How the Candidates Stand

The Issue

Bilingual Education: Has the system failed, and what’s the candidates’ view of Proposition 227, which would end the current system of bilingual education?

The Position

AL CHECCI: Teach English in preschool. Allow maximum two years of bilingual study. Opposes 227.

“I want to take these children at the age of four and five, . . . and totally immerse them in language.”

JANE HARMAN: Allow maximum three years of bilingual study, give schools local flexibility. Opposes 227.

“The goal is and the goal was to make every student proficient in English. This matters because without proficiency in English, those students will not qualify for one of these high-tech 21st century jobs.”

GRAY DAVIS: Parents should have the right to determine their child’s bilingual study. Bilingual education would be limited to three years. Schools would get bonuses if they teach English proficiency in less time.

“I hope by the time I finish my first term as governor we can have a standard that every high school requires two languages to graduate.”

Dan Lungren: Opposes 227, but says the sponsor, Ron Unz, did the state a favor by proposing it and forcing the state Legislature to approve reform.

“So long as you have statewide standards, local control and local decision making which will adapt to the particular students that you have is the best direction, we can take to successfully educate our children.”

Analysis

The Analysis: The Analysis: This is an area of striking agreement among the four major candidates. Each one is convinced that the current bilingual education system is broken and that Proposition 227 is not the answer, even though polls show it is widely supported by voters. Wednesday’s forum was Lungren’s first public statement of his opposition to the ballot measure. Instead of abolishing bilingual education, the candidates want more local authority and specific schedules for language instruction.

****

The Issue

Teachers: How would the candidates propose to recruit teachers and reward or discipline them?

The Position

AL CHECCI: Competency tests for teachers. Unlimited charter schools. Supports merit pay raises.

“There’s a lack of accountability for teachers and for students. So the starting point for repairing the system is to make people accountable.”

GRAY DAVIS: Allow cities to take over poorest performing school districts. Supports merit pay and bonuses for teachers who work more than five years.

“A failing school is not less of a . . . problem than a national disaster and it requires immediate and urgent action.”

JANE HARMAN: Wants bonus pay for teachers who stay for several years, supports merit pay raises, and scholarships for teachers.

“I think there are two parts of our public education system we have to keep our eye on. It must be excellent, and those who teach and those who administer must be accountable.”

DAN LUNGREN: Provide tax-funded vouchers so students can attend the private school of their choice. Supports merit pay and charter public schools.

“You raise the expectations of teachers and then you give them respect. We don’t respect our teachers well enough today. We have to have them as role models today.”

The Analysis: Education is the most closely watched issue in the 1998 campaign, and for the most part the candidates are in agreement on the direction of the key reforms. Lungren alone takes a significant departure from the other candidates by supporting tax-funded vouchers intended to allow students to attend the public or private school of their choice.

****

The Issue

Guns: What is the candidates’ position on assault weapons bans and other gun control?

The Position

AL CHECCI: Supports a ban of cheaply made Saturday night specials and assault weapons. Would require trigger locks and push for nationwide tracking of guns used in crime.

“We lose more people to gunfire than we do to auto accidents in California.”

GRAY DAVIS: Supports a ban on Saturday night specials and assault weapons, and would require safety locks on all guns.

“I would ban [assault weapons] from any use on our streets or in our communities.”

JANE HARMAN: Supports a ban of Saturday night specials and assault weapons. defines assault weapons as ones that hold more than ten rounds.

“I support gun ownership by law-abiding citizens for self-defense and for use in recreation, but assault weapons and Saturday night specials have no place in our homes or on our streets.”

DAN LUNGREN: He supports limiting the size of ammunition clips, and voted for waiting periods to buy handguns. Said he tried to enforce California’s assault weapons ban in courts.

“This is a complicated issue.”

Analysis

The Analysis: A Democrat would have to contend with a Legislature more adept at using gun control as a political issue than at passing significant gun-related measures. Harman’s call to ban guns that could hold more than 10 rounds would prohibit many commonly sold weapons, including many used by law enforcement.

Lungren has been criticized by gun owners and anti-gun groups. As California attorney general, he switched positions on California’s assault weapons law, first taking a narrow view of the weapons it restricts, then taking a broader view after The Times detailed his position last year.

****

The Issue

Diversity: How would the candidates ensure diversity in higher education, given the passage in 1996 of the anti-affirmative action Proposition 209?

The Position

AL CHECCI: His appointments would reflect the state’s ethnic and racial make-up. He’d take special care in his appointments of university regents and trustees.

“The quality of education is a function of the diversity of the student body.”

GRAY DAVIS: Opposed 209, but will follow its mandates. Cites his work as chief of staff to Gov. Jerry Brown, who appointed many women and minorities.

“I don’t need a law to tell me to look in every community to find their place in my judiciary and cabinet and administration.”

JANE HARMAN: Opposed 209. Will improve education to “make [209] irrelevant.”

“I’m the only member of California’s diversity on this panel, and I’m proud to be a woman and a working mother.”

DAN LUNGREN: Supported 209. Wants public school reforms, and would put more emphasis on community colleges.

“If we reform K-12 [education] so every child in California had an opportunity to get a quality education, . . . we would see a solution to the problem.”

Analysis

The Analysis: The Analysis: For more than 20 years, governors have been making a point of appointing women and minorities, as Checchi, Harman and Davis promise. Davis cited Brown’s appointments of two minorities to the state high court, but neglected to mention Chief Justice Rose Elizabeth Bird, his most controversial appointment. Bird performed Davis’ wedding. Lungren’s call to aid community colleges is being answered. The community college system has been one of the biggest winners in recent budgets and stands to gain more next year.

****

The Issue

Budget: How would the candidates spend California’s budget surplus, estimated to be $4 billion, for the next fiscal year?

The Position

GRAY DAVIS: Spend more on schools. Provide a tax cut; without one, voters may react by approving a tax cut ballot initiative.

“You have to do what the taxpayers want, and whatever coalitions . . . allow you to do.”

JANE HARMAN: More money for schools, public works programs, cities, and a $1.8 billion tax cut.

“I’m not going to promise something that we can’t pay for and then have to raise taxes or cut spending next year.”

DAN LUNGREN: Eliminate the vehicle registration fee. This would take more than $4 billion from cities and counties; he would replace the money with other state tax sources.

“The people rose up and gave us Proposition 13, an imperfect solution, but a solution nonetheless, one that we live with today.”

AL CHECCI: Spend more on schools, public works projects, crime prevention, programs for youths, economic development.

“There are going to be 18 million more people here in the next 25 years . . . Where are they going to get the water? How are they going to transport them? That’s what we should be talking about, not a car tax.”

Analysis

The Analysis: Checchi was the only participant to propose no tax cut for this surplus, but offered one earlier. Lungren offered no spending plans. His promise to repay local money that would be lost if the car tax is cut is questionable. State officials failed to make good on such promises before. Davis misspoke when he said last year’s state tax cut was $1 billion for business and $1 billion for individuals. The combined cut will be $1 billion when it is fully phased in. Harman’s plan is closest to Gov. Pete Wilson’s.