Goals 2000: An Analysis and Critique, 2(4)

and

Patrick J. Morrissette

morris@wtp.net
Assistant Professor, College
Education and Human Services
Montana State University-Billings

 

---

Abstract

America has engaged in a massive attempt at educational reform. Never in the history of this country have so many people become involved in the process of increasing expectations for educational outcomes. A fundamental objective of education is to develop a better informed and intellectually stimulated society. The difficulty with this objective is that the American educational system subscribes to a transmission model that minimizes the importance of learning how to access resources, process information, and exercise critical thinking skills. The purpose of this paper is to examine historical education reform in America, analyze the eight National Educational Goals, and discuss the inherent challenges of Goals 2000.

---

The need for educational reform in America has received substantial attention over the past fifteen years. In 1983, a blue ribbon commission called the National Commission on Excellence in Education authored A Nation at Risk which suggested that the performance of American schools had declined to such a degree that their educational results were no longer acceptable. The report asserted that a rising tide of mediocrity had engulfed American schools and, if left unchecked, the United States would surely lose a major foothold in the new global economy. Several reports that were released in the 1980s echoed this concern and cited the steady decline of Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) scores and the poor performance of American students on international achievement tests (Walters, 1993). In response, on March 31, 1994, President Clinton signed Public Law 103-227 or Goals 2000: Educate America Act as a first step in reversing this trend.

Goals 2000: An Overview

Goals 2000 is based on The National Education Goals initiative which outlines eight goals that must be achieved by American schools by the year 2000. This legislation supports the provision of grant-driven federal funds to state and local school districts in order to incorporate three basic principles: rigorous academic standards; alignment of curriculum, textbooks, and teacher education; and clear student incentives to meet high standards of academic performance (U.S. Department of Education, 1995 b). The U.S. Department of Education supports seven projects designed to develop standards in the areas of science, history, the arts, civics and government, geography, English language arts, and foreign languages (Seidman, 1995). Based on these initiatives, it appears that the federal government remains invested in educational standards.

This federal educational intervention represents a turning point in American history (Dugan & Brownbridge, 1994). In an unprecedented manner, the United States has committed enormous time, energy, and resources in an effort to reform the educational system and attain a level of scholastic excellence. It is the thesis of this paper however, that Goals 2000 is destined to fail. This failure will not result from a lack of interest, effort or expense but from social realities. Efforts to reform education must be more closely aligned with the realities of contemporary society.

Historical Review of American Educational Reform

American history is rife with unsuccessful attempts to reform education. Walters (1993) remarked that American public schools have experienced a number of crises since being established in the 19th century. Historically it has been generally accepted that schools mirror society (U.S. Department of Education, 1995 a) and consequently, perceived crises in the educational system resulted from societal change. As a result, societal changes have prompted a shift in how education is perceived. Social equality, social cohesion, and excellence in education (Walters, 1993) appear to be the prevailing themes prompting historical reform efforts.

With the influx of new immigrants in the 19th century, there emerged a view that education should be the vehicle to encourage citizenship and common American identity and culture (Walters, 1993). This practical paradigm was considered appropriate in fostering social order and democracy. Immigrant children were encouraged to attend school, learn a common culture, and develop American values (Walters, 1993).

The Impact of the Industrial Revolution

American education experienced a crisis as a result of the industrial revolution. The global marketplace was born and competition with Germany became a major national concern. America was faltering on the world market and education was perceived as the culprit for the declivity of industry. Conversely, Germany's emergence in the world market was credited to the German educational system. To rectify the situation, industrial leaders and school reformers formed a partnership and introduced a technical paradigm designed to teach relevant vocational and technical skills (Walters, 1993). The educational system in America today continues to reflect this paradigmatic shift and the goal of education is to secure employment.

On October 4, 1957 the Soviet Union successfully launched Sputnik I, the first satellite to orbit Earth. This monumental accomplishment struck terror in the very fabric of American society. The Russians were leading the so called space race and the American educational system was criticized for failing to establish standards that would enable students to compete in this venture. In response to this criticism, and to remain competitive, the U.S. Congress earmarked over one million dollars during the 1960s toward the development and implementation of curricula in mathematics and science (Eisner, 1995).

The 1960s were a time of social unrest and it was assumed that the educational system could help eliminate social problems (Walters, 1993). It was suggested that education play a critical role in promoting social equality and eliminating poverty, racism, and sexism. To this end, several programs were introduced including Head Start, Title IX, and the passage of The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In a time of national and global change, education was considered a critical element for the unification of a nation. In the late 1970's, it became apparent that the technical paradigm had not been effective in unifying American society. In short, crises in American education seem to stem from a changing global marketplace rather than from failure of the educational system.

There has been enormous social and global economic growth during the past 17 years. An expanded world market, accessible technology, improved travel, and advanced communication have been instrumental in prompting American educational reform.

Evaluating America's Students

The history of American education is vital to examining current educational reform. As discussed previously, the United States has turned to educational reform when confronted by social, political, and economic challenges. Cobb (1994) suggested that the educational system has been wrongly accused of creating institutional and societal failures. Goals 2000 is no exception and also results from economic and political forces outside of education.

Whether educational reform is warranted remains debatable. As Walters (1993) pointed out, declining scores on the SAT can be attributed to educational success during the 1960's and 1970's. America has promoted educational programs geared toward social equality and education of the masses. The SAT is an instrument designed to predict success in college and because more students were expected to attend college during the late 1960's through the early 1980's, an increased number of below average students completed the exam. The result was a decline in the average of SAT scores.

Education reform advocates cite poor performance on international test scores as further evidence that the educational system is not meeting scholastic expectations. Politicians and educational reform advocates contend that more stringent standards will rectify this problem and elevate American students to world leaders in mathematics and science. Upon closer examination however, American students may be already performing at this level.

The American education system considers all student achievement scores derived from public schools. Germany and Japan, the two countries most often contrasted with American education, teach and develop curricula much differently than the United States. In Japan, for example, educational pursuit centers around a competitive national exam for entrance into high school (Walters, 1993) and college (Unks, 1995). With an emphasis on national unity, academic, and social conduct is primarily utilitarian in nature. Japan has a national curriculum prescribed by the Ministry of Education and 89.9 percent of exams are generated by the authors of textbooks that are utilized in the classroom. Consequently, Japanese education is influenced by the content of these textbooks. In addition, school days are longer and students spend more days per year in school when compared to the United States (240 days compared to 180 for American students). It is also common practice for the parents of students to acquire tutors or to attend cram schools in their pursuit toward academic excellence.

Germany, like America, does not have a national curriculum. The 16 states of Germany are individually responsible for the educational outcomes within their respective borders (Unks, 1995). At the grade five level students are directed to one of three secondary education routes. The pure or Gymnasium is an academic school for students who aspire to, and have the ability to pursue professional careers. The practical or Realschule is designed for students who are interested and equipped to function in business, industry or civil service positions. Finally, Hauptschule, or the applied school, is designed for students who are attracted to the skilled trades (Unks, 1995). As a result of this system, international tests in Germany are administered to only the highest functioning (approximately one-third) students. Given the vast differences in educational testing, standards, and student population, comparison of achievement scores between other countries and the United States is invalid. In fact, when examined independently, the American education system may be very successful despite the pessimistic view of political and industrial leaders.

Historically, educational reform movements emerge as a result of failure or perceived failure in other sectors of society. Politics and industry have been instrumental in educational reform but never in American history have politicians been more involved than with Goals 2000. Absent from this critical debate however, are educators. Although Goals 2000 was conceived by politicians with industrial and economic implications, educators are now assigned the task of implementing goals in which they may not be invested.

Educational Reform: Where are the Educators?

Educators have rarely been invited to debate educational reform. Their absence may be attributed to the fact that reform discussions often occur outside of education circles. Since the turn of the century, America has operated on a technical paradigm of education and has been a lap dog of industry. Finn (1989) asserted that educators cannot be entrusted with curriculum development and writes, "...the biggest reason we ought not to follow the advice of the education profession is that its ideas about the goals of schooling are mostly wrong" (p. 290). It appears that Finn was referring to the prevalent belief among educators that a shift in paradigm to a more practical approach is needed in American schools. Finn (1989) further notes:

...nothing we have learned about education, past or present, at home or abroad, gives us any grounds for believing that the process method, however elegantly refined, will ever produce people who know anything, for whom specific knowledge is an unfashionable commodity. But it is also, finally, the reason why civilian control of education remains absolutely essential. (p. 293)

Former Secretary of Education William Bennett suggested that educational decline was a result of liberal intellectuals in the leadership and that reform should place the people firmly back in control of education (Apple, 1995). According to Apple (1995), part of the solution for educational reform in the early 1980's was to divest educators of authority. Clearly, a practical paradigm would not serve industrial, economic or political agendas.

The National Education Goals

The National Education Goals were initially developed by the nation's governors at the Education Reform Summit of 1989, convened by President Bush. Six education goals were established to "...direct the nation's efforts in developing world-class students" (Talley & Short, 1995). Congress added two additional goals. What follows is an analysis and critique of each national goal.

1. By the year 2000, all children will start school ready to learn.
   

   Although at first glance this goal seems reasonable, the reality of attainment is another issue. Dramatic social forces characterize contemporary American society. During the 1950's for example, divorce was almost unheard of and giving birth to a child out of wedlock was considered socially unacceptable. Today, single mothers in America are raising 15 million children (Hodgkinson, 1995) with an average family income within $1,000 of the poverty line. Increased parental drug abuse further complicates the lives of American families.
   
   Approximately 350,000 children are born to cocaine addicted mothers each year in America (Hodgkinson, 1995). The expected cost of preparing these children for kindergarten is approximately $40,000 per child. According to Hodgkinson (1995), "...about one-third of preschool children are destined for school failure because of poverty, neglect, sickness, handicapping conditions, and lack of adult protection and nurturance" (p. 380).

   American public schools cannot, nor should they be mandated to, confront such social issues. This first goal as outlined in Goals 2000 has corresponding objectives. The first objective states: All disadvantaged and disabled children will have access to high-quality and developmentally appropriate preschool programs that help prepare children for school. It is estimated this first objective alone would cost $30 billion to implement (Hodgkinson, 1995). In the first year of the Goals 2000 program only $85 million was given to state and local school districts (U.S. Department of Education, 1995 a). This financial disparity is staggering. It may cost more to achieve the first goal than will be expended on the entire program.

2. By the year 2000, the high school graduation rate will increase to at least 90 percent.
   

   A major difficulty with this goal is the devaluation of a high school diploma. A question emerges regarding the future of students who cannot or will not achieve national standards. Seidman (1995) pointed out that the high school attainment rate has been stable at 75 percent since 1965 and that policy dictated by the national government will unlikely create any change. If the goal was met, however, the diploma would "...lose its power to secure social goods" (Seidman, 1995). Undesirable consequences would result for those who do not secure a diploma. Moreover, it appears that minority students would experience the greatest repercussions. The gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students would widen and contribute to social inequity (Malloy, 1995). As graduation rates increase, there would be a corresponding demand for a high school diploma. Only those without a diploma would qualify for social welfare.

3. By the year 2000, all students will leave grades four, eight, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter including English, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography, and every school in America will ensure that all students learn to use their minds well, so they may be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and productive employment in our Nation's modern economy.
   

   The development and implementation of national standards are needed in the American education system. Curriculum subjects such as math, science, and geography are universal throughout the United States and accountability can only be achieved through standards set at the national level. The difficulty with this third goal is not with uniform standards for core subjects but rather, with an existing inability to measure the subjective mandate of ensuring that all students learn to use their minds well; be prepared for responsible citizenship, further learning, and find productive employment. While it can be assumed that all employment is an indication of productive and responsible citizenship, how to assess whether young people are using their minds well becomes a challenge.

4. By the year 2000, the Nation's teaching force will have access to programs for the continued improvement of their professional skills and the opportunity to acquire the knowledge and skills needed to instruct and prepare all American students for the next century.
   

   This practical goal is a measurable objective designed to strengthen the skill of those who provide educational services. However, teachers have had access to continuing education for decades. As research reveals, new teaching and learning techniques, in-service workshops, and various other forms of training are conducted routinely to provide teachers with new information. It appears redundant to mandate an activity already provided to educators.

5. By the year 2000, U.S. students will be first in the world in mathematics and science achievement.
   

   As previously noted, American students may have already achieved this milestone. The criterion for meeting this goal would presumably be acceptable scores on international mathematics and science exams. If one-third of America's top students were contrasted with a comparable subset of students in other industrialized nations, the data would likely reveal a very different picture than that offered by the U.S. Department of Education.

6. By the year 2000, every adult American will be literate and will possess the knowledge and skills necessary to compete in a global economy and exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.
   

   As with goal one, it is naive to assume that the American educational system is capable of achieving this goal by the year 2000. Schools are ill equipped to provide services requiring community outreach of this magnitude. The greatest obstacle to this goal resides in those mandated to receive services. Not all adults want to be literate, compete in a global economy or exercise the rights and responsibilities of citizenship.

7. By the year 2000, every school in the United States will be free of drugs, violence, and the unauthorized presence of firearms and alcohol and will offer a disciplined environment conducive to learning.
   

   Such a lofty ambition is unrealistic. So long as schools continue to mirror social problems, it is unlikely that they will ever be drug and violence free. Drug abuse is a widespread problem in America and mandating its absence will not alleviate the problem. American schools would experience fewer difficulties if realistic attempts were made to provide students with tools necessary to discover personal meaning in their lives.

   America's prisons are filled to capacity with prisoners convicted for drug related offenses. Selling and transporting drugs is an attractive alternative to work for many who lack necessary employment skills. In fact, more than 80 percent of the one million prisoners in America are high school dropouts (Hodgkinson, 1995).

8. By the year 2000, every school will promote partnership that will increase parental involvement and participation in promoting the social, emotional, and academic growth of children.
   

   As with goal four, this objective is viable and supports education in America. Barnett (1995) pointed out that traditional efforts to promote parent-educator partnerships have historically failed or have resulted in conflict and suggests informal social meetings, frequent phone calls, newsletters, and home visits. While reasonable in theory, these suggestions are difficult to implement. For example, elementary classrooms often include up to 30 students and a secondary teacher may see as many as 180 students a day. Based on these numbers, it is unreasonable to assume that educators can conduct frequent phone calls and home visits. Furthermore, schools already conduct parent-teacher conferences and utilize newsletters.

   A challenge in promoting parental participation in education results from a lack of time and interest. Many parents are more concerned with the education of their own children rather than the education of children in general. Promoting equity in education is difficult when parents focus on the specific needs of their children and disregard the well being of other students. Finally, parents may also feel inadequately prepared to contribute to an educational partnership and are therefore, reluctant to become involved.

Discussion

The National Education Goals need to be revisited. Although articulating goals is essential to successful change, setting unrealistic goals can be counterproductive. Fullan and Miles (1995) asserted that, "Education is a complex system, and its reform is even more complex" (p. 405). Education reform becomes increasingly challenging as industrial, social, and economic institutions ebb and flow with the demands of the modern world. There is little doubt America's schools need reform. Determining the focus and delivery of education that will best prepare students for the 21st century remains a critical question.

Although a gallant effort, Goals 2000 will be remembered as a reform movement that funneled millions, perhaps billions, of dollars into American public schools with little to show in return. Policy makers need to understand that money is not a remedy for the challenges facing education. When carefully examined, it appears that these objectives were designed without fully understanding social factors that influence American families and schools. Without the necessary support systems in place, such grandiose goals cannot be realized and reform will not be forthcoming. As drug abuse and the breakdown of the family system increase (e.g., Gottman, 1994; Hetherington, Law, & O'Connor, 1993) politicians, industrial leaders, and educators need to consider the far-reaching implications of these social problems. It is unlikely, for example, that children who experience parental addiction or extreme poverty will be prepared to start school ready to learn. Consequently, a holistic paradigm emphasizing academic as well as psychosocial needs of students should accommodate ongoing assessment and revision.

The political forces responsible for creating Goals 2000 are already at odds. Cohen (1995) submitted that Goals 2000 and the National Educational Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC) is doomed with the advent of a Republican Congress. The NESICl was developed to create national content and performance standards in key academic subjects and certify state-submitted standards.

America needs and deserves an educational system more closely aligned with the realities of a global village. Finn (1989) was troubled by the fact that only ten percent of American adults could locate Yugoslavia on a blank map of Europe. With the constant onslaught of new and challenging information, it is becoming difficult for educators to design curricula that will adequately prepare students to function in a global village. Furthermore, education involves more than the mere regurgitation of fact. A practical paradigm would assist students in learning how to access resources, process information, and exercise critical thinking skills. American schools may be perceived as overly concerned with developing curriculum designed to transmit information as opposed to empowering students to assume responsibility for their learning. It is more important that students be prepared to navigate a constantly changing and complex world than to ingest meaningless information.

References

Apple, M. W. (1995). Is there a curriculum voice to reclaim? In A. C. Ornstein, & L. S. Behar (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (pp. 34-51) . Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Barnett, M. F. (1995, March). Strengthening partnerships by reaching out to families. Paper presented at the National Council of Teachers of English Annual Spring Conference, Minneapolis, MN.

Cobb, N. (1994). The future of education: Perspectives on national standards in America. New York, NY: National Center for Cross-Disciplinary Teaching and Learning. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 379 784)

Cohen, D. (1995). What standards for national standards. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 751-757.

Dugan, A. T., & Brownbridge, R. D. (1994, March). National education goals and standards: The unpredictable evolution of national policy for all students. Paper reporting research conducted as part of the proficiency based Admissions Standards System (PASS) Project, Oregon State System for Higher Education, Portland, OR.

Eisner, E. W. (1995). Educational reform and the ecology of schooling. In A. C. Ornstein & L. S. Behar (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (pp. 390-402). Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Finn, C. (1989). A nation at risk. Commentary, 84, 17-23.

Fullan, M. G.,& Miles, M. B. (1995). Getting reform right. In A. C. Ornstein & L.S. Behar (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (pp. 403-414). Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Gottman, J. M. (1994). What predicts divorce? The relationship between marital process and marital outcomes. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Hetherington, E. M., Law, T. C., & O'Connor, T. G. (1993). Divorce: Challenges, changes, and new chances. In F. Walsh (Ed.), Normal family process (2nd Edition). New York: Guilford.

Hodgkinson, H. (1995). Reform versus reality. In A. C. Ornstein & L. S. Behar (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (pp. 379-389). Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

Malloy, W. (1995). World -class schools: A strategy to keep students at the bottom. Urban-Review, 27, 175-187.

Seidman, R. H. (1995, April). National Education "Goals 2000": Some disastrous unintended consequences. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Francisco, CA.

Talley, R. C., & Short, R. J. (1995). Education and health care advocacy: Perspectives on Goals 2000, IASA, IDEA and Healthy People 2000. Office of Educational Research and Improvement (Ed.),. Published as a part of a collective of eight digests prepared collaboratively by APA and ERIC/CASS.

Unks, G. (1995). Three nations' curricula: Policy implications for U. S. curriculum reform. In A. C. Ornstein & L. S. Behar (Eds.), Contemporary issues in curriculum (pp. 415-427). Boston, Mass: Allyn & Bacon.

U. S. Department of Education. (1995 a). Goals 2000: A progress report (Contract No. RR93002002). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U. S. Department of Education. (1995 b). Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Contract No. RR93002002). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Walters, P. B. (1993). Education: The Current Crisis in Education. In J. C. Nowlin (Ed.), The accommodating reader (pp. 258-283). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

 

Author Notes

Loyd R. Knudsen, M.S. is a graduate of Montana State University-Billings in school counseling. He currently serves as an advisor with the Student Advisement and Support Center, Montana State University-Billings.

Patrick J. Morrissette, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor, College of Education and Human Services, Montana State University-Billings.

Both authors are collaborating on research in the area of student retention.

Correspondence regarding this article can be sent to either author at 1500 North 30th Street, Billings, Montana, U.S.A. 59101.