LOS ANGELES TIMES / INTERVIEW : Madeleine Kunin : In the Political Trenches at the Department of Education

WASHINGTON —  Madeleine Kunin’s frail, elegant voice betrays no trace that English wasn’t her first language. But the deputy secretary of education actually grew up speaking French in Zurich, Switzerland, before her family fled Nazi-dominated Europe for the United States in 1940. The 7-year-old Kunin, her brother and widowed mother got places on the last boat that took Jews away from Genoa, Italy. On board, 3,000 refugees crowded into 900 berths.

After the family settled in Pittsfield, Mass., Kunin took advantage of new education opportunities, becoming the first member of her family to attend college. At the University of Massachusetts, she worked as a waitress while majoring in history. She then obtained a master’s degree from Columbia Journalism School, and got a job in Vermont, at the Burlington Free Press.

In 1970, Kunin and her husband Arthur, who is a doctor, spent a sabbatical year in Switzerland. Watching Swiss women fight for the right to vote was a pivotal experience for her, one she credits with pushing her toward a career in politics. In 1972, she was elected to the Vermont House of Representatives. In 1978, she became lieutenant governor, and after losing a close race in 1982, was elected governor in 1984. In 1990, she chose to not seek a fourth term. Kunin herself tells her story in much greater detail in a memoir, “Living a Political Life,” to be published by Knopf later this year.

After working on the Clinton transition team, Kunin was reportedly close to being named administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, but lost out to Carol Browner. Rather than sulking, Kunin decided to accept a less glamorous sub-Cabinet job at the Department of Education, as the second-in-command to Richard W. Riley. Since her confirmation, Kunin has been credited with developing the Administration’s proposal on direct lending to college students, which President Clinton unveiled last spring. She also has focused on the department’s Goals 2000 plan for primary and secondary education. She spoke while sitting in her sparsely appointed office at the Department of Education, interrupted only by a visit from the attorney general, Janet Reno.

*

Question: What is the Goals 2000 proposal all about?

Answer: It is the centerpiece of the legislative agenda for the new Administration. It’s about improving the quality of education in the classroom, setting high standards and defining our expectations as a nation, for the first time, of what children should know and be able to do. And it’s doing so in a way that continues to be very supportive of local initiative and local innovation. We have a decentralized system of education which, by and large, has worked well. What is not working is the disparity in educational achievement among schools and communities around the country.

Q: What will it do specifically?

A: The bottom line is helping communities in a process that many are already engaged in--improving their schools. It gives them a national big picture to measure themselves by, and also get some assistance. Not everybody has to reinvent the wheel for math standards.

Q: What kind of testing does it require?

A: There’s not going to be one national test. There’s a recognition that this new council, the National Standards and Assessment Council, will be developing that with an understanding that different kinds of tests may be necessary. There’s a lot of sensitivity--in terms of gender, interms of race--that one test may not fit all. And those kinds of questions are going to be worked out by this council.

Q: What do you say to the argument that by creating exit standards, you aren’t doing anything substantive to improve education?

A: We’re not only doing that. In the end, you have to figure out, have we taught our children what they should know? You have to have some standards for answering that question. If we don’t ask it, certainly their employers aren’t going to ask it. But we’re also adding many other components. There’s $420 million for school-reform grants. A lot of that can be used for curriculum improvement, or teacher training, for building up the school’s ability to reach those standards. So it’s not just saying, we’re going to be tough and we’re going to test you. We’re saying this is what we expect, and we’re going to help you get there.

Q: Is spending more money key to improving education?

A: No, it is not the only thing by any means. But there are certain realities. There is some correlation between poorer districts and poorer test scores.

Q: That doesn’t prove that by spending more you’d improve performance.

A: It doesn’t. But it’s also reasonable that when you have a run-down school, when you don’t have a math teacher who’s been trained in math, that you don’t have the same opportunities for these children. Money is one of many factors.

Q: How is it different from the Bush plan, America 2000--minus, of course, that school choice is no longer on the agenda?

A: Right, well one of the big differences is that school choice is not on the agenda. That allows us to concentrate on the central issues and not get diverted into a polarizing debate. I would see it as a second step. The Bush Administration did put the goals in place, and reach a lot of people. This is the hard work of really adding substance to that.

Q: Do you think the teachers’ unions, particularly the NEA, are more willing to consider reform ideas than they were under Republican administrations?

A: I don’t know if it’s the different Administration. The President is off to a positive start on education in general. It’s not just a commitment to unions, but a commitment to what teachers want--which is good educational opportunities. Putting aside some of the polarizing issues helps; I think everybody is sort of weary of battles. The things that used to polarize people, like teacher testing and evaluations--I think we’ve realized that teachers are not to be blamed for the condition of education, that there are, by and large, very dedicated people in education. And that it’s so much more productive to look on the positive side of the ledger.

Q: I guess Bill Bennett’s not your model of a successful secretary of education.

A: He obviously chose a different approach. Secretary Riley feels very strongly that he wants to work with teachers and recognize teachers. The only way we are going to get the best and brightest into education is by making it a highly recognized, valuable position in society. It’s obvious--it’s such a cliche--but this to whom we entrust our children. And the caliber of teachers we get really will depend on how we reward them, not only monetarily, but in terms of respect.

Q: Moving on to higher education, tell me what the Administration’s proposal on student loans would do.

A: I’ve been very much involved in that, developing the direct-lending legislation. In broad strokes, what it does is make the process more simple for the student, and saves the student some costs. Once the program is fully up and running, there will be a reduction in the interest rate. Overall, it will also save the government some $4.3 billion over the next five years, and about $2 billion per year after that. The reason for that is you use federal capital. You eliminate the middlemen who are now making very healthy profits out of the system.

Q: Why does the Administration consider national service so important?

A: There are no easy answers to how you build bridges across the racial and ethnic divides. In Los Angeles, you know that more than most people. But one way to do that is to give people the experience of reaching out and providing hands-on assistance. That often is a transforming event, both for the person who provides it and the person who receives it. The more we can have that spirit of generosity and understanding in this country, the stronger our hopes can be that we can really be a united country again. This is a program that is about more than dollars--it’s a way to tap the positive energy of young people. I also sense that there’s a tremendous reservoir of goodwill and eagerness to do this, which makes my optimistic side think we’re entering a different era, that it’s no longer just “us” but “we.”

Q: When Clinton launched these two initiatives, he seemed to be saying the idea was that everyone should go to college. Should that be a social goal?

A: Yes. Everyone who is capable. It may not be a four-year college. But everyone who wants to have some form of post-high school education. Increasingly, it’s a necessity. Now we see that the economic rewards of higher education are even greater than they were a few years ago. And the penalties for not having it are also very great. The difficulty is the high debt that students incur. I was the first person in my family to go to college, and worked my way through college. That was a different era. I also went to a state university that had low tuition.

Q: What prospects do you see for the battles over multiculturalism and political correctness that have made colleges such contentious places in the last several years?

A: Well, colleges, in a sense, are a reflection of what’s going on in society. As Hillary Clinton said at the University of Pennsylvania, you really have to respect freedom of speech. But at the same time, you have to make a strong effort in developing respect. It’s very hard to accept freedom of speech when someone says something you vehemently disagree with and you find personally very offensive. I speak personally here, and not for the department, but I guess I’m still a very strong supporter of freedom of speech, with all its hazards.

Q: Do you think there is more racism and sexism on campus than a decade ago? Or is that a perception brought on by progress?

A: In many ways, we’ve progressed tremendously. You have more women being educated. You have more minorities being educated. You certainly have more access and equal opportunity, and I think you should not lose sight of that. The irony is that you also have with that increased opportunity a greater sense of self-esteem and self-respect, and less tolerance for prejudice, which is, in a sense, a good thing. I just hope that at some point we can all feel confident enough in our own ethnicity or race to reach out to each other with a sense of egalitarianism. But we still have not fully achieved that. So I think you’re going to go through a period of great sensitivity and learning. But I think the progress far outweighs the divisiveness.

Q: Why has Clinton been getting such a rocky ride?

A: We’re all thinking about that. There is a high level of skepticism about all institutions, and particularly government, of politics and politicians. I think that the depth of trust is very thin. We saw this sort of rejuvenation of faith at the inauguration. And even in the election, there was a larger turnout, and everybody interpreted that as a resurgence of public faith in the political process. And it was for the moment. But it’s very fickle. Every time somebody speaks in a political forum--people are asking: Is this for real? Is this sincere? The burden of proof for any President to overcome that underlying skepticism is at an unprecedented high level.

Q: Is it hard to be a No. 2 after being a governor?

A: Under normal circumstances that would be true, but Secretary Riley is a very unusual secretary and politician. We really work very closely together. And the issues are so important. I guess I could have had a position in the Administration where I might have had more of a spotlight. But I think the impact I would have had would be smaller in terms of how you affect people’s lives.*