It's easy to see why the U.S. is having so much trouble solving its education problem. Other industrialized democracies try to educate youngsters to the maximum of their potential. You would think that would be our goal, too. But is it?
Goals 2000, the Clinton administration's education bill, aims to move America toward the successful systems of other advanced industrialized democracies. Since education in the U.S. is state and local, rather than national, this will need to be done differently here. But this bill proposes to have the federal government encourage the development of a system in which there are clear and high standards for students (comparable to those in other countries); assessments based on these standards; and, eventually, clear consequences for success and failure so that students have the incentive to work hard and achieve because they know that something important--like a high school diploma, college entrance or access to a good job--is at stake.
There is little doubt in the debate over Goals 2000 that this kind of systemic reform would get all or almost all students to do better. No one is saying that demanding from our youngsters what other countries demand would get any of them to perform worse than they do now. What, then, is the problem? Why is the legislation faced with all kinds of amendments that would cripple the reforms? A clue can be found in a recent headline in Education Week (June 2, 1993): "The Rhetoric of High Academic Standards: Some Fear Movement Will Leave Disabled, L. E. P. [Limited English Proficient] Students Behind." So some oppose the legislation because they think it would help most (but not all) students or that even if it helped all students, it would help some more than others. To state it bluntly, they would rather continue in the present state of mediocrity if the reforms result in some groups of youngsters surging ahead faster or farther than others so that the gap in achievement between students at the top and bottom increases.
Thus, for many Americans, the name of the game is not to help all achieve to their maximum, as other countries do, but to avoid increasing inequality of outcomes. This kind of thinking can only lead to educational disaster. Furthermore, it conflicts with the way we think about such issues in other areas. Suppose, for example, that the economically poor family earns $5000 a year while the well-to-do earns $50,000. And suppose we could develop an economic game plan that (without inflation or other changes) would increase the earnings of the bottom family to $7500 and that of the top from $50,000 to $75,000. Would this be desirable? Many, myself included, would prefer to see the poor family get a larger increase, even if it meant the top family's getting a smaller one. But, if we had no other choice, how many would reject it on the basis that, even though everyone was better off, the gap between rich and poor would increase? How many who earned $5000 would refuse to go to $7500 because the plan would result in an even bigger increase for the wealthy?
Suppose education reform results in all students' doing better but high-achieving students' making much more progress than those at the bottom. Even though the gap between top and bottom would increase, those at the bottom would be much more employable than they are now. In fact, they could qualify for jobs that are now moving to other countries because our young people don't have the skills to do them. Most people would find this a big step forward.
Or suppose we discovered a vaccine to cure some horrible disease ... AIDS or cancer. The vaccine cured half the victims, but for the other half it only prolonged life a bit. Would it be fair to distribute a vaccine that rescued some but not others? Would we withhold it and wait until we found one that could cure all?
Suppose there are five children in your family. You, as a parent, can do something for three of them that will give them great advantages in life. But it won't work for the other two. Would you hesitate? There's no doubt that a system of education that demands and expects more from all our kids will get more from all or almost all of them. No doubt some will move ahead faster than others. We should do more--much more--for those who start out behind, for those who need special help. But we must not apply a kind of reasoning to education that we would reject in every other sphere of life. We must not reject a system of excellence that brings us some inequality in favor of a more equal system in which all are mediocre.