Deja Vu

In 1983, a panel of experts wrote the report: A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.  In the report, the panel wrote:

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.

In 2012, a panel of experts wrote the report: U.S. Education Reform and National Security. The report, released on Monday, March 20, made this claim:

Without mastery of core academic subjects, students are not prepared to collaborate, compete, or interact locally or globally. They are not prepared to create the innovations that drive economic growth or to fill critical positions in the Foreign Service, intelligence agencies, and the armed services. Educational failure puts the United States’ future economic prosperity, global position, and physical safety at risk. Leaving large swaths of the population unprepared also threatens to divide Americans and undermine the country’s cohesion, confidence, and ability to serve as a global leader.

For me this is deja vu.  The 2012 panel is making the same claims as the 1983 panel!

Majority View.  The majority view was represented by Craig R. Barrett (Intel), Richard Barth (Kipp Foundation), Gaston Caperton (The College Borad), Frederick Hess (American Enterprise Institute), Joel I. Klein (New Corporation), Wendy Kopp (Teach for America), Condoleezza Rice (Stanford University).   Why would these individuals support the recommendations in the report?  In whose interest?

Dissenting View. There was an opposition or dissenting view that included Carole Artigiani (Global Kids), Linda Darling-Hammond (Stanford University), Jonah M. Edelman (Stand for Children), Ellen V. Futter (American Museum of Natural History), Stephen M. Walt (Harvard Kennedy School), and Randi Weingarten (American Federation of Teachers). Why would these individuals oppose the report’s recommendation?

I find it interesting that the majority view is represented by corporation, and education foundations some of which are for-profit.  When we examine the list of dissenters, we find researchers, and individuals working directly with education outreach, and with children.

2012 Recommendations

The recommendations of the National  security report are listed here:

• Common Core standards should be adopted and expanded to include science, technology and foreign languages.
• Students, especially those in poor schools, should have more choices in where they go to school.
• Governors, working with the federal government, should develop a national security readiness audit, to judge whether schools are meeting targets.