Reposted withh permission of the American Federation of Teachers
http://www.aft.org
Where We Stand
by Albert Shanker
The Real Solution
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.  
(To order Making Standards Matter 1996, send $10 to AFT Order Dept., 
555 New Jersey Ave., N.W., Washington, DC 20001, and ask for item 265.)
Chuck Beams
Fidonet - 1:2608/70
cbeams@future.dreamscape.com
___
* UniQWK #5290* Any twit can understand computers, and many do.
--- Maximus 2.01wb
---------------