"I can think of many names for the present system that scatters our educational functions into a series of jealously-guarded special interest domains, but efficiency is not one of them," Heftel told his colleagues. "We have created at the federal level an education structure so vast and so unwieldy and so fragmented that it is inherently incapable of bringing to our educational system the coherence it so desperately requires."

Opponents of the legislation, who come from a wide variety of backgrounds armed with a variety of different axes to grind, argue that a new Cabinet level department would simply add more fatty tissue to the federal blob. Some, like Rep. Benjamin S. Rosenthal (D-N.Y.). believe that funding lies at the heart of the system's problem and that "increased appropriations are not dependent upon the creation of a new department." Individuals like Rosenthal and organizations like the United States Catholic Conference--a major lobby for private school interests--argue that the legislation's proponents must prove a demonstrable need for a new department. Destruction of HEW, they predict, would fracture a delicate but workable coalition of federal bureaucrats responsible for education.

The AFT's Humphrey explains that education is spread across the government for several reasons, including the insurance of diverse funding sources. "If you're going to reorganize HEW," Humphrey asks, "why take the smallest part away?" On Capitol Hill, there is feeling that if HEW is dismantled, a Department of Education would become a mouthpiece for the NEA while a Department of Health would become a loudspeaker for the American Medical Association. Both Albert Shanker, president of the AFT, and Bok, despite their diverging motivations, suggest an internal reorganization of the massive HEW machinery along the lines of the Pentagon's five services. Bok says he would hate to see "a better structured organization within a very strong department (i.e., HEW) replaced by a Cabinet secretary in a really weak department."

But Bok's real opposition to the proposal, like many others, stems from his "conviction that one of the great strengths of higher education lies in its diversity." Bok has visions of the United States' uniquely independent system of education slowly being eroded under the influence of such a department. One of the major tenets of Bok's philosophy of education in his belief in an almost sacred split between the state and its schools. In Bok's words, a growing body of federal regulations are "beginning to creep very close to those key academic functions which really matter--the size of the student body, the composition of the faculty, etc." Bok says he believes that the Department of Education would provide a "good vantage point" for increasing governmental encroachment in educational policy, even in private institutions. Rep. Erlenborn notes that the "tenacles of the federal government are everywhere." Erlenborn believes establishing a Department of Education threatens local diversity and control over course and textbook content. "The tentacles will be stronger and reach further," he warns ominously. "The Department of Education will end up being the nation's super schoolboard."

Proponents of the bill insist education is an issue vital enough to the national interest to merit the status and visibility that a Cabinet-level position implies. Because there is no one person who speaks for education--and consequently no one person to blame for national educational failures--supporters argue that a national spokesman for education is needed. Packer argues that elevating education to Cabinet status will help improve its status and visibility. "President Carter has said education has only been brought up twice in Cabinet meetings," he notes, adding that a new department would insure that educational programs got their fair share, for example, when budgetary hats are passed around. Abramowitz envisions the Secretary of Education as a "senior educational adviser to universities, helping them secure mission-oriented dollars for research and facilitating the national educational rule-making process."

Ylvisaker stresses the importance of keeping educational issues in the public eye. "Education is just too damned important" to be buried, he says, adding, "Even if the Secretary of Education lost battle after battle, we'd still have a spokesman." Bailey takes a more pragmatic view. Education, he argues, must be "dignified and elevated to the point when somebody like Derek Bok can call up the Secretary on a particular issue and say, 'For Chrissakes, can't do it."

Bok, meanwhile, says that most important matters he can get the "understanding and sympathy" of the secretary of HEW. Rosenthal comments, "'Visibility' and 'status' are undefined catch phrases which hardly justify creation of a cabinet level department of education."

Even if the department is created, however, opponents believe it will be dominated by public, elementary and secondary education interests. Many, including the outspoken Sen. Daniel P. Monyihan (D-N.Y.) predict higher education--slated to receive one of every three dollars in the new department's budget--will take a beating under the new system. The post-secondary sector currently accounts for 40 to 50 per cent of federal funds allocated for education, but the inclusion of overseas dependent schools for 135,000 Americans in the Department promises to severely drain available resources.

"Higher education will play a very large role in the department," proponents like Ambramowitz respond, pointing to the positions of assistant secretary for higher education and assistant secretary for research and innovation, both of which would be included in the new department.

But education is still the unwanted bureaucratic child, roaming up and down Independence and Constitution Avenues in search of a permanent roosting place. By the end of the month, Congress may send a law establishing the Department of Education to the White House. But Carter must do more than sign the bill, take his bows and verbally grant education a new lease on life. If the legislation's proponents think the battle to establish the department has been long and hard, they had better remember that their fight has only just begun