![[Table of Contents]](/icons/up.gif){kind=icon}
PART III EDUCATION REFORM 1990-1994
As a follow-up to the Education Summit, the Bush Administration introduced "The AMERICA 2000 Excellence in Education Act," a legislative package that called for funding the following: Presidential Merit Schools -- rewards to schools that made progress in raising achievement, fighting drugs, and reducing dropout rates; Presidential Awards for Excellence in Education: appropriation of funds to give $5,000 awards to teachers in every state who meet the highest standards of excellence; National Science Scholarships -- 570 college scholarships to be awarded annually to high school seniors in order to encourage them to take more courses in the sciences and mathematics; Magnet Schools of Excellence -- grants would be awarded on a competitive basis to local districts to support magnet schools for purposes other than for desegregation; Alternative Teacher and Pupil Certification -- one-time grants awarded to States to design, develop, or implement creative and flexible alternative teacher certification systems; Historically Black Colleges and Universities -- provision of $60 million over a four-year period to help sustain black colleges; Drug-Free Schools Urban Emergency Grants -- one-time grants to urban school systems to develop and test approaches to the solution of local drug problems; Literacy Program for Homeless Adults -- funds to be used to implement and fully fund the McKinney Act program designed to address the special needs of homeless elementary and secondary students.
This legislative program was never passed by Congress. Supporters of the bill maintained that it would use the principles of free market economy to promote improvement by rewarding excellence and by introducing the element of choice into education. Opponents argued that the bill asked for too little in the way of additional Federal support for the States and did not focus on areas of major concern.
In order to monitor the progress of the Nation in meeting the Goals and to provide a national focus for their implementation, the National Goals Panel was created in July of 1990. A 1992 report by the National Goals Panel contains this description of its composition and purpose:
An unprecedented bipartisan association of Governors, senior national Administration officials, and Congressional representatives, the Panel monitors and reports annually to the American people on the nation's and each state's progress in achieving these Goals. The purpose of these Reports is not measurement for measurement's sake. Rather, by demanding an annual accounting of progress, they reinforce a commitment to the Goals and to education improvement efforts that will be necessary if the Goals are to be achieved...The Panel also recommends improvements and enhancements to existing data and assessment systems so that better information relevant to the National Goals can be provided to the American people in the future.
In order to ensure improvement throughout the educational system, the National Goals Panel recognized the need for the development of "new, clear, and ambitious standards for the educational achievement of all students." A few months later Congress established the National Council on Education Standards and Testing, a bipartisan committee that recommended the creation of voluntary national standards and a voluntary national system of student assessments.
Conceding the enormity of such a task, the Panel adopted a charter for a National Education Standards and Assessment Council (NESAC). The mission of this Council was "to ensure that the many standard-setting activities currently underway move forward expeditiously and reflect a broad national consensus about what all American students should know and be able to do if they are to achieve at world-class levels."
Given the nature of the educational system in the United States, it followed that National Education Standards could not be mandated by the federal government but had to be accepted voluntarily by each of the 50 states. However, since there was an extraordinary national consensus concerning the current state of U.S. schools, NESAC did not encounter significant resistance in its attempts to lead the way toward national standards, though some critics feared that standardized national testing might lead to a standardized national curriculum.
One of the first initiatives of NESAC was to ask professional organizations to develop voluntary national standards in their own fields. For example, the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics prepared mathematical standards; and literally thousands of teachers and scholars nationwide worked together to create standards in science, history, the arts, civics, geography, and English. The standards were to be ready by 1994-95 for use in the Nation's classrooms.
In order to assist organizations in the preparation of these standards, the U.S. Department of Education gave grants to major professional and scholarly organizations to develop voluntary national standards in different subjects. Department officials made it clear, however, that "national standards" did not mean "federal standards," nor did "national testing" mean "federal testing." The standards and testing would be developed by NESAC in cooperation with professional organizations, and the States would be free to adopt or reject them.
NESAC completed its initial task in 1992 and was disbanded. The National Goals Panel continued to monitor the development of national standards and testing, and a voluntary system should be in place by the deadline -- which is the school year 1994-95.
In its annual reports -- with the first appearing in 1991 -- the National Goals Panel began to address for the first time the performance of American schools on the various Goals. For example, the 1992 report devoted an entire chapter to the subject of "American Education in a Global Context" (pp. 3-13) and examined the data regarding dropouts, mathematics and science achievement, and higher education. The Report noted the following:
While the Panel urged caution in the use of these limited data, it did suggest a strong "need for improved future international data collection efforts so that valid comparisons can be further developed and refined." However, the Panel drew the following conclusions from the data surveyed:
Some of the findings are positive. Relatively high proportions of our citizens complete formal schooling at both the secondary and postsecondary levels. Our basic reading and geography literacy rates appear comparable to other industrialized nations. We graduate large numbers of mathematicians, scientists, and engineers from our higher education institutions. And worker attitudes on the importance of their jobs compare favorably with those of workers in Japan.However, there is also much to be concerned about. American educational achievement deficiencies relative to other nations that we compete with may be present as early as the first grade. Even more troubling, the gap in student achievement seems to grow as students get older. As other nations graduate larger proportions of their young people from high school, the historic edge we have seen in graduation rates is slipping.
(The National Education Goals Report: 1992, pp. 12-13)
In 1991, The Bush Administration announced the establishment of AMERICA 2000 -- a "strategy" to implement the six goals. The Administration preferred the word "strategy" rather than "program" because it was proposing a general framework in which any number of programs might fit rather than mandating specific policies and practices at any level.
This strategy contained four separate tracks, each of which was designed to approach a different set of problems, though all had the same ultimate goal.
Track #1 called for better and more accountable schools.
Track #2 focused on the need for innovative research programs to create models for "a new generation of American schools."
Track #3 had as its primary focus those adults in need of further education, retraining, and motivation to learn.
Track #4 proposed to create communities "where learning can happen" by involving every town and city in the AMERICA 2000 strategy.
In order to enlist support for the AMERICA 2000 program, the President called on every neighborhood, town, and community to become an AMERICA 2000 community by doing four things:
The details of AMERICA 2000 drew some criticism from both ends of the political spectrum. The unions were opposed to provisions for school choice, while conservatives saw some elements as a threat to the local autonomy of schools. Both groups expressed concerns about a national testing program.
However, there was widespread support for some of the provisions of the strategy. Indeed, the President, the Governors, and educational leaders at the State and local levels seemed to be in basic agreement on what needed to be done. They also agreed that the best solutions would probably come from classroom teachers and innovative local educators. As one U.S. Department of Education official put it: "This war won't be won at some bureaucratic headquarters back in Washington but in the educational trenches -- State by State, district by district, classroom by classroom."
Given the national dimensions to U.S. educational problems, it may seem paradoxical to suggest that they could only be solved locally. Yet American education has always been decentralized, if not diversified; and any attempt to impose a national solution on the 50 States and more than 15,000 school districts would not only have been resisted by fiercely independent educators, but also might have raised constitutional questions.
By the end of 1992, 48 States and over 2,000 communities had committed themselves to the achievement of the National Education Goals and had become a part of AMERICA 2000.
When President Bush announced America 2000 as a national strategy for achieving the National Education Goals, he said: "For the sake of the future -- of our children and the nation -- we must transform America's schools." This statement echoed a constant theme in the Reform Movement: "the need to reinvent American education by designing new schools for a new century."
Corporate America, with a huge stake in the success of the educational system, responded to a specific request from the President by establishing the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC), "a private, non-profit, tax exempt organization" with a stated mission "to support the design and establishment of new high-performance learning environments that communities across the country can use to transform their schools for the next generation of American children." The business community saw this task as analogous to research and development in their own ranks, which they understood to be an essential element of competing in the international marketplace. Just as high-tech corporations have to develop new products and new manufacturing methods, they reasoned, so must schools develop new ways of teaching and learning -- perhaps in the process completely discarding current educational practice.
The specific objective of NASDC was "to raise $200 million to support the work of 'Design Teams' that focus the talent, energy, and expertise of a wide range of individuals and organizations on the task of designing and implementing new learning environments for the future." The Design Teams would be specifically chosen to reflect a diversity of attitudes and approaches.
As a NASDC publication put it:
No two Design Teams will look alike. Each will bring together a unique assemblage of talent, drawing on knowledgeable individuals and experienced organizations with expertise in diverse areas.
In July of 1992, NASDC announced its first grants -- one- year contracts to 11 Design Teams. During this period, these teams designed, planned, and refined programs to be implemented in schools beginning in the 1993 school year. Following this two-year phase, NASDC announced that nine of the programs would undergo final modification and then be offered to education systems, communities, and schools all across the Nation. These programs are currently in the process of refinement. Two of the Design Teams elected to end their work during 1993 and not proceed with the next phase. NASDC itself plans to cease operations in 1996.
In 1992, President Clinton was elected and appointed former Governor Richard Riley of South Carolina as his Secretary of Education. Riley took office in February of 1993.
While the Clinton Administration approved of some of the initiatives contained in AMERICA 2000, both the President and the Secretary rejected several key measures -- for example, the encouragement of a choice initiative that included private schools.
The new Administration wished to introduce massive educational reform measures of its own. In order to distinguish its efforts from AMERICA 2000, the Clinton Administration called its set of initiatives "GOALS 2000" and offered a legislative package of five proposed laws to support its platform for systemic educational reform throughout the nation. The proposed laws offered a systemic, integrated policy and procedure for bringing about reform in education for the first time in the history of this nation. The centerpiece of that legislative package and systemic educational reform -- "GOALS 2000: Educate America Act" was introduced in 1993.
Title I of Goals 2000 codifies into law the six original National Education Goals, and adds additional goals on parental involvement and professional development. The establishment of the goals recognized that learning begins at birth and continues through life. The goals provide a framework for a new, reformed education system for the 21st century. Many feel that these goals must be achieved if the United States is to remain competitive in the world marketplace and our citizens are to reach their fullest potential.
The National Education Goals as enacted into law in 1994 are as follows:
By the Year 2000:
Title II -- "National Education Reform Leadership, Standards, and Assessments" -- establishes in law the National Education Goals Panel, as well as a National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC). The Panel has the responsibility for reporting annually on State and national progress toward achieving the National Education Goals and for keeping this nation focused on the steps necessary to meet the goals. It also has responsibility for identifying actions that should be taken to enhance progress toward achieving the Goals and to provide all students with a fair opportunity-to-learn.
NESIC is responsible for establishing criteria for and certifying voluntary national content, student performance, and opportunity to learn standards, as well as State standards and assessment systems that are submitted on a voluntary basis. The voluntary national opportunity-to-learn standards will address: (1) the quality and availability of curriculum instructional materials and technologies, (2) the capabilities of teachers to provide quality instruction in each content area, (3) the extent to which teachers and administrators have access to professional development, and (4) the extent to which curriculum instructional practices and assessments are aligned to content standards. NESIC will also work toward the development of criteria for certifying assessments that are consistent with the content standards -- assessments that can be used to (1) exemplify for students, parents, and teachers the kinds and levels of student achievement that are expected; (2) improve classroom teaching and learning; (3) inform students, parents, and teachers about student progress toward achieving the content standards; and (4) measure and motivate individual students, schools, districts, States and the Nation to improve educational performance.
Title III is the crux of the Act, designed to encourage State and local efforts to improve and reform their schools. Funds from Title III can be used to accelerate reforms already in progress and to initiate new strategies and programs. Central to Title III is a State Improvement Plan, which each State participating in Goals 2000 will develop. Most of the funds awarded to states will be passed on to local districts and schools to develop local and school improvement plans designed to address the same components required in the State plan.
Title V, establishes a National Skills Standards Board to encourage, promote, and assist industry, labor, and education in the voluntary identification, development, and adoption of high standards needed in each work area and the matching of those needs to curricula, work experience, training, and training material. The Board is also charged with the establishment of a means to assess and certify skills, using a wide range of evaluation techniques to measure achievement against the voluntary, broadly-based skill standards. It will also develop systems to keep the standards abreast of changes in occupational needs and technological innovations, and to disseminate information relating to the standards, curricula, training, assessment, and certification.
Congress also added four new small grant programs under this Act. They are Title IV, Parental Assistance; Title VI, International Education Programs; Title VIII, Minority Focused Civics Education Program; and in Title IX, a Teacher Research Dissemination Demonstration Program and GOALS 2000 Community Partnership.
Title VII, Safe Schools, and Title IX, Educational Research and Improvement (OERI Reauthorization), integral parts of the Administration's systemic educational reform, are discussed below.
The sixth National Education Goal addresses the problem of school safety and drug abuse, and a 1991 report by the Bureau of Justice Statistics indicated that the problem had by no means disappeared since the Goal was first drafted in 1989.
In June of 1993, President Clinton transmitted to Congress the Safe Schools Act, legislation which his office described as "the first federal program to direct funds to local school districts specifically to help make them safer." This legislation makes it possible for a school district facing high rates of crime, violence, and disciplinary problems to compete for a U.S. Education Department grant.
Under the Act, local school districts can receive up to $3 million per year for two years. To receive funds for a second year, grantees will have to develop a comprehensive, long-term plan for preventing violence and making their schools safe. The legislation allows districts to exercise considerable flexibility in developing programs designed to meet local needs.
The Act also allows the Secretary of Education to reserve up to ten percent of each year's appropriation for national leadership initiatives, such as public awareness campaigns and program evaluation. This act became Title VII of the Educate America Act.
Title IX of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act reauthorized the Office of Educational Research and Improvement. It established the National Educational Research Policy and Priorities Board which will oversee the Office's activities. The Act reorganized OERI into five national research centers:
It also established an Office of Reform Assistance and Dissemination and a National Library of Education.
This reorganization will provide for educational policy research and research on effective educational practices that will support the attainment of the National Education Goals.
Another initiative proposed by the Clinton Administration, and enacted into law on May 4, 1994, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, is one of the acts intended to effectuate systemic educational reform. It establishes broad national criteria and a framework within which States can create school- to-work opportunities systems to facilitate a smooth and effective transition from school to the workplace, or to further education or training. To be jointly administered by the Department of Education and the Department of Labor, this legislation brings employers, educators, and others into partnerships that will seek to build Statewide school-to-work opportunities systems flexible enough to accommodate State and local needs, and at the same time comprehensive enough to address youth unemployment problems nationwide.
Specifically, the legislation:
The legislation provides that every School-to-Work program must include:
The pending legislation, Improving America's Schools Act (Reauthorization of ESEA), will complete the systemic educational reform package of the Clinton Administration when it is passed by Congress. (See description under Pending Legislation.)
These five pieces of legislation are designed to encourage comprehensive educational reform throughout the Nation. The federal funds to be appropriated under these laws are intended to serve as a catalyst to the States to join voluntarily (the legislation is not compulsory) in the reform movement. The legislation calls for total systemic reform, i.e., improved early childhood education, parent involvement, high academic and skill standards, curricular reform to meet those standards, focus on the disadvantaged, opportunities for all to learn and achieve, formative and summative assessment, professional development of teachers and administrators, school based management and accountability, systemic programs of school-to-work transition, safer schools, and educational research to support these provisions. Never before has the United States Department of Education offered such a comprehensive package for reform in accordance with its mission "to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation."
In conjunction with the national education reform movement, the United States Congress passed the Education Council Act of 1991. This Act established the National Education Commission on Time and Learning, an independent advisory body. Congress directed the Commission to make a comprehensive review of the relationship between time and learning in the Nation's schools, and prepare a report on its findings. The report of the Commission, Prisoners of Time, was published in April, 1994. The findings of the Commission could have profound implications for educational reform in the United States.
The report states that "... students, teachers, administrators, parents and staff are prisoners of time, captives of the school clock and calendar." Its findings indicate that if the educational reform movement is to be successful, States and school districts must modify the general six hour school day and 180 day school year to meet individual needs if the high standards of the Educate America Act are to be attained. The Commission determined that on average only a little more than half the school day is spent on academic core subjects. It maintained that, given the lack of sufficient time devoted to academic subjects, U.S. students would not be able to achieve the standards desired, and that no matter how well intended, the reforms will be doomed to failure. The report calls for radical reconsideration of the length and structure of the school day and the number of days per school year.
The Commission made eight recommendations:
If these recommendations are adopted to facilitate the other reform measures, the changes in America's schools could be profound.
This legislation is designed to establish the Federal Direct Student Loan Program, a new way for students to borrow money to pay for education after high school. Under this legislation, a post secondary institution participating in the new Direct Loan Program will receive loan funds directly from the U.S. Department of Education and disburse them to eligible students. (Under the previous Federal Family Education Loan Program, the loans were made through a private lender and a guaranty agency.)
The new program will be implemented in phases, beginning July 1, 1994, when the first loans may be used to pay for education expenses. Nearly 400 institutions will offer Direct Loans in the 1994-95 school year. By 1995-96, nearly half of the institutions that provide federal student aid will offer Direct Loans, and by 1998-99, the Department anticipates that most postsecondary institutions will participate in the Direct Loan Program.
Under this program, there are two kinds of Direct Loans:
-###-
[Part III - Reform at the State Level]