Reagan changed the game

Is equality of educational outcomes possible?

In 1983, the National Commission on Excellence in Education released the report, A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. The report claimed that the United States was at risk of being overtaken by global competitors. Institutions of education had lost sight of their purpose, according to the authors, and were not being held to high enough expectations. The result was a challenge to U.S. preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation. 

To reestablish our competitive edge in the global market, the report asserted that schools needed to refocus on knowledge, learning, information, and skilled intelligence. This finding was based primarily on test score data and assumed that no factors other than learning in school contribute to academic achievement. In fact, the report stated that schools “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”, which “often exact an educational cost as well as a financial one”.  In other words, the authors asserted that issues outside of school hours should not be of concern to schools.

The report led to the introduction of a myriad of federal legislation aimed at raising academic achievement and increased federal oversight by the U.S. Department of Education. President George H.W. Bush established the America 2000 initiative, which included funding for the development of national standards. Adoption of the standards was voluntary, but through the America 2000 initiative, adoption of the National Education Goals was promoted. 

During President Clinton's administration the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was reauthorized and titled Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA). Under IASA, accountability and curricular policies of Title I were shifted from an emphasis on inputs to outcomes.  Clinton also advanced the national standards agenda through his Goals 2000 program, which offered money to states for the development of standards.

Succeeding Clinton was President George W. Bush with his hallmark reauthorization of ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). NCLB continued the standards movement by requiring states to have a single set of standards, assessments, and accountability for all students. The biggest change was the new testing requirement that all students meet proficiency and that schools were required to track progress of subgroups (e.g., racial) to ensure the achievement gap was narrowing. If schools did not meet adequate yearly progress toward the proficiency goal, they faced sanctions.  

President Obama followed with waivers from some NCLB requirements when it was clear that state goals were not going to be met, but he too continued the accountability and standards movement with the grant program, Race to the Top. A primary purpose of the Race to the Top grant program was to encourage states to adopt the Common Core State Standards—a set of standards that all districts in a participating state were to abide by.

All the major national policy solutions that followed A Nation at Risk, especially starting with NCLB, have centered around raising test scores. The policy solutions may look different on the surface, but they all strive to address low academic achievement based on test score data. The policy solutions include, but are not limited to: charter schools, vouchers, and education savings accounts; district/state open enrollment; teacher and school accountability; teacher preparation and development; mayoral control; state takeover of schools/districts; and school conversion, turnaround, and closure.

There is an assumption underpinning all legislation and grant programs following the release of the 1983 report: equality is possible. That if we find the right curriculum or instruct our teachers in the right pedagogical methods, we will achieve equal academic outcomes across all students. Essentially, there is a pervasive belief in the field of education that children are born blank slates and that any difference between students is due to society. There are indeed societal factors that contribute to the academic achievement of students, but human nature also plays a role in why some students excel in particular subject areas and disciplines while others don't.

This fact needs, desperately, to be a part of the conversation regarding what we expect schools and the teachers who work in them to do and what must change about schools to provide a high-quality education to all students. Right now, our efforts are futile. 

Much more on this topic to come.