Today marks the 25th anniversary of "A Nation at Risk," the influential Reagan-era report by a blue-ribbon panel that alerted Americans to the weak performance of our education system. The report warned of a "rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a nation and a people." That dire forecast set off a quarter century of education reform that's yielded worthy changes – yet still not the achievement gains we need to turn back the tide of mediocrity.
After decades of furthering educational "equality," the 1983 commission admonished the country, it was time to attend to academic excellence and school results. Educators didn't want to hear this and a generation later many still don't. Our ponderous public-school system resists change. Teachers don't like criticism and are loath to be judged by pupil performance. In educator circles, one still encounters grumbling that "A Nation at Risk" lodged a bum rap.
Others heeded the alarm, though, and that report launched an era of forceful innovation and accountability guided by noneducators – elected officials, business leaders and philanthropists.
Such "civilian" leadership has brought about two profound shifts that the professionals, left to their own devices, would never have allowed. Today, instead of judging schools by their services, resources or fairness, we track their progress against preset academic standards – and hold them to account for those results.
We're also far more open to charter schools, vouchers, virtual schools, home schooling. And we no longer suppose kids must attend the campus nearest home. A majority of U.S. students now study either in bona fide "schools of choice," or in neighborhood schools their parents chose with a realtor's help.
Those are historic changes indeed – most of today's education debates deal with the complexities of carrying them out. Yet our school results haven't appreciably improved, whether one looks at test scores or graduation rates. Sure, there are up and down blips in the data, but no big and lasting changes in performance, even though we're also spending tons more money. (In constant dollars, per-pupil spending in 1983 was 56% of today's.)
And just as "A Nation at Risk" warned, other countries are beginning to eat our education lunch. While our outcomes remain flat, theirs rise. Half a dozen nations now surpass our high-school and college graduation rates. International tests find young Americans scoring in the middle of the pack.
[snip]
....four key lessons:
First, don't expect Uncle Sam to manage the reform process....Yet some things are best done nationally – notably creating uniform standards and tests in place of today's patchwork of uneven expectations and noncomparable assessments. [ed.: I dissent]
Second, retain civilian control but push for more continuity. Governors and mayors remain indispensable leaders on the ground – but the instant they leave office, the system tries to revert. The adult interests that rule it – teacher unions, yes, but also colleges of education, textbook publishers and more – look after themselves and fend off change. If three consecutive governors or mayors hew to the same agenda, those reforms are more apt to endure.
Third, don't bother seeking one grand innovation. Education reform is not about silver bullets. But huge gains can be made by schools that are free to run (and staff) themselves, attended by choice, expected to meet high standards, and accountable for their results. [ed.: Logic of Failure says yes!]
Consider the more than 50 schools in the acclaimed Knowledge Is Power Program (KIPP) network. We don't have nearly enough today, but we're likelier to grow more of them outside the traditional system than by trying to alter the system itself.
Finally, content matters. Getting the structures, rules and incentives right is only half the battle. The other half is sound curriculum and effective instruction. If we can't place enough expert educators in our classrooms, we can use technology to amplify the best of them across the state or nation. Kids no longer need to sit in school to be well educated.
Twenty-Five Years Later: A Nation Still at Risk
Having recently discovered that there are at least 3 degree-granting high schools online, I'm betting a modest sum of money on this last one. Of course, that may be mostly because I enjoy the irony. Public schools are obsessed with technology, and always have been. [see, e.g.: Larry Cuban, Clifford Stoll, Todd Oppenheimer.] Here in Westchester, school districts are hiring assistant superintendents for technology and pouring hundreds of thousands of dollars into the latest edu-obsession, namely: SMART Boards, which in my district are being used as $4000 computer projectors if they're being used at all.* (The touch screens on some seem to require constant recalibration; others have boot-up problems; etc.) That's on top of the $400 computer projectors a lot of these districts had already purchased.
We are told, constantly, that technology will save us.
Looking at the brand-new, souped-up pitch for K12, I'm thinking: you know, it just might.
more t/k
* cost of replacement light bulb: $400
8 comments:
Regarding the first key lesson from this article, are you saying it makes more sense to let the states set the standards? If not, who should? I do seem to remember a discussion around here about how many of us would trust neither the nation nor the states to establish meaningful, rigorous standards.
I just read George Will
in the WaPo where he wrote:
Finn thinks NCLB got things backward: "The law should have set uniform standards and measures for the nation, then freed states, districts and schools to produce those results as they think best." Instead, it left standards up to the states, which have an incentive to dumb them down to make compliance easier.
At this point, I trust the federal government more than the states to take charge of standards.
I forgot where, but I recently read about the shrinking role of the traditional college as more of them are replaced by online learning institutions. The primary driving factor for this would be the out-of-control tuition increases. I could certainly see that happening.
I don't have a firm opinion on this -- no policy brain!
If I had a vote I'd probably vote 'no' on the federal government setting standards because of the danger of ed schools controlling the process.
I'd like to see professional organizations create standards, promote them, and perhaps have the federal government play a role in "blessing" them.
I've always wanted the feds to bypass the schools altogether & just put TIMSS-type tests online for parents to use if we wish; the feds could score the tests & interpret the results.
The National History Standards are supposed to be fantastic (NY state uses them). They were created by historians with funding from the NEH. (Diane Ravitch was involved in creating them; I think Ed was involved peripherally.)
The history standards weren't going to be "mandated"; they were going to be endorsed by the NEH.
Then Lynne Cheney wrote her famous editorial sabotaging the standards she had funded & overseen.
What I regret is that the AHA (American Historical Association) didn't get it's act together to get out there and promote the he** out of those standards.
As things stand, no one knows what they are, how to find them, which states use them (if any), etc.
The only reason I know is that Ed mentioned it to me in passing one day
"New York uses the National History Standards."
Anyway, that's my model. Given the fact that even voluntary standards got shot down due to politics, I have zero confidence in the feds setting mandatory standards.
The history standards, by the way, went through a MASSIVE process of vetting in order to get written in the first place. Gary (Nash) apparently did a brilliant job of persuading the social studies organization to cooperate....
My point is that when the professional organization creates standards the profession supports they themselves do a great deal of political wrangling and vetting -- but the wrangling and vetting isn't controlled by ed schools.
The history standards, by the way, went through a MASSIVE process of vetting in order to get written in the first place. Gary (Nash) apparently did a brilliant job of persuading the social studies organization to cooperate....
My point is that when the professional organization creates standards the profession supports they themselves do a great deal of political wrangling and vetting -- but the wrangling and vetting isn't controlled by ed schools.
I think the Achieve model is probably pretty good, too.
Achieve is the governor's organization that is producing a set of content standards for Algebra 2.
I like the idea of equivalent AP-like (or top level) tests for the end of 8th grade. Make them voluntary, but require all schools to publish a detailed breakdown of the results on their web site. Then give parents school choice. I like this method because schools would be driven to achieve top-level goals rather than low-level state cutoffs. Currently, our schools are "High Performing" on meeting low expectations. Some claim this is a sign of quality education.
I like the idea of equivalent AP-like (or top level) tests for the end of 8th grade. Make them voluntary, but require all schools to publish a detailed breakdown of the results on their web site. Then give parents school choice.
Yes, I would absolutely experiment with things like this.
Make the testing voluntary ---- BUT MAKE REPORTING ABSOLUTELY TRANSPARENT AND MANDATORY.
I think you'd have enough parents signing up for these tests that districts wouldn't be able to avoid finding out how their academically-oriented kids are doing.
Post a Comment