ED 226 006

AUTHOR

TITLE

'OSTITUTION

SPONS AGENCY

PUB DATE

NOTE

AVAILABLE FROM

PUB TYPE

DOCUMENT RESUME

SP 022 191

Gardner, David P.; And Others

A Nation At Risk: The Imperative For Educational

Reform. An Open Letter to the American People. A

Report to the Nation and the Secretary of

Education.

National Commission on Excellence in Education (ED),

Washington, DC.

Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Apr 83

7.1400. Superintendent of Documents, Government Printing

Office, Washington, DC 20402 (Stock No.

065-000-00177-2, $4.50).

Viewpoints (120) -- Information Analyses (070)

Reports - Evaluative/Feasibility (142)

EDRS PRICE MF01/PC03 Plus Postage.

DESCRIPTORS *Academic Achievement; Academic Standards; Back to

Basics; Comparative Education; Competency Based

Education; *Core Curriculum; *Educational Assessment;

Educational Improvement; Educational Needs;

*Educational Quality; Elementary Secondary Education;

Federal Government; Futures (of Society); Government

School Relationship; Higher Education; High School

Graduates; Low Achievement; National Programs;

*Outcomes of Education; Public Education; Relevance

(Education); *School Effectiveness; Teacher

0 Education; Technological Literacy; Time Factors

(Learning); Underachievement

IDENTIFIERS *National Commission on Excellence in Education

ABSTRACT

This report: (1) investigates the declining state of

the educational system in America, as measured by high school student

performance in the United States and other countries; (2) identifies

specific problem areas; and (3) offers multiple recommendations for

improvement. The five major recommendations arrived at appear,

respectively, under the headings: content, standards and

expectations, time, teaching, leadership and fiscal support.

Recommendations pertaining to content include the strengthening of

high school graduation requirements by establishing minimum

requirements for each student of: (a) 4 years of English; (b) 3 years

o mathematics; (c) 3 years of science; (d) 3 years of social

studies; and (e) one-half year of computer science. With regard to

standards and expectations, schools, colleges, and vniversities are

encouraged to adopt more rigorous and measurable standards and higher

expectations for academic performance and student conduct. Four-year

colleges and universities, in particular, are advised to raise their

admission requirements. In order to improve time usage, the report

advises that more time should be devoted to students learning the

"New Basics," which may, in turn, require a longer school day, or a

lengthened school year. Seven ways to improve teacher preparation and

to make teaching a more rewarding and respected profession are

listed. Six implementation guidelines are suggested for improving

educational leadership and fiscal support. Appendices contain: (a) charter of the

National Commission on Excellence in Education; (b) schedule of the Commission's public

events: (c) list of commissioned papers; (d) list of individuals who testified at

Commission hearings; (e) list of other presentations to the Commission; and (f) notable

programs. (JM)
1

1

I
1r

%

,TAW

OrContents

Letter of Transmittal iii

Members of the National Commission on Excellence in

Education iv

Introduction

A Nation At Risk

Appendices

1

5

37

Appendix A. Charter 39

Appendix B. Schedule of the Commission's Public

Events 42

Appendix C. Commissioned Papers 44

Appendix D. Hearing Testimony 49

Appendix E. Other Presentations to the

Commission

Apper,dix F. Notable Programs

Api)endix G. Acknowledgments

Ordering Information

61

62

64

65

11
littler of

Thutsmittal
Honorable T H. Bell

Secfretary of Education

U.S. Department of Education

Washington, D.C. 20202

Dear Mn Secretary:

April 26, 1983-

On August 26, 1981, you created the National Commission on Exyice in Education

and directed it to present a report on the quality of education iyAmerica to you and to the

American people by April of 1983.

It has been my privilege to chair this endeavor and on ehalf of the members of the

Commission it is my pleasure to transmit this report;A Nation at Risk: The Imperative

for Educational Reform.

Our purpose has been to help define the prOblems afflicting American education and to

provide solutions, not search for scapegoats. We addressed the main issues as we saw

them, but have not attempted to treat the subordinate niatters in any detail. We were

forthright in our discussions and have been candid in our report regarding both the

strengths and weaknesses of American education.

The Commission deeply believes that the problems we have discerned in American

education can be both understood and corrected if the people of our country, together

with those who have public responsibility in the matter, care enough andtre courageous

enough to do what is required. "t

Each member of the Commission appreciates your leadership in having asked this diverse

group of persons to examine one of the central issues wh.ch will define our Nation's

future. We especially welcomed your confidence throughout the course of our

deliberations and your anticipation of a report free of political partisanship.

It is our collective and earnest hope that you will continue to provide leadership in this

effort by assuring wide dissemination atld full discussion of this report, and by encouraging

appropriate action throughout the country. We believe that materials compiled by the

Commission in the course ofits work constitute a major resource for all persons

interested in American education.

The other Commissioners and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to have served our

country as members of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, and on their

behalf I remain,

Respectfully, "

a

David Pierp nt Gardner

Chairman
Members of

the Nadonal

Commission on

Excellence

in Education

,

ill

David P. Gardner (Chair)

President

University of Utah and

President-Elect, University of

California

Salt Lake City, Utah

Yvonne W. Larsen (Vice=Chair)

Immediate Past-President

San Diego City School Board

San Diego, California

William 0. Baker

Chairman of the Board (Retired)

Bell Telephone Laboratories

Mut-ray Hill, New Jersey

Anne Campbell

Former Conunissioneraftducation

State of Nebraska

Lincoln, Nebraska
Emeral A. Crosby

Principal

Northern High School

Detroit, Michigan

Charles A. Foster, Jr.

Immediate Past-President

Foundation for Teaching Economics

San Francisco, California

Norman C. Francis

President

Xavier University of Louisiana

New Orleans, Louisiana

A. Bartlett Giamatti

President

Yale University

New Haven, Connecticut

Shirley Gordon

President

High line Community College

Midway, Washington

Robert V. Haderlein

Immediate Past-President

National School Boards Association

Girard, Kansas

Gerald Holton

Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and

Professor of the History ofScience

Harvard University

ambridge;Massachusetts

Annette Y. Kirk

Kirk Associates

Mecosta, Michigan

Margaret S. Marston

Member

Virginia State Board of Education

Arlington, Virginia

Albert H. Quie

Former Governor

State of Minnesota

St. Paul, Minnesota

Francisco D. Sanchez, Jr

Superintendent of Schools

Albuquerque Public Schools

Albuquerque, New Mexico

Glenn T. Seaborg

University Professor of Chemistry

and Nobel Laureate

University of California

Berkeley, California

Jay Sommer

National Teacher of the Year, 1981-82

Foreign Language Department

New Rochelle High School

New Rochelle, New York

Richard Wallace

Principal

Lutheran High School East

Cleveland Heights, Ohio

0 V
Introduction

Secretary of Education T. H. Bell created the National Commission on Excellence in Education on August 26, 1981, directing it to examine the quality of education in the United

States and to make a report to the Nation and to him within 18

months of its first meeting. In accordance with the Secretary's instructions, this report contains practical recommendations for educational iMprovement and fulfills the Commission's responsibilities under the terms of its charter.

The Commission was created as a result of the Secretary's concern about "the widespread public perception that

something is seriously remiss in our educational system." Soliciting the "support of all who care about our future," the Secretary noted that he Arms establishing the Commission based

on his "responsibility to provide leadership, constructive criticism, and effective assistance to schools and universities."

The Commission's charter contained several specific

charges to which we have given particular attention. These included:

ffi assessing the quality of teaching and learning in our Nation's public and private schools, Colleges, and universities;

El comparing American schools and colleges with those of

other advanced nations;
2 N

0 studying the relationship between college admissions requirements and student achievement in high school;

O identifying educational programs which result in notable

student success in college;

ID assessing the degree to which major social and educational

changes in the last quarter century have affected student

achievement; and'

O defining problems which must be faced and overcome if we

are successfully to pursue the course of e),ccellence in edu-.

cation.

The Commission's charter directed it to pay particular

attentipn to teenage youth, and we have done so largely by focusing on high schools. Selective attention was given to the

formative years spent in element* schools, to higher education, and to vocational and technical programs. We refer those

interested in the need for similar reformin higher education to

the recent report of the American Council on Education, To°

Strengthen the Quality of Higher Education.

In going about its work the Commission has relied in

the main upon five sources of information:

o papers commissioned from experts on a variety of educational issues;

o administrators, Wild-let's, students, representatives

of professional and public groups, parents, business

leaders, public officials, 4nd scholars who testified at

eight meetings of the ft.1.1 Cominission, six public hearN ings, two panel discussions, a symposium, and a

Nseries of meetings organized by the Department of

Education's Regional Offices;

o existingyses of problems in education;

o letters from Concerned citizens, Jeachers, and administrators who 61unteered extensive comments on

problems and possibkiesin American education; and \

1 i t \
-41.111111011111111110 .

0 descriptions o4otable programs ,and promising ap-,

proaches in education.

"lb these public-minded citizens who took the trouble

to share their concerns with usfr equently at their own expense in time, money, and effortwe extend our thanks. In

all cases, we have benefited from their advice and taken-their

views into account; how we have treated their suggestions is,

of course, our responsibility alone. In addition, we are grateful

to the individuals in schools, universities, foundations, business, government, and communities throughout the United

States who provided the facilities and staff so necessary to the

success of our many public functions.

The Commission was impressed during the course of

its activities by the diversity bf opinion it received regarding

the condition of American education and by conflicting views

abput what should be done. In many ways, the membership.of

the Commission itselfreflected that diversity and diffvence of

opinion during the course of its work. This report, nevertheless, gives evidence that men and women of good will CPA

agree on common goals and on ways to pursue them.

The Commission's charter, the authors and topics of

commissioned papers, a list of the public ev,ents, and a roster

of the Commission's staff are included in the appendices which

complete this volume.

,..

,)

. 3
-

a. 4 4

.AII, regardess..OfiOCe01Cba ss

or ec000mia st,q1us,:.are eft

titled -0 g fçiir chdnoe .and. to

tholools for ci,orelopinq -heir

individudi' ',powers; of mrhd

and, spirit.: to ,I:he urmost:

promisa medns at, d11 children by Viaye orlheir owh effotscomPetefltY Ouidectcdn hope to Ottain.,the matur and infor'pecifucdmerit

needed to sedure gainfwl

employrient. dnd toll manage :their own livOs, ther6oy

serving not phly Their QW11 interests bur alsp the- pr. ress of

'socie-y itself.
A

Nation

At.Risk

Our Nation is at risk. Our once 4nchallenged preeminence in

commerce, industry, science:and technological innovation is

being overtaken by competitors throughout the world. This

report is concerned with only one of the many causes and

dimensions of the problem, but it is the one thatundergirds

Anlerican prosperity, security, and civility. We report to the

Americiti people that while we can take justifiable pride in

what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished

and contributed to the United States and the well-being of its

people, the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future -as a Nation and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to occurOthers are

matching and surpassing our educational attainments.

If an unfriendly Ibreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that

eNists today, we might well have viewed it as ah act of war. As

it stands, we have allowed this to happen to ourselves. We

have even squandered the gains in Student achievement made

in the wake of the,Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we have dismantled essential support systems which. helped make those

gainS possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of

unthinking. unilateral educational disarmament.

Our society and its educational institutions seem to

have lost sight of the basic purposes of schooling, and of the
6

high expectations and disCiplined effort needed to attain them.

This report, the result of 18 months of study, seeks to generate reform of OUT educational system in fundamental ways and

to renew the Nation's commitment to schools and colleges of

high quality throughout the len,;..a and breadth of our land.

That we have compromised this commitment is, upon

reflection, hardly surprising, given the multitude of often conflicting demands we have placed on our Nation's schools and

colleges. They are routinely called on to provide solutions to

personal, social, and political problems that the home and

other institutions either will not or cannot resolve. We must

understand that these demands on our schools and colleges

often exact an educational cost as well as a financial one.

On the occasion of the Commission's first meeting"

President Reagan noted the central importance of education in

American life when he said: "Certainly there are few areas of

American life as important to oursociety, to our people, and to

our families as our schools and colleges." This report, therefore, is as much an open letter to the American people as it is a

report to the Secretary of Education. We are confident that

the American people, properly informed, will dowhat is right

for their children and for the generations to come.

The Risk

History is not kind to idlers. The time is long pastwhen America's destiny was assured simply by an abundance of natural

resources and inexhaustible human enthusiasm, and by our

relative isolation from the malignant problems of older civilizations. The world is indeed one global village. We live among

determined, well-educated, and strongly motivated gompetitors. We compete with them for international standing and

markets, not only with products but also with the ideas of our

laboratories and neighborhood workshops. America's position in the world may once have been reasonably secure with

only a few exceptionally well-trained men and women. It is no

longer.

The risk is not only that the Japanese make automobiles more efficiently than Ainericans and have government

subsidies for development and export. It is not just ,that the

South Kor.eans recently built the world's most efficient steel
mill, or that American machine tools, once the pride of the

world, are being displaced by German products. It is also that

these developments signify a redistribution of trained capability throughout the globe. Knowledge, learning, information,

and skilled intelligence are the new raw materials of international commerce and are today spreading throughout the

world as vigorously as miracle drugs, synthetic fertilizers, and

blue jeans did earlier. If only to keep and improve on the slim

competitive edge we still retain in world markets, we must

dedicate ourselves to the reform of our educational system for

the benefit of allold and young alike, affluent and poor, majority and minority. Learning is the indispensable investment

required for success in the "information age" we are entering.

Our concern, however, goes well beyond matters

such as industry and commerce. It also includes the intellectual, moral, and spiritualstrengths of our people which knit together the very fabric ofour-society. The people of the Unifg

States need to know that individuals in our society who do not

possess the levels of skill, literacy, and training essential to

this new era will be effectively disenfranchised, nOt simply

from the material rewards that accompany competent performance, but also from the chance to participate fully in our

national life. A high level of shared education is essential to a

free, democratic society and to the fostering of a common culture, especially in a country that prides itself on pluralism and

individual freedom.

For our country to function, citizens must be able to

reach some common understandings on complex issues, often

on short notice and on the basis of conflicting or incomplete

evidence. Education helps form these common understandings, a point Thomas Jefferson made long ago in his justly famous dictum:

I know no safe depository of thezultimate powers of the society but the people themselves;

and if we think them not enlightened enough to

exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is not to take it from them

but to inform their discretion. 7
8

Part of what is at risk is the promise first made on this

continent: All, regardless of race or class or economic status,

are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing

their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost. This

promise means that all children by virtue of their own efforts,

competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to securegainful employment and to

manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests'but also the progress of society itself.

Incicators of the Risk

The educational dimensions of the risk before us have been

amply documented in testimony received by the Commission.

For example:

O International comparisons of student achievement,

completed a decade ago, reveal that on 19 academic

tests American students were never first or second

and, in comparison with other industrialized nations,

were last seven times.

O Some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate by the simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension.

o About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United

States can be considered functionally illiterate. Functional illitetacy among minority youth may run as high

as 40 percent.

o Average achievement of high school students on most

standardized tests is now lower than 26 years ago

when Sputnik was launched.

o Over half the population of gifted students do not

match their tested ability with comparable achievement in school.

o The College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT)

demonstrate a virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to

1 4it
1980. Average verbal scores fell over 50 points and average mathematics scores dropped nearly 40 points.

O College Board achievement tests also reveal consistent declines in recent years in such snajects as physics and Englih.

O Both the number and proportion of students demonstrating superior achievement on the SATs (i.e., those

with scores of 650 or higher) have also dramatically

declined.

O Many 17-year-olds do not possess the "higher order"

intellectual skills we should expect of them. Nearly 40

percent cannot draw inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a persuasive essay; and

only one-third can solve a mathematics problem requiring several steps.

O There was a steady decline in science achievement

scores of U.S. 17-year-olds as measured by national

assessments of science in 1969, 1973, and 1977.

O Between 1975 and 1980, remedial mathematics

courses in public 4-year colleges increased by 72 percent and now constitute one-quarter of all mathematics courses taught in those institutions.

O Average tested achievement of students graduating

from college is also lower.

O Business and military leaders complain that they are

required to spend millions of dollars on costly remedial

education and training programs in such basic skills as

reading, writing, . spelling, and computation. The Department of the Navy, for example, reported to the

Commission that one-quarter of its recent recruits

cannot read at the ninth grade level, the minimum

needed simply to understand written safety instructions. Without remedial work they cannot even begin,

much lesscomplete, the sophisticated training essential in much of the modern military. , i 9
10

These clef ciencies come at a time when the demand

for highly skilled workers in new fields is accelerating rapidly.

For example:

o COmputers and computer-controlled equipment are

penetrating every aspect of our liveshomes, factories, and offices.

o One estimate indicates that by the turn of the century

millions of jobs will involve laser technology and

robotics.

o Technology is radically transforming a host of other

occupations. They include health care, medical science, energy production, food processing, construction, and the building, repair, and maintenance of

sophisticated scientific, educational, military, and industrial equipment.

Analysts examining these indicatOrs of student performance and the demands for new skills have made some

chilling observations. Educational researcher Paul Hurd concluded at the end of a thorough national survey of student

achievement that within the context of the modern scientific

revolution,"We are raising a new generation of Americans that

is scientifically and technologically illiterate In a similar vein,

John Slaughter, a former Director of the National Science

Foundation, warned of "a growing chasm between a small scientific and technological elite and a citizenry ill-informed, indeed uninformed, on issues with a science component."

But the problem does not stop there, nor do all observers see it the same way. Some worry that schools may

emphasize such rudiments as reading and computation at the

expense of other essential skills such as comprehension, analysis, solving problems, and drawing conclusions. Still others

are concerned that an over-emphasis on technical and occupational skills,will leave little time for studying the arts and humanities that so enrich daily life, help maintain civility, and develop a sense of community. Knowledge of the humanities,

they maintain, myst be harnessed to science and technology if

the latter are to r main creative and humane, just as the humanities need to e informed by science and technology if

1 6
they are to remain relevant to the human condition. Another

'analyst, Paul Copperman, has drawn a sobering conclusion.

Until now, he has noted:

Each generation of Americans has outstripped

its parents in education, in literacy; and in economic attainment. For the first time in the history of our country, the educational skills of

one generation will not surpass; will not equal,

will not even approach, those of their parents.

It is important, of course, to recognize that the average , edrzen today is better educated and more knowledgeable than

the average citizen of a generation agomore lithrate, and

exposed to more mathematics, literature, and science. The

positive impact of this fact on the well-being of our country and

the lives of our people cannot be overstated. Nevertheless,

the average graduate of our schools and colleges today is not as

well-educated as the average graduate of 25 or 35 years ago,

when a much smaller proportion of our population completed

high school and college. The negative impact of this fact likewise cannot be overstated.

Hooe and Fr stration

Statistics and their inte retation by experts show only the

surface dimension of the difficulties we face. Beneath them

lies a tension beween hope and frustration that characterizes

current attitudes about edumtion at every level.

We have heard the voices of high school and college

students, school board members, and teachers; of leaders of

industry, minority groups, and higher education; of parents

and State officials. We could hear the hope evident in their

commitment to quality education and in their descriptions of

Out'Standing programs and schools. We could also hear the intensity of their frustration, a growing impatience with shoddiness in many walks of American life, and the complaint that

this shoddiness is too often reflected in our schools and colJeges. Their frustration threatens to overwhelm their hope.

What lies behind this emerging national sense of frustration can be described as both a dimming of personal expec- I 1 3

11
12

tations and the fear of losing a shared vision for America.

On the personal level the student, the parent, and the

cad' ig teacher all perceive that a basic promise is not being

kept. More and more young people emerge from high school,

ready neither for college,nor for work. This predicament becomes more acute as the knowledge base continues its rapid

expansion, the number of traditional, jobs shrinks, and new

jobs demand greater sophistication and preparation.

On a broader scale, we sense that this underfone of

frustration has significant f;olitical implications, for it cuts

across ages, generations, race's, and political and economic

groups. We have come to understand that the public will demand that educational and political leaders act forcefully and

effectively on these issues. Indeed, such demands have already appeared and could well become a unifying national preoccupation. This unity, however, can be achieved only if we

avoid the unproductive tendency of some to search for scapegoats among the victims: such as the beleaguered teachers.

On the positive side is the significant mo.vement by political and educational leaders to search for solbtionsso far'

centering largely on the nearly desperate need for increased

support for the teaching of mathematics and science. This

movement is but a start on what we believe is a larger and

more educationally encompassing need to improve teaching

and learning in fields such as English, history, geography, economics, and foreign languages. We believe this movement

must be broadened and directed toward reform and excellence throughout education.

Ekellence in Ecucation

We defme 'excellence" to mean several related things. At the

level of the individual learneK it means performing on the

boundary of individual ability in ways that test and push back

personal limits, in school and in the workplace. Excellence

characterizes a school or college that sets high expectations

and goals for all learners, then tries in every way possible to

help students reach them. Excellence characterizes a society

that has adopted these policies, for it will then be prepared

through the education and skill of its people to respond to the

challenges of a rapidly changing world. Our Nation's people
and its schools andcolleges must be committed to achieving

excellence in all these senses.

We do not believe that a public commitment to excellence and educational reform must be made at the expense of

a strong public commitment to the equitable treatment of our

diverse population. The twin goals of equity and high-quality

§chooling have profound and practical meaning for our economy and society, and we cannot permit one to yield to the

other either in principle or in practice. 'Ib do so would deny

young people their chance to learn and live according to their

aspirations and abilities. It also would lead to a generalized accommodation to mediocrity in our society on the one hand or

the creation of an undemocratic elitism on the other.

Our goal must be to develop the talents of all to their

fullest. Attaining that goal requires that we expect and assist

all students to work to the limits of their capabilities. We

should expect schools tohave genuinely higlistandards rather

than minimum ones, and parents to support and encourage

their children to make the most of their talents and abilities.

The search for solutions to our educational problems

must also include acommitment to life-long learning. The task

of rebuilding our system of learning is enormous and must be

properly understood and taken seriously: Although a million

and a half new workers enter the economy each year from our

schools and colleges, the adults working today will still make

up about 75 percent of the workforce in the year 2000. These

Workers, and new entrants into the workforce, will need further education and retraining if theyand we as a Nation

are to thrive and prosper.

The Learning Society

In a world of ever-accelerating competition and change in the

conditions of the workplace, of ever-greater danger, and of

ever-larger opportunities for those prepared to meet theni,

educational reform should focus on the goal of creating a

Learning Society. At the heart of such a society is the commitment to 4 set of values and to a system of education that affords all members the opportunity to stretch their minds to full

capacity, from early childhood through adulthood, learning

more as the world itself changes. Such a society has as a basic 13
14

foundation the idea that education is important not only because of what it contributes to one's career goals but also because of the value it adds to the general quality of one's life.

Also at the heart of the Learning Society are educational opportunities extending far beyond the traditional institutions of

learning, our schools and colleges. They extend into Nimes

and workplaces; into libraries, art galleries, museums, and

science centers; indeed, into every place where the individual

can develop and mature in work and !if,- in our view, formal

schooling in youth is the essential foundation for learning

throughout one's life. But without life-long learning, one's

skills will become rapidly dated.

In contrast to the ideal of the Learning Society, however, we find that for too many people education means doing

the minimum work necu gary for the moment, then coasting

through life on what may lave been learned in its first quarter.

But this should not surpt se us because we tend to express

our edu6tional standards :knd expectations largely in terms of

"minimum requiremert, And IN Lere there should be a co-.

herent continuum of lem: wc have none, but instead an

ofte r. rent, outdated pa chwork quilt. Many individual,

soak heroic, examples of schools and colleges of great

merit do exist. Our fmdings and testimony confirm the vitality

of a number of notable schools and programs, but their very

distinction stands out against a vast mass shaped by tensions

and pressures that inhibit systematic academic and vocational

achievement for the majority of students. In some metropolitan areas basic literacy has become the goal rather than the

starting point. In some colleges maintaining enrollments is of

greater day-to-day concern than maintaining rigorous academic standards. And the ideal of academic excellence as the

primary goal of schooling seems to be fading across the board

in American education.

Thus, we issue this call to all who care about America

and its future: to parents and students; to teachers, administrators, and school board members; to colleges and industry;

to union members and military leaders; to governors and

State legislators; to the President; to members of Congress

and other public officials; to members oflearned and scientific

societies; to the print and electronic media; to concerned citizens everywhere. America is at risk.
1111.11.11111.M.111111.----- _

We are confident that America can address this risk. If

the tasks we set forth are initiated now and our recommendations are fully realized over the next seyeral years, we can expect reform of our Nation's sch9ols, colleges, and universities. This would also reverse the current declining trenda

trend that stems more from weakness of purpose, confusion

of vision, underuse of talent, and lack of leadership, than from

conditions beyond our control.

The Tools at Hanc

It is our conviction that the essential raw materials needed to

reform our educational system are waiting to be mobilized

through effective leadership:

o the natural abilities of the young that cry out to be developed and the undiminished concern of parents for

the well-being of their children;

o the commitment of the Nation to high retention rates,

in schools and colleges and to full access to education

for all;

o the persistent and authentic American dream that superior performance can raise one's state in life and

shape one's own future;

o the dedication, against all odds, that keeps teachers

erving in schools and colleges, even as the rewards

thminish;

o our better understanding of learning and teaching and

the implications of this knowledge for school practice,

and the numerous examples of local success as a result

of superior effort and effective dissemination;

o the ingenuity of our policymakers, scientists, State

and local educators, and scholars in formulating solutions onre problems are better understood;

o the traditional belief that paying for education is an investment in ever-renewable human Tesources that

are more durable and flexible than capital plant and

'20

ea

15
16

equipment, and the availability in this country of sufficient financial means to invest in education;

0 the equally sound tradition, from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 until today, that the Federal Government should supplement State, local, and other resources to foster key national educational goals; and

0 the voluraary efforts of individuals, businesses, and

parent and civic groups to cooperate in strengthening

educational programs.

fhese raw materials, combined with the unparalleled

array of educational organizations in America, offer us the

possibility to create a Learning Society, in which public, private, and parochial schools; colleges and universities; vocational and technical schools and institutes; libraries; science

centers, museums, and other cultural institutions; and corporate training and retraining programs offer opportunities and

choices for all to learn throughout life.

The Public's Commitment

Of all the tools at hand, the public's support for education is the

most powerful. In a message to a National Academy of Sciences meeting in May 1982, President Reagan commented

on this fact when he said:

This public awarenessand I hope public actionis long overdue. . . . This country was

built on American respect for education. . . . Our challenge now is to create a resurgence of

that thirst for education that typifies our Nation's history.

The most recent (1982)Gallup Poll of the Public'SAltihides Toward the Public Schools strongly supported a theme

heard during our hearings: People are steadfast in their belief

that education is the major foundation for the future strength

of this country. They even considered education more important than developing the best industrial system or the strong-
est ilitary force, perhaps because they understood education as e cornerstone of both. They also held that education

-is "extre dly important" to one's future success, and that

public educ tion should be the top priority for additional Federal funds. h ucation ocCupied first place among 12 funding

categories cori idered in the surveyaboVe health care, wel- s

fare, and milit defense, with 55 percent selecting public edflcation as one bf their first three choices. Very clearly, the

public understands the primary importance of education as

the foundation fOr a satisfying life, an enlightened and civil society, a strong economy, and a secure Nation.

At the same time, the public has no patienCe with undemanding and superfluous high school offerings. In another

survey, more than 75 percent of all those questioned believed

every student planning to go to college should take 4 years of

mathematics, English, history/U.S. government, and science, with more than 50 percent adding 2 years each oft foreign language and economics or business. The public even

supports requiring much of this curriculum for students who

do not plan to go to college. These standards far exceed the

strictest high school graduation requirements of any State today, and they also exceed the admission standards of all but ,a

handful of our most selective colleges and universities.

Another dimension of the public's support offers the

prospect of constructive reform. The best term to characterize it may simply be the honorable word "patriotism."Citizens

know intuitively what some of the best economists have

shown in their research, that education is one of the chief engines of a society's material well-being. They know, too, that

education is the common bond of a pluralistic society and helps

tie us to other cultures around the globe. Citizens also know in

their bones that the safety of the United States depends principally on the Wit, skill, and spirit of a self-confident people, to-,

day and tombirow. It is, therefore, essentialespecialiy in a

period of long-term decline in educational achievementfor

government at all levels to affirm its responsibility for nurturing the Nation's intellectual capital.

And perhaps most important, citizens know and believe that the meaning of America to the rest of the world

must be something better than it seems to many today. Americans like to think of this Nation as the preeminent country for

1) 4 a

-;s A

/ 7
18

generating the great ideas and material benefits for all mankind. The citizen is dismayed at a steady 15-year decline in industrial productivity, as one great American industry after another falls to world competition. The citizen wants the

country to act on the belief, expressed in our hearings and by

the large majority-in the Gallup-Poll, that education should be

at the top of the Nation's agenda.

Fincings

We conclude that declines hi educational perfotniance are in

large part the result of disturbing inadequacies in the way the

educational process itself is often conducted. The findings that

follow, culled from a much more qxtensive list, reflect four important aspects of the educational process: content, expectations, time, andteaching

Findings Regarding Content,

By content we mean the very "stuff of education, the currieulurA. Because of our concernabout the curriculum, the Com=

mission examined pattern§ of courses high school students

took in 1964-69 compared with course patterns in 1976-81. On

the basis of these analyses we conclude:

o Secondary.school curricula have been homogenized,

diluted, and diffused to the point that they no longer

have a central purpose. In effect, we have a cafeteriastyle curriculum in'which the appetizers and desserts

can easily bemistaken for the main courses. Students

have migrated from vocational and i.ollege preparatory programs to "general track" courses in large

numbers. The proportion of students taking a general

program of study has increased from 12 percent in

1964 to 42 percent in 1979.

o This curricular smorgasbord, combined with extensive student choice, explains a great deal aboutwhere

we fmd ourselves today. We offer intermediate algebra, but only 31 percent of our recent high school

graduates complete it; we offer French I, but only 13

percent complete it; and we offer geography, but Only26
16 percent complete it. Calculus is available in schools

enrolling about 60 percent of all students, but only 6

percent of all students complete it.

0 Twenty-five percent of the credits earned by general

track high scl students are in physical and health

eduCation, work eXperience outsidethe school, remedial English and mathematics, and personal service

and development courses, such as training for adulthood and marriage.

Findings Regarding Expectations

We define expectations in terms of the level of knowledge,

abilities, and skills school and college graduates should possess. They also refer to the time, hard work, behavior, selfdiscipline, and motivation that are essential for high student

achievement. Such expectations are expressed to students in

-several different ways:

G. 1)3, grades, which reflect the degree to which students

demonstrate tbeir mastery of subject matter;

O through high school and college graduation requirements, which tell students which subjects are most

important;

by the presence or absence of rigorous examinations

requiring students to demonstrate their mastery of

content and skill before receiving a diploma or a degree;

O by college admissions requirements, which reinforce

high school standards; and

by the difficulty of the subject matter student§ confront in their texts and assigned readings.

Our analyses in each of these areas indicate notable

deficiencies:

o The amount of homework for high school seniors has

decreased (two-thirds report less than 1 hour a night)

27

19
20

'and grades have risen as average student achievement has been declining.

O In many otherindustrialized nations, courses in mathematics (other than arithmetic or general mathematics), biology, chemistry, physics, and geograpliy start

in grade 6 and are required of all students. The time

spent on these subjects, based on class hours, is about

three times that spent by even the most scienceL

oriented U.S. students, i.e., those who select 4 years

of science and mathematics in secondary school.

o A 1980 State-by-State survey of high schoolAiploma

requirements reveals that only eight States require

high schools to-offer foreign language instruction, but

none requires students to take the courses. Thirtyfive States require only 1 year of mathematics, and 36

require only 1 year of science for a diploma.

o In 13 States, 50 percent or more of the units required

for high school graduation may be electives chosen by

the student. Given this freedom to choose the substance of half or more of their education, many students opt for less demanding personal service

courses, such as bachelor living.

o "Minimum competency" examinations (now required

in 37 States) fall short of what is needed, as the "minimum" tends to become the "maximum." thus lowering

educational standards for all.

O One-fifth of all 4-year public co2eges in the United

States must accept every high school graduate within

the State regardless of program followed or grades,

thereby serving notice to high school students that

they can expect to attend college even if they do not

follow a demanding course of study in high school or

perform welt

O About 23 percent of our more selective colleges and

universities reported that their general level ofselectivity declined during the 1970s, and 29 percent reported reducing the number of specific high school 2
courses required for admission (usually by dropping

foreign language requirements, which are now specified as a condition for admission by only one-fifth of our

institutions of higher education).

0 Too few experienced teachers and scholars are involved in writing textbooks. During the past decade

or 'so a large number of texts have been "written

down" by their publishers to ever-lower reading levels

in response to perceived market demands.

0 A recent study by Education Products InfOrmation

Exchange revealed that a majority of students were

able to master 80 percent of the material in some of

their subject-matter texts before they had even

opened the books. Many books do not challenge the

students to whom they are assigned.

o Expenditures for textbooks and other instructional

materials have declined by 50 percent over the past 17

years. While some recommend a level of spending on

texts of between 5 and 10 percent of the operating

costs of schools, the budgets for basal texts and related materials have been dropping during the past

decade and a half to ally 0.7 percent today.

Findings Regarding Time

Evidence presented to the Commission demonstrates three

disturbing facts about the use that American schools and students make of time: (1) compared to other nations, American

students spend much less time on school work; (2) time spent

in the classroom and on homework is often used ineffectively;

and (3) schools are not doing enough to help students develop

either the study skills required to use time well or the willingness to spend more time on school work.

o In England and other industrialized countries, it is not

unusual for academic high school students to spend 8

hours a day at school, 220 days per year. In the United

State's, by contrast, the typical school day lasts 6

hours and the school year is 180 days. 2

21
22

o In many schools, the time spent learning how to cook

and drive counts as much toward a highschool diploma

as the time spent studying mathematics, English,

chemistry, U.S. history, or biology.

o A study of the school week in the United States found

that some schools provided students only 17 hours of

academic instruction during the week, and the average school provided about 22.

o A California study of individual classrooms found that

becauSe of poor management of classroom time, some

elementary students received only one-fifth of the instruction others received in reading comprehension.

o In most schools, the teaching of study skills is haphazard and unplanned. Consequently, many students

complete high school and enter college without disciplined and systematic study habits.

Findings Regarding Teaching

The Commission found that not enough of the academically

able students are being attracted to teaching; that teacher

preparation programs need substantial improvement; that the

professional working life of teachers is on the whole unacceptable; and that a serious shortage of teachers exists in key

o Too many teachers are being drawn from the bottom

quarter of graduating high school and college, students.

O The teacher preparation curriculum is weighted heavily with courses in "educational methods" at the expense of coursesin subjects to be taught. A survey of

1,350 institutions training teachers indicated that 41

percent of the time of elementary school teacher candidates is spent in education courses, which reduces

the amount of time available for subject matter

courses.

O The average salary after 12 years of teaching is only

3 1)
$17,000 per year, and many teachers are required to

supplement their income with part-time and summer

employment. In addition, individual teachers have

little influence in such critical professional decisions

as, for example, textbook selection.

0 Despite widespread publicity about an overpopulation

of teachers, severe shortages of certain kinds of

teachers exist: in the fields'of mathematics, science,

and foreign languages; and among specialists in educa-,

tion for gifted and talented, language minority, and

handicapped students.

0 The shortage of teachers in mathematics and science

is particularly severe. A 1981 survey of 45 States revealed shortages of mathematics teachers in 43

States, critical shortages of earth sciences teachers in

33 States, and of physics teachers everywhere.

0 Half of the newly employed mathematics, science,

and English teachers are not qualified to teach these

subjects; fewer than one-third of U.S. high schools offer physics taught by qualified teachers.

?ecommencations

In light of the urgent need for improvement, both immediate

and long term, this Commission has agreed on a set of recommendatia,s that the American people can begin to act on now,

that can be implemented over the next several years, and that

promise lasting reform. The topics are familiar; there is little

mystery about what we believe must be done. Many schools,

districts, and States are already giving serious and constructive attention to these matters, even though their plans may

differ from our recommendations in some details.

We wish to note that we refer to public, private, and

parochial schools and colleges alike. All are valuable national

resources. Examples of actions similar to those recommended below can be found in each ofthem.

23
..

24

We must emphasize that the variety of student aspirations, abilities, and preparation requires that appropriate content be available to satisfy .diverse needs. Attention must be

directed to both the nature of the content available kind to the

needs of particular learners. The most gifted students, for example, may need a curriculum enriched and, accelerated beyond even the needs of other students of high ability. Similarly, , educationally disadvantaged students may require

special curriculum materials, smaller classes, or individual tutoring to help them masterthe material presented. Nevertheless, there remains a common expectation: We must demand

the best effort and performance from all students, whether

they are gifted or less able, affluent or disadvantaged,

whether destined for college, the farm, or industry.

Our recommendations are based on the beliefs that

everyone can learn, that everyone is born with an urge to

learn which can be nurtured, that a solid high school education

is within the reach ofvirtually all, and that life-longlearning will

equip people with the skills required for new careers and for

citizenship.

Recommenc

Content

otion A:

We recommend that State and local high schoolgmduation

requirements .be strengthened and that, at a minimum, all students seeking a diploma be required to lay thefoundations in the

Five New Basics by taking the following curriculum during

their 4 years of high school: (a) 4 years ofEnglish; (b) 3 years of

mathematics; (c) 3 years ofscience; (d) 3 years ofsocial studies;

and ( e) one-half year of computerscience. For the college-bound,

2 years of foreign language in high school are stmngly recommended in addition to those taken earlier

Whatever the student's educational or work objectives,

knowledge of the New Basics is the foundation of success for

the after-school years and, therefore, forms the core of the

modern curriculum.. A high level of shared education in these

Basics, together with work in the fine and performing arts and

foreign languages, constitutes the mind and spirit of our cul-
ture. The following Implementing Recommendations are intended as illustrative descriptions. They are included here to

clarify what we mean by the essentials of a strong curriculum.

Implementing Recommendations

1. The teaching of English in high school should equip

graduates to: (a) comprehend, interpret, evaluate,

and use what they read; (b) write well-organized, effective papers; (c) listen effectively and discuss ideas

intelligently; and (d) know our literary heritage and

how it enhances imagination and ethical understanding, and how it relates to the customs, ideas, and

values of today's life and culture.

2. The teaching of mathematics in high school should

equip graduates to: (a) understand geometric and algebraic concepts; (b) understand elementary probability and statistics; (c) apply mathematics in everyday

situations; and (d) estimate, approximate, measure,

and test the accuracy of their calculations. In addition

to the traditional sequence of studies available for

college-bound students, new, equally demanding

mathematics curricula need to be developed for those

who do not plan to continue their formal education immediately.

3. The teaching of science in high school should provide

graduates with an introduction to: (a) the concepts,

laws, and processes of-the physical and biological sciences; (b) the methods of scientific inquiry and reasoning; (c) the application of scientific knowledge to

everyday life; and (d) the social and environmental implications of scientific and technological development.

Science courses must be revised and updated for both

the college-bound and those not intending to go to college. An example of such work is the American Chemical Society's "Chemistry in the Community" program.

4. The teaching of social studies in high school should be

designed to: (a) enable students to a their places and

-,-

25
26 ,

possibilities within the larger social and cultural structure; (b) understand the-broad sweep of both ancient

and contemporary ideas that have shaped our world;

and (c) understand the fundamentals of how our economic system works and how our political system

functions; and (d) grasp the difference between free

and repressive societies. An understanding of each of

these areas is requisite to the informed and committed

exercise of citizenship in our free society.

5. The teaching of computerscience in high school should)

equip graduates to: (a) understand the computer as an

information, computation, and communication device;

(b) use the computer in the study of the other Basics

and for personal and work-related purposes; and (c)

understand the world of computers, electronics, and

related technologies.

In addition to the New Basics, other important curriculum matters must be addressed.

6. Achieving proficiency in a foreign language ordinarily

requires from 4 to 6 years of study and should, therefore, be started in the elementary grades. We believe

it is desirable that students achieve such proficiency

because study of a foreign language introduces students to non-English-speaking cultures, heighlens

awareness and comprehension of one's native tongue,

and serves the 'Nation's needs in commerce, diplomacy, defense, and education.

7. The high school curriculum should alsO provide students with programs requiring rigorous effort in subjects that advance students' personal, educational, and

occupational goals, such as the fine and performing

arts and vocational education. These areas complement the New Basics, and they should demand the

same level of performance as tne Basics.

8. The curriculum in the crucial eight grades leading to

the high school years should be specifically designed

to provide a sound base for study in those and later

years in such areas as English language development

3 4 1
and writing, computational and problem solving skills,

science, social studies, foreign language, and the arts.

These years should foster an enthusiasm for learning

and the development of the individual's gifts and talents.

9. We encourage the continuation of efforts by groups

such as the American Chemical Society, the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, the

Modern Language Association, and the National

Councils of Teachers ofEnglish and Teachers ofMathematics, to revise, update, improve, and make available new and more diverse curricular materials. We

applaud the consortia of educators and scientific, industrial, and scholarly societies that cooperate to improve the school curriculum.

Recommencation B:

Stancarcs anc Exoectations

We recommend thatschools, colleges, and universities adopt

more rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for academic performance and student conduct, and that

4-year colleges and universities raise their requirements for admission. This will help students do their best educationally with

challenging materials in an environment that supportslearning

and authentic accomplishment.

Irnplementing Recommendations

1. Grades should be indicators of academic achievement

so they can be relied on as evidence of a student's

readiness for further study.

2. Four-year colleges and universities should raise their

admissions requirements and advise all potential applicants of the standards for admission in terms of specific courses required, performance in these areas,

and levels of achievement on standardized achievement tests in each of the five Basics and, where appli- . cable, foreign languages. Lo '

27
,

28

3. Standardized tests of achievement (not to be confused

with aptitude tests) should be administered at major

transition points from one level of schooling to another

and particularly from high school to college or work.

The purposes of these tests would be to: (a) certify

the student's credentials; (b) identify the need for remedial intervention; and (c) identify the opportunity

for advanced or accelerated work. The tests should be

administered as part of a nationwide (but not Federal)

system of State and local standardized tests. This

system should include other diagnostic procedures

that assist teachers and students to evaluate student

progress.

4. Textbooks and other tools of learning and teaching

should be upgraded and updated to assure more rigorous content. We call upon university scientists, scholars, and members of professional societies, in collaboration with master teachers, to help in this task, as

they did in the post-Sputnik era. They should assist

willing i:iublishers in developing the products or pub-

. lish their own alternatives where there are persistent

in adequacies.

5. In considering textbooks for adoption, States and

school districts should: (a) evaluate texts and other

materials on their ability to present rigorous and challenging material clearly; and (b) require publishers to

furnish evaluation data on the material's effectiveness.

6. Because no textbook in any subject can be geared to

the needs of all students, funds should be made avail.

able to support text development in "thin-market"

areas, such as those for disadvantaged students, the

learning disabled, and the gifted and talented.

7. To assure quality, all publishers should furnish evidence of the quality and appropriateness of textbooks,

based on results from field trials and credible evaluations. In view of the enormous numbers and varieties , , 0 0
of texts available, more widespread consumer information services for purchasers are badly needed.

8. New instructional materials should reflect the most

current applications of technology in appropriate curriculum areas, the best scholarship in each discipline,

and research in learning and teaching.

Recommencation C: Time

We recommend that significantly more time be devoted to

learning the New Basics. This will require more effective use of

the existing school day a longer school day, or a lengthened

school yeclK

Implementing Recommendations

1. Students in high schools should be assigned far more

homework than is now the case.

2. Instruction in effective study and work skills, which

are essential if school and independent time is to be

used efficiently, should be introduced in the early

grades and continued throughout the student's schooling.

3. Schoddistricts and State legislatures should strongly

consider 7-hour school days, as well as a 200: to

220-day school year.

4. The time available for learning should be expanded

through better classroom management and organization of the school day. If necessary, additional time

should be found to meet the special needs of slow

learners, the 'gifted, and others who need more instructional diversity than- can be accommodated during a conventional school day or school year.

5. The burden on teachers fot maintaining ,discipline

should be reduced through the development of firm

and fair codes of student conthict that are enforced

consistently, and by considering alternative class-

:, - 3

29
30

rooms, programs, and schools to meet the needs of

continually disruptive students.

6. Attendance policies with clear incentives and sanctions should be used to reduce the amount oftime lost

through student absenteeism and tardiness.

7. Administrative burdens on the teacher and related intrusions into the school day should be reduced to add

time for teaching and learning.

8. Placement and grouping of students, as well as promotion and graduation policies, should be guided by

the academic progress of students and their instructional needs, rather than by rigid adherence to age.

Recommenc

Teaching

ation D:

This recommendation consists of seven parts. Each is intended to improve thepreparation of teachers orto make teaching

a more rewarding and respected profession. Each of the seven

stands on its own and should not be consideredsolely as an implementing recommendation.

1. Persons preparing to teach should be required to

meet high educational standards, to demonstrate an

aptitude for teaching, and to demonstrate competence

in an academic discipline. Colleges and universities offering teacher preparationprograms shouldbe judged

by how well their graduates meet these criteria.

2. Salaries for the teaching profession should be increased and should be professionally competitive,

market-sensitive, and performance-based. Salary,

promotion, tenure, and retention decisions should be

tied to 'a effective evaluation system that includes

peer review so. that superior teachers can be rewarded, average ones encouraged, and poor ones

either improved or terminated.

3o
3. School boards should adopt an 11-month contract for

teachers. This would ensure time for curriculum and

professional development, programs for students

with special needs, and a more adequate level of

teacher compensation.

4. School boards, administrators, and teachers should

cooperate to develop career ladders for teachers that

distinguish among the beginning instructor, the expe- .

rienced teacher, and the master teacher.

5. Substantial nonschool personnel resources should be

employed to help solve the immediate problem of the

shortage of mathematics and science teachers. Qualified individuals including recentgaduates with mathematics and science degrees, graduate students, and

industrial and retired scientists Could, with appropriate preparation, immediately b gin teaching in these

fields. A number of our leadin science centffs have

the capacity to begin educating nd retraining teachers

immediately. Other areas of critical teacher need,

such as English, must also be/addressed.

6. Incentives, such as grants an loans, should be made

available to attract outstandin students to the teaching profession, particularly ip those areas of critical

shortage. iI 7. Master teachers should be Involved in designing

teacher preparation progams and in supervising

teachers during their probationary years. e , ,

31
32

Recommencation E:

Leacership anc Fiscal

Supporr

We recommend that citizens across tlw Nation hold educators and elected officials responsible for providing the leadership

necessaiy to achieve these reforms, and that citizens provide the

fiscal support and stability required to bring about the reforms

we propose.

Implementing Recommendations

1. Principals and superintendents must play p crucial

leadership role in developing school and community

support for the reforms we propose, and school

boards must provide them with the professional development and other support recfuired to carry out

their leadership role effectively. The Commission

stresses the distinction between leadership skills involving persuasion, setting goals and developing community consensus behind them, and managerial and

supervisory skills. Although the latter are necessary,

IVQ believe that school boards must consciously develop leadership skills at the school and district levels

if the reforms we propose are tb be achieved.

2. State and local officials, including school board members, governors, and legislators, have .the prima)), responsibility for fmancing and gOverning the schools,

and should incorporate the reforms we pro5pose in

their educational policies and fiscal planning.

3. The Federal Government, in cooperation with States

and localities, should help meet the needs of key

groups of students such as the gifted and talented, the

socioeconomically disadvantaged, minority and language minority students, and the handicapped. In

combination these groups include both national resources and the Nation's youth who are most at risk.

4(1
A= 4. In addition, we believe the Federal Government's role

includes ,several functions of national consequence

that States and localities alone are unlikely to be able

to meet: protecting constitutional and civil rights for

students and school personnel; collecting data, statistics, and information about education generally; supporting curriculum improvement and research on

teaching, learning, and the management of schools;

supporting teacher training in areas of critical shortage or key nati mai needs; and providing student financial assistance and research and graduate training. We

believe the assistance of the Federal Government

should be provided with a minimum of administrative

burden and intrusiveness.,

5. The Federai Government has ihe primary responsibility to identify the national interest in education. It

should also help fund and support efforts to protect

and promote that interest. It must provide the national

leadership to ensure That the Nation's public and private resources are marshaled to address the issues

discussed in this report.

6. This Commission calls upon educators, parents, and

public officials at all levels to assist in bringing about

the educational reform proposed in this report. We

also call upon citizens to provide the fmancial support

necessaryto accomplish these purposes. Excellence

costs. But in the long run mediocrity costs far more.

merica Can Do It

Despite the obstacles and difficulties that inhibit the pursuit of

superior educational attainment, we are confident, with history as our guide, that we can meet our goal: The American

*educational system has responded to previous challenges with

remarkable success. In the 19th century our land-grant colleges and univerSities provided the research arid training that

developed our Nation's natural resources and the rich agricultural bounty of the American farm. From the late 1800s

through mid-20th century, American schools provided the educated .workforce needed to seal the success of the Industrial

41

33
34

Revolution and to provide the margin of victory in two world

wars. In the early part of this century and continuing to this

very day, our schools have absorbed vast waves of immigrants and educated them and their children to productive citizenship. Similarly, the Nation's Black colleges have provided

opportunity and undergraduate education to the vast majority

of college-educated Black Americans.

More recently, our institutions of higher education

have provided the scientists and skilled technicians who

helped us transcend the boundaries of our planet. In the last

30 years, the schools have been a major vehicle for expanded

social opportunity, and now graduate 75 percent of our young

people from high school. Indeed, the proportion of Americans

of college age enrolled in hightx education is nearly twice that

ofJapan and far exceeds other nations such as France, West

Germany, and the Soviet Union. Moreover, when international comparisons were last made a decade ago, the top 9

percent of American students compared favorably in achievement with their peers in other countries.

In addition, many large urban areas in recent years report diat average student achievement in elementary schools

is improving. More and more schools are also offering advanced placement programs and programs for gifted and talented students, and more and more students are enrolling in

them.

We are the inheritors of a past that gives us every reason to believe that we will succeed.

A Worc to Parents anc

Stucents

The task of assuring the success of our recommendations

does not fall to the schools and colleges alone. Obviously, faculty members and administrators, along with policyrnakers

and the mass media, will play a crucial role in the reform of the

educational system. But even more important is the role of

'parents and students, and to them we speak directly.

To Parents

You know that you cannot confidently launch your children into
today's world unless they are of strong character and welleducated in the use of language, science, and mathematics.

They must possess a deep respect for intelligence, achievement, and learning, and the skills needed to use them; for setting goals; and for disciplinedwork. That respect must be accompanied by an intolerance for the shoddy and second-rate

masquerading as "good enough."

You have the right to demand for your children the

best our schools and colleges can prcMde. Your vigilance and

your refusal to be satisfied with less than the best are the imperative first step. But your right to a proper education for

your children carries a double responsibility. As surely as you

are your child's first and most influential teacher, your child's

ideas about education and its significance begin with you. You

must be a living example of what you expect your children to

honor and to emulate. Moreover, you bear a responsibility to

participate actively in your child's education. You should encourage more diligent study and discourage satisfaction with

mediocrity and the attitude that says "let it slide"; monitor

your child's study; encourage good study habits; encourage

ypur child to take more demanding rather than less demanding

courses; nurture your child's curiosity, creativity, and confidence; and be an active participant in the work of the schools.

Above all, exhibit a commitment to continued learning in your

own life. Finally, help your children understand that excellence in education cannot be achieved without intellectual and

moral integrity coupled with hard work and commitment.

Children will look to their parents and teachers as models of

such virtues.

To Students . You forfeit your chance for life at its fullest when you withhold

your best effort in learning. When you give only the minimum

to learning, you receive only the minimum in return. Even

with your parents' best example and your teachers' best efforts, in the end it is your work that determines how much and

how well you learn. When you work to your full capacity, you

can hope to attain the knowledge and skills that will enable you

to create your future and control your destiny. If you do not,

you will have yourfuture thrust upon you by others. Take hold

of your life, apply your gifts and talents, work with dedication

4 3

35
36

and self-discipline. Have high expectations for yourself and

convert every challenge into an opportunity. - A Final Word

This is not the first or only commission on education, and

some of our findings are surely not new, but old business that

now at last must be done. For no one can doubt that the

United States is under Cifallenge from many quarters.

Children born today can expect to graduate from high

school in the year 2000. We dedicate our report not only to

these children, but also to those now in school and others to

come. We firmly believe that a movement of America's

schools in the direction called for by our recommendationswill

prepare these children for far more effective lives in a far

stronger America.

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. For example,

we call upon the National Academy of Sciences, National

Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Science Service, National Science Foundation, Social Science Research

Council, American Council ofLearned Societies, National Endowment for the Humanities, National Endowment for the

Arts, and other scholarly, scientific, and learned societies for

their help in this effort. Help should come from students

themselves; from parents, teachers, and school boards; from

colleges and universities; from local, State, and Federal officials; from teachers' and administrators' organizations; from

industrial and labor councils; and from other groups with interest in and responsibility for educational reform.

It is their America, and the America of all of us, that is

at risk; it is to each of us that this imperative is addressed. It is

by our willingness to take up the challenge, and ourresolve to

see it through, that America's place in the world will be either

secured or forfeited. Americans have succeeded before and

so we shall again.
Appenfflers
Aooendix A: Charter

National Commission on

Excellence in Ecucation

Authority

20 U.S.C. 1233a. The Commission is governed by the provisions of Part I)

of the General Education Provisions Act (P L. 90-247 as amended; 20

U.S.C. 1233 et seq.) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P L. 92-463:

5 L'.S.0 Appendix D which setforth standards for the formation and use of

advisory committees.

Purpose and Functions

The Comussion advises and makes recommendations to the nation and to

the Secretary of Education. To carry out this mission the Commission is

charged with the following responsibilities:

(1) lb review and synthesize the data and scholarly literature on the quality oflearning and teaching in the nation'sschools,

colleges, and universities, both public and private, with special

concern for the educational experience of teen-age youth;

(2) lb examine and to compare and contrast the curricula,

standards, and expectations of the educational systems of several

advanced countries with those of the United States;

(3) lb study a representative sampling of university and college admission standards and lower division course requirements

with particular reference to the impact upon the enhancement of

quality and the promotion of excellence such standards may have

on high school curricula and on expected levels of high school academic achievement;

(4) To review and to describe educational programs that are

recogrmized as preparing students who consistently attain higher

than average scores in college entrance examinations and who

meet with uncommon success the demands placed on them by

the nation's colleges and universities;

(5) lb review the major changes that have occurred in

American education as well as eventsin society during the past

quarter century that have significantly affected educational

achievement;

4 6

39
40

(6) lb hold hearings and to receive testimony and expert advice on efforts that could and should be taken to foster higher levels of quality and academic excellence in the nation's schools, colleges, and universities;

(7) 'lb do all other things needed to define the problems of

and the barriers to attaining greater levels of excellence in American education; and

(8) To report and to make practical recommendations for action to be taken by educators, !loge officials, governing boards,

parent§, and others having a vital interest in American education

and a capacity to influence it for the better

Structure

The Commission consists of at least 12, but not more than 19, public members appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall designate a chairperson from among the members. Among its menthers the Commission includes persons who are knowledgeable about educational pro-grams at

various levels and are familiar with views of the.public, of employers, of edumtors, and of leaders of a range of professions regarding the status ofreducation today, requirements for the future, and ways the quality ofeducation

for all Americans can be improved.

A quorum of the Commission is a majority of appointed members.

Terms of service of members end with the termination of the Commission.

Hearings on behalf of the Commission may be held by one or more

members with the authorization of the chairperson.

The Commission may establish standing committees composed ex7:

elusively of its members. Each standing committee complies with the requirements of applicable statutes and Departmental regulations. Each

committee presents to the Commission findings and recommendations for

action by the full Commission. Timely notification of the establishment of a

committee and any change therein, including its,cliarge, membership, and

frequency of meetings, will be made in writing to the Committee Management Officer. All committees act under the policies established by the

Commission as a whole.

Management and staff services are provided by the Executive Director who serves as the Designated Federal Official to the Commission

and by the National Institute of Education.

Meetings

The Commission meets approximately four times a year at the call ofthe

Chairperson, with the advance approval of the Secretary or the Designated

Federal Official who approves the agenda and is present or represented at

.11 4
all meetings. Standing &gnmittees meet as required at the call of their

Chairperson with the concurrence of the Commission Chairperson. All

meetings are open to the public except as determined otherwise by the Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement. Notice of all

meetings shall be given to the public. Meetings are conducted, and records

of proceedings kept. in accordance with applicable laws and Department

regulations.

Compensation

In accordifnce with the General Education ProvisionsAct and other appli6-

ble laws, Commission members shall be entitled to an honorarium of $100

per day for official business of the Commission. Their per diem and travel

expenses will be pit., in accordance with Federal Travel Regulations.

Annual Cost Estimate

Estimate of the direct cost for operating the Commission, including compensation and travel expenses for members as well as costs forstudies, but

excluding staff support, is $332,000. Estimate of annual person-years of

staff required is 16. Estimate of direct annual costs for administrative support, staff and staff perdiem and travel expenses is $453,000. The National

Institute of Education will provide additional administrative and research

assistance to the Commission.

Reports - In addition to its fmal report: which is expected eighteenmonths from the

initial meeting, the Commission submits to the Congress by March 31 of

each year an annual report which contains as a minimum a list of the names

and business addresses of the members, a list of thedates and places of the

meetings, the functions of the Commission,, and a summary ofCommission

activities and recommendations made during the year. Such report is transmitted with the Secretary's annual report to Congress. The Commission

makes such other reports or recommendations as may be appropriate. A

copy of the ammal report and other reports is provided to the Committee

Management Officer.

Termination Date

It is estimated that the time necessary for the Commission to complete its

activities and report is at least 18 months. Therefore, to insure the completion of the report, the Secretary determines that thic Commission terminates not later than two years from the date of this Charter.

APPROVED:

Date Secretary 4

41
Aapendix B: Schedule of the

Commission's Public Events

Event Date(s) Pbce Host(s)

Full Commission Meeting

Full Commission Meeting

Full Cnmnfissiiin Meeting

HearingSdence,

Mathematics, and

Technology Education

HearingLanguage and

Literacy: Skills for

Academic Learning

Panel Discussion

Performance

Expectations in

American Education

I fearingTeaching and

Teacher Education

October 9-10, 1981

December 7, 1981

February 25, 1982

March 11, 1982

April 16, 1982

April 30. 1982

May 12. 1982

Washington. D.C.

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C.

Stanford University

Stanford, California

I louston Independent

School District

I foubton, Texas

The University of

Pennsylvania

Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania

Georgia State

University

Atlanta, Georgia

Donald Kennedy, President

Stanford University

J. Myron Atkin, Dean

Graduate School of Education

Stanford University

Raymon Bynum, Texas State

Commissioner of Education

Billy R. Reagan, General

Superintendent

I louston Indep2ndent School

District

Thomas Erlich, Pi ovost

The University of Pennsylvania

Alonzo Crim, Superintendent

Atlanta Public Schools

Sherman Day, Dean

School of Education

Georgia State University

Barbara Hatton, Dean

School of Education

Atlanta University

In addition to these public events, the Commission members also attended a number of subcommittee meetings

and worksessions over the course of 18 months. 43

,
Event Date(s) Place I lost ( s)

Full Commission Meeting May 25, 1982 Washington, D.C.

HearingCollege

Admissions and the

Tmnsition to PostSecondary Education

June 23, 1982

SymposiumThe Student's July 30, 1982

Role in Learning

Panel Discussion

College Curriculum:

Shape, Influence,

and Assessment

I leafingEducation for

a Productive Role in a

Productive Society

Full Commission

Meeting

N

HearingEducation for

the Gifted and

blented

Full Commission Meeting

Full Commission Meeting

Full Commission Meeting

,

August 27, 1982

Roosevelt University Rolf Weil, President

Chicago, Illinois

San Diego State

University

California

Roosevelt University

John Corbally, President

John D. and Catherine I

MacArthur Foundation

Chicago

Thomas Day, President

San Diego State University

Richard Atkinson, Chancellor

University of California

San Diego

University of Rhode Frank Newman, President

Island University of RhOde Island

Kingston, Rhode Island

September 16, 1982 St. Cajetan's Center

Denver, Colonido

September 28-29,

1982

October 15, 1982

November 15 16, 1982

January 21-22, 1983

April 26, 1983

New York, New York

Harvard University

Cambridge,

Massachusetts

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C.

Washington, D.C.

r) 0

Robert Andringa, Executive

Director

Education Commission of the

States

Denver

Robert Payton, President

Exxon Education Foundation

Exxon Corporation

New York, New York

Derek Bok, President

Ilarvard University

Patncia Albjerg Graham, Dean

I larvard Graduate School of

Education

43
Aopendix C: Commissioned Paoers

Authons) Paper

Joseph Adelson

The University of Miethigan, Ann Arbor

Catherine P Ai les

Francis W. Rushmg

SRI International, Arlington, 'Virginia

Alexander W Astin

University of California, Los Angeles

Alexandcr W Astin

University of California, Lo's Angeles

Herman Blake

University of California, Santa Cruz

Richard I. Brod

The Modern Language Associadon

New York, New York

Nicholas Farnham

The International Council on the

Future of the University

New York, New York

William V Mayer

Biological Sciences Cul riculum Study

Boulder, Colorado

Robert A. McCaughey

Barnard College, New ThrkNew York

Barbara B. Burn

Christopher H. Hurn

University of Massachusetts, Amherst

Philip Cusick

Michigan State University, East Unsing

Paul De Hart Hurd

Stanford University, California

Walter Doyle

University of Texas at Austin

"Twenty-Five Years of American

Education: An Interpretation"

"A Summary Report on the Educational Systems of

the United States and the Soviet Union: Comparative

Analysis"

"Excellence and Equity in American Education"

"The American Freshman, 1966-1981: Some Implications for Educational Policy and Practice"

"Demographic Change and Curriculum: New Students

in Higher Education"

"University Entrance Examinations

and Performance Expectations"

"An Analytic Comparison of

Educational Systems"

"Secondary Public Schools in

America"

"An Overview of Science Education

in the United States and

Selected Foreign Countries"

"Academic Work"
Autbor(s)

Kenneth Duckworth

1..niversity of Oregon. Eugene

Max A. Ecksteni

Queens College City of Aw York

Flushing

Susal me Shafer

Arizona State University. "rempe

Kenneth Travers

University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Eleanor Farrar

The I Iuron Institute

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Matthew B. Miles

Center for Policy Research

New York, New York

Barbara Neufeld

The Huron Institute

Cambridge. Massachusetts

Zelda Gamson

University of Michigan. Ann Arbor

William E. Gardner

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

John R Palmer

University of Isconsin, Madison

"I'homas L. Good

, University of Nfissouri-Columbia

Thomas L. Good

Gail M. Hinkel

University of Missouri-Columbia

Donald B. Holsinger

State l.'niversity of New York. Albany

Kenneth R. Howey

University of Minnesota, Minneapolis tion"

Paper

"Some Ideas About Student Cognition, Motivation and

Work" (A Critique of the Sympositun on The Sthden('s

Role in Learning)

"A Comparatii'e Review of Curriculum: Mathematics

and International Studies in the Secondary Schools of

Five Countries"

"A Review of Effective Schools Research: Implications

for Practice and Research"

"A Little Light on the Subject: Keeping General and

Liberal Education Alive"

"Certification and Accreditation: Background, Issue

Analysis, and Recommendations"

"What Is Learned in Schools. Responding to School

Demands, Grades K-6"

"Schooling in America: Some Descriptive ahd Explanatory Statements"

"Time, Content and Expectations as Predictors of

School Achievement in the U.S.A. and Other Developed Countries: A Review of IEA Evidence"

"Charting Directions for Preservice Teacher Educa45
Author(s)

Torsten Husen

University of Stockholm, Sweden

Nancy Karweit

Johns Hopkins University

Baltimore, Maryland

Howard London

Bridgewater State College

Massachusetts

Martin L. Maehr

University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Matthew B. Miles

Center for Policy Research

New York, New York

Eleanor Farrar

Barbara Neufeld

The Huron Institute

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Barbara Neufeld

Eleanor Farrar

The Huron Institute

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Matthew B. Miles

Centerfor Policy Research

New York, New York

-

William Neumann

Syracuse University, New York

41,

C. Robert Pace

Uhiversity of California, Los Angeles

Irvey L. Prokop

San Diego Unified School District

California

Lauren 13, Resnick

University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

46

v

Paper

"A Cross-National Perspective on Assessing the Quality of Learning"

"Time on Task: A Research Review"

"Academic Standards in the American Community College: Trends and Controversies"

"Motivational Factors in School Achievement"

"The Extent of Adoption of Effective Schools Programs"

"A Review of Effective Schools Research: The Message for Secondary Schools"

"College Press and Iudent Fit"

"Achievement and Quality of Student Effort"

"Intelligence, Motivation and the Quantity and Quality

of Academic Work and Their Impacts on the Learning

of Students: A Practitioner's Reaction" (A Critique of

the Symposium on The Student's I?ole i» Lear»ing)

"Standards, Curriculum, and Performahce: An Historical and Comparative Perspective"

roo
Author(s)

Daniel P. Re Snick <

Carnegie-Mellon University

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Frederick Rudolph

Williams College

Williamstown, Massaenusetts

Clifford Sjogren

University of Michigim, Ann Arbor

Richud E. Snow

Stanford University, California

Robert J. Sternberg

Richard Wagner

Yale University, New Haven, Connecticut

Deborah Stipek

University of California, Los Angeles

Judith Torney-Purta

Univer5itv of Maryland, College Park

yh achwille

Michigan State University, East Lansing

Beatrice Ward - John R. Mergendoiler

Alexis L. Mitman

Far West Laboratory for Educational

Research and Development

San Francisco, California

Jonathan Warren

Educational Testing Service

Berkeley. California

Dean K. Whit la

Harvard University

Cambridge. Massachusetts

Sam J. Yarger

Syracuse University, New York

Paper

"Educational ExcellenceThe Secondary SchoolCollege Connection and Other Matters: An Historical

Assessment"

"College Admissions and the Transition to Postsecondary Education: Standards and Practices"

"Intelligence, Motivation and t.:ndemic Work" (A Critique of the Symposium on TheStudent's Role in

Learning)

"Understanding Intelligence: What's in It for Educators?"

"Motivating Students to Learn: A Lifelong Perspective"

"The Values Learned in School: Policy and Practice in

hidustrialized Countries"

.)

"The Years Between Elementary School and High

School: What Schooling Experiences Do Students

Have?"

"The Faculty Role in Educational Excellence"

"Value Added and Other Related Matters"

."Inservice Education"

:t

47 ,
Authorisi Paper

Herbert Zimiles

'The Changing American Child: The Perspective of

Rank Street College of Education Educators"

, New York. New York

Comnussioned papers will be available ui the ERIC system after July 1983 (See Ordering Intormatioa

Also available through the ERIC sytitein afterluly 1983:

Clifford Melt=

National Institute of l:du

Washington. D.C. on

"A-Study of High School Transcripts, 1964-1981"
Aooenc Ix D: Hearing

Testimony

Science, Nathematics, and Technology Education

H. Guyford Stever, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.

Bernard M. Oliver, Hewlett-Packard Compan3 Palo Alto, California

Henry L. Alder, University ofCalifornia, Davis, representing the Council of Scientific Society Presidents

Sarah E. Klein, Roton Middle School, Norwalk, Connecticut, representing the National Science Teachers Association

Harold D. Taylor, Hillsdale High School, San Mateo, California, representing the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics , John Martin, Palo Alto Unified School District, California

Ruth Willis, Hamilton Junior High School, Oakland, California

Sam Dederian, San Francisco Unified School District, California

Leroy Finkel, San Mateo Ccointy Office of Education, California

Olivia Martinez, San Jose Unified School District, California

Robert Bell, General-Electric Company, San Jose, California

Judith Hubner, representing the Governor's Office, State of California

Robert W. Walker, De Anza-Foothill Community College District, California

Nancy Kreinberg, Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley, California

Robert Finnell, Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley, California

Marian E. Koshland, University of California, Berkeley, representing

the National Science Board . Alan M. Portis, University of California, Berkeley, representing the

Education Committee of the American Physical Society

Leon Henkin, University of California. Berkeley, representing the U.S.

Commission on Mathematical Instruction

John Pawson, Edison High School, Huntington Beach, California

Alan Fibish, Lowell High School, San Francisco, California

Jtiliet R. Henry, representing the California Teachers Association

Jess Bravin. Board of Education, Los Angeles, California

Frank Oppenheimer, Exploratorium, San Francisco, California

Leigh Burstein, University of California, Los Angeles

Judy Chamberlain, Cupertino Unified School District, California

Michael Summerville, Fremont Unified High School District. California

Ted Perry. San Juan Unified School District, California

Paul DeHart Hurd, Stanford University, California

Elizabeth Karplus, Campolindo High School, Moraga, California 5 0

49
50

Louis Fein, Palo Alto Learners Association, California

Bob McFarland, representing the California Math Council

Katherine Burt, Cupertino Elementary School District, California

Leo Ruth, California Engineering Foundation

Gordon M. Ambach, State Education Department, Albany, New York

James L. Casey, State Department of Education, Oklahoma City,

Oklai,oma

Carolyn Graham, Jefferson Elementary School, Burbank, California

Marcy Holteen, Ambler, Pennsylvania

Howard C. Mel and Kay Farwell, Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley,

California

Jean Phillips, Thousand Oaks, California

Simon Ramo, the TRW-Fujitsu Company, Redondo Beach, California

Gerhardt W. Reidel, University of West Los Angeles, Culver City,

California

Carl L. Riehm, Virginia State Department of Education, Richmond,

Virginia

John H. Saxon, Norman, Oklahoma

Thomas 0. Sidebottom, Interactive Sciences, Inc., Palo Alto, California

Karl Weiss, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts

Jan West, Oroville, California

Related Activities in the Bay Area

Site Visit

Lawrence Hall of Science

University of California, Berkeley

Howard C. Mel, Director

Tour of the Paul and Jean Hanna Collection on the Role of Education and

the Archives and Library at the Hoover Institution, Stanford

University

Dinner with business, education, and community leaders

Sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce of the United

States, Western Regional Office, and the William and Flora

Hewlett Foundation

Language and Literacy: Skills for Academic

Learning - Richard C. Anderson, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Margaret Smith-Burke, New York University, New York

Donald Graves, University of New Hampshire, Durham

Eileen Lundy, University of Texas, San Antonio

Ray Clifford, Defense I-anguage Institute, Presidio of Monterey,

California

Lily Wong-Fillmore, University of California, Berkeley ) s-, <,
Victoria Bergin, Texas Edwation Agency, Austin

Alan C. Purves, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana

Delia Pompa, Houston Independent School District, Texas

Olivia Munoz, Houston Independent School District, Texas

James Kinneavy, University of Texas, Austin

Betty Von Maszewski, Deer Park Independent School District, Texas

Claire E. Weinstein, University of Texas, Austin

Patricia Sturdivant, Houston Independent School District, Texas

June Dempsey, University of Houston, 'lexas, representing the American Association of Commu»ity and Junior Colleges, the Western College Reading Association, and the National Associatio» for Remedial

and Developmental Studies in Postsecondary Education

Jane Porter, College Board, Austin, Texas

Kay Bell, Texas Classroom 'leachers Association, Austin, Thxas

Judy Walker de Felix, University ofHouston, Texas

Barbara Glave, University of Houston, Texas, representing the Houston

Area Teachers of Foreiga,Language

Dora Scott. Houston Independent School District, Texas, representing

the National Education Association and the Texas State Teachers

Association, Houston

Georgette Sullins, Spring Independent School District, Texas

Renate Donovan, Spring Branch Independent School District, Thxas

Gordon NI. Ambach, State Education Department, Albany, New York

Jo Bennett and Jean Parochetti, Alvin Community College, 'texas

Sharon Robinson, National Education Association, Washington, D.C.

Dontild L. Rubin, University of Georgia, Athens, representing the

Speech Conmmnication Association

Robert N. Schwattz, University of Houston, Texas

Ralph C. Staiger, International Reading Associatio», Newark, Delaware

Helen Warmer-Burke and Carl L. Riehm, Department of Education,

Richmond, Virginia

William Work, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, Virginia

Daryl R. Yost, East Allen County Schools, New ilaven, Indiana

Related Activities in Houston

Site visits coordinated by the Office of the General Superintendent of

the Houston Independent School District

Briargrove Elementary School

Wilson Elementary School

Clifton Middle School

Bellaire High School

High School for Engineering Professions 51
52

I ligh School for Health Professions

High School for Performing and Visual Arts

Maching and TeacherEducation

Gary Sykes, National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.

Gary Fenstermacher, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg

David G. Imig, American Association of Colleges for 'leacher Education,

Washington, D.C.

Anne Flowers, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro

Barbara Peterson, Seven Oaks Elementary School, Columbia, South

Carolina

Eva Galumbos, Sduthern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, Georgia

Robert Scanlon, Pennsylvania State Department of Education, Harrisburg

Ralph Thrlington, Florida State Department of Education, bllahassee

Gail Mac Coll, National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.

Kathy Jones, Roan State Community College, Harriman, Tennessee.

representing the National Education Association

Mary Lou Romaine, Atlanta Federation of Teachers, Georgia, representing the American Federation of Thachers

Janet Tows lee-Collier, Georgia State University, Atlanta, representing

the Association of Teacher Educators

Robert Fortenberry, Jackson City Schools, Mississippi, representing

the American Association of School Administrators

Nicholas Hobar, West Virginia Department of Education, Charleston,

representing the National Association of State Directors of Teacher

Education and Certification

Fred Loveday, Georgia Private Education Council, Smyrna, representing the Council for American Private Educaion

James Lowden, Alabama Christian Education Association, Prattville,

representing the American Association of Christian Schools

J.L. Grant, Florida State University. Thllahassee. representing the

American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education

Carolyn Huseman, Georgia State Board of Education, representing the

National Association of State Boards of Education

Robert Fontenot, University of Southwestern Louisiana. La Fayette

Nancy Ramseur, Camden High School, South Carolina

Eugene Kelly, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.

Richard Hodges, Decatur, Georgia

James Gray, University of California, Berkeley

Robert Dixon, Institute for Research, Development and Engineering in

Nuclear Energy, Atlanta, Georgia

Pat Woodall. Columbus, Georgia

5. 4
Wayne Wheatle; Furman University. Greenville, South Carolina, representing the Council for Exceptional Children

Joe Hasenstab. Project Teach, Westwood, New Jersey

Wdham Drununond, University of Florida. Gainesville

Debbie Yoho, Southeastern Regional Teacher Center. Columbia, South

Carolina

Donald Gallelu; Virginia tVriting Project, Fairfax

James Collins, National Council of States on In-service Education, Syracuse, New York

Ann Levy, Project New Adventure in Learning, Tallahassee, Florida

Bill Katzenmeyer, University of South Florida, Tampa

Mt Mika. Virginia Education Association

Eunice Sims, Georgia Writing Project, Atlanta

Elaine Banks and Sam Sava, National Assojation of Elementary School

Principals, Reston, Virginia

Alandino A. Burchianti, Masontown, Pennsylvania

Roy Ede !felt, Washington, D.C.

Ed Foglia. California Thachers Association, Burlingame

June Johnson, New Adventure in Learning, lillahassee, Florida

Richard A. Krueger, Staples Teacher Center, Minnesota

Clare Miezio, Eagle Forum Education Committee. Schaumburg, Illinois

Dom Id L. Rubin, University ofGeorgia. Athens, representing the

Speech Communication Association Committee on Assessment and

Testing

Daryl R. Yost, East Allen County Schools. New Haven. Indiana

Related Activities in Atlanta

Site Visits

iouglas I ligh School

L.W. Butts. Principal

Mays High School

Minims E. Wood, Jr., Principal

Lunch with local dignitaries hosted by Georgia State I niversity

Dinner with business. educatiim, and community

Coordinated by the Atlanta Partnership

cation

Sponsored by FABRAP Architects. Inc.

Company

leaders

of Business and Edu- . and the Coca-Cola

tj

53
54

College Admissions and the Ransition to

Postsecondary Education

Clifford Sjogren, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Ralph McGee, New Trier Township High School, Winnetka, Illinois

Alice Cox, University of California Systemwide Administration, Berkeley

George Stafford, Prairie View A&M University, Texas

Fred Hargadon, Stanford University, California

Margaret Mac Vicar, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge

Lois Mazzuca, National Association of College Admissions Counselors,

Rolling Meadows, Illinois

Ora Mc Connor, Chicago Public Schools, Illinois

Theodore Brown, Hales Franciscan High School, Chicago, Illinois

Charles D. O'Connell, University of Chicago, Illinois

Oscar Shabat, Chicago Community College System, Illinois

Arnold Mitchum, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Michael Kean, Educational Testing Service, Midwestern Regional Office, Evanston, Illinois

John B. Vaccaro, The College Board, Midwestern Regional Office,

Evanston, Illinois

William Kinnison, Wittenberg University, Springfield, Ohio

William J. Pappas, Northview High School, Grand Rapids, Michigan

Carmelo Rodriguez, ASPIRA of Illinois, Chicago

Jeffrey Mallow, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois

Carol Elder, Local 4100 of American Federation of Thachers, Chicago,

llhiois

Bettye J. Lewis, Michigan Alliance of Families

Rachel Ralya, Michigan Alliance of Families

Austin Doherty, Alverno College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Gordon M. Ambach, State Education Department, Albany, New York

Gordon C. Godbey, Pennsylvania Association for Adult Continuing Education

Daryl R. Yost, East Allen County Schools, New Haven, Indiana

Related Activities in Chicago

Site Visits

Standard Oil of Indiana

Gene E. Cartwright, Manager of Employee Relations

Joseph Feeney, Director, Training and Personnel

Planning

fi I
Continental Illinois Bank

Jennifer Olsztynski. Personnel Manager

De Paul I'mversity

Rev. John T. Richardson, President

David Justice. Dean, School tor New Learning

Luncheon with leaders of higher ethication institutions

Sponsored by the John D. and Catherine 'I'. MacArthur Foundation

Dinner with business, education, and community leaders

Sponsored by the John D. and Catherine "Is. MacArthur Foundation

Chaired by Stanley 0. ,-nberry, President, University of Illinois

Education for a ProductiveRole in a Productive

Society

Daniel Sat& Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.

Roy Forbes, Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colorado

Sol Hurwitz, Committee for Economic Development, New York, New

York

Martha Brownlee, Naval Education and Training for Research and Development, Pensacola, Florida

Norman Pledger. Colorado AFL-CIO, Denver

Lucretia James, Storage Teclutology, Inc., Louisville, Colorado

Kathy Collins Smith, American Institute of Banking, Denver, Colorado

Wade Murphree, Denver Institute of Technology, Colorado

Calvin Frazier, State Department of Education, Denver, Colorado

Robert Taylor, The Ohio State University, Columbus

John Peper, Jefferson County Schools, Lakewood, Colorado

Michael A. Mac Dowell, Joint Council on Economic Education, New

York, NeA% York

Larry Brown, 70001, Inc., Washington, D.C.

Robert Stewart, University of Missouri, Columbia

Gordon Dickinson, Colorado Conununity College and Vocational Education Board, Sterling

Karl Weiss, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts

Donal&Schwartz, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs

Patricia Brevik, Auraria Library and Media Center, Denver, Colorado

John Dromgoole. National Commission on Cooperative Education, Boston, Massachusetts

Faith Haire, Littleton Public Schools, Ohio 55
56

Vernon Broussard, National Council on Vocational Education, Culver

City, California

David Terry, Utah System of Higher Education, Salt Lake City

Georgia Van Adestine, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan

Gordon' E. Heaton, Colorado Education Association, Aurora, Colorado

Young Jay Mulkey, American Institute for Character Hucation, San Antonio, Texas

George P Rusteika, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and

Development, San Francisco, California

Donald Clark, National Association for Industry-Education Cooperation,

Buffalo, New York

Jacqueline Danzberger, Youth-Work, Inc., Washington. D.C.

Cliar les Davis, Education Clinics, Inc., Seattle. Washington

Dennis A. Dirksen, San Diego State University, California

Ben Lawrence, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, Boulder, Colorado

Bill Rosser and Jennie Sanchez, Chicano Education Project, Denver,

Colorado

Sandra K. Squires, University of Nebraska, Omaha

Related Activities in the Denver Area

Site ViSits

Warren Occupational Technology Center, Golden

Byron 'flicker. Principal

Mountain Bell Education and Training Center, Lakewood

Fred Wells, Director

Career Education Center, Denver

John Astuno, Principal

Emily Griffith Opportunity School, Denver

Butch Thomas, Principal

Luncheon discussion with Robert Worthington, Assistant Secretary for

Vocational and Adult Education, U.S. Department of Education,

Washington, D.C.

Dinner discussion with Willard Wirtz, National Institute for Work and

Learning, Washington, D.C., and I lenry David, National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.

Dinner with business, education, and community leaders

Sponsored by the Education Commission of the States

Chaired by Calvin Frazier, Commissioner of Education,

Colorado
Education for the Gifted and lidented

James J. Gallagher, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

Marcel Kmsbourne, Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center, Waltham, Massa='

chusetts

Joseph Renzulh, University of Connecticut. Storrs

David Feldman, Tufts University, Medtord, Massachusetts

William Durden, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland

Connie Steele, Texas Technical University, Lubbock

Isa Mita! Zimmerman. Lexington Public Schools, Massachusetts

Alexmia Baldwin, State University of New York. Albany

Arthur Pontarelli, Rhode Island State Department of Education. Providence

Armand E. Bastastmi, Jr., Rhode Island State Legislature, Providence

William R. Holland, Narragansett School District, Rhode Island

Melissa Lawton, Bristol School District, Rhode Island

Rachel Christina, Bristol School District, Rhode Island

Catherine Valentino, North Kingstown School District, Rhode Island

Marie Friedel, National Foundation for Gifted and Creative Children,

Providence, Rhode Island

Marsha R. Berger, Rhode Island Federation of 'leachers, Providence

Sidney Rollins, Rhode Island College, Providence

David Liux, State Advocates for Gifted Education, Providence, Rhode

Island

James A. Di Prete, Coventry High School, Rhode Island

Harold Raynolds, Maine State Department of Education; Augusta

June K. Goodman, Connecticut State Board of Education, Hartford

Mary Hunter Wolfe, Connecticut State Task Force on Gifted and Talented Education, Hartford

Paul Replier, speaking on behalf of Gordon Ambach. State Education

Department, Albany, New York

Benson Snyder, Massachusetts Institute of Thchnology, Cambridge,

Massachusetts

June Cox, Sid Richardso, . Foundation, Fort Worth, Texas

LoreM L. Frissora, Needham Public Schools, Massachusetts, representing the National Education Association

Patricia O'Connell, Augusta, Maine, representing the Council of State

Directors for Programs for\the Gifted

Virginia Ehrlich, Astor Program Studies for Gifted, Suffern, New York

Gloria Duclos, University of Sou ,rn Maine. Portland

Anton Lysy, Londonderry School D -Via New Hampshire

Rhoda Spear, New Haven Schools, C mecticut 57

) 44.
58

Judith Gnmbatun, Southeastern Massachusetts University, North Dartmouth

Vincent Hawes, American Association of State Colleges and Universities, Washington, D.C.

I)orothy Moser, Mortar Board, Inc., Columbus, Ohio

Wendy Marcks, Chelmsford Association l'or Thlefited and Gifted, Massachusetts

James De Lisle, University of Connecticut, Storrs

Naomi Zymelman, Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School, Rockville,

Maryland

Sherry Earle, Connecticut Association for the Gifted, Danbury

C. Grey Austin, University of Georgia, Athens

Sally Reis, Council for Exceptioltal Children, Thlented and Gifted Division, Reston, Vir&ia

Betty T Gilson, Brockton Public Schools, Massachusetts

Roberta Mc Hardy, Louisiana Department of Education, Baton Rouge

Felicity Freund, Gifted Child Society, Oakland, New Jersey

Lydia Smith, Simmons College, Boston, Massachusetts

Betsy Buchbinder, Massachusetts Association for Advancement of Individual Potential, Milton

Artemis Kirk, Simmons College, Boston, Massachusetts, representing

the Association of College and Research Libraries

Elizabeth E Abbott, Governor's Program for Gifted and Talented,

Gainesville, Florida

James Alvino, Gifted Child Newsletter, Sewell, New Jersey

Gordon M. Ambach, State Education Department, Albany, New York

Association of San Diego Educators for the Gifted and Thlented,

California

Philip J. Burke and Karen A. Verbeke, University of Maryland, College

Park

Sheila Brown, Nebraska Department of Education, Lincoln

California Association for the Gifted, Downey

Carolyn M. Callahan, The Association for the Gifted

Anne 13. Crabbe, Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa

Roxanne H. Cramer, American Mensa, Arlington, Virginia

Neil Daniel, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth

Sue Ellen Duggan and Mary Lou Fernandes. Lackawanna City School

District, New York

John E Feldhusen, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana

Frank E Fowle, Ill, Clayton, Missouri

Joseph Harrington, College Academy, Stoughton, Massachusetts

Anne E. ImpellizZeri, American Association for Gifted Children

Betty Johnson, Minnesota Council for the Gift(11 and blented,

Minneapolis
Nancy Kalajian, Sommerville, Mat,sachusetts

John Lawson, Massachusetts Department of Education, Quincy

Barbara Lindsey, Southwest.lowans for Ihlented and Gifted, Council

Bluffs

Diane Modest, Frainingbm Public Schools, Massachusetts

Jack L. Omond, Office for the Gifted, Port Elizabeth, South Africa

Arthur Purcell, Resource Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.

Annette Raphel, Milton Academy, Massachusetts

Susanne Richert, Educational Improvement Center, Sewell, New Jersey

Carl L. Riehm, Virginia State Department of Education, Richmond

'Ferry Ruby, Raynham Public Schools, Massachusetts

Barbara Moore Schuch, San Diego City Schools, California

Dorothy Sisk, University ofSouth Florida, bmpa

Mercedes Smith, Gifted Association of Missouri, Springfield

Christopher L. Sny, Janesville Public Schools, Wisconsin

Juhan C. Stanley, SMPY. Department of Psychology, Johns flopkins

University. Baltimore, Maryland

Jo Thomason and Frederick J. Weintraub, Council for Exceptional Citadi en, Reston, Virginia

Jo Anne Welch, Mississippi Association for the blented and Gifted

Related Activities in the Boston Area

Site Visits

Buckingham, Brown and Nichols School, Cambridge

Peter Gunness, Headmaster

Brookline High School, Brookline

Robert McCarthy, Headmaster

Secretary's Regional Representatives

The Secretary's Regional Representatives held their own conferences

or hearings for educators in their regions in order to provide additional

testimony to the Commission. In addition to these events, they also

supported the hearings the Commission sponsored in their regions.

Region I, Wayne Roberts

Boston, Massachusetts

Forum on Effective Schools, September 16, 1982

Region H. L9rraine Co Mlle

New York, New York

Forum On Excellence, October 21, 1982

59
.Region III, Joseph Ambrosino

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Hearing/Conference on Cooperative Education, October 11, 1982

Region IV, Ted B. Freeman

Atlanta, Georgia

Public Meetmg on Excellence in Education, October 22, 1982

Region V. Harold Wright

Chicago, Illinois

Excellence in Education: Preparation for the 'fransition to Higher

Education, October 6, 1982 ° Region VI, Scott Tuxhorn

Dallas, Texas

Public Hearing on Excellence in Education, O'ctober 4, 1982

Region VII, Cynthia A. Harris

Kansas City, Missouri

Rural and Small Schools Excellence, October 26, 1982

Region VIII, Tom l'ancredo

Denver, Colorado

Conference on Excellence in Education, Noilenther 12-13, 1982

Region IX, Eugene Gonzales

San Francisco, California

The Teacher: Key to Excellence in th:2 Classroom, October 18, 1982

Region X, George Hood

Seattle, Washington

Public Hearing, June 25, 1982, Ammst 27, 1982

(Hearing Officer: I lyrum M. Smith)

Transcripts of the preceding hearings sponsored by and for the Commission will be available in the ERIC System (See Ordering Information).

In addition to these hearings sponsored by and for the Commission, Commission members participated in a series of site visits and a

public hearing focusing on Excellence in Rural Education. These events

took place on April 23-24, 1982, in Kentucky The hearing was held

at the University of Kentucky-Somerset Community College.

60
Aooendix E: Other

Presentatrons.to the

Commission

Adrienne Bailey. The College Board, New York: New York

Stephen I3ailey, Harvard Graduate Schoo) of Education. Cambhdge.

Masszichuselts

Irene Bandy Ohio Department of Education, Columbus

Elias Blake. Clark College. Atkinta. Georgia

Lewis M. Branscomb. National Science Board. Washington, D.C.

David Burnett. University of Pennsyli.ania. Philadelphia

Liwrence Crennn. Teachers College. Columbia University. New York.

New York

James V. Gaddy N'ew Rochelle High School. New York

John Good lad. University of California, Los Angeles

Elaine Hairston. Ohio Boiird of Regents. Columbus

John Hurley. INA Corporatidn (Now CIGNA). Philadelphia. Pennsylvania

Edward Kelly. State University of New York at Albany

Robert McMillan. University of Rhode Island, Kingston

Edward Pellegrino. Georgetown Medical Center:Washington. D.C.

Francis Roberts. National Endowment for the Humanities. Washington,

.D.C.

David S. Seeley, Staten Island. New York

John Sprott. U.S. Department of State. Washington, D.C.

Carol Stoel. US. Department of Education. Washington. D.C.

Abraliam Tannenbaum. Thachers College, Columbia University. New

York. Ne v.York

Harold Trag -hoXerox Corporation. Stamford, Connecticut

11

61

,
r

62

Aopencix F: \otaole

Program,

Institutions Which Submitted Profiles of Programs

With the assistance of a variety of organizations, the Commission conducted foul searches for examples of notable programs and promising approaches to specific problems in American education. Our purpose was to

understand better how schools, school districts, colleges, and other education organizations were defining and addressing these problems. Where

the evidence was convincing, we also sought to learn what made successful

programs work in different settings.

The Commission's procedure in these four searches was to solicit

orOnal profiles of these programs and approaches, profiles that would answer a number of Key questions concerning their purpose, content, organization, impact, and transferability.

Evidence of program success was provided wholly by the institution submitting the profile. The Commission is, thus, in no position to validate these programs or to claim any of them to be "exemplary."

Over 200 schools, school districts, colleges. and other educational

organizations responded to oursolicitations. They sent in profiles and other

descriptions of nearly 300 programs. Due to the specific problems on

which we were seeking information (e.g., the transition from secondary to

postsecondary education, the use of educational technology, mathematics

education, cooperative educational ventures with business and industry),

most of the respondents were postsecondary institutions. But many of the

profiles submitted by collegesinvolved programs developed for or with elementary and or secondary schools and are in operation in many school districts,

For their assistance in the efforts to identify and solicit thisinformation, we are particularlygrateful to the Ametican Council on Education, the

American Association for Higher Education, the American Association of

State Colleges and Universities, the American Association of Community

and Junior Colleges, the National Association of Secondary School Princifrik the Academy for Educational Development, the Council on American

FAucation, and the Fundlor the Improvement of Postsecondary

Eatcation
The tollowing document will be available in the ERIC System sometime

alter Ju Iv, 1983 (See Ordering Informauoni:

Authors

Clifford Adelman

National Institute of Education

Waslungton, D.C.

Elaine Reuben

Mame Reuben Associates

Washington, 1).C.

Paper

"Notable Programs in American

Postsecondary Education: Selected

Analytical Abstracts"

63
Apoencix G:

Acknowlecgments

We want to express particular appreciation to the Commission staff which,

under the leadership of Executive Director Milton Goklberg, assisted us in

our work and helped prepare this report. The staff included:

Betty S. Baten

Stella Carol Foley

Peter H. Gerber

James Harvey

Arnetta D. I.aGrone

Alisa M. Longworth

Mollie Shannahan Mac Adams

Penny S. McDonakl

Shelia L. Sam

Haro Idle K. Spriggs

Tinnily NI. Thmlinson

Susan Traiman

Patricia A. Welch

Others who assisted us at various times throughout the course of

our work include: Clifford Adelman. Ned Chalker. Cheryl Chase, Antoine

M. Garibaldi, Bruce I laslam. CarolynJohnson. Sharon Jones, Lily A. Kliot.

Andrew M. Lebby, Be \ erly Lindsat, Carol n Lowe, Irene Lykes, Claude

Nlayberry. John NI. Mays, Brad Mitchell, Jean Narayanan, Lewis Pike,

Joanne Saunders. Ramsay Selden, Gary Sykes, and Marilyn A. scott.

Also, the Conmussion owes a considerable debt to Editorial Experts. Inc.,

and Morgan-Burchette Associates. both ot Alexandria. Virginia, and in particular to Bruce Boston, Kai en Burchette, Lee Mickle, and Ian McNett,

tor invaluable assistance in designing, editing, and producing this volume.

Finally, we sinceielv appreciate the support and cooperation prowled by MaryJean LeTendre. Special Assistant to Secretary Belk DonaldJ.

Senese, Assistant Secretary, Office of Educational Researcli and Improvement: and Nlanuell Justiz. Director of the National Institute of Education.

6,1
Oideriiui

Inifbrma ion

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from:

Superintencient of Documents

U.S. Goverment Printing Office

Washington, D.C. 20402

The cost of this report is indicated on the enclosed order

form. Please send check, money order, or account number for

VISA or MasterCard, noting the expiration date on your

credit card. Indicate the name and address, including zip code,

to which the order should be shipped and provide your telephone number. Also, note the stock number with your order:

Stock No. 065-000-00177-2.

Charge orders may be telephoned to the GPO order desk at

(202) 783-3238, from 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. Eastern time,

Monday through Friday, except holidays. Inquiries about bulk

rates are encouraged.

The Report will also be available in the ERIC System after

July 1983.

Copies of Commission materials submitted to the ERIC System are available in two forms: paper copy (a reproduction of

the document in approximately the original page size) and microfiche (a 4" x 6" sheet of microfilm on which up to 96 pages

of text are reproduced). Copy costs are based on the number

of pages in the document. To illustrate, a 72-page document

currently costs $5.65 in paper copy and $.97 in microfiche

with postage costs in addition. Copies can be secured by contacting:

ERIC Document Reproduction Service

PO. Box 190

Arlington, Virginia 22210 /

(703) 841-1212 r U S GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1983401-326

65