Last week I had the privilege and honor - together with more than 150 of my colleagues in the American Federation of Teachers - of being a delegate to the Democratic National Convention. It was an exciting and busy convention, with lots of focus on education. I'd like to share two experiences of importance to those committed to improving public education. One is centered in the George Bush-Michael Dukakis presidential race, and the other in the Reverend Jesse Jackson's convention speech.

All through the convention, I was questioned by reporters. Many of them asked versions of the same question: "Both Bush and Dukakis say they want to be 'education presidents.' It looks like the schools can't lose no matter who wins - don't you agree?"

To the surprise of most reporters, I answered, "No." The reason is that reporters and many others are only looking at a small piece of the education funding puzzle. They figure that under our present school finance system, the U.S. government contributes only about 7 percent of the cost of elementary and secondary schools. In administrations that are bad for public education, this can drop to 6 percent or below. In good times, it may go up to 8 percent or so. So, the way the reporters see it, with both Bush and Dukakis promising to give more, there's no disagreement and things will improve. But, the reporters also say, when all is said and done, more federal funds still won't amount to much since most school funds come from states and localities.

There are two things wrong with this analysis. First, it underestimates the importance of the federal contribution. It is relatively small, but it does pay for almost all the research that's done and the programs that have high impact because, like Head Start and Chapter 1, they are targeted to students with great needs rather than spread evenly among America's 40 million students. Every federal dollar counts.

The second and the biggest mistake is to think that the only or the most important way in which the federal government supports education is through direct funds. This is dead wrong. The greatest federal impact on education is indirect. This could be seen in recent years because as the Reagan administration cut back on programs in health, welfare, housing, transportation, etc., state and local governments were forced to use money they would have spent for education to provide these other services.

Of course, we should look at what Bush and Dukakis promise to give the schools directly. But you can be sure that even if the states are given a few more billions in education funds but are cut back in other important areas, there in fact will be no increase in education.

The connection between education and funding for other services is clear in other ways. For example, recent reports by the Committee on Economic Development and the Children's Defense Fund called for federal expenditures to make sure that poor pregnant mothers, especially teenagers, receive proper medical care and nutrition. Failure to do so results in large numbers of low birth-weight babies - infants with a high chance of having brain and other damage. Helping poor pregnant mothers may not sound like an educational program - until brain-damaged children enter schools and require costly extra help that can never quite reverse the damage. Take any aspect of poverty - homelessness, job training, even the minimum wage - and the same analysis applies.

Who will really be the "education president"? The one who realizes that, while we must do something for students and teachers, there's also much more to education.

The other educational experience was Jesse Jackson's speech. Jackson had an important message, and he was living proof of it - and, if all parents heeded it, our schools would be much more successful. Jackson understands poverty and being born with all the odds against you. But, as he said, "I was born in the slum, but the slum was not born in me." His mother toiled and sacrificed so that he could go to school proud - and she made him toil and sacrifice to do well in school and be somebody.

Jackson's ancestors came to America on a slave ship, Dukakis' s parents came on an immigrant ship - and both families steadily realized the American dream of equal opportunity through public education. Jackson told all parents and kids that the dream is still alive if only you dare live it.

But not without help. The American dream was kept alive through public education, and that means federal funding not only for schools but also for the services that affect school funding and children's chances of benefiting from education. And, when all is said and done, we again need all the parents in this nation dreaming the American dream - and making their kids do the hard work to realize it.