A NATION AT RISK: The Imperative For Educational
Reform
April 1983
Table of Contents
* Letter of Transmittal
* Members of the National Commission on Excellence
in Education
* Introduction
* A Nation At Risk
* Findings
* Recommendations
* Appendices
+ Appendix A: Charter--National Commission
on Excellence in Education
+ Appendix B: Schedule of the Commission's
Public Events
+ Appendix C: Commissioned Papers
+ Appendix D: Hearing Testimony
+ Appendix E: Other Presentations to the
Commission
+ Appendix F: Notable Programs
+ Appendix G: Acknowledgments
* Ordering Information
An Open Letter to the
American People
A NATION AT RISK: The Imperative for Educational Reform
A Report to the Nation
and the Secretary of Education
United States Department of Education
by The National Commission on Excellence in Education
April 1983
LETTER
OF TRANSMITTAL
April 26, 1983
Honorable T. H. Bell
Secretary of Education
U.S. Department of Education
Washington, D.C. 20202
Dear Mr. Secretary:
On August 26, 1981, you created the National Commission on Excellence
in Education and directed it to present a report on the quality of
education in America to you and to the American people by April of
1983.
It has been my privilege to chair this endeavor and on behalf of the
members of the Commission it is my pleasure to transmit this report,
A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.
Our purpose has been to help define the problems afflicting American
education and to provide solutions, not search for scapegoats. We
addressed the main issues as we saw them, but have not attempted to
treat the subordinate matters in any detail. We were forthright in our
discussions and have been candid in our report regarding both the
strengths and weaknesses of American education.
The Commission deeply believes that the problems we have discerned in
American education can be both understood and corrected if the people
of our country, together with those who have public responsibility in
the matter, care enough and are courageous enough to do what is
required.
Each member of the Commission appreciates your leadership in having
asked this diverse group of persons to examine one of the central
issues which will define our Nation's future. We especially welcomed
your confidence throughout the course of our deliberations and your
anticipation of a report free of political partisanship.
It is our collective and earnest hope that you will continue to
provide leadership in this effort by assuring wide dissemination and
full discussion of this report, and by encouraging appropriate action
throughout the country. We believe that materials compiled by the
Commission in the course of its work constitute a major resource for
all persons interested in American education.
The other Commissioners and I sincerely appreciate the opportunity to
have served our country as members of the National Commission on
Excellence in Education, and on their behalf I remain,
Respectfully,
David Pierpont Gardner
Chairman
MEMBERS
OF THE NATIONAL COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION
David P. Gardner (Chair)
President
University of Utah and
President-Elect, University of California
Salt Lake City, Utah
Yvonne W. Larsen (Vice-Chair)
Immediate Past-President
San Diego City School Board
San Diego, California
William 0. Baker
Chairman of the Board (Retired)
Bell Telephone Laboratories
Murray Hill, New Jersey
Anne Campbell
Former Commissioner of Education
State of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska
Emeral A. Crosby
Principal
Northern High School
Detroit, Michigan
Charles A. Foster, Jr.
Irnmediate Past-President
Foundation for Teaching Economics
San Francisco, California
Norman C. Francis
President
Xavier University of Louisiana
New Orleans, Louisiana
A. Bartlett Giamatti
President
Yale University
New Haven, Connecticut
Shirley Gordon
President
Highline Community College
Midway, Washington
Robert V. Haderlein
Irnmediate Past-President
National School Boards Association
Girard, Kansas
Gerald Holton
Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and
Professor of the History of Science
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts
Annette Y. Kirk
Kirk Associates
Mecosta, Michigan
Margaret S. Marston
Member
Virginia State Board of Education
Arlington, Virginia
Albert H. Quie
Former Governor
State of Minnesota
St. Paul, Minnesota
Francisco D. Sanchez, Jr.
Superintendent of Schools
Albuquerque Public Schools
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Glenn T. Seaborg
University Professor of Chemistry and Nobel Laureate
University of California
Berkeley, California
Jay Sommer
National Teacher of the Year, 1981-82
Foreign Language Department
New Rochelle High School
New Rochelle, New York
Richard Wallace
Principal
Lutheran High School East
Cleveland Heights, Ohio
A Nation
At Risk - April 1983
INTRODUCTION
Secretary of Education T. H. Bell created the National Commission on
Excellence in Education on August 26, 1981, directing it to examine
the quality of education in the United States and to make a report to
the Nation and to him within 18 months of its first meeting. In
accordance with the Secretary's instructions, this report contains
practical recommendations for educational improvement and fulfills the
Commission's responsibilities under the terms of its charter.
The Commission was created as a result of the Secretary's concern
about "the widespread public perception that something is seriously
remiss in our educational system." Soliciting the "support of
all who
care about our future," the Secretary noted that he was establishing
the Commission based on his "responsibility to provide leadership,
constructive criticism, and effective assistance to schools and
universities."
The Commission's charter contained several specific charges to which
we have given particular attention. These included:
* assessing the quality of teaching and learning in our Nation's
public and private schools, colleges, and universities;
* comparing American schools and colleges with those of other
advanced nations;
* studying the relationship between college admissions requirements
and student achievement in high school;
* identifying educational programs which result in notable student
success in college;
* assessing the degree to which major social and educational changes
in the last quarter century have affected student achievement; and
* defining problems which must be faced and overcome if we are
successfully to pursue the course of excellence in education.
The Commission's charter directed it to pay particular attention to
teenage youth, and we have done so largely by focusing on high
schools. Selective attention was given to the formative years spent in
elementary schools, to higher education, and to vocational and
technical programs. We refer those interested in the need for similar
reform in higher education to the recent report of the American
Council on Education, To Strengthen the Quality of Higher Education.
In going about its work the Commission has relied in the main upon
five sources of information:
* papers commissioned from experts on a variety of educational
issues;
* administrators, teachers, students, representatives of
professional and public groups, parents, business leaders, public
officials, and scholars who testified at eight meetings of the
full Commission, six public hearings, two panel discussions, a
symposium, and a series of meetings organized by the Department of
Education's Regional Offices;
* existing analyses of problems in education;
* letters from concerned citizens, teachers, and administrators who
volunteered extensive comments on problems and possibilities in
American education; and
* descriptions of notable programs and promising approaches in
education.
To these public-minded citizens who took the trouble to share their
concerns with us--frequently at their own expense in time, money, and
effort--we extend our thanks. In all cases, we have benefited from
their advice and taken their views into account; how we have treated
their suggestions is, of course, our responsibility alone. In
addition, we are grateful to the individuals in schools, universities,
foundations, business, government, and communities throughout the
United States who provided the facilities and staff so necessary to
the success of our many public functions.
The Commission was impressed during the course of its activities by
the diversity of opinion it received regarding the condition of
American education and by conflicting views about what should be done.
In many ways, the membership of the Commission itself reflected that
diversity and difference of opinion during the course of its work.
This report, nevertheless, gives evidence that men and women of good
will can agree on common goals and on ways to pursue them.
The Commission's charter, the authors and topics of commissioned
papers, a list of the public events, and a roster of the Commission's
staff are included in the appendices which complete this volume.
A Nation
At Risk - April 1983
A NATION AT RISK
_________________________________________________________________
All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to
a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers
of mind and spirit to the utmost. This promise means that all children
by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain
the mature and informed judgement needed to secure gainful employment,
and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own
interests but also the progress of society itself.
_________________________________________________________________
Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce,
industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by
competitors throughout the world. This report is concerned with only
one of the many causes and dimensions of the problem, but it is the
one that undergirds American prosperity, security, and civility. We
report to the American people that while we can take justifiable pride
in what our schools and colleges have historically accomplished and
contributed to the United States and the well-being of its people, the
educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a
rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation
and a people. What was unimaginable a generation ago has begun to
occur--others are matching and surpassing our educational attainments.
If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the
mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might well have
viewed it as an act of war. As it stands, we have allowed this to
happen to ourselves. We have even squandered the gains in student
achievement made in the wake of the Sputnik challenge. Moreover, we
have dismantled essential support systems which helped make those
gains possible. We have, in effect, been committing an act of
unthinking, unilateral educational disarmament.
Our society and its educational institutions seem to have lost sight
of the basic purposes of schooling, and of the high expectations and
disciplined effort needed to attain them. This report, the result of
18 months of study, seeks to generate reform of our educational system
in fundamental ways and to renew the Nation's commitment to schools
and colleges of high quality throughout the length and breadth of our
land.
That we have compromised this commitment is, upon reflection, hardly
surprising, given the multitude of often conflicting demands we have
placed on our Nation's schools and colleges. They are routinely called
on to provide solutions to personal, social, and political problems
that the home and other institutions either will not or cannot
resolve. We must understand that these demands on our schools and
colleges often exact an educational cost as well as a financial one.
On the occasion of the Commission's first meeting, President Reagan
noted the central importance of education in American life when he
said: "Certainly there are few areas of American life as important
to
our society, to our people, and to our families as our schools and
colleges." This report, therefore, is as much an open letter to the
American people as it is a report to the Secretary of Education. We
are confident that the American people, properly informed, will do
what is right for their children and for the generations to come.
The Risk
History is not kind to idlers. The time is long past when American's
destiny was assured simply by an abundance of natural resources and
inexhaustible human enthusiasm, and by our relative isolation from the
malignant problems of older civilizations. The world is indeed one
global village. We live among determined, well-educated, and strongly
motivated competitors. We compete with them for international standing
and markets, not only with products but also with the ideas of our
laboratories and neighborhood workshops. America's position in the
world may once have been reasonably secure with only a few
exceptionally well-trained men and women. It is no longer.
The risk is not only that the Japanese make automobiles more
efficiently than Americans and have government subsidies for
development and export. It is not just that the South Koreans recently
built the world's most efficient steel mill, or that American machine
tools, once the pride of the world, are being displaced by German
products. It is also that these developments signify a redistribution
of trained capability throughout the globe. Knowledge, learning,
information, and skilled intelligence are the new raw materials of
international commerce and are today spreading throughout the world as
vigorously as miracle drugs, synthetic fertilizers, and blue jeans did
earlier. If only to keep and improve on the slim competitive edge we
still retain in world markets, we must dedicate ourselves to the
reform of our educational system for the benefit of all--old and young
alike, affluent and poor, majority and minority. Learning is the
indispensable investment required for success in the "information age"
we are entering.
Our concern, however, goes well beyond matters such as industry and
commerce. It also includes the intellectual, moral, and spiritual
strengths of our people which knit together the very fabric of our
society. The people of the United States need to know that individuals
in our society who do not possess the levels of skill, literacy, and
training essential to this new era will be effectively
disenfranchised, not simply from the material rewards that accompany
competent performance, but also from the chance to participate fully
in our national life. A high level of shared education is essential to
a free, democratic society and to the fostering of a common culture,
especially in a country that prides itself on pluralism and individual
freedom.
For our country to function, citizens must be able to reach some
common understandings on complex issues, often on short notice and on
the basis of conflicting or incomplete evidence. Education helps form
these common understandings, a point Thomas Jefferson made long ago in
his justly famous dictum:
I know no safe depository of the ultimate powers of the society but
the people themselves; and if we think them not enlightened enough
to exercise their control with a wholesome discretion, the remedy is
not to take it from them but to inform their discretion.
Part of what is at risk is the promise first made on this continent:
All, regardless of race or class or economic status, are entitled to a
fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of
mind and spirit to the utmost. This promise means that all children by
virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain
the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment,
and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own
interests but also the progress of society itself.
Indicators of the Risk
The educational dimensions of the risk before us have been amply
documented in testimony received by the Commission. For example:
* International comparisons of student achievement, completed a
decade ago, reveal that on 19 academic tests American students
were never first or second and, in comparison with other
industrialized nations, were last seven times.
* Some 23 million American adults are functionally illiterate by the
simplest tests of everyday reading, writing, and comprehension.
* About 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be
considered functionally illiterate. Functional illiteracy among
minority youth may run as high as 40 percent.
* Average achievement of high school students on most standardized
tests is now lower than 26 years ago when Sputnik was launched.
* Over half the population of gifted students do not match their
tested ability with comparable achievement in school.
* The College Board's Scholastic Aptitude Tests (SAT) demonstrate a
virtually unbroken decline from 1963 to 1980. Average verbal
scores fell over 50 points and average mathematics scores dropped
nearly 40 points.
* College Board achievement tests also reveal consistent declines in
recent years in such subjects as physics and English.
* Both the number and proportion of students demonstrating superior
achievement on the SATs (i.e., those with scores of 650 or higher)
have also dramatically declined.
* Many 17-year-olds do not possess the "higher order" intellectual
skills we should expect of them. Nearly 40 percent cannot draw
inferences from written material; only one-fifth can write a
persuasive essay; and only one-third can solve a mathematics
problem requiring several steps.
* There was a steady decline in science achievement scores of U.S.
17-year-olds as measured by national assessments of science in
1969, 1973, and 1977.
* Between 1975 and 1980, remedial mathematics courses in public
4-year colleges increased by 72 percent and now constitute
one-quarter of all mathematics courses taught in those
institutions.
* Average tested achievement of students graduating from college is
also lower.
* Business and military leaders complain that they are required to
spend millions of dollars on costly remedial education and
training programs in such basic skills as reading, writing,
spelling, and computation. The Department of the Navy, for
example, reported to the Commission that one-quarter of its recent
recruits cannot read at the ninth grade level, the minimum needed
simply to understand written safety instructions. Without remedial
work they cannot even begin, much less complete, the sophisticated
training essential in much of the modern military.
These deficiencies come at a time when the demand for highly skilled
workers in new fields is accelerating rapidly. For example:
* Computers and computer-controlled equipment are penetrating every
aspect of our lives--homes, factories, and offices.
* One estimate indicates that by the turn of the century millions of
jobs will involve laser technology and robotics.
* Technology is radically transforming a host of other occupations.
They include health care, medical science, energy production, food
processing, construction, and the building, repair, and
maintenance of sophisticated scientific, educational, military,
and industrial equipment.
Analysts examining these indicators of student performance and the
demands for new skills have made some chilling observations.
Educational researcher Paul Hurd concluded at the end of a thorough
national survey of student achievement that within the context of the
modern scientific revolution, "We are raising a new generation of
Americans that is scientifically and technologically illiterate." In
a
similar vein, John Slaughter, a former Director of the National
Science Foundation, warned of "a growing chasm between a small
scientific and technological elite and a citizenry ill-informed,
indeed uninformed, on issues with a science component."
But the problem does not stop there, nor do all observers see it the
same way. Some worry that schools may emphasize such rudiments as
reading and computation at the expense of other essential skills such
as comprehension, analysis, solving problems, and drawing conclusions.
Still others are concerned that an over-emphasis on technical and
occupational skills will leave little time for studying the arts and
humanities that so enrich daily life, help maintain civility, and
develop a sense of community. Knowledge of the humanities, they
maintain, must be harnessed to science and technology if the latter
are to remain creative and humane, just as the humanities need to be
informed by science and technology if they are to remain relevant to
the human condition. Another analyst, Paul Copperman, has drawn a
sobering conclusion. Until now, he has noted:
Each generation of Americans has outstripped its parents in
education, in literacy, and in economic attainment. For the first
time in the history of our country, the educational skills of one
generation will not surpass, will not equal, will not even approach,
those of their parents.
It is important, of course, to recognize that the average citizen
today is better educated and more knowledgeable than the average
citizen of a generation ago--more literate, and exposed to more
mathematics, literature, and science. The positive impact of this fact
on the well-being of our country and the lives of our people cannot be
overstated. Nevertheless, the average graduate of our schools and
colleges today is not as well-educated as the average graduate of 25
or 35 years ago, when a much smaller proportion of our population
completed high school and college. The negative impact of this fact
likewise cannot be overstated.
Hope and Frustration
Statistics and their interpretation by experts show only the surface
dimension of the difficulties we face. Beneath them lies a tension
between hope and frustration that characterizes current attitudes
about education at every level.
We have heard the voices of high school and college students, school
board members, and teachers; of leaders of industry, minority groups,
and higher education; of parents and State officials. We could hear
the hope evident in their commitment to quality education and in their
descriptions of outstanding programs and schools. We could also hear
the intensity of their frustration, a growing impatience with
shoddiness in many walks of American life, and the complaint that this
shoddiness is too often reflected in our schools and colleges. Their
frustration threatens to overwhelm their hope.
What lies behind this emerging national sense of frustration can be
described as both a dimming of personal expectations and the fear of
losing a shared vision for America.
On the personal level the student, the parent, and the caring teacher
all perceive that a basic promise is not being kept. More and more
young people emerge from high school ready neither for college nor for
work. This predicament becomes more acute as the knowledge base
continues its rapid expansion, the number of traditional jobs shrinks,
and new jobs demand greater sophistication and preparation.
On a broader scale, we sense that this undertone of frustration has
significant political implications, for it cuts across ages,
generations, races, and political and economic groups. We have come to
understand that the public will demand that educational and political
leaders act forcefully and effectively on these issues. Indeed, such
demands have already appeared and could well become a unifying
national preoccupation. This unity, however, can be achieved only if
we avoid the unproductive tendency of some to search for scapegoats
among the victims, such as the beleaguered teachers.
On the positive side is the significant movement by political and
educational leaders to search for solutions--so far centering largely
on the nearly desperate need for increased support for the teaching of
mathematics and science. This movement is but a start on what we
believe is a larger and more educationally encompassing need to
improve teaching and learning in fields such as English, history,
geography, economics, and foreign languages. We believe this movement
must be broadened and directed toward reform and excellence throughout
education.
Excellence in Education
We define "excellence" to mean several related things. At the
level of
the individual learner, it means performing on the boundary of
individual ability in ways that test and push back personal limits, in
school and in the workplace. Excellence characterizes a school or
college that sets high expectations and goals for all learners, then
tries in every way possible to help students reach them. Excellence
characterizes a society that has adopted these policies, for it will
then be prepared through the education and skill of its people to
respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing world. Our Nation's
people and its schools and colleges must be committed to achieving
excellence in all these senses.
We do not believe that a public commitment to excellence and
educational reform must be made at the expense of a strong public
commitment to the equitable treatment of our diverse population. The
twin goals of equity and high-quality schooling have profound and
practical meaning for our economy and society, and we cannot permit
one to yield to the other either in principle or in practice. To do so
would deny young people their chance to learn and live according to
their aspirations and abilities. It also would lead to a generalized
accommodation to mediocrity in our society on the one hand or the
creation of an undemocratic elitism on the other.
Our goal must be to develop the talents of all to their fullest.
Attaining that goal requires that we expect and assist all students to
work to the limits of their capabilities. We should expect schools to
have genuinely high standards rather than minimum ones, and parents to
support and encourage their children to make the most of their talents
and abilities.
The search for solutions to our educational problems must also include
a commitment to life-long learning. The task of rebuilding our system
of learning is enormous and must be properly understood and taken
seriously: Although a million and a half new workers enter the economy
each year from our schools and colleges, the adults working today will
still make up about 75 percent of the workforce in the year 2000.
These workers, and new entrants into the workforce, will need further
education and retraining if they--and we as a Nation--are to thrive
and prosper.
The Learning Society
In a world of ever-accelerating competition and change in the
conditions of the workplace, of ever-greater danger, and of
ever-larger opportunities for those prepared to meet them, educational
reform should focus on the goal of creating a Learning Society. At the
heart of such a society is the commitment to a set of values and to a
system of education that affords all members the opportunity to
stretch their minds to full capacity, from early childhood through
adulthood, learning more as the world itself changes. Such a society
has as a basic foundation the idea that education is important not
only because of what it contributes to one's career goals but also
because of the value it adds to the general quality of one's life.
Also at the heart of the Learning Society are educational
opportunities extending far beyond the traditional institutions of
learning, our schools and colleges. They extend into homes and
workplaces; into libraries, art galleries, museums, and science
centers; indeed, into every place where the individual can develop and
mature in work and life. In our view, formal schooling in youth is the
essential foundation for learning throughout one's life. But without
life-long learning, one's skills will become rapidly dated.
In contrast to the ideal of the Learning Society, however, we find
that for too many people education means doing the minimum work
necessary for the moment, then coasting through life on what may have
been learned in its first quarter. But this should not surprise us
because we tend to express our educational standards and expectations
largely in terms of "minimum requirements." And where there should
be
a coherent continuum of learning, we have none, but instead an often
incoherent, outdated patchwork quilt. Many individual, sometimes
heroic, examples of schools and colleges of great merit do exist. Our
findings and testimony confirm the vitality of a number of notable
schools and programs, but their very distinction stands out against a
vast mass shaped by tensions and pressures that inhibit systematic
academic and vocational achievement for the majority of students. In
some metropolitan areas basic literacy has become the goal rather than
the starting point. In some colleges maintaining enrollments is of
greater day-to-day concern than maintaining rigorous academic
standards. And the ideal of academic excellence as the primary goal of
schooling seems to be fading across the board in American education.
Thus, we issue this call to all who care about America and its future:
to parents and students; to teachers, administrators, and school board
members; to colleges and industry; to union members and military
leaders; to governors and State legislators; to the President; to
members of Congress and other public officials; to members of learned
and scientific societies; to the print and electronic media; to
concerned citizens everywhere. America is at risk.
We are confident that America can address this risk. If the tasks we
set forth are initiated now and our recommendations are fully realized
over the next several years, we can expect reform of our Nation's
schools, colleges, and universities. This would also reverse the
current declining trend--a trend that stems more from weakness of
purpose, confusion of vision, underuse of talent, and lack of
leadership, than from conditions beyond our control.
The Tools at Hand
It is our conviction that the essential raw materials needed to reform
our educational system are waiting to be mobilized through effective
leadership:
* the natural abilities of the young that cry out to be developed
and the undiminished concern of parents for the well-being of
their children;
* the commitment of the Nation to high retention rates in schools
and colleges and to full access to education for all;
* the persistent and authentic American dream that superior
performance can raise one's state in life and shape one's own
future;
* the dedication, against all odds, that keeps teachers serving in
schools and colleges, even as the rewards diminish;
* our better understanding of learning and teaching and the
implications of this knowledge for school practice, and the
numerous examples of local success as a result of superior effort
and effective dissemination;
* the ingenuity of our policymakers, scientists, State and local
educators, and scholars in formulating solutions once problems are
better understood;
* the traditional belief that paying for education is an investment
in ever-renewable human resources that are more durable and
flexible than capital plant and equipment, and the availability in
this country of sufficient financial means to invest in education;
* the equally sound tradition, from the Northwest Ordinance of 1787
until today, that the Federal Government should supplement State,
local, and other resources to foster key national educational
goals; and
* the voluntary efforts of individuals, businesses, and parent and
civic groups to cooperate in strengthening educational programs.
These raw materials, combined with the unparalleled array of
educational organizations in America, offer us the possibility to
create a Learning Society, in which public, private, and parochial
schools; colleges and universities; vocational and technical schools
and institutes; libraries; science centers, museums, and other
cultural institutions; and corporate training and retraining programs
offer opportunities and choices for all to learn throughout life.
The Public's Commitment
Of all the tools at hand, the public's support for education is the
most powerful. In a message to a National Academy of Sciences meeting
in May 1982, President Reagan commented on this fact when he said:
This public awareness--and I hope public action--is long overdue....
This country was built on American respect for education. . . Our
challenge now is to create a resurgence of that thirst for education
that typifies our Nation's history.
The most recent (1982) Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward
the Public Schools strongly supported a theme heard during our
hearings: People are steadfast in their belief that education is the
major foundation for the future strength of this country. They even
considered education more important than developing the best
industrial system or the strongest military force, perhaps because
they understood education as the cornerstone of both. They also held
that education is "extremely important" to one's future success,
and
that public education should be the top priority for additional
Federal funds. Education occupied first place among 12 funding
categories considered in the survey--above health care, welfare, and
military defense, with 55 percent selecting public education as one of
their first three choices. Very clearly, the public understands the
primary importance of education as the foundation for a satisfying
life, an enlightened and civil society, a strong economy, and a secure
Nation.
At the same time, the public has no patience with undemanding and
superfluous high school offerings. In another survey, more than 75
percent of all those questioned believed every student planning to go
to college should take 4 years of mathematics, English, history/U.S.
government, and science, with more than 50 percent adding 2 years each
of a foreign language and economics or business. The public even
supports requiring much of this curriculum for students who do not
plan to go to college. These standards far exceed the strictest high
school graduation requirements of any State today, and they also
exceed the admission standards of all but a handful of our most
selective colleges and universities.
Another dimension of the public's support offers the prospect of
constructive reform. The best term to characterize it may simply be
the honorable word "patriotism." Citizens know intuitively what
some
of the best economists have shown in their research, that education is
one of the chief engines of a society's material well-being. They
know, too, that education is the common bond of a pluralistic society
and helps tie us to other cultures around the globe. Citizens also
know in their bones that the safety of the United States depends
principally on the wit, skill, and spirit of a self-confident people,
today and tomorrow. It is, therefore, essential--especially in a
period of long-term decline in educational achievement--for government
at all levels to affirm its responsibility for nurturing the Nation's
intellectual capital.
And perhaps most important, citizens know and believe that the meaning
of America to the rest of the world must be something better than it
seems to many today. Americans like to think of this Nation as the
preeminent country for generating the great ideas and material
benefits for all mankind. The citizen is dismayed at a steady 15-year
decline in industrial productivity, as one great American industry
after another falls to world competition. The citizen wants the
country to act on the belief, expressed in our hearings and by the
large majority in the Gallup Poll, that education should be at the top
of the Nation's agenda.
A Nation
at Risk - 1983
FINDINGS
We conclude that declines in educational performance are in large part
the result of disturbing inadequacies in the way the educational
process itself is often conducted. The findings that follow, culled
from a much more extensive list, reflect four important aspects of the
educational process: content, expectations, time, and teaching.
Findings Regarding Content
By content we mean the very "stuff" of education, the curriculum.
Because of our concern about the curriculum, the Commission examined
patterns of courses high school students took in 1964-69 compared with
course patterns in 1976-81. On the basis of these analyses we
conclude:
* Secondary school curricula have been homogenized, diluted, and
diffused to the point that they no longer have a central purpose.
In effect, we have a cafeteria style curriculum in which the
appetizers and desserts can easily be mistaken for the main
courses. Students have migrated from vocational and college
preparatory programs to "general track" courses in large numbers.
The proportion of students taking a general program of study has
increased from 12 percent in 1964 to 42 percent in 1979.
* This curricular smorgasbord, combined with extensive student
choice, explains a great deal about where we find ourselves today.
We offer intermediate algebra, but only 31 percent of our recent
high school graduates complete it; we offer French I, but only 13
percent complete it; and we offer geography, but only 16 percent
complete it. Calculus is available in schools enrolling about 60
percent of all students, but only 6 percent of all students
complete it.
* Twenty-five percent of the credits earned by general track high
school students are in physical and health education, work
experience outside the school, remedial English and mathematics,
and personal service and development courses, such as training for
adulthood and marriage.
Findings Regarding Expectations
We define expectations in terms of the level of knowledge, abilities,
and skills school and college graduates should possess. They also
refer to the time, hard work, behavior, self-discipline, and
motivation that are essential for high student achievement. Such
expectations are expressed to students in several different ways:
* by grades, which reflect the degree to which students demonstrate
their mastery of subject matter;
* through high school and college graduation requirements, which
tell students which subjects are most important;
* by the presence or absence of rigorous examinations requiring
students to demonstrate their mastery of content and skill before
receiving a diploma or a degree;
* by college admissions requirements, which reinforce high school
standards; and
* by the difficulty of the subject matter students confront in their
texts and assigned readings.
Our analyses in each of these areas indicate notable deficiencies:
* The amount of homework for high school seniors has decreased
(two-thirds report less than 1 hour a night) and grades have risen
as average student achievement has been declining.
* In many other industrialized nations, courses in mathematics
(other than arithmetic or general mathematics), biology,
chemistry, physics, and geography start in grade 6 and are
required of all students. The time spent on these subjects,
based on class hours, is about three times that spent by even the
most science-oriented U.S. students, i.e., those who select 4
years of science and mathematics in secondary school.
* A 1980 State-by-State survey of high school diploma requirements
reveals that only eight States require high schools to offer
foreign language instruction, but none requires students to take
the courses. Thirty-five States require only 1 year of
mathematics, and 36 require only 1 year of science for a diploma.
* In 13 States, 50 percent or more of the units required for high
school graduation may be electives chosen by the student. Given
this freedom to choose the substance of half or more of their
education, many students opt for less demanding personal service
courses, such as bachelor living.
* "Minimum competency" examinations (now required in 37 States)
fall
short of what is needed, as the "minimum" tends to become the
"maximum," thus lowering educational standards for all.
* One-fifth of all 4-year public colleges in the United States must
accept every high school graduate within the State regardless of
program followed or grades, thereby serving notice to high school
students that they can expect to attend college even if they do
not follow a demanding course of study in high school or perform
well.
* About 23 percent of our more selective colleges and universities
reported that their general level of selectivity declined during
the 1970s, and 29 percent reported reducing the number of specific
high school courses required for admission (usually by dropping
foreign language requirements, which are now specified as a
condition for admission by only one-fifth of our institutions of
higher education).
* Too few experienced teachers and scholars are involved in writing
textbooks. During the past decade or so a large number of texts
have been "written down" by their publishers to ever-lower reading
levels in response to perceived market demands.
* A recent study by Education Products Information Exchange revealed
that a majority of students were able to master 80 percent of the
material in some of their subject-matter texts before they had
even opened the books. Many books do not challenge the students to
whom they are assigned.
* Expenditures for textbooks and other instructional materials have
declined by 50 percent over the past 17 years. While some
recommend a level of spending on texts of between 5 and 10 percent
of the operating costs of schools, the budgets for basal texts and
related materials have been dropping during the past decade and a
half to only 0.7 percent today.
Findings Regarding Time
Evidence presented to the Commission demonstrates three disturbing
facts about the use that American schools and students make of time:
(1) compared to other nations, American students spend much less time
on school work; (2) time spent in the classroom and on homework is
often used ineffectively; and (3) schools are not doing enough to help
students develop either the study skills required to use time well or
the willingness to spend more time on school work.
* In England and other industrialized countries, it is not unusual
for academic high school students to spend 8 hours a day at
school, 220 days per year. In the United States, by contrast, the
typical school day lasts 6 hours and the school year is 180 days.
* In many schools, the time spent learning how to cook and drive
counts as much toward a high school diploma as the time spent
studying mathematics, English, chemistry, U.S. history, or
biology.
* A study of the school week in the United States found that some
schools provided students only 17 hours of academic instruction
during the week, and the average school provided about 22.
* A California study of individual classrooms found that because of
poor management of classroom time, some elementary students
received only one-fifth of the instruction others received in
reading comprehension.
* In most schools, the teaching of study skills is haphazard and
unplanned. Consequently, many students complete high school and
enter college without disciplined and systematic study habits.
Findings Regarding Teaching
The Commission found that not enough of the academically able students
are being attracted to teaching; that teacher preparation programs
need substantial improvement; that the professional working life of
teachers is on the whole unacceptable; and that a serious shortage of
teachers exists in key fields.
* Too many teachers are being drawn from the bottom quarter of
graduating high school and college students.
* The teacher preparation curriculum is weighted heavily with
courses in "educational methods" at the expense of courses in
subjects to be taught. A survey of 1,350 institutions training
teachers indicated that 41 percent of the time of elementary
school teacher candidates is spent in education courses, which
reduces the amount of time available for subject matter courses.
* The average salary after 12 years of teaching is only $17,000 per
year, and many teachers are required to supplement their income
with part-time and summer employment. In addition, individual
teachers have little influence in such critical professional
decisions as, for example, textbook selection.
* Despite widespread publicity about an overpopulation of teachers,
severe shortages of certain kinds of teachers exist: in the fields
of mathematics, science, and foreign languages; and among
specialists in education for gifted and talented, language
minority, and handicapped students.
* The shortage of teachers in mathematics and science is
particularly severe. A 1981 survey of 45 States revealed shortages
of mathematics teachers in 43 States, critical shortages of earth
sciences teachers in 33 States, and of physics teachers
everywhere.
* Half of the newly employed mathematics, science, and English
teachers are not qualified to teach these subjects; fewer than
one-third of U. S. high schools offer physics taught by qualified
teachers.
A Nation
at Risk - April 1983
RECOMMENDATIONS
In light of the urgent need for improvement, both immediate and long
term, this Commission has agreed on a set of recommendations that the
American people can begin to act on now, that can be implemented over
the next several years, and that promise lasting reform. The topics
are familiar; there is little mystery about what we believe must be
done. Many schools, districts, and States are already giving serious
and constructive attention to these matters, even though their plans
may differ from our recommendations in some details.
We wish to note that we refer to public, private, and parochial
schools and colleges alike. All are valuable national resources.
Examples of actions similar to those recommended below can be found in
each of them.
We must emphasize that the variety of student aspirations, abilities,
and preparation requires that appropriate content be available to
satisfy diverse needs. Attention must be directed to both the nature
of the content available and to the needs of particular learners. The
most gifted students, for example, may need a curriculum enriched and
accelerated beyond even the needs of other students of high ability.
Similarly, educationally disadvantaged students may require special
curriculum materials, smaller classes, or individual tutoring to help
them master the material presented. Nevertheless, there remains a
common expectation: We must demand the best effort and performance
from all students, whether they are gifted or less able, affluent or
disadvantaged, whether destined for college, the farm, or industry.
Our recommendations are based on the beliefs that everyone can learn,
that everyone is born with an urge to learn which can be nurtured,
that a solid high school education is within the reach of virtually
all, and that life-long learning will equip people with the skills
required for new careers and for citizenship.
Recommendation A: Content
_________________________________________________________________
We recommend that State and local high school graduation
requirements be strengthened and that, at a minimum, all students
seeking a diploma be required to lay the foundations in the Five New
Basics by taking the following curriculum during their 4 years of high
school: (a)years of English; (b)years of mathematics; (c) 3
years of science; (d)years of social studies; and (e) one-half year
of computer science. For the college-bound, 2 years of foreign
language in high school are strongly recommended in addition to those
taken earlier.
_________________________________________________________________
Whatever the student's educational or work objectives, knowledge of
the New Basics is the foundation of success for the after-school years
and, therefore, forms the core of the modern curriculum. A high level
of shared education in these Basics, together with work in the fine
and performing arts and foreign languages, constitutes the mind and
spirit of our culture. The following Implementing Recommendations are
intended as illustrative descriptions. They are included here to
clarify what we mean by the essentials of a strong curriculum.
Implementing Recommendations
1. The teaching of English in high school should equip graduates
to: (a) comprehend, interpret, evaluate, and use what they read;
(b)well-organized, effective papers; (c) effectively
and discuss ideas intelligently; and (d)our literary
heritage and how it enhances imagination and ethical
understanding, and how it relates to the customs, ideas, and
values of today's life and culture.
2. The teaching of mathematics in high school should equip
graduates to: (a)geometric and algebraic concepts;
(b)elementary probability and statistics; (c) apply
mathematics in everyday situations; and (d) estimate, approximate,
measure, and test the accuracy of their calculations. In addition
to the traditional sequence of studies available for college-bound
students, new, equally demanding mathematics curricula need to be
developed for those who do not plan to continue their formal
education immediately.
3. The teaching of science in high school should provide graduates
with an introduction to: (a)concepts, laws, and processes of
the physical and biological sciences; (b)methods of
scientific inquiry and reasoning; (c)application of
scientific knowledge to everyday life; and (d) social and
environmental implications of scientific and technological
development. Science courses must be revised and updated for both
the college-bound and those not intending to go to college. An
example of such work is the American Chemical Society's "Chemistry
in the Community" program.
4. The teaching of social studies in high school should be designed
to: (a)students to fix their places and possibilities
within the larger social and cultural structure; (b) understand
the broad sweep of both ancient and contemporary ideas that have
shaped our world; and (c)the fundamentals of how our
economic system works and how our political system functions; and
(d)the difference between free and repressive societies. An
understanding of each of these areas is requisite to the informed
and committed exercise of citizenship in our free society.
5. The teaching of computer science in high school should equip
graduates to: (a)the computer as an information,
computation, and communication device; (b)the computer in the
study of the other Basics and for personal and work-related
purposes; and (c)the world of computers, electronics,
and related technologies.
In addition to the New Basics, other important curriculum matters
must be addressed.
6. Achieving proficiency in a foreign language ordinarily requires
from 4 to 6 years of study and should, therefore, be started in
the elementary grades. We believe it is desirable that students
achieve such proficiency because study of a foreign language
introduces students to non-English-speaking cultures, heightens
awareness and comprehension of one's native tongue, and serves the
Nation's needs in commerce, diplomacy, defense, and education.
7. The high school curriculum should also provide students with
programs requiring rigorous effort in subjects that advance
students' personal, educational, and occupational goals, such as
the fine and performing arts and vocational education. These areas
complement the New Basics, and they should demand the same level
of performance as the Basics.
8. The curriculum in the crucial eight grades leading to the high
school years should be specifically designed to provide a sound
base for study in those and later years in such areas as English
language development and writing, computational and problem
solving skills, science, social studies, foreign language, and the
arts. These years should foster an enthusiasm for learning and the
development of the individual's gifts and talents.
9. We encourage the continuation of efforts by groups such as the
American Chemical Society, the American Association for the
Advancement of Science, the Modern Language Association, and the
National Councils of Teachers of English and Teachers of
Mathematics, to revise, update, improve, and make available new
and more diverse curricular materials. We applaud the consortia of
educators and scientific, industrial, and scholarly societies that
cooperate to improve the school curriculum.
Recommendation B: Standards and Expectations
________________________________________________________________
We recommend that schools, colleges, and universities adopt more
rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for
academic performance and student conduct, and that 4-year colleges and
universities raise their requirements for admission. This will help
students do their best educationally with challenging materials in an
environment that supports learning and authentic accomplishment.
_________________________________________________________________
Implementing Recommendations
1. Grades should be indicators of academic achievement so they can be
relied on as evidence of a student's readiness for further study.
2. Four-year colleges and universities should raise their admissions
requirements and advise all potential applicants of the standards
for admission in terms of specific courses required, performance
in these areas, and levels of achievement on standardized
achievement tests in each of the five Basics and, where
applicable, foreign languages.
3. Standardized tests of achievement (not to be confused with
aptitude tests) should be administered at major transition points
from one level of schooling to another and particularly from high
school to college or work. The purposes of these tests would be
to: (a)the student's credentials; (b) the need
for remedial intervention; and (c)the opportunity for
advanced or accelerated work. The tests should be administered as
part of a nationwide (but not Federal) system of State and local
standardized tests. This system should include other diagnostic
procedures that assist teachers and students to evaluate student
progress.
4. Textbooks and other tools of learning and teaching should be
upgraded and updated to assure more rigorous content. We call upon
university scientists, scholars, and members of professional
societies, in collaboration with master teachers, to help in this
task, as they did in the post-Sputnik era. They should assist
willing publishers in developing the products or publish their own
alternatives where there are persistent inadequacies.
5. In considering textbooks for adoption, States and school districts
should: (a)texts and other materials on their ability to
present rigorous and challenging material clearly; and (b) require
publishers to furnish evaluation data on the material's
effectiveness.
6. Because no textbook in any subject can be geared to the needs of
all students, funds should be made available to support text
development in "thin-market" areas, such as those for
disadvantaged students, the learning disabled, and the gifted and
talented.
7. To assure quality, all publishers should furnish evidence of the
quality and appropriateness of textbooks, based on results from
field trials and credible evaluation. In view of the enormous
numbers and varieties of texts available, more widespread consumer
information services for purchasers are badly needed.
8. New instructional materials should reflect the most current
applications of technology in appropriate curriculum areas, the
best scholarship in each discipline, and research in learning and
teaching.
Recommendation C: Time
_________________________________________________________________
We recommend that significantly more time be devoted to learning
the New Basics. This will require more effective use of the existing
school day, a longer school day, or a lengthened school year.
_________________________________________________________________
Implementing Recommendations
1. Students in high schools should be assigned far more homework than
is now the case.
2. Instruction in effective study and work skills, which are
essential if school and independent time is to be used
efficiently, should be introduced in the early grades and
continued throughout the student's schooling.
3. School districts and State legislatures should strongly consider
7-hour school days, as well as a 200- to 220-day school year.
4. The time available for learning should be expanded through better
classroom management and organization of the school day. If
necessary, additional time should be found to meet the special
needs of slow learners, the gifted, and others who need more
instructional diversity than can be accommodated during a
conventional school day or school year.
5. The burden on teachers for maintaining discipline should be
reduced through the development of firm and fair codes of student
conduct that are enforced consistently, and by considering
alternative classrooms, programs, and schools to meet the needs of
continually disruptive students.
6. Attendance policies with clear incentives and sanctions should be
used to reduce the amount of time lost through student absenteeism
and tardiness.
7. Administrative burdens on the teacher and related intrusions into
the school day should be reduced to add time for teaching and
learning.
8. Placement and grouping of students, as well as promotion and
graduation policies, should be guided by the academic progress of
students and their instructional needs, rather than by rigid
adherence to age.
Recommendation D: Teaching
_________________________________________________________________
This recommendation consists of seven parts. Each is intended to
improve the preparation of teachers or to make teaching a more
rewarding and respected profession. Each of the seven stands on its
own and should not be considered solely as an implementing
recommendation.
_________________________________________________________________
1. Persons preparing to teach should be required to meet high
educational standards, to demonstrate an aptitude for teaching,
and to demonstrate competence in an academic discipline. Colleges
and universities offering teacher preparation programs should be
judged by how well their graduates meet these criteria.
2. Salaries for the teaching profession should be increased and
should be professionally competitive, market-sensitive, and
performance-based. Salary, promotion, tenure, and retention
decisions should be tied to an effective evaluation system that
includes peer review so that superior teachers can be rewarded,
average ones encouraged, and poor ones either improved or
terminated.
3. School boards should adopt an 11-month contract for teachers. This
would ensure time for curriculum and professional development,
programs for students with special needs, and a more adequate
level of teacher compensation.
4. School boards, administrators, and teachers should cooperate to
develop career ladders for teachers that distinguish among the
beginning instructor, the experienced teacher, and the master
teacher.
5. Substantial nonschool personnel resources should be employed to
help solve the immediate problem of the shortage of mathematics
and science teachers. Qualified individuals, including recent
graduates with mathematics and science degrees, graduate students,
and industrial and retired scientists could, with appropriate
preparation, immediately begin teaching in these fields. A number
of our leading science centers have the capacity to begin
educating and retraining teachers immediately. Other areas of
critical teacher need, such as English, must also be addressed.
6. Incentives, such as grants and loans, should be made available to
attract outstanding students to the teaching profession,
particularly in those areas of critical shortage.
7. Master teachers should be involved in designing teacher
preparation programs and in supervising teachers during their
probationary years.
Recommendation E: Leadership and Fiscal Support
_________________________________________________________________
We recommend that citizens across the Nation hold educators and
elected officials responsible for providing the leadership necessary
to achieve these reforms, and that citizens provide the fiscal support
and stability required to bring about the reforms we propose.
_________________________________________________________________
Implementing Recommendations
1. Principals and superintendents must play a crucial leadership role
in developing school and community support for the reforms we
propose, and school boards must provide them with the professional
development and other support required to carry out their
leadership role effectively. The Commission stresses the
distinction between leadership skills involving persuasion,
setting goals and developing community consensus behind them, and
managerial and supervisory skills. Although the latter are
necessary, we believe that school boards must consciously develop
leadership skills at the school and district levels if the reforms
we propose are to be achieved.
2. State and local officials, including school board members,
governors, and legislators, have the primary responsibility for
financing and governing the schools, and should incorporate the
reforms we propose in their educational policies and fiscal
planning.
3. The Federal Government, in cooperation with States and localities,
should help meet the needs of key groups of students such as the
gifted and talented, the socioeconomically disadvantaged, minority
and language minority students, and the handicapped. In
combination these groups include both national resources and the
Nation's youth who are most at risk.
4. In addition, we believe the Federal Government's role includes
several functions of national consequence that States and
localities alone are unlikely to be able to meet: protecting
constitutional and civil rights for students and school personnel;
collecting data, statistics, and information about education
generally; supporting curriculum improvement and research on
teaching, learning, and the management of schools; supporting
teacher training in areas of critical shortage or key national
needs; and providing student financial assistance and research and
graduate training. We believe the assistance of the Federal
Government should be provided with a minimum of administrative
burden and intrusiveness.
5. The Federal Government has the primary responsibility to
identify the national interest in education. It should also help
fund and support efforts to protect and promote that interest. It
must provide the national leadership to ensure that the Nation's
public and private resources are marshaled to address the issues
discussed in this report.
6. This Commission calls upon educators, parents, and public
officials at all levels to assist in bringing about the
educational reform proposed in this report. We also call upon
citizens to provide the financial support necessary to accomplish
these purposes. Excellence costs. But in the long run mediocrity
costs far more.
America Can Do It
Despite the obstacles and difficulties that inhibit the pursuit of
superior educational attainment, we are confident, with history as our
guide, that we can meet our goal. The American educational system has
responded to previous challenges with remarkable success. In the 19th
century our land-grant colleges and universities provided the research
and training that developed our Nation's natural resources and the
rich agricultural bounty of the American farm. From the late 1800s
through mid-20th century, American schools provided the educated
workforce needed to seal the success of the Industrial Revolution and
to provide the margin of victory in two world wars. In the early part
of this century and continuing to this very day, our schools have
absorbed vast waves of immigrants and educated them and their children
to productive citizenship. Similarly, the Nation's Black colleges have
provided opportunity and undergraduate education to the vast majority
of college-educated Black Americans.
More recently, our institutions of higher education have provided the
scientists and skilled technicians who helped us transcend the
boundaries of our planet. In the last 30 years, the schools have been
a major vehicle for expanded social opportunity, and now graduate 75
percent of our young people from high school. Indeed, the proportion
of Americans of college age enrolled in higher education is nearly
twice that of Japan and far exceeds other nations such as France, West
Germany, and the Soviet Union. Moreover, when international
comparisons were last made a decade ago, the top 9 percent of American
students compared favorably in achievement with their peers in other
countries.
In addition, many large urban areas in recent years report that
average student achievement in elementary schools is improving. More
and more schools are also offering advanced placement programs and
programs for gifted and talented students, and more and more students
are enrolling in them.
We are the inheritors of a past that gives us every reason to believe
that we will succeed.
A Word to Parents and Students
The task of assuring the success of our recommendations does not fall
to the schools and colleges alone. Obviously, faculty members and
administrators, along with policymakers and the mass media, will play
a crucial role in the reform of the educational system. But even more
important is the role of parents and students, and to them we speak
directly.
To Parents
You know that you cannot confidently launch your children into today's
world unless they are of strong character and well-educated in the use
of language, science, and mathematics. They must possess a deep
respect for intelligence, achievement, and learning, and the skills
needed to use them; for setting goals; and for disciplined work. That
respect must be accompanied by an intolerance for the shoddy and
second-rate masquerading as "good enough."
You have the right to demand for your children the best our schools
and colleges can provide. Your vigilance and your refusal to be
satisfied with less than the best are the imperative first step. But
your right to a proper education for your children carries a double
responsibility. As surely as you are your child's first and most
influential teacher, your child's ideas about education and its
significance begin with you. You must be a _living_ example of what
you expect your children to honor and to emulate. Moreover, you bear a
responsibility to participate actively in your child's education. You
should encourage more diligent study and discourage satisfaction with
mediocrity and the attitude that says "let it slide"; monitor
your
child's study; encourage good study habits; encourage your child to
take more demanding rather than less demanding courses; nurture your
child's curiosity, creativity, and confidence; and be an active
participant in the work of the schools. Above all, exhibit a
commitment to continued learning in your own life. Finally, help your
children understand that excellence in education cannot be achieved
without intellectual and moral integrity coupled with hard work and
commitment. Children will look to their parents and teachers as models
of such virtues.
To Students
You forfeit your chance for life at its fullest when you withhold your
best effort in learning. When you give only the minimum to learning,
you receive only the minimum in return. Even with your parents' best
example and your teachers' best efforts, in the end it is _your_ work
that determines how much and how well you learn. When you work to your
full capacity, you can hope to attain the knowledge and skills that
will enable you to create your future and control your destiny. If you
do not, you will have your future thrust upon you by others. Take hold
of your life, apply your gifts and talents, work with dedication and
self-discipline. Have high expectations for yourself and convert every
challenge into an opportunity.
A Final Word
This is not the first or only commission on education, and some of our
findings are surely not new, but old business that now at last must be
done. For no one can doubt that the United States is under challenge
from many quarters.
Children born today can expect to graduate from high school in the
year 2000. We dedicate our report not only to these children, but also
to those now in school and others to come. We firmly believe that a
movement of America's schools in the direction called for by our
recommendations will prepare these children for far more effective
lives in a far stronger America.
Our final word, perhaps better characterized as a plea, is that all
segments of our population give attention to the implementation of our
recommendations. Our present plight did not appear overnight, and the
responsibility for our current situation is widespread. Reform of our
educational system will take time and unwavering commitment. It will
require equally widespread, energetic, and dedicated action. For
example, we call upon the National Academy of Sciences, National
Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, Science Service,
National Science Foundation, Social Science Research Council, American
Council of Learned Societies, National Endowment for the Humanities,
National Endowment for the Arts, and other scholarly, scientific, and
learned societies for their help in this effort. Help should come from
students themselves; from parents, teachers, and school boards; from
colleges and universities; from local, State, and Federal officials;
from teachers' and administrators' organizations; from industrial and
labor councils; and from other groups with interest in and
responsibility for educational reform.
It is their America, and the America of all of us, that is at risk; it
is to each of us that this imperative is addressed. It is by our
willingness to take up the challenge, and our resolve to see it
through, that America's place in the world will be either secured or
forfeited. Americans have succeeded before and so we shall again.
A Nation
At Risk - April 1983
APPENDIX A: CHARTER--NATIONAL COMMISSION ON EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION
Authority
20 U.S.C. 1233a. The Commission is governed by the provisions of Part
D of the General Education Provisions Act (P.L. 90-247 as amended; 20
U.S.C. 1233 et seq.) and the Federal Advisory Committee Act (P.L.
92-463; 5 U.S.C Appendix I) which set forth standards for the
formation and use of advisory committees.
Purpose and Functions
The Commission advises and makes recommendations to the nation and to
the Secretary of Education. To carry out this mission the Commission
is charged with the following responsibilities:
1. To review and synthesize the data and scholarly literature on the
quality of learning and teaching in the nation's schools,
colleges, and universities, both public and private, with special
concern for the educational experience of teen-age youth;
2. To examine and to compare and contrast the curricula, standards,
and expectations of the educational systems of several advanced
countries with those of the United States;
3. To study a representative sampling of university and college
admission standards and lower division course requirements with
particular reference to the impact upon the enhancement of quality
and the promotion of excellence such standards may have on high
school curricula and on expected levels of high school academic
achievement;
4. To review and to describe educational programs that are recognized
as preparing students who consistently attain higher than average
scores in college entrance examinations and who meet with uncommon
success the demands placed on them by the nation's colleges and
universities;
5. To review the major changes that have occurred in American
education as well as events in society during the past quarter
century that have significantly affected educational achievement;
6. To hold hearings and to receive testimony and expert advice on
efforts that could and should be taken to foster higher levels of
quality and academic excellence in the nation's schools, colleges,
and universities;
7. To do all other things needed to define the problems of and the
barriers to attaining greater levels of excellence in American
education; and
8. To report and to make practical recommendations for action to be
taken by educators, public officials, governing boards, parents,
and others having a vital interest in American education and a
capacity to influence it for the better.
Structure
The Commission consists of at least 12, but not more than 19, public
members appointed by the Secretary. The Secretary shall designate a
chairperson from among the members. Among its members the Commission
includes persons who are knowledgeable about educational programs at
various levels and are familiar with views of the public, of
employers, of educators, and of leaders of a range of professions
regarding the status of education today, requirements for the future,
and ways the quality of education for all Americans can be improved.
A quorum of the Commission is a majority of appointed members.
Terms of service of members end with the termination of the
Commission.
Hearings on behalf of the Commission may be held by one or more
members with the authorization of the chairperson.
The Commission may establish standing committees composed exclusively
of its members. Each standing committee complies with the requirements
of applicable statutes and Departmental regulations. Each committee
presents to the Commission findings and recommendations for action by
the full Commission. Timely notification of the establishment of a
committee and any change therein, including its charge, membership,
and frequency of meetings, will be made in writing to the Committee
Management Officer. All committees act under the policies established
by the Commission as a whole.
Management and staff services are provided by the Executive Director
who serves as the Designated Federal Official to the Commission and by
the National Institute of Education.
Meetings
The Commission meets approximately four times a year at the call of
the Chairperson, with the advance approval of the Secretary or the
Designated Federal Official who approves the agenda and is present or
represented at all meetings. Standing committees meet as required at
the call of their Chairperson with the concurrence of the Commission
Chairperson. All meetings are open to the public except as determined
otherwise by the Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and
Improvement. Notice of all meetings shall be given to the public.
Meetings are conducted, and records of proceedings kept, in accordance
with applicable laws and Department regulations.
Compensation
In accordance with the General Education Provisions Act and other
applicable laws, Commission members shall be entitled to an honorarium
of $100 per day for official business of the Commission. Their per
diem and travel expenses will be paid in accordance with Federal
Travel Regulations.
Annual Cost Estimate
Estimate of the direct cost for operating the Commission, including
compensation and travel expenses for members as well as costs for
studies, but excluding staff support, is $332,000. Estimate of annual
person-years of staff required is 16. Estimate of direct annual costs
for administrative support, staff and staff per diem and travel
expenses is $453,000. The National Institute of Education will provide
additional administrative and research assistance to the Commission.
Reports
In addition to its final report, which is expected eighteen months
from the initial meeting, the Commission submits to the Congress by
March 31 of each year an annual report which contains as a minimum a
list of the names and business addresses of the members, a list of the
dates and places of the meetings, the functions of the Commission, and
a summary of Commission activities and recommendations made during the
year. Such report is transmitted with the Secretary's annual report to
Congress. The Commission makes such other reports or recommendations
as may be appropriate. A copy of the annual report and other reports
is provided to the Committee Management Officer.
Termination Date
It is estimated that the time necessary for the Commission to complete
its activities and report is at least 18 months. Therefore, to insure
the completion of the report, the Secretary determines that this
Commission terminates not later than two years from the date of this
Charter.
APPROVED:
August 5, 1981
T.H. Bell, Secretary of Education
A Nation
at Risk - April 1983
APPENDIX B: SCHEDULE OF THE COMMISSION'S PUBLIC EVENTS
In addition to these public events, the Commission members also
attended a number of subcommittee meetings and worksessions over the
course of 18 months.
Event: Full Commission Meeting
Dates: October 9-10, 1981
Place: Washington, D.C.
Event: Full Commission Meeting
Date: December 7, 1981
Place: Washington, D.C.
Event: Full Commission Meeting
Date: February 25, 1982
Place: Washington, D.C.
Event: Hearing--Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education
Date: March 11, 1982
Place: Stanford University, Stanford, California
Hosts: Donald Kennedy, President, Stanford University; and J.
Myron Atkin, Dean, Graduate School of Education, Stanford University
Event: Hearing--Language and Literacy: Skills for Academic Learning
Date: April 16, 1982
Place: Houston Independent School District, Houston, Texas
Hosts: Raymon Bynum, Texas State Commissioner of Education; and
Billy R. Reagan, General Superintendent, Houston Independent School
District
Event: Panel Discussion--Performance Expectations in American
Education
Date: April 30, 1982
Place: The University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Host: Thomas Erlich, Provost, The University of Pennsylvania
Event: Hearing--Teaching and Teacher Education
Date: May 12, 1982
Place: Gerogia State University, Atlanta, Georgia
Hosts: Alonzo Crim, Superintendent, Atlanta Public Schools;
Sherman Day, Dean, School of Education, Georgia State University;
and Barbara Hatton, Dean, School of Education, Atlanta University
Event: Full Commission Meeting
Date: May 25, 1982
Place: Washington, D.C.
Event: Hearing--College Admissions and the Transition to
Postsecondary Education
Date: June 23, 1982
Place: Roosevelt University, Chicago, Illinois
Hosts: Rolf Weil, President, Roosevelt University; and John
Corbally, President, John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation,
Chicago
Event: Symposium--The Student's Role in Learning
Date: July 30, 1982
Place: San Diego State University, California
Hosts: Thomas Day, President, San Diego State University; and
Richard Atkinson, Chancellor, University of California, San Diego
Event: Panel Discussion--College Curriculum: Shape, Influence, and
Assessment
Date: August 27, 1982
Place: University of Rhode Island, Kingston, Rhode Island
Host: Frank Newman, President, University of Rhode Island
Event: Hearing--Education for a Productive Role in a Productive
Society
Date: September 16, 1982
Place: St. Cajetan's Center, Denver, Colorado
Host: Robert Andringa, Executive Director, Education Commission of
the States, Denver
Event: Full Commission Meeting
Dates: September 28-29, 1982
Place: New York, New York
Host: Robert Payton, President, Exxon Education Foundation, Exxon
Corporation, New York, New York
Event: Hearing--Education for the Gifted and Talented
Date: October 15, 1982
Place: Harvard University, Cambridge Massachusetts
Hosts: Derek Bok, President, Harvard University; and Patricia
Albjerg Graham, Dean, Harvard Graduate School of Education
Event: Full Commission Meeting
Dates: November 15-16, 1982
Place: Washington, D.C.
Event: Full Commission Meeting
Dates: January 21-22, 1983
Place: Washington, D.C.
Event: Full Commission Meeting
Dates: April 26, 1983
Place: Washington, D.C.
A Nation
at Risk - April 1983
APPENDIX C: COMMISSIONED PAPERS
Joseph Adelson, The University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
"Twenty-Five years of American Education: An Interpretation"
Catherine P. Ailes and Francis W. Rushing, SRI International,
Arlington, Virginia
"A Summary Report on the Educational Systems of the United
States and the Soviet Union: Comparative Analysis"
Alexander W. Astin, University of California, Los Angeles
"Excellence and Equity in American Education"
Alexander W. Astin, University of California, Los Angeles
"The American Freshman, 1966-1981: Some Implications for
Educational Policy and Practice"
Herman Blake, University of California, Santa Cruz
"Demographic Change and Curriculum: New Students in Higher
Education
Richard I. Brod, The Modern Language Association, New York, New York
Nicholas Farnham, The International Council on the Future of the
University, New York, New York
William V. Mayer, Biological Sciences Curriculum Study, Boulder,
Colorado
Robert A. McCaughey, Barnard College, New York, New York
"University Entrance Examinations and Performance Expectations"
Barbara B. Burn and Christopher H. Hurn, University of Massachusetts,
Amherst
"An Analytic Comparison of Educational Systems"
Philip Cusick, Michigan State University, East Lansing
"Secondary Public Schools in America"
Paul DeHart Hurd, Stanford University, California
"An Overview of Science Education in the United States and
Selected Foreign Countries"
Walter Doyle, University of Texas at Austin
"Academic Work"
Kenneth Duckworth, University of Oregon, Eugene
"Some Ideas About Student Cognition, Motivation and Work" (A
Critique of the Symposium on The Student's Role in Learning)
Max A. Eckstein, Queens College/City of New York Flushing
Susanne Shafer, Arizona State University, Tempe
Kenneth Travers, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
"A Comparative Review of Curriculum: Mathematics and
International Studies in the Secondary Schools of Five
Countries"
Eleanor Farrar, The Huron Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Matthew B. Miles, Center for Policy Research, New York, New York
Barbara Neufeld, The Huron Institute, Cambridge, Massachusetts
"A Review of Effective Schools Research: Implications for
Practice and Research"
Zelda Gamson, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
"A Little Light on the Subject: Keeping General and Liberal
Education Alive"
William E. Gardner, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
John R. Palmer, University of Wisconsin, Madison
"Certification and Accreditation: Background, Issue Analysis,
and Recommendations"
Thomas L. Good, University of Missouri-Columbia
"What Is Learned in Schools: Responding to School Demands,
Grades K-6"
Thomas L. Good and Gail M. Hinkel, University of Missouri-Columbia
"Schooling in America: Some Descriptive and Explanatory
Statements"
Donald B. Holsinger, State University of New York, Albany
"Time, Content and Expectations as Predictors of School
Achievement in the U.S.A. and Other Developed Countries: A
Review of IEA Evidence"
Kenneth R. Howey, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis
"Charting Directions for Preservice Teacher Education"
Torsten Husen, University of Stockholm, Sweden
"A Cross-National Perspective on Assessing the Quality of
Learning"
Nancy Karweit, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
"Time on Task: A Reserch Review"
Howard London, Bridgewater State College, Massachusetts
"Academic Standards in the American Community College: Trends
and Controversies"
Martin L. Maehr, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
"Motivational Factors in School Achievement"
Matthew B. Miles, Center for Policy Research, New York, New York
Eleanor Farrar and Barbara Neufeld, The Huron Institute Cambridge,
Massachusetts
"The Extent of Adoption of Effective Schools Programs"
Barbara Neufeld and Eleanor Farrar, The Huron Institute Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Matthew B. Miles, Center for Policy Research, New York, New York
"A Review of Effective Schools Research: The Message for
Secondary Schools"
William Neumann, Syracuse University, New York
"College Press and Student Fit"
C. Robert Pace, University of California, Los Angeles
"Achievement and Quality of Student Effort"
Harvey L. Prokop, San Diego Unified School District California
"Intelligence, Motivation and the Quantity and Quality of
Academic Work and Their Impacts on the Learning of Students: A
Practitioner's Reaction" (A Critique of the Symposium on The
Student's Role in Learning)
Lauren B. Resnick, University of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Daniel P. Resnick, Carnegie-Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
"Standards, Curriculum, and Performance: An Historical and
Comparative Perspective"
Frederick Rudolph, Williams College, Williamstown, Massachusetts
"Educational Excellence--The Secondary School-College
Connection and Other Matters: An Historical Assessment"
Clifford Sjogren, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
"College Admissions and the Transition to Postsecondary
Education: Standards and Practices"
Richard E. Snow, Stanford University, California
"Intelligence, Motivation and Academic Work" (A Critique of the
Symposium on The Student's Role in Learning)
Robert J. Sternberg and Richard Wagner, Yale University, New Haven,
Connecticut
"Understanding Intelligence: What's in It for Educators?"
Deborah Stipek, University of California, Los Angeles
"Motivating Students to Learn: A Lifelong Perspective"
Judith Torney-Purta, University of Maryland, College Park
John Schwille, Michigan State University, East Lansing
"The Values Learned in School: Policy and Practice in
Industralized Countries"
Beatrice Ward, John R. Mergendoller, and Alexis L. Mitman, Far West
Laboratory for Educational Research and Development, San
Francisco, California
"The Years Between Elementary School and High School: What
Schooling Experiences Do Students Have?"
Jonathan Warren, Educational Testing Service, Berkeley, California
"The Faculty Role in Educational Excellence"
Dean K. Whitla, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
"Value Added and Ohter Related Matters"
Sam J. Yarger, Syracuse University, New York
"Inservice Education"
Herbert Zimiles, Bank Street College of Education, New York, New York
"The Changing American Child: The Perspective of Educators"
Commissioned papers will be available in the ERIC system after July
1983 (See Ordering Information).
Also available through the ERIC system after July 1983:
Clifford Adelman, National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.
"A Study of High School Transcripts, 1964-1981"
Available through the ERIC system after August 1983:
Fast Response Survey System, National Center for Education Statistics,
Washington, D.C.
"School District Survey of Academic Requirements and
Achievement"
Fast Response Survey System, National Center for Education Statistics,
Washington, D.C.
"Survey of Schools of Teacher Education: Perceptions of Methods
for Improvement"
Service Delivery Assessment, Office of Management, U.S. Department of
Education, Washington, D.C.
"Study Skills Instruction"
A Nation
at Risk - April 1983
APPENDIX D: HEARING TESTIMONY
Science, Mathematics, and Technology Education
_________________________________________________________________
Without a deep, sturdy science and technology foundation, U.S. needs
cannot be satisfied. The base of the foundation is education in
science and mathematics from grade school through high school. But the
evidence is all about us of our recent neglect and the strong
possibility of a further downgrading of the national importance of
such education.
Simon Ramo
the TRW-Fujitsu Company
Redondo Beach, California
_________________________________________________________________
_H. Guyford Stever_, National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D.C.
_Bernard M. Oliver_, Hewlett-Packard Company, Palo Alto, California
_Henry L. Alder_, University of California, Davis, representing the
Council of Scientific Society Presidents
_Sarah E. Klein_, Roton Middle School, Norwalk, Connecticut,
representing the National Science Teachers Association
_Harold D. Taylor_, Hillsdale High School, San Mateo, California,
representing the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics
_________________________________________________________________
_John Martin_, Palo Alto Unified School District, California
_Ruth Willis_, Hamilton Junior High School, Oakland, California
_Sarn Dederian_, San Francisco Unified School District, California
_Leroy Finkel_, San Mateo County Office of Education, California
_Olivia Martinez_, San Jose Unified School District, California
_Robert Bell_, General Electric Company, San Jose, California
_Judith Hubner_, representing the Governor's Office, State of
California
_Robert W Walker_, De Anza-Foothill Community College District,
Californla
_Nancy Kreinberg_, Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley, California
_Robert Finnell_, Lawrence Hall of Science, Berkeley, California
_Marian E. Koshland_, University of California, Berkeley, representing
the National Science Board
_Alan M. Portis_, University of California, Berkeley, representing the
Education Committee of the American Physical Society
_Leon Henkin_, University of California, Berkeley, representing the
U.S. Commission on Mathematical Instruction
_John Pawson_, Edison High School, Huntington Beach, California
_Alan Fibish_, Lowell High School, San Francisco, California
_Juliet R. Henry_, representing the California Teachers Association
_Jess Bravin_, Board of Education, Los Angeles, California
_________________________________________________________________
_Frank Oppenheimer_, Exploratorium, San Francisco, California
_Leigh Burstein_, University of California, Los Angeles
_Judy Chamberlain_, Cupertino Unified School District, California
_Michael Summerville_, Fremont Unified High School District,
California
_Ted Perry_, San Juan Unified School District, California
_Paul DeHart Hurd_, Stanford University, California
_Elizabeth Karplus_, Campolindo High School, Moraga, California
_Louis Fein_, Palo Alto Learners Association, California
_Bob McFarland_, representing the California Math Council
_Katherine Burt_, Cupertino Elementary School District, California
_Leo Ruth_, California Engineering Foundation
_________________________________________________________________
_Gordon M. Ambach_, State Education Department, Albany, New York
_James L. Casey_, State Department of Education, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma
_Carolyn Graham_, Jefferson Elementary School, Burbank, California
_Marcy Holteen_, Ambler, Pennsylvania
_Howard C. Mel_ and _Kay Fairwell_, Lawrence Hall of Science,
Berkeley, California
_Jean Phillips_, Thousand Oaks, California
_Simon Ramo_, the TRW-Fujitsu Company, Redondo Beach, California
_Gerhardt W. Reidel_, University of West Los Angeles, Culver City,
California
_Carl L. Riehm_, Virginia State Department of Education, Richmond,
Virginia
_John H. Saxon_, Norman, Oklahoma
_Thomas O. Sidebottom_, Interactive Sciences, Inc., Palo Alto,
California
_Karl Weiss_, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts
_Jan West_, Oroville, California
Related Activities in the Bay Area
Site Visit
Lawrence Hall of Science
University of California, Berkeley
Howard C. Mel, Director
Tour of the Paul and Jean Hanna Collection on the Role of Education
and the Archives and Library at the Hoover Institution, Stanford
University
Dinner with business, education, and community leaders
Sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce of the United States,
Western Regional Office, and the William and Flora Hewlett
Foundation
Language and Literacy: Skills for Academic Learning
_________________________________________________________________
_Writing as an activity is not honored by the American public in the
opinion of the students. They see a surface picture, dominated by
television, film, and radio, in which the acts of writing and reading
are not viewed as important or even relevant. The cultural heroes are
athletes, actresses, actors, politicians and big business tycoons.
None seemingly need reading or writing to achieve their stature._
James Kinneavy
University of Texas, Austin
_________________________________________________________________
_Richard C. Anderson_, University of Iltinois, Champaign-Urbana
_Margaret Smith-Burke_, New York University, New York
_Donaid Graves_, University of New Hampshire, Durham
_Eileen Lundy_, University of Texas, San Antonio
_Ray Clifford_, Defense Language Institute, Presidio of Monterey,
California
_Lity Wong-Fillmore_, University of California, Berkeley
_________________________________________________________________
_Victoria Bergin_, Texas Education Agency, Austin
_Alan C. Purves_, University of Illinois, Champaign-Urbana
_Delia Pompa_, Houston Independent School District, Texas
_Olivia Munoz_, Houston Independent School District, Texas
_James Kinneavy_, University of Texas, Austin
_Betty Von Maszewski_, Deer Park Independent School District, Texas
_Claire E. Weinstein_, University of Texas, Austin
_Patricia Sturdivant_, Houston Independent School District, Texas
_________________________________________________________________
_June Dempsey_, University of Houston, Texas, representing the
American Association of Community and Junior Colleges, the Western
College Reading Association, and the National Association for Remedial
and Developmental Studies in Postsecondary Education
_Jane Porter_, College Board, Austin, Texas
_Kay Bell_, Texas Classroom Teachers Association, Austin, Texas
_Judy Walker de Felix_, University of Houston, Texas
_Barbara Glave_, University of Houston, Texas, representing the
Houston Area Teachers of Foreign Language
_Dora Scott_, Houston Independent School District, Texas, representing
the National Education Association and the Texas State Teachers
Association, Houston
_Georgette Sullins_, Spring Independent School District, Texas
_Renate Donovan_, Spring Branch Independent School District, Texas
_________________________________________________________________
_Gordon M. Ambach_, State Education Department, Albany, New York
_Jo Bennett_ and _Jean Parochetti_, Alvin Community College, Texas
_Sharon Robinson_, National Education Association, Washington, D.C.
_Donald L. Rubin_, University of Georgia, Athens, representing the
Speech Communication Association
_Robert N. Schwartz_, University of Houston, Texas
_Ralph C. Staiger_, International Reading Association, Newark,
Delaware
_Helen Warriner-Burke_ and _Carl L. Riehm_, Department of Education,
Richmond, Virginia
_William Work_, Speech Communication Association, Annandale, Virginia
_Daryl R. Yost_, East Allen County Schools, New Haven, Indiana
Related Activities in Houston
Site visits coordinated by the Office of the General Superintendent of
the Houston Independent School District
Briargrove Elementary School
Wilson Elementary School
Clifton Middle School
Bellaire High School
High School for Engineering Professions
High School for Health Professions
High School for Performing and Visual Arts
Teaching and Teacher Education
_________________________________________________________________
_Realizing aptitudes and performance expectations early in the
training program will force the teacher education student to determine
if he or she will survive in a profession where effective members are
those who believe all students can learn and take the responsibility
upon themselves to see that they do._
Robert Fortenberry
Jackson City Schools
Mississippi
_________________________________________________________________
_Gary Sykes_, National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.
_Gary Fenstermacher_, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg
_David G. Imig_, American Association of Colleges for Teacher
Education, Washington, D.C.
_Anne Flowers_, Georgia Southern University, Statesboro
_Barbara Peterson_, Seven Oaks Elementary School, Columbia, South
Carolina
_Eva Galumbos_, Southern Regional Education Board, Atlanta, Georgia
_Robert Scanlon_, Pennsylvania State Department of Education,
Harrisburg
_Ralph Turlington_, Florida State Department of Education, Tallahassee
_Gail MacColl_, National Institute of Education, Washington, D.C.
_Kathy Jones_, Roan State Community College, Harriman, Tennessee,
representing the National Education Association
_Mary Lou Romaine_, Atlanta Federation of Teachers, Georgia,
representing the American Federation of Teachers
_Janet Towslee-Collier_, Georgia State University, Atlanta,
representing the Association of Teacher Educators
_Robert Fortenberry_, Jackson City Schools, Mississippi, representing
the American Association of School Administrators
_Nicholas Hobar_, West Virginia Department of Education, Charleston,
representing the National Association of State Directors of Teacher
Education and Certification
_Fred Loveday_, Georgia Private Education Council, Smyrna,
representing the Council for American Private Education
_James Lowden_, Alabama Christian Education Association, Prattville,
representing the American Association of Christian Schools
_J.L. Grant_, Florida State University, Tallahassee, representing the
American Association for Colleges of Teacher Education
_Carolyn Huseman_, Georgia State Board of Education, representing the
National Association of State Boards of Education
_________________________________________________________________
_Robert Fontenot_, University of Southwestern Louisiana, LaFayette
_Nancy Ramseur_, Camden High School, South Carolina
_Eugene Kelly_, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
_Richard Hodges_, Decatur, Georgia
_James Gray_, University of California, Berkeley
_Robert Dixon_, Institute for Research, Development and Engineering in
Nuclear Energy, Atlanta, Georgia
_Pat Woodall_, Columbus, Georgia
_Wayne Wheatley_, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina,
representing the Council for Exceptional Children
_Joe Hasenstab_, Project Teach, Westwood, New Jersey
_William Drummond_, University of Florida, Gainesville
_Debbie Yoho_, Southeastern Regional Teacher Center, Columbia, South
Carolina
_Donald Gallehr_, Virginia Writing Project, Fairfax
_James Collins_, National Council of States on In-service Education,
Syracuse, New York
_Ann Levy_, Project New Adventure in Learning, Tallahassee, Florida
_Bill Katzenmeyer_, University of South Florida, Tampa
_Walt Mika_, Virginia Education Association
_Eunice Sims_, Georgia Writing Project, Atlanta
_________________________________________________________________
_Gordon M. Ambach_, State Education Department, Albany, New York
_Elaine Banks_ and _Sam Sava_, National Association of Elementary
School Principals, Reston, Virginia
_Aladino A. Burchianti_, Masontown, Pennsylvania
_Roy Edelfelt_, Washington, D.C.
_Ed Foglia_, California Teachers Association, Burlingame
_June Johnson_, New Adventure in Learning, Tallahassee, Florida
_Richard A. Krueger_, Staples Teacher Center, Minnesota
_Clare Miezio_, Eagle Forum Education Committee, Schaumburg, Illinois
_Donald L. Rubin_, University of Georgia, Athens, representing the
Speech Communication Association Committee on Assessment and Testing
_Daryl R. Yost_, East Allen County Schools, New Haven, Indiana
Related Activities in Atlanta
Site Visits
Douglas High School
L.W. Butts, Principal
Mays High School
Thomas E. Wood, Jr., Principal
Lunch with local dignitaries hosted by Georgia State University
Dinner with business, education, and community leaders
Coordinated by the Atlanta Partnership of Business and
Education
Sponsored by FABRAP Architects, Inc., and the Coca-Cola Company
College Admissions and the Transition to Postsecondary Education
_________________________________________________________________
_We're in the student learning business, and if we're going to have
effectiveness in terms of student learning we've got to have good
teachers, and we've got to have sound management._
Ralph Turlington
Florida State Department of Education
Tallahassee
_________________________________________________________________
_Clifford Sjogren_, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
_Ralph McGee_, New Trier Township High School, Winnetka, Illinois
_Alice Cox_, University of California Systemwide Administration,
Berkeley
_George Stafford_, Prairie View A&M University, Texas
_Fred Hargadon_, Stanford University, California
_Margaret MacVicar_, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
_________________________________________________________________
_Lois Mazzuca_, National Association of College Admissions Counselors,
Rolling Meadows, Illinois
_Ora McConnor_, Chicago Public Schools, Illinois
_Theodore Brown,_ Hales Franciscan High School, Chicago, Illinois
_Charles D. O'Connell_, University of Chicago, Illinois
_Oscar Shabat_, Chicago Community College System, Illinois
_Arnold Mitchum_, Marquette University, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
_Michael Kean,_ Educational Testing Service, Midwestern Regional
Office, Evanston, Illinois
_John B. Vaccaro_, The College Board, Midwestern Regional Office,
Evanston, Illinois
_William Kinnison_, Wittenberg University, Springfield, Ohio
_________________________________________________________________
_William J. Pappas_, Northview High School, Grand Rapids, Michigan
_Carmelo Rodriguez_, ASPIRA of Illinois, Chicago
_Jeffrey Mallow_, Loyola University, Chicago, Illinois
_Carol Elder_, Local 4100 of American Federation of Teachers, Chicago,
Illinois
_Bettye J. Lewis_, Michigan Alliance of Families
_Rachel Ralya_, Michigan Alliance of Families
_Austin Doherty_, Alverno College, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
_________________________________________________________________
_Gordon M. Ambach_, State Education Department, Albany, New York
_Gordon C. Godbey_, Pennsylvania Association for Adult Continuing
Education
_Daryl R. Yost_, East Allen County Schools, New Haven, Indiana
Related Activities in Chicago
Site Visits
Standard Oil of Indiana
Gene E. Cartwright, Manager of Employee Relations
Joseph Feeney, Director, Training and Personnel Planning
Continental Illinois Bank
Jennifer Olsztynski, Personnel Manager
De Paul University
Rev. John T. Richardson, President
David Justice, Dean, School for New Learning
Luncheon with leaders of higher education institutions
Sponsored by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Dinner with business, education, and community leaders
Sponsored by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation
Chaired by Stanley O. Ikenberry, President, University of
Illinois
Education for a Productive Role in a Productive Society
_________________________________________________________________
_Fortunately for my students, I have found a school district where
teachers are considered valuable professionals and where professional
development is taken seriously._
Debbie Yoho
Southeastern Regional Teacher Center
Columbia, South Carolina
_________________________________________________________________
_Daniel Saks_, Brookings Institution, Washington, D.C.
_Roy Forbes_, Education Commission of the States, Denver, Colorado
_Sol Hurwitz_, Committee for Economic Development, New York, New York
_Martha Brownlee_, Naval Education and Training for Research and
Development, Pensacola, Florida
_Norman Pledger_, Colorado AFL-CIO, Denver
_________________________________________________________________
_Lucretia James_, Storage Technology, Inc., Louisville, Colorado
_Kathy Collins Smith_, American Institute of Banking, Denver, Colorado
_Wade Murphree_, Denver Institute of Technology, Colorado
_Calvin Frazier_, State Department of Education, Denver, Colorado
_Robert Taylor_, The Ohio State University, Columbus
_John Peper_, Jefferson County Schools, Lakewood, Colorado
_Michael A. MacDowell_, Joint Council on Economic Education, New York,
New York
_Larry Brown_, 70001, Inc., Washington, D.C.
_Robert Stewart_, University of Missouri, Columbia
_Gordon Dickinson_, Colorado Community College and Vocational
Education Board, Sterling
_Karl Weiss_, Northeastern University, Boston, Massachusetts
_Donald Schwartz_, University of Colorado, Colorado Springs
_________________________________________________________________
_Patricia Brevik_, Auraria Library and Media Center, Denver, Colorado
_John Dromgoole_, National Commission on Cooperative Education,
Boston, Massachusetts
_Faith Hamre_, Littleton Public Schools, Ohio
_Vernon Broussard_, National Council on Vocational Education, Culver
City, California
_David Terry_, Utah System of Higher Education, Salt Lake City
_Georgia Van Adestine_, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo,
Michigan
_Gordon E. Heaton_, Colorado Education Association, Aurora, Colorado
_Young Jay Mulkey_, American Institute for Character Education, San
Antonio, Texas
_George P. Rusteika_, Far West Laboratory for Educational Research and
Development, San Francisco, California
_________________________________________________________________
_Gordon M. Ambach_, State Education Department, Albany, New York
_Donald Clark_, National Association for Industry-Education
Cooperation, Buffalo, New York
_Jacqueline Danzberger_, Youth-Work, Inc., Washington, D.C.
_Charles Davis_, Education Clinics, Inc., Seattle, Washington
_Dennis A. Dirksen_, San Diego State University, California
_Ben Lawrence_, National Center for Higher Education Management
Systems, Boulder, Colorado
_Bill Rosser_ and _Jennie Sanchez_, Chicano Education Project, Denver,
Colorado
_Sandra K. Squires_, University of Nebraska, Omaha
Related Activities in the Denver Area
Site Visits
Warren Occupational Technology Center, Golden
Byron Tucker, Principal
Mountain Bell Education and Training Center, Lakewood
Fred Wells, Director
Career Education Center, Denver
John Astuno, Principal
Emily Griffith Opportunity School, Denver
Butch Thomas, Principal
Luncheon discussion with Robert Worthington, Assistant Secretary for
Vocational and Adult Education, U. S. Department of Education,
Washington, D.C.
Dinner discussion with Willard Wirtz, National Institute for Work and
Learning, Washington, D.C., and Henry David, National Institute
of Education, Washington, D.C.
Dinner with business, education, and community leaders
Sponsored by the Education Commission of the States
Chaired by Calvin Frazier, Commissioner of Education, Colorado
Education for the Gifted and Talented
_________________________________________________________________
_Our greatest resource--and the greatest resource of any nation--is
the education of its people._
Norman Pledger
Colorado AFL-CIO
Denver
_________________________________________________________________
_James J. Gallagher_, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
_Marcel Kinsbourne_, Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center, Waltham,
Massachusetts
_Joseph Renzulli_, University of Connecticut, Storrs
_David Feldman_, Tufts University, Medford, Massachusetts
_________________________________________________________________
_William Durden_, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
_Connie Steele_, Texas Technical University, Lubbock
_Isa Kaftal Zimmerman_, Lexington Public Schools, Massachusetts
_Alexinia Baldwin_, State University of New York, Albany
_________________________________________________________________
_Arthur Pontarelli_, Rhode Island State Department of Education,
Providence
_Armand E. Bastastini_, Jr., Rhode Island State Legislature,
Providence
_William R. Holland_, Narragansett School District, Rhode Island
_Melissa Lawton_, Bristol School District, Rhode Island
_Rachel Christina_, Bristol School District, Rhode Island
_Catherine Valentino_, North Kingstown School District, Rhode Island
_Marie Friedel_, National Foundation for Gifted and Creative Children,
Providence, Rhode Island
_Marsha R. Berger_, Rhode Island Federation of Teachers, Providence
_Sidney Rollins_, Rhode Island College, Providence
_David Laux_, State Advocates for Gifted Education, Providence, Rhode
Island
_James A. Di Prete_, Coventry High School, Rhode Island
_Harold Raynolds_, Maine State Department of Education, Augusta
_June K. Goodman_, Connecticut State Board of Education, Hartford
_Mary Hunter Wolfe_, Connecticut State Task Force on Gifted and
Talented Education, Hartford
_Paul Regnier_, speaking on behalf of Gordon Ambach, State Education
Department, Albany, New York
_Benson Snyder_, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
_June Cox_, Sid Richardson Foundation, Fort Worth, Texas
_Loretta L. Frissora_, Needham Public Schools, Massachusetts,
representing the National Education Association
_Patricia O'Connell_, Augusta, Maine, representing the Council of
State Directors for Programs for the Gifted
_________________________________________________________________
_Virginia Ehrlich_, Astor Program Studies for Gifted, Suffern, New
York
_Gloria Duclos_, University of Southern Maine, Portland
_Anton Lysy_, Londonderry School District, New Hampshire
_Rhoda Spear_, New Haven Schools, Connecticut
_Judith Grunbaum_, Southeastern Massachusetts University, North
Dartmouth
_Vincent Hawes_, American Association of State Colleges and
Universities, Washington, D.C.
_Dorothy Moser_, Mortar Board, Inc., Columbus, Ohio
_Wendy Mareks_, Chelmsford Association for Talented and Gifted,
Massachusetts
_James DeLisle_, University of Connecticut, Storrs
_Naomi Zymelman_, Charles E. Smith Jewish Day School, Rockville,
Maryland
_Sherry Earle_, Connecticut Association for the Gifted, Danbury
_C. Grey Austin_, University of Georgia, Athens
_Sally Reis_, Council for Exceptional Children, Talented and Gifted
Division, Reston, Virginia
_Betty T. Gilson_, Brockton Public Schools, Massachusetts
_Roberta McHardy_, Louisiana Department of Education, Baton Rouge
_Felicity Freund_, Gifted Child Society, Oakland, New Jersey
_Lydia Smith_, Simmons College, Boston, Massachusetts
_Betsy Buchbinder_, Massachusetts Association for Advancement of
Individual Potential, Milton
_Artemis Kirk_, Simmons College, Boston, Massachusetts, representing
the Association of College and Research Libraries
_________________________________________________________________
_Elizabeth F. Abbott_, Governor's Program for Gifted and Talented,
Gainesville, Florida
_James Alvino_, Gifted Child Newsletter, Sewell, New Jersey
_Gordon M. Ambach_, State Education Department, Albany, New York
Association of San Diego Educators for the Gifted and Talented,
California
_Philip J. Burke_ and _Karen A. Verbeke_, University of Maryland,
College Park
_Sheila Brown_, Nebraska Department of Education, Lincoln
California Association for the Gifted, Downey
_Carolyn M. Callahan_, The Association for the Gifted
_Anne B. Crabbe_, Coe College, Cedar Rapids, Iowa
_Roxanne H. Cramer_, American Mensa, Arlington, Virginia
_Neil Daniel_, Texas Christian University, Fort Worth
_Sue Ellen Duggan_ and _Mary Lou Fernandes_, Lackawanna City School
District, New York
_John F. Feldhusen_, Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana _Frank
F. Fowle, III_, Clayton, Missouri
_Joseph Harrington_, College Academy, Stoughton, Massachusetts
_Anne E. Impellizzeri_, American Association for Gifted Children
_Betty Johnson_, Minnesota Council for the Gifted and Talented,
Minneapolis
_Nancy Kalajian_, Sommerville, Massachusetts
_John Lawson_, Massachusetts Department of Education, Quincy
_Barbara Lindsey_, Southwest Iowans for Talented and Gifted, Council
Bluffs
_Diane Modest_, Framingham Public Schools, Massachusetts
_Jack L. Omond_, Office for the Gifted, Port Elizabeth, South Africa
_Arthur Purcell_, Resource Policy Institute, Washington, D.C.
_Annette Raphel_, Milton Academy, Massachusetts
_Susanne Richert_, Educational Improvement Center, Sewell, New Jersey
_Carl L. Riehm_, Virginia State Department of Education, Richmond
_Terry Ruby_, Raynham Public Schools, Massachusetts
_Barbara Moore Schuch_, San Diego City Schools, California
_Dorothy Sisk_, University of South Florida, Tampa
_Mercedes Smith_, Gifted Association of Missouri, Springfield
_Christopher L. Sny_, Janesville Public Schools, Wisconsin
_Julian C. Stanley_, SMPY, Department of Psychology, Johns Hopkins
University, Baltimore, Maryland
_Jo Thomason_ and _Frederick J. Weintraub_, Council for Exceptional
Children, Reston, Virginia
_Jo Anne Welch_, Mississippi Association for the Talented and Gifted
Related Activities in the Boston Area
Site Visits
Buckingham, Brown and Nichols School, Carnbridge
Peter Gunness, Headmaster
Brookline High School, Brookline
Robert McCarthy, Headmaster
Secretary's Regional Representatives
_________________________________________________________________
_...within any human group, any ethnic or socio-economic sample, there
will be people of high intellectual potential but none of them will
realize their potential unless they are also afforded the opportunity
to do so._
Marcel Kinsbourne
Eunice Kennedy Shriver Center
Waltham, Massachusetts
_________________________________________________________________
The Secretary's Regional Representatives held their own conferences or
hearings for educators in their regions in order to provide additional
testimony to the Commission. In addition to these events, they also
supported the hearings the Commission sponsored in their regions.
Region I, _Wayne Roberts_
Boston, Massachusetts
Forum on Effective Schools, September 16, 1982
Region II, _Lorraine Colville_
New York, New York
Forum on Excellence, October 21, 1982
Region III, _Joseph Ambrosino_
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Hearing/Conference on Cooperative Education, October 11, 1982
Region IV, _Ted B. Freeman_
Atlanta, Georgia
Public Meeting on Excellence in Education, October 22, 1982
Region V, _Harold Wright_
Chicago, Illinois
Excellence in Education: Preparation for the Transition to Higher
Education, October 6, 1982
Region VI, _Scott Tuxhorn_
Dallas, Texas
Public Hearing on Excellence in Education, October 4, 1982
Region VII, _Cynthia A. Harris_
Kansas City, Missouri
Rural and Small Schools Excellence, October 26, 1982
Region VIII, _Tom Tancredo_
Denver, Colorado
Conference on Excellence in Education, November 12-13, 1982
Region IX, _Eugene Gonzales_
San Francisco, California
The Teacher: Key to Excellence in the Classroom, October 18, 1982
Region X, _George Hood_
Seattle, Washington
Public Hearing, June 25, 1982, August 27, 1982
(Hearing Officer: Hyrum M. Smith)
Transcripts of the preceding hearings sponsored by and for the
Commission will be available in the ERIC System (See Ordering
Information).
In addition to these hearings sponsored by and for the Commission,
Commission members participated in a series of site visits and a
public hearing focusing on Excellence in Rural Education. These events
took place on April 23-24, 1982, in Kentucky. The hearing was held at
the University of Kentucky-Somerset Community College.
A Nation
at Risk - April 1983
APPENDIX E: OTHER PRESENTATIONS TO THE COMMISSION
Adrienne Bailey, The College Board, New York, New York
Stephen Bailey, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge,
Massachusetts
Irene Bandy, Ohio Department of Education, Columbus
Elias Blake, Clark College, Atlanta, Georgia
Lewis M. Branscomb, National Science Board, Washington, D.C.
David Burnett, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
Lawrence Cremin, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York,
New York
James V. Gaddy, New Rochelle High School, New York
John Goodlad, University of California, Los Angeles
Elaine Hairston, Ohio Board of Regents, Columbus
John Hurley, INA Corporation (Now CIGNA), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Edward Kelly, State University of New York at Albany
Robert McMillan, University of Rhode Island, Kingston
Edward Pellegrino, Georgetown Medical Center, Washington, D.C.
Francis Roberts, National Endowment for the Humanities, Washington,
D.C.
David S. Seeley, Staten Island, New York
John Sprott, U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C.
Carol Stoel, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C.
Abraham Tannenbaum, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York,
New York
Harold Tragash, Xerox Corporation, Stamford, Connecticut
A Nation
at Risk - April 1983
APPENDIX F: NOTABLE PROGRAMS