥�
Mr. Bennett responded, 鈥楳any do, and we should thank God for that.鈥�
鈥淭hanking God isn鈥檛 enough when we have so much to do here on Earth,鈥� Ms. Hufstedler said.
Mr. Bennett changed the subject, to the idea of merit pay for teachers.
鈥淚 think good teachers should make more, and bad teachers should make zero,鈥� he said. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there should be any bad teachers,鈥� Ms. Hufstedler said.
No Enthusiasm for Bush
Ms. Hunter-Gault did not specifically ask the participants about the America 2000 education strategy drafted by Mr. Alexander, but Mr. Bell raised the subject.
鈥淚 have concerns about waiting until the year 2000 to get this done,鈥� Mr. Bell said. 鈥淲e ought to talk about what we鈥檙e going to do in 1992.鈥�
鈥淚 don鈥檛 mean to denigrate鈥� Mr. Alexander鈥檚 program, he said, 鈥淏ut we can鈥檛 wait for new American schools. We have thousands of kids hurting for quality education now.鈥�
Mr. Bennett agreed: 鈥淎s I told Secretary Alexander, we don鈥檛 have to wait for the year 2000. We know what works.鈥�
Mr. Bennett listed what he views as the characteristics of an effective school, including a strong principal, high standards, discipline, and 鈥渁 focus on the academic mission.鈥�
Mr. Cavazos and Ms. Hufstedler did not comment.
As for Mr. Bush himself, nobody contradicted Mr. Bell when he said it is too early for him to claim the title of 鈥渆ducation President.鈥�
鈥淗e鈥檚 done more than any other President,鈥� Mr. Bell said, 鈥淏ut he has to be obsessive, or [education] won鈥檛 stay up on the national agenda.鈥�
There was, not surprisingly, considerable disagreement on one keystone of Mr. Bush鈥檚 program: support for choice programs that allow parents to use public funds to send children to private schools.
Mr. Bennett argued that choice would force bad schools to emulate good ones in order to remain open.
Mr. Cavazos added: 鈥淚n every other phase of life in America we have choice. At least it鈥檚 a better chance. What we have now isn鈥檛 working.鈥�
But Ms. Hufstedler, arguing that it is inappropriate to apply market forces to education, as 鈥渃hildren are not commodities,鈥� said, 鈥淚 profoundly disagree with the concept [of choice] as it has been presented.鈥�
Mr. Bell said a choice system including private schools would have to include rules that ensure a 鈥渓evel playing field.鈥� That way, he said, public schools could compete fairly and prevent disadvantaged children from becoming isolated in poor schools.
鈥淲e鈥檝e worked hard to desegregate America鈥檚 schools, and we need requirements to prevent us from slipping back to where we were,鈥� Mr. Bell said. 鈥淔ree and unfettered choice would be a disaster, in my opinion.鈥�
Views on Testing
Opinion was also mixed on national testing, another important component of the Bush agenda.
鈥淚t鈥檚 just human nature that, when performance is measured, performance improves,鈥� Mr. Bell said, noting proudly that he inaugurated 鈥渢he now-infamous 鈥榳all chart,鈥欌�� which compiled state education-performance statistics.
Mr. Cavazos said that he is opposed to 鈥渁 national test that measures everyone like a big, flat blanket,鈥� but that he supports greater use of assessment at the state and local levels.
Ms. Hufstedler said she fears a national test would be used as 鈥渁n instrument of counting,鈥� rather than 鈥渁n instrument of learning.鈥�
In Mr. Bennett鈥檚 view, 鈥淭he reason there鈥檚 so much intellectual agonizing about testing is the results are so bad. If the results were good, people would say 鈥榞ood instrument.鈥欌��
鈥淚t鈥檚 not an assessment of someone鈥檚 soul; it鈥檚 an assessment of whether they can do basic academics,鈥� he continued. 鈥淚f the results aren鈥檛 good, don鈥檛 break the thermometer.鈥�
鈥淭hat鈥檚 not exactly my objection,鈥� Ms. Hufstedler responded.
鈥淲hoever鈥檚 objection it is ought to feel bad,鈥� Mr. Bennett said.
鈥淚n that respect, I have no sense of shame,鈥� Ms. Hufstedler said.
Mr. Bennett and Ms. Hufstedler engaged in their final sharp debate after Mr. Bennett asserted that colleges and universities should 鈥渆valuate whether what they鈥檙e involved in is 鈥榟igher education.鈥欌��
鈥淭here need to be consequences,鈥� he said. 鈥淪tudents know that whether they study or not, they are going to get into college anyway.鈥�
鈥淚 wonder if you find the development of a system of community colleges to be unfortunate,鈥� Ms. Hufstedler said.
鈥淚 may have to leave now, but l don鈥檛 think you should let in people who are at a 6th-grade level of literacy,鈥� Mr. Bennett said. 鈥淭hat is not giving them opportunity, that is lying to them.鈥�
The Secretarial Role
In response to Ms. Hunter-Gault鈥檚 final question, all four participants agreed that the secretary鈥檚 primary role is to keep education issues in the national spotlight.
Mr. Cavazos, who was asked to resign by White House officials, acknowledged that he had not been successful.
鈥淚鈥檓 convinced about one thing now,鈥� he said. 鈥淭his nation didn鈥檛 hear me, what I had to say about those poor minority kids.鈥�
鈥淚ll had to do it over, I would do it the same way, but I would talk louder,鈥� Mr. Cavazos said.
