Lessons

Learned, Challenges

Ahead 

National Education Goals Panel

December 1999

Education 

Goals:
James B. Hunt, Jr., North Carolina (D)

Frank Keating, Oklahoma (R)

Frank O’Bannon, Indiana (D)

Tommy Thompson, Wisconsin (R)

Cecil H. Underwood, West Virginia (R)

MEMBERS OF THE ADMINISTRATION

Michael Cohen, Special Assistant to the U.S. Secretary of Education (D)

Richard W. Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education (D)

MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

U.S. Senator Jeff Bingaman, New Mexico (D)

U.S. Senator Jim Jeffords, Vermont (R)

U.S. Representative William F. Goodling, Pennsylvania (R)

U.S. Representative Matthew G. Martinez, California (D)

STATE LEGISLATORS

Representative G. Spencer Coggs, Wisconsin (D)

Representative Mary Lou Cowlishaw, Illinois (R)

Representative Douglas R. Jones, Idaho (R)

Senator Stephen Stoll, Missouri (D)
Ken Nelson

PROGRAM STAFF

John Barth Senior Education Associate

Chris Harrington Education Associate

Burt Glassman Education Associate

Cynthia D. Prince Associate Director for 

Analysis and Reporting

Emily O. Wurtz Senior Education Associate

ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF

Cynthia M. Dixon Program Assistant

John J. Masaitis Executive Officer

Artesia Robinson Secretary
Lessons Learned,

Challenges Ahead

National Education Goals Panel

December 1999

Education 

Goals:
Emily Wurtz wrote National Education Goals: Lessons Learned, Challenges Ahead, based

on the nine commissioned papers written by Richard Elmore, Sharon Lynn Kagan (Goal 1),

Rafael Valdivieso (Goal 2), Lauren Resnick (Goal 3), David Imig (Goal 4), Senta Raizen (Goal

5), Paul Barton (Goal 6), John Porter (Goal 7), and Douglas Powell (Goal 8) and the data

reported in the 1998 Goals Report. The full text of these commissioned papers is available

from the Goals Panel and will appear in a special issue of the Columbia Teachers College

Record. The authors prepared their papers for the National Education Goals Panel in

December 1998.
3

Richard Elmore, “The National Education Goals Panel: Purposes, Progress, and Prospects” . . . 

Goal 1: Ready to Learn

Sharon Lynn Kagan, with Ronnie Rubin, “Examining Children’s Readiness for School: 

Progress over the Decade” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Goal 2: High School Completion

Rafael Valdivieso, “National Education Goal 2: Trends, Accomplishments, and Prospects” . . . 1

Goal 3: Student Achievement

Lauren Resnick, “Student Achievement and Academic Standards” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Goal 4: Teacher Education

David G. Imig, “Professional Development: Accomplishments 

Made and Proposals for the Future” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Goal 5: Math and Science

Senta A. Raizen, “Goal 5: Mathematics and Science” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Goal 6: Adult Literacy

Paul Barton, “Education After High School: Issues in Quantity, Quality, and Equity” . . . . . . 2

Goal 7: Safe Schools

John Porter, “Report on Goal 7 Indicating Trends Since 1991,

Accomplishments and Suggested Priorities for the Decade Ahead” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Goal 8: Parental Participation

Douglas R. Powell, “Promoting Parent-School Partnerships: Progress 

in Meeting National Education Goal 8” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Original Resource Group Members . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
4

As chair of the National Education Goals Panel, I have asked the panel to think about the future of the 

al Education Goals, the contributions they have made, and the role they can play in the future. The pan

1999 by recommending that the National Education Goals be continued as America’s Education Go

decision was grounded in information the panel received from many sources, including a set of scholar

from its expert advisors.

This policy brief presents the highlights of these experts’ thoughtful comments. As one advisor, 

Elmore, points out, the panel has served as a forum that can

focus diverse political leaders across levels of government on education reform;

work on a common set of concerns—the goals—with a combination of technical expertise and

political judgment;

develop and communicate a bipartisan consensus that can shape the policy debate at the state and

local levels; and

sustain public discussion of the purposes and performance of American schools.

How appropriate for such a forum to reflect on what has been accomplished in the past 10 years and 

course for the century, and millennium, ahead!

These highlights summarize data trends and expert opinion about what was accomplished in the e

areas over the past decade of reform. On behalf of the panel, I thank each of the authors and the colleag

whom they worked for their generous help and service to the panel. Their insights will remind us of 

been accomplished and where the goals and the panel can best add value in the future.

Sincerely,

Paul E. Patton

Governor of Kentucky

Chair (1999), National Ed

Goals Panel
5

To inform its thinking, in 1998, the National Education Goals Panel asked its advisors to think about the

current status and future of educational reform. It

invited the leaders of its eight Resource Groups to

write a paper about what had been accomplished in

their goal area since the goals were set and what future

priorities should be. It also asked one advisor to read

these eight papers and comment as an outsider on

what had been accomplished across the goals. This

booklet summarizes the highlights of those papers

and indicates the “lessons learned” and “challenges

ahead.”

The nine papers reported several common factors.

In 1990 these Resource Groups of prominent experts

recommended what current data the panel should

report to measure progress toward each goal. When

existing data were inadequate, they indicated what

new measures were needed. Each group discovered

that measuring a goal required both clarifying what it

means and reaching a consensus among concerned

panel asked the authors to address: 1) trends in 

data the panel reports; 2) accomplishments of the p

decade and the contributions the Goals and the G

Panel may have made to them; and 3) recommen

priorities for the future. While the indicators the pa

reported have changed from year to year, all trend d

here are from the 1998 Goals Report. The comp

text of each paper is available upon request from 

Goals Panel and will be reprinted in a future spe

issue of the Columbia Teachers College Record.

The members of the National Education G

Panel are deeply grateful to the authors, Rich

Elmore, Sharon Lynn Kagan, Rafael Valdivieso, Lau

Resnick, David Imig, Senta Raizen, Paul Barton, Jo

Porter, and Douglas Powell. Their thoughtful advic

the panel goes far beyond these summaries. Each c

sulted with other Resource Group and Technical Pl

ning Group advisors. All have given generously 

their time and wisdom.
6

Questions Common to All the Papers

■ Should the panel modify its reporting process to

show the increasing diversity of the student population and to give more credit for progress short of

goal targets?

■ Should the panel undertake an initiative to

expand data collection, its frequency, and its comparability?

■ Should the panel address the continuing disparity

between white and minority students in academic

achievement and in rates of college attendance

and completion?

■ Should the panel seek to identify the next set of

“big issues” in education reform and work to

build a bipartisan consensus on how to address

them?

■ Should the goals and objectives themselves be

revisited and possibly modified?

Across the Goals—Richard Elmore

■ Current indicators don’t account for large demographic shifts and state and local variation in

reform implementation that obscure real improvements. Should the panel consider modifying indicators or reporting more context information to

better portray progress toward the goals?

■ Very specific goal language may focus attention

on the failure to meet the goal, rather than on

monitoring and promoting actual progress that is

being made. Should the panel consider revisions

in the goals themselves?

■ Elmore recommends that the panel 

emphasis to more special studies to help 

national agenda on big issues that fall 

routine monitoring of progress. How sh

panel identify the “big issues” for study?

Goal-Specific Questions and

Comments

Goal 1—Sharon Lynn Kagan

Kagan suggests that the panel consider exte

Goal 1 activities to:

■ Revisiting the goal and objectives;

■ Promoting more effective early childhoo

ments;

■ Helping with issues of school readiness 

dren;

■ Increasing public awareness and willin

help young children.

Goal 2—Rafael Valdivieso

■ The number of states maintaining long

individual student’s records increased fro

in 1992 to 14 in 1998. Should the pan

attention on increasing the number of s

maintain individualized student records?

■ The national rate for high school compl

remained constant, despite changes i

populations to include more students wit

ically higher rates for noncompletion

panel reporting on Goal 2 be modified 

the increasing diversity of school age pop

December conference. Below is a brief synopsis of the questions suggested by those pap

about the challenges the goals and panel will face in the future.
7

strong visionary, consensus-building role it played

effectively in the past?

Goal 4—David Imig

Imig recommends that the panel turn its attention to

several critical issues. What steps can the panel take

to assist in:

■ Creating alignment among state standards, curriculum, teacher pre-service training, and licensure programs?

■ Ensuring that all teachers have access to quality

professional development that is organized

around problem solving, informed by research,

and sustained through appropriate follow-up?

Goal 5—Senta Raizen

Raizen recommends that the panel undertake a

broader policy role that provides more interpretation of data and advocacy for change, based on data.

What steps can the panel take to:

■ Identify and publicize successful programs and

practices that particularly lead to improvements

in “whole curricular sequences through the

grades?”

■ Improve teacher learning in math and science?

planning group considering a NAEP-like ass

ment for higher education.

■ Turn attention to the growing disparity betw

white and minority access to and completion 

higher education.

Goal 7—John Porter

Porter recommends that the panel:

■ Work to link national, state, and local measure

school violence;

■ Sponsor additional study to identify the m

effective mix of incentives and sanctions in po

to reduce school violence.

Goal 8—Douglas Powell

Powell recommends four actions for the panel:

■ Getting more valid and reliable measures of lo

state and national parent involvement efforts 

outcomes;

■ Providing policy direction and technical as

tance to implement partnerships with parents

■ Supporting research on what works;

■ Strengthening the explicit links between pare

participation and the other goals.
8

Richard Elmore sees a “seismic shift” in recent

political attitudes about education. The states’

role has shifted from providing and monitoring

inputs to schooling (such as financing and facilities)

to one of setting student learning standards and monitoring school performance. State and local political

leaders now “routinely discuss student performance

on statewide tests,” and international comparisons

“are now a routine feature of political discourse.” The

overriding signal is that “schools should become more

focused on results for students, and that state policies

should focus on accountability for student learning.”

Significance of National 

Education Goals

The National Education Goals give purpose and

direction to this shift. At the 1989 Charlottesville Summit,

...for the first time in the history of

American education, political leaders

from both political parties, representing

widely divergent constituencies, agreed

upon a broad strategic framework, and a

set of commitments, to guide the overall

course of education.... The salience and

importance of consensus on national

goals for education reform, and on

broad strategic guidance for state and

local efforts, persists.... What is truly

remarkable about this period of reform...

is the persistence of the idea that education reform merits some kind of focused

national debate and discussion among

key political, professional, and community leaders at the state and local level to

guide its overall course. Also truly

remarkable about this period of reform is

that, despite the partisan wrangling that

has occurred around the exact form t

national debate and discussion sho

take, many political and professio

leaders have taken the idea of natio

consensus on education reform serio

ly and have explicitly let that consens

guide their actions.

In this context, Elmore contends, the fa

National Education Goals Panel becomes im

He cites five functions he thinks the panel 

formed: 1) convening expert panels to recomm

measures to track progress to the goals; 2) iss

ular progress reports that use those measure

viding guidance and support to organ

representing key reform constituencies; 4) 

sioning periodic special studies of key refor

that inform debate on the progress of e

reform; and 5) convening public discussion

progress of reform and progress toward the 

ment of goals. To date, Elmore writes, the N

been a model of how to construct and m

bipartisan institution, representing dive

stituencies, serving as a forum for public d

progress toward the goals and the course of r

the states and localities. He sees the NEGP as 

the only remaining national institut

focused on education reform with bip

tisan representation of political lead

across levels of government. This f

sends an important symbolic messa

about the importance of educat

reform as a bipartisan political issue.

Lessons Learned About the 

Goals Process

■ Different goals have served different pur

different constituencies. Resource Gro
9

“first in the world” in math and science is a clear

goal but one that is “not even remotely within

range” for the foreseeable future. This wording

may focus attention on the failure to meet the

goal, rather than monitoring and promoting actual progress that is being made.

■ Good goals are a combination of expertise and

political judgment.

NEGP, as a forum where technical

expertise and political judgment get

worked out around a common set of

concerns, is important... [There are] few

places that bring technical and political

judgment together around educational

issues in the way the NEGP does.

■ We probably do get what we measure, whether we

want it or not. In the long run, “when political

leaders articulate relatively clear expectations for

schools and create incentives that reinforce those

expectations, broad-scale changes occur.” These

changes occurred when high school completion

rose from 50 percent in the 1950s to more than 85

Options for the Future of the Pane

The panel’s future niche depends upon the r

other organizations assume for various asp

of reform. Elmore recommends that the pa

shift its emphasis to more special studies to help sh

the national agenda on big issues that arise from r

tine monitoring of progress.

From my perspective, the NEGP’s comparative advantage... is in its bipartisan,

multilevel representation and its ability

to combine technical expertise with

political judgment. Capitalizing on this

comparative advantage means focusing

the panel’s work on issues where communicating bipartisan consensus will

shape the policy debate at the state and

local level.

Important aspects of this debate will include con

ering whether to reformulate any of the goals and h

to address the inequalities of performance among 

ferent types of students.
10

Trends: What do the data show?

Children will receive the nutrition, physical activity experiences, and health care needed to 

school with healthy minds and bodies and to maintain the mental alertness necessary to be pre

learn, and the number of low birthweight babies will be significantly reduced through enhanced 

health systems.

NEGP Indicators:

There is not yet a direct measure of progress toward Goal 1.

Indicators of young children’s health include a Children’s Health Index, 2-year-olds immunized 

preventable diseases, low birthweight, and mothers’ early prenatal care

Family reading and storytelling

Preschool participation by children with disabilities

Aconsistent pattern of improvement appears

in the data reported by the Goals Panel on

indicators of progress toward the Goal 1

objectives. Thirty-five states report fewer infants born

with one of four health risks; 50 states increased the

percentages of mothers receiving early prenatal care;

47 states increased the number of young children with

disabilities enrolled in preschools. Likewise, the percentage nationally of 2-year-olds fully immunized

against preventable diseases rose to 78 percent in 1997

from 75 percent in 1994, and those 3- to 5-

whose parents read to them or told stories 

regularly increased to 72 percent in 1996 from 

cent in 1993.

The Goals Panel does not yet have dir

regarding children’s readiness for school. A m

study from the National Center for Edu

Statistics, the Early Childhood Longitudin

however, promises to provide the kind of 

the panel has sought.

!
11

“The past decade of NEGP work on

Goal 1 has greatly contributed to raising the status of children’s early years

to that of an issue worthy of the nation’s attention

and commitment. The work to date has been impressive, yet it remains incomplete.” Kagan recommends

that the panel consider extending its Goal 1 activities

to: 1) revisit the goal and its attendant objecti

2) promote more effective early childhood ass

ment processes; 3) help schools become more re

for the young children they serve; 4) improve 

quality of all early childhood settings; 

5) increase public awareness and willingness to h

young children.

! Prospects: What next?

a dramatically new respect for young children and for

the importance of the early years.” The value of early

childhood education has been “incorporated into the

educational and policy mainstream. Readiness is on

the lips of parents and policymakers.” The zeitgeist has

changed.

Goal 1 played a significant role in these developments. It “provided opportunities for visionary thinking; it evoked more thorough analyses and conceptual

frameworks [within education]; and it elevated professional and public awareness of the issue.” The panel 

represented a broad and powerful constituency... that had never before stood

behind the need for a focus on all young

children.... Because readiness was

acknowledged as important by a prestigious and powerful group like the NEGP,

and because readiness was conceived as

a collective responsibility from the outset, Goal One set the stage for new thinking about the needs of young children

and society’s responsibility to them....

Goal One was significant in forcing the

field to come together, to transcend its

differences, and to reach a common definition of readiness.

1997), extended the debate on how we should cond

assessments (Principles and Recommendations 

Early Childhood Assessments, 1998), raised the issu

how schools prepare themselves to serve all child

(Ready Schools, 1998), and brought visibility to e

childhood issues (Special Early Childhood Rep

1997).

Other organizations also were important in p

moting the importance of early childhood, includ

the Committee for Economic Development, the B

ness Roundtable, the Children’s Defense Fund, 

National Association for the Education of Young C

dren, Rob Reiner’s “I Am Your Child” campaign, w

fare reform legislation, and many others. But 

the bipartisan nature of the Goals Panel

is critical to underscore.... The panel

reaffirmed the ideas of the business

community, who knew that readiness

was both an educational and a workforce

issue. Finally, the NEGP allowed the profession to see beyond itself. For the first

time, readiness for all children had a

place on the national agenda.
12

The percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds nationally

who completed high school or received an

alternate credential has remained flat at 86

percent during the 1990s. Indeed, Rafael Valdivieso

says the rate over the past quarter-century has been

static, increasing only 2 percent since 1973. Although

15 states have now achieved a 90 percent high school

completion rate, nationally during the 1990s, the percentage of students who stayed in school and received

a diploma decreased by 5 percent while the percentage

of those earning an alternative credential, usually a

General Education Development (GED), increased by

the same amount. This decline has occurred while

students are taking more academic courses, educators

have raised academic standards, and the requirements

of the GED increased. Therefore, “the rate of 86 percent during the 1990s can be considered an 

plishment, given the social environment in 

occurred—a period of active efforts to raise s

in schools while social systems for young pe

side school were deteriorating,” Valdivieso w

The gap in high school graduation rates 

whites and minorities has remained. “Althou

was significant reduction in the black-white 

—about 10 percentage points in the 1980s—

ther progress has been made in the 1990s.” 

the rate of completion was 92 percent for w

percent for blacks, and 62 percent for Hispan

Hispanic-white disparity is a long-standing 

at least the last 25 years,” Valdivieso writes, an

tains to immigrant and nonimmigrant 

youth alike.

! Trends: What do the data show?

NEGP Indicators:

High school completion rates, as the percentage of 18- to 24-year-olds who have a high school c

(diploma or other credential)

High school dropout rates, as the percentage of students in grades 9 through 12 who leave schoo

completing a recognized secondary program
13

The growing proportion of Hispanic students in

schools and the mainstreaming of students with

disabilities, both groups with historically low

school completion rates, will make it more difficult to

increase high school completion rates in the deca

ahead. “Maintaining the current national goal of 

percent high school completion remains an ambiti

benchmark for the near future,” Valdivieso writes.

! Prospects: What next?

and not just high school dropout rates. While Goal 2

met widespread approval from educators and the

public, this acceptance masked the difficulty of defining and measuring school completion.

Attention and concern in the 1980s had focused on

students who dropped out of high school, but there

were competing methods for calculating dropout

rates. One way was to measure locally the number of

9th graders who began high school but subsequently

did not complete 12th grade. Such numbers are most

readily available at the local level, but it is hard to

account for youth who drop out before grade 9 or

move in or out of a school district, or for immigrants

who never enroll in school. The panel chose instead to

the workforce.

Panel advisors also recommended that the st

develop a comprehensive student record system as 

basis for calculating high school completion. Rela

work by the Council of Chief State School Offi

(CCSSO) and the National Center for Education 

tistics (NCES) has helped states move in this di

tion. The number of states maintaining a rec

system for every student doubled to 14 in 1998 fr

seven in 1992. The states have included many of 

data elements the panel recommended, and these 

ments also may help provide data to measure prog

toward several of the National Education Goals.
14

The Goals Panel reports significant improvement in student achievement in mathematics

in the United States between 1990 and 1996 in

the percentage of students scoring at the proficient

level on the National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grade levels,

and in reading between 1992 and 1998 at 8th grade.

Likewise, 27 states increased the percentage of 8th

graders proficient in math, and all 50 states increased

the proportion of Advanced Placement (AP) scores

qualifying for college credit. Scoring at the “proficient” level on NAEP is generally recognized as reaching a high standard of achievement, which is

appropriate for measuring goal attainment 

cult for showing short-term change. Lauren 

writes, “Measured in this way,... the overall 

ages of proficient students are much too low 

gest that all or even most American stud

competent in challenging subject matter.”

Other data show other evidence of impr

Over the decade, the percentage of studen

scores rose from below basic to basic or a

increased. For instance, the percentage of 4t

scoring at or above basic in math rose to 62 p

1996 from 57 percent in 1992, and the perc

8th graders doing so rose to 61 percent in 1996 

Trends: What do the data show?

Objectives:

The academic performance of all students at the elementary and secondary levels will increase sign

in every quartile, and the distribution of minority students in each quartile will more closely r

student population as a whole.

The percentage of all students who demonstrate the ability to reason, solve problems, apply knowle

write and communicate effectively will increase substantially.

All students will be involved in activities that promote and demonstrate good citizenship, goo

community service, and personal responsibility.

All students will have access to physical education and health education to ensure that they are health

The percentage of all students competent in more than one language will substantially increase.

All students will be knowledgeable about the diverse cultural heritage of this nation and about t

community.

NEGP Indicators:

Student achievement by subjects, as the proportion of students scoring at the “proficient” level on 

in reading, math, science, writing

Advanced Placement performance, as the proportion of AP scores high enough for college credit

!
!

15

Resnick credits the early activities of the panel

with launching the standards-based reform

movement and advocating on its behalf at

critical points in its development, until 1994. As the

public sustains its sense of the importance of education and standards, she appeals to the panel, a

highly visible, credible, and bipartisan agency, 

return to the strong visionary consensus role it pla

in the development of policy in the past.

Prospects: What next?

Beyond these data, Resnick sees states’ commitment to the process of setting and pursuing

academic standards as a transforming shift,

triggered by the goals and the panel. The Goal 3

Resource Group, which she chaired, recommended

that the panel use NAEP and AP data as the best measures available to report annual progress toward Goal

3. The group also recommended developing academic standards as a new way both to measure and to promote improved student achievement.

The panel embraced the recommendation to develop and promote academic standards for student

learning. Its commitment led directly to the establishment with Congress of the National Council on Education Standards and Testing, its 1992 report, Raising

Standards for American Education, and the subsequent

development of national standards in the various s

ject domains. The panel also supported proposals 

a continuing national “entity” to oversee state 

national standards and their implementation. 

establishment of Achieve and its recent educat

summits shows “it is clear... that the issues that g

rise to the Goals Panel are still very much alive.”

The “success” of the standards movements, jud

by states’ voluntary development of such standa

seems almost absolute. Virtually all states have ar

ulated academic standards and are working to de

op and align state student testing programs to th

On the other hand, states only now are mov

beyond the rhetorical stage of specifying standa

and into the complex processes of putting them i

operation.
!

16

Goal 4 was added to the National Education

Goals, and the Goals Panel first reported on it

in 1994. Like other goals, it is difficult to

measure, and insufficient data are available. Nonetheless, too many teachers are clearly teaching “out-offield,” and the situation is getting worse.

Across the country, the percentage of secondary

school teachers without an undergraduate or graduate degree in their main teaching assignment got

worse, declining to 63 percent in 1994, the latest year

for which data are available, from 66 percent in 1991.

These data will not be updated until 2000. 

has improved, and nine states have decline

indicator.

In 1994, 85 percent of teachers in the Unit

reported having participated in professional 

ment programs in education technology, me

in-depth study of their subject field, or stude

ment. Imig indicates that high rates of part

sometimes reflect that participation is manda

he urges attention to the nature and focus of 

ities offered.

Trends: What do the data show?

All teachers will have access to preservice teacher education and continuing professional developm

will provide them with the knowledge and skills needed to teach to an increasingly diverse studen

tion with a variety of educational, social, and health needs.

All teachers will have continuing opportunities to acquire additional knowledge and skills needed 

challenging subject matter and to use emerging new methods, forms of assessment, and technolog

States and school districts will create integrated strategies to attract, recruit, prepare, retain, and 

the continued professional development of teachers, administrators, and other educators, so that 

highly talented workforce of professional educators to teach challenging subject matter.

Partnerships will be established, whenever possible, among local educational agencies, institutions 

er education, parents, and local labor, business, and professional associations to provide and supp

grams for the professional development of educators.

NEGP Indicators:

Teacher preparation, as the percentage of public school teachers with academic degrees, and the p

with teaching certificates, in their main teaching assignment

Teacher professional development, as the percentage of public school teachers participating in in-s

professional development programs in one or more topics since the end of the previous year
!

17

I

mig sees Goal 4 as an unfinished agenda. He urges

the panel to address such issues as the lack of

alignment among many preservice teacher education programs, state and local K-12 standards and

curricula, program approval guidelines for teacher

education programs, and state teacher licensing

requirements.

He recognizes the need to engage the higher education community in the school-based reform efforts.

He especially appeals to the panel 

to reaffirm its commitment to ensuring

that all teachers have access to these

new forms of professional development—professional development that

is connected to teachers’ work with

their students; linked to the concrete

tasks of teaching; organized around

problem-solving; informed by research;

and sustained over time by ongoing conversations and coaching.

embedded activity linked directly to studentsability

to meet challenging new academic standards. As Imig

says, “[N]othing has a greater impact on the success of

students.... [T]he capabilities teachers bring to the

classroom are the single most important factor in the

education of young people.”

During the 1990s, a number of efforts to reform

professional development have flourished. Notable

among them are the work of the National Board on

Professional Teaching Standards, the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future (NCTAF)

and its report Teaching for America’s Future, the associated network of state NCTAF initiatives, other state

professional development boards, and independent

efforts to recruit capable people into education.

At the same time, the institutions offering teacher

education and professional development have made

learning what they need to know to improve stud

learning. Imig sees the increase in the number 

“professional development schools” (in which de

nated public schools serve as field sites for teach

in-training) as a promising development in 

process.

In 1997, the panel clearly identified improved p

fessional development focused on enhancing teach

ability to raise student achievement as a precondit

for reaching higher standards and communicated 

recommendations to state policymakers. The m

Goal 4 reform efforts of the decade, however, h

unfolded independent of the panel. Nonetheless, 

passage of Goal 4 itself reflects the new importa

that teacher quality has assumed in all efforts 

improve education.

Prospects: What next?
18

While NAEP data show that math achievement in the United States is improving,

comparative international data on student

achievement in both mathematics and science show

the United States is far from “first in the world.” International data were collected in 1980–82, 1986, and,

most recently and most comprehensively, in 1995 on

the Third International Mathematics and Science

Study (TIMSS).

The 1995 TIMSS data show that 20 of 40 participating countries scored above the United States in 8thgrade math, and nine of 40 participating countries

scored above the United States in 8th-grade science.

American students seemed to perform comparatively

better in science than in math. The panel recognized

14 states for their science performance, b

research study linking TIMSS and NAEP res

cated that only Singapore would be expecte

perform them in 8th-grade science.

Unlike other countries, however, the Unit

scored comparatively better in the early gra

than in later grades (8th and 12th). Even the 

American high school students, those taking 

cialized physics test, were outperformed by st

14 of 15 other nations.

On another indicator, the percentage of 

awarded in mathematics and science to all stu

minorities, and to females have all increase

cantly across the United States and in 33 stat

! Trends: What do the data show?

gg 

system of measurement, will increase by 50 percent.

The number of United States undergraduate and graduate students, especially women and minori

complete degrees in mathematics, science, and engineering will increase significantly.

NEGP Indicators:

International mathematics and science achievement, as U.S. and state standing on international ass

of math and science achievement

Mathematics and science degrees, as increases in the percentage of math and science degrees awar

students, minorities, and females

Mathematics instructional practices, as increases in the percentage of public school 8th grade

teachers report selected instructional practices (small-group instruction, teach algebra, functions

ing, and analytical ability)
19

Raizen writes, “Goal 5 is an unfinished agenda.”

She urges the panel to report the results of

new international studies that will become

available between 2000 and 2006. She also urges

the Goals Panel to undertake a broader policy role.

“The future demands far more interpretation of

the data and advocacy for changes based on the

data.” She specifically recommends the panel:

1) identify and publicize successful programs a

practices, improvements in “whole curricu

sequences through the grades”; 2) align asse

ments and standards; 3) improve learning syste

for teachers; 4) develop new school organizati

patterns to support math and science lear

ing; and 5) narrow the achievement gaps amo

subgroups.

as the National Academy of Sciences, the American

Association for the Advancement of Science, and the

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, and

almost all states, have developed science and math

standards. They widely disseminated and used the

TIMSS findings.

Such agencies as the National Science Foundation

invested in statewide systemic reform efforts that

often boosted the development of state math and science standards and a variety of more rigorous instructional materials. Higher state high school graduation

requirements led to increased student enrollment in

math and science courses. Nationally, enrollment in

chemistry rose to 55 percent in 1996 from 45 percent

in 1990. Likewise, the percentage of students taking

three years of high school math (through at least algebra 2) increased to 62 percent in 1996 from 40 percent

in 1990.

To judge the extent to which the goals and the panel

stimulated these activities is difficult. Raizen writes,

The very existence of Goal 5 has focused

attention on our students’ mathematics

world by the year 2000’—has led to a certain amount of derision and sarcasm, it

nevertheless has kept the reform of mathematics and science education in the forefront of educational policy and the public

consciousness. As noted, these reform

efforts have had enormous staying power

compared to many other past and present

education initiatives....

Because of the composition of the Goals

Panel, the reports carry the imprimatur

of the governors, [the Administration],

members of Congress, and state legislators. This ensures a broad bipartisan

policy audience critical to successful

implementation of reforms aimed at the

education goals.... The formulation of

Goal 5 and the steady annual reporting

on it also have helped lend importance

and credibility to international studies

and comparisons, with people more

willing to learn from the educational

practices of other[s].

Prospects: What next?

!
20

Paul Barton notes that Goal 6 and its objectives

encompass a broad range of topics, from adult

literacy, college quality and enrollment, workforce development, business involvement in education

and parent training, to citizenship and more. In 1992,

Washington and Indiana scored significantly above

the U.S. average for adult literacy, but new data on the

National Adult Literacy Study (NALS) will not be

available until 2000 to show trends.

While it is difficult to characterize the status of citizenship among American adults, voter registration

has increased significantly in 10 states and de

none.

Thirty-nine states increased the percentag

school graduates who immediately enrolled i

and although the proportion getting a 

remained stable, the gap has increased betw

percentages of white and black students com

college degree.

Likewise, the proportion of adults who nee

—those with a high school diploma or less—

actually participate in adult education has de

Trends: What do the data show?

work.

All workers will have the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills, from basic to highly t

needed to adapt to emerging new technologies, work methods, and markets through public and pri

cational, vocational, technical, workplace, and other programs.

The number of quality programs, including those at libraries, that are designed to serve the needs of t

ing number of part-time and midcareer students more effectively will increase substantially.

The proportion of college graduates who demonstrate an advanced ability to think critically, co

cate effectively, and solve problems will increase substantially.

Schools, by implementing comprehensive parent involvement programs, will offer more adult 

parent-training, and lifelong learning opportunities to improve the ties between home and scho

enhance parents’ work and home lives.

NEGP Indicators:

Adult Literacy, change in the percentage of adults scoring 3 or higher on a National Adult Literacy 

Participation in Adult Education, change in the gap in participation rates of those with a high school 

or less and those with additional post-secondary education

Participation in Higher Education, change in gap between white and minority high school gradu

enroll and who complete a college degree

Voter Registration and Voting, changes in the percentages of U.S. citizens who register to vote and 

!
!

21

Barton recommends that the panel clarify its

priorities among the diverse aspects of postsecondary education associated with Goal 6.

He suggests that the panel maintain its central focus

upon improving adult literacy, measured by NALS.

He also suggests that the panel apply the concept

of standards to higher education by resuming the

work of its early Technical Planning Group o

NAEP-like assessment of the quality of college e

cation. He strongly recommends monitoring 

addressing the growing disparity between white 

minority access to, and completion of, higher e

cation, as well as disparities in participation in a

education.

plined.” Nonetheless, he recalls a series of specific

studies by Goal 6 Technical Planning Groups convened by the Goals Panel that constitute significant

contributions in post-secondary education. Among

these contributions were recommendations for an

assessment of a national sample of college students

and their “ability to think critically, communicate

effectively, and solve problems.”

The National Center of Education Statistics (NCES)

held workshops, commissioned papers, and issued a

request for proposals (RFP) for initial development

work, but it did not appropriate funds for the work

and canceled the RFP.

equipping late teenage youth with the skills they n

to be productive in employment.”

Barton notes the significant increase in col

enrollment since the goals were set, but he expre

concern about the growing gap between white 

minority students in both enrollment and comple

of college. As in other goal areas, he expresses frus

tion with the inadequacy of data and cites a numbe

relevant international studies in which the Un

States failed to participate.

Prospects: What next?
22

While data are inadequate and incomplete,

NEGP indicators show conditions growing

worse wherever Goal 7 indicators change,

with one exception. Ironically, during a decade of

nationwide horror and concern about the killings in a

series of highly publicized school shootings, the percentage of 10th-grade students who report that they

have been threatened or injured at school decreased

nationally to 33 percent in 1997 from 40 percent in

1991. All other changes are negative. Nationally, more

10th graders report using illicit drugs during the previous year, increasing to 40 percent in 1997 from 24 percent in 1991. Likewise, students in 16 states (a

with data) reported increased use of m

between 1991 and 1997. Nationally, more 

report being given or offered illegal drugs f

school, increasing to 33 percent in 1997 from 

cent in 1992. Likewise, students in 15 states 

23 with data) report such increases. More hig

teachers report that student disruptions i

with their teaching, increasing nationally to 4

in 1994 from 37 percent in 1991, in 37 (of 5

John Porter writes, “These results are not enc

and suggest much more needs to be done.”

! Trends: What do the data show?

Parents, businesses, and governmental and community organizations will work together to ens

rights of students to study in a safe and secure environment free of drugs and crime and that 

provide a healthy environment and are a safe haven for all children.

Every local education agency will develop and implement a policy to ensure that all schools are 

violence and the unauthorized presence of weapons.

Every local education agency will develop a sequential, comprehensive, kindergarten-through-12t

drug- and alcohol-prevention education program.

A drug and alcohol curriculum should be taught as an integral part of sequential, comprehensive 

education.

Community-based teams should be organized to provide students and teachers the support they n

Every school should work to eliminate sexual harassment.

NEGP Indicators:

Overall student drug and alcohol use, including use of marijuana and drinking five or more drinks i

The sale or availability of drugs at school

Incidents when students and teachers become victims of threats or injury with a weapon while on 

property, physical fights at school and students carrying a weapon

Disruptions in class by students that interfere with teaching
!

23

Porter suggests maintaining the common set of

evidence (or indicators) of school safety that

educators have developed and linking national,

state, and local measures. He also recommends more

work to determine the most effective mix of incentives

and sanctions among the policies developed to combat school violence. He concludes that Goal 7 “must

be sustained as a national school priority for the f

decade of the twenty-first century.... Goal 7 is, by 

measure, more important and vital to the nati

well-being today than it was 10 years ago.” He 

suggests the possibility of a national summit meet

on the subject in 2000.

P

measure progress toward Goal 7, Safe Schools,

and for monitoring and reporting progress on those

indicators. He also praises the work of a Technical

Planning Group that the panel convened in 1993. The

planning group defined eight elements of a “disciplined environment conducive to learning.”

He does not claim, however, that the Goals Panel or

educators have made substantive progress toward

reaching Goal 7. He writes, “There is no evidence in

the literature that a national strategy has generalized

any successful direction in terms of” reducing illicit

drug use and sale on school property, student and

teacher victimization, or disruptions in class. He

expressed a wish to identify one state or school system

“that had pursued Goal 7 vigorously and had valid

data on strategies that had reduced” the use and sale of

Porter cites efforts to address these problems, how

er, and he commends the development of a fed

annual report card on school violence compiled by 

U.S. Education and Justice departments. He fi

encouraging the concern and attention shown by 

President and the Secretary of Education about sch

violence, and he notes the many valuable publicati

and panels of experts convened to address school saf

Encouraged by a Virginia decision to supply data 

school safety annually to parents, he praises 

National Education Goals Panel’s publication, Prom

ing Practices, for documenting the success in four st

in reducing the number of students reporting they c

ried a weapon such as a gun, knife, or club on sch

property. The real question, he says, “is whether th

efforts make a measurable difference.”

Prospects: What next?
24

Goal 8 was added to the National Education

Goals in 1994. The Goals Panel first reported

upon Parental Participation later that year.

Like other goals, it is difficult to measure, and insufficient data are available. Although the educators widely acknowledge the importance of the goal, Douglas

Powell writes, “Little is known about the nation’s

progress in meeting Goal 8.”

The only trend data available among the NEGP

indicators showed almost no change in the percentage

of parents who report that they participated in two or

more activities in their child’s school (attending a general school meeting or school or class event, s

a volunteer, or serving on a school commit

percentage was 62 percent in 1996 and 63 p

1993.

Principals in 17 states report that the infl

parent associations increased from 1991 to 

their states, though teachers and principals n

reported no significant change in their perce

parental participation in their schools. Powell 

rizes data on current patterns of parental p

tion from one-time studies, which, if the st

repeated in the future, may indicate trends.

Trends: What do the data show?

Every school will actively engage parents and families in a partnership that supports the academic 

children at home and shared educational decision making at school.

Parents and families will help to ensure that schools are adequately supported and will hold sch

teachers to high standards of accountability.

NEGP Indicators:

Parental involvement in schools, as a change in the percentage of public school teachers and princi

report that a lack of parental involvement in their schools is a serious problem.

Influence of parent associations, as a change in the percentage of principals reporting that the par

ciation in their schools have influence in at least one of three areas of school policy.

!
25

To reach Goal 8, Powell sees four actions that

must be taken: 1) getting valid and reliable

measures of local, state, and national parental

involvement efforts and outcomes; 2) providing policy direction and technical assistance to implement

partnerships with parents; 3) supporting research 

what works with whom and why; and 4) strength

ing the explicit links between parental participat

and the other national education goals.

to parental participation has grown, Doug Powell

writes. Most educators recognize the pivotal contribution they expect parents to make toward also reaching

the other National Education Goals, from preparing

young children to start school (Goal 1), to helping

them complete high school (Goal 2), and supporting

their academic achievement (Goals 3 and 5).

Parents also have a role in creating the environment

and demand for better professional development

(Goal 4) and safer schools (Goal 7). Powell cites various state and local programs that build upon these

effects parents have, from Head Start and Even Start to

“zero-tolerance” school safety programs. General

interest in parental involvement is growing, judging by

the increase in popular news coverage and national

surveys on the subject.

“The inclusion of school-parent partnerships as a

national education goal has elevated the national significance of a topic often accorded peripheral status in

educational reform efforts,” Powell writes. “Goal 8 will

Teacher Association, instrumental in setting Goal 8

research-based guidelines and workshops for sta

districts, and schools to encourage school partn

ships with families.

States such as California have set policies on par

involvement to promote comprehensive progra

that involve parents at all grade levels in a variety 

roles. Powell credits Goal 8 with contributing t

“maturing” of research on this issue. With more w

done on this issue, more articles address specific c

tent or types of parents, and more studies ask how 

involve parents well, rather than whether doing s

important.

Educators have developed new publicatio

resource centers, and networks designed to h

schools involve parents more in their programs, 

they have given new life to some existing progra

such as Title 1. They also have paid more attention 

the training that teachers receive in learning how 

work well with parents.

Prospects: What next?

!
26

Luís Laosa, Educational Testing Service

Samuel Meisels, University of Michigan

Lucille F. Newman, Brown University

Douglas Powell, Purdue University

Joseph Stevens, Georgia State University

Sheldon White, Harvard University

James Wilsford, Orangeburg School District, South Carolina

Nicholas Zill, Child Trends, Incorporated 

Goal 2: High School Completion 

Resource Group Chair: Edmond Gordon, Yale University

Technical Planning Group Leader and Author: Rafael Valdivieso, The Hispanic Policy Developme

Project (currently Academy for Education Development, Inc.)

Members (with 1990 place of work):

Janet Baldwin, General Education Development Testing Service

Eve Bither, Maine Department of Education

Jomills Braddock, Johns Hopkins University

Jose Cardenas, The Intercultural Development Research Association

Barbara Clements, Council of Chief State School Officers

Noreen Lopez, Illinois State Board of Education

James McPartland, Johns Hopkins University

Gary Natriello, Columbia University

Steve Nielson, U.S. West Corporation

Aaron Pallas, Michigan State University

Andrew Porter, University of Wisconsin

Floralione Stevens, Los Angeles Public Schools

Richard Wallace, Pittsburgh Public Schools
27

David Cohen, Michigan State University

Paul Copes, Bloomfield School District, Connecticut 

Chester E. Finn, Jr., Vanderbilt University

Robert Glaser, University of Pittsburgh

Barbara Gomez, Council of Chief State School Officers

Edmond Gordon, Yale University

David Haynes, Saturn School of Tomorrow

Asa Hilliard, Georgia State University

Silvia Johnson, Howard University

James Kielsmeier, Youth Leadership Council 

Robert L. Linn, University of Colorado

George Madaus, Boston College

Mark Musick, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta

Thomas Paysant, San Diego City Schools

Claire Pelton, San Jose Unified School District

Terry K. Peterson, South Carolina Business Education Committee 

Joan Schine, National Center for Service Learning in Early Adolescence

Suzanne Triplett, North Carolina State Department of Education

Leland Yee, San Francisco School District

Goal 4: Teacher Education and Professional Development 

1994 Resource Group Chair and Author: David Imig, American Association of Colleges for 

Teacher Education

Members (with 1994 place of work):

Marsha Berger, American Federation of Teachers

Gene Carter, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development

Linda Darling-Hammond, School of Education, Stanford University

Launa Ellison, Clara Barton School, Minneapolis, Minnesota

Earlene Gillan-Smith, Delaware State Education Association

Howard Jensen, Pioneer High School, Cupertino, California

James Kelly, National Board for Professional Teaching Standards

Judith Lanier, Michigan State University

Marion Payne, Mount View Middle School, Marriottsville, Maryland

Stan Paz, El Paso School District, Texas

Judith Renyi, National Foundation for the Improvement of Education

Ted Sanders, Southern Illinois University

Claudette Scott, Hickman Mills Consolidated School District #1, Kansas City Missouri
28

Linda Darling-Hammond, Columbia University

Magdalene Lampert, Michigan State University

Kenneth Lay, IBM

Steve Leinwand, Connecticut State Department of Education

Michael Nettles, University of Tennessee

Penelope Peterson, Michigan State University

William Schmidt, Michigan State University

Ramsay Selden, Council of Chief State School Officers

Goal 6: Adult Literacy and Lifelong Learning 

Resource Group Chair: Mark Musick, Southern Regional Education Board

Technical Planning Group Leader: Marc Tucker, National Center on Education and the Economy

Member and Author: Paul Barton, Education Testing Service

Members (with 1990 place of work):

Sue Berryman, Columbia University

Peter Cappelli, The University of Pennsylvania

Forest Chisman, Southport Institute for Policy Analysis

Russell Edgerton, American Association on Higher Education

Peter Ewell, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems

Patsy J. Fulton, Oakland Community College

Joy McLarty, American College Testing Program

James R. Morris, Jr., South Carolina State Board for Technical and Comprehensive Education

Thiery Noyelle, Columbia University

William Spring, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston

Thomas Sticht, Applied Behavioral, and Cognitive Sciences, Incorporated

Patrick Terenzini, Pennsylvania State University

Richard Venzky, The University of Pennsylvania

Daniel Wagner, The University of Pennsylvania
29

Barbara Schneider, University of Chicago

Ricki Takai, U.S. Department of Education

Gary Wehlage, University of Wisconsin

Goal 8: Parental Participation

Resource Group Chair: Joyce Epstein, Johns Hopkins University

Member and Author: Douglas Powell, Purdue University

Members (with 1994 place of work):

Marilyn Aklin, National Coalition of Title 1/Chapter 1 Parents

Ja Nét Crouse, National Parent-Teacher Association

Jacquelynne Eccles, University of Michigan

Jane Grinde, Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

Anne Henderson, National Coalition for Parent Involvement in Education

Thomas Hoffer, National Opinion Research Corporation

Adrian Lewis, National Urban League

Jeana Preston, San Diego City Schools

Diane Scott-Jones, Temple University

Ralph Smith, The Annie E. Casey Foundation

Layla Suleiman, Family Resource Coalition

Sherry West, Prevention Partnership (National Head Start Association)
National Education Goals Panel

1255 22nd Street, NW, Suite 502 Washington, DC 20037

202–724–0015, fax 202–632–0957

http://www.negp.gov • E-mail: NEGP@ed.gov

“The National Goals should provide a lens through which to view the

progress of our efforts toward education reform.”—Rafael Valdivieso

[Goal 1] “provided opportunities for visionary thinking; it evoked more

thorough analyses and conceptual frameworks [within education]; and it

elevated professional and public awareness of the issue... [It] set the stage

for new thinking about the needs of young children and society’s responsibility to them. ...[It] was significant in forcing the field to come together, to transcend its differences, and to reach a common definition of

readiness.”—Sharon Lynn Kagan

[Goal 5] “has kept the reform of mathematics and science education in the

forefront of educational policy and the public consciousness. As noted, these

reform efforts have had enormous staying power compared to many other

past” initiatives.—Senta Raizen

[Goal 7] “must be sustained as a national school priority for the first decade

of the twenty-first century. ...Goal 7 is by any measure more important and

vital to the nation’s well-being today than it was 10 years ago.”—John Porter

The Panel’s Niche (Comments of Richard Elmore)

NEGP is “the only remaining national institution focused on education

reform with bipartisan representation of political leaders across levels of

government. This fact sends an important symbolic message...”

“NEGP [is] a forum where technical expertise and political judgment get

worked out around a common set of concerns...”

“NEGP... has sustained some level of discussion on the purposes and performance of American schools.”

“NEGP’s comparative advantage... is in its bipartisan, multilevel representation and its ability to combine technical expertise with political judgment.

Capitalizing on this comparative advantage means focusing the panel’s work

on issues where communicating bipartisan consensus will shape the policy

debate at the state and local level.”