Reading, Writing and Rhetoric

By Susan Tifft

By almost every measure, George Bush has fallen short of his campaign pledge to be the "education President." He continues to back the ineffectual Lauro Cavazos as Education Secretary, while promoting "choice" and other cost-free nostrums as remedies for ailing schools. True, his proposed 1991 budget, unveiled last week, calls for an additional $500 million for Project Head Start. But student aid comes in for cuts, and the Education Department's paltry $500 million increase does not even keep pace with inflation. Little wonder that in a recent New York Times/CBS News poll 68% of those surveyed felt Bush had "mainly just talked" about improving education.

The President talked about education yet again last week in his State of the Union message. Using language that at times bordered on the visionary, Bush outlined six national goals to be met by the year 2000. "Real improvement in our schools is not simply a matter of spending more," he said, "it is a matter of expecting more." Although his goals were almost as fuzzy as they had been at last fall's education summit, at which the President and Cabinet officials met with the nation's Governors, White House aides boasted that Bush had boldly advanced the cause. Said one: "It's a cradle-to-grave approach to education."

Outside the White House gates, however, many considered the President's plan less than earthshaking. Some educational hawks complained that Bush, eager to maintain warm relations with the politically powerful education lobby, had fixed on aims far too modest to have much effect on the crisis in the classroom. No one, of course, could argue against raising graduation rates -- especially in inner cities with large black and Hispanic populations. But overall, 84% of young Americans already earn a high school diploma or its equivalent by age 24. How ambitious is it, then, to set a goal of 90%?

Many educators were impatient with the President for offering yet another dose of rhetoric with no specifics. "He needs to give us leadership on how to get there," complained Jeanne Allen, an education analyst at the conservative . Heritage Foundation. Agreed Senator Jeff Bingaman, a New Mexico Democrat: "I don't think we can make it on cheerleading alone."

Some Governors were miffed that the President had stolen their thunder. The original plan had been to unveil education goals at the annual convention of the National Governors' Association later this month. Governors Bill Clinton, an Arkansas Democrat, and Carroll Campbell, a South Carolina Republican, held meetings throughout the fall to work out the details. In early December talks were thrown into disarray when the White House told them Bush wanted to announce the goals himself in the State of the Union. "It had the effect of derailing the process," said one gubernatorial aide.

The most political of the six objectives calls for U.S. students to rank first, worldwide, in math and science. The "moonshot goal," as one White House wag dubbed it, is a rare admission by Bush that America is falling behind its foreign competitors, especially the Japanese. The evidence of failure is abundant. In a recent international survey, American 13-year-olds finished last in math and nearly last in science. Bush stiffened his proposal by requesting, in his 1991 budget, a $100 million increase in the education programs of the National Science Foundation and a $230 million grant to help states improve math and science teaching.

By far the most innovative goal called for students in Grades 4, 8 and 12 to pass nationwide tests in five basic subject areas. Typically, Bush left unanswered the thorny questions of who will design the tests, how they will be carried out and funded, and how results will be reported. But given the controversy surrounding national standards and student testing, the fact that the President embraced the notion at all was remarkable. "To superimpose some norms would be radical," says Chester Finn, chairman of the governing board of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (N.A.E.P.), a 20-year-old federal testing program. "To expand it to everyone would be revolutionary."

Many Americans fear that national testing will lead to a national curriculum, inviting education by remote control from Washington and causing schools to turn out carbon-copy students. With its long history of local autonomy, the U.S. is unlikely ever to adopt such a system formally. Still, even traditionalists concede that the U.S. has a de facto common curriculum, driven largely by widely used standardized exams and the homogenized fare dished up by textbook publishers.

To meet Bush's goal, some entity -- probably N.A.E.P. -- will have to set standards for mastery of a given subject and design a test for it. That still leaves room for states and school districts to determine how material is taught. Besides, local control has hardly proved to be a miracle drug for improving educational levels. "Local school districts don't have incentives to work hard," says Lester Thurow, dean of M.I.T.'s Sloan School of Management. "I'm not worried about too much authority. I worry about too little."

Even if educators could agree on standards, there would remain the sticky problem of designing national tests. Computer-scored multiple-choice exams are efficient and economical -- typically costing $15 a pupil -- but they also encourage mindless memorization. So-called performance-based exams, using essays, hands-on experiments and the like, are better for promoting reasoning skills but can cost as much as $50 a student, according to N.A.E.P. Chairman Finn. Whatever kinds of tests are eventually chosen, educators are sure to complain that they are being forced to "teach to the test," thus robbing students of real learning and depriving teachers of control.

Problems like these, admits the White House, may take years to solve. Later this month when he meets with Governors to flesh out the goals, Bush could speed the process by more forcefully endorsing strategies such as simplifying teacher certification and lengthening the school year. "The goals won't be hard to set," says Lamar Alexander, the former Republican Governor who is now president of the University of Tennessee. "But we'll have to see if everyone is bold enough to make the quantum leaps we need." Without a firmer push from Washington, states and districts may never measure up to Bush's goals.

CHART: NOT AVAILABLE

CREDIT: NO CREDIT

CAPTION: EDUCATION GOALS

By the year 2000:

With reporting by Robert Ajemian/Boston and Michael Duffy/Washington