Although the forth-coming “report card” on the national education goals could set an agenda for school improvement, it is unlikely by itself to spur changes, according to educators and state officials.
The elements of the report, which is scheduled to be released Sept. 30, were ironed out at a meeting here this month by the National Education Goals Panel, a group of governors and Bush Administration officials that is charged with monitoring progress to0 ward the targets.
Resolving an issue that had centered on the goal of school readiness, the report will reflect a compromise between members who wanted the document to include only “outcome” measures and those who wanted it also to contain information on objectives for attaining the goals.
Under the compromise, the panel agreed that the report will be in two parts. The first will contain data that directly measure the goals, such as high-school-completion rates, scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and surveys of student drug use in schools. The second part is to include measures of objectives, such as the number of students in preschool programs and course-taking in mathematics and science.
The panel settled another contentious issue by agreeing to include a report on the federal role in education. That report will outline financial support, support for research and development, and flexibility in mandates.
Will Report Have Impact?
Panel members said here that although the data will be imperfect and incomplete, the report as a whole will help concentrate the nation’s attention on the goals.
“We are talking about putting a focus on what is important for the country,” said Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander. “That’s the most important thing that could happen to transform American education.”
But observers argued that this year’s report may not produce the kinds of changes the panel members hope for. Because nearly all the measures the panel selected have been released already, some contended, the report is less likely to galvanize the nation into action.
In addition, they noted, the report contains little information that could guide schools toward achieving the goals.
“There is little doubt it is of value to have a focus on efforts to improve schools,” said Gordon Cawelti, executive director of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. “You can’t do every thing; this gives direction to them.”
“But I am skeptical that it will produce substantial movement un less more is done,” he added. "[Their approach seems to be], now we’ve got the goals, we’ll produce report cards, and see what happens.”
“The history of real movement in education doesn’t work that way,” Mr. Cawelti said.
“It’s a good way of organizing,” added Gordon M. Ambach, executive di rector of the Council of Chief State School Officers. “Whether it will drive change remains to be seen.”
Compromise on Readiness
The panel’s first report is expected to serve as a “baseline” in tracking progress toward the goals that President Bush and the governors set for the end of the decade.
In a joint statement issued last year, the chief executives pledged that, by the year 2000: All children will start school ready to learn; the high-school graduation rate will in crease to at least 90 percent; American students will leave grades 4, 8, and 12 having demonstrated competency in challenging subject matter; U.S. students will be first in the world in science and mathematics achievement; every adult American will be literate; and every school will be free of drugs.
But other panelists warned that the inclusion of such measures might put pressure on states to alter their policies. They argued that the indirect measures should be included in an appendix to the report, and that the main 1991 report hould include no measure of L$school readiness. (See Education Week, June 12, 1991.)
In the compromise reached this month, the panel agreed to put the indirect measures in the second part of the report, but to bind the two parts together in a single volume. “I believe the way the report is organized, yes, [the indirect measures] are in the main body of the report,” said Governor Romer. “The compromise we worked out indicates the panel takes seriously the objectives.”
In addition to working out an agreement on the readiness issue, the panel decided to include three measures of student citizenship, which is part of the goal of student achievement.
The panel agreed to include in the report data from the 1988 NAEP civics assessment; student voter-registration information; and results from a survey of 10th graders on community service.
In the area of high-school completion, the panel agreed to report data on the percentage of 19- and 20-year-olds and 24- and 25-year-olds who have completed high school, the number of students who drop out of school, and the number of dropouts who complete high school.
“We want to advertise that if you drop out, it doesn’t mean you have to stay out,” said Gov. John A. Ashcroft of Missouri.
The panel also agreed that the report on the drug-free-schools goal should include data on student drug use in school, but that in formation on the total number of students involved with illegal drugs should be in the second part of the report.
“If we are surveying students on the use of illegal drugs,” said Gov. Carroll A. Campbell Jr. of South Carolina, “the question comes, how are we going to hold the school responsible for the acts of kids on the week end, or away from school?”
Members also agreed to report the incidence of violence in schools and student perceptions of school safety.
On the adult-literacy goal, the panel decided to report data from a 1986 survey of young adults, as well as a Labor Department survey of participants in the Job Training Partnership Act and recipients of unemployment insurance.
‘There Will Be Gaps’
Governor Romer acknowledged that the 1991 report will contain substantial gaps in areas where the data sources are inadequate or not available. But he added that the panel will continue to work to develop new systems of assessment to improve the report.
The panel has created a council on standards and testing to consider the feasibility of a national system of examinations to measure student achievement, for example, as well as a task force to come up with a plan for an assessment of children’s readiness for school.
“One of the larger messages of the report card is, this is what it will look like,” Governor Romer said. “There will be gaps in it. But the gaps themselves are a report.”
Governor Campbell predicted that the reports will drive the country to achieve the goals.
“When the measures are better,” he said, “the education system will respond freely to the data as they adapt and produce a system that L will make us more competitive.”
Mark D. Musick, president of the Southern Regional Education Board, agreed that additional data would improve the value of future reports.
“I have very realistic expectations about the first report,” he said. “Three years from now, the national and state reports are going to be a whole lot better than in 1991.”
