The notion of educational bankruptcy has recently become popular. A number of states have made it possible for a state superintendent of public instruction or a state education department to declare a school district educationally bankrupt, which allows the state, after a variety of procedures are exhausted, to push aside the local school board and operate the district itself.
Too bad there's no provision for educational bankruptcy at the national level.
Last week, Secretary of Education Cavazos issued the U.S. Department of Education's annual "wall chart." The chart lists the 50 states and the District of Columbia and is supposed to tell us how they're doing according to standard educational measures, such as per-pupil expenditures, dropout rates, SAT and ACT scores, etc. Secretary Cavazos noted the slight decrease in the national percentage of students graduating from high school (71. 5% to 71.1 % ) and the lack of significant change in our low SAT and ACT scores, and concluded that the condition of American education is "stagnant." Following the Bush Administration line, he said that more money was not the answer and called for higher standards, less truancy, more homework and parental involvement. Cavazos said he would write to state and local officials to urge them to raise standards, reduce the dropout rate to 10% from its present 29% and cut in half the number of children who fail a grade.
If there ever was an example of bankruptcy, this is it! Here's a formula that has been tried for eight years. Schools have been raising standards. Students are now required to take more, and more rigorous, courses and to do homework. Students who fail are forced to repeat grades, and those who don't meet minimum competency standards don't graduate. And the "wall chart" continues to show the same lousy results.
What makes Cavazos and Bush believe that another four or eight years of the same slogans will get any better results than they've gotten over the last eight years? And what makes them think that a student who can't jump over a two-foot-high hurdle will suddenly be able to jump a three-foot-high hurdle just because the hurdle has been raised and there are a bunch of cheerleaders yelling encouragement? Is that the way they would treat their own children? If their kids were not able to perform a given task, would they "help" them by making the task even more difficult? Or would they give them special help or new ways of accomplishing the task?
There is something ludicrous about national officials calling on school district to get 90% of the students to graduate and to cut in half the number of students who fail a grade. Do they think educators are opposed to this? Do they know how this can be accomplished (without lowering standards and passing everyone)? If they do, why don't they tell us?
It's clear that Bush and Cavazos are not offering solutions but merely restating our problems. Therefore, shouting slogans at educators makes about the same sense as the Surgeon General writing a letter to all doctors and hospitals urging them to cut the rate of deaths from cancer, heart attacks and AIDS by 50%; or the Secretary of Labor writing to unions and management telling them to decrease the rate of unemployment New York Times -May 7, 1989 and accidents by 50%; or the Secretary of Commerce writing to all businessmen asking them to cut the trade deficit.
Both Bush and Cavazos, if they are serious about an education presidency, will have to abandon bankrupt slogans and show some leadership with ideas and programs.
* * *
The national level is not alone in its failure to think clearly and to learn from experience. New York City has just completed its community school board elections. Decentralization, which started 20 years ago, was supposed to give parents in local school districts a voice in running their children's schools. Now Chicago is about to decentralize, although in that city the elections oflocal boards will be school-by-school.
Over the years, there's been little voter turnout for school board elections, even though there are radio spots and editorials and letters written to parents urging them to vote. When it's all over, only about 7% vote, and there's a widespread expression of disappointment.
Why? Could it really be any different? How, for example, are New Yorkers to know the 638 candidates from whom they must select 288? Or how do they know to select the nine out of the 20 or 30 who are running in their district? How much space does each candidate get in the newspaper? How much time does radio and TV allow for the public to get to know the people and the issues? How can the average parent or citizen know what the incumbents did during their previous term or what their challengers promise? Decentralization may be better than centralization, but we shouldn't be surprised when the reality of it falls short of its promise.
School governance is a real problem in our cities. Most people don't think school boards have done a good job, but they don't trust the city or county governments to run the schools, either. Since there is little faith in any existing level of government, the tendency is always to create a new level of government in which we have not yet lost confidence or turn to a new institution that does not have a proven record of failure. But the evidence is in. You can't create the system of communication and sense of community that exists in small towns merely by breaking big cities up into smaller districts. And you can't expect to change schooling and its results merely be changing school governance from one level or institution to another.
Maybe our students would learn better if Bush and Cavazos -- if we all -- studied the lessons of experience.