71004 Step 1 - Seek first to understand

One of the preeminent questions being debated within the halls of government is, “Are students less able now than they were in the past?” This question is important to different people for different reasons. Philosophically there is a tradition, tracing back to Thomas Jefferson, which states that Democratic government relies on an educated populace for the defense of liberty. Ideologically part of the American Dream hinges upon each succeeding generation achieving more than their predecessors which includes educational achievement. Lastly there are economic concerns that the standard of living we enjoy is based upon our academic superiority and the leadership role we play in the areas of technological innovation and worker productivity. To understand why the question of student achievement is such an important one in our political culture we must investigate each of these separate areas of concern. Before moving forward to look at these three debates we must first ask is there really a problem. Are student achievement levels as low as some people say? In 1983 the National Committee on Excellence in Education (NCEEd) was formed and reported that, “Our nation is at risk.” Their evaluation of our education system is often seen as the wellspring from which a bevy of subsequent reforms have devolved. Since then numerous reports have been issued criticizing American schools. Like a nouveau riche patriarch with an unhappy daughter, Congress has done the only thing it can resulting in a 212% increase in spending per pupil between 1960 and 1995. We spend more per pupil than any other nation on earth yet when compared with other nations our level of student proficiency is somewhere in the middle. A basic review of the “Nations Report Card” (available at nationsreportcard.gov) shows that over the past 15 years student performance has been pretty static. Given the range of reforms that have been enacted since George H. Bush left the White House we might expect to see significant gains, but that has not been the case. So the answer to our initial question is that based on the fifteen years of history provided by the National Assessment of Educational Progressi (NAEPi) students are not doing worse than they were. However, the other side of the question is, “Can we afford not to improve?” In the previously mentioned NCEEd report the commission pointed out that levels of High School Graduation had increased significantly between 1968 and 1982, but they stipulated that the level of student achievement necessary for high school graduation had fallen. According to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) report Education at a Glance, the percent of working-age adults who have completed high school in the United States has stagnated for at least a generation, while the rate found in other nations has increased, in some cases by as much as 90%. The OECD report has led many American policy makers to ask whether a static level of student achievement is enough, and the consensus seems to be that it is not. The disagreement begins over how to make changes. At the root of that disagreement are fundamental differences over how we understand the problem. If we take a philosophical approach then we see the biggest risk arising out of a populace who does not understand their own rights, and who is ill equipped to deal with encroachments on their liberty by organized interests pursuing their own agendas. Ever since our nation was founded there have been those who would argue for that something must be done to improve student achievement to protect our system of government. Philosophically the level of student achievement itself is not that important, beyond a minimum level. So why is this argument so often ut forward to justify increased spending on education? A second way of looking at the problem has itsi roots in American ideology. The American Dream is based on the idea that any individual, through hard work and thrift, can rise to a standard of living that exceeds his or her parents and grandparents. One of the most important tools that an individual has for achieving this goal is their education. A Nation at Risk reported, a generation ago, that this dream was no longer based on reality. Students graduating from High School in the 1980’s were less equipped to succeed in the workforce than their parents had been when they graduated in the 1960’s. However this was balanced out by increases in the number of children graduating whose parents hadn’t, so the dream continued. Recent reports by the OECD and the National Center on Education and the Economy indicate that the high levels of attainment achieved by the previous generation have created a statistical wall which the current generation is incapable of exceeding. The result is that as low-income jobs become scarcer and pay for unskilled labor diminishes (due to out-sourcing and automation) individuals who have not excelled in school see their incomes being eroded. This phenomenon has led to a reversal of the American Dream. Individuals with the same or even a marginally better education than their parents find themselves unable to attain the same standard of living that their parents achieved. Ideologically student achievement is important because without increased levels of performance it is impossible to improve your position. However this belief has led to a ‘dumming-down’ of curricula so as to enable all to achieve a higher standard. It ignores the problems presented by the natural ‘bell-curve’ distribution of ability. The final approach is based an economists paradigm. There is a tendency among adherents to see the global economy as a static pie which we are going to be relying on an increasingly smaller portion of to support our society. This notion belies certain economic realities, but it is based on some real concerns. The National Center on Education and the Economy’s 2006 report puts it like this, as other nations become the mass production specialists it is necessary for the United States to focus on becoming an innovation specialist. This means that an increasing portion of the population moves out of the production sector and into the service sector where their incomes are based not on production, but on trickle down economics. Education becomes the main sorter to determine if an individual will be a member of the independent innovation specialist sector, what Robert Reich calls the Symbolic Analysts, or the dependent service sector. Economists also argue that as Symbolic Analysts have to compete with growing Symbolic Analyst classes in developing nations the incomes they can demand will decline. Two effects derive from this. First the standard of living of the basic Symbolic Analyst declines unless they generate significant innovation to stay ahead of their third-world competition. Second, the amount of income trickling down to the service sector continues to decline. Clearly student achievement is important for economists especially among elites who must be the best trained if they will be able to compete. The solutions that political actors will advocate will vary depending on the approach to the problem they adopt. Individuals who see student achievement as important for philosophical reasons will encourage increases in spending that lead to modest increases in performance, but which avoid degradation. This is adequate since the primary purpose of education is to ensure that the least educated are ‘educated enough’ to protect their rights and liberties. Individuals who see the issue as related to ideological issues will push for reforms that will enable the middle class to improve their standard of living. These programs might focus on increased school to work programs or improved access to higher education. Many of the programs we have seen during the last 8 years aimed at increasing opportunitiesi for students to go on to college are based on this approach. Those who take a more economic based approach will tend toward more radical solutions. There is a real threat to our economic superiority and educational reforms that could effect that trend require some fundamental reorganization. So the question remains, “Are students performing at an acceptable level of achievement?” and the answer is, “Depends on why you think student achievement is important.” The problem for American Educators is that regardless of the approach that policymakers adopt there is an expectation that they will continue to enable students to do better than they ever have before.