For a moment, let's suppose. Suppose the United States were the only industrialized country that did not participate in the Olympics. A number of reports informed us that this was a major disaster. Fewer American kids engaged in sports than youngsters in other countries, fewer exercised and fewer had good eating habits. It was clear that the physical well-being of our nation was at risk.
Legislation was introduced to have the U.S. enter the Olympics in the year 2000. First, there would be an American Olympics to select the athletes to represent us. The business community offered support. High school coaches applauded the idea. Governors and the President met to proclaim Olympic Goals: That the U.S. become first in the world in swimming and diving, basketball, figure skating, the high jump .... The President proposed legislation to create a U.S. Olympic Commission to establish the rules for participation, etc.
Just as Congress was about to vote on the bill, some members had second thoughts. They pointed out that community recreation facilities and schools, where most of the training would take place, were under local or state control. So it was wrong for the federal government to be involved in trying to raise us to Olympic standards. Also, some didn't like the idea of getting youngsters psyched up to compete with one another. (Isn't cooperation and teamwork what we need?)
The biggest problem was fairness. Critics said that some of the kids competing would not have had as many opportunities to run, jump and swim as others. Some youngsters might not be able to compete because of poor prenatal care or because they lacked adequate nutrition and health care as children. Some might have spent their childhood in dangerous slums, where they were kept inside for their own safety. They might never have seen a well-equipped gym or had a chance to learn a sport. But other youngsters would have had excellent nutrition and health care, schools with fine athletic facilities, even swimming pools of their own and private coaching. On the whole, these youngsters would undoubtedly perform better than kids who had not had their advantages.
Some members of Congress therefore argued that we should not start domestic competition until all likely contenders had had the same opportunities. So the House Physical Education and Athletic Committee amended the legislation. The U.S. Olympic Commission would not only set standards of participation; it would also shut down any state or local competitions in which some contenders hadn't had access to good prenatal care or nutrition or adequate gyms or swimming pools. Also, for the first five years, no one could be declared a winner or loser in any competition. After five years, Congress would reconsider this ban.
Counterproductive? Yes, but this is how Congress is about to deal with education. Congress is considering Goals 2000, a bill that would get us academic standards and assessments similar to those in other industrialized democracies whose students routinely outperform ours. The system would include consequences designed to get kids to work as hard as they do in these countries because they know that something important--like getting into college or getting a job--is at stake. But supporters of "opportunity-to-learn standards" say that the new standards and assessments should not count for anyone until all our children have the same opportunities.
That's too bad. The Olympics example tells us we'd be cheating poor kids if we denied them the right to compete because they didn't have decent gyms. A lot of youngsters who come from tough neighborhoods have been inspired by the standards of Olympic competition, and they've overcome obstacles and created their own opportunities. Something similar would happen if we challenged disadvantaged youngsters with clear and high education standards and assessments they could study for. When held up to high standards and shown the route to something they really wanted, a lot of youngsters who now do nothing because nothing is asked of them would begin working and succeeding--at the very least, doing better than they do now. And, as the Olympics example also tells us, there would be a lot of pressure to make sure that gyms were built and coaches trained in places where they didn't exist before.
The debate on equity has been wrong. The extreme right talks as though willpower is all youngsters need to overcome every obstacle. This has let conservatives off the hook for improving children's circumstances. The extreme left speaks only about equalizing circumstances and ignores what youngsters themselves can do when quality is demanded of them. In the real world, people participate in the game and do the best they can--sometimes against great odds. That's what we have to insist youngsters do as we insist that the obstacles they face come down.