Even though the presidential campaign and the debates haven't dealt with education as much as I would like, the election results will make a big difference in our schools. A little over five years ago, we were told in a presidential commission report that we were "a nation at risk." A few months ago, when President Reagan and Education Secretary Bennett commemorated the fifth anniversary of that report, we were told that even though some progress had been made, our nation was still at risk. 

What's the nature of that risk? Top government officials and business leaders agree that the ability of our country to compete with others in a global, hi-tech economy and maintain our standard ofliving and to have an effective national defense depend on education. 

Japan has shown the world that a country with a well-educated work force can overcome almost all other problems, such as the lack of energy supplies and natural resources and can successfully compete against a country like the U.S. which has enormous natural resources and energy but a less well-educated work force. A poorly-educated work force will be forced to accept the wages and working conditions of poorly-educated workers in third world countries, or lose their jobs. It's hard to think of a more important issue facing our country, as the voters very well know. Recent polls show that they consider education one of the top election issues. 

Therefore, voters really want to know: "Which presidential candidate will be better for education?" because, in today's world, that's really another way of asking, "Who will be best for the nation?" 

During the campaign George Bush spent most of his education talk on "The Pledge of Allegiance" and prayer in the schools. These are highly emotional issues that can easily rally many people, but if all our teachers and students pledged the flag and prayed several times a day, our nation would still be at risk. 

Instead of focusing on highly-charged emotional issues, Governor Dukakis discussed the real problem of teacher shortages. Everywhere he went he talked about ways to make teaching a respected profession. One of the keys to improving our schools is attracting and holding good teachers, and, when a President talks this way, he inspires millions of bright young people to consider teaching and public service as a noble and fulfilling career. 

But there are other differences between the candidates on education that are deep and important. Here are some of the things voters should consider: 

The drug issue has an immense impact on education. Kids on drugs can't learn, and drug use brings crime into schools. Bush talks tough, but Administration actions have undercut the war against drugs. For example, federal budget cuts have prevented the Coast Guard from doing the job of interdicting drugs that it once did. Importation of cocaine has increased 300 percent in the last eight years while Bush was in charge of the national drug interdiction program. Last July, Paul Yost, Commandant of the Coast Guard, described the impact of a $103 million budget cut: "That means you, as the taxpayer, bought the ships, are paying the salaries of people running the ships, but the ships are at the dock 55 percent of the time." 

By contrast, Governor Dukakis has made real inroads against drug abuse among youngsters. He has taken the lead in developing one of the most effective and widely admired drug-education plans for Massachusetts's schools. 

Poverty also helps cripple our schools. When the current Administration was elected in 1980, the percentage of children under the age of 18 living in poverty was 17. 9. After two terms of highly-touted national prosperity the figure stood at 20 percent. We've now reached the point where one-fourth of all American children under the age of six are living in poverty, which means that more kids than ever are at risk to drug abuse, crime, school failure and welfare dependency. 

Bush talks eloquently about making teachers an schools more accountable, but the Administration has cut nutritional, medical and prenatal care programs, making it more likely that there will be a huge increase in the number of low-birth-weight babies who have a great risk of retardation or brain damage, creating huge problems for the schools of the future and for the country. 

Governor Dukakis' s health care program would provide medical care for mothers and children who are now neglected, the kind of care routinely provided by every other industrial country in the world with the exception of South Africa. 

Another important difference between the candidates is their attitude toward public education. Bush and the Republican Party keep pushing for vouchers and tax credits, to help those who can already afford private and parochial schools and undercut public schools. Dukakis has a long record of solid commitment to supporting the system that now educates 90 percent of our children. 

Michael Dukakis was named as the most effective governor by his peers in the state houses around the country. Since most of a state's budget goes for public education, this was another way for the other governors to say that Mike Dukakis did the best job for his state's schools and children - and for his state's future. 

Given the chance, he'll do the same for the whole country. That's what I'm voting for. 

* * * * * 

Paid for and authorized by the Dukakis/Bentsen campaign.