While the President鈥檚 call for an education summit has given a well-publicized lift to the notion of national education goals, educators, corporate leaders, and policymakers note that the idea was taking shape well before Mr. Bush decided to convene the nation鈥檚 governors in Charlottesville, Va.
There鈥檚 no doubt, they say, that the summit will galvanize the movement to set a national schools strategy--once considered anathema to the tradition of state and local control of education. But the fact is, they add, the idea has been percolating for several years.
鈥淭he summit comes at a time when there is an increasing sense that we ought to have clear expectations鈥� of what the nation鈥檚 education system is trying to accomplish, said Frank Newman, president of the Education Commission of the States. 鈥淥ne could argue that the summit is being adapted to that sense, rather than the other way around.鈥�
Still, many educators acknowledge that procedural and philosophical obstacles will complicate the goal-setting process. For instance, they say, many spurn the idea of a national curriculum or rigid standards based solely on test scores, and others raise questions about who will pay for the strategies devised to meet the goals.
But, while differences will need to be worked out, thinkers from a wide range of viewpoints voiced interest last week in setting goals in areas ranging from student performance to interagency linkages in serving at-risk youths.
鈥淪everal leading educators and political leaders have been talking about and working on goals for two and three years,鈥� Mark D. Musick, president of the Southern Regional Education Board, noted. He added that several states have already developed goals on, among other issues, bolstering school readiness, improving high-school and college preparation, and reducing dropout rates.
Ernest L. Boyer, president of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching, said interest in forging a national education strategy 鈥渉as increased exponentially in the last four or five months.鈥�
鈥淎lthough there is confusion over what form it should take,鈥� he said, 鈥渢here seems to be almost a universal embrace of the general principle.鈥�
And Keith Geiger, president of the National Education Association, noted, 鈥淭he people have been there, but they have been waiting for a leader to say now is the time.鈥�
Business leaders, too, have been working within their ranks to forge a consensus on education goals.
鈥淢any of us were surprised at how easy it was for us to come to an agreement on this,鈥� said Frederick S. Edelstein, a senior policy fellow for the National Alliance of Business. 鈥淭he time was ripe.鈥�
The Momentum Grows
Evidence of the growing momentum toward the setting of national goals can be found on several fronts:
- The National Governors鈥� Association decided at its summer meeting to establish a task force to study what essential skills the schools should be teaching. While the panel will first focus its attention on the summit, it will later turn its energy to a yearlong study of the skills students need to have mastered to be internationally competitive.
- On Capitol Hill, Congressional interest in setting a national strategy has been growing. Last week, for instance, Congressional Democrats unveiled their own education goals on issues ranging from early-childhood development to access to higher education. (See story on page 16.)
- National attention on state-by-state rankings of student progress has increased each year since 1984, when former Education Secretary Terrel H. Bell introduced the U.S. Education Department鈥檚 鈥渨all chart鈥� comparing students鈥� college-entrance-test scores.
More recently, the Council of Chief State School Officers has spearheaded efforts to design more sophisticated indicators of achievement, and the governing board of the National Assessment for Educational Progress has been charged with setting appropriate achievement goals for the subjects and grade levels it tests.
- Subject-matter specialty groups in recent months have turned out report after report calling for curricular reform, and a consensus has begun to emerge on the levels of student achievement that should be expected in specific subjects.
For example, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics issued a report recommending standards for a K-12 curriculum last spring. And the first report from 鈥淧roject 2061,鈥� a long-range effort of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, lays out learning and literacy goals in science, mathematics, and technology.
- Leaders of the nation鈥檚 two largest teachers鈥� unions have backed the notion of national goals. And the newly established National Board for Professional Teaching Standards is adding to the debate with its plan to develop a voluntary national certification process that would set standards for what teachers should know in specific fields.
- Major business groups have added their voices to the need to set goals.
Last week, for example, several influential business organizations, including the Committee for Economic Development, formed the Business Education Coalition for Education Reform to keep the business community focused on educational issues. The group will call for goals in such areas as student attainment, school restructuring, teacher professionalism, early intervention for disadvantaged children, and school financing.
In addition, the National Alliance of Business has just published a ''Blueprint for Business on Restructuring Education,鈥� and the issue of goals is likely to be featured at an education summit planned by Fortune magazine next month.
There are signs that the American public, too, is more open to the idea of a national education strategy than was previously thought.
A recent Gallup Poll found that 70 percent of the respondents would favor requiring public schools to conform to national achievement goals.
The fact that political candidates are increasingly focusing on education issues also signals 鈥渁 national-level commitment that we haven鈥檛 heard before,鈥� Marshall S. Smith, dean of education at Stanford Univerity, said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a hot news item.鈥�
Historic Transition
Although notions of what the nation鈥檚 education strategy should include differ, several factors have converged to promote widespread support for the concept.
Among them is a 鈥渇rustration with the progress of reforms,鈥� Mr. Smith said.
At the root of the national-goals movement, Mr. Boyer said, is the realization that, 鈥渨ith all of the effort at school reform in the last few years, we still have not found the formula to move forward.鈥�
Chester E. Finn Jr., a professor of education and public policy at Vanderbilt University and the director of the Educational Excellence Network, said the education-reform movement has failed to chart 鈥渟pecific objectives.鈥�
鈥淲e didn鈥檛 pause to look at the production system and stop to ask what the product would look like if it were good,鈥� he said. 鈥淲e鈥檝e been fiddling with the assembly line, but making potluck with what comes out at the end.鈥�
Mr. Finn also cited 鈥渕ounting frustration鈥� with what he termed a 鈥渄ecentralized, incrementalist approach鈥� to reform.
In addition, business leaders, citing their increasing need for highly skilled workers and a decline in the quality of employees entering the workforce, have focused national concern on education.
鈥淏usinesses now realize that their bottom line is being affected,鈥� Mr. Edelstein of the business alliance said, adding that one way to address the problem is through 鈥渂road-based, straightforward goals.鈥�
Poor results in international comparisons of student achievement and concern about the nation鈥檚 economic standing in the world also have moved the focus from the local and state levels to the national arena.
鈥淚f we become a second-class nation,鈥� Mr. Smith said, 鈥渢he whole nation has to do something about it--not just California.鈥�
Mr. Boyer also hypothesized that a 鈥渨eakening of localism"--spurred in part by technological advancements and a more geographically mobile population--has resulted in 鈥渓ess concern about local control than national results.鈥�
Education reform is in the midst of a 鈥渉istoric transition,鈥� he added. The perspective is shifting from an era when 鈥渓ocal control over schools was the only conversation we ever had鈥� to concern over 鈥渉ow to balance local control with national results.鈥�
Maintaining that the current system has become too decentralized and diverse, Mr. Bell added, 鈥淲e鈥檝e reached a point in our national life where we need more unity of purpose in education.鈥�
鈥楧irection鈥� for Restructuring
While the move to set a national strategy might appear to be at odds with the notion of local control, advocates of school-restructuring efforts argue that national goals could enhance their efforts to vest principals and teachers with more decisionmaking authority.
National goals and local restructuring 鈥渃an be very complementary,鈥� Mr. Geiger said, 鈥渋f we say these are the things we ought to do and those of you at the local level are in the best position to do it.鈥�
If the goals are voluntary and recognize local diversity, added James Fleming, an associate superintendent in Dade County, Fla., they could 鈥減rovide some direction鈥� to local reform efforts and 鈥済ive all of us an opportunity to focus on something.鈥�
And Thomas W. Payzant, superintendent of the San Diego schools, said that, while some view restructuring 鈥渁s allowing schools to be free from external control, the beauty to me is that it provides an opportunity for those closest to the students to develop a wide variety of ways to meet district, state, or national goals.鈥�
鈥楴atural Resistance鈥�
Experts acknowledge, however, that some educators and others may remain leery of national goals--or, in particular, any move to institute a national curriculum.
鈥淭here will be a natural political resistance by some parts of the community to any kind of nationalizing movement,鈥� Mr. Smith said. The Gallup Poll respondents who opposed national goals are 鈥減robably a pretty articulate 30 percent,鈥� he observed.
A 鈥渢ypical reaction,鈥� Mr. Bell said, might be: 鈥淚f we start pushing in that direction, it will lead to federal control and federally imposed curricula, with the federal education bureaucracy laying down mandates and giving marching orders.鈥�
The idea of a national agenda may arouse fear that 鈥渟tate education departments will start sending down mandates to local boards,鈥� said Bill Moss, a member of the Columbus, Ohio, school board. The process, he fears, could end up 鈥渙verly influencing鈥� local boards or usurping their control.
That concern, Mr. Smith noted, is shared by 鈥減eople with strong ideologies on either side鈥� who want to preserve the notion that 鈥渄iversity and pluralism create the strength of American rather than one central line or message.鈥�
Jeanne Allen, an education policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation, noted that national leaders can play a positive and vital role in helping to improve schools--such as providing information on 鈥渃hoice鈥� plans that allow pupils to transfer if their schools fall short on performance.
But what is 鈥渢o be feared most,鈥� she said, is that education organizations 鈥渨ould love nothing better鈥� than mandates at the federal level.
With regard to a national curriculum, however, education groups have also raised concerns. Many favor 鈥渃ommon understandings鈥� in various subjects, but 鈥渁 federally mandated curriculum is something this country has wisely avoided,鈥� said John Maxwell, executive director of the National Council of Teachers of English.
William J. Saunders, executive director of the National Alliance of Black School Educators, favors a national curriculum--provided it fairly represents racial and ethnic groups.
Avoiding Turf Battles
One challenge will be to 鈥渁djust the objectives of excellence and equity鈥� in stating and implementing goals, said Gordon Ambach, executive director of the Council of Chief State School Officers.
鈥淲hen you look for uniformity in outcomes, you have to look for uniformity in services and resources,鈥� said Roy E. Morris Jr., a former principal who now teaches in a rural K-12 school in Clallam Bay, Wash.
Unless fiscal equity is woven into the goals, Mr. Smith added, there will be 鈥渢ension [between] states that 鈥榟ave鈥� and states that 鈥榟ave not.鈥濃��
Michael Resnick, associate executive director of the National School Boards Association, agreed. 鈥淲e see as a goal having as broad and diverse a curriculum as possible available to every student, regardless of the location and wealth of the school district.鈥�
Mr. Resnick also cautioned that national goals could interfere with or dilute standards being set at the state level to 鈥渕ake it feasible鈥欌�� for everyone to meet them.
To prevent that, said Bill Honig, California鈥檚 superintendent of public instruction, proponents should aim for 鈥渁 legitimate goal that is not too far-fetched, but don鈥檛 water it down.鈥�
States, Mr. Newman added, should be ready 鈥渢o move from minimum levels to much more demanding levels of expectations.鈥�
鈥淚 don鈥檛 think there鈥檚 a danger in interrupting current state activities so long as there is a good procedure for involving state education agencies and state boards鈥� in setting goals, Mr. Ambach said.
Experts also called for 鈥渘ew approaches鈥� to gauge progress and warned against overemphasizing norm-referenced tests and state rankings.
Such comparisons do not 鈥渓ead anywhere other than to shame鈥� poor scorers, Mr. Rutherford said.
Experts also stressed that any goal-setting process that emerges from the summit must be carefully guided in months and years ahead.
In a two-day meeting, Mr. Boyer said, 鈥渙ne could not begin to deal subtly with all the implications of national standards.鈥�
An important task, Mr. Ambach added, is to establish committees or procedures that 鈥渋nclude all the key parties, without making it so big that they can鈥檛 get anything done.鈥�
As political, corporate, and education leaders vie for a role, a major obstacle will be to avoid 鈥渢urf battles鈥� between various levels of government or interest groups, Mr. Payzant of San Diego said.
The summit offers an ideal opportunity to create a 鈥渕echanism or forum鈥� to set goals, Mr. Finn noted. But if the process is controlled by 鈥渢he people who brought us the education system we have today,鈥� he said, 鈥淚鈥檇 rather not have any.鈥�
A Question of Resources
Many argue that national goals must include at least a long-range commitment of resources. 鈥淚f we can鈥檛 indicate that these are going to be sustained by financial commitment, then we should scrap the whole idea,鈥� Mr. Boyer said.
Mr. Geiger agreed. Those establishing goals should 鈥渋dentify the appropriate role鈥� of federal, state, and local governments in funding the effort, he said.
Observers generally agreed, however, that funding concerns should not sidetrack the movement toward setting national goals.
While a national agenda must include a commitment of resources, Mr. Payzant said, one need not be 鈥渉eld hostage to the other before we begin to talk about how to make education better.鈥�
鈥淲e may decide we need to spend some money鈥� to accomplish some long-term goals, Mr. Finn said, 鈥渂ut that鈥檚 exactly the wrong place to start.鈥�
Proponents acknowledge that they must offer a more well-defined national agenda in order to advance specific goals.
鈥淓ven those of us who advocate a greater sense of national standards can鈥檛 say very clearly how we would phrase them,鈥� F. James Rutherford, chief education officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said.
While a commitment by Mr. Bush and the governors can 鈥渕ake a big difference鈥� in rallying public support for national goals, Mr. Bell observed, 鈥渋t can鈥檛 be just be a one-shot deal at a conference in Charlottesville. We have to keep coming back to it again and again.鈥�
Mr. Smith added: 鈥淚t is absolutely critical that they commit themselves to a process that鈥檚 going to take 10 years. ... We have to sustain the pressure all the way through, or else we鈥檙e not going to make it to the playoffs.鈥�
