DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 376 550 EA 026 152

TITLE Progress of Education in the United States of

America: 1990 through 1994.

INSTITUTION Department of Education, Washirlton, DC.

PUB DATE 94

NOTE 142p.

PUB TYPE Reports Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC06 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS Annotated Bibliographies; *Educational Assessment;

*Educational Change; *Educational Improvement;

Educational Innovation; Educational Trends;

Elementary Secondary Education; Enrollment; Federal

Legislation; Government Publications; *Government

School Relationship; Postsecondary Education; School

Organization; School Statistics; State School

District Relationship; Strategic Planning

IDENTIFIERS *America 2000; Education Summit 1989 (NGA); *Goals

2000; National Education Goals 1990

ABSTRACT

During the past 4 years, the education reform

movement in the United States has made significant progress. At the

federal level, the Bush Administration proposed "America 2000," its

specific recommendations for systemic reform; and the Clinton

Administration introduced "Goals 2000: Educate America Act." This

report concentrates on these innovative strategies and includes

specific details of reform efforts at the national, state, and local

levels, as well as details of legislative initiatives by two national

administrations. Part 1 describes briefly the basic system of

education in the United States--its administration, organization, and

financing. Part 2 presents new national education data for the past 4

years and summarizes major federal legislation passed. Part 3

outlines the most recent developments to restructure and revitalize

American education. This section is divided into three parts: (1)

examines actions taken at the federal, state, and local levels; (2)

assesses success in the mission to guarantee equal access to

education; and (3) measures progress toward the fulfillment of the

National Education Goals. Part 4 provides an annotated list of

selected books, articles, and reports prepared or published during

the period from 1990 to 1994. Seven tables and one figure are

included. (MLF)

***********************************************************************

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made

from the original document.

*********************************************k*************************
Progress of Education

in the United States of America

1990 through 1994 0

LU

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

U.S. Department of Education

2

rft

U S DEPARTMENT OF 1101)CATION

0 of F ducatonai R000too ono imomnu

FUlll,ATi(11.4Al RI SOURCES INFORMATION

CENTER (ERIC)

1E/n.s dot umol nal been foploduCO as

,et w0 from M. 01110M or coommtsta

roPgPnlova pt

Minor cnnpN hv Oo ogcl to .ifiorOvo

,e0,Culuf 1.0n OuVPly Po.ot of v, M opf,os111110 trt. 00C V meet do not oc1, footsoot oltIC.1111

01 RI 004.1.on or 00I.CV
PROGRESS OF EDUCATION

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

1990 THROUGH 1994
FOREWORD

CONTENTS

PERT I ADMINISTRATION, ORGANIZATION, AND FINANCING OF THE

EDUCATION SYSTEM

Pace

ii

Background 1

Administration 3

Organization 8

Financing 20

PART II RECENT EDUCATION STATISTICS AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Statistics 24

Federal Legislation 33

PART III EDUCATION REFORM 1990-1994

Background 38

Reform at Federal Level 41

Reform at State Level 55

Reform at Local Level 60

Major Issues and Trends 62

Conclusion 89

PART IV SELECTED RECENT STUDIES OF U.S. EDUCATION 90

PART V FIGURE AND TABLES 104

APPENDIX 111

i

4
FOREWORD

During the past four years, the "education reform movement"

in the United States has made significant progress, though much

remains to be done. In 1989, as reported in proaress of

education in the United States of America: 1984 Through 1989,

President George Bush invited the Nation's 50 Governors to an

Education Summit, where a remarkable consensus emerged concerning

the state of U.S. education and the need for a national strategy

to remedy its deficiencies.

Following the Summit, the Nation's Governors, in cooperation

with the White House and the Congress, adopted six National

Education Goals to guide Federal, State, and local authorities in

devising plans for the overall improvement of the system. The

development of these Goals was a bipartisan effort that was

generally applauded by the Nation's educators and its citizens.

At that point, leaders at every level of the education

system began to consider a number of specific strategies to

achieve the Goals. At the Federal level, the Bush Administration

proposed AMERICA 2000, its specific recommendations for systemic

reform. At the State level, a number of educators and agencies

began to rethink old approaches and devise new ones. And at the

local level, superintendents, principals, and teachers, sensing a

new freedom, began to experiment with innovative ways of

motivating and instructing students. When President Clinton took

office in January of 1993, he appointed Richard W. Riley, a

former Governor known for his bold initiatives in school reform,

as Secretary of Education; and within weeks after the

inauguration, the Clinton Administration had introduced its own

innovative strategy for systemic education reform throughout the

Nation--Goals 2000: Educate America. This Act, together with

the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, greatly accelerated the

reform movement. The whole Nation had finally accepted the

proposition that education in the United States would change and

change for the better.

This report is, in part, the story of the years during which

the Nation has begun a conscious and concerted effort to

revitalize its schools and do a better job of educating its

youngsters. Of course, in order to reach this point, Americans

had to acknowledge the shortcomings of the current education

system--comparing U.S. achievement with that of other nations.

This self-examination has been a sobering experience, as

reflected in some of the studies and statistics chronicles in

this report.

On the other hand, there are bigns even now that the reform

movement is taking hold, that our schools are beginning to

improve, and--more importantly, perhaps--that some of the

innovative programs produced by the spirit of reform are

successful and will soon be ready for replication in the system

as a whole. Many reforms at the State and local levels have been

bold, all-encompassing, and ingenious. In States like Kentucky

ii
and in cities like Edmonds, the past has been swept aside with

an impatience and an entirely new way of operating schools

established in its place. While the final verdict is not in on

such innovations, they show every promise of affecting vast

improvements in systems that were in danger of collapse.

In addition to a general summary, this report will

concentrate on these innovative strategies as well as on

individual programs developed by master educators. Included will

be specific details of reform efforts at the national, State, and

local levels, as well as details of legislative initiatives by

two national administrations.

Part I describes briefly the basic system of education in

the United States of America -- its administration,

organization, and financing. It is, of course, a system in

transition, since many of the reform measures are

specifically designed to transform current structure and

policy.

Part II presents new national education data for the past

four years and summarizes major Federal legislation passed

during that time.

Part III outlines the most recent developments in the

ongoing effort to restructure and revitalize U.S. education.

This section is divided into three parts: (1) an

examination of actions taken at the federal, State, and

local levels; (2) an assessment of success in the mission of

the American education system to guarantee equal access to

education by all citizens; and (3) a measurement of progress

toward the fulfillment of the National Education Goals.

Part IV gives an annotated list of selected books, articles,

and reports prepared or published during the period from

1990 to 1994. This bibliography should provide interested

scholars with enough resources to understand what 11,..s happened in United States education since 1989.

This report is available not only in English but also in

several foreign languages as well. The translations are for use

by participants at international education conferences, by the

thousands of visitors from abroad who seek information from the

U.S. Department of Education, and by non-English-speaking

educators and policymakers in many other countries.

Many units of the U.S. Department of Education have provided

information and advice for this report. Primary among these are:

Planning and Evaluation Service of the Office of the Under

Secretary, '-:eaded by Alan Ginsburg; the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement, headed by Sharon Robinson; and the

National Center for Education Statistics, headed by Emerson J.

Elliott.

iii
Those who have been especially helpful in gathering data

are: Val Plisko and Nelson Ashline of the Office of the Under

Secretary, Steve Sniegosky of the Office of Educational Research

and Improvement, and Tom Snyder of the National Center for

Education Statistics. This publication, in part an update of

progress of Education in the United States: 1984 through 1989,

was written by Thomas Landess, International and Territorial

Services Staff, directed by Stewart Tinsman.

iv

7
PART I

ADMINISTRATION, ORGANIZATION,

AND FINANCING OF THE

EDUCATION SYSTEM

8
BACKGROUND

The education system in the United States is highly

decentralized. According to the Tenth Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution: "The powers not delegated to the United States by

the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are

reserved to the States." In accordance with this Amendment, the

federal government has no authority to establish a national

education system, nor do Federal agencies ordinarily prescribe

policy or curriculum for local schools. Such decisions are made

at the State or district level.

Because of this decentralization, laws governing the

structure and content of education programs may vary greatly from

State to State, district to district. Some of these laws are

very prescriptive; others are broad enough to allow local school

districts considerable flexibility in the way they operate their

schools.

On the other hand, despite this opportunity for

experimentation and diversity, the educational programs of the 50

States are remarkably similar, undoubtedly as the result of such

common factors as the social and economic needs of the nation,

the frequent transfer of students and teachers from one part of

the country to another, and the role of national accrediting

agencies in shaping educational practice.

In all 50 States, as well as in the six Territories,

education is compulsory -- usually from the age of 6 or 7 to the

age of 16. Public schools in the United States are free, at

least through completion of secondary school, which ends at the

12th grade. One of the primary aims of public education is to

ensure equality of access and opportunity for all boys and girls,

including minority groups and the disabled. Moreover, U.S.

public schools have a long tradition of coeducation.

In all States and Territories, private schools are permitted

to operate. They are subject to State licensing and accrediting

regulations. A few of these institutions may receive limited

federal aid for specialized purposes, but the great majority are

funded by sources other than government.

Education in the United States generally reflects the values

and priorities of the society. These include a dedication to

democratic ideals, a commitment to individual freedom, and a

respect for the diversity of the population. In general, the

U.S. education system has as its goal the establishment of a

quality education that will enable all children to achieve their

highest potential as individuals, serve effectively as citizens

of a free society, and successfully compete in a changing global

marketplace.

-1-

9
Though, as noted above, federal law prescribes no

standardized curriculum, the education programs throughout the

States generally include English grammar, reading; writing;

mathematics; science and the scientific method; U.S. history and

government; art, music, health and nutrition; practical arts,

physical education, geography and foreign languages. Many

schools are also beginning to teach the history, culture, and

traditions of other nations and peoples. Some students also

receive an introduction to the world of work, through programs

that promote career awareness.
ADKINISTRATION

Because of the Tenth Amendment and the consequent evolution

of a decentralized education system, the States and local

districts assume a primary role in the organization and operation

of U.S. schools. For this reason, the discussion below deals at

length with State and district roles in education and only

briefly with the Federal role. Because they are administered in

a different way, postsecondary institutions will be discussed

separately.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

Role of State Governments

Over the years, State legislatures have enacted laws to

govern the organization and operation of elementary and secondary

schools in the respective States. These laws have been provided

to guide the establishment of policies and requirements for the

operation of public schools at the local level. In most States,

policies and requirements are determined by a State board of

education and carried out under the leadership of a chief State

school officer (the title varies with the State) and a staff of

professional educators in a State department of education.

Different States have different laws and traditions

governing the membership of State boards of education. In most

States, members are appointed by the Governor; in some they are

elected directly by the people; and in still other cases a member

serves ex officio -- that is, by virtue of holding another office

(e.g., the Governorship).

The chief State school officer -- the head of the State

department of education -- is usually appointed by the Governor

or by the State board of education, though in a few States the

office is elective. The duties of the chief State school officer

usually include such functions as: distributing. State funds to

local education authorities (almost 50 percent of all funds spent

on public elementary and secondary schools in the United States

come from State sources); interpreting and administering State

school laws; supervising the certification of teachers; helping

to improve educational standards through in-service training

programs; and providing advisory services to local

superintendents and school boards.

Typically, State regulations for public schools cover the

following areas: length of the school day and school year;

graduation requirements; and standards for teacher certification,

school transportation, health services, and fire protection. For

private schools, about ono half of the States have some sort of

mandatory approval process that results in a license,

accreditation, or registration. A few States require that all

private school teachers be certified by the State before they can
teach in a private school. However, requirements vary from State

to State, as does the manner in which such requirements are

enforced.

State boards of education and their chief State school

officers -- supported by organizations like the National

Association of State Boards of Education and the Council of Chief

State School Officers -- provide strong voices on the national

scene and influence the direction of federal legislation and

policy.

Role of Local Authorities

With the exception of Hawaii, each State is divided into

local administrative districts with extensive authority and

responsibility to establish and regulate public schools, both at

the elementary and secondary levels. Generally, local school

districts are governed by a board of education, usually composed

of five to seven members, who have either been appointed by other

governmental officials or elected by citizens who live within the

district. Consistent with State law and official policy, the

local board operates the public school system through the

superintendent and the district staff.

The district school board and the superintendent of schools

have a broad range of duties and responsibilities. The board and

the superintendent are jointly responsible for preparing the

school budget. They usually have considerable latitude within

broad State guidelines to determine curriculum. They are

responsible for hiring teachers and other personnel; for

providing and maintaining school buildings; for purchasing school

equipment and supplies; and, in most cases, for providing

transportation for pupils who live beyond a reasonable walking

distance from the school.

Their duties also include enacting regulations to govern the

operation of schools. Such regulations must conform to State

law. Indeed, the limitations on the actions of school boards are

those established by the State legislature, or by the State

education agencies, which in most cases prescribe minimum

standards for all local school districts.

Districts vary in size from rural systems, with one school

building that houses all grades, to those in heavily populated

urban areas, with hundreds of schools and thousands of teachers.

Some States have regional (county) service districts or centers.

These handle regulatory functions as well as advise local school

systems and collect and provide statistical information.
POSTSECONDARY EDUCATION

Postsecondary education in America is widespread and

diverse. There are literally thousands of degree-granting

universities, four-year colleges, and two-year colleges. Some of

these are funded by State or local governments, while others are

funded by religious denominations or are privately endowed. In

addition to these degree-granting institutions, there are also

proprietary schools that offer specific vocational training.

These proprietary schools are generally operated as businesses

for profit.

Postsecondary institutions, both public and private, derive

their authority to function and grant degrees from the State in

which they are located. This authority is established in the

State -onstitution or in laws passed by the legislature.

Stes may fund and operate a number of institutions of

higher learning. Many larger States, such as California and New

York, have highly developed statewide systems of higher

education. Most States have some system of policy planning and

coordination to guide the development of public higher education

within the State -- usually through coordinating boards and

consolidated governing boards. However, in most statewide

systems, individual campuses have a high degree of institutional

autonomy, subject to the overall policies and plans established

by State and/or institutional boards.

Nearly all institutions of higher education receive some

form of financial support, either direct or indirect, from both

State and Federal governments, though public institutions

generally receive a substantially higher proportion of their

budget from government funding. Other sources of income for

both public and private institutions include: student tuition and

fees, endowment earnings, and contributions from philanthropic

organizations and individuals. Many public community colleges,

particularly those drawing students from several school

districts, receive the bulk of their public funds from separate

community college districts established for this purpose. In a

growing number of States, public community colleges receive more

than half their funding from State government.

Boards of trustees (sometimes called "boards of regents")

make most major decisions affecting colleges and universities in

the United States. In most instances the procedures for choosing

board members are stated in the institution's founding charter,

and, in accordance with the provisions of that charter, members

may serve either specified terms or may be appointed for life.

Public institutions such as State universities may have trustees

who are elected or who are appointed by the State's Governor.

Religious institutions usually have representatives of the

institution's founding body serving as trustees. In recent

years, many boards of trustees, both public and private, have

-5-

13
attempted to broaden their membership to ensure a wider

representation of the diverse constituencies that make up the

institution's academic and social environment.

ROLE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT

The role of the Federal Government in education has been one

of broad leadership without undue control. It is the legal

responsibility of Federal authorities to safeguard the right of

every citizen to gain equal access to free public institutions

and equal opportunity in the pursuit of learning. While

fulfilling this responsibility, the Federal government also

attempts to improve the quality of education through the funding

of research, direct aid to students, and the dissemination of

knowledge about teaching and learning.

To achieve these ends, the Congress over the years has

enacted legislation establishing a variety of funded programs,

most, though not all, administered by the U.S. Department of

Education through the issuance of regulations and the monitoring

of Federally funded educational activities. (Federal funding at

the various educational levels is covered in the section on

financing.) During the 1980s and early 1990s, a decrease in

Federal regulations and in Federal authority to disperse funds

within the States has further lessened the degree of

administrative control exercised by the Federal Government in the

field of education.

The only elementary and secondary schools funded and

administered solely by the Federal Government are those

established for the dependents of military and civilian personnel

serving overseas. These are operated by the Department of

Defense, with advice provided by local school advisory committees

and a national advisory council. Schools serving military

installations in the United States receive Federal funding but

operate under the direction of local school boards.

The Federal government exercises no direct control over the

establishment of postsecondary institutions or over the standards

they maintain, except for some academies that prepare persons as

career officers for the military. However, in a few areas, such

as the enforcement of the Civil Rights Act as it relates to

higher education programs, the Federal government has specific

legal responsibilities.

Virtually all laws authorizing Federal assistance to

institutions require that they meet minimum licensing and

accreditation standards. However, the practice of provisional

accreditation does permit some institutions to receive assistance

while involved in formal and final accreditation. Postsecondary

institutions are voluntary members of privately operated

accrediting agencies, which periodically review the standards and

practices of their membership. This reaccreditation occurs about

every five years. For purposes of identifying those institutions

-6-

14
eligible for Federal assistance, the Secretary of Education

recognizes the authority of most accrediting agencies, which

review periodically the performance of their membership.

The Federal Government requests advice on administering some

Federal education programs from citizen councils and committees

eatablished for that purpose by legislation, Executive Order, or

administrative authority. The members are usually appointed by

the President, the Secretary of the Department, or other agency

head. The largest number of Federal advisory groups on education

are associated with programs administered by the U.S. Department

of Education.
ORGANISATION

STRUCTURE

Lducation in the United States is organized on three

principal levels: the elementary (including pre-school and

primary), the secondary, and the postsecondary. Vocational

training is available at the secondary and postsecondary levels.

In addition, formal and informal programs of adult education and

continuing education are offered widely to U.S. citizens in

virtually any part of the country -- and throughout their lives.

(The structure of U.S. education is illustrated in Figure 1.)

Compulsory Education

Education in the United States is compulsory, beginning at

age 7 in 29 States, at age 6 in 16 States, and at age 5 in 3

states. Usually a person is required to attend school until age

16. Schooling is free, through completion of secondary school

(grade 12) for those who attend public schools.

Language Used in School

Most classes are taught in English. However, in schools

where there is a high concentration of students whose first

language is not English, courses are sometimes taught in a

foreign language until students are sufficiently conversant in

English to enter regular classes.

Time in School

On the primary and secondary levels, the academic year

usually begins in September and continues through the first or

second week in June, though some school districts prefer to begin

and end the school year earlier. Most States require a school

year of 180 school days. The school day usually lasts from 8:30

a.m. to 3:30 p.m. -- six hours long, excluding recess and lunch

periods. In most instances -- and particularly at the secondary

level -- students are given assignments to complete in the

afternoon or evening, after the official school day has ended.

On the postsecondary level, the academic calendar is much

more flexible. The norm for a full-time student is two semesters

of 15-16 weeks each per academic year, but many institutions vary

this pattern. Some, for example, adopt a trimester system, which

divides the academic year into three segments of 15-16 weeks; and

others adopt a quarter system, with the school year divided into

four 11-week segments. In the latter two systems, the student

normally does not attend school the entire year, but two out of

three trimesters or three out of four quarters.

-8-

16
Elementary Education

Elementary education in the United States consists of one or

two years of pre-school, one year of kindergarten, and five to

eight years of primary education.

Most public school systems provide half-day kindergarten

classes for children five years cf age, and some provide

preschool classes for younger children, though most pre-school

programs are offered privately. Although enrollment at five is

voluntary, except in three States, 87.1 percent of five-year-olds

were enrolled in school in 1992-93. Although primary education

may consist of six or eight grades, the six-grade school is most

common. The main purpose of primary school is the general

development of children from six to 12 or 14 years of age

(depending on ihether the school is a six- or eight-year

elementary school). The program has as its goal to help students

acquire basic skills, knowledge, and positive attitudes toward

learning. Elementary schools emphasize the growth of the

individual child and the relation of the child's progress to

individual needs and abilities. Traditional subjects such as

reading, writing and mathematics provide tools for learning; and

the teacher helps children to recognize problems, work out

solutions, and evaluate results.

During the 1960s, the middle school gained widespread

acceptance in U.S. education. A refinement of the junior high

school, which was designed to improve the transition from

elementary to secondary education, the middle school usually

includes grades five or six through eight, provides team teaching

and other innovative instructional methods, and emphasizes

curricular exploration and growing independence for students.

Its purpose is to serve the educational needs of students in the

early adolescent period -- those between 10 and 14 years of age.

Secondary Education

Secondary education in the United States begins at grade

seven or grade nine, depending on whether elementary education in

the system extends through grade six or grade eight. In some

systems, junior high school follows elementary school, and

includes grades seven and eight or seven through nine, followed

by high school, which can include grades 9-12 or 10-12. At this

level of education, students normally complete the 12th grade by

ages 17 or 18. Though each State establishes its own public

school curriculum, mandated requirements for high school

graduation generally include: two years of mathematics, two years

of science, four years of English, and three years of social

studies. Studcnts may elect the other courses they take,

usually with the assistance of a guidance counsellor. Electives

might include such subjects as art, music, foreign languages, and

computers. Individual students may elect a program of studies

that exceeds the requirements, and many do. The number of hours

in any given subject required for graduation varies from State to

State.
By the end of grade 10, most students have decided whether

they will follow a primarily academic program leading to further

education at the college level, a vocational training program

leading to employment or specialized postsecondary training, or a

general program combining elements of both the academic and the

vocational programs. In recent years, thu general program has

been criticized as insufficient either to prepare students for

college-level study or to train them sufficiently for employment

in an increasingly competitive marketplace.

All secondary programs lead to the high school diploma and

in most school districts are offered in the same comprehensive

institution. A comprehensive institution offers a combined

curriculum like the general program, allows students to transfer

easily from one program to another, and provides flexibility for

students to develop individual schedules to meet their own

personal goals. It is not unusual for a medium-sized

comprehensive high school to offer 200 or more separate courses.

A comprehensive high school also provides the opportunity for

young people with different career interests, as well as diverse

social and economic backgrounds to have regular contact with each

other. However, in recent years many school districts have

introduced magnet schools, which are designed to attract students

from all over the school district with a special interest in a

particular area of study, such as science, the arts, or

languages. Thus magnet schools, while retaining economic and

cultural diversity, deliberately sacrifice some curricular

variety in order to achieve a more concentrated academic focus.

Most students reach the minimum age for dropping out of

school at least a year before graduating from high school. Yet

of these students, about 75 percent remain in school until they

receive the high school diploma at the end of grade 12.

The American high school is highly flexible, both in its

academic offerings and in its vocational programs. In a growing

number of schools, academically gifted students can take several

additional hours per week of advanced science or mathematics

during their last two years of high school. In many instances,

pupils taking advanced courses receive college or university

credit. Most secondary schools offer some foreign language

courses, most commonly Spanish and French.

General Educational Development (GED) Programs

Many students who leave school before high school graduation

return to take a General Educational Development (GED) test -- a

comprehensive examination over basic skills and knowledge taught

in elementary school and high school. A certificate of success

on the GED is often accepted as the equivalent of a high school

diploma. In many cases high schools offer special short-term

courses designed to prepare students to pass the GED test. In

1990, 410,000 people received academic credentials in this

manner.

-10-

18
Private Elementary and Secondary Education

Private education at the elementary and secondary levels is

similar in curriculum and structure to public education. The

vast majority of private schools are coeducational and range from

those designed to serve children with learning disabilities, to

inner-city religious schools, to college preparatory schools with

or without dormitory facilities.

In 1992-93, students in private schools represented about 11

percent of the Nation's children in elementary and secondary

school. Approximately 5.5 million students were enrolled in

about 25,000 private schools.

The majority of students attending private elementary and

secondary schools are enrolled in Roman Catholic school systems -

- about 55 percent. Non-affiliated schools account for about 14

percent of private school enrollment, while the remaining

students -- 31 percent -- are enrolled in other religiously

affiliated schools, the largest number of which are Lutheran.

Also, Roman Catholic schools account for a substantial proportion

of private schools 35 percent -- while non-affiliated schools

account for 18 percent, and other religiously affiliated schools,

47 percent.

Vocational Education

Academic education, in the early grades, provides a

foundation for vocational education, as well as general

education, in secondary and postsecondary institutions. General

education at the secondary level provides the basic skills and

academic preparation required for postsecondary study.

Vocational education, on the other hand, typically begins at the

secondary level and continues through the second year of the

postsecondary level. Vocational programs are also designed to

retrain and upgrade the skills of adult workers in order to keep

them current with the changing needs of the marketplace. Such

programs contribute to the productivity and economic development

of the nation.

The major goal of vocational education is to increase the

student's knowledge and skills to meet the demands of a specific

job or occupational field. Elementary and secondary schools, as

well as adult education centers, offer more than 400

instructional programs designed to increase the individual's

potential to enter a new job market or to upgrade his or her

skills in a current position. These programs are usually grouped

under the seven traditional headings of vocational education:

agriculture, marketing and distribution, health occupations,

occupational home economics, business and office occupations,

technical education, and trade and industrial education.

19
Certain programs logically continue from the secondary to the

postsecondary level. These include office occupations, marketing

and distribution education, health occupations, and other

nontechnical programs. Because of the academic foundation

required at the secondary level, technical education usually

begins with postsecondary schooling. However, some specialpurpose high schools and large vocational/technical schools offer

technical programs at the secondary level. Generally, a two-year

postsecondary program is required for minimal competency in any

of the physical sciences. If the postsecondary program permits,

at this point a student may choose to terminate his or her

technical education and transfer credits to study at a four-year

college or university. Thus, among institutions that offer

technical programs, there is a logical progression from

subprofessional to professional technical occupations.

One of the most significant effects of the academic reform

movement may ultimately be on the nature and extent of vocational

education at the secondary level. More stringe't graduation

requirements in academic subjects are reducing the time available

to students for enrollment in vocational education. However,

educators are devoting efforts to the development of stronger

ties between academic and vocational courses and secondary and

postsecondary vocational programs.

In summary, through its regular secondary and postsecondary

programs, vocational education continues to supply a consistent

flow of skilled, entry-level workers and to provide specialized

training and retraining for adults. In °tiler words, vocational

education is intended to meet the needs of students, employers,

and communities all at the same time.

Higher Education

Types of Institutions

Generally speaking, there are three main types of degreegranting higher-education institutions in the United States: the

two-year community or junior college, the four-year undergraduate

college, and the university. The university normally includes

undergraduate as well as graduate and professional education.

Each category has both public and private institutions. Two-year

institutions offer terminal degrees (associate's degrees) for two

years of study or preparation for moving into the last two years

of undergraduate study at a four-year college. Four-year

colleges usually award undergraduate degrees for four years of

study. However, a growing number of four-year institutions offer

the last two years of undergraduate study and two years of

graduate work for a graduate degree, awarding both undergraduate

and graduate degrees. Universities usually offer four years of

undergraduate study and two to four years of graduate study,

awarding undergraduate, graduate, and professional degrees. Some

institutions have post-doctoral programs for advanced study --

generally based on an individualized study or research plan. In

1990-91, there were 156 universities (94 public and 62 private);

1,963 other four-year institutions (496 public and 1,467

private); and 1,382 two-year colleges (958 public and 424

private). 2 0 -12-
Higher education institutions may be classified according to

the total number of degrees they conferred and the field in which

the degrees were awarded. This classification divides such

institutions into doctoral, comprehensive, general baccalaureate,

and specialised institutions. Doctoral institutions are

characterized by a significant level of commitment to doctoral

programs and considerable activity in them. Comprehensive

institutions have a strong post-baccalaureate program but do not

engage in significant doctoral-level education. 'eneral

baccalaureate institutions focus primarily on undergraduate

baccalaureate education. The category of specialised includes

professional and other highly-focused institutions.

Of the 3,501 higher education institutions in the United

States in 1990-91, a total of 2,119 were four-year colleges and

universities. (In addition, some 6,455 nonacademic postsecondary

schools -- often called "proprietary schools" -- both public and

private, were offering job training in a wide variety of

occupations. Normally, these vocational schools do not grant

academic degrees but offer certificates or diplomas documenting

the completion of training in a given trade or skill.)

The many and diverse degree-granting institutions of higher

learning in the United States comprise a broad spectrum of

academic traditions, philosophies, and educational goals. More

than half are private institutions originally established by

special-interest groups for social, educational, or religious

purposes. However, the public institutions account for

approximately 79 percent of the total enrollment in colleges and

universities. Accred.. Ang agencies and associations help to

maintain high educational standards and compatible practices

among many different institutions. These organizations were

established by the member institutions themselves or by

professions and specialized vocational fields, and membership is

voluntary. Federal and State governments also require the

maintenance of certain standards as a condition for financial

assistance. Moreover, the professional integrity of the teaching

staff and the demands of the economy for qualified graduates

motivate most institutions to monitor carefully the quality of

their programs.

Htgher education enrollment increased by 41 percent between

1970 and 1980. Since then, enrollments have risen more slowly.

Between 1980 and 1992, enrollment increased about 20 percent,

from 12.1 million to a record 14.6 million. Much of this growth

was in part-time enrollment. Between 1980 and 1992, the number

of men enrolled rose only 13 percent, while the number of women

increased by 27 percent.

Enrollment trends have differed at the undergraduate,

graduate, and first-professional levels. Undergraduate

enrollment increased rapidly during the 1970s, but dipped between

1983 and 1985. Since 1985, undergraduate enrollment has risen

steadily, increasing 15 percent between 1986 and 1991. Graduate

-13-

21
enrollment had been steady at about 1.3 million in the late 19708

and early 1980s, but rose about 14 percent in the five years

between 1986 and 1991. After rising very rapidly during the

1970s, enrollment in first-professional programs stabilized in

the 1980s. There was a small increase in first-professional

enrollment between 1986 and 1991.

Degrees

The associate's degree. The associate of arts (A.A.) or the

associate of science (A.S.) degree is usually earned at a

comunity or junior college upon completion of two years of

study. In many instances, this degree represents the same level

of educational achievement as completion of the first two years

of a four-year college or university, and some students who have

earned the associate's degree transfer to four-year institutions.

Other students, especially those who have completed vocational

training for a particular job, normally enter the work force as

mid-level technicians.

The bachelor's degree. The bachelor's degree normally

requires four years of academic study beyond the high school

diploma. In recent years, accelerated learning plans, credit by

examination, or practical work experience, year-round study

plans, and other innovations have enabled some students to

complete the program in fewer than four years.

The two most common bachelor's degrees are the bachelor of

arts (B.A.) and the bachelor of science (B.S.). The former

normally requires more co,:rses in the arts and humanities,

whereas the latter usually places greater emphasis on the

sciences. Other common bachelor degrees include the B. Ed.

(bachelor of education), the B.F.A. (bachelor of fine arts), the

B. Mus. (bachelor of music) and the B.B.A. (bachelor of business

administration). The B. Arch. (bachelor of architecture) is

often a five-year program. The S.D. (bachelor of divinity) and

LL.B. (bachelor of law) are professional degrees, usually

requiring three years of study beyond a B.A. or B.S.

The master's degree. Master's degree programs vary

considerably among the institutions that award them. Masters

degrees are awarded in many academic fields, but most are called

master of arts (M.A.) or master of science (M.S.) degrees, or are

professional degrees such as master of nursing (M.Nurs.) or

master of social work (M.S.W.). Programs leading to this degree

usually require one to two years of advanced study in graduatelevel courses and seminars. Frequently a thesis is required

and/or a final oral or written examination. Requirements may

differ not only from institution to institution but also from

department to department within an institution.

-14-

22
The doctor's degree. The doctorate is considered the

highest academic degree conferred in the United States. It

attests to the ability of its holder to conduct original research

of a high order. The most frequently awarded doctorate is the

doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.). Others include the doctor of

education (D.Ed.) and the doctor of divinity (D.D.). Since work

at the doctoral level is often individualized, the specific

requirements may vary widely. In general, however, the degree

requires a minimum of two years of course work beyond the

master's degree level, success in a qualifying examination,

proficiency in one or two foreign languages, and/or in an

equivalent research resource (such as statistics) considered

appropriate to a particular field of specialization, and

completion of a doctoral dissertation that is normally intended

to represent an original contribution to knowledge in the

candidate's chosen field.

First-professional degrees. Included among first

professional degrees are dentistry (D.D.S. or D.M.D.), law (LL.B.

or J.D.), medicine (M.D.), theology (B.D. or M. Div., or Rabbi),

veterinarian medicine (D.M.V.), podiatry (Pod.D. or D.P.) or

podiatric medicine (D.C. or D.C.M.), and pharmacy (D.Phar.). The

education prerequisite and length of study required for these

degrees vary with the field of study. For example, in medicine

most students, after receiving a bachelor's degree, complete four

years of medical studies before receiving the M.D. degree.

Subsequently, they often enter into three years of residency

training in a specialty.

In 1990, 19.1 percent of young adults (25 to 30 years of

age) had attended college without receiving a degree or

certificate; 2.8 percent had received a vocational certificate;

6.2 percent had received an associate degree; 1/.4 percent had

received a bachelor's degree; 3.5 percent had received a

master's degree; 1.2 percent had received a professional degree;

and .03 percent had received a doctor's degree.

CURRICULUM DEVELOPMENT

State and local education authorities are responsible for

determining and developing public school curriculum. The Federal

government is expressly forbidden by statute from intrusion into

curricular decisions. There is no national public curriculum at

any level of education. In fact, the U.S. Congress carefully

monitors Federal assistance for curriculum development to assure

that State and local control is maintained. However, the

Congress has mandated that every school receiving Federal funds

must provide a program designed to teach students that drug use

is wrong and harmful. Also, the Federal government sometimes

funds curricular research and develops model curricula that State

and local authorities may choose to utilize. In this way, the

Federal government exercises leadership without directly

intervening in the affairs of the public school system.

-15-

23
Elementary and Secondary Curricula

Generally, States exercise their responsibility for public

school curricula in five major ways: by establishing the

graduation requirements for students within the State; by

selecting the texts to be used in classrooms; by developing

minimum-competency tests; by issuing State curriculum guides; and

by providing technical assistance. For example, most States

require that students take one or more social studies courses in

the area of American history or the history of their particular

State. Local school districts may add curriculum requirements of

their own, such as local history or sex education.

State officials select textbooks and other curricular

materials in about half the States. Local officials make the

selections in the remainder. In either case, the State or local

board of education usually delegates the responsibility to a

textbook commission or committee made up of professional

educators and community representatives. Most commonly, textbook

commissions approve several textbooks and materials for each

course, and local or school authorities make selections from the

list. Usually teachers may choose a program of study from

approved materials.

Most textbooks are published by private firms, which usually

contract with educators and other specialists to develop teaching

materials; then they submit the final products to the State and

local textbook commissions for approval. States and local school

districts sometimes commission teams of teachers and other

experts on curriculum to develop materials for use in classrooms.

In some instances, universities develop curricular materials for

use at the State or local level. Teachers are often given

latitude to choose a program of study from a variety of materials

-- sometimes from all of these sources.

In a situation where as few as four States may control

almost 30 percent of the market (California -- 11 percent, Texas

-- 8 percent, New York -- 6 percent, and Illinois -- 5 percent)

publishers interested in selling to a broad market are likely to

address the requirements of these key States, though their

curricula sometimes are based on conflicting aims.

Minimum-competency testing is a means by which the States

may influence local curricula. This practice originated in the

middle 1970's, and some form of minimum competency testing now

exists in at least 40 States. Initially, many States mandated

that students meet a minimum standard of competency before

receiving a high school diploma. Gradually, testing has been

extended to the lower grades to monitor early progress. Now,

States conduct minimum-competency testing at two or three stages

of a student's education to pinpoint problems and to institute

remedial help. Reading, writing, and mathematics are the three

subject areas most commonly targeted for minimum-competency

testing, typically in grades three or four; six, eight, or nine;

and 11 or 12.

-16-

9 4
States also influence local curricula by providing technical

assistance, which is delivered primarily by State curriculum

specialists in the various fields (e.g., the sciences). Among

other activities, these specialists work with local district

personnel individually, conduct regional and statewide workshops

for groups, and organize the development of State curriculum

guides (materials suggested but not mandated).

Despite the decentralized nature of American education, a

certain pragmatic standardization of curriculum exists. First,

the textbook is probably the greatest single determinant of

curriculum, and many publishers have successfully established

large markets among the nation's schools. Second, college and

university entrance requirements strongly affect curricular

decisions at the secondary level because local school authorities

want their graduates to be readily admitted to institutions of

higher education. In some cases, a high school's curriculum may

be designed wholly or in large part to prepare students to enter

college, even though the college-bound population may be only

about 50 or 60 percent of the high school's student body. Third,

national achievement and aptitude tests developed by private,

non-profit organizations influence secondary school curricula.

The national norms on these tests tend to become accepted norms

for achievement locally; and, consciously or unconsciously,

teachers may begin to teach solely in preparation for these

tests. Three tests are particularly influential.

One is the National Assessment of Educational Progress

(NAEP), a periodic measurement of the skills and knowledge of

representative samples of 9-, 13-, and 17-year-olds in reading,

writing, mathematics, science, social studies, and other

subjects. NAEP's impact on curriculum is more indirect than

direct; it is felt primarily through the many State assessment

programs that, though independently developed, are patterned

after NAEP.

Two other tests that have proven highly influential on

curriculum are the Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) and the

American College Testing Program (ACT). The SAT is a test of

vocabulary and reasoning skills that is taken by about 1.1

million students each year. The ACT is similar to the SAT but

covers social studies and the natural sciences in addition to

math and English. About 800,000 students take this test each

year.

Postsecondary Curricula

State governments do not exercise direct influence on the

curriculum of private or public postsecondary academic

institutions. Curricular decisions are made most often within

academic departments, and individual professors are responsible

for the content of their courses. The institutions usually

require that a student earn a given number of credits, often

prescribing specific courses or areas of study as prerequisites

for graduation. Many also require a student to take a specified

number of courses in a major field of study before conferring a

degree.

-17-

25
However, States can exercise indirect control over

postsecondary academic institutions, both public and private,

through their licensing authority. For example, through power

delegated to professional licensing boards, States can require

that professionals such as doctors, attorneys, engineers, and

teachers complete a minimum number of courses from a specified

list of academic or professional subjects to qualify for a

license to practice.

TEACHER EDUCATION

Preservic

All preservice teacher education in the United States is at

the postsecondary level. Many public and private universities

have departments, schools, or colleges of education. In

addition, a few institutions in the United States specialize

exclusively in preparing educators to teach special subjects such

as music and art, or to give instruction to severely disabled

persons.

In most cases, candidates for teacher education programs

must have successfully completed one or two years of general

undergraduate requirements. The minimum requirement for teaching

on the elementary and secondary level in any of the 50 States is

the bachelor's degree. However, an increasing number of States

are meeting the growing demand for qualified instructors by

instituting "alternate certification programs" which sometimes

allow candidates with special qualifications to take a lesser

number of education courses before entering theclassroom.

While most teacher training occurs in four-year programs,

some schools, colleges, or departments of education (SCDEs) offer

five-year programs, some leading to a Master's degree. In most

programs for elementary school teachers, the core curriculum of

professional studies devotes slightly more time to theory than to

method, while in programs for secondary school teachers the

reverse is true. Despite an ongoing debate on the relative value

of theory and method, most programs include both in all education

courses.

All States require that programs to educate teachers include

general education, specialization in a teaching field, and

professional education courses. The general education program

usually includes a foundation in the liberal arts, with an

emphasis on the humanities, natural sciences, and social

sciences. In addition, all states require that future teachers

engage in full-time teaching in a public school classroom under

the supervision of an experienced teacher approved by the college

or university in which the candidate is enrolled.

-18-

26
In each State an agency regulates the certification of

teachers. This agency issues a certificate or license to teach

once all State requirements have been met. States issue several

types of certificates, based on training and need: permanent

(regular), probationary, and temporary, with the specific

nomenclature varying from State to State.

Many States require that a teacher acquire a graduate degree

within ten years. Often States or local school districts offer

salary increases and free tuition as incentives to pursue study

beyond what is required.

Inservice

Most U.S. school districts assist or encourage teachers at

the elementary and secondary levels to continue' their

professional growth in one way or another. To this end, teachers

often have the opportunity to attend formal courses and workshops

that confront significant classroom problems or explore new

approaches. Those that attract the most participants tend to

focus on problems that affect large numbers of teachers, such as

instructing handicapped children in regular classes, meeting the

needs of children from low-income families, and providing

bilingual and multicultural education.

Not only do higher education institutions provide these

programs, but many large school districts and several smaller

ones sponsor workshops using their own staff, with or without

outside consultants, Many districts have established inservice

training centers, which often include a reference library, an

audiovisual center, workrooms for developing instructional

materials, and rooms for seminars or lectures. With increasing

frequency, the control of teacher centers is being entrusted to

the teachers themselves.

Other inservice opportunities available to teachers include:

visits to other schools, availability of consultants for

individual problems, and special days (often called "inservice

days") during which pupils are excused from school and teachers

participate in special programs designed to help them improve

their understanding of problems and their classroom performance.

Many school districts encourage their teachers to

participate in inservice education through a variety of

strategies. They may (1) require a prescribed number of courses

before a teaching contract can be renewed; (2) subsidize tuition

fees at a university; (3) increase the salary of teachers who

earn higher degrees, complete a given number of credit hours, or

participate in other inservice activities; (4) release teachers

from classroom responsibilities and provide travel expenses to

enable them to attend professional meetings; (5) approve

sabbaticals; or (6) legitimize release time during the day.

-19-

27
FINANCING

In 1992-93, the United States spent an estimated $445.3

billion, or 7.8 percent its gross national product, on education.

Funds for education came primarily from taxes collected by State,

local, and Federal governments. In 1988-89, aboni. $330.5

billion, or 6.8 percent of its gross national product, was spent

on education.

ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

Public elementary and secondary schools receive virtually

all of their revenues from government sources, mostly from the

State or local school district. In 1992, total revenue receipts

amounted to $261.1 billion, as opposed to $158.8 billion in 1987.

Until relatively recent times, local government has been the

prime source of funding for elementary and secondary schools; but

since 1978-79, revenues from State governments have slightly

exceeded those from local governments. For example, in 1990-91,

the feleral government spent $6.7 billion on elementary and

secondary education; State governments spent $43.6 billion; and

local governments spent $40.6 billion, with an additional $10.1

billion spent by private and other sources. With the increased

role of the State in financing public elementary and secondary

education, the proportionate share of funding by the Federal

government has correspondingly decreased, despite a steady

increment of Federal spending on education over the past two

decades. Thus, while the proportion of revenue received from the

Federal government dropped from 9.8 percent of the total in 1980

to 5.6 percent in 1993, Federal expenditures on education rose

from $14.1 billion in 1980 to $34.8 billion in 1992 -- an

increase of slightly more than 145 percent. The Federal share

of education costs tends to be greatest in States and localities

with large numbers of disadvantaged children or with numerous

Federal installations.

Per-pupil expenditures varied greatly among the States in

1989-190, the last period for which figures are available, from

a high of $8,374 in Alaska to a low of $2,730 in Utah, with the

level of most States ranging from $4,000 to $6,000. These

differences are not just a result of varying levels of commitment

to education but reflect cost-of-living differences and the

relative economic bases from which States can derive income.

Within States where there are large discrepancies among per-pupil

expenditures there have been court challenges to equalize the

distribution of State funds.

HIGHER EDUCATION

About 30 percent of the total funds for education flow to

higher education institutions -- 10 percent less than in 1989.

However, during the past decade, expenditures and tuition costs

for these institutions have risen significantly.

-20-

28
After adjustment for inflation at colleges and universities,

current-fund expenditures per student rose about 17 percent

between 1980-81 and 1990-91. Administrative expenditures

(institutional support and academic support, less libraries) have

been rising more rapidly than most other types of college

expenditures. At public universities, between, 1980-81 and 1990-

91, inflation adjusted administration expenditures rose 28

percent compared with 12 percent for instruction expenditures per

student. At private universities during the same period, the per

student administrative costs rose 45 percent, and the instruction

costs rose by 38 percent. One of the most rapidly rising

expenditures during the decades was the funding of scholarships

and fellowships, which rose by 51 percent per student at public

universities and by 71 percent at private universities.

As for tuition, for the 1992-93 academic year, annual

undergraduate charges for tuition, room, and board are estimated

at $5,394 at public colleges and $14,741 at private colleges.

Between 1982-83 and 1992-93, charges at public colleges have

risen by 83 percent and charges at private colleges by 113

percent. These increases substantially surpassed the rise in the

Consumer price Index, which was up about 45 percent during the

same period.

FEDERAL AID

In school year 1992-93, the U.S. Department of Education

contributed an estimated $36.7 billion to help support and

strengthen the Nation's schools. The Department contributed 5.7

percent of the Nation's total expenditures on elementary and

secondary education and 12.2 percent of total expenditures on

higher education, as well as funded adult and vocational

education, public libraries, education research and statistics,

and its own management costs. In addition, almost every other

Federal agency funded some programs that directly or indirectly

contributed money and services to schools.

The following summaries and funding estimates for Fiscal

Year 1993 demonstrate the continued level of financial support

and public visibility in six major Federal Programs.

Education for the Disadvantaged

The primary program for the disadvantaged (generally

referred to as "(Chapter 1") provides compensatory education

services for about 5 million disadvantaged elementary and

secondary school students. These funds are appropriated to

provide supplementary services to assist disadvantaged children

to acquire basic academic skills and thus enhance their

opportunity to participate fully in society and to share equally

in its benefits. Funding was $4.6 billion in 11989 and an

estimated $6.7 billion in 1993.

-21-

29
Education for Children with Disabilities

This program provides special services for about 4 million

children with disabilities in elementary and secondary schools.

It assists States to provide opportunities for education to

students with disabilities. The goal is to ensure that all such

children acquire basic academic skills and thus enhance their

opportunity to participate fully in society and to share equally

in its benefits. Funding was for $4.6 billion in 1989 and an

estimated $5.2 billion in 1993.

Vocational Education

This program provides support services to about 17 million

students. Funds are channeled into activities directly related

to improving vocational education; into programs for "special

populations," including children with disabilities and those

educationally disadvantaged; and into strengthening the capacity

for State leadership in vocational education. Funding for 1989

was $1.1 billion and an estimated $1.48 billion in 1993.

Grants for School Improvement

This grant program (often referred to as "Chapter 2"), part

of the Education Consolidation and Improvement Act of 1981,

provides aid to States to improve the quality of education for

all children. This program focuses on general improvement in

education rather than on narrow categorical activities, while

allowing local and State officials to set their own priorities

among the various activities. Chapter 2 operates on the

assumption that the Sates and local school districts have the

best understanding of the needs of their children and that they

must be given the flexibility to use this understanding in a way

that will best serve local schools and students. Funding for

1989 was $1.3 billion and an estimated $1.5 billion in 1993.

School Assistance in Federally Affected Areas

Known as "Impact Aid," this program assists school districts

that enroll students whose parents both live and work on Federal

property and thus are ineligible for an education funded by local

tax revenues. Funding for 1989 was $.8 billion and an estimated

$.75 billion in 1993.

Student Financial Assistance

These programs help students meet the cost of attending

postsecondary institutions through grants, low-interest loans,

and work study programs. Almost 80 percent of all student aid is

derived from these programs. Funding for 1989 was $10.5 billion

and an estimated 12 billion in 1993.

-22-
Other Department of Education programs that expend a

significant amount of financial support include: education

research and improvement; adult education; bilingual and minority

language programs; and aid to higher education. Combined funding

for these programs in 1989 was $2.6 billion and an estimated $2.8

billion in 1993.
PART II

RECENT EDUCATION STATISTICS

AND FEDERAL LEGISLATION

32
STATISTICS

OVERVIEW

Approximately 71.8 million people were involved in U.S.

education in the fall of 1993, up from 65.2 million in the fall

of 1988. Included in this total are 63.9 million students; 3.7

million teachers and faculty at the elementary, secondary and

postsecondary levels; and 4.2 million professional,

administrative, and support staff. Thus, in a Nation with a

population of around 258 million, more that one out of every four

persons was participating in education at some level -- whether

elementary, secondary, or postsecondary. Yet educators and

public policy leaders are calling on even more Americans to

become "lifelong learners." For many reasons, then, education

has begun to command increased attention in contemporary U.S.

society.

The segment that follows contains further statistics and

tables that paint a more detailed, quantitative picture of

education in the United States. These figures suggest, rather

than define in absolute terms, the progress of U.S. education

over the past several years.

ENROLLMENT

Enrollment in U.S. elementary and secondary schools has ebbed and

flowed over the past two decades, reaching an all-time high of

51.3 million students in 1971, dropping to 45 million in 1984,

then climbing slightly to 45.4 million in 1988. By 1992, the

number had reached 47.8 million. These increases have been

concentrated at the elementary school level (kindergarten through

grade 8) where enrollment rose from 31.2 million in 1984 to 34.4

million in 1992. In contrast, the enrollment at the high school

level -- grades 9 through 12 -- declined during the same period

from 13.8 million to 12.6 million.

Enrollment in Elementary and Secondary Institutions

Enrollment trends in elementary and secondary schools in the

United States closely mirror changes in the school-age population.

At age five, about 91 percent of the children tend to be enrolled

in preprimary or elementary school; at age six through 13, more

than 99 percent; and at age 14 through 17, about 95 percent.

Enrollment declined in the 1970s and early 1980's because there

were fewer school-age children. In fall 1985, elementary and

secondary school enrollments increased for the first time since

1971. Enrollment has continued to rise, as evidenced by an

increase of 7 percent from 1985 to 1992. However, elementary and

secondary enrollment exhibited contrasting patterns. Between 1985

and 1992, public elementary enrollment rose by 13 percent while

secondary enrollment declined by 6 percent, a discrepancy

explainable in terms of a very recent rise in births.

-24-

33
During the 1970s and early 1980s, preprimary education

enrollment grew substantially. Between 1970 and 1980, preprimary

enrollment of 3- to 5-year-olds rose by 19 percent; between 1980

and 1992, it increased an additional 31 percent. An important

feature of the growing participation of young children in

preprimary schools is the increasing proportion of full-day

programs. In 1992, about 38 percent of children in this age group

attended school all day, compared with 32 percent in 1980 and 17

percent in 1970.

Despite drops in total elementary and secondary school

enrollment during the late 1970s and early 1980s, increasing

numbers of children were served in programs for the handicapped.

In 1976-77, 8 percent of children were served in these programs,

compared with 12 percent in 1990-91. However, since 1983-84, the

increases have been relatively small. Much of the rise in the

1976-77 to 1989-90 period may be attributed to the passage of the

Education of the Handicapped Act of 1975 and an increasing

proportion of children being identified as "learning disabled,"

which rose from less than 2 percent of all children in 1976-77 to

5 percent of all children in 1990-91.

The trend in births in the recent past ensures that

enrollment will continue to grow for a number of years. According

to projections by the National Center for Education Statistics, an

arm of the U.S. Department of Education, by the year 1995, total

student enrollment in educational institutions should reach 64.6

million, and by the year 2000 it should reach 68.1 million.

Enrollment in nigher Education

In higher education institutions, the enrollment trend has

been generally upward for many years. Higher education enrollment

increased by 41 percent between 1970 and 1980. Since then,

enrollments have risen more slowly. Between 1980 and 1992,

enrollment increased about 20 percent, from 12.1 million to a

record 14.6 million. Much of this growth was in part-time

students. Between 1980 and 1992, the number of men enrolled rose

only 13 percent, while the number of women increased by 27

percent.

The number of older students has been growing more rapidly

than the number of younger students. Between 1980 and 1990, the

enrollment of students under age 25 increased by only 3 percent.

During the same period, enrollment of those 25 and over rose by 34

percent. The National Center for Education Statistics projects

from 1990 to 1998 a rise of 14 percent in enrollments of persons

over 25 and an increase of only 6 percent in the number of those

under 25.

-25-
Enrollment trends have differed at the undergraduate,

graduate, and first-professional levels. Undergraduate

enrollments increased rapidly during the 1970s, but dipped between

1983 and 1985. Since 1985, undergraduate enrollment has risen

steadily, increasing 15 percent between 1986 and 1991. Graduate

enrollment held steady at about 1.3 million in the late

19708 and early 1980s, but rose about 14 percent in the years

between 1986 and 1991 to slightly over 1.6 million. After rising

very rapidly during the 1970s, enrollment in first-professional

programs stabilized in the 1980s. There was a small increase in

first-professional enrollment between 1986 and 1991.

Since 1984, the number of women in graduate schools has

exceeded the number of men. Between 1981 an 1991, the number of

male full-time graduate students increased by 23 percent, compared

with 45 percent for full-time women. Among part-time graduate

students, men increased by only 6 percent compared with 25 percent

for women.

The proportion of minority students has been rising. In

1976, 15.7 percent of all students were minorities, compared with

21.2 percent in 1991. Much of the change can be attributed to

rising numbers of Hispanic and Asian students. The proportion of

black students has fluctuated over the past 15 years. In 1976 it

was 9.6 percent, and it was 9.6 percent again in 1991. These

percentages exclude foreign students enrolled in U.S. colleges and

universities.

Despite the sizable numbers of small colleges, most students

attend the larger colleges. In fall 1991, 38 percent of higher

education campuses had fewer than 1,000 students; yet altogether,

these campuses enrolled only 4 percent of college students. On

the other hand, though only 12 percent of the campuses enrolled

over 10,000 students each, they accounted for 53 percent of total

enrollment.

TEACHERS AND STAFF

Staff in Elementary and Secondary Schools

The number of teachers in U.S. elementary and secondary

schools has continued to rise through the years. The increase

continued even during the 1970$ and early 1980$, when enrollment

was decreasing. The number of elementary and secondary school

teachers grew from 2.5 million in 1984 to an estimated 2.8 million

in 1991. This number has risen in recent years, up about 11

percent since 1985. The number of public school teachers in 1993

was about 2.5 million, and the number in private schools was

estimated at about 0.4 million. About 1.8 million teachers were

teaching in elementary schools, while about 1.1 million were

employed at the secondary level.

-26-

35
The number of public school teachers has risen at a faster

rate than the number of students in recent years, resulting in a

continuing decrease in the pupil/teacher ratio. In the fall of

1992, there were 17.3 pupils per public school teacher, compared

with 18.6 pupils per teacher 10 years earlier. During the same

time period, the pupil-teacher ratio in private schools fell from

17.2 to 14.8.

In general, public school teachers receive substantially

higher salaries than private school teachers. In 1990-91, the

average base salary for public school teachers Was $31,296,

compared with $19,783 for private school teachers. The average

salary for public school teachers has grown rapidly in recent

years, reaching $35,334 in 1992-93. After adjustment for

inflation, teachers' salaries rose 18 percent between 1982-83 and

1992-93, more than recouping the losses in purchasing power

suffered during the 1970s.

The number of nonteaching staff employed by public schools

grew at a faster rate than the number of pupils and teachers in

the 1970s. During the 1970s, the proportion of the total staff

who were teachers declined from 60 percent to 52 percent. In the

1980s, the number of teachers grew at about the same rate as other

public school staff. In 1969-70, there were 13.6 pupils per staff

member (total staff) compared with 9.2 pupils per staff member in

1991. In 1990-91, the number of pupils per staff member at

private schools was 9.5.

Staff in Higher Education Institutions

Small increases have occurred over time in the number of

instructional staff members in colleges and universities. In most

years, the increa. .t.s have been proportional to the rise in fulltime-equivalent enrollment in those institutions. For example,

from 1984 to 1990, the increase in college faculty is estimated to

have risen from 717,000 to 824,220.

The student-staff ratio at colleges and universities dropped

from 5.4 in 1976 to 4.8 in 1989, the latest year for which figures

are available. During the same time period, the student-faculty

ratio dropped from 16.6 to 15.7. The proportion of staff who were

administrative and other non-teaching professional staff rose from

15 percent in 1976 to 22 percent in 1989, while the proportion of

staff identified as non-professional declined from 42 percent to

38 percent.

Approximately 2.5 million people were employed in colleges

and universities in the fall of 1989, including 1.5 million

professional and .9 million nonprofessional staff. About 40

percent of the staff were teachers or teaching assistants, 22

percent were other non-teaching professionals, 18 percent were

clerical of secretarial, and the remaining 20 percent were

technical, paraprofessional, skilled crafts, service, and

maintenance staff.

-27-

3 6
Colleges differ widely in their practices of employing parttime and full-time staff. In fall 1989, only 52 percent of the

employees at public two-year colleges were employed full-time

compared with 76 percent at public and 75 percent at private fouryear colleges. A higher proportion of the faculty at public fouryear colleges (79 percent) was employed full-time than at private

four-year colleges (64 percent) or public two-year colleges (39

percent).

About 10 percent of full-time faculty in colleges and

universities were minorities in 1987-88. Four percent of the

faculty were Asian-Pacific Islanders; 3 percent were black; 2

percent were Hispanic; and 1 percent were American Indian.

College faculty generally suffered losses in the purchasing

power of their salaries from 1972-73 to 1980-81, when average

salaries fell 17 percent after adjustment for inflation. During

the 1980s, average salaries were on the rise and have recouped

most of the losses. Changes in 1990-91 and 1991-92 were

relatively small. Average salaries for men in 1991-92 ($46,848)

were considerably higher than the average for women ($37,534) and

have increased at a faster rate since 1980-81.

The proportion cf faculty with tenure has remained relatively

stable in recent years. About 64 percent of full-time faculty

were tenured in 1991-92, but a large difference existed between

the proportion of men and women with tenure. Seventy percent of

men compared with 49 percent of women were tenured in 1991-92.

About 66 percent of the faculty at public institutions were

tenured, compared with 57 percent of faculty at private

institutions.

EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT OF THE POPULATION

Since 1940, the Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of

Commerce, has collected statistics on the educational attainment

of the population in the United States. The data from these

household surveys are available in Census reports that provide

detailed information by age, race, and sex. Table three, which is

derived from Census publications, shows the level of education

completed by the entire adult population 25 years of age and over

and also by young adults 25 to 29 years old. The data indicate

that through the years there has been a strong upward trend in the

proportion of adults who complete their high school and college

education. The trend has continued into the 1990s, although the

rate of increase has decreased perceptibly in recent years.
Between 1988 and 1991, the proportion of adults with four

years of high school or more rose from 77.7 percent to 79.9

percent. During the same period, those with four or more years of

college increased from 20.9 to 22.2 percent. Among young adults

(ages 25-29), the proportion with four years of high school or

more dropped slightly from 85.9 percent in 1988 to 85.5 percent in

1991, while those with four or more years of college edged up

slightly from 23 percent in 1988 to 23.2 percent in 1991.

Although the white population has completed more years of school

than blacks and other races, the gap has narrowed substantially in

recent years.

HIGH SCHOOL AND COLLEGE GRADUATES

High School Graduates

The number of high school graduates in 1992-93 totaled about

2.5 million. Slightly less than 2.3 million graduated from public

schools and less than .03 million graduated from private schools.

Because of a decrease in the population of teenagers, the number

of high school graduates has declined from its peak in 1976-77

when 3.2 million people earned their diplomas.

Although the number of graduates has been lower in recent

years, comparisons of the number of public and private high school

graduates with the 17-year-old population show that the proportion

of young people earning regular high school diplomas has not

decreased over the past 20 years. At its highest point in 1968-

69, there were 77.1 graduates for every 100 persons 17 years of

age. This ratio declined during the 1970s, falling to a low point

of 71.4 in 1979-80. The ratio has risen since then, reaching 73.8

in 1992-93. Other measures, such as the dropout rate among 16- to

24-year-olds (which count GED recipients as completers) suggest

some improvements, especially for blacks.

College and University Graduates

The number of degrees conferred by institutions of higher

learning is expected to be at an all-time high during the year

1992-93: 497,000 associate degrees; 1,145,000 bachelor's degrees;

364,000 master's degrees; and 41,200 doctor's degrees.

The total number of bachelor's degrees increased slowly

during the early 1980s and more rapidly at the end of the decade,

especially for women. Between 1980-81 and 1990-91, the number of

bachelor's degrees awarded to men increased by 7 percent, while

the number of degrees awarded to women rose by 27 percent.
In recent years, more people are completing college. Between

1980-81 and 1990-91, the number of associate, bachelor's, masters,

and doctor's degrees rose. Associate degrees increased 16

percent, bachelor's degrees increased 17 percent, master's degrees

increased 14 percent, and Doctor's degrees increased 19

percent during this period. The number of first-professional

degrees during this period was about the same in 1990-91 as it was

in 1980-81. They declined in the mid 1980s before rising in the

late 1980s.

Of the 1,094,538 bachelor's degrees awarded in 1990-91, the

largest number of degrees were conferred in the fields of business

and management (249,960), social sciences (124,893), education

(111,010), engineering and engineering technology (78,864), health

professionals (59,268), and psychology (58,451). At the master's

level, the largest fields were education (88,904), and business

and management (78,681). The largest fields at the doctor's level

were education (6,697), engineering and engineering technology

(5,272), physical sciences (4,290), and life sciences (4,093).

The pattern of bachelor's degrees by field of study has

shifted significantly in recent years. The pace of growth in such

areas as business and management has subsided, and declines are

significant in male majority fields such as engineering and

computer and information sciences. The number of degrees

conferred in business and management rose by 19 percent between

1980-81 and 1985-86, but only by 5 percent between 1985-86 and

1990-91. Engineering and engineering technologies rose 28 percent

between 1980-81 and 1985-86, but then posted d decline of 18

percent between 1985-86 and 1990-91. In contrast, some fields

that had been declining (e.g., psychology and other social

sciences) began to increase. For example, the number of degrees

conferred in social sciences dropped by 7 percent between 1980-81

and 1985-86, but rose 33 percent between 1985-86 an 1990-91. In

1987-88, the number of degrees conferred in education rose for the

first time since 1972-73. To some extent, these shifts during the

1985-86 and 1990-91 period highlight the increasing female

majority on college campuses by reflecting significant increases

in degrees in predominantly female fields and decreases in

predominantly male fields.

Only about half of the students who enrolled full-time in a

four-year college in 1980 graduated with a bachelor's degree by

1986, according to the High School and Beyond survey. About 55

percent of the students who enrolled in private four-year colleges

earned a bachelor's or higher degree by 1986 compared with 46

percent in public four-year colleges.

-30-

39
EDUCATION FINANCES

Total Funding for Education

Total expenditures for public and private education at all

levels (elementary, secondary, and higher education) rose from

about $330.5 billion in 1988-89 to an estimated $445.3 billion

in 1992-93. The expenditures of elementary and secondary

education are expected to total about $279 billion for this

period, while institutions of higher learning will spend about

$187 billion.

The Funding of Elementary and Secondary Education

Elementary and secondary spending amounted to about 60

percent of total expenditures, and colleges and universities

accounted for the remaining 40 percent. The expenditure per pupil

in public schools has risen significantly in recent years, even

after allowing for inflation. In 1992-93, the estimated current

expenditure per pupil in average daily attendance was $5,762.

After adjustment for inflation, this figure represents an increase

of 34 percent since 1982-83.

Public elementary and secondary schools received virtually

all of their funding from governmental sources, especially State

and local governments. The state share of revenues for public

education grew steadily through most of the 1980s, but in 1987-88

the trend began to reverse. Between 1987-88 and 1990-91, the

local share of school funding rose to equal the proportion from

state governments. In 1990-91, 47 percent of all revenue came

from State sources, 47 percent came from local sources, and 6

percent came from the Federal government.

The Funding of Higher Education

Colleges and universities received income from a variety of

sources, including State and local government, tuition fees from

students, sales and services, the Federal government, private

gifts and grants, and endowment earnings. A prime difference in

the financing of public and private higher education institutions

is revealed in the fact that most public institutions receive

major contributions from State governments, while private colleges

and universities rely to a much greater extent on tuition and fees

from students. This difference means that public institutions can

keep their tuition and fees relatively low compared with charges

at private colleges. For example, in 1991-92, a full-time

undergraduate student attending a public college or university in

his or her home State paid an average of about $1,665 in tuition

and fees for that year. During the same year, the average student

in a private institution paid $9,498 in tuition and fees.

-31-
. With the rise of school enrollment in the 1990s and a growing

public awareness of the importance of education, over the past

four years the U.S. has devoted a higher proportion of its

resources to its schools. In 1987-88, total spending for

education amounted to 6.9 percent of the gross domestic product.

In 1992-93, total expenditures for education are expected

to.amount to about 7.8 percent of the gross domestic product.
FEDERAL LEGISLATION

Between 1990-1994, new laws were enacted that affected

education in the United States. The Bush Administration enacted

some legislation between 1990-1992. In 1993 and 1994, the Clinton

Administration enacted several bills into law, bringing about the

most sweeping changes in American education since 1965, during The

Great Society program of former President Lyndon Johnson. Some of

this enacted legislation consisted of the reauthorization of

funding for existing major programs, with amendments and

additions. The laws passed during the Clinton Administration

broke new ground in the providing of government funds and

services. The most important of the laws of both Administrations

are briefly described below under the heading "Enacted

Legislation."

ENACTED LEGISLATION

The following are major laws affecting education that were

passed between the years 1990 and 1994.

National Literacy Act (1991)

This Act established new literacy programs, provided higher

authorization levels for some existing adult literacy programs,

and restored eligibility for various programs to the Freely

Associated States (i.e. the Republic of the Marshall Islands and

the Federated States of Micronesia). The purpose of the Act was

"to enhance the literacy and basic skills of adults, to ensure

that all adults in the United States acquire the basic skills

necessary to function effectively and achieve the greatest

possible opportunity in their work and in their lives, and to

strengthen and coordinate adult literacy programs."

Education Council Act (1991)

This Act established the National Education Commission on Time and

Learning and the National Council on Education Standards and

Testing. The National Education Commission on Time and Learning

was to review the relationship between time and learning in the

Nation's schools and make a report on its findings by April 1994.

The National Council on Education Standards and Testing was to

provide advice on the desirability and feasibility of developing

national standards and conducting national testing of school

children. The Council was directed to make its report by December

1991. Both reports have been published.

Reauthorization of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (1992)

This bill extended for five years the provisions of the

Higher Education Act, as reauthorized in 1986. This legislation -

- which included renewal of the higher-education student aid

programs, such as Pell grants and student loans -- had as its

-33-
broad purpose to expand student access to postsecondary education,

encourage educational excellence, and ensure integrity in making

service delivery. It also contained substantial amendments to the

earlier act, adding more than forty programs in higher education.

Education of the Deaf Act Amendments (1992)

This Act extended for five years support of programs at

Gallaudet University, with its hearing-impaired student body, and

at the National Institute for the Deaf (NTID). The purpose of

this legislation was to allow Americans who are hearing-impaired

to receive training and education that will qualify them to live

full and productive lives.

Rehabilitation Act Amendments (1992)

This Act expanded the scope of previous legislation by (1)

requiring the States to develop valuative studies and performance

indicators for many of their programs, (2) vesting authority in

the Secretary of Education to increase client choice within the

vocational rehabilitation process, and providing authority to

support business partnerships to develop model projects that give

unemployed workers with disabilities the opportunity to acquire

the knowledge and skills needed to advance employment. The

purpose of this bill was to bring greater integrity to existing

programs and expand the educational opportunities for disabled

Americans.

Student Loan Reform Act (1993)

This Act reformed the student aid program by phasing in a

system of direct lending which will eliminate private lenders and

guaranty agencies, empowering the U.S. Department of Education to

channel loan funds through postsecondary institutions. This new

process is estimated to save tax payers and students $4.3 billion

by 1997. Schools with adequate administrative capacity can

originate loans on campus. Smaller schools have alternative

processes. Students can choose among a variety of repayment

options, including income contingency.

Rehabilitation Act and Education of the Deaf Act Technical

Amendments (1993)

These amendments made no substantive policy changes, but corrected

unforeseen operational problems caused by changes enacted in 1992.
Migrant Student Record Transfer System (148RTS) (1993)

This Act extended temporarily the Department of Education's

contract for the Migrant Student Record Transfer System (MSRTS),

pending possible modification in the reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act. MSRTS is a centralized

database that maintains records on the school-age children of

migrant workers, since these students must transfer from school to

school as their parents move from community to community seeking

farm work.

Higher Education Technical Amendments Act (1993)

This Act amended the Higher Education Act to make technical

changes and conforming amendments.

National Assessment of Educational Progress, (1994)

This Act authorized the use of the National Assessment of

Educational Progress (NAEP), a standardized test administered to

selected schools nationwide, for State-by-State' comparisons.

National Service Trust Act (1993)

This Act amended the National and Community Service Act of

1990 to establish a Corporation for National Service and enhance

opportunities for service to the nation. The Act provided

education grants of up to $4,725 per year to people aged 17 years

or older who perform community service before, during, or after

postsecondary education.

GOALS 2000: Educate America Act (1994)

This Act is the centerpiece of the Clinton Administration's

initiative to bring about systemic educational reform. It

established a new federal partnership through a system of grants

to states and local communities to reform the Nation's education

system. This legislation formalized the six National Education

Goals and their objectives, added two new goals, and established

in law the National Education Goals Panel. The Act created a

National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) to

provide voluntary national certification of state and local

education standards and assessments-to spur increased educational

opportunity while creating greater accountability and

responsibility for students and schools. It also established the

National Skills Standards Board to develop voluntary national

skill standards. More details are provided in Part III.
School-to-Work Opportunities Act (1994)

This Act established a national framework within which states

and communities can develop School-to-Work Opportunities programs

to prepare young people for first jobs and continuing education.

It will facilitate the development of a system of rigorous

academic and occupational preparation for students. The

legislation provided seed money to states and communities to

develop a system of programs that include work-based learning,

school-based learning, and connecting activities. School-to-Work

programs will provide students with a high school diploma (or its

equivalent), a nationally recognized skill certificate, an

associate degree (if appropriate), and may lead to a first job or

to further education. More details are provided in Part III.

Safe Schools Act (1994)

This Act authorized the award of competitive grants to local

educational agencies with serious school crime to implement

violence prevention activities such as conflict resolution and

peer mediation.

Educational Research, Development, Dissemination and Improvement

Act of (1994)

This Act reauthorized the educational research and

dissemination activities of the U.S. Department of Education's

Office of Educational Research and Improvement .(0ERI). It

established five institutes which will conduct research in direct

support of the national education goals. The legislation also

authorized continuation of the regional educational laboratories

and university-based research and development.

Student Loan Default Exemption Extension Act (1994)

This Act amended the Higher Education Act of 1965 to extend

until July 1, 1998 the effective date for cohort default rate

exemption for Historically Black Colleges and Universities,

tribally controlled community colleges, and Navajo community

colleges.

PENDING LEGISLATION

Improving America's Schools Act (Reauthorization of EOM)

This proposed Act, expected to be passed by the Congress in 1994,

would reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of

1965, with some significant changes. The Department's bill would

require States to develop high-quality content and performance

standards and assessments in order to qualify for certain kinds of

federal funding; emphasizes local control and flexibility in

exchange for accountability; shifts the focus away from remedial

programs and emphasizes overall school performance; promotes

school equity by focusing Federal funds for high poverty areas;

-36-

4 5
links some federal funding to health, social service, early

childhood, and school-to-work programs; expands the Eisenhower

Professional Development Program to help teachers upgrade their

knowledge and skills; requires parent-school "compacts" that spell

out mutual responsibilities of parents and schools; provides for

planning and opening public "charter" schools that can operate

outside many constraining rules and regulations; provides for

technology research and development; provides for bilingual

education; gives the Secretary broad authority to waive

requirements that stand in the way of reform, but continues to

protect the rights of minorities and children with disabilities;

and expands the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities program

to include violence prevention.

NCES Reauthorization Act

Section 406 of the General Education Provisions Act authorizes the

activities of the National Center for Education Statistics. The

NCES reauthorization is being considered with the reauthorization

of ESEA.
PART III

EDUCATION REFORM

1990 - 1994

47
THE END OF THE BEGINNING,:

THE EDUCATION REFORM MOVEMENT FROM 1.990 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

Bilk, 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.

With this report, the Nation as a whole was alerted to the

plight of U.S. education and the need for a comprehensive

revitalization of the school system. However, for the next two or

three years reform was chiefly confined to State and local

initiatives.

Then, in 1986, The National Governors' Association took

official nctice 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."

-38-

48
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 13: 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 11,10 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 15: 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.

-39-

4 9
The identification and articulation of goals, however,

constituted no more than a first step in the direction of

education 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.
REFORM AT TEE FEDERAL LEVEL

AMERICA 2000 Excellence in Education Bill

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.

Creation of the National Goals Panel

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 educational

-41-

51
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 education

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.

-42-

5 2
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:

o The performance of American students on international

mathematics and science examinations has been fairly

consistent over the past 25 years. In 1991, in

mathematics the U.S. ranked last in a field of nine, and

in science second to last.

o There is evidence that U.S. educational achievement

deficiencies relative to other nations with whom we

compete may be present as early as the first grade.

o The traditional U.S. lead in educational access and

opportunity is less apparent today as other

industrialized nations have increased their secondary

and postsecondary completion rates. Among young adults

(ages 25-34), both Japan and Germany now have higher

high school completion rates than the United States.

o Unlike the results in both mathematics and science,

recent evidence suggests that the basic knowledge and

skill levels of Americans in geography and reading are

comparable to those of most other students in industrial

nations. This evidence, however, does not allow

comparisons of higher-order thinking and reasoning

skills in these subject areas.

o There are two differences of note in the learning

environments of children in the U.S. and in nations

whose educational performance exceeds that of U.S.

students. First, there is evidence that students in

such higher performing nations are more likely to take

and succeed in courses that offer challenging subject

matter than are U.S. students. Second, American parents

appear to be more easily satisfied with their children's

educational performance than parents in higherperforming nations.

-43-

5 3
o Relative to the population of graduation age, the United

States grants more undergraduate degrees in science,

mathematics, and engineering than Germany, France, and

Italy -- but fewer than both Canada and Japan.

o Recent international data on worker attitudes reveal

that Americans' belief in the value of work is

comparable to German and Japanese workers, but U.S.

workers are much less likely than workers in these

countries to anticipate a need to upgrade their present

job skills.

While the panel urged caution in the use of these limited

data, it did suggest a strong "nfied 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)

AMERICA 2000

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.

-44-

5 4
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:

1. adopting the six National Education Goals;

2. developing a community-wide strategy to achieve them;

3. designing a report card to measure results; and

4. planning for and supporting a New American School.

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 woull 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. education 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.

-45-
New American Schools Development Corporation

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 mu3t 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 twoyear 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.

-46-

56
GOALS 2000: Educate America Act

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. Please see following page.

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

-47-

57
The National Education Goals as enacted into law in 1994 are

as follows:

NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS

By the Year 2000:

I. All children in America will start school ready

to learn.

2. The high school graduation rate will increase to at

least 90 percent.

3. All 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.

4. U.S. students will be first in the world in

science and mathematics achievement.

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.

6. Every school in the United States will be free

of drugs, violence, and the unauthorised presence

of firearms and alcohol and will offer a

disciplined environment conducive to learning.

7. The Nation's teaching force will have access to

programs for the continued improvement of their

professional skills and the opportunity to acquire

the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and

prepare all American students for the next century.

8. Every school will promote partnerships that will

increase parental involvement and participation in

promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth

of children.

-48-

58
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, broadlybased 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.

Safe Schools Act

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.

-49- 59
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.

Reauthorization of the Office of Educational

Research and Improvement

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:

- The National Institute on Student Achievement, Curriculum and

Assessment

- The National Institute on the Education of At-Risk Students

- The National Institute on Educational Governance, Finance,

Policy-Making and Management

- The National Institute on Early Childhood Development and

Education

- The National Institute on Postsecondary Education, Libraries

and Lifelong Education

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 God'

-50-

GO
School-to-Work Opportunities Act

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-towork 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:

o establishes common features and basic program components

for State systems while leaving State and local agencies

substantial flexibility;

o provides for development grants for all States to

develop a comprehensive, statewide, school-to-work

opportunities plan;

o provides for five-year implementation grants to States

that have completed the development of their plan and

are ready to begin full-scale operations and

implementation of that Statewide plan;

o provides for waivers of certain statutory and regulatory

program requirements to allow States to carry out their

Statewide school-to-work opportunities systems more

effectively;

o provides for direct implementation grants to local,

partnerships to enable such partnerships to implement

School-to-Work Opportunities programs;

o provides for direct implementation arants to local,

partnerships in high poverty are te enable such

partnerships to implement effective School-to-Work

Opportunities programs in such areas;

o provides for development and implementation grants to

establish and carry out School-to-Work Opportunities

programs for Indian youth that involve schools funded by

the Bureau of Indian Affairs;

o authorizes funding for research. development. training

and technical assistance to further the purposes of the

School-to-Work Opportunities Act; and

-56.1
o provides for the establishment of a system of

performance measure% for assessing State and local

programs regarding key elements and goals of the Schoolto-Work Opportunities Act.

The legislation provides that every School-to-Work program

must include:

o Work-based learning that provides a planned program

of job training or experiences, work experience,

work-place mentoring, instruction in general workplace competencies, and broad instruction, to the

extent practicable, in all aspects of. the industry.

o School-based learning that provides career awareness and

career exploration and counseling, instruction in a

career major (selected no later than the 11th grade); a

program of study that is based on high academic and

skill standards as provided for in the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act, and typically involves at least

one year of postsecondary education; and regularlyscheduled evaluations to identify students' academic

strengths and weaknesses.

o Connecting activities that coordinate involvement of

employers, schools, and students; matching students and

work-based learning opportunities; and training

teachers, mentors, and counselors.

Improving America's Schools Act

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 education 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."

-52- 62
Prisoners of Time

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:

- Reinvent schools around learning, not time.

- Fix the design flaw: use time in new and better ways.

- Establish an academic day.

- Keep schools open longer to meet the needs of children

and communities.

- Give teachers the time they need.

- Invest in technology.

- Develop local action plans to transform schools.

- Share the responsibility: finger pointing and evasion

must end.

If these recommendations are adopted to facilitate the other

reform measures, the changes in America's schools could be

profound.
Student Loan Reform Act of 1993

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:

o Stafford Loans - Federal Direct Stafford Loans can

either be subsidized or unsubsidized. If the student

demonstrates financial need, the loan will be subsidized

-- the federal government will pay the interest on a

loan while a student is in school if the loan qualifies

for an interest subsidy. Students can get unsubsidized

Direct Stafford Loans regardless of need, but will have

to pay all interest charges.

o Federal Direct PLUS Loans - These provide funds to

parents of dependent students to pay for the students'

education.
REFORM AT THE STATE LEVEL

During this period, the education reform movement made

headway in all states, though in some more than others. One of

the issues that required the attention of State authorities was

the problem of unequal funding among school districts. In the

United States, the states contribute the largest share of the

education budget, but local school districts finish a close

second. In most states local revenues for education come from

property taxes. In school districts where property values are

high, the revenues are greater than those where property values

are low. In part this discrepancy is mitigated by the fact that

living expenses are lower in poorer districts (if only because

house payments are less). However, it has become increasingly

clear over the past few years that in some states the low-income

school districts are suffering disproportionate as the result of

diminished revenues. The result has been unequal opportunity of

education among the various school districts. In several States -

- e.g., Texas and Kentucky -- State courts have intervened and

ordered the legislatures to take some action that will ensure a

greater equity in funding.

The Texas legislature voted to take State revenues away from

the more affluent districts and redirect them to the poorest

districts. However, this solution proved unsatisfactory to the

smaller counties; and the court ordered the State to make an

additional effort to provide equity. The legislature passed a law

ordering more affluent school districts in the State to share

revenues from local property taxes with the poorest districts.

This solution provoked a legal challenge from the affluent

districts, and the State court likewise ruled that such a solution

was unconstitutional. In 1994, Texas was still wrestling with the

problem.

The Kentucky Experiment

In 1989 the Kentucky Supreme Court ruled that the State's

system of public school financing provided unequal education and

was therefore a violation of the State's constitution. The court

ordered the legislature to devise a new way of funding the State's

school systems. As a consequence of this ruling, Kentucky was

forced to reexamine its entire education system, and the result

was a series of reforms at both the local and State levels.

The next year, in response to the Kentucky Supreme Court's

mandate for financial equity, the legislature passed the 1990

Kentucky School Reform Act, which authorized an extra $1 billion

for education -- to be appropriated over a two-year period. This

appropriation constituted a 35 percent increase in funding between

1990 and 1992, which raised the per pupil spending by nearly

$1,000 to $4,600.

-55-

65
But the legislature did not stop there. In addition to this

huge increase to correct inequities, the School Reform Act also

called for sweeping changes in the way the State operated its

educational system. These reforms eventually included:

o the institution of instruction on Saturdays, before and

after school, and during the summer vacation for

students in need of extra help;

o the maintenance of "family resource centers" designed to

provide social and medical services to needy schools;

o the abandonment of multiple-choice tests in favor of

tougher measures that demand essays and analysis of

data, as well as an emphasis on collections of student

work rather than a single examination;

o the establishment of cash awards for teachers whose

schools show improvement over a two-year period;

o the assembly of a statewide technology network designed

to put a computer-ready telephone line in every

classroom, providing linkups with libraries, research

databases, governmental agencies, and even other schools

and classrooms;

o the elimination of separate grades in elementary school,

allowing students of different age groups to work side

by side;

o the introduction of new courses that help students

prepare to cope with such practical problems as child

rearing and personal finance; and

o the adoption of a looser classroom structure, including

untimed classes and the blending of subjects such as

mathematics and English.

This experiment in education reform is perhaps the greatest

ever undertaken by a state -- at least since the Massachusetts

"common school" movement in the 1830s -- and after only three

years the final results have yet to be posted. Hi-wever, changes

have taken place.

In 1990, the first phase of the reform program was

implemented:

o A new school-financing formula began to correct

inequalities in funding.

o An Education Professional Standards Board, made up

mostly of teachers, was named to set and enforce

teaching standards.

-56-

66
o With some exceptions, schools were required to open

preschool classes for disadvantaged four-olds. Such

classes had to be in place the 1991-92 school year as

well as preschool programs for handicapped three- and

four-year-olds.

The year 1991 brought further implementation:

o An appointed education commissioner replaced the elected

superintendent of public instruction as the head of the

state school system with a mandate to reorganize the

Department of Education.

o At least one school in each district was mandated to

begin governing itself through a school council. The

idea was to ensure that most decisions relevant to

instruction be made at schools by teachers, principals,

and parents.

o In order to provide help for students in need of extra

attention, schools began offering instruction before and

after school, on weekends or in the summer.

o Centers to coordinate school and health services for

students and their families began to open in or near

schools where at least one-fifth of the students lived

in poverty. More than 1,000 schools were required to

provide such centers by the 1994-95 school year.

In 1992, more reforms followed:

o The State began to assess learning in grades four,

eight, and twelve. This assessment involved not only

grading written tests, but also evaluating portfolios of

student work. Students were asked to perform complex

tasks that required them to draw on several types of

knowledge. Successful schools were rewarded.

Struggling schools received extra help. (Current policy

would permit the State to take over the worst schools.)

o The Council on School Performance Standards issued

detailed goals for Kentucky schools. Schools are to be

judged by how they meet the learning goals and whether

or not the school reduces impediments to poor learning,

such as poor health and poor attendance.

By 1993, the Kentucky Department of Education renorted the

following progress:

o An "improvement goal" and an "accountability index" had

been set for each of 1,400 schools. Approximately 600

of the schools already had councils in place, with a

full budget allocation.

-57-

6 7
o At least 222 Family Resource/Youth Services Centers were

already in operation--127 Family Resource Centers, 55

Youth Services Centers, 40 combined -- and 103 school

districts have one or more. These centers served

51,205 individuals representing 32,916 families.

o Summer school programs operated in all school districts

and served 20,750 students. About 33 percent of those

students improved by at least one letter grade.

o Eight Regional Service Centers, dedicated to the

professional development of teachers and administrators,

were established. The funding for this program

increased from $1 per student to $16 per student.

As reported by the Washington Post in April of 1993, teachers

were teaching their subjects in a new way and students were

learning differently:

o In rural schools, which were once without the basic

tools of scientific learning, children were studying

biology and chemistry in high-tech laboratories.

o A team of academics was deciding which literary works

were most important in order to establish a syllabus

with which all students must be familiar in order to

graduate.

o Desks now came with lap-top computers, and eventually

students would be able to check them out for home use

like library books.

o A class in Calloway County Middle School was using its

computer to call a national weather database. Recently

these students tracked the progress of an ongoing

tornado in Louisiana, hundreds of miles away.

Of course, some educators were cautious about abandoning all

the ideas and practices of the past. As one teacher put it: "I

have to keep enough of the old way to know it will work, and the

add to it and build in the new way. In my own mind I can't throw

away what I learned in 19 years."

Many students weigh the new against the old and see

advantages in change. "The work is a little bit harder," said one

14-year-old, "but it sticks with you longer."

Some administrators have also found improvement in the midst

of challenge and readjustment. "People feel so pressured, there

is so much change," said a rural principal. "But this is

absolutely the opportunity of a lifetime." Her county

superintendent affirmed the radical nature of the change.

-58-

68
"Basically we were able to erase the board clean and do away with

everything as it was," he said. "It's probably the cleanest sweep

[the country] has had in education."

These are signs of significant progress in Kentucky schools.

However, it would be unwise to suggest that all states could

profit equally from these reforms. In many ways, Kentucky's

educational system is atypical. For one thing, its per pupil

expenditures and its teacher's salaries have always been among the

lowest in the Nation. Some of what is happening in Kentucky's

schools is merely compensation for past inadequacies, a sudden and

valiant effort to catch up with the rest of the states. For this

reason, a dramatic rise in funding may be more likely to yield

dramatic results here than in a state where expenditures have been

perennially high and where modern technology has long been

available.

On the other hand, some of the classroom innovations

instituted in Kentucky (e.g., diverse age grouping in elementary

school) may generate improvement in traditionally affluent states

as well as in poorer ones. For this reason, the Nation is

watching Kentucky with great interest.

The Kentucky experiment is probably the boldest of any

educational reforms at the State level, but there is reason to

believe that other states are beginning to consider some of the

ideas instituted in Kentucky. For one thing, by the beginning of

the 1990's, other States had begun to face the issue of inequity

in financing, and the question was a topic for debate at every

lev,1 of the U.S. education system. It seemed clear that with

rising taxes more and more an issue in local, State, and Federal

elections, educators would have to devise innovative solutions to

justify the expectations of the general public. Already a number

of researchers were exploring various means of delivering a

quality education at a reduced cost.
REFORM AT THE LOCAL LEVEL

Reform was also taking place at the local level. In Edmonds,

Washington, located between Seattle and Everett, the process began

several years before 1990. The Edmonds School District services

20,000 students and is part of one of the fastest growing counties

in the country.

A Citizen Planning Committee was created in the district with

parent representation from each of 32 schools and at-large

membership from the community. The committee began studying

school organization, demographics, and physical facility needs.

In 1989, a "Strategic Thinking Task Force" was also established to

develop an action plan for reform.

Several schools in the district won special grants from the

state after proposing plans for Washington's "Schools for the 21st

Century" program. Only one site was chosen each year for this

state investment, and schools in Edmonds were winners in both 1988

and 1990. The winning schools served as catalysts for

transformation throughout the district.

In 1992, the Strategic Thinking Task force finalized its

report. Actions were proposed for achieving quality in five

areas: student knowledge, staff knowledge, time, decision-making

and facilities. The task force also recommended that Edmonds

declare itself as a "transforming school system."

The vision to transform led Edmonds residents to link with

other efforts around the nation to achieve the National Education

Goals. In March 1992, they adopted the Edmonds 2000 framework to

move ahead with their plans for reform.

The reform strategy was to concentrate on three areas:

content standards, performance assessment, and program choices.

In each area, an underlying question was the focus. CONTENT:

What do we want our students to know and be able to do?

PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT: How will we know when students are

meeting the standards? PROGRAM CHOICES: How will we develop the

capacity of staff and school communities to make choices about

getting the performance results desired?

In the fall of 1992, four Community Forums were held, one for

each quadrant of the district, to ask residents to define

standards: "What do we want students to know and be able to do?"

Five hundred parents, teachers, and citizens contributed their

input. The hundreds of suggestions were distilled into a draft

document, and in February 1993, the draft was mailed to every

household in Edmonds, along with a schedule for a second round of

forums.
After more input from residents, a second draft of content

standards was formed, published with lines through the original

document to show the changes that had been made. "We really

invited our whole community to edit our content standards," said

Edmonds Superintendent Brian Benzel. "We listened to our

community."

Edmonds 2000 also presented the consensus of the community to

date in a pictorial form entitled "The Tapestry" of Student

Learning." The Tapestry showed how a total of fifteen academic

and skill categories were interwoven in the big picture of student

achievement. Examples of the categories included producing

quality and pursuing excellence, thinking and problem solving,

self-directed learning, communicating, and working with others.

The Tapestry integrated academic learning with the skills the

business community wanted students to possess. The district held

Business Forums to create a continuing dialogue between business

leaders and educators about what students should know and be able

to do. School-to-work transition is a high priority in Edmonds,

which is located near Boeing's 747 and 777 production plants as

well as near a major county retail center.

Although some opposition to reform has emerged, Edmonds 2000

continues to move forward. The next major task is to devise fair

and accurate assessments based on the academic and skill

categories. Edmonds 2000 has no formal steering committee, but

the School Board of five elected citizens serves in this capacity.

Superintendent Brian Benzel is the community leader responsible

for moving the agenda forward, and the Citizen Planning Committee

contributes as well. Edmonds is optimistic that by the year 2000,

the state of Washington will be using performance-based

assessments to measure what students should know and be able to

do.
MAJOR ISSUES AND TRENDS

When people enter the headquarters of the U.S. Department of

Education, they see the following message on the pink marble wall:

"Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote

educational excellence throughout the nation." In a sense, the

twin goals of this statement define in broad terms the two major

issues in American education today: the need for equity and the

need for excellence. All significant reform is directed toward

the fulfillment of these crucial needs; yet few educators believe

that overall efforts have produced completely satisfying results.

Much has been accomplished. Much remains to be done.

"TO ENSURE EQUAL ACCESS"

A number of groups in the United States hays historically

found it difficult to gain equal access to education. The

disadvantaged, racial and religious minorities, the disabled,

women -- these have all, at one time or another in the Nation's

history, been deprived of an equal opportunity for education. In

some cases these inequities have been corrected by the natural

evolution of society. In other cases they have been eliminated

through legislation or the courts. In still others they remain a

significant problem, one that American society must solve if it is

to remain strong and vital.

Political and business leaders as well as educators have

recognized that the failure to educate any significant segment of

American society ultimately threatens the Nation's ability to

compete in a global marketplace. For this reason, the educational

system at every level has developed and promoted programs designed

to serve at-risk children in all categories. Some of these have

been in existence for many years. Others are new and highly

experimental.

Long-Standing Programs for At-Risk Children

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education

applied the phrase "at -risk" to the Nation as a whole. In 1985,

the National Governor's Association applied the same phrase to

those students who, because of the environment in which they live

or the circumstances of their birth and upbringing, are most

likely to fail in school, drop out, and in time pose substantial

problems for society as a whole. The typical at-risk student

starts behind more advantaged students in the first grade, is

performing two years behind grade level by the sixth grade, and by

the twelfth grade has either dropped out of school or is four

years behind.

Educators tend to regard all at-risk children as having less

than equal access, if only because circumstances have denied them

a fair chance to finish school with a good education. While they

know they cannot eliminate the conditions that have led to these

inequities, school reformers have striven to devise programs and

strategies that can compensate for whatever deprivation at-risk

children have suffered.

-62- 72
Under Chapter I of the Education Consolidation and

Improvement Act of 1981, the Department's major program for

educating the disadvantaged, nearly $7 billion currently assists

elementary and secondary schools where 5.5 million of these

children are enrolled. The ethnic breakdown of Chapter I

beneficiaries include 5 percent Native American or Asian, 28

percent Black but not Hispanic, 27 percent Hispanic, and 41

percent White but not Hispanic. In addition to Chapter I, which

is a Federal program, more than half the States have their own

"compensatory education programs."

Disabilities and difficulties with the. English language also

place many students at risk of failure in school. About 4.5

million U.S. children under the age of 21 have disabilities, while

about 2.4 million students are limited-English-proficient (LEP).

Federal law requires a "free, appropriate public education" for

all disabled children. U.S. Department of Education funds augment

State and local support. Similarly, these three sources enable

most LEP students to receive services, at least at the elementary

level. In addition to the U.S. Department of Education, several

other Federal agencies provide education-related services to

disadvantaged students.

New Programs for the Disadvantaged

In order to solve the problems faced by disadvantaged

children, U.S. educators are experimenting with innovative

approaches to teaching and learning. Experimental in nature,

these programs illustrate the intention of many U.S. educators to

reinvent the educational system in order to address social and

economic ills that affect the classroom performance of millions of

at-risk children. A few of these programs are described below:

o Stanley Pogrow's Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) -- a

program designed for Chapter 1 elementary school children.

HOTS is based on the idea that current drill-and-practice

remedial programs do not develop children's intellectual

abilities. Instead, HOTS uses computers and Socratic

questioning techniques to develop learning skills that

strengthen the student in all academic areas. In a typical

HOTS program, students spend at least 35 minutes a day in the

computer lab in groups of 15 or fewer. Teachers use a

scripted manual for each lesson. The first segment of

15 to 20 minutes consists of intensive conversation with

the teacher, generally focusing on linkage's between the

previous day's work and concepts learned earlier. The

teacher challenges and probes each student answer.

Students must clearly articulate and justify their

responses. Following this discussion, a new challenge

is given, and students test their ideas on the computer.

After mastering problems, students share their findings

and strategies with each other.

73

-63-
o Henry Levin's Accelerated Schools -- a program designed to

enrich learning for educationally disadvantaged students.

This program is characterized by high expectations for

students, an elevated status for teachers, and the

substantial involvement of parents. Levin believes that

students will live up to adult expectations for them, and he

insists that both teachers and parents expect students,

regardless of background, to master a body of knowledge and

skills at a rapid pace. So convinced is Levin of the

essential role of parents that in most of his participating

schools parents are required to sign contracts committing

themselves to become involved in specific activities. There

is a great deal of independence from school to school,

including the right for each school to set its own goals; but

the Accelerated Schools model recommends that all

participating schools have as a goal to raise the performance

levels of every student to at least grade level by the time

he or she leaves school. In a typical Accelerated Schools

program teachers are encouraged to move quickly through

lessons, to enliven the classroom by developing the students'

ability to think independently, and by relating instructional

materials to the students' daily experience. The curriculum

is organized according to themes that cut across traditional

academic disciplines, and students are arranged in

heterogeneous ability groups. The model encourages

experimentation, and teachers use such techniques as peer

tutoring and cooperative learning.

o James Comer's School Development Program -- a process

designed to change the climate of schools that primarily

serve disadvantaged children and youth to make schools more

responsive to their needs and those of their families. The

Comer program uses school-based decision making and

revitalized bonds between the school, the family, and the

community to help children learn, parents function more

effectively in supporting and educating their children, and

teachers develop professionally. The Schools Development

Program is a process that includes three essential features:

the School Planning and Management Team (SPMT), the Mental

Health Team (MHT), and the Parent Program. The SPMT is the

most important element of the program. This team is the

governing body in a Comer school, and is made up of the

principal, teachers, other school staff, a parent

representative, and an expert in child development. The MHT

is made up of classroom teachers, resource teachers,

administrators, psychologists, social workers, and nurses who

focus on improving school climate. By design, the MHT

doesn't focus on individual children but looks at patterns

that emerge in the school and seeks ways to solve recurrent

problems. The Parents Program is designed to involve parents

in social activities, volunteer activities, workshops, and

home-learning activities. Parents select at least one

representative to serve on the SPMT.

74

-64-
o Robert Slavin's Success for All -- a program based on

research that links the academic problems of children in

their formative years (e.g., retention or poorly developed

reading skills) to being at subsequent risk of dropping out.

Success for All is designed to ensure that children do not

experience this initial failure and are therefore able to

reach the third grade with adequate basic skills. For best

results, the sponsors of Success for All recommend a full-day

piteschool and kindergarten that emphasize language

development, readiness, and self-concept. The children use

the Peabody Language Development Kits and a program called

Story Telling and Retelling (STAR). In grades 1-2, trained

tutors work with children who are failing to keep up with

classmates in reading. In addition to tutoring, daily 90-

minute reading sessions are held with small homogeneous

ability groups. The kindergarten and first-grade programs

emphasize language skills and provide children with

phonetically regular mini-books which they read to each other

in pairs. In the second and third grades,. students use basal

readers, but not workbooks. In these grades the reading

program emphasizes cooperative learning activities built

around partner reading, identification of characters,

settings, problems, and solutions in narratives. At all

levels children are required to read books of their own

choosing for twenty minutes at home. Students are assessed

every eight weeks to determine if alternative teaching

strategies, changes in reading group placement, or need for

tutoring services is required. The Success for All program

also has a Family Support Team and a Facilitator who works

with teachers in all schools to help them implement the

program.

o Theodore gazer's Essential Schools Coalition -- a program

with the theme that "more is less." The developers believe

that most high schools have too many offerings.

Consequently, the Essential Schools Coalition focuses on

student mastery and achievement in "essential" academic

skills -- reading, writing, and mathematics. Essential

Schools try to make students active learners by reducing the

teacher/pupil ratio and by the use of coaching and

personalized education. The program encourages teachers to

have high aspirations and performance standards for their

students. However, teachers are expected to be fair,

tolerant, and generous in their exercise of authority.

Schools participating in the Essential Schools Coalition must

agree to develop school faculty governing boards, participate

in staff development, share information on their school,

undergo a self evaluation every three years, and demonstrate

sufficient funds in their budget to support the required

activities.
o Marie Clay's Reading Recovery -- an intensive earlyintervention program for first grade children who are having

trouble with reading. Based on years of research in New

Zealand, Reading Recovery is designed to promote success by

teaching reading strategies before a pattern of failure can

develop. The program includes procedures for the teaching of

reading, a staff development program directed by a "teacher

leader" with a year's training, and a set of administrative

systems that work together for quality control. In most

cases, Reading Recovery teachers select the lowest achieving

students in the first grade and provide them with one-on-one

tutoring for 30 minutes each day. These tutoring sessions

supplement rather than replace regular reading lessons, and

they include both reading and writing activities as well as

strategies to develop children's reasoning and thinking

skills. When the Reading Recovery teacher concludes that a

child has become a proficient reader, the treatment is

discontinued; the success of individual programs is often

measured by the rate of discontinuation.

o High School Partnership Academies -- a program designed to

provide academic and vocational training to disadvantaged

students who lack skills for entry-level jobs. Academies

build a partnership between business and public schools by

satisfying corporate needs for employees in rapidly

developing fields of employment and establish a model for

dealing with youth unemployment. General Partnership

Academies operate as a three-year school-within-a-school for

students in grades 10 through 12. Students must meet certain

entry criteria -- including a reading achievement level of at

least grade 6 and sufficient motivation and self-discipline

to succeed in the program. Although Academy programs vary

from site to site, most have the following characteristics:

(1) support from local business or government employees; (2)

a school-within-a-school organizational structure; (3) a

curriculum that integrates academic content, vocational

training, job skills, and general enrichment; (4) a selection

process that identifies at-risk students with academic

potential and a commitment to the occupational area of the

Academy (e.g., business, health, computer science); (5)

clearly defined rules understood by students, parents,

teachers, and administrators; (6) paid work experience for

qualified students; and (7) school and district support for

the program, including the granting of adequate preparation

time for teachers. Each Academy has a Coordinator whf) is

responsible for the daily operation of the program. Students

are scheduled as a group; and teachers are organized as

teams, with a common planning period each day. Academies

usually have the extra personnel required to reduce class

size to 15-20 students per hour. All students are assigned a

mentor from the business partner and log work experience

either in the summer or during their senior year.

-66-

76
Participating businesses are asked to provide the following

types of assistance: (1) sharing in decision-making authority

with district personnel, (2) designating corporate employees

who may assist Academy staff, (3) offering students part-time

or summer jobs, (4) sponsoring the mentor program, and (5)

serving as hosts for field trips to supplement student's inclass learning.

o Mortimer Adler's Paideia Program -- based on the idea that

all children are entitled to the same education both in terms

of content and instructional methodology. Thus all children

are given the same course of study, regardless of background

or ability. Adler's program is based on three methods of

instruction: (1) Didactic Instruction -- the classroom

activity which focuses on teacher lectures (the kind of

instruction more appropriate for the "acquisition of

knowledge"); (2) Coaching -- one-on-one instruction in which

the teacher/coach or a peer works closely with students to

improve their skills rather than assuming that students are

able to transfer general corrective statements to their own

work (the kind of instruction most appropriate for the

"development of the intellect"); and (3) Socratic seminars --

discussions among students and teachers based primarily on

questions asked to explore ideas (designed to improve the

students' expression of ideas, their ability to support ideas

with relevant information, and develop better thinking and

listening habits).

o Computer-Assisted Instruction -- a technology that is being

adopted by schools across the country. One company, Computer

Curriculum Corporation (CCC), has been researching,

developing, and marketing educational software for over two

decades. Nationally, CCC is used to instruct nearly 750,000

students. The software is designed to give instant feedback,

positive reinforcement for student achievement, and tutoring

when necessary -- all tailored to the performance level of

the individual student. Using this technology, students can

achieve mastery of several different subjects (reading,

language arts, math, basic computer literacy, and science);

and the subjects are selected by the school district to match

its curricular goals. Typically, CCC is set up in a computer

lab used solely for that purpose and staffed by trained paraprofessionals. The software is designed to complement the

schools' curricula and help the schools reach achievement and

testing goals. Audio packages are available for use with

students who have linguistic problems. At the beginning of

the academic year, students are assessed with a set of

questions. Depending on the student's performance and the

school's goals, the initial assessment provides an estimate

of the number of sessions required for the student to

demonstrate mastery. That estimate then translates into

specified number of minutes on-line for each of the target

-67-

7 7
subject areas (e.g., 11 and 13 minutes a day, respectively,

for math and reading). CCC also provides extensive

performance reports -- available for each subject at the

student, class, and grade levels. Districts can choose

daily, weekly, monthly, or other reporting formats for the

monitoring of student progress. Students log on by name and

unique identification number. Questions are calibrated to

begin at the difficulty level mastered at the student's last

session. Correct answers are rewarded by colorful displays

of fireworks, ribbons, or other positive feedbacks. Incorrect

answers are followed by an encouraging phrase, and a second

incorrect response is followed by the right answer along with

a demonstration of the correct approach. Students can ask

for on-line tutorial help if they are unable to answer a

question. At the end of the session, the computer indicates

the number attempted, the number and percentage correct.

"TO PROMOTE EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE"

Virtually all recent reform efforts have addressed either the

problems of at-risk children or the more general problem of

educational excellence. To be sure, the two are interrelated; but

even students who do not share common at-risk factors -- i.e., a

disadvantaged background, a physical or mental disability, or a

linguistic problem -- too often fail to perform at a satisfactory

level; and educators point to a long-term decline in test scores

as an indication that the system is not working as well as should

in order to prepare the Nation's youth for success in the 21st

century, which promises to be global in its intellectual concerns

and highly competitive in its economic activities.

Because of the adoption in 1989 of National Education Goals,

U.S. educational assessment has been increasingly designed to

measure progress toward the achievement of each of these six

original Goals. This new focus has alerted the public to specific

weaknesses in the system and has provided them with preliminary

information so that they can track improvement (or the lack of it)

in these six areas of concern.

The development of standards of learning for the subjects

which were added in 1994 under Goal 3, i.e., foreign languages,

civics and government, and economics, has begun, but no

assessments are yet available. Standards with regard to the arts

were completed in 1994. Possible assessment of progress with

relation to the two new goals, teacher education and professional

development, and parental participation, is yet to be determined.

Therefore, the succeeding pages describe the progress toward the

fulfillment of the six original goals only.

Progress Toward the Fulfillment of the National Goals

The initial problem facing those responsible for monitoring

the education system is the rapid but conscientious development of

benchmark standards and measurements to use in assessing progress.

-68-78
In some areas, instruments such as the National Assessment of

Education Progress (NAEP) were already available. In other areas,

more pointed and precise standards and tests had to be devised.

The process has been careful; yet results are already apparent in

each of the areas included in the six original National Education

Goals, though in some more than others.

Goal fl

By the year 2000. all children in America will start school

ready to learn.

Goal #1 addresses the conditions that conspire to produce

literally millions of at-risk children in the united States: the

breakdown of the family, poverty, disease, malnutrition, and a

growing skepticism toward the idea that education can

significantly improve a child's chances for success. Students who

enter the first grade with a vocabulary of fewer than a hundred

words, who have no understanding of numbers, and who have received

no encouragement to exercise their natural intellectual curiosity

are doomed to failure fr%,,I, the outset. In confronting the

conditions addressed in Goal 11, education leaders immediately

recognized the necessity to clarify the meaning of the phrase

"ready to learn." After deliberating on the various implications

of the phrase, the National Education Goals Panel finally

concluded that "'being ready' means being prepared to participate

successfully in formal schooling."

The second major problem posed by Goal $1 was the lack of

any direct way to measure the Nation's progress toward achieving

readiness for school. In its report Measuring Progress Toward the

National Education Goals: Potential Indicators and Measurement

Strategies, issued on March 25, 1991, the Goals Panel rejected the

idea of "a pre-school national readiness test." However, the

Panel later endorsed the development of an "Early Childhood

Assessment System" for the Nation. This "system," voluntary and

to some degree different from State to State, would be designed to

collect information about a nationally representative sample of

children -- from their teachers, their parents, and from the

children themselves -- at several times during the kindergarten

year. According to the Report of the National Goals Panel,

The information collected would address five critical

dimensions of children's growth and readiness for learning.

These are:

Physical Well-Being and Motor Development

o The various aspects of a child's health and physical

growth, ranging from being rested, fed, properly

immunized, and healthy, to the development of skills and

abilities for running and jumping arm using crayons and

puzzles.
Social and Emotional Development

o The sense of personal well-being that allows a child to

participate fully and constructively in classroom

activities bY*Aking turns, following directions,

working indepetdently and as a group member, and

developing friendships.

Approaches Toward Learning

o The qualities of curiosity, creativity, motivation,

independence, cooperation, interest, and persistence

that enable children from all cultures to get involved

in and maximize their learning.

Language Usage

o The uses of oral and written language -- talking,

listening, scribbling, composing, and being read to --

that enable children to communicate effectively with

others and express their thoughts, feelings, and

experiences.

Cognition and General Knowledge

o The familiarity with basic information, including

patterns and relationships, causes and effects, and

solving problems in everyday life.

Though this assessment system is still in the process of

development, the Goals Panel, using NAEP and other resources, has

already begun to monitor progress in pursuit of Goal /1. Some of

the signs are encouraging. Others are less so.

For example, over the past two decades, more and more

children have begun to attend preschool programs. Between 1973

and 1991, the percentage of three- to five-year-olds enrolled in

nursery school nearly doubled, from 19 percent to 37 percent. And

this is not simply the result of affluence. Enrollments have

increased for all children, regardless of family income, although

they have remained substantially higher for children from highincome families than for children from middle- or low-income

families.

On the other hand, the quality of preschool programs is not

uniformly high. For example, in 1990, preschool centers were more

likely to meet recommended quality standards for older children

(three to five years of age) than for infants and toddlers.

One of the most important strategies recommended for the

achievement of Goal /1 is greater family involvement with

children. Research indicates that children whose parents show an

interest in the early learning of their children, particularly

during the first three years, are most likely to succeed when they

50

-70-
enter kindergarten and the first grade. Yet in 1991, fewer than

half of all preschoolers were read to daily and fewer than half

were told stories by their parents several times a week. Only

about one-third were taken to visit a library during the previous

month. However, in 1991, about three-fourths of all three- to

five-year olds were taken to parks and playgrounds during the

previous month. Both activities are important; yet too few

parents are involved in motivating their children to read and

learn.

During the year 1993, the Goals Panel worked with other

agencies and organizations to define and develop further the Early

Childhood Assessment System in order to allow parents, teachers,

and the general public to know whether or not children are

starting school ready to learn and whether or not reform efforts

are helping them to do so. More revealing data is being

collected.

Many educators regard the achievement of Goal /1 as the key

to revitalizing the U.S. education system. If children come to

school physically, emotionally, and intellectually prepared to

learn, they argue, then the achievement of the other Goals will

come naturally and inevitably. Moved by this conviction, many

public policy leaders are calling for a greater emphasis on

preschool and kindergarten activities and expanded health care for

young people. Some members of Congress are suggesting Federal

legislation to address these issues.

Goal #2

The high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90

percent.

Given an increasing demand for advanced education and

postsecondary training in the highly competitive international

marketplace, educators and business leaders are concerned that a

large number of U.S. students are dropping out of high school to

take unskilled jobs or to accept public assistance. The loss of

this potential may be too great for the economic system to bear,

and Goal #2 addresses the necessity to keep more young people in

high school and to encourage greater numbers to enroll in some

form of postsecondary education or training.

In confronting the problem of dropouts, the Nation's

educators again faced problems of definition and methodology.

After examination of several alternatives, the Goals Panel

recommended the creation of a "Voluntary State/Local Student

Record System" that would eventually provide comparable state high

school completion and dropout data to be reported on a regular

basis.

In the meantime, the Goals Panel pursued other ways to obtain

data on this important aspect of the Nation's education system.

For example, the panel's 1992 Report updated information on the

percentage of 19- to 20-year-olds and 23- to 24-year-olds who

received a high school diploma or the equivalent. The findings

reported included the following:
o In 1991, the high school completion rate for 19- to 20-

year -olds and 23- to 24-year-olds was 85 percent -- five

points below the target goal of 90 percent. Although

the completion rates for both groups dropped by one

percentage point, these differences were not

statistically significant, though still cause for

concern and continued monitoring.

o Between 1975 and 1991, high school completion rates for

19- to 20-year-olds improved nine percentage points for

Blacks, three percentage points for Whites, and two

percentage points overall.

o Completion rates for Hispanics have remained

consistently lower than the rates for other groups.

Among Hispanics 16- to 24-year-olds who were born

outside of the 50 states and the District of Columbia,

43 percent were dropouts, compared t a dropout rate of

only 8 percent for non-Hispanics born outside the United

States. However, when one looks exclusively at

Hispanics born within the U.S., their dropout rate is

still more than double that of non-Hispanics. The U.S.

Department of Education has funded several major

programs to study and recommend solutions for the

problem of Hispanic dropouts.

o In 1991, 13 percent of all 16- to 24-year-olds in the

United States were high school dropouts. Although this

represents a one-percentage-point increase from 1990,

the change is not statistically significant. Again, the

figure is cause for concern and continued monitoring.

As for the reasons why students leave school, a recent study

indicates that the two most cited motives for dropping out of

school are: (1) a dislike of school, and (2) an inability to keep

up with the work. Male students were especially likely to cite

school-related reasons for dropping out, while females were more

inclined to cite family- and job-related factors.

A good many of those who leave school would be inclined to

return if schools could accommodate their academic and personal

needs. For example, a survey reveals that 86 percent of Blacks,

67 percent of Hispanics, and 56 percent of Whites say they would

return to school if they felt they could get a good job after

graduation. Also, 85 percent of blacks, 57 percent of Hispanics,

and 53 percent of Whites say they would return if they felt they

could graduate.

Clearly the achievement of Goal 12 depends on motivation as

well as on classroom proficiency. Young people must be convinced

that remaining in school will significantly benefit their lives

-72-

82
for decades to come. They must be moved to consider long-term

consequences as well as short-term benefits and to weigh their

future potential carefully before they decide to walk away from

the opportunities that education affords. Providing young people

with incentives to succeed in school is one of the greatest

challenges facing the U.S. education system.

Goal #3

American students will leave grades four. eight. and twelve

I - I = II I = t1 I I ". it including Enalish. mathematics. science. history. and

geography: and every school in America will ensure that all,

;,:tudents learn to use their minds well. so they may be

prepared for responsible citizenship. further learning. and

productive employment in our modern economy.'

This Goal addresses the inability of millions of U.S.

students to master advanced skills and knowledge in the most

fundamental areas of the curriculum, a weakness. clearly identified

in both national and international tests. While our young people

seem to have mastered the most basic skills, too many are unable

to understand complicated ideas in prose or to solve mathematical

problems at an advanced level.

Test results over the past five years indicate that U.S.

students are making some progress toward the achievement of Goal

13, but these results are by no means reassuring. Only a portion

of those tested had mastered the basic knowledge and skills

required to live up to the expectations of this Goal. For

example:

o In 1988, 11 percent of all American 8th graders had not

mastered simple reading comprehension. By 1990,

60 percent of these same low-achieving students (now in

the 10th grade) had mastered simple reading

comprehension, but 40 percent still had not.

o In 1988, 55 percent of all American 8th graders had not

mastered simple operations with decimals and fractions.

By 1990, over one-third of these same lower-achieving

students (now in the 10th grade) had mastered this type

of knowledge, but about two-thirds still had not.

I In 1994 the U.S. Congress added foreign languages, civics

and government, economics and arts to the list of

subjects in which students will demonstrate competency.

These subjects are not included in this section.

-73- 83
o In 1988, 26 percent of all American 8th graders had not

mastered everyday science knowledge about the natural

world (e.g. the fact that the moon does not produce its

own light but reflects the light of the sun). By 1990,

over half of these same lower-achieving students (now in

the 10th grade) had mastered this type of knowledge, but

45 percent had not.

Even among higher achieving students, the gap between current

ability and the achievement of Goal #3, while narrowing, is still

substantial.

o In 1988, 22 percent of all American 8th graders had

mastered simple problem solving. By 1990, nearly twothirds of these same higher-achieving students (now in

the 10th grade) were able to solve more complex

mathematical problems, but about one-third could not.

o In 1988, 27 percent of all American 8th graders had

mastered knowledge of fundamental concepts upon which

more complex science knowledge can be built. By 1990,

34 percent of these higher-achieving students (now in

the 10th grade) had mastered more complex scientific

concepts (e.g. the ability to predict outcomes in

problems dealing with dominant genes and problems

involving radioactive half-life), but 66 percent had

not.

o For all 8th-grade achievement groups and for all content

areas analyzed (reading, mathematics, and science),

Blacks, Hispanics, those enrolling in a vocational

curriculum in the 10th grade, and those whose parents

had less education were least likely to demonstrate

academic progress over the next two years.

o As for overall performance in mathematics and science

during the past several years, the NAEP mathematics

results show that only about 25 percent of eighth

graders are at or above the proficiency level, and just

about 60 percent are at or above the basic level of

achievement.

The 1992 Report of the Goals Panel focused on Advanced

Placement examinations in the core areas, and here analysts found

some cause for optimism. Major new findings include the

following:

o For every 1,000 11th and 12th graders in 1992, 78

Advanced Placement examinations were taken in the core

subjects, an increase of six since 1991.

o Nearly two-thirds of the examinations were graded at 3

or above, which is generally high enough to make

students eligible for college credit.

8 4

-74-
Since Goal 13 also deals with citizenship, the Report offered

new information concerning community service:

o Regardless of students' sex, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, or the urban nature of their schools,

students seldom perform community service. In 1990,

nearly eight out of ten 10th graders reported that they

rarely or never performed community service.

o Between 1976 and 1988, the percentage of 18- 20-yearolds who registered to vote and who actually voted

remained fairly steady at about 50 and 35 percent,

respectively.

The achievement of Goal 13 depends to some degree on the

willingness of State and local authorities to require more

advanced courses of U.S. students, to assign more homework, and to

insist on higher performance standards. It is clear from

international comparisons that many U.S. students are not

challenged to the same degree as are students from other

countries. Educators are just beginning to understand this

discrepancy and to take corrective action. Improvement should

follow.

Goal #4

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

mathematics a

This goal is of particular importance to the U.S. business

community since it addresses those skills most needed in the work

place. Perhaps for this reason, this Goal is stated exclusively

in terms of international competition, since more and more

corporations are beginning to understand their mission in terms

of a global market. Given the current need for highly trained

scientists and technicians, and given the fact that 80 percent of

the work force for the year 2000 is already on the job, it is

small wonder that business leaders are concerned about the

performance of U.S. students on international comparative tests in

science and mathematics.

According to a report by the National Center for Education

Statistics, in 1990, U.S. students faced significant problems in

these crucial areas. Researchers found inadequacies both in

instruction and in student attitude.

o In 1990, most students were not receiving the kinds of

instruction needed to apply science ideas outside of the

classroom, and many teachers did not have adequate

facilities or supplies to pursue these types of

instruction. Only 56 percent of 8th -grade teachers

reported that they had adequate laboratory facilities or

were well-supplied with instructional materials and

resources. Only 4C percent say they have gone beyond

the textbook in determining what they are to teach.

-75- 8 5
o In 1990, students in higher grades had less positive

attitudes toward science and mathematics than students

in lower grades. Females were especially likely to

exhibit increasingly negative attitudes in the higher

grades.

o Substantial numbers of secondary schools have not yet

identified science and mathematics as instructional

priorities. In 1990, 35 percent of 12th graders

attended schools where science was identified as a

priority; and 57 percent of 12th graders attended

schools where mathematics was considered a priority.

o In 1991, only 78 percent of all high school science

teachers held a degree in science or science education,

while 68 percent of all high school mathematics teachers

held a degree in mathematics or mathematics education.

These levels were not statistically different from those

collected in 1988.

On the other hand, there was some indication of improvement

in specific areas of science and mathematics education.

o During the past six years, the numbers of Advanced

Placement examinations taken in science and mathematics

have increased substantially.

o Between 1989 and 1990, the number of science degrees

awarded to U.S. citizens (per 1,000 22-year-olds)

increased slightly, while the number awarded in

mathematics remained the same.

In January of 1992, The National Center for Education

Statistics of the U.S. Department of Education issued a Researchand-Development Report (International Mathematics and Science

Assessments: What Have We Learned?) which outlined the results of

the six international surveys on mathematics and science

achievement -- in which students from the United States have

"fared quite poorly" -- and concluded by noting the following

trends:

o The more students are taught, the more they learn and

the better they perform on the tests. There are

significant differences in the content of instruction

among countries at common levels of schooling.

o Use of a differentiated curriculum based on tracking is

negatively associated with student performance on the

international assessments and also reduces opportunities

for some students to be exposed to more advanced

curriculum.

o The school affects learning in some areas more than in

others.
o Countries committed to keeping students enrolled in

secondary school score less well on the international

surveys, since their primary goal is to reach greater

numbers of students rather than to promote the highest

level of academic achievement. Japan is an exception.

Even with high retention rates at the secondary level,

Japanese students perform very well on the mathematics

and science achievement surveys.

o Generally, the "best students" in the United States do

poorer on the international surveys when compared with

the "best students" from other countries.

The report calls for "more deliberate consideration of policy

concerns in the design of international assessments" and an

application of what is learned to curriculum development and

programming."

The 1992 Goals Panel Report offered new information on

mathematics and science achievement in the year 1991. This

information included the scores of U.S. students and five other

nations. The results:

o American 13-year-olds were outperformed by students in

Hungary, Korea, and Taiwan in three of four areas tested

in a 1991 international assessment.

o American students were also outperformed by students in

Korea, Switzerland, and Taiwan in all areas tested in a

1991 international mathematics assessment, and by

students in France and Hungary in four out of five areas

tested.

In some respects, American students have greater

opportunities than studerts in other nations. For example,

compared to students in France, Hungary, Korea, Switzerland, and

Taiwan, American 13-year-olds are generally more likely to do

science experiments, to use computers, and to have more books in

their homes. However, despite these advantages, they spend less

time on homework and more time watching television.

In 1993, in its publication ,State Indicators of Science and

Mathematical Education, the Council of Chief State School Officers

released findings that were highly relevant to the achievement of

Goal 04. Some of what they reported was positive; however, much

of the information suggested that the Nation's educators still

have a formidable task ahead in establishing world leadership in

the areas of mathematics and science.

o From 1990 to 1992, 18 states made significant

improvement in average student proficiency.

o In the content area of the eighth grade mathematics NAEP

test, nine states improved student proficiency in

Numbers and Operations, 14 states improved in

Measurement, 10 states improved in algebra and

functions, and four states improved in geometry.

-77- 87
o Only two states showed significant improvement on the

average proficiency of black students and four states

showed significant improvement in the proficiency of

Hispanic students.

These figures are disappointing. They suggest opportunities

lost and enormous challenges in the immediate future. But if

excellence is an elusive goal, the system is making progress in

the area of access.

o According to the Chief State School Officers, in 1992,

87 percent of public high school students were taking

mathematics -- a 3 percent increase since 1990.

o The percentage of students taking Advanced Algebra by

graduation is up to 55 percent, a 6-percent increase

from 1990-1992.

o As of 1992, slightly more than half of high school

graduates now take three years of high school

mathematics, with states varying from 31 to 73 percent.

o By the 1991-1992 school year, 75 percent of high school

students were taking a science course -- a 3 percent

increase since 1990.

o As of 1992, 49 percent of students took Chemistry by

graduation, which means that about half of the graduates

take three high school science courses -- an increase of

4 percent since 1990.

As these figures suggest, part of the problem has been the

shrinking pool of students taking mathematics and science courses.

For this reason, educators have long recognized the necessity to

enroll more women and minority students in advanced classes. In

the past they had been substantially underrepresented, a fact that

sheds significant light on the failure of women. and some

minorities to earn advanced science and math degrees at the

rostsecondary level. Several indicators suggest that the system

is making progress. Among these a-e the following:

o Gender differences in science and mathematics courses

continued to decline from 1990 to 1952. In most states,

male and female participation is the same except in the

most advanced mathematics and physical science courses,

where males mostly continue to enroll.

o At advanced levels of science and mathematics, Asian

Americana have the greatest enrollments, and Hispanic

students have the greatest increase in enrollments.

o Enrollments increased at about the same rate for blacks

and whites. In 1990, the national rates of students

taking chemistry by graduation were about four of 10

blacks, six of 10 Asian Americans, four of 10 Hispanics,

and five of 10 whites.

-78- 8 8
o Over the past decade, measurable progress has been made

in equalizing the number of men and women taking

advanced science courses. In fact, differences in

advanced science and mathematics courses by gender

declined slightly from 1990 to 1992, continuing a tenyear pattern. In 1992, males and females had equivalent

course enrollment rates up to the advanced levels of

mathematics and science in 20 reporting states. Females

comprised 46 percent of students taking calculus, 52

percent taking chemistry, and 44 percent taking physics.

As of 1982, females comprised 42 percent of students

taking calculus, 48 percent taking chemistry, and 33

percent taking physics.

o Minority trends in science have also been encouraging.

Specifically, our schools have made some progress in

increasing participation of minority students in science

and mathematics during the 1980s. From 1982 to 1990,

chemistry enrollments increased 24 percent among

Hispanic students and 19 percent among blacks, based on

national sample data. In 1990, 40 percent of students

in this group were taking chemistry by graduation. By

comparison, chemistry enrollments increased 18 percent

among whites (to 52 percent), and 13 percent among Asian

Americans (to 64 percent).

o Minorities have also made some gains in mathematics.

From 1982 to 1990, algebra enrollments increased 18

percent among blacks. In 1990, 39 percent of these

minority students were taking Advanced Algebra by

graduation. Advanced Algebra enrollments went up 13

percent among whites (to 52 percent), and 3 percent

among Asian-Americans (to 59 percent).

Unfortunately, despite increased access to mathematics and

science courses, the achievement of women and minorities has

failed to improve substantially, according to the report. In only

two states did African-American students show significant

improvement, and in only four states did Hispanic students

measurably improve their proficiency.

In addition, there is still a demonstrable inequity in the

number of women and minorities who teach mathematics and science.

However, there is also some cause for optimism.

o The majority of high school science teachers are male,

but the gender distribution varies by field. For

example, in mathematics, 55 percent of teachers are

female, while 22 percent of physics teachers and 37

percent of biology teachers are female. The percentage

of female teachers in mathematics varies by state from

21 to 69 percent, and the percentage of females in

physics varies from 10 to 49 percent.
o In elementary and secondary schools, 31 percent of the

student population is from a race/ethic minority group.

This statistic can be compared to state data which show

that 11 percent of high school mathematics teachers and

8 percent of science teachers are from a minority group.

In virtually all states a large disparity exists between

the supply of minority mathematics ana science teachers

and the population of minority students. The percent of

new minority teachers is slightly greater than the

current minority representation in the sciencemathematics teaching force, and the percentage oZ female

teachers is substantially greater.

It is obvious that in a large and dynamic modern society,

problems that have been generations in the making cannot be solved

quickly or easily. However, the Council of Chief State School

Officers has charted definite progress in mathematics and science

over a decade and more recent improvement over the two-year period

between 1990 and 1992.

Few people believe that the current rate of progress in these

fields is sufficient to enable the United States to maintain a

position of leadership in the global marketplace. In the

improvement of performance by minorities and women lies the key to

U.S. achievement in mathematics and the sciences.

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.

Literacy

Adult literacy is a major problem in the United States.

Indeed, illiteracy is more widespread in this country than in

other industrialized nations, and the failure to read and write

effectively has removed many potentially productive people from

the work force as well as prevented them from exercising their

full rights as citizens and fulfilling their ultimate potential as

human beings.

Goal #5 also speaks to the continuing necessity for adults as

well as children to be open to new educational opportunities. In

the changing economic landscape, jobs, indeed, whole industries,

are suddenly rendered obsolete by new technologies and new needs.

Those who can adapt to new challenges are much more likely to

prosper, and education prepares individuals as well as nations for

change. For this reason, the Nation's leaders have urged all U.S.

citizens to become lifelong learners. Literacy is a prerequisite

for such a life.

No one knows precisely how many adults are functionally

illiterate. Indeed, part of the problem in eliminating illiteracy

lies in the changing definition of "literacy" itself. The

following list of definitions suggest the evolving nature of the

concept:

-80- 90
o In 1930, the Civilian Conservation Corps, a federal jobs

program, defined functional literacy as three or more

years of schooling.

o In 1947, the U.S. Census Bureau defined functional

literacy as five or more years of schooling.

o In 1952, the Bureau changed its definition to six or

more years of schooling. In 1960, the U.S. Office of

Education adopted an eighth grade clucation as the

standard; and by 1970, many experts were saying that

completion of high school was necessary for functional

literacy. (Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools

for a Lifetime, Technology Assessment Board, U.S.

Congress, p. 4.)

o The 1991 National Adult Literacy Act defined literacy is

"...an individual's ability to read, write, and speak in

English, and compute and solve problems at levels of

proficiency necessary to function on the job and in

society, to achieve one's goals, and develop one's

knowledge and potential."

o The National Adult Literacy Survey, conducted by the

Educational Testing Service for the National Center for

Education Statistics, has adopted the following

definition of literacy: "...using printed and written

information to function in society, to achieve one's

goals, and to develop one's knowledge and potential."

It is significant that these latter definitions include more

than merely school completed or even the ability to read basic

sentences. They suggest the opportunity to move freely and easily

in society, to secure worthy employment, and to achieve

intellectual, social, and economic goals that may vary from

individual to individual.

In addition to problems of definition, no one is certain just

how many Americans have literacy needs. A 1991 Census Bureau

report on the 1989 adult population ages 20 and over gives some

indications:

o Approximately 19 million adults have eight years or less

of schooling.

o Approximately 22 million were classified as illiterate

in the Bureau's 1982 English Language Proficiency Study.

o Approximately 35 million have been classified as

functionally incompetent on literacy tasks by the

National Adult Performance Level Study (1975).

o Approximately 38 million have less than 12 years of

schooling.
Some analysts have pointed out that several subgroups of the

total population exhibited a high likelihood of literacy problems.

Among these would be the following:

o approximately 26 million who report speaking a language

other than English at home;

o approximately six million who report speaking English

"not well" or "not at all;"

o approximately eight million job seekers'whose literacy

skills test below adequate level; and

o and 11 to 15 million job seekers who perceive a need for

better literacy skills.

(quoted in Adult Literacy and New Technologies: Tools

for a Lifetime, Office of Technology Assessment, U.S.

Congress, p. 6.)

These various studies and estimates indicate the difficulty

of defining the scope of the U.S. literacy problem and tracking

progress toward the achievement of this Goal. However, in

September of 1993, the National Adult Literacy Survey (NALS)

released the first nationally representative data on the literacy

skills of the Nation's adults (aged 16 and older). Data included

types of literacy skills, levels, and how these skills are

distributed across the population. Basic arithmetic skills were

also tested. The results indicated that some 90 million adults --

about 47 percent of the U.S. adult population -- demonstrate low

levels of literacy. In addition, the report revealed the

following:

o 21 to 23 percent of adults -- or some 40 to 44 million

of the 191 million U.S. adults demonstrated skills at

the lowest level of achievement. At this level (Level

1), respondents were asked to perform such tasks as

totaling an entry on a bank deposit slip, locating the

time or place of a meeting on a form, and identifying a

piece of specific information in a brief news article.

o Some 25 to 28 percent of the respondents, representing

about 50 million adults nationwide, demonstrated skills

at the next level of proficiency (Level 2) on each of

the literacy scales. While their skills were mor,

varied than those of individuals performing at Level 1,

their repertoire was still quite limited. For example,

adults at this level were able to calculate the total

cost of a purchase and determine the difference in price

between two items. They could also locate a particular

intersection on a street map and enter background

information on a simple form.

-82-

92
o Nearly one-third of the survey participants, or about 61

million adults nationwide, could perform at Level 3.

Those at this level were able to understand and make use

of information from a fairly long text and to determine

whether to use addition, subtraction,' multiplication, or

division in solving a problem based on information

contained in the directive.

o Eighteen to 21 percent of the respondents, or 34 to 40

million adults, performed at the two highest levels --

Levels 4 and 5. These adults could perform challenging

tasks based on long, complicated documents and text

passages.

o Many factors help to explain why so many adults

demonstrated English literacy skills in the lowest

proficiency level. Twenty-five percent of the

respondents who performed at this level were immigrants

who may have been just learning to speak English.

nearly two-thirds of those at Level 1 (62 percent) had

terminated their education before completing high

school. A third were age 65 or older, and 26 percent

had physical, mental. or health conditions that kept

them from participating fully at work, school,

housework, or other activities. Nineteen percent of the

respondents at Level 1 reported having visual

difficulties that affect their ability to read print.

o The approximately 90 million adults who performed at

Levels 1 and 2 did not necessarily perceive themselves

as being at risk. Across the literacy scales, 66 to 75

percent of the adults in the lowest level and 93 to 97

percent in the second lowest level described themselves

as being able to read or write English "well" or "very

well." Moreover, only 14 to 25 percent of the adults at

Level 1, and 4 to 12 percent in Level 2 said they get a

lot of help from family members or friends with reading

everyday documents and performing basic arithmetic

tasks. Researchers concluded that it's possible their

skills, while limited, allow them to meet some -- and

perhaps even most -- of their personal and occupational

needs.

o The literacy proficiencies of young adults assessed in

1992 were somewhat lower, on average, than the

proficiencies of young adults who participated in a 1985

literacy survey -- 11 to 14 points lower in comparable

categories. Although other factors may also be

involved, these performance discrepancies are probably

due in large part to changes in the demographic

composition of the population -- in particular, the

dramatic increase of young Hispanic adults, many of whom

were born in other countries and are learning English as

a second language.

-83-

93
o Predictably, adults with relatively few years of

education were more likely to perform at lower literacy

levels than those who completed high school or received

some type of postsecondary education. For example, on

each of the three literacy scales, some 75 to 80 percent

of adults with 0 to 8 years of education are at Level 1,

while fewer than 1 percent are at Levels 4 and 5. In

contrast, among adults with a high school diploma, 16 to

20 percent are at the lowest level on each scale, while

10 to 13 percent are at the two highest levels. Only 4

percent of adults with four-year-college degrees are at

Level 1; 44 to 50 percent are at the two highest levels.

o Black, American Indian/Alaskan Native, Hispanic,

Asian/Pacific Islander adults were more likely than

White adults to perform at the lowest two literacy

levels. These performance differences are affected by

many factors. For example, with the exception of

Asian/Pacific Islander adults, individuals in these

groups tended to have completed fewer years of schooling

in this country than had White individuals. Further,

many adults of Asian/Pacific Islander and Hispanic

origin were born in other countries and were likely to

have learned English as a second language.

o With one exception, for each racial or ethnic group,

individuals born in the United States outperformed those

born abroad. The exception occurs among black adults,

where there was essentially no difference (only 3-7

points. Among White and Asian/Pacific Islander adults,

the average differences between native-born and foreignborn individuals range from 26 to 41 points across the

literacy scales. Among Hispanic adults, the differences

range from 40 to 94 points in favor of the native born.

The report concluded:

o Literacy can be thought of as a currency in this

society. Just as adults with little money have

difficulty meeting their basic needs, those with limited

literacy skills are likely to find it more challenging

to pursue their goals -- whether these involve job

advancement, consumer decisionmaking, citizenship, or

other aspects of their lives. Even if adults who

performed at the lowest literacy levels are not

experiencing difficulties at present, they may be at

risk as the nation's economy and social fabric continue

to change.

Though this report did not prescribe solutions to the problem

of widespread illiteracy, it established benchmark standards for

future studies of progress toward the achievement of Goal 15.
Lifelong Learning

The idea of lifelong learning is linked to the assumption

that in order to compete in a rapidly changing marketplace,

American workers will have to be more adaptable to on-the-job

changes and to face the reality that they may have to learn new

skills in order to survive. Yet U.S. workers seem unwilling to

face the possibility that their jobs may disappear or that they

may have to adapt to new challenges and techniques in the work

place.

o A study conducted by Cornell University found that U.S.

workers were far more likely than Belgian, German, or

Japanese workers to predict that their present job

skills will be quite useful in five years. U.S.

satisfaction with current job skills contrasts most

sharply with the work force in Japan, where fewer than

one in five workers predict that their present skills

will be sufficient to meet job demands in the future.

o Delegating responsibility to employees to inspect

quality, improve productivity, and design better ways to

do their own jobs has been found to be a characteristic

common to many competitive, high performance companies.

Yet U.S. workers were much less likely than German and

Japanese workers to report that they strongly agreed

that workers would be expected to think up better ways

to do their jobs.

(National Education Goals Report, 1992)

Obviously, Americans must learn to be more adaptable -- more

open to new educational challenges, particularly those that

provide such basic skills as reading and writing. In many

respects the problem of illiteracy, like the problem of dropouts,

is one of motivation. A number of programs have been developed to

address current deficiencies. However, many of those who would

profit most from such initiatives are as yet unwilling to take

advantage of the opportunity afforded them.

Goal 16

Every school in America will be free of drugs and violence

and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to

learning.

Most U.S. educators and public policy leaders acknowledge

that drugs and violence have played a role in the decline of the

Nation's schools. Though every school is not significantly

affected by these problems, all too many are -- particularly in

major urban areas. Not only are alcohol and other drugs available

on or near the campuses of many elementary and secondary schools,

but in recent years a wave of violence has swept over the public

-85-

93
school system that has affected not only students, but teachers

and administrators as well. Though recent trends in drug use have

been modestly encouraging, violence seems to continue unchecked in

many populous areas; and murder is now the prime cause of death

among young blacks.

The 1992 Goals report included an update of information on

the use of alcohol and other drugs by 12th graders and on the

degree to which young people have been the victims of violent

crimes. As for drug use, the Report offered some encouraging news

as well as some disturbing figures:

o Between 1990 and 1991, overall use of alcohol and

cocaine among 12th graders declined. Fifty-four percent

reported using alcohol during the past 30 days (down

from 57 percent in 1990), while 1 percent used cocaine

(down from 2 percent in 1990). Reported marijuana use

remained at 14 percent.

o Between 1980 and 1991, use of alcohol and other drugs at

school has declined noticeably, according to student

reports. For example, at-school use of marijuana

dropped from 21 percent to 5 percent; at-school use of

alcohol dropped from 14 percent to 7 percent; and atschool cocaine use dropped from 3 percent to 1 percent.

o On the other hand, according to a 1991 study, students

in progressively higher grades were less likely to

disapprove of adults consuming large quantities of

alcohol or marijuana, and were more likely to engage in

these behaviors themselves.

o In contrast, student disapproval of adults using cocaine

was consistently high across grades, and the percentage

of students using cocaine was consistently low.

While alcohol and other drug use was declining, violence was

on the upswing; and many students were victimized, in most cases

by other young people.

o Between 1990 and 1991, the number of 12th graders who

reported being threatened with a weapon at school

increased from 13 percent to 16 percent.

o This figure is consistent with a pattern of increases in

instances of student victimization at school from 1980

to 1991. In 1980, 34 percent of students reported theft

of property, and by 1991 the figure had risen to 42

percent. In 1980, 25 percent said their property had

been vandalized, and by 1991 the figure stood at 28

percent. Between 1980 and 1991, the percentage of

students who had been threatened with a weapon rinse from

11 percent to 15 percent, and those who had been

-86-
threatened without a weapon climbed from 19 percent to

26 percent. During the same period, the number of

students deliberately injured in some way other than

with a weapon increased from 11 percent to 15 percent,

and those injured with a weapon rose from 5 percent to 7

percent.

Student use of drugs is greater outside of school and at

school events than in school, but acts of violence are all too

common during school hours.

o In 1991, as noted above, 7% of 10th-grade students

reported using alcohol at school during the school day

within the previous year. On the other hand, 12% used

alcohol near school, and 19% used alcohol at a school

dance, game, or other event.

o Substantial numbers of 8th and 10th graders are also

victims of violent acts, theft, and vandalism at school,

according to student reports. Threats and injuries to

younger students are more common than to students in

higher grades. For example, 19 percent of 8th graders

have been threatened with a weapon and 9 percent have

actually been injured by a weapon, as contrasted only 16

and 7 percent for 12th graders. Likewise, 34 percent of

8th graders have had their personal property vandalized,

as opposed to only 28 percent of 12th graders.

However, the 1992 Goals Panel report showed some progress in

restoring discipline to the classroom. The picture is still

disturbing, but the improvement is measurable.

o Between 1988 and 1991, fewer high school teachers

reported that student misbehavior interfered with their

teaching, and more felt that principals and other

teachers consistently enforced school rules. In 1988,

41 percent cited student discipline as a significant

deterrent to teaching. while in 1991 the number had

fallen to 33 percent. In 1982, 82 percent believed the

principal backed them in the enforcement of rules and 50

percent believed that other teachers were supportive.

In 1991, those figures had risen to 86 percent and 61

percent respectively.

o In 1991, 68 percent of all high school teachers felt

that they had substantial control over their students in

the classroom -- up from 67 percent in 1988.

However, there are some trends that suggest discipline is

still a growing problem in some areas.

o Skipping school and classes is a fairly common practice

among students in Grades 8, 10, and 12, especially among

Hispanics and among students in higher grades.

-87-

9 '7
o The percentage of 12th graders who skipped class

increased by two percentage points between 1990 and

1991.

These figures suggest both progress and continuing problems

in the achievement of Goal #6. In addition to the statistics on

drug and alcohol use and student victimization, the Goals Panel

also reports that teachers are the victims of abuse, both verbal

and physical, though the latter is rare. Too many students also

lack the discipline to maintain good attendance records and to be

serious about their studies while in class. Clearly all segments

of society must cooperate if these problems are to be solved.

Schools and government have a part to play in achieving this goal,

but they cannot effect significant change without the cooperation

of families and communities.
CONCLUSION

The establishment of the six original National Education

Goals has enabled the Nation for the first time in its history to

develop standards of performance for all schools and to measure

progress toward the achievement of those standards. This edition

of is a

preliminary report on the success of the reform movement.

Clearly, the Nation has not yet developed all the instruments and

benchmarks necessary to track the dynamics of the current system.

Nor has it had the time to set standards of measurement of

progress for the two new Goals adopted in 1994. The task of selfimprovement is significantly complicated by the fact that methods

of evaluation must be invented at the same time that solutions to

the problems are being devised. Yet time does not permit a more

leisurely and sequential way of proceeding.

However, already the pace of reform is quickening, even as

standards and tests are falling into place. In two years --

halfway to the year 2000 -- we should know a great deal more about

how far we've come and how far we've yet to go. Indeed, the next

volume of Progress of Education its the United States of America

should tell educators with some degree of certainty whether or not

the National Education Goals are realistic and attainable.
PART IV

SELECTED RECENT STUDIES

OF U.S. EDUCATION

100
SELECTED RECENT STUDIES OF U.S. EDUCATION

BY GENERAL TOPIC

Alsalam, Nabeel et al. The Condition of Education. 1993.

Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.

An overview of U.S. Education organized around 60

"indicators." These indicators are statistical facts that

shed light on such questions as access, achievement,

curriculum, financing, size, classroom climate, and

diversity.

Barzun, Jacques. Alin Here: The Forgott m Conditions of

Teaching and Learninu. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,

1991.

A collection of essays written by a noted commentator on

American education. This volume explores such diverse topics

as teaching methods, curriculum, and the effects of

television on learning.

Chubb, John E. and Moe, Terry M. politics. Markets and

America's Schools. Washington: Brookings Institution, 1990.

The authors propose a "new system of public schools" that

would substitute the "indirect control" of the market for the

"direct control" of government agencies through the use of

vouchers that would enable parents to choose from among

schools.

Finn, Chester. We Must Take Charge: Our Schools and Our

Future. New York: Free Press, 1991.

The author discusses the education reform movement,

maintaining that the subject must be approached with four

concepts in mind: (1) school organization, (2) belief that a

good education is a vital cultural value, (3) higher

education and employers' standards for students and

employees, and (4) families supporting positive attitudes

toward schools.

Fiske, Edward B. et al. Smart Schools. Smart Kids: Why Do

Some Schools Work?. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1991.

An analysis of schools that are effective with

recommendations for a number of specific education reforms

based on the analysis.
Fullan, Michael G., with Suzanne Stiegelbauer. The Meaning

of Educational Change. New York: Teachers. College Press of

Columbia University, 1991.

This book -- by the Dean of the Faculty of Education, University of Toronto -- is a critique of the current

education reform movement and a suggested agenda for

legitimate and successful change.

Gronlund, Laurie E. Strivina for Excellence: The National

Education Goals Volume II. Washington, DC: Educational

Resources Information Center (ERIC), October 1993.

This ERIC digest describes issues, exemplary programs, promising practices, and research results related to the

National Education Goals.

Grymes, John A., Harwarth, Irene Baden et al of the National

Center for Education Statistics. Historical Trends: State

Education Facts 1969 to 1989. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1992.

This volume is a collection of statistics and tables that

track the progress of state education over several decades.

The Joint Study Group on the National Education Goals of the

National School Boards Association. National Education

Goals: America's School Boards Respond. Washington: U.S.

Department of Education, 1992.

This pamphlet shows the relevance of the National Education

Goals to the Nation's local school boards and discusses ways in which boards can promote the achievement of the Goals.

National Council on Education Standards and Testing. Raising Standards for American Education: A Report to Congress. the

Secretary of Education. The National Goals Panel and the

American People. Washington: U.S .Department of Education, 1992.

This report recommended the creation of voluntary national education standards and a voluntary national system of

student assessments.
National Dissemination Study Group and the National Diffusion

Network. Educational Programs That Work: A Collection of

proven Exemplary Educational Programs and Practices. 1993.,

19th edition. Longmont, Colorado: Sopris West Incorporated,

1993.

This compilation, which appears annually, is a state-by-state

survey of educational programs that have been reviewed and

proven successful. The programs fall into. three categories:

active projects, projects with limited activity, and projects

with services no longer available. A one-page project

profile for each activity is included.

National Education Commission on Time and Learning. prisoners

of Time. Washington: National Education Commission on Time

and Learning, 1994.

This report provides an overview on the relationships between

time and learning in the Nation's schools, cites the

deficiencies of time spent on academic learning, and makes

recommendations to correct those deficiencies.

National Education Goals Panel. Theiatignajjaugsitionacials

Report: Building a Nation of Learners. 1991. Washington:

National Education Goals Panel, 1991.

The first of a series of annual reports on progress toward

the achievement of the National Education Goals. The volume

contains data defining the current status of the Nation's

education system, additional information on the Goals and

accompanying objectives, and comparable State data.

National Education Goals Panel. The National Education Goals

Report: Building a Nation of Learners. 1992. Washington:

National Education Goals Panel, 1992.

The second report on the progress of the U.S. toward the

achievement of its National Education Goals.

National Education Goals Panel. The National Education Goals

Report: Building a Nation of Learurs. 1993. Washington:

National Education Goals Panel, 1993.

The third annual publication updating progress toward the

achievement of the National Education Goals.

Snyder, Thomas D., Griffith, Jeanne, et al of the National

Center for Education Statistics. piaest of Education

Statistics. 1993. Washington: U.S. Departhent of Education,

1993.

This annual publication is the most comprehensive compilation

of statistics and facts on U.S. education.

-92-103
Stripling, Barbara K. Libraries for the National Education

Goals. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, ERIC Clearinghouse on Information Resources, April 1992.

A summary of information about the role of libraries in the

vast array of educational efforts and what they are doing to meet the national goals.

Wu, Shi-Chang et al, National Center for Education

Statistics. America's High School Sophomores: A Ten Year Comparison. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, June 1993.

A study of high school sophomores in 1980 and 1990 that

compares the experiences of students, identifying changes in in-school and out-of-school activities, academic achievement,

self-concept and values, plans and aspirations.

BY NATIONAL GOALS

Goal 1

Kisker, Ellen Eliason et al. A Profile of Child Care

Settings: Early Education and Care in 1990. v. I.

Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1991.

A study of the extent and characteristics of formal early

education and care programs for pre-school children. Volume I examines such aspects as sponsorship, operating schedules, enrollment, staffing, teacher wages, health and testing

services, and fees charged to parents.

Love, John M. et al. Transitions to Kindergarten in American Schools. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, RMC

Research Corporation, 1992.

This final report of the National Transition Study examines the problems surrounding transition from pre-school to

kindergarten and from kindergarten to public schools. The report also examines strategies used to establish continuity

and to ensure successful transitions.

Seppanen, Patricia S., de Vries, Dianne Kaplan, and Seligson, Michelle. National Study of Before- and After-School

Programs. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.

This report contains a survey and analysis of existing

before- and after-school child-care programs in the United

States. The authors also draw some conclusions based on the data and discuss implications for future policy and practice.

-93-

104
Goal 2

American Institutes for Research. National Dropout

statistics Field Test Evaluation. Washington: U.S.

Department of Education, 1992.

A complete statistical survey of the problem of dropouts,

with some analysis of the figures.

Goal 2 Work Group, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement. opal 2: High School Completion. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Education, October 1993.

This volume, one of a series entitled Reaching the Goals, is

designed to share information with policymakers about both

effective and ineffective approaches, so as to guide the

development of programs that can succeed in realizing Goal 2.

Goal 3

McMillen, Marilyn M. et al, National Center for Education

Statistics. Dropout Rates in the United States: 1992.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Educational Research and Improvement, September 1993.

This fifth annual dropout report to Congress presents data

for 1992 on high school dropout and retention rates. In

addition, it contains detailed data on demographic and

socioeconomic levels for high school completion and

graduation rates data.

National Assessment Governing Board. Reading Framework for

the 1992 National Assessment of Educational Progress.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, 1992.

NAEP reports, also known as "The Nation's Report Card,"

provides descriptive information about student strengths and

weaknesses in reading and a number of other subjects.

Sizer, Theodore. Horace's School: Redesi

HiaLlgh2g1. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1992.

A fictional principal provides the vehicl for Sizer to

define what he believes to be a model school. Sizer favors a

curriculum that emphasizes strong academic courses.

-94-

105
Goal 4

Blank, Rolf K. and Gruebel, Doreen. State Indicators of

Science and Mathematics Education. 1993. Washington: The Council of Chief State School Officers, 1993.

This study is an analysis and evaluation of new State Science

and Mathematics Indicators for the 1991-92 school year.

Eisenhower National Clearinghouse. Guidebook to Excqllence

1994: A Directory of Federal Resources for Mathematics and

Science Education Improvement. Washington, DC: U.S

Government Printing Office, 1994.

A comprehensive directory of Federal offices, programs, and facilities for K-12 education in mathematics and science.

Federal Coordinating Council for Science, Engineering, and

Technology (FCCSET). Dv the Year 2000: First in the World. Washington: FCCSET, 1991.

This report surveys current programs designed to improve

mathematics and science education in the United States.

Those examined include pre-college programs, undergraduate

programs, and Federal initiatives. The report also suggests

"possible new initiatives" to be pursued at every level.

Mullis, In a V.S. et al for Educational Testing Service. Ihs State of Mathematics Achievement. Washington: U.S.

Department of Education, 1991.

This substantial document uses numerous tables and figures to define the current performance level of U.S. students in virtually every area of mathematical achievement.

The National Research Council. Everybody Counts: A Report to the Nation on the Future of Mathematics Education.

Washington: National Academy Press, 1989.

This report examines

education, including

curriculum, teaching

attracting women and

mathematics.

questions relevant to mathematics

potential students, potential teachers,

methods, and the special challenge of

minorities into the study of
Goal 5

App, Anne H., compiler. papers Presented at the Design

Conference for the National Assessment of Vocational

Education. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1991.

As its title suggests, this volume a collection of papers

delivered at a March, 1991 conference of educators with

expertise in the field of vocational training. This

conference addressed such important issues as the

relationship of vocational education to employment, the best

method of assessing the outcomes of vocational education, and

the practical impact of the 1990 Perkins Act.

Carnevale, Anthony P. and Porro, Jeffrey D., American Society

for Training and Development. DUALITY EDUCATION: School

Reform for the New AmericanIconomy. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement, 1994.

A report on the need to simultaneously reform the schools and

to modernize the workplace. It sets out a set of principles

and strategies on which employers and educators should base

their efforts to achieve reform.

Chan Kopka,

Statistics.

Washington,

Educational

Teresita L. et al, National Center for Education

Adult Education: Employment-Related Training.

DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Research and Improvement, May 1994.

A report of employed adults (17+) that were enrolled in a

part-time educational activitiy over a 12-month period. It

also determines what types of training courses they enrolled

in.

Goal 5 Work Group, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement. Goal 5: Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, July 1993.

This volume, one of a series entitled Reaching the Goals,

focuses on issues in postcompulsory education related to

skills needed by adults as learners, workers, and citizens.

Hopstock, Paul, Young, Malcolm B., and Zehler, Annette M.

Serving Different Masters: Title VII Evaluation Practice and

Pol1cy. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.

This study examines bilingual education programs and special

alternative projects funded by the Federal government,

programs and projects designed to improve the linguistic

skills of those for whom English is a second language.
Kirsch, Irwin S. et al for Educational Testing Service. Adult Literacy in America. Washington: U.S. Department of

Education, 1993.

This document summarizes the results of the National Adult

Literacy Survey -- a cooperative effort planned by the National Center for Education Statistics and the Division of

Adult Education and Literacy of the U.S. Department of

Education.

Langer, Judith A. at al for Educational Testing Service. Learning to Read in Our Nation's Schools. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1990.

This report is based on the 1988 assessment of the reading

achievement of American school children in the 4th, 8th, and

12th grades. Its major findings include comments on the

reading proficiency of American students, the differences

among various identifiable groups, the influence of home

environment, the degree to which reading is emphasized in

schools, and the reading habits of children off-campus.

Office of Technology Assessment. Adult Literacy and New

Technologies: Tools for a Lifetime. Washington: U.S.

Congress, 1993.

This study analyzes the problem of illiteracy in the United States and then outlines policy options, including the use of technology.

Goal 6

Goal 6 Work Group, Office of Educational Research and

Improvement of the U.S. Department of Education. Goal 6: Safe. Disciplined. and Drug-Free Schools. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.

This volume, one of a series titled Reaching the Goals,

defines the problems of drug use and violence in U.S.

schools, summarizes current research, and suggests strategies

to address these problems.

Muraskin, Lana D., Westat, Inc. promising Drug Prevention

Programs: An Interim Report to Congress. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.

This report describes promising school and community programs designed to reduce alcohol and drug use among young people.

-97- 108
National Clearinghouse for Alcohol and Drug Information.

success Stories from Drug-Free Schools: A Guide for

Educators. Parents. & Policymakers. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, 1991.

A compilation of schools under the U.S. Department of

Education's Drug-Free School Recognition Program. The

schools' leaders explain, in their own words, their strategy

for drug prevention.

Network of Colleges and Universities Committed to the

Elimination of Drug and Alcohol Abuse. gesearch and

Intervention: Preventing Substance Abuse in Higher

Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,

Office of Educational Research and Improvement, April 1994.

A report compiling views of the higher education community on

alcohol and other drug abuse prevention on the college

campus. Major articles are provided in four issues:

prevention theory, intervention research, environmental

influences and assessment.

Office of the President. National Drug Control Strategy.

Washington: The White House, 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992.

This annual report is a comprehensive plan for Federal drug

control activities for the fiscal year to follow. It also

contains an update on the status of drug use and drug

education.

Resource Team on National Education Goal 6. Schools Free of

Drugs and Violence. Washington: U.S. Department of

Education, 1991.

This pamphlet defines the twin problems of drug use and

violence in U.S. schools, discusses strategies, and outlines

the role of parents, teachers, schools, and communities in

the achievement of Goal 6.

U.S. Department of Education. yearning to Live Drug Free: A

Curriculum Model for Prevention. Washington: U.S. Department

of Education, 1990.

This booklet provides a flexible model for classroom-based

prevention efforts for kindergarten through grade 12.

109

-98-
BY ADDITIONAL TOPIC

Choice

Glenn, Charles. Choice of Schools in Six Nations.

Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1989.

This volume is a survey of school choice in France, the

Netherlands, Belgium, Britain, Canada, and West Germany, with

a preface and introduction showing the relevance of these

other systems to the U.S. reform movement.

Disadvantaged Students

The Advisory Committee on Testing in Chapter 1. Reinforcing

the Promise. Reforming the Paradigm. Washington: U.S.

Department of Education, 1993.

After examining current testing practices, this report

concludes that the time is now appropriate for Chapter 1

testing to concentrate more on promoting student learning and

less on measuring regulatory compliance.

Knapp, Michael S. and Turnbull, Brenda J. Better Schooling

for the Children of Poverty. Washington: U.S. Department

of Education, 1990.

This report proposes a new framework for considering

effective curriculum and instruction in the education of the

disadvantaged.

Knapp, Michael S. et al. Academic Challenge for the Children

of Poverty. Volume 1: Findings and Conclusions 1993.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of

Policy and Planning, 1993.

This full report documents the three-year study of the

curriculum and instruction typically offered in schools

serving disadvantaged students; comparing newer, alternative

approaches to more conventional teaching of basic skills.

National Assessment of Chapter 1 Independent Review Panel.

Reinventing Chapter 1: The Current Chapter 1 Program and New

Directions. Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1993.

This report examines the Federal government's program to

assist disadvantaged children improve their educational

performance. The Review Panel's conclusion: as currently

structured the Chapter 1 program is not accomplishing its

goals and is in need of revision. The Panel makes concrete

recommendations for improvement.

-99-
Finance

Kozol, Jonathan. savage Inequalities: Children in America's

Schools. New York: Crown, 1991.

The author paints a bleak picture of education for minorities

and the poor in a system where some schools are well-financed

and others lack the basic funds necessary for

effective education.

The Secretary's Commission on Achieving Necessary Skills.

Learning a Living: A Blueprint for High Performance.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Labor, April 1992.

This report describes the economic choices facing the U.S.,

defines the workforce issue and makes recommendations to set

the nation on the path to a high-performance future.

Higher Education

Anderson, Martin. Imoostors in the Temple. New York: Simon

and Schuster, 1992.

This volume examines current problems in American higher

education and offers solutions. In addition to exploring

such issues as financial scandals and sexual harassment, the

author also highlights the activities of powerful groups that

exert excessive influence on the governing boards of colleges

and universities.

Bok, Derek Curtis. Universities and the Future of America.

Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press, 1990.

In this expansion of a lecture series delivered at Stanford,

the author calls for a realigning of priorities by colleges

and universities to address the nation's most pressing social

problems.

D'Sousa, Dinesh. Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race

and Sex on Campus. New York: Free Press, 1991.

The author argues that affirmative action policies in college

admissions and the introduction of multicultural curricula

have promoted ignorance and racism.

Graff, Gerald. Beyond the Culture Wars: How Teaching the

Conflicts Can Revitalize American Education. New York:

Norton, 1992.

The author argues that recent educational conflicts over

political and social issues are positive signs and should be

utilized as a way to revitalize higher education.
Kimball, Roger. Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted

Our Higher Education. New York: Harper and Row, 1990.

The author discusses "individuals, symposia, schools, groups,

etc. that he believes are destroying the values, methods, and

goals of traditional humanistic studies.

Smith, Page. Yining the Spirit: Higher Education in

America. New York: Viking, 1990.

This history of higher education in the United States

contains a critique of current trends in colleges and

universities that the author considers destructive to

teaching and learning.

Sykes, Charles J. The Hollow Men: Politics and Corrllption in

Higher Education. Washington: Regnery-Gateway, 1990.

The author uses Dartmouth College as the focus for his

examination of recent changes in the social and intellectual

contexts of American colleges and universities.

International

Alexander, Kern and Williams, Vivian, eds. Reforming

Education in a Changina World: International Perspectives,

Blacksburg, Virginia and Oxford, England: Oxford Round Table,

1991.

This volume consists of a collection of papers on educational

reform presented at Oxford by 21 scholars from around the

world. Nine of the essays focus on the United States, but

there are also essays on reform in the United Kingdom,

Bulgaria, Romania, Czechoslovakia, Guyana, Zimbabwe, and

Malawi.

Ginsburg, Alan et al. International Education Comparisons.

Washington: U.S. Department of Education, 1992.

This short pamphlet offers brief comparisons of a number of

education systems, focusing on such topics as governance and

structure, school population, curriculum, student

performance, recent reforms, funding, classroom size, and

nature of instruction.

-101- 112
Private Schools

Benson, Peter and McMillen, Marilyn Miles. Private Schools

in the United States: A Statistical Profile. with Comparisons

to Public Schools. Washington: U.S. Department of Education,

1991.

This volume is a quantitative study of private education in

the United States and includes an analysis' of key findings.

Teaching and Teachers

Feistrizer, C. Emily. Alternative Teacher Certification: A

State-bv-State Analysis 1990. Washington: National Center

for Education Information, 1990.

This report surveys the 50 States to determine what kings of

alternative certification programs for teachers are in place

and what constituencies they are serving. It is compo3ed

largely of survey results with only a small segment of

analysis.

Freedman, Samuel G. Small Victories: The Real World of a

Teacher. Her Students. and Their High School. New York:

Harper and Row, 1990.

This is an account of the author's year as an observer at

Seward Park High School on the Lower East Side of Manhattan.

He focuses on the classroom of Jessica Siegel, an English

teacher.

Goodlad, John I. Teachers for Our Nation's Schools. San

Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1990.

The author calls for a professionalism among teachers

comparable to that of physicians and lawyers.

Johnson, Susan Moore. Teachers at Work: Achieving Success in

Our Schools. New York: Basic Books, 1990.

This study, based on interviews with 115 teachers from public

and private schools, gives a psychological picture of a

teacher in school.

-102-

113
Riley, Richard W., U.S. Secretary of Education. it Teacher's Guide to the U.S. pepartment of Education. Washington, DC: U.S Department of Education, Spring 1994.

An expanded edition of the U.S. Department of Education's

services to teachers and other practitioners. Also included

are a summary of the recently passed GOALS 2000: Educate America Act, a directory of the Department's regional

offices, etc.
FIGURE AND TABLES

115
Ph.D. or Advanced

Professional

Degree

Master's

Degree

Bachelor's

Degree

Associate

Degree or

Certificate

High School Diploma

17

18

15

14

13

12

11

10

9

8

7

5

4

3

Age

Figure 1.The structure of education in the United States

7

1

12

a

11

3

o

..c po. 9

tt

8 6

xi Et

5

7

5

4

3

f-t

2

am

1 n

3

K

Grade

NOTEAdult education programs, while not separately delineated above, may provide instruction at the elementary, secondary, or higher

education level. Chan reflects typical patterns of progression rather than all possible variations.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

1-6 p% -11 Pr/1 r

; k):." i ifs:
Table 1.- Enrollment in educational institutions, by level and control of institution: Fall 1990 to fall 1994

[In thousands]

Level of instruction

and type of control

Fall

1990

Fall

1991

Fall

19921

Fall

19931

Estimated

fall

1994 1 2 3 4 5 6 All levels 60,268 61,594 62,601 63,424 64,519 Public 52,061 53,346 54,122 54,803 55,754 Private 8,206 8,248 8,478 8,621 8,765

Elementary and secondary

education 46,448 47,235 48,109 48,824 49,819 Public 41,217 42,036 42,735 43,353 44,254 Private 5,232 5,199 5,375 5,471 5,565

Grades K-83 33,973 34,572 35,209 35,654 36,170 Public 29,878 30,498 30,997 31,374 31,837 Private 4,095 4,074 4,212 4,280 4,333

Grades 9-12

Public 12,475 12,663 12,901 13,170 13,649 11,338' 11,538 11,738 11,979 12,417 Private 1,137 1,125 1,163 1,191 1,232

Higher education4 13,820 14,359 14,491 14,600 14,700 Public 10,845 11,310 11,388 11,450 11,500 Private

re many. 2,975 3,049 3,104 3,150 3,200,

'Includes enrollments in local public school systems and in most private schoolt (religiously nonsectarian). Excludes subcollegiate affiliated and departments of institutions of higher for exceptional children, and education, residential schools Federal schools. Excludes preprimary pupils in schools that first grade or above. do not offer

'Includs kinderprten and some nursery school pupils. 'Includes full- time and part-time students enrolled in degree-credit

in universities and 2-year and and nondegree-credit programs 4-year colleges.

NOTE.- Higher education enrollment projections are based on the middle alternative published by the National Center projections

totals. Some data have been

for Education Statistics. Because of rounding, details may not add to revised from previously published figures.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Stan:lice, 1994. Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest ofEducation
Table 2.- Number of teachers in ed.icational institutions, by level

and control of institution: Fail 1990 to fall 1994

[In thousands'

Level of instruction

and type of control

Fall

1990

Fall

1991

Fall

19921

Fall

19931

Estimated

fall

1994

1 2 3 4 5 6

All levels 3,570 3,613 3,655 3,712 3,738

Public 2,972 3,013 3,043 3,095 3,111

Private 599 600 613 617 627

Elementary and secondary

education- 2,753, 2,787 2,821 2,871 2,890

Public 2,398 2,432 2,458 2,507 2,520

Private 355 355 363 364 370

Elementary' 1,680 1,713 1,742 1,771 1,769

Public 1,426 1,459 1,482 1,510 1,506

Private 254 254 260 261 263

Secondary 1,073 1,074 1,079 1,100 1,122

Public 972 973 976 997 1,014

Private 101 101 103 103 108

Higher education' ........... 817 826 835 842 848

Public 574 581 585 588 591

Private 244 245 250 253 257

re m nary.

'Includes teachers in local public school systems and in most private schools (religiously affiliated and

nonsectarian). Excludes subcollegiate departments of institutions of higher education, residential schools

for exceptional children, and Federal schools. Excludes preprimary pupils in schools that do not offer

first grade or above. Teachers are reported in full-time equivalents.

'Includes kinderprten and some nursery school teachers.

'Includes full -time and part -time faculty with the rank of instructor or above in universities, other

4-year colleges, and two-year colleges.

NOTE. - Because of rounding, details may not add to totals.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education S -ttistics, Digest of Education

Stn finis, 1994.

-it1618
Table 3. -Years of school completed by persons age 25 and over and 25 to 29,

by sex and race: 1940 to 1993

Percent, by years of school completed

Age, year,

and sex

All races

Less than

5 years of elementary

school

4 years

of high

school

Or more

4 or

more

years of collere

1 2 3 4

25 and over

April 1940 13.7 24.5 4.6

April 1950 11.1 34.3 62

April 1960 8-3 41.1 7.7

March 1970 5.3 55.2 11.0

March 1980 3.4 68.6 17.0

March 1989 2.5 76.9 21.1

March 1990 , 2.4 77.6 21.3

March 1991 2.4 78.4 21.4

March 1992 2.8 80.8 21.4

March 1993 2.1 81.5 21.9

25 to 29

April 1940 5.9 38.1 5.9

April 1950 4.6 52.8 7.7

April 1960 2.8 60.7 !1.0

March 1970 , 1.1 75.4 16.4

March 1980 , 0.8 85.4 22.5

March 1989 , 1.0 85.5 23.4

March 1990 , 1.2 85.7 232

March 1991 , 1.0 85.4 23.2

March 1992 0.9 88.1 23.6

March 1993 0.7 882 237

25 and over

April 1940 15.1 22.7 5.5

April 1950 12.2 32.6 7.3

April 1960 9.4 39.5 9.7

March 1970 , 5.9 55.0 14.1

March 1980 3.6 692 20.9

March 1990 2.7 77.7 24.4

March 1991 , 2.7 78.5 243

March 1992 23 81.0 24.3

March 1993 , 2.2 81.8 24.8

25 and over

April 1940 .... 12.4 263 3.8

April 1950 .... 10.0 36.0 5.2

n1 1960 .... 7.4 42.5 5.8

March 1970 4.7 55.4 8.2

March 1980 .. 3.2 68.1 13.6

March 1990 22 77.5 18.4

March 1991.. 2.1 783 18.8

March 1992 .. 2.0 80.6 1.6

March 1993 .. 2.0 813 192 1p

White'

Less than

5 years of

elementary

school

4 years

of high

school

or more

4 or

more

years of collate

Black and other races'

4 years 4 or

of high more

school years of or more. college

9 10

Less than

5 ran of

elementary

school

5 6 7 8

Males and females

10.9

8.9

6.7

42

2.6

2.0

2.0

2.0

1.8

1.7

3.4

3.3

2.2

0.9

0.8

0.9

12

1.0

0.9

17

26.1

36.4

43.2

57.4

70.5

78.4

79.1

79.9

822

82.7

412

56.3

63.7

77.8

86.9

86.0

86.3

85.8

88.5

88

4.9

6.6

8.1

11.6

17.8

21.8

22.0

222

22.1

22.6

6.4

8.2

11.8

17.3

23.7

24.4

24.2

24.6

25.0

24.7

41.8

32.6

23.5

14.7

8.8

5.6

5.4

5.0

4.1

4.1

27.0

16.1

72

2.2

1.0

12

1.1

0.6

0.9

0.5

7.7

13.7

21.7

36.1

54.6

673

68.7

69.6

72.9

74.7

123

23.6

38.6

58.4

77.0

83.1

82.5

83.1

85.7

87.0

1.3

2.2

33

6.1

11.1

16.9

16.5

16.7

172

17.7

1.6

2.8

5.4

10.0

152

182

18.1

16.4

16.9

18.7

Males

12.0

9.8

7.4

4.5

2.7

2.2

2.2

1.9

1.8

242

34.6

41.6

572

71.0

79.1

79.8

82.3

83.0

5.9

7.9

10.3

15.0

22.1

25.3

25.4

25.2

_25.7

462

36.9

27.7

17.9

10.3

5.9

6.0

4.5

4.7

6.9

12.6

20.0

35.4

553

69.1

70.1

73.0

74.9

1.4

2.1

3.5

6.8

11.9

18.3

17.8

18.8

19.0

Females

ersons of-His" panic origin are included, as appropr

9.8

8.1

6.0

23

3.9

1.8

1.8

1.7

1.7

281

38..2

44.7

57.7

70.1

79.0

79.9

82.0

823

4.0

5.4

6.0

.6

148.0

19.0

19.3

19.1

19.7

37 5

28.6

19.7

11.9

7.6

5.0

4.1

3.8

3.5

is in the 'white" or in the "black and other races

8.4

14.7

23.1

36.6

54.1

68.4

69.1

72.9

74.5

te,

1.2

2.4

3.6

5.6

10.4

15.1

15.8

15.9

16.5

category.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, U.S Census of Population, 1964 Vol. 1, part 1; Current Population Reports, Series P-20; Series P-19, No. 4; and unpublished data from the Current Population Survey.

119

-107-
Table 4. -High school graduates compared with population 17 years of age:

1869-70 to 1993-94

[Numbers in thousandsj

School year

Population

17 years

old'

High school traduaes

Sex Control

Graduates as

a percent of

Total Male Female Public' Private' 17-year-olds

_ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1869-70 815 16 7 9 - -- - -- 2.0

1879-80 946 24 11 13 - -- -- - 2.5

1889-90 ... 1,259 44 19 25 22 22 3.5

1899-1900 1,489 95 38 57 62 33 6.4

1909-10 1,786 156 64 93 111 45 8.8

1919-20 1,855 311 124 188 231 80 16.8

1929-30 2,296 667 300 367 592 75 29.0

1939-40 2,403 1,221 579 643 1,143 78 50.8

1949-50 2,034 1,200 571 629 1,063 136 59.0

1959-60 2,672 1,858 895 963 1,627 231 69.5

1969-70 3,757 2,889 1,430 1,459 2,589 300 76.9

1979-80 4,262 3,043 1,491 1,552 2,748 295 71.4

1986-87 .. 3,754 2,694 - - - - - - 2,429 265 71.8

1987-88 3,849 2,773 - - - - - 2,500 273 72.1

1988-89 3,842 2,727 - - - - - - 2,459 268 71.0

1989-90 .. 3,574 2,588 - - - - - - 2,320 268 72.4

1990-91 3,417 2,503 -- - --- 2,235 268 73.2

1991-92 3,381 2,471 - -- -- - 2,212 259 73.1

1992-935 3,430 2,512 - - - --- 2,255 257 73.2

1993-945 3,440 2,513 - - - --- 2,255 258 73.1

'Derived from Current Ponulation Resorts. Series r-25. 17-year-old population aciusted to reflect

October 17 -year -old population.

'includes graduates of public and private schools.

'Data for 1929-30 and eremding years arc from Statistics of Public High Schools and exclude graduates

of high schools which faded to report to the Office of Education.

'For most years, private school data have been estimatedbased on periodic private school surveys. For

years through 1957-58, private includes data for subcollegiate departments of institutions of higher

education and residential schools for exceptional children.

'Public high school graduates based on state estimates.

-- - Data not avaiktble.

NOTE.-Includes graduates of regular day school programs. Excludes graduates of other programs, when

separately reported, and recipients of high school equivalency certificates. Because of rounding, details

may not add to totals.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education

Stall:WM 1994.
Table 5.- Earned degrees conferred by institutions of higher education,

by level of degree and sex of student: 1990-91 to 1994-95

Level of degree Estimated Estimated Estimated

and sex 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94 1994-95

1 2 3 4 5 6

Associate degrees 481,720 504,231 497,000 504,000 518,000 Males 198,634 207,481 207,000 210,000 216,000 Females 283,086 296,750 290,000 294,000 302,000

Bachelor's degrees 1,094,538 1,436,553 1,145,000 1,165,000 1,178,000 Males 504,045 820,811 529,000 537,000 548,000 Females 590,493 615,742 616,000 628,000 630,000

Master's degrees 337,168 352,838 364,000 370,000 377,000 Males 156,482 161,842 170,000 176,000 182,000 Females 180,686 190,996 194,000 194,000 195,000

First-professional degrees 71,948 74,146 73,900 74,700 75,100 Males 43,846 45,071 43,900 44,000 44,100 Females 28,102 29,075 30,000 30,700 31,000

Doctor's degrees 39,294 40,659 41,200 41,300 41,300 Males 24,756 25,557 25,600 25,200 24,800 Females

. . .... ._ for .. _ .. . 14,538 15,102 15,600 16,100 16,500

. . . epar imn c uc.1 , ion .en r or uca a Imes, o uca am Statistics, 1994.

Table 6.-Total expenditures of educational institutions, by level of

instruction and by type of control: 1989-90 to 1993-94

[In billionsi

Level of instruction Estimated Estimated and type of control 1989-90 1990-91 1991-92 1992-93 1993-94

1 2 3 4 5 6 All levels $382.1 $414.7 $439.0 $462.7 $484.0 Public 309.2 335.1 353.8 372.2 388.8 Private 72.9 79.6 85.1 90.5 95.2

Elementary and secondary

expenditures' 230.3 248.9 261.8 275.3 285.4 Public 212.1 229.4 241.6 253.8 263.5 Private2 18.2 19.5 20.2 21.5 21.9

Higher education

expenditures' 151.8 165.8 177.2 187.4 198.6 Public 97.1 105.6 112.3 118.4 125.3 Private ........ .................... 54.7 60.1 64.9 69.0 73.3 'Includes current cxnenditum. can tat outlay. and interest on school debt. 'Estimated.

'Includes current expenditures and additions to plant value.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, NationalCenter for Education Statistics, Digest or Education &sticks, 1994.

'"109'. 121
Table 7. -Total expenditures of educational institutions related to the gross domestic product,

by level of institution: 1959-60 to 1993-94

Year Gross

domestic

product

(in billions)

School

year

Total expenditures for education (amounts in millions)

All educational

institutions

All elementary and

secondary schools

AU colleges and

universities

Amount

Asa

percent

of gross

domestic:

product

Amount

M a

percent

of gross

domestic

product

Amount

M a

percent

of gross

domestic

product

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1959 $494.2 1959-60 $23,860 4.8 $16,713 3.4 $7,147 1.4

1969 959.5 1969-70 68,459 7.1 43,183 4.5 25,276 2.6

1970 1,010.7 1970-71 75,741 7.5 48,200 4.8 27,541 2.7

1971 1,097.2 1971-72 80,672 7.4 50,950 4.6 29,722 2.7

1972 1,207.0 1972-73 86,875 7.2 54,952 4.6 31,923 2.6

1973 1,349.6 1973-74 95,396 7.1 60,370 4.5 35,026 2.6

1974 1,458.6 1974-75 108,664 7.4 68,846 4.7 39,818 2.7

1975 1,585.9 1975-76 118,706 7.5 75,101 4.7 43,605 2.7

1976 1,768.4 1976-77 126,417 7.1 79,194 4.5 47,223 2.7

1977 1,974.1 1977-78 137,042 6.9 86,544 4.4 50,498 2.6

1978 2,232.7 1978-79 148,308 6.6 93,012 4.2 55,296 2.5

1979 2,488.6 1979-80 165,627 6.7 103,162 4.1 62,465 2.5

1980 2,708.0 1980-81 182,849 6.8 112,325 4.1 70,524 2.6

1981 3,030.6 1981-82 197,801 6.5 120,486 4.0 77,315 2.6

1982 3,149.6 1982-83 212,081 6.7 128,725 4.1 83,356 2.6

1983 3,405.0 1983-84 228,597 6.7 :39,000 4.1 89,597 2.6

1984 3,777.2 1984-85 247,657 6.6 149,400 4.0 98,257 2.6

1985 4,038.7 1985-86 269,485 6.7 161,800 4.0 107,685 2.7

1986 4,268.6 1986-87 291,974 6.8 175,200 4.1 116,774 2.7

1987 4,539.9 1987-88 313,375 6.9 187,999 4.1 125,376 2.8

1988 4,900.4 1988-89 346,883 7.1 209,377 4.3 137,506 2.8

1989 5,250.8 1989-90 382,062 7.3 230,300 4.4 151,762 2.9

1990 5,546.1 1990-91 414,690 7.5 248,930 4.5 165,760 3.0

1991 5,722.9 1991-92 438,971 7.7 261,767 4.6 177,204 3.1

1992 6,038.5 1992-93' 462,700 7.7 275,300 4.6 187,400 3.1

1993 6,377.9 1993-94' 484,000 7.6 285,400 4.5 198,600 3.1

timate

NOTE.-Total expenditures for public elementary and secondary schools include current expenditures, interest on

school debt, and capital outlay. Data for private elementary and secondary schools are estimated. Total expenditures

for colleges and universities include current-fund expenditures and additions to plant value. Excludes expenditures

of noncolleginte postsecondary institutions. Because of rounding, details may not add to totals.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education StatistiCs, Digest of Education Statistics,

1994; and Council of Economic Advisers, Economic Indicatots.

-114-2 2
APPENDIX

123
2000 GOALS

"A World-Class Education for Every Child"

124
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act

When President Clinton placed his signature on the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act on March 31, 1994, he did more than just sign into law

this innovative and comprehensive program to improve education. It became

the day that America got serious about education.

His action commenced the current phase of an about-face in education

that began eleven years ago after the discouraging report "A Nation At Risk"

was issued, which described a "rising tide of mediocrity" in American

education.

Three times in the last six years, Congress has attempted to pass

education reform legislation and each time it has been unable to resolve its

differences. The strong bipartisan support for Goals 2000 demonstrates that

we are ready to move from "a nation at risk" to a nation on the move.

The enactment of Goals 2000 is the beginning of a new era in school

and education reform -- a revolutionary, all-inclusive plan to change every

aspect of our education system, while at the same time aligning its individual

parts with one another.

It offers an opportunity for those concerned with the state of American

education to become involved in the implementation of real change and

improvement of our nation's education system, working at the local

community and state levels.

And it will create and improve learning opportunities for everyone from

pre-school to those who return to school.

By generating enthusiasm in schools and states throughout this nation,

it will create thousands of community-based reform efforts, each working for

the betterment of our educational system, and each allowing every school and

every student to be the best they can be -- to learn to world-class standards.

Goals 2000 will move the nation toward a system that is based on high

standards that all students can meet -- a system that will provide both equity

and excellence for all of the students in this country.

125
When we fail to hold all students to high standards, the results are low

achievement and the tragic experience of children leaving school without ever having been challenged to fulfill their potential.

High standards lets everyone in the education system know what to aim for. It allows every student, every parent, and every teacher to share in

common expectations of what students should know and be able to

accomplish. Students will learn more when more is expected of them, in

school and at home. And, aligning teacher education, insttuctional materials,

assessment practices, and parental Involvement, will create coherence in

educational practice.

The American people have said they are ready to move from the old

assembly line version of education to a better way of educating their children. They want their children to be part of the new, emerging high-tech, high- knowledge economy of the 21st century.

By transforming the national education goals into a policy for which

committed people across our nation can work, President Clinton has helped to ensure that the future of this nation will remain strong and secure and that its

citizens will be able to compete and prosper in this new global economic era

that is already upon us.

Since early in our history, the public education system of this nation

has been a magnet and a model for people throughout the world who yearn to make something better of their lives. It is a beacon of light across the globe, a symbol of our democratic and egalitarian traditions.

Unfortunately, in recent years, this standard has slipped; the beacon has dimmed. That is why the Goals 2000 law is so important, as well as the

subsequent enactment of additional education reform legislation like the School-to-Work Opportunities Act, and the revolutionary reauthorization of

the Elementary and Secondary Act, both of which are designed to dovetail with Goals 2000. Each of these important changes in the law will offer

federal assistance in implementing local education reform...help that is designed to assist, but not interfere with the traditional local character of

education.

It has been nearly thirty years since this nation has seen the kind of

reform in education that Goals 2000 offers. It is up to us to ensure that we

maximize the opportunities this law offers us and work to guarantee a

challenging education for every student. For the future of our children and

our nation, it is the least we can do.

2

126

_l G. 1994
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act

A Strategy for Reinventing Our Schools

A

merican education is in crisis. Our schools are not meeting the needs of

students or the demands of our economy for a more skilled, more

adaptable work force. And many vocational education and job training

programs don't equip beginning or experienced workers with the skills needed

for success in the workplace. Without comprehensive education reform across

America, our nation's economic strength is in jeopardy.

Recognizing this peril, a large majority of the American people have called for

a dramatic overhaul of our nation's public school system. President Clinton's

program for changethe Goals 2000: Educate America Actwill help to

reform our schools dramatically by establishing high academic and

occupational standards and providing support to states and communities to

help students reach those standards.

A PLAN THAT WILL WORK

T

he Goals 2000: Educate America Act is not an experiment; it incorporates

the lessons of education reform from communities and states in the

1980s.

First, raising standards and making course content more challenging

really works. When more is expected of students, they work harder and

achieve more. When employees know what skills they need to succeed

on the job, they will work to achieve them.

Second, we must change our expectations of teachers. They cannot

teach to new standards using the same old ways. We must overhaul

teacher training and make continuing professional development an

integral part of their job.

Third, accountability is essential. Schools must be given the tools and

the flexibility they need to get the job done and then be held

accountable for the results they achieve. There must be real rewards

for high performance and significant consequences for failure.

Fourth, schools can't do the job alone. Parents, businesses, families,

community organizations, and public and private agencies that provide

127
health care, counseling, family support and other social services must

be part of community-wide efforts to support students.

Fifth, in an economy in which what you earn depends on what you

learn, learning must never end. Schools, colleges and employers must work together with local, state and federal governments to make

lifelong learning a reality for all employees.

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act incorporates and builds on these

lessons of the last decade and creates a historic new partnership in which

parents, schools, teachers, business and labor leaders, the states, and the

federal government all work together to educate all students.

HIGHLIGHTS OF THE LEGISLATION

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act will:

Set in law the original six National Education Goals concerning

school readiness, school completion, student academic achievement,

leadership in math and science, adult literacy, and safe and drug-free

schools and add two new goals related to parental participation and

professional development;

Develop and adoptfor the first timechallenging national

performance standards that define what all students should know and

be able to do in core subject areas such as science, math, history,

English, geography, foreign languages and the arts, and support local

reform efforts to make those standards a reality in every classroom;

Strengthen and improve teacher training, textbooks, instructional

materials, technologies and overall school services so that students will

have the tools to achieve higher standards;

Encourage the development of innovative student performance

assessments to gauge progress;

Establish a National Skills Standards Board to promote the development

of occupational skill standards that will define what workers will need

to know and to ensure that American workers are better trained and

internationally competitive; and

Increase flexibility for states, school districts and schools by waiving

rules and regulations that might impede local reform and improvement.

2

128
THE NEW NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE

The bill encourages a bottom-up approach to reform. States and local

communities will develop their own improvement plans, tailored to their

special needs. Business and labor will work together to define the knowledge

and skills needed to create secure economic futures for employees and

employers alike. The federal government will use its resources to assist local

reform efforts and help them implement their improvement plans and will

support the development of model standards against which states,

communities, schools and individuals can measure their progress.

The Federal Role

Setting High Standards

A National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC), comprised

of teachers, parents, business groups, civic leaders and others, will be created

to:

Review the efforts by national organizations of subject-matter experts

to develop voluntary national content and performance standards in

each subject area, such as math, science, history, and geography.

These will be clear statements of what students should know and be

able to do as they progress through school. The standards will be far

more rigorous than what is currently expected of students and will be

as challenging as those in other countries.

Lead the effort to develop better measures of student progress and

performance, measures that really reflect what we expect them to

learn. New and promising assessment programs are being developed

through the country; NESIC will keep track of changes and encourage

those that advance the state of the art.

The State Role

Implementing Comprehensive Strategies for Real Improvement

Each state choosing to participate will be asked to develop and implement a

comprehensive improvement plan that raises standards and helps all students

achieve them. Many states have already begun this work, though few have

undertaken anything as ambitious as called for in this legislation. Every state

will be challenged to participate and to build on local reforms already under

way.

States will be asked to form a broad-based and representative

leadership team, comprised of policy makers, educators, business and

3

1 1
civic leaders, parents and others at the grassroots level. Real and

lasting change requires new partnerships working together.

Many states will want to use the national standards as a benchmark for

their own efforts. On a voluntary basis, states may submit to NESIC

their content and performance standards for certification that they are

as rigorous and challenging as national standards.

in no state can all students meet challenging new standards as the

schools currently operate. A fundamental overhaul is required. States

will develop comprehensive reform plans and implementation strategies

that will affect every aspect of the state's education

systemcurriculum, technology, teacher training and licensure,

parental and community involvement, school management and

accountabilityand every local school district and school.

The Local Role

Putting Reform into Action

To make a difference, reform has to occur in every school. Local school

districts and individual schools also will develop and implement

comprehensive improvement plans, reflecting unique local needs and

circumstances, in conjunction with the state's efforts.

For the first year, $105 million in federal funds is available to implement Goals

2000 with additional funds requested in subsequent years. By the second

year of funding, states will be required to use at least 90 percent of their

funds to support the development and implementation of reform plans in local

school districts.

CREATING A WORLD-CLASS WORK FORCE

American students, workers, employers and educators must know what

knowledge and skills are required in the workplace. The bill encourages the

development and voluntary adoption of national skill standards and

certification. This effort is a critical step in establishing a lifelong learning

system for all Americans, including high school students not planning to

attend a four-year college, unemployed and dislocated workers, and employed

workers who want to upgrade their skills. The standards will allow us to build

an education and training system that ties schools, colleges and other

postsecondary institutions, other job training providers, and employers

together in an effort to create a high-skills, high-wage work force.

130

4

NMI S. 1004
OVERVIEW

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

Fact Sheet

Goals 2000 provides resources to states and communities to develop

and implement comprehensive education reforms aimed at helping all

students reach challenging academic and occupational standards.

LEGISLATIVE UPDATE

On March 23, 1994, the House of Representatives approved the final

Goals 2000 bill with a bipartisan vote of 306-121. On March 26, the

Senate approved Goals 2000 with a 63-22 bipartisan vote.

President Clinton signed the bill on March 31, 1994.

TIMETABLE AND FUNDING

Congress has appropriated $105 million for Goals 2000 for fiscal year

1994. First-year funds will be available to the states on July 1, 1994.

The president has requested $700 million in his 1995 budget proposal

to be administered by the Department of Education and $12 million for

the Department of Labor to support the National Skill Standards Board.

GOALS 2000: COORDINATION WITH OTHER EDUCATION PROGRAMS

Goals 2000 is the first step toward making the federal government a

supportive partner in state and local systemic reforms aimed at helping

all children reach higher standards.

Other new and existing education and training programs will fit within

the Goals 2000 framework of challenging academic and occupational

standards, systemic reform, and flexibility at the state and local levels.

The aim Is to promote greater coherence among federal programs, as

well as between federal programs and state and local education

reforms.

131
For example, the pending School-to-Work Opportunities Act will

support state and local efforts to build a school-to-work transition

system that will help youth acquire the knowledge, skills, abilities and

labor market information they need to make a smooth transition from

school to career-oriented work and to further education and training.

Similarly, the administration's proposed reauthorization of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) allows states

that have developed standards and assessments under Goals 2000 to

use them for ESEA, thereby providing a single set of standards and

assessments for states to use for both their reform needs and to meet

federal requirements.

State participation in all aspects of Goals 2000 is voluntary and is not a

precondition for participation in other federal programs.

BASIC COMPONENTS OF THE `GOALS 2000: EDUCATE AMERICA ACT`

TITLE I: NATIONAL EDUCATION GOALS

Codifies the original six National Education Goals concerning school readiness, school completion, student academic achievement,

leadership in math and science, adult literacy, and safe and drug-free

schools and adds two new goals related to parental participation and

professional development.

TITLE II: NATIONAL EDUCATION REFORM LEADERSHIP, STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENTS

Establishes i, iaw the National Education Goals Panel which will build

public support for the goals, report on the nation's progress toward meeting the goals, and review the voluntary national content, student

performance, and voluntary opportunity-to-learn standards, and the

criteria for certification of these standards.

Creates a National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) to examine and certify voluntary national and state content,

student performance and opportunity-to-learn standards, and

assessment systems submitted by states on a voluntary basis.

Provides grants to support the development of voluntary model

opportunity-to-learn standards as well as assessment systems aligned

to state content standards.

2

132
TITLE STATE AND LOCAL EDUCATION SYSTEMIC IMPROVEMENT

Title Ill is a state grant program to support, accelerate and sustain state

and local education improvement efforts aimed at helping all students

reach challenging academic standards. The funds will go for state

development of:

strategies for providing all students an opportunity to learn at higher

academic levels;

strategies for the development or adoption of content standards,

student performance standards, student assessments, and plans for

teacher training;

management and governance strategies that promote accountability for

results, flexibility, site-based management, and other principles of highperformance management;

strategies to involve parents and the community in helping all students

meet the challenging state standards and for promoting grassroots,

bottom-up involvement in reform; and

strategies for bringing education reform to scale and ensuring that all

local educational agencies and schools in the state are involved in

developing and implementing needed improvements.

Funds will also be available to states to support the development of a

technology plan, which will be coordinated with the overall reform plan.

TITLE IV: PARENTAL ASSISTANCE

This title establishes a new discretionary grants program to create

parent information and resource centers, to help provide parents with

knowledge and skills needed to participate effectively in their child's

education.

TITLE V: NATIONAL SKILL STANDARDS BOARD

This title creates a National Skill Standards Board to serve as a catalyst

in stimulating the development and adoption of a voluntary national

system of occupational skill standards and certification that will serve

as a cornerstone of the national strategy to enhance workforce skills.

Awls, 1Na

3

133
IMPROVING AMERICA'S SCHOOLS ACT OF 1993

ESEA REAUTHORIZATION SUMMARY SHEET

The reauthorization of federal elementary and secondary education programs provides a

critical opportunity to support federal, state, and local efforts in achieving the National

Education Goals. The Improving America's Schools Act of 1993 will operate within a

framework of systemic reform created by GOALS 2000. These broad reforms will require

reinventing federal programs based on principles of effective and equitable education for all

students, particularly those in greatest need. These principles emphasize:

promoting challenging state content and performance standards, and the opportunity

for all children to learn to those standards;

improving teaching and learning, through intensive, sustained and high-quality

professional development and other means;

increasing flexibility to stimulate local initiative and bottom-up reform, coupled with

responsibility at all levels of governance to improve student performance;

linking schools and communities to engage parents in the education of their children

in school and at home, to integrate services provided to children, and to promote

comprehensive approaches to creating safe and drug-free learning environments; and

targeting scarce resources where the needs are greatest.

The Act advances these principles by creating a strong, productive partnership among the

federal, state, and local governments, and by building on our knowledge about what works.

Key provisions follow:

Title I Helping Chikben in Need Meet High Standards

makiaziaisasayAgbgg&Wark (Part A of Title I, formerly Chapter 1):

Sumats local education agencies (LEAs) in providing high-quality opportunities for

stuftts in high-poverty schools to 'meet challenging state performance standards.

New provisions will extend learning time in accelerated rather than remedial classes,

expend the number of school-wide programs that serve all children in high-poverty

schools, help to achieve effective transitions from preschool to school and school to

work, establish accountability based on results, greatly reduce testing, increase

effective parental participation, support screening for health problems and

coordination with social services, and target funds where needs are greatest.

Exsamaahmuslatragamsami: Strengthens the targeting of services to

families most in need and extends eligibility for this intergenerational literacy

program to teen parents, who are among the most needy.

134
Education of Migratory Children. Helps provide migratory children the same opportunities as other children to meet challenging state performance standards. A more focused program will target efforts on the most mobile children, whose

schooling is most likely to be disrupted.

EcsatiaLsglicalccush: Extends educational services and learning time in state institutions and co mmunity day programs for neglected or delinquent children and youth comparable to offerings of LEAs. New provisions will also encourage smooth transitions to enable participants to continue schooling or to

enter the job market upon leaving the institution.

Title 11 Improving Teaching and Learning

: Focusei on upgrading the expertise of teachers and other school to enable them to teach all children in the core

academic subjects set out in challenging state content standards. This act will build

on the existing Eisenhower program and support sustained and intensive high-quality

professional development focused on achieving high performance standards.

Support and Assistance for ESEA Program: Builds a coordinated, accessible network of technical assistance to link schools, districts, and states to the Department of Education for information and assistance about federal programs and school reform.

Title III Expanding Opportunities for Learning

Putting Techoology to Work for All Ste: Creates a broad, new authority and

extends the Star Schools program to support innovative uses of technology to assist

teachers and schools in providing all students the opportunity to achieve challenging

state performance standards.

fund for Improyggpoitlabgagio: Provides national leadership an", support for

reform efforts, including development of curriculum and assessment frameworks and

other activities to help all students reach high standards, education in foreign

languages, health education, and recognition programs such as the Blue Ribbon Schools.

: Refocuses program to phase in

school"119ingtandlaignigUldUraMILIMUnwide strategies that develop the u of all students, partilularly students

from low-income areas. Gaff instruction can help all students learn to high state performance standards while also challenging gifted and talented students.

chargeLsgbegla: Creates a new authority for providing seed money to develop

public charter schools to demonstrate how increasing flexibility within public school systems can produce better results for children.

Ana in Educatiog: Creates a new general authority to support the inclusion of the arts in Goal Three of the National Education Goals.

Inexpensive Book Distribution Prquam: Gives priority to new projects that serve

children with special needs, and encourages capacity-building by limiting the grant period.
Title IV Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

Expands authority to encompass all of Goal Six to create learning environments that

are free of violence and drugs. The legislation calls for comprehensive school and

community-wide approaches to making schools and neighborhoods safe and drugfree:

Title V Promoting Equity

Magnet Schools: Promotes desegregation through creating magnet school programs

that are a part of an approved desegregation plan and that are designed to bring

students from different social, economic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds together.

Equalization Assistance: Creates a new authority to provide technical assistance to

states and local communities working toward more equitable allocation of resources

to meet the needs of all students.

Women's Educational Equity: Supports strategies that enhance equal educational

access and opportunities for women and girls and encourage their participation in

math, science, and other fields in which females have historically been underrepresented.

Title VI Indian Education

Provides Indian children with equal opportunities to learn to challenging state

performance standards. Supports professional development and adult education

programs. New provisions will strengthen the role and responsibility of states in

providing quality education for Indian students.

Title VII Bilingual Education, Including Immigrant Education

Assists in ensuring that limited English proficient children have the same

opportunities as all other children to achieve challenging state standards. The

program structure and activities are simplified and strengthened to build local

capacity for providing high-quality bilingual programs that build upon the native

language that limited English proficient students bring to the schools. In addition,

the program includes new provisions to support LEAs that have had recent significant

increases in immigrant student populations, emphasizing transition services and

coordinating the education of immigrants with regular educational services.

3136
Title VIII Impact Aid

Restructures and simplifies the impact aid formula to base funding on actual burden

imposed by the loss of local revenues.

Title IX General Provisions

Provides a general waiver authority for federal education programs to allow

flexibility in return for clear accountability for improving student performance. New

provisions will focus on reducipaperwork and compliance monitoring and

replacing them with applications and quality reviews.

Amendments to the General Education Provisions Act

Simplifies the statute to reduce confusion for grantee, staff, and the public

alike; provides greater flexibility in federal and grantee administration; and

addresses issues of micro-management. Amendments to the General

Education Provisions Act will also reaffirm equity in opportunity for all students and teachers in federal programs.

Amendments to Other Acts

Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA': Replaces the

authority for the Chapter 1 Handicapped program with new provisions in IDEA, in

order to serve all children with disabilities.

: Addresses

major barriers that homeless children facenotably, the cost or difficulty of

transportation from their temporary residence to school. Moreover, in light of the

large numbers of homeless cUdren who are preschool age, the proposal encourages

the extension of program services to preschool children by clarifying that activities

for these children can be funded.

11 -11 II -11 k) 1 I 11,

413 1

iv
SCHOOLTOWORK

OPPORTUNITIES

won

THE SCHOOL-TO-WORK

OPPORTUNITIES EXPERIENCE

Objectives

The School-to-Work Opportunities Act

established the following objectives for the

new initiative:

O Create school-to-work opportunities

systems in each state for all secondary school age youth, with a particular

focus on youth in the general and

vocational track in high school and

youth who have dropped out of school.

O Reorganize learning for secondary

school-age youth so that, in coordination with GOALS 2000, all youth who

participate in school-to-work opportunities systems achieve high academic and

occupational standards, are prepared for

further post-secondary education and

training, and are prepared for first jobs

in high-skill, high-wage careers.

0 Build partnerships locally, statewide,

and federally among schools, employers, labor, community organizations,

and parents to develop and sustain

school-to-work opportunities as part of

a lifelong learning system for the

United States.

What School-to-Work Will Look

Like

The legislation sets out the following parameters of a school-to-work opportunities

experience. Young people should have a

learning experience that:

O Involves a planned program of training

and structured work experiences

coordinated with school-based learning

that provides work-based mentoring and

instruction in general workplace competencies.'

O Integrates wcrk-based and schoolbased learning.'

O Provides for selection of a career major

and a program of study designed to meet

academic standards established by the

state for all students.*

O Prepares students for post-secondary

education and the acquisition of a skills

certificate.

O Builds effective secondarypostsecondary linkages.'

O Exposes students to an array of career

opportunities and all aspects of an

industry.

138

(continued on p. 2)

1
O Integrates academic and vocational

karning.

0 Helps completing students find jobs and

continue their education and training.

The asterisk indicates that this element is

required in order for a program to be considered a school-to-work system as described in

the Act. Existingprogrwns do not have to

possess all the features listed above to be

considered and counted as school-to-work

systems, but they must have all those that are

asterisked.

139
Oiw

SCHOSLTOWORK

OPPORTUNITIES

GOALS 2000 AND SCHOOL-TO-WORK

OPPORTUNITIES

GOALS 2000: the Educate America Act

was signed into law by the President on

March 31, 1994. That new law provides

resources to states and communities to

ensure that all students reach their full

potential. It is based on a simple idea: when

more is expected of students. they work

harder and reach higher levels of achievement.

Bridges Between GOALS 2000

and School-to-Work

Opportunities

0 High Academic Standards.

GOALS 2000 establishes a framework

to identify world-class academic stan-

..3. -61 dards. to measure students' progress,

and to offer the support students may

need to meet them. The School-to-Work

opportunities Act states that students in

school-to-work systems would be

that meets state academic content

expected to follow a program of study

ts

standards and, where applicable, the

= high academic standards set in GOALS

tr--i 2000.

GOALS 2000 establishes a National

Education Standards and Improvement

Council to examine and certify voluntary national and state content, student

performance. and opportunity -to -learn

standards. and assessment systems

140

submitted by states on a voluntary basis.

It also authorizes grams to support the

development of voluntary model opportunity-to-learn standards.

The movement to develop voluntary

national standards has already begun. The

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics has prepared mathematics standards, and the U.S. Department of Education is funding creation of standards in the

arts, civics and government, English

language arts, foreign languages, geography, history and science. These standards

will clearly identify what all students

should know and be able to do to live and

work in the 21st century. The standards

will be designed to be internationally

competitive.

0 Occupational Standards.

GOALS 2000 also creates a National Skill

Standards Board to facilitate development

of rigorous occupational standsrds. That

Board will identify broad occupational

clusters and create a system of standards,

assessment and certification for the skills

needed in each area. This system of

occupational skill standards and certification will serve as a cornerstone of the

national strategy to enhance workforce

skills. The Board will have significant

representation from business, industry and

labor.

(continued on p. 2)
Because of GOALS 2000, work-based and

school-based training will culminate in

sward of a skills certificate and a high school

diploma dimmest something. The slcilb

certificate will give students an industrymortised and portable credential that

indicates mastery of skills in specificoccupations. A graduate from Alabama, for example, would be unwed that her "biotechnology manufacturing certificate" will be

honored and respected in Alaska. Since

employers would offer the best jobs to those

who met the standards and had attained a

skill, students would have more incentive to

perform well in school.

0 Systemic Reform.

GOALS 2000 is the first step toward making the federal government a supportive

partner in state and local systemic reforms

aimed at helping all children and yams

people reach high stindards. Like school-tom& opporumities, GOALS 2000 will

change the way teachers teach and students

learn. Both involve rectructuring, rescheduling, and rethinking traditional ways of

doing business. Each will be more effective

if the two are implemented in coordinated

fashion.

Coordination

The School-to-Work Opportunities Act asks

states to coordinate their school-to-work plans

with the overall education reforms they are

planning with GOALS 2000 funding. The aim

is to promote greater coherence among federal

programs and between federal programs and

state and local education reforms.

141
U.S. Department of Education

Washington, DC 202024721

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use, MO

U.S. Department of Education

142