Education goals - and tolls

National Review, March 19, 1990

AFTER MUCH pushing and hauling, the governors and the White House have settled on six education goals for the nation. Previewed by President Bush in one of the less stirring segments of his State of the Union message, they were unanimously adopted at the winter meeting of the National Governors' Association. (The chief negotiators were Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton and White House domestic kingpin Roger Porter. Education Secretary Lauro Cavazos, as usual, was about as actively involved as the carpet in Porter's office.)

The goals themselves are laudable, in the sense that if we achieved them our schools--and our kids--would be the envy of the industrial world instead of its laughing-stock. Goal three, for example, says: "By the year 2000, American students will leave grades four, eight, and 12 having demonstrated competency over challenging subject matter, including English, mathematics, science, history, and geography." Not bad. Sure, it begs some tough questions, such as the meaning of "competency" and "challenging," the mode of demonstration, and the sticky issue of who chooses the subject matter. Granted, too, this goal--like the other five-conveniently spans the whole decade, by the end of which neither Bush nor most governors now serving will be in office. But if we're to have education goals, this one is sound.

So are those having to do with drug-free schools, dropouts, and literate adults. There's one about our kids leading the world in science and math, however, that is so wishful nobody will take it seriously, and one about youngsters starting school "ready to learn" that will be interpreted as a mandate to shift ever more responsibility for child-rearing to the state. The fruits of Messrs. Porter and Clinton's labors are not all sweet. Still, our stalled efforts to move the education system are apt to be more successful if we have a clearly defined destination.

Moments after Mr. Bush outlined them, however, the goals were kidnapped and held for ransom by the Democrats and the education establishment. Beginning that night with Speaker of the House Tom Foley, every time an educator or a congressman opened his mouth this message emerged: "We won't take your goals seriously until and unless you put a heap of extra federal dollars on the table."

The implication, of course, is that progress in education is something bought with public money rather than personal effort. And that is false. But what is more contemptible is that the educrats and democators thereby staked out an excuse, ten years ahead of time, for not achieving these (or any other) goals. And in so doing they signaled to everyone that they don't even intend to try. They were telling the governors and President that if you want to cross the education bridge, you must pay a fat toll. It's money they care about, not whether children learn.