A r c h i v e d  I n f o r m a t i o n

PART III EDUCATION REFORM 1990-1994

THE END OF THE BEGINNING: THE EDUCATION REFORM MOVEMENT FROM 1990 TO 1994

Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning....

-- Winston Churchill, 1942

Background

The first federal call for the reform of American education came in 1981 when Secretary of Education T.H. Bell created a National Commission on Excellence in Education to "report on the quality of education in America...." That report, A Nation at Risk was published in 1983 and contained the grim observation that "if an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have viewed it as an act of war." The report called for widespread, systemic reform and made four major recommendations: a strengthening of graduation requirements, more rigorous and measurable standards, more time in school, and significant improvement of teaching. The report also sounded this cautionary note:

Our final word, perhaps better characterized as a plea, is that all segments of our population give attention to the implementation of our recommendations. Our present plight did not appear overnight, and the responsibility for our current situation is widespread. Reform of our educational system will take time and unwavering commitment. It will require equally widespread, energetic, and dedicated action.

Then, in 1986, The National Governors' Association took official notice of the problem. In a strong statement, the Governors linked achievement in education to performance in the international marketplace: "Better schools mean better jobs. To meet the stiff competition from abroad, we must educate ourselves and our children as never before."

The Carnegie Forum on Education and the Economy was even more direct:

If our standard of living is to be maintained, if the growth of a permanent underclass is to be averted, if democracy is to function effectively into the next century, our schools must graduate the vast majority of their students with achievement levels long thought possible for only the privileged few. The American mass education system...will not succeed unless it....strives to make quality and equality of opportunity compatible with each other.

In 1989, shortly after he took office, President George Bush invited the Nation's 50 governors to attend an Education Summit to discuss the current condition of education and what course of action might be adopted to reverse the trend toward mediocrity. At this Summit, a remarkable consensus emerged on the nature of current educational problems and the broad strategies necessary to solve these problems. The Nation's Governors, in cooperation with the White House and the education community, focused the attention of the public on seeking solutions by establishing six National Education Goals and insisting that they be achieved by the year 2000:

Goal #1:

All children in America will start school ready to learn.

Goal #2:

The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.

Goal #3:

American students will leave grades four, eight, and twelve having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, art, history, and geography; and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our Nation's modern economy.

Goal #4:

U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement.

Goal #5:

Every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

Goal #6:

Every school in America will be free of drugs and violence and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.

The identification and articulation of goals, however, constituted no more than a first step in the direction of educational reform. The Nation in general, and educators in particular, now knew in the broadest terms what was expected of U.S. schools; but there was no consensus concerning strategies to achieve these ends. Reform initiatives had sprung up in all parts of the country, many of them innovative and effective; but there was no evidence that the Nation as a whole had the ability or the inclination to adopt a single plan of action leading to the achievement of the National Goals by the year 2000. In the first place, given the widespread diversity of regions, States, and cultures in the United States, it would be difficult to devise a broad systemic approach that would work in every part of the country for every group.

In the second place, the political system of the United States is not structured for national solutions in the field of education. Except in very special circumstances, the U.S. Department of Education is forbidden by law to involve itself in curricular decisions at the State and local level, and in only one or two specific areas (for example, civil rights enforcement) is the federal government empowered to take certain actions in the management of local schools.

For these reasons, public policy leaders recognized from the outset that any Federal role in achieving the National Education Goals would have to gain its authority through persuasion rather than coercion. The White House and the Department of Education could propose solutions; the States and local school districts could accept or reject Federal proposals.

Yet many leaders felt that some Federal leadership was necessary if the nation as a whole was to improve its schools and achieve the National Education Goals by the year 2000. There were several things the Department of Education could do -- indeed was already doing -- to contribute to the development of a plan to meet the Goals.

In the first place, the Department -- through its Office of Educational Research and Improvement -- was funding and conducting research to analyze the problems faced by educators and those strategies and solutions that seemed most successful. In the second place, the Department, through its Educational Resources Information Centers (ERIC) and other databases and networks, was disseminating a wide range of pertinent information on educational programs to the educational community. For this reason, many reformers concluded that the Department could use these legitimate functions to provide national leadership in achieving the six National Education Goals.

-###-

[Part II - Federal Legislation]

[Part III - Reform at Federal Level]