Most states believe that school reform must begin with higher academic standards.
Anyone who tuned in to the Republican convention heard Bob Dole (and others) say that teacher unions are the big obstacle to improving the public schools. No one talked about the need for higher academic standards, a stronger curriculum, better textbooks -- or about getting students to work harder. Just get rid of the unions and the education problem will be solved. A few days before Bob Dole's acceptance speech, the American Federation of Teachers released a report that gives a much more useful picture of what's wrong with the schools and what can be done to improve them. Making Standards Matter 1996 is the second annual AFT review of academic standards in the 50 states. What did we find? The overwhelming majority of states believe that school reform must begin with higher academic standards. However, many of the standards that states have proposed are not clear and specific enough; and, for the most part, there are no consequences for failing to meet the standards.
First, the good news. Forty-eight states and the District of Columbia are committed to setting statewide academic standards ( only Iowa and Wyoming do not plan to do so). This is encouraging, especially given congressional opposition to the Clinton administration's standards program, Goals 2000. Congress may not be committed to raising academic standards, but the rest of the country is.
Yet while most states are working to develop higher academic standards, only 15 have standards in the core subjects -- English, math, history, and science -- that could form the basis for a rigorous curriculum. The reason is that many of the standards are vague and general and lacking in content. Take this middle-school math standard from Nebraska: "Students should be able to discover and develop formulas." Which formulas? The standard does not say. A social studies standard from Massachusetts suffers from a similar fuzziness: "Students will explain how a variety of factors can lead to the outcome of an event."
Unless they make clear which mathematical formulas students should master and which events in history students should learn about, standards will be useless. They won't offer teachers guidance about the material they need to cover or tell parents what they should expect their children to learn. Indeed, standards like these will offer little improvement over the system we now have. This will be a tragedy for all our students but particularly for those in inner-city schools because they are the ones who stand to benefit most from a challenging curriculum.
In his new book, The Schools We Need (Doubleday, 1996), E.D. Hirsch, Jr., says that giving all children a chance to study the same high-quality curriculum is a "civil rights" issue, and I think he is absolutely correct. It's not enough to make sure that youngsters have a seat in a public school; they should be guaranteed access to a curriculum that is rich in substance and gives them the knowledge they will need to participate and prosper in American society. Most students today, particularly those in poor neighborhoods, don't study such a curriculum. Strong, content-based standards are their best hope.
There's another reason state standards need to be clearer and more content-specific. Americans are the most mobile people on earth. This means, according to one study, that one out of every five students switches schools each year; and the rates are much higher in the inner-city. When youngsters change schools, they also change curriculums. Teachers try hard to bring new students up to speed, but this takes time away from the other students, and some youngsters never catch up. Teachers ought to know, at the beginning of each year, that wherever their students have come from, they have studied the same material. Vague standards will not provide that consistency.
Developing standards that are clear, specific and sufficiently grounded in academic content is hard work. It means making tough decisions about what is essential - and what has to be left out. It is far easier, in the name of teacher flexibility or local control, to duck these decisions. But taking the path of least resistance is not doing children or teachers any favors.
The states are off to a promising start. The majority have developed good standards in at least one subject, and some have exemplary standards that others can look to as models. But states need to do more than raise standards; they must also be encouraged to attach stakes to these standards. Students need to know that the hard work they put in will count - both in school, for promotion and graduation, and when they look for a job or apply for entrance to a college. Otherwise, the highest standards and the richest curriculum are unlikely to solve our problems. So far, fewer than half of the states have plans to make students accountable for meeting standards.
The standards movement is making progress, but there is still much work to do. If Bob Dole were smart, he would stop blaming teachers for the problems in the schools, and join us in the fight to raise standards.