The MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour

MR. MacNeil: Good evening. Leading the news this Wednesday, as Presidential campaigning intensified, Dukakis urged voters to pour it on. Bush claimed to be the man of America's hopes and dreams. Israel's small religious parties bargained for power after a tied election. We'll have details in our News Summary in a moment. Jim.

MR. LEHRER: After the News Summary, we explore the meaning of the Israeli election results with former U.S. Ambassador Samuel Lewis and Israeli Journalist Ofra Yeshua-Lyth. Then comes another of our major issue & debate segments on the Presidential election campaign. Education is the subject tonight. The debaters are former Education Sec. William Bennett, Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton, and outside experts Herbert London and Leon Botstein. NEWS SUMMARY

MR. LEHRER: Vice President Bush and Gov. Dukakis had busy days today as they counted just six days left in their campaign for President. Dukakis was in Minnesota, Illinois, and Pennsylvania. In Chicago, he said he would stop all U.S. aid to countries that refuse to cooperate in anti-drug efforts, something Vice President Bush said yesterday he probably would not do. In Minneapolis, Dukakis told a rally that a come from behind victory was still possible.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, Dem. Presidential Candidate: We're moving. You can sense it. You can feel it. You can taste it, and your efforts, your efforts, every single one of you, and people like you all across this state and all across this country are going to be crucial as we head into this final week of the campaign, crucial. And I just want to say thanks to all of you for all you've done, to ask you to keep pouring it on and pouring it on. There are millions and millions of voters out there who haven't made up their mind. This is one election where millions of people are going to be looking and thinking and listening and they're not going to be making up their mind until very close to the moment when they go into that polling place, and you can make a difference.

MR. LEHRER: The Governor also paid a call on his wife, Kitty, who is in a Minneapolis hospital recuperating from a viral infection. After that visit, Gov. Dukakis said his wife was feeling a good deal better today. Vice President Bush campaigned in Illinois and Michigan. He told a rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan, that he is the candidate for mainstream America.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, GOP Presidential Candidate: The differences between me and my opponent are as deep and as wide as the great divide. And I represent the mainstream, the mainstream news and the mainstream values, and they are your values and my values and the values of the vast majority of the American people. And if I win this election, it will be a rejection of the failed liberal policies in the past and a confirmation of your belief in these traditional American values. And if I win, it will be a mainstream mandate. That is what this election is about.

MR. LEHRER: The polls continue to show Bush ahead. A new CBS poll had the margin at 12 percent. A new ABC/Washington Post poll put it at 13 percent, but the Associated Press said Dukakis campaign officials claimed their private polls show Dukakis is closing that gap. Robin.

MR. MacNeil: In Israel, Yitzhak Shamir and Shimon Peres each tried to win the support of small religious parties after a general election in which right wing Likud and left wing labor were almost tied. We have a report from Jerusalem by Brent Sadler of Independent Television News.

BRENT SADLER: The orthodox Jewish parties voted in by more than 1/4 million Israelis now hold the balance of power and today their leaders were being courted by both the main parties who are trying to win this religious support and former government. Yitzhak Shamir's attempts to strike a coalition partnership probably have the best chance, but at what price?

RABBI MENACHEM PORUSH, Agudat Israel: We should be able to leave her as religious -- we should be able to leave Israel and to have the image of the country like a Jewish country, a Jewish state.

MR. SADLER: That spells demands to stick to religious laws, like the abolition of non-kosher pork which is eaten by about a million Israelis. For years, the ultra religious have battled in Jerusalem for greater observance of Shabat, the biblical day of rest, Saturday, on which it's forbidden to drive a car in their areas. And low on the list of the religious group's priorities is the Palestinian question, the main issue on which the election was fought.

MR. MacNeil: Arab reaction to Israel's election was mostly negative. Jordan's foreign minister called it a "blow to the efforts of peace." Syria state radio said, "The results are not in favor of just and lasting peace. But Egypt said it will continue to deal with any new government the Israelis choose. PLO Leader Yasser Arafat said it makes no difference who wins and that the uprising in the occupied territories will continue. This afternoon, Israeli soldiers shot and killed a Palestinian on the West Bank. Since the uprising began last December, at least 306 Arabs and 10 Israelis have been slain.

MR. LEHRER: Drug testing was the major business before the U.S. Supreme Court this morning. The court heard formal arguments on two cases, one involving U.S. Customs employees, the other railroad workers. The issue in both was whether employees could be forced to take drug tests. Attorney General Richard Thornburgh argued the case for such testing. Here is what he and the lawyers on the other side told reporters about what was at issue.

ROBERT TOBIAS, National Treasury Employees Union: The fourth amendment protects the random search of a person's home, and we think that the fourth amendment protects the random search of a person's body,and this is what this case is all about.

LAWRENCE MANN, Railway labor Executive Assn.: The rule is not designed to catch the user on the job and we think when the court evaluates our position, they will see that it is, indeed, an unreasonable way to accomplish what they're attempting to accomplish.

DICK THORNBURGH, Attorney General: These cases represent an important step in the desire to aid in creating a drug free workplace in the United States. We think and argued, obviously, that the interest at hand being the safety of American citizens, the public in general, and the integrity and support and confidence in law enforcement agencies that the approach is reasonable.

MR. MacNeil: In economic news, new factory orders fell by 1.9 percent in September. The orders, which rose 3.2 percent in August, have been seesawing from month to month. In another statistic also showing some cooling of economic activity, new home sales fell 7.8 percent in September. The government also reported that the nation's productivity rose 1.3 percent in the third quarter, after falling in the second. Over the year, the productivity improvement has been only .8 percent.

MR. LEHRER: Another space shuttle was rolled out to the launch pad at Cape Canaveral, Florida, today. Its name is Atlantis and it is scheduled for launch November 28th or 29th. The four mile trip to the launch pad began before dawn and took seven hours to complete. The Atlantis mission is mostly classified. What is known is that it has a military purpose that includes the launch of an intelligence gathering satellite. It will have a crew of five on board.

MR. MacNeil: In Gdansk, Poland, workers from rival Polish unions staged a rally and agreed to oppose the government decision to shut down the Lenin Shipyard where Solidarity was born. Solidarity Leader Lech Walesa said management and members of official unions agreed to join the fight in an unprecedented show of unity. He said the decision to close the shipyard had finally sunk the talks on economic reform to which Solidarity had been invited. British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher arrived in Warsaw today to begin a three day visit to Poland. On Friday, she will become the first Western head of government to go to Gdansk.

MR. LEHRER: Five million dollars in municipal bonds were posted today in New York City as bail for Imelda Marcos. The bonds belong to tobacco heiress Doris Duke. Mrs. Marcos is now free to return to Hawaii to rejoin her husband, former Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos. They were indicted last week in New York on charges of looting the Philippine Treasury of more than $100 million. Mrs. Marcos pleaded not guilty in a court appearance yesterday. And that's it for the News Summary. Now it's on to analysis of the Israeli election results and an issue and debate segment on education. FOCUS - ELECTION STAND-OFF

MR. LEHRER: We go first tonight to the Israeli elections. The results from yesterday's voting showed the hard line Likud Party of Yitzhak Shamir winning 39 of the Parliament's 120 seats, the more moderate labor party of Shimon Peres winning 38. The rest were divided among 13 other political parties. But most people in Israel are assuming that Shamir and several religious parties who were the big gainers last night eventually will form a coalition government. David Smith of Britain's Channel 4 got two perspectives today.

EHUD SPRINZAK, Israeli Political Scientist: People were immensely disappointed by the two major parties and just not the majority of people, about 7 percent, but this is the 7 percent that counts, and they turned to God, they simply turned to God. In my judgment, it's a sort of act of desperation. The lay people cannot give us good answers. It has been a government of immobilizism. Why not go back to God? Perhaps the answer is there.

DAVID SMITH: What sort of government is it going to be now under Shamir if he's obviously got to make a deal with the religious then?

MR. SPRINZAK: Well, it's going to be a government in which you'll have several important religious ministers. We cannot talk about fundamentalism, but we're certainly going to see a lot more religion in the public life of Israel.

MR. SMITH: What are they going to do say in terms of the uprising in the occupied territories?

MR. SPRINZAK: Oh, here I think that Shamir will have a free hand, but he will also be pressed by the radical right, who are an essential partner to that government. And the radical right is for crushing very brutally the -- Arab uprising. So I think you'll see many more degradations. You'll see some very severe legal acts and you'll see very ruthless policy.

SARI NUSSEIBEH, Palestinian Professor: I was hoping for an initiation of a peace process. As it is, with the victory of the Likud, it is not going to be possible, I think, to have anything but continued confrontation, conflict, in the area between us and the Israelis for several years to come.

MR. SMITH: Does this make the continuation of the uprising inevitable? I mean, is it simply going to go on?

PROF. NUSSEIBEH: Absolutely. It's simply going to go on. It may well also increase and escalate. You must take into account the fact that with a new government, a new defense minister, there will be an attempt by the new administration to outshine the previous administration in the level of repression.

MR. LEHRER: Now the analysis of Ofra Yeshua-Lyth, the Washington Correspondent for "Maariv", Israel's second largest newspaper, and Samuel Lewis, who served as the U.S. Ambassador to Israel from 1977 to '85. He is now President of the United States Institute of Peace here in Washington. Do you believe the Likud will be able to form a coalition government?

OFRA YESHUA-LYTH, "Maariv" Newspaper: Yes. There doesn't seem to be any reason why they shouldn't be. Their party is the one, they've got the largest majority, the largest number of mandates, so the President would have to invite Mr. Shamir and ask him to form a government.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Mr. Ambassador? Is there any question about that?

AMB. LEWIS: Not in my mind.

MR. LEHRER: What would Shamir have to give up to make a deal with the religious parties?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: Well, this is the question that everybody is asking in Israel today. The religious parties stated that they're interested mainly in religious affairs. So they would come up with things like stricter observance of the Shabat, maybe some laws about conversion in private lives. They claim they want to return the status quo to where it was before, they claim, it was eroded. But nobody really knows what the actual claims will be.

MR. LEHRER: Will you agree, Mr. Ambassador, your reading of it, that the demands would have to do more with religious domestic matters rather than foreign policy?

SAMUEL LEWIS, Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel: Yes. The religious party demands will certainly be in all of those areas that my colleague here has been describing. I think, Jim, there's something else interesting though. Americans kind of assume that you make a government right away after you have an election. The history of Israeli coalition building, and there's always had to be a coalition government, means that this thing will extend on for four, six, eight, ten weeks of very tough bargaining between Prime Minister Shamir and the religious parties in particular. And their demands are going to be hard for his party to meet in entirety. Meanwhile, Peres and his colleagues are going to be trying to tempt one or of the religious parties with offers of his own to break away and help Peres block the formation of a Likud government. That process will drag out a long time, and I don't think you can absolutely completely exclude the end result being another national unity government between Likud and labor, though it's highly unlikely.

MR. LEHRER: Which is what we have now.

AMB. LEWIS: Which is what we now, but I think that's highly unlikely. But it's not totally out of the question.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree it's going to take a while?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: I don't think it would take as long as it did last time. It did take two months, because last time there was a real block and a real difficulty. Either party could not form a government. This time it's quite clear that Likud can make it, and I think the, Peres' other parties, other left wing party and most of the labor party is not really interested in getting into this bargaining game knowing that labor party's interest in the religious parties will only increase their bargaining position and they would be able to extract from Likud where they're going to end anyway. This is what most people assume, so I don't think it will be that long this time.

MR. LEHRER: What is your analysis of what happened? What is the message of this, of these results?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: I think Israelis are staggered today to find out that the religious block has increased its power actually to 1/3, from 12 to 18 representatives in the coming Kinesit.

MR. LEHRER: That's out of 120 total?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: Out of 120, but it's still 33 percent, and it's a staggering result. There is a lot of anger in the non-religious groups, including, I mean, Likud supporters are also not terribly happy about the prospect of, for example, soccer games on Saturday being cancelled as a result of the coming coalition. So I think that the fact that this largely unZionist, non-supportive group has come into such a power in the Israeli society, it's a demographic factor and so it is a social factor, but it's very worrying and it's something that people were not thinking about a lot in the past.

MR. LEHRER: And that's the headline really from your perspective?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: It is, indeed, yes.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree, Ambassador, that that's more of a significant development than the fact that neither Likud nor Labor was able to come up with a majority?

AMB. LEWIS: Yeah, you're right. The big headline in this election is the sudden, greatly increased strength of the religious parties. They've actually held the balance of power for the last two elections because they've been quite close elections, but none of the Israeli journalists who are following this election predicted this outcome. Everyone predicted a stalemate.

MR. LEHRER: You're nodding in agreement.

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: I agree, I agree.

AMB. LEWIS: And the only question was whether Labor might eke out a slight victory over Likud and an impasse was well predicted, but this was quite a development. And I think it's clear that from the past history of these negotiations, the religious parties are the toughest bargainers of any of the parties when it comes to drawing up coalition agreements. They had some promises from Likud --

MR. LEHRER: Now why is that, because the people they're negotiating with always needs them more than they need them, or - -

AMB. LEWIS: That's exactly right, and also they're just very shrewd fellows, these rabbis that run these parties. And the last time around they got some promises out of Likud about changes in legislation. Likud didn't deliver so they're going to sell their support with very very careful, all the "t's" crossed, all the "i's" dotted this time. That's why I think it'll take so long.

MR. LEHRER: Let's go to some of the foreign policy, the obvious foreign policy questions, assuming, and it's difficult to do, taking allof the caveats that you all have mentioned, but assuming that eventually there's a Likud government with the religious minorities, what does this mean in the attitudes toward the occupied territories and the Palestinian uprising?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: Well, if you look at Shamir's utterances during the election campaign, he's promising to crack down, as he says, on the Palestinian uprising even harder than before. It's hard to conceive how he would do it, because the former government's position with Defense Minister Rabin seemed pretty harsh as it was. So we have to wait and see what he exactly means.

MR. LEHRER: And Defense Minister -- let's make sure that people understand -- Defense Minister Rabin is a Labor Party official.

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: Labor Party.

MR. LEHRER: But he served in this unity government and it was pretty tough under him.

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: And one of the questions now is who will be Shamir's Defense Minister.

MR. LEHRER: What's the answer?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: The options are Ariel Shiron, who wants the job, who had the job before and who makes a very strong plea now --

MR. LEHRER: And he's very much a hard liner.

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: Yes, with a history of cracking down on Palestinian demonstrations when he was in the army. There is Mosha Arens is another possibility.

MR. LEHRER: Former Ambassador to the United States.

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: And Former Defense Minister, who is not considered a very good choice at this moment. Actually, the one reason that some people were hoping for a national unity government, that it is well known that Shamir quite liked to work with Rabin and the cooperation between the two seemed strangely successful.

MR. LEHRER: Mr. Ambassador, what about the issue that is and was and is of major concern to Sec. Shultz and others in the State Department, at least, in the Reagan Administration? That was some kind of peace negotiations. What does this say about that?

AMB. LEWIS: Well, I think as we listened to that excerpt a few minutes ago, Prof. Sprinzak put it pretty well. The immediate prospect is a very tough crackdown policy in the territories. Something he didn't mention is that Likud all during the campaign said they were going to reinstitute a major settlement program and demonstrate that Israel was going to continue making major settlements in the territories. Those two things, if, in fact, they're carried out, will make it awfully tough to launch a peace process. And while I think we can assume that the next Shamir government will make some kind of peace proposal, it will be based on autonomy and the Camp David agreement rather narrowly defined. And from what I sense about the Arab positions, it's very hard to imagine any takers. So I'm afraid we're in for a rather long period of no peace process, a lot of trouble in the territories as a harder line policy is being implemented. If it succeeded, then eventually maybe we could get back to the table. But from what Mr. Sari Nusseibeh was saying, I suspect, instead, you're going to see lots of trouble instead of peace process.

MR. LEHRER: Do you agree?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: I agree, but I also would like to point out the peace process did not seem very successful in the last couple of years where we did have a component of the Labor Party, the Modavish Party, even with Shimon Peres as Prime Minister.

MR. LEHRER: So it can't be much worse, is what you're saying, right?

MS. YESHUA-LYTH: Perhaps.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Thank you all both very much for being with us. SERIES - '88 - ISSUE & DEBATE

MR. MacNeil: We devote theremainder of our program tonight to our final issue and debate segment for this campaign. Tonight the focus is education. We'll be talking to representatives of both candidates, and two educators with very different views. We start with a background report on the candidates from Education Correspondent John Merrow.

JOHN MERROW: Good evening and welcome to Campaign '88. How much do you know? I'm your host John Merrow, and the subject tonight is education. There will be eight questions in all. Let me warn you. Some of them are pretty tricky and the answers may surprise you. I'll ask you the question, you'll have a moment while it flashes on the screen, then I'll give you the answer. Ready? Here's the first question. Which candidate says he wants to be known as the "Education President", George Bush or Michael Dukakis? If you said Bush, you were right.

VICE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH, GOP Presidential Candidate: I want to be the "Education President" because I want to see us do better. We're putting more money per child into education and we are not performing as we should.

MR. MERROW: But Dukakis also emphasizes the importance of education.

GOV. MICHAEL DUKAKIS, Dem. Presidential Candidate: Education, no issue, no concern, no institution means more to me than education.

MR. MERROW: Next question. Is this statement true or false? The President can do a great deal to improve education. The correct answer is true and false. The federal government contributes less than 7 cents of every dollar that goes into education, so Presidents don't have a lot of control over school budgets, but the President and his Secretary of Education have the power to set the national agenda. Ronald Reagan's first Secretary of Education, Terrell Bell, sparked the current education reform movement when he warned that our schools were drowning in "a rising tide of mediocrity -- " His successor, William Bennett, went one step further, with slashing a tax on schools and colleges. Question No. 3, is this statement true or false? The candidates disagree sharply about education issues. Before you answer, listen to what they're saying.

GOV. DUKAKIS: This fall, the American people will face a choice between two very different ideas of prosperity, two very different kinds of leadership, between those whose education as a lifetime commitment and those who see it as an election year strategy.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: The stakes are high this year and the choices crucial for the differences between the two candidates are as deep and wide as they have ever been in our long history.

MR. MERROW: Okay, now answer the question. The correct answer is false. When it comes to education, the candidates agree more than they disagree. They both support Head Start and other preschool programs, higher standards for teachers and students, drop-out prevention programs, more money for good teachers, bilingual education, educational aid to the handicapped and the disadvantaged, drug education, efforts to fight adult illiteracy, and federal aid for college students. On this last one, their approach is different. Bush would help parents pay for college by encouraging them to save.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: The college savings bond would work just as the U.S. savings bonds do now, except that their income would be tax free if applied to college tuition.

MR. MERROW: In the Dukakis plan, students pay for their own college education with the help of loans. He calls it STARS, Student Tuition And Repayment System.

GOV. DUKAKIS: Under the system that we're proposing, students would borrow directly from banks and other financial institutions and would repay those loans through payroll withholding of a small percentage of income earned after they graduate.

MR. MERROW: Here's an extra credit question. Where did Dukakis, the Democrat, get the idea for his college student aid plan? Well, we can't say for sure, but it's nearly identical to one proposed two years ago by Republican Secretary of Education William Bennett. Where did George Bush get his plan? Well, his is nearly identical to one proposed by Democratic Senators Kennedy and Pell and supported by another Democratic Senator, Lloyd Bentsen. That proposal recently passed the Senate 94 to nothing. Are you having trouble telling Republicans and Democrats apart? It's going to get tougher. Next question. Republicans like to paint themselves as fiscal conservatives and Democrats as big spenders. Who's promising more money and more programs this time around? Surprise. It's George Bush. He's proposed five programs besides college savings: merit schools, magnet schools, innovation and school reform, rewards for excellent teachers and student achievement tests. Michael Dukakis has promised three programs besides his college program: a teaching excellence fund, science education, and a program to bring scientists and engineers into the classroom. Total promised expenditures, George Bush $606 million; Michael Dukakis $365 million. Question No. 6: Democrats have often been accused of making promises to special interest groups. This year an Hispanic group asked both candidates to promise to put an Hispanic in the cabinet. Who said yes? George Bush made the commitment and he's partially delivered. When William Bennett resigned in September, Bush persuaded President Reagan to name Lauro Cavasos, a University President from Texas, Secretary of Education. Bush hasn't said whether he'll keep Cavasos if he wins.

GOV. DUKAKIS: And when it comes to the education of our children and to the future greatness of America, actions, actions speak louder than words.

MR. MERROW: That's true, Governor. So let's look at the records. Here's how Dukakis sees his own record.

GOV. DUKAKIS: We started an essential skills program in my state that is aimed at helping every child in our state to get a good start in life and a fair shot at the American dream -- We're investing in professional development centers to help our teachers keep pace with changing times -- We've quadrupled scholarship assistance to low and middle income students.

MR. MERROW: True, but many observers don't give Gov. Dukakis credit. They say most of the ideas and initiatives came from the legislature, often over Dukakis's objections.

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: We had to make some very tough decisions in this administration, but the quality of education fortunately is going up.

MR. MERROW: Vice President Bush has to run on the Reagan record. That record shows seven consecutive attempts to cut the federal education budget. Under Reagan/Bush, the federal share of education spending has reached a 20 year low. He was asked about the budget cuts during a primary debate.

QUESTIONER: What did you do in President Reagan's first term to try to prevent that?

VICE PRESIDENT BUSH: Work closely with him and with the Secretary of Education in putting the emphasis on values, putting the emphasis on quality in education. You see, Carl, your question hypothecates to me that you think the answer to education is strictly how much money you spend. But don't make the mistake of assuming that it's the federal government that has got to solve all this. When I'm talking about the "Education President" is to use the White House as the bully pulpit to encourage excellence.

MR. MERROW: But this year, Vice President Bush supported an increase in federal spending for education. Okay. Who has the better record? Well, here's what the teacher unions decided.

MARY FUTRELL, National Education Assoc.: Our members have made their choice decisively. There choice with an overwhelming 86 percent of the endorsement votes cast is Gov. Michael Dukakis of Massachusetts. No other candidate running for --

MR. MERROW: Which leads to the next question: Will teachers play follow the leader? We won't know until November, but they did not in 1984. Then the leadership endorsed Walter Mondale. 55 percent of teachers voted for Ronald Reagan. Whoever wins in November is going to face some tough issues. Half of America's teachers will retire in the next 10 years, replacements are nowhere in sight. Twenty-three million adults lack basic literacy skills. Twenty-six percent of our young people drop out of high school. The average college student is more than $7,000 in debt on graduation day. Jobs critical to the economy are going begging because we don't produce enough skilled workers. Final and most important question of all: Are either candidate's proposals good enough to meet these challenges?

MR. LEHRER: To answer that and other questions, we go to the designated representatives of the Presidential candidates. For Vice President Bush, William Bennett, former Secretary of Education under President Reagan, he is now President of the Madison Center in Washington, a conservative education and public policy forum; representing Gov. Dukakis is Gov. Bill Clinton of Arkansas. He has overseen education reform in his state and he is a former Chairman of the National Governors Association and of the Education Commission of the States. He joins us from Little Rock. Mr. Secretary, to you first. How would you answer John Merrow's questions? Is Vice President Bush set and ready to solve that list of problems that John laid out at the end?

WILLIAM BENNETT, Former Education Secretary: Yes, I think he is. I think we need to look at some other things too, but I think the Vice President's agenda is very clear on the issues that John talked about and also on some other areas, such as wanting more accountability in American education, that is, rewarding success and not rewarding failure, on reform of our bilingual education programs to be sure that they emphasize the teaching and learning of English, and third on giving parents a greater choice in the schools their children attend in public schools. These are important differences.

MR. LEHRER: Let me just choose one arbitrarily to start with, and we'll start with you, Gov. Clinton, in terms of what Gov. Dukakis might do, and that's the problem that John mentioned, the 23 million adults in this country who lack basic literacy skills. What would Gov. Dukakis do about that?

GOV. BILL CLINTON, [D] Arkansas: He's proposed a national volunteer literacy corps to work under the leadership and with the guidance of the President and with people, Governors and other leaders at the state level, to mobilize an army of people to teach non-readers to read. It is a terribly important issue. I hope we can talk about some of the other issues. I wish you'd let me answer the question you let the Secretary issue -- but Gov. Dukakis has come forward with a very reasonable and I think effective and workable plan to fight illiteracy.

MR. LEHRER: Feel free to answer the same question. I was going to get back to it but go right ahead. You wanted to respond to whether or not the, whether Gov. Dukakis has an overall proposal that will solve all those things.

GOV. CLINTON: Well, I don't know that anybody can solve all of them, but I think that if you look at his program, I would disagree with the commentary that there's not much difference between them, even though he's proposed fewer specific new spending programs. There are basically two or three serious problems in public education. We need to continue to lift standards. We need to deal with the needs of poor children more, and we need more teachers and better teachers. Gov. Dukakis's major spending program is designed to get us more teachers and better teachers. He also, however, has called for significant increases in fully funding the Head Start program and the Chapter 1 program for children who need help in school. By contrast, for the last eight years, this administration has served only one in five of the eligible Head Start children, has cut 500,000 of the poor kids who needed compensatory education off. In terms of the other issues you mentioned, I hope we can talk a little bit about college going. They do both propose college scholarship programs, and it's terribly important to increase the college going rate. This administration spent seven years trying to cut 1.8 million people out of college scholarships and loans. So when Vice President Bush says that we say money is the only problem, I don't believe that. We're for standards, we're for accountability, but these people have got to live with their record. They tried to cut a million, eight hundred thousand people out of a college education, that's what they tried to do. They cut education aid to public schools for seven years. You have to ask how credible is this promise by George Bush to improve education when he's also promised not to raise taxes under any circumstances.

MR. LEHRER: Let's give Sec. Bennett a chance to respond.

SEC. BENNETT: Well, I think he's very credible. As the Governor knows, education has improved on our watch, the Governor knows that the proposals he's talked about would not have kept anybody out of college, this was a change in student loan programs, and the Governor knows that he and I very much agree on things like accountability and standards. But I will tell you what I think the major difference is. I would like to hear the one major issue, any major issue, on which Michael Dukakis disagrees with the education of special interests, just one. That would do. George Bush has indicated his view that there needs to be more accountability, as I mentioned, more choice in education, reform of bilingual, a number of serious proposals the American people stand behind, but not the education of special interests. What Bill Clinton has done I respect. The problem is Mike Dukakis is not Bill Clinton He does not have the record in education as Governor that Bill Clinton has. And I know Bill is doing the best he can to represent Dukakis and, you know, criticize us, but you know, Governors do education and Bill Clinton can't make Mike -- his record Mike Dukakis's record.

MR. LEHRER: I'm determined to get you all to talk about some specifics.

SEC. BENNETT: Whatever you want.

GOV. CLINTON: I'll be glad to talk about some specifics.

MR. LEHRER: All right. Just a minute, Governor. The Governor says that you all cut 1.3 million kids off of student loans during the --

SEC. BENNETT: No, we didn't.

GOV. CLINTON: No, they tried. They didn't succeed, but they tried.

MR. LEHRER: They tried.

GOV. CLINTON: That's right.

MR. LEHRER: Is he right?

SEC. BENNETT: I think he's wrong, but let's say for the sake of the argument, we certainly did propose cuts and Gov. Clinton, Gov. Dukakis might be very unhappy with us as the Democratic Congress was, but George Bush is not proposing cuts. He is clearly on the record not proposing cuts and reductions; he wants to see an increase, and that kind of public record, I think we can take him at his word.

MR. LEHRER: Governor.

SEC. BENNETT: Does Bill think that George Bush will turn around and behave differently once he said this on the record?

GOV. CLINTON: I've watched -- well, maybe this election year conversion will be permanent, but all I know is that their campaign has spent the last several months trying to argue that Gov. Dukakis's positions in this election are not credible if he did something different, ten, twelve, 15 years ago. Look at their record. You can take any issue you want on this funding side, and you'll see that what they're saying now is inconsistent with what they have done. Let me just take a value issue. Drugs in the schools. This administration recognized that Gov. Dukakis in Massachusetts had one of the best drug free schools programs in the United States. They tried to cut 50 percent of the drug free schools program. That's what Reagan/Bush tried to do, and the Vice Presidential Nominee Dan Quayle refused to vote for it in the first place, because it would have diverted $100 million from the federal furniture fund. So I think you have to ask which side has more credibility on these issues?

SEC. BENNETT: Again, I think we have more credibility. We actually, you're right, Governor, did praise the one thing we could find of Gov. Dukakis to praise was the drug education program, which was based on our book, "Schools Without Drugs", and followed the proposals we recommended. But I think we need to distinguish whether we want to debate the Reagan administration or whether we want to debate the Bush proposals. I'll defend either one. I was a member of the Reagan administration. I'm happy to defend George Bush. But then Gov. Dukakis has to answer for his record, and maybe Gov. Clinton will tell us why Mike Dukakis vetoed the very popular choice bill in Massachusetts passed by the state legislature, but opposed by the teachers unions and as a result, Mike Dukakis wanted to veto it.

MR. LEHRER: That also fits another charge, Governor, that the Secretary made, which is that Gov. Dukakis is in line with the educational establishment right down the line on all of his positions. Is that true?

GOV. CLINTON: I don't think so. Let me answer the choice, issue, because, as you might have guessed, Sec. Bennett and I agree on a lot of things and I like him very much. I have supported choice in Arkansas and I've recommended a sweeping choice plan for my state. Gov. Dukakis says he voted that vetoed that bill for two reasons; one, there was no guarantee that student aid would follow the child; two, there was no guarantee that the crowded suburban districts could accommodate the children who chose to go there. In our state, our law would guarantee that aid follows the child and no district would have to take a child if it went over the state requirements in overcrowded classes. Now if you want to look at some places where Dukakis has stood for accountability, read his position paper on future federal aid increases to schools, only if they comply with certain clear accountability and performance standards and the federal aid reward/success, not failure. If you look at the position Gov. Dukakis took on undergraduate education, he was on a task force looking at the quality of undergraduate education last year and he supported the refinings of the task force which was chaired by the Republican Governor of Missouri, Gov. Ashcroft, a conservative Republican, saying that accountability in higher education was important for future funding. He supported the position paper written by the Republican Governor of New Jersey, Gov. Tom Kean, that federal aid to education should target the needs of poor children, something this administration has ignored. And I still don't know what Vice President Bush's position is going to be on expanding Head Start and fully funding the compensatory education programs of Chapter 1.

SEC. BENNETT: To say that Mike Dukakis supported the position of another Governor that there should be federal aid to poor children is pretty thin gruel, and Bill Clinton knows that there just isn't much to show in Massachusetts. Except for what the legislature has done there, there is very little Mike Dukakis can show, and on a couple of critical occasions, he tried to overrule his own legislature, one on the choice bill, and one on that famous, but you don't want to talk about the Pledge issue.

MR. LEHRER: Well, don't go away, we'll be back.

SEC. BENNETT: Okay, I'll be here.

MR. LEHRER: Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Now we talk to two educators who view the campaign's education issues differently. They are Leon Botstein, President of Bard College in Anondale On Hudson, New York, and Herbert London, a Dean at New York University, and the Chairman of the National Association of Scholars, a newly formed coalition of conservatives in colleges around the country. Starting with you, President Botstein, are there significant differences? Will it make a big difference in education, which of these two men is elected?

LEON BOTSTEIN, Bard College: I suspect probably, yes, although I think the campaign has been not good enough in explaining to the American people how desperate the situation is. The fundamental difference I think is that the Democratic candidate and the Democratic legislature and Congress is more likely to realize that federal investment is absolutely essential, if you're going to deal with the teacher shortage, with the fact that there's been a decline, not an improvement in educational performance, and the Secretary of Education is wrong on this count, that the situation is getting worse, not better. And from which side will we get better results is really the question. One indicator would be the point in American history where the largest number of Americans completed high school was at the end of the Kennedy/Johnson era in 1968. That was 77 percent of Americans completed high school. That has declined to 73 percent.

MR. MacNeil: When the former Education Secretary says education has improved on our watch, you disagree with that?

MR. BOTSTEIN: Yes. For example, a recent study by the National Assessment of Educational Progress showed that in the 70's about 8.5 percent or 8.6 percent of Americans were prepared to take science courses on a college level after graduating from high school. That has declined to 7 percent. The number of Ph.D.'s given both to blacks and to whites has declined in the period of the Reagan administration. The Reagan administration has seen -- the so called "bully pulpit" theory is a lot of rhetoric -- but a continuous erosion of reasoning skills, science skills, general literacy and achievement, and the statistics they cite, particularly SAT improvements, which are not in mathematics, but inferable, are statistically insignificant.

MR. MacNeil: Mr. London, is the, or Dean London, do you see a significant difference, in effect, on the education of this country if one or other is elected?

HERBERT LONDON, National Association of Scholars: Well, let me make the point that I think there is very little correlation between the expenditure of funds and the actual improvement of educational standards in the United States. We have seen in the last four administrations, both Republican and Democratic, about a 165 percent increase in education expenditures in the United States controlling for inflation, with very little effect on actual performance of student skills. But the point that I would like to make that I think Sec. Bennett made very effectively is that you can look at some of the proposals that are being made by Bush and see them having a significant effect on American education, magnet schools, for example, and the calibration of expenditures to performance. It's very important to consider the kinds of performances that are necessary in education instead of simply carping about what's happened in the past.

MR. MacNeil: What is your view of Mr. Bennett's claim that education has improved on our watch? President Botstein says no way.

MR. LONDON: Well, one of the things that you have to consider is that only 7 percent of actual educational expenditures in the United States are controlled at the federal level. I think that Sec. Bennett has used his position as a very effective bully pulpit not only to raise standards, but to raise the right kind of issues. It seems to me that in the future any Secretary of Education will have to consider the initiatives that were started by Mr. Bennett. That strikes me as a very important factor in considering the general educational calculus.

MR. MacNeil: You don't consider the use of the bully pulpit as effective?

MR. BOTSTEIN: No. I think it raises expectations without realities. Many states have improved standards. But to improve standards and deliver them are two separate things. Many states have budget deficits. Thirty-four states in this country have teacher salaries which have lost actual purchasing power, we have a major teacher shortage, and the taxpayer in the United States who owns property, the local taxpayer, and the state revenues are simply not enough. And when Sec. Bennett properly compares America to other industrialized countries where we don't perform well, those countries all have a much larger national system of investment in education. We don't have to sacrifice local control, but the reality is that simply providing rhetoric of higher standards is not going to work if we really are committed to educating all of our citizenry, and not as we did before World War II, only a small fraction.

MR. MacNeil: Should we judge George Bush on the Reagan administration record?

MR. LONDON: Well, I think that there probably will be differences. The important thing is to consider the emphasis that will be taken by Mr. Bush. it strikes me that President Bush, assuming he is President Bush, will be very much concerned with trying to introduce greater degrees of accountability into educational expenditures. As I noted before, the key ingredient in trying to determine the success of American education is not simply how much is spent but what is done with that money, and it strikes me some consideration has to be given to the performance of our students and to see some sort of calibration between these expenditures and actual performance.

MR. BOTSTEIN: Yes, but on the other hand, it's not, I mean, it doesn't square with common sense. We test American students without respite. We're constantly testing our kids. Sure, there should be accountability, but all this talk about not spending money, that money won't solve it, starving the system is not going to improve it. We don't have enough teachers, they don't get well enough paid, the class sizes are too large. 55 percent of all the engineering Ph.D.'s are given to foreign students, not American students. We have a desperate, serious problem. And while money alone doesn't solve it, the Reagan/Bush record has been constant effort, except in this election year, to cut the budget, to cut the fending, and to leave America with an archaic concept that with local taxpayer support already overburdened and local tax revenues, what would happen if we went into a recession? You can actually solve the question of educational performance. The reason we spend more money than other countries is because we're the only one to attempt a really democratic system where excellence and equity can be reconciled. And the Reagan administration has talked only about excellence and not equity.

MR. MacNeil: It's also talking about choice. I want to ask Dean London what is the significance of -- will a Bush Presidency really result in more choice for parents in the schools their children go to?

MR. LONDON: I think that it's certainly possible --

MR. MacNeil: And is that important?

MR. LONDON: -- particularly if President Bush decides to build on the voucher initiative that was started by Dr. Bennett, it strikes me that there are, indeed, possibilities for introducing choice into the system. It's very important if you want to deal with the virtual monopoly that the public school system has on education in the United States. One way to introduce competition is through a voucher plan; it is by no means the only way. Magnet schools clearly is another way to introduce competition into the system, but if I may refer to a point that Leon was making earlier, it strikes me that you don't want to starve the system. Clearly, we agree on that point. It's a question of how much educational expenditures are necessary to get adequate performance from our students. When you talk about not having adequate class size, for example, to use one of the criteria that was mentioned by Leon, it strikes me as fairly absurd. The Japanese have much larger class sizes than we do. That doesn't affect the performance of Japanese students at all. The problem that I have with some of the arguments that are made by people who have been critical of this administration is that they very often do not take into account the atmosphere in which education occurs. There are other considerations that have a bearing on what goes on in a school, namely the illegitimacy, the female-headed homes in the United States, the fact that there are a lot of latch key kids, the fact that the Leave it to Beaver family no longer represents the American, the typical American child. I think that these considerations have as much of a bearing on what actually goes on in our schools as the expenditure of federal funds.

MR. BOTSTEIN: Precisely, precisely because we have those problems, the school is that much more important, and it's very unfair to compare the Japanese, who have essentially a homogeneous society, with the problems of teaching students who do not have English as a first language, a great deal of poverty which has been a serious problem, and its relationship to schooling, and therefore,it seems to me that the class size question or the remuneration of teachers or their status or their professional life is terribly important if we're, in fact, going to reverse a decline which threatens the stability of the nation.

MR. MacNeil: What do each of you see, and very briefly, as the most important issue facing American education, and how is this campaign addressing it, or is it?

MR. LONDON: Well, it strikes me that the most significant issue addressing the American educational system today is the improvement of standards, and the only way to address it is by introducing greater degrees of accountability, and as I suggested before, calibrating educational expenditures to student performance.

MR. BOTSTEIN: The most important issue is making sure that every kid who graduates high school can read, write, understand some history, is able to enter with some scientific understanding and whatever is required to do that, the real teaching, the love of learning, and the capacity to function as a citizen, that has to be achieved, and it is not achieved merely by accountability and measurement, but it is really by a serious investment in schools that can, in fact, inspire the kids to learn, which is not happening now.

MR. MacNeil: Let's go back to the others. Sec. Bennett, if the voters elect Mr. Bush President, how much are they voting for a continuation of the Reagan educational agenda, and how much are they voting for something different?

SEC. BENNETT: I think what they're voting for Robin is a continuation of the agenda, the issues, the ideas, and the initiatives, but for more money. That's the essential difference. George Bush embraces the ideas and initiatives and proposals of the Reagan administration, but says let's take this money issue off the table. That's probably a sound idea. Money, by the way, $328 billion this year, we can't say we haven't tried investment. We outspend everybody in the world. What I think what he will say is look, the money issue is moot; now let's go and do the right things, let's have accountability, let's have choice, let's raise those standards.

MR. MacNeil: Do you see it that way, Gov. Clinton?

GOV. CLINTON: No, I don't, not entirely. I do believe that we have to have greater accountability. If you will read the positions taken by Gov. Dukakis, he agrees that federal aid should be tied to performance and to accountability and he believes that schools should be funded which offers magnet schools and other examples of excellent learning. But the critical thing is how have these men developed their programs to address the real needs of the country? One of our biggest problems is a need for more teachers and better teachers. Dukakis has a great program on that which emphasizes the national teachers certification standards, a national teaching excellence fund, and a national teacher corps. What have they done to guarantee that more children will learn, not just higher standards for those that are in school but keeping more in. I agree with everything that's been said. The real problem this country has and the reason we have to spend more money is that more and more and more of our young people are poorer from single parent households, from disadvantaged backgrounds. They need values education, they need standards, but they also need extra help. He wants to target that, and finally you have to help people when they get older either go to college or make the transition from school to work. One thing that no one's said in this whole debate is that predating the Reagan Administration, there has been a steady 15 year decline in the incomes of younger workers who are high school drop-outs and in the younger workers who are high school graduates. Dukakis's program addresses that with a job start for those that don't go on to college and with an aggressive proven commitment to send more kids to college. We've talked a lot about his record in Massachusetts. We haven't said he quadrupled funds for college going, twice as much as many other industrial state. I think those things are important. I think the American people and their education system will be better off if he gets elected. The Governors will continue to insist on accountability and I agree with Mr. Bennett, we've got to have more choice. But those things will occur regardless.

MR. MacNeil: Let me introduce the question of values here. It's been very much part of the Reagan administration's tone about education. Starting with you, President Botstein, is the heavy emphasis on values a legitimate educational issue that can help to improve the tone as well as the content of education, or merely as some people charge, a diversionary issue which removes attention from real issues.

MR. BOTSTEIN: In principle, it's an important issue, but the question is which value? The most important value -- take the Pledge of Allegiance issue -- is do the kids who come out of our schools understand the language of the Pledge of Allegiance, understand the vocabulary, understand the history, and understand that what makes our country different is that they're not forced to express formulas of patriotism, but that freedom means the choice to or the choice not to, that patriotism is about dissent and about thinking. It's about a literate society that exercises citizenship. Those are the most important values and for that level of learning, not preaching is required. It does not now exist in our schools.

MR. MacNeil: Is the issue of values symbolized by the Pledge of Allegiance an important factor in improving American education or a diversionary tactic?

MR. LONDON: I think it's important in the following way. Jefferson once made the claim that American education should produce literate citizens, people who can engage in some computation and people who can distinguish between right and wrong. I think that the latter clearly moves us into the area of values education. On the question of the Pledge of Allegiance, my feeling is that when Gov. Dukakis waffled on the matter of the Pledge of Allegiance and referred instead to constitutional issues, and that his hands were tied, what he was suggesting, in effect, is that the ritual of doing the Pledge of Allegiance was not necessarily important in what happens in our schools. It seems to me that those rituals are, indeed, very important. Not everyone understands all of the rituals in our culture. It's not only a question of understanding, it's also a question of appreciating the nature of those --

MR. BOTSTEIN: The real problem is that the American public has been poorly served by the campaign. The most important issue in education has been the Pledge of Allegiance, when, in fact, both candidates have not been fair and honest with the American public to tell them how desperate the situation is in our schools, how linked it is to our national defense, our economic progress, and have not had the courage to say that without federal intervention on a serious scale, we will not reverse the decline. It has very little to do with the Pledge of Allegiance. If you want the values of freedom, and the values of America, and the values of the Constitution, you have to have a literate and educated citizenry and we're not doing that. And the question is which candidate has the better chance of making that happen.

MR. MacNeil: Secretary Bennett, how do you view this?

SEC. BENNETT: Well, first of all, if federal intervention was all that it took, our schools would be a lot better because there's been a lot more federal intervention. What makes for good schools is something that happens at the state and local level, particularly at the local level, good teachers, good principal, and good values. I agree with you that values are essential. We've made it a point of emphasis for us, for a couple of reasons. Those values are important by themselves. We do want children to understand what those words of the Pledge mean, but we also want children to learn before they understand the words of the Pledge that they should love their country, that there's something to which they owe respect and affection. Second, without the right values, you're not going to learn. You've got to have the values of persistence to understand that you have to work at something over time in order to master something and somebody who says values is a side issue doesn't understand how education works.

MR. MacNeil: Gov. Clinton.

GOV. CLINTON: I agree with that. I think values are terribly important. I think the Pledge of Allegiance is important. I've taken my daughter to school and said the Pledge with her and her classmates twice in the last 10 days. Dukakis thought he was protecting a very important American value in vetoing that bill, not to be against the Pledge of Allegiance in the schools, but to protect the religious freedom, a first amendment constitutional freedom, of teachers whose religion forbade them from swearing allegiance to anybody but God. Now we can disagree with him, but he wasn't going against traditional American values. And I do think we have to say you can look at the decisions people make and see whether they're living by their values. When George Bush participated in an administration and never spoke against it that tried to cut 1.8 million scholarships and loans out, do you believe his value that he wants to be an "Education President"? When he picked Dan Quayle, who voted against the drugs in schools program, voted against the school lunch program, voted against the immunization program, are those traditional American values? No.

MR. MacNeil: Sorry to interrupt you, Governor, but we have to leave it there. So, Gov. Clinton, in Little Rock, thank you for joining us. Sec. Bennett in Washington, President Botstein, and Dean London in New York, thank you. RECAP

MR. LEHRER: Again, the major stories of this Wednesday, in the U.S. Presidential campaign, Vice President Bush said he represented America's mainstream, Gov. Dukakis urged his supporters to pour it on as other Democratic underdogs have done in the past. And in Israel, the Likud and Labor Parties negotiated with the small religious parties in search of ruling coalitions following yesterday's close election results. Good night, Robin.

MR. MacNeil: Good night, Jim. That's the Newshour tonight. And we'll be back tomorrow night. I'm Robert MacNeil. Good night.