Not only does Title II call for the establishment of the National Education Goals Panel, but for the establishment of the National Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC). This council was created to develop certification criteria and certify voluntary national content, student performance, and opportunity to learn standards. The panel is also to be directly involved in certifying standards developed, and voluntarily submitted by States which are of at least the same high quality as the national voluntary standards, and certifying assessment systems voluntarily submitted to States if they meet the criteria. The bill provides that the voluntary standards are to be utilized to measure the states improvement and should be "sufficiently general to be used by any State without restricting State and local control over curriculum" (Goals 2000: Educate America Act Title II: Section 211).
In Title III, the Secretary of Education is granted the power to make
formula grants
to States to support the broad-based development and implementation of
reform plans
and to promote coherent and coordinated improvements in the system of
education throughout the Nation at the state and local levels. Each
state that chooses to participate
in the Goals 2000 program is required to develop a plan for the
fundamental restructuring
and improvement of elementary and secondary education throughout the
particular state. This plan must include the development, or adoption
of, content, student
performance, and opportunity to learn standards; the improvement and
coordination
of staff development, curriculum, instructional materials, professional
development,
and a State assessment system to help students achieve State goals; and
the coordination
of health and social services with education. Not only is the State or
local government,
participating in the program, required to include the previous facts, but
also they
must include dropout strategies, coordination with school to work
programs, benchmarks,
and timelines in their plan.
This is not only restricted to state government, but local educational agencies may receive subgrants to support the development and/or implementation of a comprehensive local plan. What is worth noting is that Title III also reserves a portion of the funding to go to the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Finally, the assessment of state and local systems must be capable of measuring the progress of students with disabilities, students who are racially, ethnically, culturally, and linguistically diverse, students who are economically disadvantaged and students who are gifted. But the most important aspect of Title III is that the Congress agrees and reaffirms that the responsibility for control of education is reserved to the States and local school systems and other instrumentalities of the States, and that no action shall be taken under the provisions of this Act by the Federal Government.
In Title IV of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the importance of increasing parents' knowledge of and confidence in child-rearing activities such as teaching and nurturing their young ones is emphasized. It also states that between parents and professionals, partnerships must be strengthened in order to meet the educational needs of children aged 1 through 5, and develop a working relationship between home and school. There must be a huge effort made to enhance the developmental progress of children assisted under this Title. Finally, at least one federally funded parental information and resource center must be established in each State before September 30, 1998.
Title V establishes the National Skills Standards Board which will be the strategy used to enhance workforce skills that will be taught in the schools. This should result in increased productivity, economic growth, and American economic competitiveness among all high school graduates. It will serve to stimulate the development of a voluntary national system of skill standards in order to help those not attending college who will be entering the work force. Title VI, on the other hand, calls for the study of international education programs in which various institutions all over the world will be examined. Also, this title emphasizes the importance of international education exchange programs throughout all grade levels in order for students to better understand the world around them.
The purpose of Title VII is to ensure that Goal 6, which is that every school in America will be free of drugs and violence, will be attained. The Federal Government makes a vow to help local school systems achieve this goal. This title is important because the Federal government will help make our schools safer and a more conducive learning environment by removing violence and drugs from our schools.
Title VIII encourages improved instruction for minorities and Native Americans in American government and civics. Educators will be able to improve their instruction techniques through teacher training and staff development seminars. The inservice training programs will be conducted for social studies, and other teachers who are responsible for the teaching of American history, government, and civics classes, and other educators who work with minority and Native American youth. Through these programs the instructors will aim to improve their knowledge and understanding of the American system of government.
In Title IX of the Educate America Act, it is stated that the federal government should support an extensive program of educational research, development, and assistance to identify and support the best responses for the challenges ahead. "A significant investment in attaining a deeper understanding of the processes of learning and schooling and developing new ideas holds the best hope of making a substantial difference in the lives of every student in the United States" (Goals 2000: Educate America Act Title IX:Section 902). This section of the legislation attaches a great deal of importance to educational research in the United States.
Title X, the last title of the Goals 2000 Act is basically considered the "miscellaneous title" of the Educate America Act. In this title, it is stated that no fund in this Act can be used by any State or local agency to adopt policies that prevent voluntary prayer and meditation public schools. Title X states that Congress wants to provide States and local communities with adequate resources and will reallocate funds to meet the funding of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. There is also an amendment concerning summer youth employment and training programs, and a whole statement about the protection of pupils' rights. Also, Title X states that Health and Human Services shall ensure that all federally funded programs, which provide for the distribution of contraceptive devices to unemancipated minors, will develop procedures to encourage family participation in these programs. Finally, other sections are dedicated to gun-free requirements in schools, a no smoking act, and funds are allocated to the Midnight Basketball League Training and Partnership Act.
But one cannot fully understand the ramifications of Goals 2000: the Educate America Act unless we examine the various reactions to the Act that have be uttered by those both in and out of education. There are many who believe that Goals 2000 is a sound piece of legislation, but there are others who believe that Goals 2000 is the government's solution to a much bigger problem and that the government is only skirting the real issues at hand. First we are going to look at the positive aspects of the Act and why many believe that this a sound piece of legislation.
According to an article in the Phi Delta Kappa written by Anne C. Lewis, Goals 2000 formalizes the development of national standards and new assessment systems. Parents and the general public will be able to look at what is being taught and what performance is considered "good enough" in their schools in light of nationally certified standards (Lewis, 660). According to Lewis, there are many firsts in this bill. One is the formal recognition that American education has much to learn from education systems and standards in use in other countries. Another is the establishment of standards for students who are not bound for college along with the development of entry-level standards for occupations. Finally, this legislation acknowledges a subtle change in governmental control, because state policies are to be more directly focused on the schools.
Lewis also feels that the opportunity to learn standards that are to be put in place at Goals 2000 schools are an extremely positive aspect of the legislation. The opportunity to learn standards are the factors, elements, or conditions of teaching and learning that are necessary for all students to have a fair opportunity to achieve high performance (Lewis, 661) . Many educators and non-educators alike say that it is unfair to hold students to higher standards if they have not been given the opportunity to meet those standards.
In the opportunity to learn standards, specific elements will be addressed such as the quality and availability to all students of curricula, instructional materials, and technologies, including distance learning, and the capability of teachers to provide high-quality instruction to meet the diverse learning needs of all students in each content area. These standards will also examine the extent to which teachers, principals, and administrators have read about and are continually accessing information about professional development including the best knowledge about teaching, learning, and school improvement, and the extent to which curriculum, instructional practices, and assessments are aligned with voluntary national content standards. Goals 2000 also calls for the examination of the extent to which school facilities provide a safe and secure environment for learning and instruction and provide students an opportunity to learn, and the extent to which school use policies, curricula, and instructional practices that ensure nondiscrimination on the basis of gender in the opportunity to learn standards. It is not whether the services are available, but whether those services are actually delivered to all children and to what extent they are delivered. These standards present new tools for accountability and the proponents of this legislation feel that this is the most positive change in this legislation (Lewis, 661).
From a United States Department of Education Update dated August 1996, the positive effects of Goals 2000 were enumerated. In the article, it is stated that Goals 2000 is the first federal education act that helps states and communities build on, and coordinate, their existing reform efforts rather than creating a new program. The act, according to the Update, provides incentive grants for schools, communities, and states to support their own approach to improve student achievement, provides fund to states and schools districts for better teacher training and professional development, encourages parents to become more involved in the education of their children, allows for the first time in history, authority for the Secretary of Education to waive certain regulations to assist states and local communities in implementing school improvement, and encourages each state to develop challenging academic standards for students.
No regulations have been or will be issued for Goals 2000. In the first year of the act, "participating states were to use funds to form broad-based citizen panels responsible for developing or building upon a comprehensive statewide school improvement plan with 60 percent of the funds going to the schools" ("Update", 1). In years 2 - 5, at least 90 percent of the funds must be passed onto individual school districts and schools. Currently in some states, funds are being used to support the creation of charter schools. In other schools funds are being used to encourage parental involvement in ongoing reform efforts and ,in other states they are developing standards for student achievement in six subject core areas. Goals 2000 is "uniting local and state leaders in a combined effort to provide a quality education that prepares all children for responsible citizenship and productive employment in our modern economy" ("Update", 2).
A Teacher's Guide to the US Department of Education outlines the positive aspects of the legislation in order to aid teachers in understanding the legislation and how it will affect them. According to the guide, Goals 2000 supports states and local districts in creating their own comprehensive plans to help all students reach higher standards. Goals 2000 will:
*offer schools and communities the tools and flexibility they need to get the job done and encourage accountability for results
*create partnerships among educators, parents, business people, workers, all citizens, and every level of government to support local schools and communities in their efforts to provide every child with a world-class education
*encourage parents and all family members to become more involved in children's education, and provide parents with better ways of measuring their children's progress and quality of their schools
*strengthen and improve teacher preparation and development, textbooks, instructional materials, technologies, and overall school service so that teachers and students will have the tools they need to improve teaching and learning in every classroom
*produce better ways of testing and assessing student performance to make sure shortcomings are addressed and all children are learning what they need to know to succeed
*develop rigorous occupational skill standards that will define the knowledge and skills needed for the complex, high-wage jobs of tomorrow, and develop a system of skill certification that will help students get good job after they graduate
*provide venture capital to help schools, school districts, and states develop and pursue their own comprehensive plans for moving all students toward high academic standards
*help states and localities develop and use high academic standards in science, math, history, English, geography, foreign language, and the arts, civics and government and economics. ("Teacher's Guide", 2)
Another very positive aspect of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act is
the National
Educational Standards and Improvement Council, NESIC . The duties of the
NESIC include
certifying voluntary national content, performance, opportunity to learn
standards; identifying and developing criteria to be used for certifying
the voluntary national
content standards, student performance standards, and opportunity to
learn standards
submitted by states; and forwarding these standards to the Goals Panel
for review.
The duties of the Goals Panel is to report on the progress toward
national goals, report
on the states opportunity to learn standards and strategies to help
students meet
state content standards; review criteria developed by NESIC for the
certification
of national content and students' performance standards, assessment, and
opportunity to
learn standards, and review voluntary national content and student
performance standards
and opportunity to learn standards certified by NESIC ("What is Goals
2000", 78).
This system of checks and balances within the system ensures that
everyone is following
the same guidelines and that no program is approved without meeting the
criteria.
Despite the fact that there have been numerous articles and updates published claiming that Goals 2000 is a sound piece of legislation; it is necessary to note individual reactions to this legislation, especially by those directly involved with education. According to AFT president, Albert Shanker, "Goals 2000 finally gives America a rational system of education that starts with the essentials : clear, high academic standards for what students should know and be able to do. All else follows from standards." ("School reform bill...", 13). Also, Shanker feels that "Goals 2000 is a legislation that could reshape American education significantly and promote excellence in schools. If we take hold of the issues we believe in, we will have tremendous support from a public that sees the need for genuine realistic and sustainable reform" ("Goals 2000", 3).
According to Chris Pipho of the Education Commission of the States
"While no one considers these (goals) anything more than an educational
wish-list,
they are held up as ideas to which reform efforts can be directed.
Underpinning
the legislation is a long-standing concern about low standards in
American schools,
but goals 2000 is a recognition by the federal government of the
central importance of
education and a real effort by the federal government and state to work
together"
(Wilce, 13).
LeGrande Baldwin, a Principal at Cluster 4, Maury School in Washington DC, believes that "Goals 2000 is as significant as the launching of Sputnik. It is an initiative that redirects our focus in terms of improving the quality of education and life in this country. These goals provide our blueprint for meeting the challenges of the 21st century" (Daily Report Card, 8). According to Harvey Cox, the executive director of San Antonio 2000,
"Goals 2000 is a landmark piece of legislation that is really trying to
localize control,
as far down as the campus level. The legislation is also landmark in
that it recognizes
that improvement in education cannot be made on the federal level. It
releases control and direction to the states. There is no dictate to the
states--they
create their own plan and submit it for approval.......I believe when we
look back
on Goals 2000, we will see that it empowered schools to take action and
to be involved in their own reform" (Daily Report Card, 9).
Barbara Benisch, arts education liaison for the Southern Arts Federation
states that
"Goals 2000 has had a tremendously positive impact on arts education.
For the first
time, the arts are included as a core subject area. This has given the
arts community
and arts educators tremendous leverage in including the arts in
curricula as a learning tool.....A national initiative that sets
standards for all students and all
schools makes a lot of sense" (Daily Report Card, 9).
According to the US Secretary of Education
"Goals 2000 moves American education from the old assembly line version
of education
toward a new high-tech, high-knowledge approach better suited to the
society and
economy of the 21st century. Goals 2000 helps to establish a world-
class academic
and occupational skill standards. Goals 2000 is the first critical step
in President
Clinton's effort to create a system of life-long learning by serving as
a framework
for additional educational legislation. The education reforms
envisioned by Goals
2000 ultimately will not succeed unless teachers become a part of the
process" (Riley,
12).
Despite the fact that many see Goals 2000 as a very positive piece of legislation and something that very well could revolutionize the American educational system as we know it, there are many who believe that this is just a governmental balancing act without any sound backing. This could be because the National Educational Standards and Improvement Council, which would devise national content and performance standards in key academic subjects and "certify any standards that states chose to submit", appears to be dead on arrival (Cohen, 751). The reason being that barely half a year after Goals 2000 was signed into law, Republicans took control of the Congress. The new freshmen were generally more conservative and had little use for any sort of national school reform. Goals 2000 was seen as an organizing framework for all schools, but from the "state or local perspective it seems like just another voice in a veritable babel of reform proposals, advice, legislation, and related chatter" (Cohen, 752).
The main problem with Goals 2000 is that no one is shouting from rooftops in support of the law and that there does not seem to be many die hard supporters for this act. Part of this problem is because this legislation did not express any demand for a sort of powerful national movement. Unfortunately it is seen as a "professionals' and politicians' reform, not a popular one" ( Cohen, 753). A second problem with the act is that to be effective Goals 2000 will have to become useful to educational improvement, but this will not be easy because standards-based school improvement is limited everywhere in American education. The "adoption and achievement of much more ambitious standards could never succeed without a great deal of education for all adults involved, whether they be teachers, local citizens, or government officials" (Cohen, 755). Goals 2000 does not address the needs of every district in that there is no top track of eager and able schools, states, and localities with which Goals 2000 can work, while some other remedial agency deals with the low achievers. If this is to work, it will because it finds a way to work with all sorts of systems.
Currently they are thinking of some possible successor to the NESIC. This is a very difficult assignment. First the government should educate themselves and the American public about standards-based reform even as they build the capability to enact it. This will include "writing, investigating, and commenting on standards in the context of school improvement strategies, but it also includes undertaking the related professional and public education" (Cohen, 757).
Along without much support for Goals 2000, and the fact that the NESIC has not yet been established and probably never will be created, there are many who are wondering if Goals 2000 is really needed or if it does enough for our society. According to some, the proposals in Goals 2000 need to be questioned and in some cases challenged by the teaching profession because our American society may need to change more programs than just education.
There is a noted report entitled the Scandia Report in which three senior researchers in systems analysis at the Scandia National Labs were assigned to study education in America. Unlike most research studies on education, the Scandia Report undertook their work with no apriori premises to prove. Therefore the report had no biases and was assigned only to examine specific information. The final draft of the study was dated April 1992, and the main principles were that since the late 1970s every ethnic or racial group has maintained or improved on SAT scores; performance on the tests for the National Assessment of Educational Progress has been improving; and high school dropout rates are declining for all ethnic populations and community types with the exception of Hispanics. But when measuring drop out rates of Hispanics, they are asked if they ever attended school in their home country. If they did, and then dropped out, they are consider an American school dropout even though they "never checked" into American schools (Tanner, 292).
Despite declines in the college-age population, the cumulative number of bachelor's degrees in engineering, computer science, physical science, and mathematics has increased by more than 75% over the past 20 years; scores on the GRE have risen significantly since the late 1970Ős; and dramates significantly since the late 1970s; and dramatic demographic have been occurring in our schools as a result of increased immigration. Today almost one-third of our pupils are minorities. The data in the Scandia report runs counter to the proposed reforms and is in conflict with much of the information our society, as a whole, receives from many news sources.
Our educational priorities need to be directed toward improving the education of minority and inner-city children and youth, toward adjusting to dramatic demographic changes, and to immigration and toward improving the status of elementary and secondary teachers.
"Also, shouldn't our government be looking at other aspects of our system that may benefit students' education. Since 1970 poverty rates for children have increased; the percentage of children living in households with only one adult has almost tripled over the past 30 years; the US does not make the top 10 in life expectancy at birth when compared to other countries; the US underinvests in elementary and secondary education according to four Nobel Laureate in economics; and although Goals 2000 expects students to start school ready to learn, how can they start school when they are sick, undernourished and not properly vaccinated. There are more reforms that must occur in our education system that just some Educate America Act cannot change, instead we must totally reinvent the American school system" (Tanner, 296).
Despite the fact that the Scandia report paints the picture that the
government needs to go further and that Goals 2000 will do nothing to
change education, it is necessary to note that many, both in and out of
education agree. According to Rae Nelson, executive director of the
Center for Workforce Preparation at the US Chamber of Commerce,
"Goals 2000 is a symbol of creeping federal encroachment on local
control over schools. The money given to states for reform efforts is so
minuscule that it has little impact on local schools. Goals 2000 does
not challenge anyone to do anything new. Goals 2000 is full of
politically charged issued and is a lightning rod for attention" (Daily
Report Card, 2). According to Lamar Alexander
"Education is not an endeavor where one size fits all. Perhaps we can
agree on a core of voluntary goals and standards that make sense for the
nation, but it's folly to prescribe a single path to them, or to suggest
that Uncle Sam knows best. In so far as any education functions stay in
Washington, their guiding principles should be
choice, deregulation, innovation, accountability, and serious assessment
keyed to real standards in core subjects. The president should not try to run
the nation's schools. They must not seek to control them. And they need
to understand that acceptance of their education agenda depends on the
power of their idea, not on federal red tape. Bill Clinton should tell
the country what he thinks a good school is and those who agree with him
can be trusted to create their own. Those who favor a different
idea must be free to march to their own drummers" (Alexander, 44).
Blythe McVicker Clinchy, a professor of psychology at Wellesley College
believes that Goals 2000 is treating students as objects, not real
people.
"In the Goals 2000 initiative there is the virtual omission of the
student. They are treated as objects rarely as subjects. Goals 2000
focuses almost exclusively on the external stuff that is to be implanted
in these inert organisms. Words like enjoyment do not appear in their
sternly puritanical rhetoric of Goals 2000. There, the emphasis in on
discipline, on holding students to standards, and on constraints rather
than freedom. The concern is not what students would do, but what they
should
do. In constructing these standards the proponents of Goals 2000 seemed
to have paid
little attention to love. The contents they suggest have been chosen
not because they are lovable but because they are important. The
cultivation of passionate interest does not appear on any list of Goals
2000 goals that I have seen simply because it is hard to measure. Goals
2000 suggests that creating standards and following them guarantees,
success, this is not true" (Clinchy, 383-4).
Still others agree with the Scandia report and the article by Tanner and believe that the government should focus more on the issues in our society before attempting to revamp education. It is proven that sick children are not good learners. "Society that is bent on having all children ready to learn by the time they enter school would assign high priority to an immunization program" (Schwebel, 591). WRONG. The levels of immunization in the US among non-white children are less than half of the levels in Denmark, Belgium, France, German, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Norway, England, and Spain. Only 28% of 3 year olds and 49% of 4 year olds are in pre-school programs. We lag far behind France, Austria, Germany, and Japan. Ed Ziegler, the Head Start pioneer has pioneer has recently reported that the program is being run so poorly that recently reported that the program is being run so poorly thatone-third of the 1,400 programs are doing practically nothing helpful for the children. Although year-round experience is proven to be more effective, many programs are not year-round, hours of instruction are often limited, and facilities at many sites are inadequate. In addition, too many children under 4 do not have access despite the benefits of any earlier start, teachers are poorly paid, and there is not enough room for 2/3 of the eligible children (Schwebel, 592).
Why did the government make these promises? In order to cut disparities between districts and hold everyone accountable. Yet disparities between districts exist which is prevalent in the Abbot V. Burke case in New Jersey in which the prosecution is claiming that the state operates two separate and unequal school systems. "This is where change must begin" (Schwebel, 591-592).
Even though there is a great deal of debate over the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, the change is already in place and states are already utilizing Goals 2000 funds. In order to have a clear picture about the progress of Goals 2000 we must examine what is currently being done in our American schools under the guise of Goals 2000. In its first year, Goals 2000 awarded 47 states with 85.4 million dollars (see Attachment #1) These moneys were to be used by the states to support the implementation of their school improvement plans, establish academic standards, promote parental involvement, provide meaningful professional development for teacher, facilitate access to computers and other kinds of technology, and form community partnerships on the local level (Daily Report Card, 3).
In specific states, there are also many changes being made. In Massachusetts, the state is utilizing the money to link adult education programs to K-12 education, establish curriculum frameworks for all students, inform parents about school improvement efforts, and forge partnerships with universities to support teacher training (Daily Report Card, 3). Delaware began its reform with the "New Directions for Education" program which focuses on standards and curriculum; assessments and instruction; local development; and partnerships. The state will also develop another program called "First Schools in the First State" which will pilot locally developed curriculum along with the new state standards. In years to come, more states will become involved in the program and will be mentored by the more experienced schools (Riley, 6). In Oregon, Goals 2000 funds are being used towards an statewide effort that would consist of two student certificates: Initial Mastery and Advanced Mastery. Initial Mastery would be received in tenth grade and then students will begin to work on a Certificate of Advanced Mastery in one of six core areas. These areas include arts and communication, business and management, and industrial and engineering systems, among others. Ongoing classroom assessments will provide the students with appropriate feedback.
In New Jersey the government is "struggling along with the rest of the nation to educate citizens who will be competitive in the international marketplace of the future" (Attachment #2). New Jersey is attempting to create a state system that provides every student with a "thorough and efficient education". Due to the fact, that there are over 600 independent school districts in the state that exercise their own local control, the Department of Education has described what all students should know and be capable of doing upon their completion of a traditionally thirteen-year education. These standards are in such areas as visual and performing arts, comprehensive health and physical education, world languages, mathematics, language and arts literacy, science, and social studies (Attachment #2).
All in all, Goals 2000 is an effort by the Federal Government to change
education
in America. I personally, do not feel that this is enough though. In
order for
Goals 2000 to be a success, there must be much more support for it by the
government
and by the people. Also, the Educate America Act cannot be effective
unless there is a complete
revamping of our entire American system. I believe that Goals 2000 is
just a quick
fix to the problem and in the future, there is going to be a lot more
that must be done in order for the American schools and American students
to be the best that
they can be.
Works Cited
Alexander, Lamar, William J. Bennett, and Dan Coats. "Local Option",
National Review
December 19, 1994: 42-44.
Clinchy, Blythe McVicker. "Goals 2000: The Student as Object", Phi
Delta Kappan
January 1995: 383-392.
BR> January 1995: 383-392.
Cohen, David. "What Standards for National Standards?", Phi Delta
Kappan
June 1995: