|
|
|
 and Frank Levy and Richard Murnane To: The President of the United States From: D. N. Forser, Chief of Staff Re: Educational Standards Date: April 3, 1997 Fifteen years ago a Department of Education report warned of "a rising tide of mediocrity" sweeping over America's schools. The intervening years have brought little measurable progress. If the diagnosis is mediocrity, the prescription, many have argued lately, must be to raise the quality of the product. The remedy of the hour has become strict standards that every school, every classroom, every student must meet. You have responded to pressure for such a remedy by supporting standardized tests in reading and mathematics, which most in the educational community accept as a relatively uncontroversial way of measuring student and school performance. But beyond this consensus -- when one gets into the realm of what subjects children should study and how these subjects should be taught -- experts disagree over how best to improve our school system. Do we want uniform national standards in our schools which cover much more than math and reading? Do we only want state standards? Or community standards? Or no standards at all? These are the questions you need to think through. |
||||||||||||
|
|
Other countries often have specific educational standards, and the quality of
the education they offer is measurably superior to ours. The problem with all
standards -- and it's a big one -- is political. There is a vocal swathe of
this country's population that feels that national standards are a "liberal"
plot to co-opt the innocent minds of our kids. We have asked your briefers on
the standards issue to leave this point of view out of the discussion, as it
seemed to us sterile and ideological. Instead, we concentrate on the good and
bad of standards -- of any kind. Some argue, as do Frank Levy and Richard Murnane in their memo to you here, that tough standards are the only way to make sure that students obtain the necessary skills to succeed in today's high-tech work force. Others believe that standards can make things worse, and their case is both philosophical and pedagogical, as Theodore Sizer, who has spent his career looking at what goes on in the classroom, argues in his books and in his memo to you. Parents are of two minds (at least) over standards. They want them -- but not if it means that Suzie can't graduate with her class because she's flunked her mandatory standards' exam. What if -- and it's a defensible estimate -- 40 percent or more of the kids in their local schools failed the standards exams? Parents would be up in arms. And the leader who talked them into standards would take the heat. Still, if standards are not the way out of educational mediocrity, what is? If you fail to support some form of standards, the public will expect something from you. And, Mr./Ms. President, the fact is that we don't have much else. The federal role in education is so small that you really can't do much more than use the bully pulpit. You can either call for tough national standards, or leave education primarily in the hands of local government. Here, then, are your options. Think them over and make an Executive Decision. It's your call. A: Enacting serious academic standards is the only way to improve student performance and to force parents to realize that their children's education is inadequate. B: Education, with some government oversight, should be left primarily in the hands of those closest to children -- their parents and teachers. Read the results of this poll, including the comments of the Presidents who decided this issue. Copyright © 1997 by The Atlantic Monthly Company. All rights reserved. |
||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||
 | |
 |
 |
