Labor Secretary William Brock's recent Taking Exception {"They're Not McJobs," op-ed, June 11} serves as a wonderful reminder that the Reagan administration is hard at work preparing for another presidential campaign. The White House and many Cabinet offices will soon be beehives of activity, not unlike presidential candidates' campaign headquarters, as the spin doctors work to rewrite a six-year history of atrocious jobs and education policies.

First the education secretary says he wants more money for schools, and now the labor secretary says that low-paying service-related jobs are just what the economic doctor ordered.

Permit me to separate good campaign rhetoric from administration-imposed reality. In terms of new businesses opening, the number falls far short of Secretary Brock's 50,000 per month figure, according to both Dun and Bradstreet and the Small Business Administration. But business failures are running at some 5,000 per month.

Brock also shrewdly disguises puny economic growth behind a rosy tinting of the figures. He throws a statistical curve ball, stating that this administration inherited a recession. It may have inherited inflation, but it caused the recession. The record indicates that a recession began in July 1981 and ended in November 1982, both dates well within the Reagan administration.

All statistics are sensitive to a time period. Since 1981, average real GNP growth has been below 3 percent. This is barely sufficient to absorb new workers into the labor market, and certainly not strong enough to reduce unemployment significantly.

Nonetheless, I do agree that there is a problem of skills. To create jobs and businesses that add high values to raw materials through skill and technology, we need an educated work force. We are not creating one. our primary and secondary education systems need much improvement, particularly in the large cities. Response in Congress to addressing these problems has always exceeded the administration's recommendations, which have consistently sought to cut back funding and reduce federal responsibility.

Since 1981, federal support for job training programs has been reduced by 30 percent and vocational education spending has suffered a real cut of 25 percent. Just last month, the House of Representatives passed an omnibus elementary and secondary education bill that would address the problems of illiteracy, low test scores and educational attainment in our schools. The bill passed by a vote of 401 to 1. The administration has yet to go on record in support of this bipartisan measure.

Brock makes a compelling argument for increased efforts aimed at training workers and improving their basic skills as a way to increase their wages and competitiveness. But six years of negative actions speak louder than recent words.

The growth in service jobs is not the real issue. We have been a service sector economy in terms of employment for nearly 35 years. Unfortunately, it takes two new service jobs to equal the wages of one lost in manufacturing. In April of this year, before taxes, manufacturing workers averaged a weekly paycheck of $399, construction workers $473, while retail trade employees made only $178 a week.

Growth in the service sector is desirable, but we should have equal concern for the devastating decline in the manufacturing sector. I wonder what Brock thinks we should do about the automobile and steel industries, which are struggling to keep their heads above water, despite economic conditions and foreign competition. Do we leave that entire sector out in the cold, without any mechanisms for support?

An effective employment policy should not pick winners and losers, but should serve as the basis upon which to build an environment conducive to employment and business growth in all sectors of the economy.

The writer is a Democratic representative from California and chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.