Focus on the Promise

By Sandra Feldman
 

When A Nation at Risk appeared in 1983, many education organizations went on the defensive. Although the AFT didn't agree with everything the report said, we were convinced that it would get attention and support for needed changes in education. And, in fact, the educational landscape has changed dramatically since 1983. The criticisms and recommendations of A Nation at Risk prompted many of the subsequent reform efforts, and it's still a useful yardstick against which we can measure how we are doing.

Of course not all the reforms have been responsive or particularly helpful, and they've been all over the lot, ranging from changes in graduation requirements to structural changes like school-site management and more radical experiments like charter schools, vouchers and private management of schools. Most notably, starting in the early 1990s, the standards movement, a development of A Nation at Risk's call for "high expectations and goals for all learners," has sought to raise student achievement by instituting a system of standards for what students should know, curriculums to embody the standards, and assessments to test how well students meet the standards. Forty-nine states now have content standards for most subjects and assessments to measure student achievement (although curriculum and assessment quality are still weak points in most state systems).

The report's emphasis on teaching opened up discussions about how to improve both the quality of classroom instruction and the conditions under which teachers work. One result, thus far, has been the establishment of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. And the discussions, in which teachers themselves have been leaders, are continuing. But it's hard to point to much else. Teachers in poor areas are still struggling without the basic supports they need, and the number of teachers who do not have a credential or even a major in the field in which they are teaching remains a problem.

So while we have made progress, it has been heartbreakingly slow. We are still a nation at risk--perhaps, given the state of the world, even more than we were in 1983.

Look, for example, at the teaching of civic education. Students have to understand our political system, our democratic values and our place in the uncertain world of the 21st century. Yet, a recent study conducted for the Albert Shanker Institute finds that most of the state standards for civic education are either hopelessly vague or encyclopedic and that, in either case, they give little practical guidance about which topics children should learn. And without decent standards, it is impossible to create the curriculums that teachers need to guide their teaching or assessments that reflect what students have been taught.

It's true that poorly designed standards were endemic in the early days of the standards movement, and it's a hopeful sign that many states have worked hard to improve their standards. However, few have followed through with the curriculums or assessments. And lack of attention to curriculums--along with overreliance on off-the-shelf tests instead of assessments based on what has been taught in class--continues to hold back progress by narrowing instruction instead of deepening and broadening it.

Equity is another area in which we have far to go. In terms of the "twin goals of equity and high-quality schooling" that A Nation at Risk advocates, we have made some progress toward one but very little toward the second. The big reason is lack of equitable funding.

Critics like to say that education funding has greatly increased since 1983. That's true. Per-pupil spending has risen from an average of $5,000 to $7,500. But consider the fact that, in most states, high-poverty schools get less money per pupil than schools serving advantaged children. (Nationally, the average is $966 less per student.) Consider, too, how much more our schools are being asked to do. In addition to the many changes called for by the standards movement and other reform initiatives, schools have, since 1983, greatly increased responsibilities--and expenses--for educating special needs children.

Moreover, districts serving the neediest children have problems that require additional resources. Teachers in high-poverty schools are more likely to be inexperienced, underprepared and more poorly paid than teachers in more affluent schools. Poor districts also lack the capacity to implement strategies on the scale necessary to provide individual attention to students and to train the teachers they have in the instructional strategies that work best. And capacity is a resource issue.

In addition, poor children who are at risk of school failure before they even start first grade need high-quality preschool and full-day kindergarten; and they may also need extra learning time during the summer in the early years. There is ample research to tell us that all of these strategies will create the equity we are seeking. What we need is the money to carry them out.

Twenty years. We've tried a lot of things, and we still have a long way to go. Maybe that's because successful reforms--the ones that focus on teaching and learning--have not been widespread. In principle, the standards movement has the potential to provide that focus and, if adequately funded, to solve our equity problems as well. Let's hope we don't have to wait another 20 years for these promises to be realized.

Copyright by the American Federation of Teachers, AFL•CIO. All rights reserved. Photographs
and illustrations, as well as text, cannot be used without permission from the AFT.