Education at Risk: Fallout from a Flawed Report | Edutopia
Facebook
Edutopia on Facebook
Twitter
Edutopia on Twitter
Google+
Edutopia on Google+
Pinterest
Edutopia on Pinterest Follow Me on Pinterest
WHAT WORKS IN EDUCATION The George Lucas Educational Foundation

Education at Risk: Fallout from a Flawed Report

Nearly a quarter century ago, "A Nation at Risk" hit our schools like a brick dropped from a penthouse window. One problem: The landmark document that still shapes our national debate on education was misquoted, misinterpreted, and often dead wrong.
By Tamim Ansary
Related Tags: Assessment,All Grades
PrintPrint
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Share
Credit: Fancy Photography

We hear a lot these days about the catastrophic state of American public schools. According to pundits' dire pronouncements, our kids supposedly compare terribly when ranked academically against all others in the world. Politicians ask us to take a stand: Are we for, or against, school reform?

Standing for reform apparently means supporting rigorous testing, a back-to-basics curriculum, higher standards, more homework, more science and math, more phonics, something called accountability, and a host of other often daunting initiatives. Some educators worry about the fallout from these measures, such as the proliferating plague of standardized testing, but don't know how to oppose them without casting themselves as obstructionists clinging to a failed status quo.

Actually, however, according to Hoover Lydell, special assistant to the interim superintendent of the San Francisco Unified School District, "there is no such thing as the status quo. There never has been. What you hear today are today's ideas for school reform. In the past, there were other ideas. In the future, there will be still others. There's always school reform."

In short, it's never really a choice between supporting or rejecting school reform. It is, or should be, a choice between this reform and that reform. Yet today, a movement that stretches back several decades has narrowed us down to a single set of take-'em-or-leave-'em initiatives. How did this happen?

Well, it didn't "just happen." What we now call school reform isn't the product of a gradual consensus emerging among educators about how kids learn; it's a political movement that grew out of one seed planted in 1983. I became aware of this fact some years ago, when I started writing about education issues and found that every reform initiative I read about -- standards, testing, whatever -- referred me back to a seminal text entitled "A Nation at Risk."

Naturally, I assumed this bible of school reform was a scientific research study full of charts and data that proved something. Yet when I finally looked it up, I found a thirty-page political document issued by the National Commission on Excellence in Education, a group convened by Ronald Reagan's secretary of education, Terrell Bell.

Accidental Architects -- the Reagan Cabinet:

Edwin Meese III, counselor to the president (top row, second from right), urged Reagan to reject the "Nation at Risk" report. Terrell H. Bell, secretary of education (middle row, far left), hoped to link the country's economic woes to the state of our schools. George H.W. Bush, vice president (bottom row, second from left), as president in 1989, convened a national education summit -- and no educators were invited. Ronald Reagan, president (bottom row, center), inaccurately linked the report to school prayer, vouchers, and the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education. During the tenure of Caspar Weinberger, secretary of defense (bottom row, far right), the Department of Defense's budget soared to $300 billion. Meanwhile, Republicans were trying to abolish the Department of Education. Credit: Corbis

This Means War!

The heart of the document is an indictment that lambastes America for letting schools slip into precipitous decline but praises the nation's good heart, great potential, and mighty past. No paraphrase can do justice to its tone, so here's a verbatim sample: "Our Nation is at risk . . . . The educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people . . . . 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 . . . . We have, in effect, been committing an act of unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament . . . ."

Hear that, folks? Our very future. The Nation threatened!

Well, the rhetoric reflected the times. It was 1983; the Cold War was in full flower, and Reagan had swept into office on a promise to confront the Soviets. This stand had won him strong support -- among men.

But Reagan had a couple of political problems. First, polls indicated that women still tilted toward the Democrats, who owned such close-to-home issues as housing, health, and education. Second, the U.S. economy was tanking. And it wasn't our enemies driving our industries into the ground, but rather our allies, Japan and Germany.

In this anxious context, Bell put together an eighteen-member commission to report on the quality of education in America. Through the U.S. Department of Education's National Commission on Excellence in Education, he hoped to link the country's economic woes to the state of our schools. Bell got all he wanted and more.

When the report was released in April 1983, it claimed that American students were plummeting academically, that schools suffered from uneven standards, and that teachers were not prepared. The report noted that our economy and national security would crumble if something weren't done. But the sobering report received immediate publicity for an almost comically accidental reason.

As commission member Gerald Holton recalls, Reagan thanked the commissioners at a White House ceremony for endorsing school prayer, vouchers, and the elimination of the Department of Education. In fact, the newly printed blue-cover report never mentioned these pet passions of the president. "The one important reader of the report had apparently not read it after all," Holton said. Reagan had pulled a fast one, for political gain.

Reporters fell on the report like a pack of hungry dogs. The next day, "A Nation at Risk" made the front pages.

Once launched, the report, which warned of "a rising level of mediocrity," took off like wildfire. During the next month, the Washington Post alone ran some two dozen stories about it, and the buzz kept spreading. Although Reagan counselor (and, later, attorney general) Edwin Meese III urged him to reject the report because it undermined the president's basic education agenda -- to get government out of education -- White House advisers Jim Baker and Michael Deaver argued that "A Nation at Risk" provided good campaign fodder.

Reagan agreed, and, in his second run for the presidency, he gave fifty-one speeches calling for tough school reform. The "high political payoff," Bell wrote in his memoir, "stole the education issue from Walter Mondale -- and it cost us nothing."

What made "A Nation at Risk" so useful to Reagan? For one thing, its language echoed the get-tough rhetoric of the growing conservative movement. For another, its diagnosis lent color to the charge that, under liberals, American education had dissolved into a mush of self-esteem classes.

In truth, "A Nation at Risk" could have been read as almost any sort of document. Basically, it just called for "More!" -- more science, more math, more art, more humanities, more social studies, more school days, more hours, more homework, more basics, more higher-order thinking, more lower-order thinking, more creativity, more everything.

The document had, however, been commissioned by the Reagan White House, so conservative Republicans controlled its interpretation and uses. What they zeroed in on was the notion of failing schools as a national-security crisis. Republican ideas for school reform became a charge against a shadowy enemy, a kind of war on mediocrity.

By the end of the decade, Republicans had erased whatever advantage Democrats once enjoyed on education and other classic "women's issues." As Peter Schrag later noted in The Nation, Reagan-era conservatives, "with the help of business leaders like IBM chairman Lou Gerstner, managed to convert a whole range of liberally oriented children's issues . . . into a debate focused almost exclusively on education and tougher-standards school reform."

The Inconvenient Sandia Report

From the start, however, some doubts must have risen about the crisis rhetoric, because in 1990, Admiral James Watkins, the secretary of energy (yes, energy), commissioned the Sandia Laboratories in New Mexico to document the decline with some actual data.

Systems scientists there produced a study consisting almost entirely of charts, tables, and graphs, plus brief analyses of what the numbers signified, which amounted to a major "Oops!" As their puzzled preface put it, "To our surprise, on nearly every measure, we found steady or slightly improving trends."

One section, for example, analyzed SAT scores between the late 1970s and 1990, a period when those scores slipped markedly. ("A Nation at Risk" spotlighted the decline of scores from 1963 to 1980 as dead-bang evidence of failing schools.) The Sandia report, however, broke the scores down by various subgroups, and something astonishing emerged. Nearly every subgroup -- ethnic minorities, rich kids, poor kids, middle class kids, top students, average students, low-ranked students -- held steady or improved during those years. Yet overall scores dropped. How could that be?

Simple -- statisticians call it Simpson's paradox: The average can change in one direction while all the subgroups change in the opposite direction if proportions among the subgroups are changing. Early in the period studied, only top students took the test. But during those twenty years, the pool of test takers expanded to include many lower-ranked students. Because the proportion of top students to all students was shrinking, the scores inevitably dropped. That decline signified not failure but rather progress toward what had been a national goal: extending educational opportunities to a broader range of the population.

By then, however, catastrophically failing schools had become a political necessity. George H.W. Bush campaigned to replace Reagan as president on a promise to confront the crisis. He had just called an education summit to tackle it, so there simply had to be a crisis.

The government never released the Sandia report. It went into peer review and there died a quiet death. Hardly anyone else knew it even existed until, in 1993, the Journal of Educational Research, read by only a small group of specialists, printed the report.

Getting Educators Out of Education

In 1989, Bush convened his education summit at the University of Virginia. Astonishingly, no teachers, professional educators, cognitive scientists, or learning experts were invited. The group that met to shape the future of American education consisted entirely of state governors. Education was too important, it seemed, to leave to educators.

School reform, as formulated by the summit, moved so forcefully onto the nation's political agenda that, in the 1992 presidential campaign, Bill Clinton had to promise to outtough Bush on education. As president, Clinton steered through Congress a bill called Goals 2000 that largely co-opted the policies that came out of the 1989 Bush summit.

After the 2000 election, George W. Bush dubbed himself America's "educator in chief," and until terrorism hijacked the national agenda, he was staking his presidency on a school-reform package known as the No Child Left Behind Act, a bill that -- as every teacher knows -- dominates the course of public education in America today.

School reform is not a settled issue, however, and the ongoing debate about how best to go about it reflects a larger struggle between two competing ideologies. The many initiatives discussed for changing public education -- accountability, standards, standardized testing, homework, arts in the curriculum, and so on -- comprise one side of that debate.

Consider the analogy, for example, between liberal and conservative approaches to crime and to education. On crime, one side says, "Start with the criminal. Ask what turns people into criminals, what motivates criminals, how we intervene in that process, and how we can alter the conditions that promote transgression." The other approach says, "Never mind who the criminals are: State the rules, catch the violators, and punish them hard so they won't do it again."

When it comes to schools, one side says, "Start with the student. Ask what motivates kids, what blocks them, what gets them to muster their own best learning resources." The other approach says, "Never mind each particular student's wants and needs: Post the curricula, test all students, and punish those who fail."

Testing provides another revealing example. Teachers have always used myriad formal and informal tools to see whether kids are learning what is being taught. No one is against assessment. But testing in the context of today's school reform is not about finding out what kids know; it's about who gets the test results.

Only on-site teachers can really make a broad ongoing assessment that gets at a range of achievements and takes the individual into account. By contrast, uniform standardized testing whose outcomes can be expressed as simple numbers allows someone far away to compare whole schools without ever seeing or speaking to an actual student. It facilitates the bureaucratization of education and enables politicians, not educators, to control schools more effectively.

James Harvey, a member of the commission that produced "A Nation at Risk," expresses concern about the uses made of the report and the direction it has given to school reform. Today, he says, "educational decisions have been moved as far as possible from the classroom. Federal officials are now in a position to make decisions that would have been unimaginable even two years ago. They've established the criteria for disciplining schools, removing principals and teachers, and even defining appropriate curriculum for American classrooms."

Reform, Not Improve

Bush Sr. launched the idea of a national education policy shaped at the federal level by politicians. Clinton sealed it, and our current president built on this foundation by introducing a punitive model for enforcing national goals. Earlier education activists had thought to achieve outcomes through targeted spending on the theory that where funding flows, school improvement flourishes. The new strategy hopes to achieve outcomes through targeted budget cutting -- on the theory that withholding money from failed programs forces them to shape up.

Which approach will actually improve education? Here, I think, language can lead us astray. In everyday life, we use reform and improve as synonyms (think: "reformed sinner"), so when we hear "school reform," we think "school improvement." Actually, reform means nothing more than "alter the form of." Whether a particular alteration is an improvement depends on what is altered and who's doing the judging. Different people will have different opinions. Every proposed change, therefore, calls for discussion.

The necessary discussion cannot be held unless the real alternatives are on the table. Today, essentially three currents of education reform compete with each other. One sees inspiration and motivation as the keys to better education. Reform in this direction starts by asking, "What will draw the best minds of our generation into teaching? What will spark great teachers to go beyond the minimum? What will motivate kids to learn and keep coming back to school?"

In this direction lie proposals for building schools around learners, gearing instruction to individual goals and learning styles, pointing education toward developing an ever-broader range of human capacities, and phasing in assessment tools that get at ever-subtler nuances of achievement. Overall, this approach promotes creative diversity as a social good.

A second current, the dominant one, sees discipline and structure as the keys to school improvement. Reform in this direction starts by asking, "What does the country need, what must all kids know to serve those needs, and how can we enforce the necessary learning?" In this direction, the curriculum comes first, schools are built around the curriculum, and students are required to fit themselves into a given structure, controlled from above. As a social good, it promotes national unity and strength. This is the road we're on now with NCLB.

A third possible direction goes back to diversity and individualism -- through privatization, including such mechanisms as tuition tax credits, vouchers (enabling students to opt out of the public school system), and home schooling. Proponents include well-funded private groups such as the Cato Institute that frankly promote a free-enterprise model for schooling: Anyone who wants education should pay for it and should have the right to buy whatever educational product he or she desires.

What's Next?

Don't be shocked if NCLB ends up channeling American education into that third current, even though it seems like part of the mainstream get-tough approach. Educational researcher Gerald Bracey, author of Reading Educational Research: How to Avoid Getting Statistically Snookered, writes in Stanford magazine that "NCLB aims to shrink the public sector, transfer large sums of public money to the private sector, weaken or destroy two Democratic power bases -- the teachers' unions -- and provide vouchers to let students attend private schools at public expense."

Why? Because NCLB is set up to label most American public schools as failures in the next six or seven years. Once a school flunks, this legislation sets parents free to send their children to a school deemed successful. But herds of students moving from failed schools to (fewer) successful ones are likely to sink the latter. And then what? Then, says NCLB, the state takes over.

And there's the rub. Can "the state" -- that is, bureaucrats -- run schools better than professional educators? What if they fail, too? What's plan C?

NCLB does not specify plan C. Apparently, that decision will be made when the time comes. But with some $500 billion per year -- the sum total of all our K-12 education spending in this country -- at stake, and with politicians' hands on all the levers, you can be pretty certain the decision will not be made by those whose field of expertise is learning. It will be made by those whose field of expertise is power.

Tamim Ansary writes and lectures about Afghanistan, Islamic history, democracy, schooling and learning, fiction and the writing process, and other issues and directs the San Francisco Writers Workshop.

Comments (11)Sign in or register to postSubscribe to comments via RSS

Wade Tillett's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Let me get this straight, because of Simpson's paradox, the total score goes down because education has become more inclusive of previously excluded subgroups. In other words, education's failure is precisely what many of us would label as success - that it is being extended to include the marginal. To Reagan (and Bush) and others, this inclusion is a great risk; it puts the control of a nation at risk. What to do with an educated populace? What to do if we include so many? National "security" (read: the control of the nation), and high scores on standardized tests, are best preserved by limiting access to the already privileged. Overall test scores prove it time and again. Those poor kids can't stand up to our tests of privilege, and therefore they don't deserve to have any (privilege, that is - they'll get lots of tests of course). NCLB labels the institutions that intend to extend privilege as failures; because privilege cannot be extended to all; that would destroy it by definition. Privilege will not be threatened by education alone. However, if more people have more education, the guarantees of privilege might become threatened, putting a (certain type of) nation at risk.

Better to scrap the whole idea, let rich people buy their own legitimacy, and feed the "$740 billion education market" to the "edupreneurs" (http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=1245) to, of course, make the rich richer off the traditional educational goal of blaming the uneducated for their being poor, and the poor for their being uneducated.

Jerry's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

What other profession would allow themselves to be dictated to by non-professionals? Only educators! Politicians using methods that may or may not work for industry impose these failed systems on the education of students. Making widgets is in no way even similar to making an educated person. Yet that's what universal standardized testing promotes. "this one standardized test will determine if a school is reaching the goals set by NCLB legislation". What a joke! Then punish the failing schools by withholding funds or closing them? Hasn't industry done that when they can't compete with third world cheap labor?
Close the factories that cannot compete and outsource to countries that can do it cheaper.
Close the schools that fail to live up to the NCLB standards and let state governments do the job. Like Roosevelt on Long Island? Ha!
For years I have been hopeful that people would see the light but maybe due to my age or that this failing system has continued for so long I am convinced that we are heading for a major distaster in our once great educational system.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

I teach mathematics in a regional state university, therefore I deal mostly with the products of the regional public schools. My own experience is that the charges of "Nation At Risk" are still largely true.

The students are ill-prepared in basic high-school mathematics, indeed even in middle-school mathematics. (Some are unable to multiply 8 x 60.) Even worse, their study habits are abysmal: they seem unmotivated, regard classes as failed entertainment, and seldom prepare homework. (My remarks apply to the majority of students, not the few exceptions.)

The fact that no professional educators were included in the commissions that the author mentions is welcome. It's long overdue that the consumers of the public schools products, rather than its manufacurers, take charge of the educational establishment.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

What a shame that a "State University" would admit students with such a lack of motivation and study habits. I wonder how many are on "scholarship" of some kind.

Anonymous's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

"Still Largely True". By this do you mean, now appear to be true? Because the followup study suggests "Nation At Risk" wasn't actually true before.

robinson's picture
Anonymous (not verified)

Both the Nation at Risk and Sandia reports misrepresented the evidence and portrayed the condition of education improperly.

Anyone interested in looking into this in depth and with a more critical eye should read the following two articles.

Stedman, L. & Smith, M. (1983). Recent reform proposals for American education. Contemporary Education Review, 2(2), 85-104.

Stedman, L. (1994). The Sandia Report and U.S. achievement: An assessment. The Journal of Educational Research, 87(3), 133-146.

Bobbie's picture

Robinson, thanks for the further research. Stedman provides a significant amount of additional data which allows for a broader and perhaps less bias evaluation of this issue. It is far from a simple issue and should be analyzed carefully and with as much data as possible from as many viewpoints as possible.

nick smith's picture

I have an idea for school improvement that would surely advance public education and (I believe) make all poitical groups happy. Students and parents sign a contract when the child enrolls at school. Public schools also sign contract. The student contract agrees that the student will focus on their education. They will be coopertive with the school and will do nothing to disturb or destroy other student's opportunity to learn. The school agrees to provide the best education possible with the resources available. If the student breaks the contract, they are given a voucher to the private school of their choice. If the school breaks the contract, the school administration and board of directors will be replaced. Additionally, the Govenor of the state will be removed from office. This should make everyone happy.

The one thing I know about teaching is that a student will not learn if they don't want to learn. Heavens, one third of the students in this nation do not graduate from high school but drop out. Maybe true school reform should start with parents and politicians. The teacher blame game is getting old. Using these over worked people as a whipping boy is horrible.

Frances Griffin's picture

When I saw my sons' practice SAT questions I was greatly impressed with how sophisticated and difficult the questions were, especially in math and science. I did well on my SAT when I was in high school and earned a state scholarship(real money in those days, not just a loan) and later went to graduate school at Stanford University. But no way could I have succeeded on the SAT my sons took. And even in English the work I saw them doing in high school was in some ways as hard as what I did in graduate school. They had to write research papers with proper footnotes. Although I graduated magna cum laude I learned to do footnotes in graduate school. Don't tell me expectations have declined!

Conrad's picture

In my career as an Engineer and Geologist, I taught courses of a general nature to specialists in another field to give them an understanding of geology as applied in the petroleum industry. This was intended to assist them in planning their work and making better use of the available geology and geophysical data. While in Italy on such a teaching project, one of the student of previous years joined me for a coffee at lunch time and in the course of the discussion said, "you love teaching and that is why we come on this course. We need to know what you are teaching and it is so valuable to us". I was a little surprised because these course were very difficult. They covered a lot of material at a very rapid pace and there were only seven days for my part and later in the 13 week course there was a follow up week for applying what they had learned to a real project in teams of four to five people, After this discussion, thought about what this young person had told me and decided that I did like teaching and felt that I was making a contribution to the petroleum industry. It is less likely that one of the people attending this course would have accepted the plan for the Macondo well in the Gulf of Mexico.

Having come from a very large family that moved several times during our childhood. I saw the differences in six different schools that I attended and many more that my younger siblings attended. Joining the USN, I was given the opportunity to attend two SONAR schools and observed further how these schools were run. After the navy, I attended university for six years and saw a wide range of teaching skills in an even wider range of courses.

This reinforced my observation that almost without exception, all children want to learn. They thirst for knowledge and are continuously experimenting, testing observing and filling out the gray matter in their brains. They almost all are thrilled and excited about going to school and come home with great excitment to tell and display the new things that they have learned.

What did we do to turn off that thirst of knowlege by our children in too many cases. In my opinion, there are very few bad teachers. Many could improve their teaching if they were given the opportunity to observe and learn from teachers who seem to have that almost magical ability to relate to their students and are never forgotten by these students. They are sprinkled through our lives at all times and we always marvel at their ability to teach us new things in an absorbing, relaxed and enjoyable way.

My experience is that testing is a valuable tool to see how well each student is doing, but that formalized tests often miss the mark and bypass many very capable students who do not do well on timed tests, are having a bad day or who have not been prepared for the test on the day. In my teaching, because of very different language skills, I gave an exam to those attending the course, but they were individual and some of it was oral to ensure that they had grasped the key points necessary for their work. The corporations always asked that the students in the course be force ranked. I always refused because, the students would not have been selected for the course if they were not good (they had from a few to 15 years of work experience) and I did not know the students well enough to have an effect on the career based on my one to two weeks with them and that I did not believe in forced rankings.

What are we doing nouish that early thirst for knowledge and allowing it to flourish? That is where we should focus our efforts. We must gaurd agains the corporate egotists who equate their equally large compensations with knowing how to educate humans. Most of their blathering is an out pouring of ignorance about learning, but some of it is intentional and dangerous goals of controlling what each of us learn. Why? Greed, power and wealth. If each of us were to continuously quench our thirst for knowledge in an individual way guided by good teaching whenever we felt the need for further guidance, we could not be controlled by those who have wealth and power far beyond their knowledge and understanding of humans.

blog Starting the School Year With a Party

Last comment 2 weeks 1 day ago in Student Engagement

Discussion Is There a Tool to Help Track Progress Over Time?

Last comment 1 week 4 days ago in Assessment

blog Essential Habits of an Excellent Educator

Last comment 1 month 4 hours ago in Professional Development

Discussion The Problem with Standards-Based Grading

Last comment 1 month 3 weeks ago in Assessment

blog The Common Core Debate: One Teacher Vs. The Experts

Last comment 2 weeks 5 days ago in Common Core

Sign in to comment. Not a member? Register.