TIME: Almanac 1993/TIME Almanac 1993.iso/time/021290/0212120.000

Text File | 1992-08-28 | 7.4 KB | 158 lines

                                                                                EDUCATION, Page 54

Reading, Writing and Rhetoric


In outlining goals, Bush is long on talk but short on substance


    By almost every measure, George Bush has fallen short of his
campaign pledge to be the "education President." He continues
to back the ineffectual Lauro Cavazos as Education Secretary,
while promoting "choice" and other cost-free nostrums as
remedies for ailing schools. True, his proposed 1991 budget,
unveiled last week, calls for an additional $500 million for
Project Head Start. But student aid comes in for cuts, and the
Education Department's paltry $500 million increase does not
even keep pace with inflation. Little wonder that in a recent
New York Times/CBS News poll 68% of those surveyed felt Bush
had "mainly just talked" about improving education.

    The President talked about education yet again last week in
his State of the Union message. Using language that at times
bordered on the visionary, Bush outlined six national goals to
be met by the year 2000. "Real improvement in our schools is
not simply a matter of spending more," he said, "it is a matter
of expecting more." Although his goals were almost as fuzzy as
they had been at last fall's education summit, at which the
President and Cabinet officials met with the nation's
Governors, White House aides boasted that Bush had boldly
advanced the cause. Said one: "It's a cradle-to-grave approach
to education."

    Outside the White House gates, however, many considered the
President's plan less than earthshaking. Some educational hawks
complained that Bush, eager to maintain warm relations with the
politically powerful education lobby, had fixed on aims far too
modest to have much effect on the crisis in the classroom. No
one, of course, could argue against raising graduation rates
-- especially in inner cities with large black and Hispanic
populations. But overall, 84% of young Americans already earn
a high school diploma or its equivalent by age 24. How
ambitious is it, then, to set a goal of 90%?

    Many educators were impatient with the President for
offering yet another dose of rhetoric with no specifics. "He
needs to give us leadership on how to get there," complained
Jeanne Allen, an education analyst at the conservative Heritage
Foundation. Agreed Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico
Democrat: "I don't think we can make it on cheerleading alone."

    Some Governors were miffed that the President had stolen
their thunder. The original plan had been to unveil education
goals at the annual convention of the National Governors'
Association later this month. Governors Bill Clinton, an
Arkansas Democrat, and Carroll Campbell, a South Carolina
Republican, held meetings throughout the fall to work out the
details. In early December talks were thrown into disarray when
the White House told them Bush wanted to announce the goals
himself in the State of the Union. "It had the effect of
derailing the process," said one gubernatorial aide.

    The most political of the six objectives calls for U.S.
students to rank first, worldwide, in math and science. The
"moonshot goal," as one White House wag dubbed it, is a rare
admission by Bush that America is falling behind its foreign
competitors, especially the Japanese. The evidence of failure
is abundant. In a recent international survey, American
13-year-olds finished last in math and nearly last in science.
Bush stiffened his proposal by requesting, in his 1991 budget,
a $100 million increase in the education programs of the
National Science Foundation and a $230 million grant to help
states improve math and science teaching.

    By far the most innovative goal called for students in
Grades 4, 8 and 12 to pass nationwide tests in five basic
subject areas. Typically, Bush left unanswered the thorny
questions of who will design the tests, how they will be
carried out and funded, and how results will be reported. But
given the controversy surrounding national standards and
student testing, the fact that the President embraced the notion
at all was remarkable. "To superimpose some norms would be
radical," says Chester Finn, chairman of the governing board
of the National Assessment of Educational Prog ress (N.A.E.P.),
a 20-year-old federal testing program. "To expand it to
everyone would be revolutionary."

    Many Americans fear that national testing will lead to a
national curriculum, inviting education by remote control from
Washington and causing schools to turn out carbon-copy
students. With its long history of local autonomy, the U.S. is
unlikely ever to adopt such a system formally. Still, even
traditionalists concede that the U.S. has a de facto common
curriculum, driven largely by widely used standardized exams
and the homogenized fare dished up by textbook publishers.

    To meet Bush's goal, some entity -- probably N.A.E.P. --
will have to set standards for mastery of a given subject and
design a test for it. That still leaves room for states and
school districts to determine how material is taught. Besides,
local control has hardly proved to be a miracle drug for
improving educational levels. "Local school districts don't
have incentives to work hard," says Lester Thurow, dean of
M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management. "I'm not worried about too
much authority. I worry about too little."

    Even if educators could agree on standards, there would
remain the sticky problem of designing national tests.
Computer-scored multiple-choice exams are efficient and
economical -- typically costing $15 a pupil -- but they also
encourage mindless memorization. So-called performance-based
exams, using essays, hands-on experiments and the like, are
better for promoting reasoning skills but can cost as much as
$50 a student,  according to N.A.E.P. Chairman Finn. Whatever
kinds of tests are eventually chosen, educators are sure to
complain that they are being forced to "teach to the test,"
thus robbing students of real learning and depriving teachers
of control.

    Problems like these, admits the White House, may take years
to solve. Later this month when he meets with Governors to
flesh out the goals, Bush could speed the process by more
forcefully endorsing strategies such as simplifying teacher
certification and lengthening the school year. "The goals won't
be hard to set," says Lamar Alexander, the former Republican
Governor who is now president of the University of Tennessee.
"But we'll have to see if everyone is bold enough to make the
quantum leaps we need." Without a firmer push from Washington,
states and districts may never measure up to Bush's goals.


By Susan Tifft. Reported by Robert Ajemian/Boston and Michael
Duffy/ Washington.


____________________________________________________________
EDUCATION GOALS

By the year 2000:

    -- Every American child must start school prepared to learn,
sound in body and sound in mind.

    -- The high school graduation rate in the U.S. must increase
to no less than 90%.

    -- All students in grades four, eight and twelve will be
tested for progress in critical subjects.

    -- American students must rank first in the world in
achievement in mathematics and science.

    -- Every adult must be a skilled, literate worker and
citizen, able to compete in a global economy.

    -- Every school must be drug free and offer a disciplined
environment conducive to learning.