Ask the Scholar

{
    "localId": "54977703",
    "label": "Good News",
    "core": "doc",
    "dtoType": "document",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54977703"
}

{
    "id": "54977703",
    "sourceUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54977703",
    "contentType": "document",
    "title": "Good News",
    "citationUrl": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54977703",
    "collections": [
        "Records of the Domestic Policy Council (Clinton Administration)",
        "Bethany Little's Subject Files"
    ],
    "iiifBase": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2013-0371-S/42-t-7367454-20130371S-009-009-2016.pdf",
    "thumbnailUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2013-0371-S/42-t-7367454-20130371S-009-009-2016.pdf",
    "largeImageUrl": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2013-0371-S/42-t-7367454-20130371S-009-009-2016.pdf",
    "imageCount": 1,
    "hasImages": true,
    "source": "import",
    "hasTranscription": false
}

{
    "url": "https://catalog.archives.gov/id/54977703",
    "naId": 54977703,
    "levelOfDescription": "fileUnit",
    "otherTitles": [
        "42-t-7367454-20130371S-009-009-2016"
    ],
    "recordType": "description",
    "ocrSource": "nara-archive"
}

{
    "seq": 1,
    "pageIndex": 0,
    "type": "document",
    "url": "https://s3.amazonaws.com/NARAprodstorage/lz/presidential-libraries/clinton/systematic/2013-0371-S/42-t-7367454-20130371S-009-009-2016.pdf",
    "mediaId": "54b8ba5684f46d9c",
    "ocrText": "U.S. Department of Education (ED) ident's and Secretary's Priorities\nhttp://www.ed.gov/inits.htm\nTHE\nText only\nEDUCATION\nU.S. Departmentant\nEDUCATION\nLATTO STATES C\nSAMPLE\nSearch Topics A-Z\nFAQs\nDirectories\nPicks of the Month\nContact Us\nPresident's &\nSecretary'\nPriorities\nPresident's & Secretary's Priorities\nFunding\nOpportunities\nMajor New Initiatives for Fiscal Year 2000\nStudent\nFinancial\nAssistance\nResearch &\n1. All students will read independently and well by the end of 3rd grade.\nStatistics\n2. All students will master challenging mathematics, including the foundations of algebra and\nNew &\ngcometry, by the end of 8th grade.\nEvents\n3. By 18 years of age, all students will be prepared for and able to afford college.\nPrograms &\n4. All states and schools will have challenging and clear standards of achievement and\nServices\naccountability for all children, and effective strategies for reaching those standards.\n5. There will be a talented, dedicated and well-prepared teacher in every classroom.\nPublications &\nProducts\n6. Every classroom will be connected to the Internet by the year 2000 and all students will be\ntechnologically literate.\nED Offices &\n7. Every school will be strong, safe, drug-free and disciplined.\nBudget\nYear 2000\n(Computers)\nED Job\nSecretary Riley and senior Department officials developed seven priorities (see\nOpenings\nWorking Document and the Strategic Plan) for the Department, based on the \"Call to\nAction\" issued by the President in his State of the Union Address (February 4, 1997).\nOther\nSites\nThese seven priorities are as follows\nAll students will read independently and well by the end of 3rd grade.\nAmerica Reads Challenge\nReading Excellence Program\nThe Reading Summit\nClass Size Reduction and Teacher Quality Initiative\nAmerica Goes Back to School: Get Involved!\nVoluntary National Tests\nFamily Involvement\nAll students will master challenging mathematics, including the foundations of\nalgebra and geometry, by the end of 8th grade.\nVisit the America Counts website, where you will find information such\nas speeches, fact sheets, publications, reports and the Third International\nMath and Science Study (TIMSS).\nBy 18 years of age, all students will be prepared for and able to afford college.\nAmerica's HOPE Scholarship\nDirect Loan Program\nDepartment of Education's Office of Postsecondary Education\nProject EASI\nThink College-- Learn for a Lifetime\nAll states and schools will have challenging and clear standards of achievement\n1 of 2\n1/25/2000 4:01 PM\nU.S. Department of Education (ED) ident's and Secretary's Priorities\nhttp://www.cd.gov/inits.html\nand accountability for all children, and effective strategies for reaching those\nstandards.\nVoluntary National Tests\nGoals 2000\nSchool-to-Work\nImproving America's Schools Act of 1994 -- Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Act\nComprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program\nThere will be a talented, dedicated and well-prepared teacher in every\nclassroom.\nThe Teacher Quality Website offers information for policymakers and\neducators on a range of issues -- recruiting and preparing teachers,\nproviding professional development opportunities, and raising teaching\nstandards. It includes classroom resources, research, and information for\nindividuals interested in becoming a teacher.\nEvery classroom will be connected to the Internet by the year 2000 and all\nstudents will be technologically literate.\nU.S. Department of Education Technology Initiatives\nThe Mid-continent Regional Educational Laboratory (McREL)\nNorth Central Regional Educational Laboratory\nRegional Technology in Education Consortia (R*TEC)\nEvery school will be strong, safe, drug-free and disciplined.\nSchool Construction and Design\nSafe & Drug Free Schools Program\nUS Charter Schools\nFlexibility and Waivers\nImproving America's Schools Act of 1994 -- Elementary and Secondary\nEducation Act\nThe Partnership for Family Involvement in Education supports the seven priorities\nthrough family and community involvement in children's learning. As members of\nthe Partnership, thousands of family-school partners, employers, community\norganizations, and religious groups work together to help all children learn to high\nacademic standards.\nEDHOME\nThis page last modified -- January 6, 2000 (mhm)\n2 of 2\n1/25/2000 4:01 PM\nFY2000 Major New Education Initiatives\nhttp://www.ed.gov/ints/FY2000/index.html\nOF\nEDUCATION\nFY2000 Major Initiatives and\nFunding Opportunities\nUNTED\nMERCA\nSummary of Department's 2000 Initiatives and Funding Opportunities\nClass Size Reduction\nSpecial Education Grants to States Program\n21st Century Community Learning Centers\nReading Excellence\nSafe and Drug Free Schools -- Middle School Coordinators\nComprehensive School Reform Demonstration\nCharter Schools\nAdvanced Placement Initiative\nTeacher Quality Enhancement Grants\nPreparing Tomorrow's Teachers to Use Technology\nBilingual Professional Development\nGEAR UP\nLearning Anytime, Anywhere Partnerships\nNew American High Schools\n2000 New Initiatives and Funding Opportunities\nSmall Schools\nElementary School Counseling and Demonstration Program\nSafe and Drug Free Schools -- Alternative Strategies\nAdult Education/English Literacy Civics Education Grants\nClass Size Reduction\nHelps school districts hire 100,000\n$1.2 billion in FY1999, $1.3 billion in FY2000\nteachers over 7 years to reduce class\n(a $100 million increase)\nsizes in grades 1-3 to a nationwide\naverage of 18.\nSpecial Education Grants to States\nA formula grant program to assist the\nProgram\n50 States and territories in meeting\n4.31 billion in FY1999, $4.99 billion in\nthe excess costs of providing special\nFY2000\neducation and related services to our\n(a $679 million increase)\nnation's 6.25 million children with\ndisabilities.\n21st Century Community Learning\nFunds school-community\nCenters\npartnerships to keep schools open\n$200 million in FY1999, $453.7 million in\nafter-school and summers as safe\nFY2000\nhavens for enhanced learning.\n(a $253.7 million increase)\nReading Excellence\nHelps children learn to read well and\n$260 million in FY1999, $260 million in\nindependently by the end of the third\nFY2000\ngrade through reading instruction\n(no increase)\nbased on scientifically based reading\nresearch, professional development,\nfamily literacy, and extended learning\nactivities.\nSafe and Drug Free\nEnables Middle Schools to hire\nSchools-Middle School\nalcohol, drug and violence prevention\nCoordinators\ncoordinators.\nI of 4\n1/25/2000 4:01 PM\nFY2000 Major New Education Initiatives\nhttp://www.ed.gov/inits/FY2000/index.html\n$35 million in FY1999, $50 million in FY2000\n(a $15 million increase)\nComprehensive School Reform\nHelps raise student achievement by\nDemonstration\nassisting public schools across the\n$145 million in FY1999, $220 million in\ncountry to implement effective,\nFY2000\ncomprehensive school reforms that\n(a $75 million increase)\nare based on reliable research and\neffective practices, and include an\nemphasis on basic academics and\nparental involvement.\nPublic Charter Schools\nHelps charter schools meet start-up\n$100 million in FY1999, $145 million in\ncosts associated with creating their\nFY2000\nnew public schools, such as\n(a $45 million increase)\ndeveloping curriculum, purchasing\nequipment, or providing professional\ndevelopment for teachers.\nAdvanced Placement Incentive\nEnables States to reimburse part or\nProgram\nall of the cost of test fees for eligible\n$4 million in FY1999, $15 million in FY2000\nlow-income individuals.\n(an $11 million increase)\nTeacher Quality Enhancement\nFunds State, Partnership, and\nGrants\nTeacher Recruitment projects that\n$75 million in FY1999, $98 million in FY2000\nsupport systemic change in state\n(a $23 million increase)\nteacher licensure policies and\npractices; projects to promote\ncomprehensive and lasting change to\nteacher preparation programs; and\nthe recruitment and preparation of\nexcellent teachers for America's\nclassrooms.\nPreparing Tomorrow's Teachers to\nA national teacher preparation reform\nUse Technology (PT3)\ninitiative to ensure that all future\n$75 million in FY1999, $75 million in FY2000\nteachers are technology-proficient\n(no increase)\neducators who are well prepared to\nteach 21st Century students.\nBilingual Professional\nThree competitive grant programs to\nDevelopment\nmeet the need for fully certified\n$50 million in FY1999, $75 million in FY2000\nbilingual and ESL teachers and other\n(a $25 million increase)\neducational personnel, and to insure\nwell-prepared personnel to provide\nservices to limited English proficient\nstudents.\nGEAR UP\nA long-range early college\n$120 million in FY1999, $200 million in\npreparation and awareness program\nFY2000\nthat gives low-income students and\n(an $80 million increase)\ntheir families pathways to college by\npartnering middle and high schools\nwith colleges and community\n2 of 4\n1/25/2000 4:01 PM\nFY2000 Major New Education Initiatives\nhttp://www.ed.gov/inits/FY2000/index.htm\norganizations or through\nState-administered programs.\nLearning Anytime Anywhere\nSupports postsecondary partnerships\nPartnerships\namong colleges, businesses, and\n$10 million in FY1999, $15 million in FY2000\nother organizations to promote\n(a $5 million increase)\ntechnology-mediated distance\neducation that is not limited by time or\nplace.\nNew American High Schools\nShowcases and supports outstanding\n(NAHS)\nhigh schools that have committed to\n$4.05 million in FY1999, $4 million in\nextensive reform efforts, raised\nFY2000\nacademic standards for all students,\n(no increase)\nand achieved excellent results.\nNew Initiatives\nSmall Schools Initiative\nHelps LEAs plan, develop and\n$45 million in FY2000\nimplement smaller learning\ncommunities (goal of not more than\n600 students in a learning\ncommunity) for students in large high\nschools (defined as 1,000 students or\nmore) to create a more personalized\nhigh school experience for students\nand improve student achievement.\nElementary School Counseling and\nProvides grants to establish or\nDemonstration\nexpand counseling programs in\n$20 million in FY2000\nelementary schools.\nSafe and Drug Free\nHelps school districts identify\nSchools-Alternative Strategies\neffective procedures, policies, and\n$10 million in FY2000\nprograms that serve to discipline\nstudents without suspending or\nexpelling them.\nAdult Education/English Literacy\nHelps states and communities\nCivics Education Grants\nprovide limited English proficient\n$7 million in FY2000\n(LEP) adults with expanded access to\nhigh quality English literacy (EL)\nprograms linked to civics and life\nskills instruction, including\nunderstanding and navigating the\nU.S. government system, the public\neducation system, the workplace, and\nother key institutions in American life.\n-###-\n3 of 4\n1/25/2000 4:01 PM\nTHE WHITE HOUSE\nOffice of the Vice President\nFor Immediate Release\nContact:\nWednesday, January 12, 2000\n(202) 456-7035\nVICE PRESIDENT GORE ANNOUNCES NEW INVESTMENT TO CREATE\nSMALLER, SAFER AND MORE SUCCESSFUL HIGH SCHOOLS\nWashington, D.C. - Vice President Gore today unveiled a $120 million initiative to\ncreate smaller, safer and better high schools. The Administration's Small, Safe and Successful\nHigh Schools initiative -- which will be included in the Administration's budget for Fiscal Year\n2001 -- exemplifies the Vice President's commitment to reforming the American high school,\nand ensuring a world-class education for all of America's students.\n\"The idea is simple: small schools give kids a big boost,\" said Vice President Gore.\n\"Smaller schools mean more personal attention to the varied needs of all our children, helping\nboth those who are struggling and those who are excelling to achieve their full potential.\"\nThe program would offer competitive grants to local school districts to create smaller\nschools or break up larger schools by funding innovative strategies such as autonomous schools-\nwithin-schools, career academics, restructured school days, and other innovations that allow\nschools to ensure that every student receives personal attention and academic support. Funds to\ncreate smaller schools could be used for planning and implementation costs, including costs to\nreorganize schools, train teachers, renovate facilities, and provide extended learning time and\nsupport services for students.\nIn addition to creating smaller, better high schools, the grants would help schools create a\nclear focus on student success: innovative, engaging and challenging curriculum integrated\naround a coherent focus; teachers working together to meet the needs of their students; strong\nleadership; the involvement of families and community; and technology to enhance achievement.\nResearch confirms what parents intuitively believe: that smaller schools are safer and\nmore productive because students feel less alienated, more nurtured and more connected to\ncaring adults, and teachers feel that they have more opportunity to get to know and support their\nstudents. Smaller schools also have better attendance records, lower dropout rates and fewer\ndiscipline problems. Research also shows that small schools can offer a strong core curriculum\nand, in most cases, a level of academically advanced courses comparable to large schools.\nRecent incidents of school violence, like the tragedy in Littleton, Colorado, are causing\nserious alarm among parents and students who are unsure what has caused such tremendous\nalienation and aggression in some of our teenagers. In addition to the need for more parental\ninvolvement and stricter discipline policies, many educators are pointing to a systemic problem -\n- the model of the American high school.\nIn response to these concerns, Representative David Obey (D-WI) included $45 million\nin the Fiscal Year 2000 budget to create smaller high schools. The new Administration initiative\nannounced today will build on Rep. Obey's down-payment and will help our children make the\nmost of their education.\n\"Tragic incidents of school violence make it clear that many of our teenagers need more\nattention than larger high schools can give them,\" added the Vice President. \"We must help\nworking families struggling to give their children attention and direction, by ensuring that our\npublic high schools offer connections to caring adults as well as high academic standards.\"\nSince the end of World War II, the number of schools nationwide has declined seventy\npercent, while average enrollment has grown 500 percent, or fivefold. There are more than\n12,400 three and four year high schools in the United States. More than seventy percent of\nstudents in these schools attend a school with more than 1,000 students, and enrollments of 2,000\nand 3,000 are common.\n\"As our economy changes, so must our schools. It's time for the large, factory-like high\nschools of the 20th century to make way for the smaller, more flexible and innovative institutions\nthat will mark the 21st century,\" Gore said.\nPRESIDENT CLINTON'S COMMITMENT TO INVEST\nIN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND MODERNIZATION\nJanuary 5, 2000\n\"Today too many of our schools are so old they 're falling apart, or so over-crowded students are learning\nin trailers. Last fall, Congress missed the opportunity to change that. This year, with 53 million children\nin our schools, Congress must not miss that opportunity again.\" \"\n-- President Clinton, State of the Union Address, 1999\nPRESIDENT CLINTON'S FY2001 BUDGET DEMONSTATES A STRONG COMMITMENT TO\nINVESTING IN SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AND MODERNIZATION. THE FY2001\nBUDGET:\nRENEWS THE PRESIDENT'S STRONG COMMITMENT TO HIS SCHOOL\nMODERNIZATION TAX CREDIT BOND PROPOSAL\nThe President's School Modernization Bond proposal provides $24.8 billion in tax credit bonds over\ntwo years to modernize up to 6,000 schools. This proposal has an estimated cost of $3.7 billion over\nfive years, and is fully paid for in his budget. Within this program, $2.4 billion is reserved for\nQualified Zone Academy Bonds.\nINCLUDES A NEW $1.3 BILLION SCHOOL URGENT/EMERGENCY RENOVATION\nLOAN AND GRANT PROPOSAL\nThis $1.3 billion program could support nearly $7 billion of (approximately 8,300) renovation projects\nin high-poverty, high-need school districts with little or no capacity to fund urgent repairs over the\nnext 5 years. Both loans and grants would be made available, with the smaller grant program directed\ntoward the neediest districts.\nNATIONALLY, THERE IS AN URGENT NEED FOR SCHOOL MODERNIZATION\nOne-Third of All Schools Need Extensive Repairs. One third of all public schools - about 25,000\nschools - need extensive repair or replacement. School Facilities: The Condition of America's Schools, GAO Report\nNumber HEHS-95-61, 1995-6.\nAverage School is 42 Years Old. The average public school in America is 42 years old, and school\nbuildings begin rapid deterioration after 40 years. How Old are America's Schools, NCES, 1999.\n$112 Billion Needed Just for Repairs. $112 billion is needed just to repair the existing schools\nacross the nation. School Facilities: The Condition of America Schools, GAO Report Number HEHS-95-61, 1995-6.\nSchool Enrollment Higher than Ever. A record 52.7 million children are enrolled in elementary and\nsecondary school today, and this number will climb to 54.3 million by 2008. 2,400 new public schools\n1\nwill be needed by 2003 to accommodate rising enrollments. The Baby Boom Echo: No End in Sight, Department of\nEducation, 1999.\nSCHOOL MODERNIZATION TAX CREDIT BOND PROPOSAL\nThis new type of bond - a tax credit bond - would provide interest-free financing to help state and\nlocal governments pay for school construction and renovation to help address issues of aging facilities\nand overcrowding.\nInstead of paying the interest and principal on school construction bonds, the issuer would only be\nresponsible for repaying the principal. The federal government would provide tax credits to the\nbondholders in lieu of interest payments.\nThe Administration's proposal would support nearly $25 billion in bonds over the next two years to\nhelp states and districts build and modernize up to 6,000 public schools.\nPresident Clinton's proposal has an estimated cost of $3.7 billion over five years, and is fully paid for\nin his budget.\nSCHOOL RENOVATION LOAN AND GRANT PROGRAM\nThe School Renovation program would provide interest free federal loans and grants to needy school\ndistricts to fund urgent renovations - approximately 8,300 renovation projects would receive funding\nover 5 years.\nThe loan program would be targeted to those districts unable to finance the interest cost associated\nwith facilities renovation.\nThe smaller direct grant program would provide direct funding to the needy school districts unable to\nfinance the capital expenditures associated with school renovation.\nRenovations funded through loans and grants could include repairs to roofs, climate control systems,\nor plumbing. Loans and grants could also fund school modernization to improve technology\ncapability, if no other source of funds is available.\n2\nU.S. Department of Education (ED) -- Funding\nhttp://www.ed.gov/funding.html\nTHE\nOF\nText only\nU.S. Department\nEDUCATION\nDEPARTMENT\nAREA\nSearch\nTopics A-Z\nFAQs\nDirectories\nPicks of the Month\nContact Us\nPresident's &\nSecretary's\nPriorities\nFunding Opportunities\nFunding\nOpportunities\nIf you're interested in applying for a grant or contract, here's information you'll need to\nStudent\nknow.\nFinancial\nAssistance\nResearch &\nDiscretionary Grant Application Packages -- lists grant competitions that are\nStatistics\ncurrently open and provides links to downloadable application packages, forms,\nand other information you'll need to apply.\nNews &\nEvents\nFederal Register documents -- includes notices inviting applications for grant\nPrograms\n&\ncompetitions, as well as funding priorities, selection criteria, regulations, and\nServices\nrelevant workshops and meetings.\nPublications &\nProducts\nFY 2000 Forecast of Funding Opportunities under ED Discretionary Grant\nED Offices &\nPrograms -- lists the dates, estimated number of awards, and funding amounts\nBudget\nfor virtually all the Department's direct grant and fellowship competitions for\nnew awards.\nYear'2000\n(Computers)\nWhat Should I Know About ED Grants -- offers a non-technical summary of\nED Job\nED's discretionary grants process (application, review, award, administration,\nOpenings\ngrant closeout, and audit) and the laws and regulations that govern the process.\nOther\nSites\nGuide to ED Programs -- provides a concise description of each of about 175\nprograms that ED administers, identifies who may apply, and gives the name\nand telephone number of the ED office to contact for more information.\nED General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) -- defines the administrative\nrequirements for managing projects funded by discretionary grants awarded by\nED.\nGrants and Contracts Information -- provides additional information including\ncurrently available contract solicitations, a forecast of upcoming contract\nopportunities, grants policy bulletins, and databases of contract and grant\nawards.\nED Budget -- provides an overview of the Federal role in education, an\nexplanation of the Federal budget process, news about ED's budget, and\nprogram-by-program details of the President's budget request.\nSome ED offices and programs maintain pages that may provide additional\ninformation of interest:\nBilingual Education and Minority Languages (OBEMLA) Funding\nOpportunities\nComprehensive School Reform Demonstration Program\nMigrant Education Grant Information\nRehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) Program Application Kits\nResources for Postsecondary Institutions\nSafe & Drug-Free Schools Program\nSpecial Education Programs\n1 of 2\n1/25/2000 4:12 PM\nNew Web Site Aims to Help Teachers Find Learning Resources\nhttp://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/12-1999/newweb.html\nFOR RELEASE\nDecember 9, 1999\nContact:\nJim Bradshaw\n(202) 401-2310\nNEW WEB SITE AIMS TO HELP TEACHERS FIND LEARNING RESOURCES\nwww.thegateway.org\nA new tool is now available to help teachers pinpoint -- from thousands of learning resources on the\nInternet -- the one that is right for their students, U.S. Secretary of Education Richard W. Riley\nannounced today. The Gateway to Educational Materials (GEM) at www.thegateway.org is designed for\nteachers to type a topic, grade level, and other information into a search screen that then retrieves -- from\nmore than 140 web sites lessons, instructional units, and other free educational materials on that topic,\nfor that grade level.\n\"The web,\" Riley said, \"puts many thousands of learning resources within reach of anyone with Internet\naccess. It's no surprise that one of the most popular uses of this new medium, among teachers, is\nsearching for resources that can help students learn. But finding the right resource on a particular topic\nfor your students can take time. And time is in short supply for our teachers. That's one reason GEM is\nso important.\"\nGEM lets teachers, as well as parents and students, search instructional materials of more than 140\nfederal, state, university, non-profit, and commercial organizations. These materials may also be\nbrowsed by subject area or key word. Currently, more than 7,000 items are included in GEM with\nhundreds of new resources being added and new consortium members joining each month.\n\"GEM is more than a web site,\" said Linda Roberts, special advisor to the secretary for technology. \"It is\na solution that was developed by a consortium of organizations that got together and said, 'Let's find a\nway to make it easier for teachers to find lesson ideas across all our web sites with one simple search'.\"\nRoberts noted that GEM is one of the Education Department's responses to President Clinton's April 19,\n1997, call for federal agencies to improve and expand access to teaching and learning resources on the\nInternet. The department and more than 40 other federal organizations also responded by creating a web\nsite that makes teaching and learning resources from across the federal government available in one\nplace: the Federal Resources for Educational Excellence (FREE) web site at www.ed.gov/free/. While\nteaching and learning resources are the aim of both GEM and FREE, FREE focuses only on those\ncreated with federal support. GEM includes mostly materials not created with federal support. Also, the\nsearch tools differ.\n\"FREE relies on an off-the-shelf tool that searches the full text of each resource,\" explained Keith Stubbs\nof the National Library of Education, who oversees the department's support for GEM. \"GEM works like\nthe card catalog system in a library. GEM looks through the card catalog, or what are technically called\nmetadata records,' for resources that match what the teacher requests. The teacher can then read the card\ncatalog descriptions of those resources, or go directly to the resources, which reside on the server of the\norganizations that created or own them. A GEM search retrieves fewer resources than most search tools,\nand with more precision. Also, in the future, teachers will be able to search and find resources by state\nacademic standards.\"\nBoth GEM and FREE respond to the president's technology goal of improving content and online\nlearning resources. The president's technology goals also include Internet access for all students and\nteachers, connections to the Internet for all schools and classrooms, and training and support for all\nteachers, so that all teachers can integrate technology into instruction.\nThe GEM Consortium is spearheaded by the ERIC Clearinghouse on Information and Technology with\nI of 2\n1/25/2000 4:10 PM\nNew Web Site Arms to Help Teachers Find Learning Resources\nhttp://www.ed.gov/PressReleases/12-1999/newweb.hml\nsupport from the National Library of Education in the U.S. Department of Education. The ERIC\nClearinghouse, located at Syracuse University's School of Information Studies, also developed the\nsoftware and architecture for GEM.\n###\nNOTE TO EDITORS: A list of organizations that are GEM Consortium Members may be found at\nwww.geminfo.org/Consortium/members.html\nED\nHOME\n2 of 2\n1/25/2000 4:10 PM\nADMINISTRATION INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONTACTS\nAGENCY\nNAME\nTITLE\nPHONE\nFAX\nE-MAIL\nAgriculture,\nMaria Hernandez\nDirector of Intergovernmental Affairs\n202/720-6643\n202/720-8819\[email protected]\nCommerce\nEdward Prewitt\nDeputy Assistant Secretary for\n202/482-1389\n202/482-6072\[email protected]\nIGA\nCorporation for\nJohn Vezina\nIntergovernmental Affairs\n202/606-5000\n202/565-2784\[email protected]\nNational Service\nDefense:\nLinda Leeman\nSpecial Assistant, Office of Legislative\n703/695-1436\n703/697-8299\[email protected]\nAffairs\nEducation\nCheryl Parker Rose\nDirector of IG and Interagency Affairs\n202/401-3728\n202/260-7465\[email protected]\nEnergy\nLinda Lingle\nPrincipal Deputy & Asst. Secretary for\n202/586-5450\n202/586-4891\[email protected]\nCongressional & IGA\nEnvironmental\nDiane E. Thompson\nAssociate Administrator for\n202/260-5200\n202/260-4046\[email protected]\nProtection Agency\nCongressional & IG Relations\nRichard Dickerson\nDirector, Mayor's Desk\n202/564-3704\n202/501-1544\[email protected]\nFEMA\nMartha S. Braddock\nDirector of Intergovernmental Affairs\n202/646-4515\n202/646-4039\[email protected]\nGeneral/Services:\nRachel Hirschberg\nCongressional Liaison for\n202/501-0563\n202/219-5742\[email protected]\nAdministration\nCongressional and IGA\nHealth and Human\nAndy Hyman\nDirector, Office of\n202/690-6060\n202/205-2727\[email protected]\nServices\nIntergovernmental Affairs\nHousing and Urban\nNancy Kirshner-Rodriguez\nDeputy Assistant Secretary for\n202/708-0030\n202/708-9981\[email protected]\nDevelopment\nIntergovernmental Relations\nOffice of the Secretary\nInterior\nGrace Garcia\nDirector of Intergovernmental Affairs\n202/208-5336\n202/208-1821\[email protected]\nJustice\nBrian de Vallance\nDirector Office of\n202/514-3465\n202/514-2504\[email protected]\nIntergovernmental Affairs\nLabor\nMona Mohib\nDirector of Intergovemmental Affairs\n202/693-4600\n202/693-4642\[email protected]\nNASA\nTed Nakata\nSenior Advisor for IGA, Office of\n202/358-0724\n202/358-4336\[email protected]\nPolicy and Plans\nOffice of Nat'l. Drug\nAlejandra Castillo\nDirector, Executive Assistant to the\n202/395-7286\n202/395-5653\[email protected]\nControl Policy\nDeputy Director\nOPM\nElizabeth Harrington\nSpecial Assistant to the Director\n202/606-1000\n202/606-4489\[email protected]\nOverseas Private\nVACANT\nIntergovernmental Affairs\n202/336-8649\n202/218-0201\nInvestment Corp.\nRepresentative\nSmall Business\nLance Simmens\nDirector, Office of Intergovernmental\n202/205-7279\n202/205-6802\[email protected]\nAdministration\nAffairs\n01/26/00\nSocial Security\nJuan Lopez\nWH Liaison and Special\n202/358-6093\n202/358-6076\[email protected]\nAdministration\nAssistant\nState\nHerb Tyson\nDirector Intergovernmental Affairs\n202/647-5024\n202/647-3340\[email protected]\nTransportation\nEvelyn Fierro\nDirector of Intergovernmental Affairs\n202/366-1304\n202/366-7907\[email protected]\nHarold Gist\nAssociate Director\n202/366-1524\n202/366-7907\[email protected]\nTreasury 77\nLisa Andrews\nDeputy Asst. Secretary for\n202/622-9760\n202/622-3638\[email protected]\nPublic Liaison\nUS Trade Rep.\nChristina Sevilla\nDirector of\n202/395-6120\n202/395-3692\[email protected]\nIntergovernmental Affairs\nEmory Mayfield\nSpecial Assistant to the COS\n202/395-9480\n202/395-4549\[email protected]\nVeterans Affairs\nMaria Fernandez-Greczmiel\nDeputy Assistant Secretary for\n202/273-5760\n202/273-5716\[email protected]\nInternational Affairs\nTHE WHITE HOUSE INTERGOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS STAFF\nDEPARTMENT\nNAME\nTITLE\nPHONE\nFAX\nE-MAIL\nWH IGA Staff\nMickey Ibarra\nAssistant to the President and\n202/456-7060\n202/456-6220\[email protected]\nDirector of IGA\nWH IGA Staff\nRaymond Martinez\nDeputy Director to the President\n202/456-2896\n202/456-2889\[email protected]\nand Deputy Director of IGA\nWH IGA Staff\nMatthew Bennett\nSpecial Assistant to the\n202/456-2896\n202/456-2889\[email protected]\nPresident for IGA\nWHIGA Staff\nMaria Soto\nAssociate Director to the\n202/456-2896\n202/456-2889\[email protected]\nDirector of IGA\nWH-IGA/Staff\nRachel Redington\nAssociate Director to the\n202/456-2896\n202/456-2889\[email protected]\nDirector of IGA\nWHIGA Staff\nTodd Bledsoe\nSpecial Assistant to the\n202/456-2896\n202/456-2889\[email protected]\nDeputy Director of IGA\nWHIGA Staff\nSeth Applebaum\nSpecial Assistant to the\n202/456-7062\n202/456-6220\[email protected]\nDirector of IGA\nWH IGA Staff\nAdrienne Elrod\nSpecial Assistant to the\n202/456-7060\n202/456-6220\[email protected]\nDirector of IGA\nWHIGA Staff\nJacqueline Lain\nWhite House Fellow\n202/456-2896\n202/456-2889\[email protected]\n01/26/00\nDo You Know\nTHE\nGOOD NEWS\nABOUT\nAMERICAN\nEDUCATION?\nCENTER ON EDUCATION POLICY\nand\nAMERICAN YOUTH POLICY FORUM\nCenter on Education Policy\nThe Center on Education Policy is the national independent advocate for\npublic education and for more effective public schools. The Center works to help\nAmericans better understand the role of public education in a democracy and\nthe need to improve the academic quality of public schools. We do not represent\nany special interests. Instead, we help citizens make sense of the conflicting\nopinions and perceptions about public education and create conditions that will\nlead to better public schools.\nWorking at the national, state and local levels, the Center achieves its\nmission by producing publications. writing articles, convening meetings, making\npresentations and, upon request. providing expert advice. The Center also\nworks jointly with many other education, business, state and civic organizations.\nBased in Washington, D.C., and founded in January 1995, the Center\nreceives nearly all of its funding from charitable foundations. To learn more\nabout our work, please visit our web site: www.etredpol.org.\nAmerican Youth Policy Forum\nThe American Youth Policy Forum is a nonpartisan professional development\norganization providing learning opportunities for policymakers and practitioners\nworking on youth issues at the local. state and national levels. AYPF's goal is to\nprovide participants with information, insights and networks on issues related to\nthe development of healthy and successful young people. productive workers and\nparticipating citizens in a democratic society. including: schooling, transition to\ncareers and career development. training and preparation for employment,\npostsecondary education, national and community service and related forms of\nyouth development.\nSince 1993. AYPF has conducted an average of 40 events each year for over\n2.000 participants. including lunchtime meetings and out-of-town field trips and\nforeign study missions with a thematic focus. Forum participants include\nCongressional staff. officials of various federal agencies, state and local govern-\nment officials. policymakers from national non-profit and advocacy associations\nand members of the media who report on youth issues. AYPF also publishes, for\nthe benefit of policymakers, practitioners and scholars. a wide variety of\ninexpensive and brief policy reports and background materials on youth issues.\nThese may be consulted on our web site: www.aypf.org.\nCredits\nThis publication was researched and written by Nancy Kober. a freelance\nwriter and consultant to the Center on Education Policy. and Diane Stark Rentner.\nthe Center's associate director. They received assistance and advice from Jack\nJennings, the Center's director. and from Samuel Halperin. Betsy Brand.\nGlenda Partee and Donna Walker James of the American Youth Policy Forum.\nCutting Edge Graphics of Washington. D.C., designed the publication.\nThe Center on Education Policy and the American Youth Policy Forum thank\nour respective funders who support this report and the other activities of our two\norganizations.\n2 D₀ You Know the Good Now about American Education?\nDo You Know\nTHE\nGOOD NEWS\nABOUT\nAMERICAN\nEDUCATION?\nIntroduction\n5\nData-Used in This Report\n6\nSchool Participation and Curriculum\nFewer students are dropping out of school\n7\nHigh school students are taking more challenging courses\n8\nMore girls are taking high-level mathematics and science courses\n9\nHigh school students are taking tougher mathematics and science courses\n10\nMore students with disabilities are being educated in regular classrooms\n12\nThe Work Ahead: School Participation and Curriculum\n13\nStudent Achievement\nStudent mathematics achievement is improving\n14\nStudent science achievement is improving\n16\nSAT scores increased during the 1990s\n18\nACT test scores are up\n19\nStudents are taking more AP exams\n20\nThe Work Ahead: Student Achievement\n21\nEducational Climate\nU.S. students receive more instructional time than European students\n22\nSchool crime is declining\n24\nThe Work Ahead: Educational Climate\n25\nTeachers\nPublic school teachers are well-educated\n26\nPublic school teachers are better educated than private school teachers\n27\nTeachers have literacy levels comparable to other college graduates\n28\nThe Work thead: Teachers\n29\nHigher Education\nMore students are going on to higher education\n30\nMore young adults are completing 4-vear college degrees\n31\nMore women are earning graduate and professional degrees\n32\nThe Work Ahead: Higher Education\n33\nConclusion\n34\nINTRODUCTION\nMany people believe American public schools are failing. Such views are not\nsurprising, since critics of public education emphasize only what's wrong with\npublic schools, and negative stories about education appear frequently in the\nmedia. Seldom do people hear the good news about public education.\nThere's no question that our public schools must become better. But the\npublic also needs to recognize that there have been major improvements in\npublic education since the early 1980s. when the nation started focusing seri-\nously on school reform.\nThe Center on Education Policy and the American Youth Policy Forum\npublish this report because informed citizens need to be aware of these positive\ntrends. This booklet highlights important improvements in public education over\nthe past 15-20 years, along with other positive data about the state of public\neducation. This report updates and expands on the monthly one-page briefs\nissued by the Center on Education Policy in 1998 and 1999. The only findings\nincluded are those supported by objective national data banks, such as the\nNational Center for Education Statistics. By laying out the facts in a succinct,\nstraightforward way, we hope to dispel some widely-held misconceptions about\npublic schools and give citizens solid evidence to inform their opinions, policy\ndecisions and future actions.\nWe present indicators that we believe are meaningful and interesting to\nparents and the general public. If an aspect of education is not discussed in this\nreport, that does not mean it is negative. Many positive trends were not included\nfor lack of space. Other areas. such as reading achievement, have not been\nincluded because the trends are mixed or vary by age groups.\nEmphasizing the positive. we do not ignore the problems facing public\nschools. Public schools must be improved. and many more students need to\nbenefit from the general progress already made. For that reason. we include a\nbrief discussion of The Work Ahead at the end of each group of indicators.\nThese sections discuss some of the various actions that states, school districts\nand citizens can take to build on the progress already made-for example, by\npaying special attention to groups of students who are not doing as well, or by\ncliminating obstacles that stand in the way of greater progress.\nDr You Know the Good New about American Education? 5\nBy featuring objectively good news in this brief report, we hope to restore\npublic confidence that school reform can make a difference and to encourage\neveryone to keep working to make public schools better for all students.\nDATA USED IN THIS REPORT\nThis report includes a variety of statistics showing positive trends in education.\nThese statistics are grouped into five broad categories:\nSchool Participation and Curriculum. Trends in school dropout rates,\nstudent course-taking patterns, and participation of students with disabilities.\nStudent Achievement. Trends in student performance on the National\nAssessment of Educational Progress, various college entrance exams and other\nnationwide measures.\nEducational Climate. Data on school safety and crime and other\nenvironmental factors that affect student learning.\nTeachers. Statistics on the qualifications and experience of K-12 teachers.\nHigher Education. Trends in postsecondary enrollment and completion of\ndegrees.\nThe higher education data and a few of the K-12 indicators include data for students\nin both public and private institutions. Since 89% of K-12 students and 76% of\npostsecondary students attend public institutions, these indicators still reflect\nimprovements in public education.\nTo the extent possible. we have compared baseline data from the early 1980s with\nthe most recent year available. The specific years vary depending on which data are\navailable for a particular indicator. In some cases, we also include data earlier than\nthe 1980s to show longer-term trends. For several indicators, reliable data on\ntrends over time are not available, but we include current data showing positive\naspects of public education.\nWe chose the early 1980s as our primary baseline because that's when school\nreform became a major national issue. Since then, educational improvement has\nremained a high priority at the local, state and national levels, although the specific\nstrategies have changed as the school reform movement has matured. Most\nrecently, nearly all states have adopted standards to define what students should\nknow and be able to do by the time they finish high school, along with new state\ntests to measure student progress. Most of these standards-based reforms are too\nnew to have influenced the trends discussed in this report, but their effects on\nstudent learning should soon begin to appear.\n0 De You Knew the Names about American Education?\nDo You Know?\nFEWER STUDENTS ARE\nDROPPING OUT OF SCHOOL\nSchool Participation\nand Curriculum\nTHE FACTS\nTwo-thirds of citizens surveyed mistakenly believe that high school dropout\nrates are going up and are higher than they were 25 years ago (1997 Phi Delta\nKappa-Gallup Poll). In fact, dropout rates are lower today than they were in the\n1970s and 1980s. Especially noteworthy is the sharp decline in the dropout rate\nof black youth.\nPercentage of 16- to 24-Year-Olds Who Were Not\n1972\nEnrolled in School and Had Not Completed\nHigh School or a GED\n1983\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1972, 1983, and 1997\n1997\n40%\n35%\n34%\n32%\n30%\n25%\n25%\n21%\n20%\n18%\n15%\n15%\n14%\n13%\n12%\n11%\n11%\n10%\n8%\n5%\n0%\nTotal\nWhite\nBlack\nHispanic\nNote: This chart shows the \"status dropout rate,\" the percentage of the U.S. population ages 16-24 who\nwere not enrolled in school, had not completed high school, and did not possess a general education\ndevelopment (GED) certificate.\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics\n1998. Table 105.\nDe You Know the Gred Names about American Education? 7\nSchool Participation\nand Curriculum\nDo You Know?\nHIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE TAKING\nMORE CHALLENGING COURSES\nTHE FACTS\nThe education reforms of the 1980s focused on raising the coursework\nrequirements for high school students. As a result, more students today are\ntaking tougher courses than their predecessors did in the early 1980s. The\npercentage of students completing a core academic curriculum that includes\n4 years of English and 3 years each of social studies, science and mathematics\nmore than tripled between 1982 and 1994, with large increases across all racial\nand ethnic groups.\nPercentage of High School Graduates\n1982\nCompleting a Core Curriculum\n1990\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982, 1990 and 1994\n1994\n60%\n56%\n53%\n50%\n49%\n50%\n46%\n45%\n41%\n39%\n40%\n40%\n40%\n30%\n30%\n21%\n21%\n20%\n16%\n14%\n12%\n10%\n7%\n7%\n0%\nTotal\nWhite\nBlack\nHispanic\nAsian\nNative\nAmerican\nNote: The \"core curriculum\" consists of 4 years of English and 3 years each of social studies, science and\nmathematics.\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The 1994 High School\nTranscript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and\n1982 High School Graduates Revised. 1998\n8 D. You Know the deal Now about American Education?\nDo You Know?\nMORE GIRLS ARE TAKING HIGH-LEVEL\nMATHEMATICS AND SCIENCE COURSES\nSchool Participation\nand Curriculum\nTHE FACTS\nThe gender gap in mathematics and science that had limited educational and\ncareer opportunities for girls and women is disappearing. The percentage of girls\ntaking rigorous high school mathematics and science courses, such as algebra II,\ntrigonometry, chemistry and physics, has gone up significantly since 1982. For\nexample, 59% of the girls who graduated in 1994 had completed a chemistry\ncourse, compared with only 30% of the girls in the class of 1982. In fact, gender\npatterns have reversed for some courses, with girls enrolled at higher rates than\nboys in courses like algebra II and chemistry. Boys still had slightly higher rates\nof enrollment in physics and calculus in 1994.\nPercentage of High School Graduates Completing\n1982\nAlgebra II, Trigonometry, Chemistry and Physics\n1994\nBy Sex, 1982 and 1994\n70%\n61%\n60%\n59%\n54%\n53%\n50%\n40%\n36%\n35%\n32%\n30%\n30%\n27%\n22%\n20%\n19%\n11%\n12%\n9%\n10%\n10%\nT%\n0%\nMale\nFemale\nMale\nFemale\nMale\nFemale\nMale\nFemale\nAlgebra II\nTrigonometry\nChemistry\nPhysics\nSource: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. The 1994 High School\nTranscript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and\n1982 High School Graduates Revised, 1998.\nDo You Know the Good News about American Education? 9\nSchool Participation\nand Curriculum\nDo You Know?\nHIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS ARE TAKING\nTOUGHER MATHEMATICS AND\nSCIENCE COURSES\nTHE FACTS\nRecent education reforms emphasize the need for students to take more\nrigorous mathematics and science courses. Since 1982, the percentages of students\ntaking higher-level courses, such as algebra II, trigonometry, chemistry and physics,\nhave gone up significantly. (Enrollments have also gone up for other courses not\nshown here, from algebra I to calculus, and from biology to astronomy.)\nThese increases in higher-level course-taking occurred across all racial and\nethnic groups. Especially impressive is the growth in the numbers of black and\nHispanic students taking courses like algebra II and chemistry.\nPercentage of High School Graduates\nAlgebra 11, 1982\nCompleting Algebra II and Trigonometry\nAlgebra 11, 1994\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982 and 1994\nTrigonometry, 1982\nTrigonometry, 1994\n80%\n70%\n66%\n62%\n60%\n58%\n56%\n50%\n50%\n44%\n40%\n40%\n36%\n30%\n24%\n20%\n20%\n16% 16%\n12%\n13%\n10%\n8%\n9%\n7%\n7%\n4%\n4%\n0%\nAll\nWhite\nBlack\nHispanic\nAsian\nNote: These percentages do not include students who took these courses before they entered high school.\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The 1994 High School\nTranscript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and\n1982 High School Graduates Revised, 1998.\n111 Dr You Know the Aven about American Education?\nPercentage of High School Graduates\nChemistry, 1982\nCompleting Chemistry and Physics\nChemistry, 1994\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982 and 1994\nPhysics, 1982\nSchool Participation\nand Curriculum\nPhysics, 1994\n80%\n70%\n69%\n60%\n58%\n56%\n53%\n50%\n46%\n44%\n44%\n40%\n34%\n35%\n31%\n30%\n25%\n26%\n22%\n20%\n17%\n15%\n16%\n16%\n14%\n10%\n8%\n6%\n0%\nAll\nWhite\nBlack\nHispanic\nAsian\nNote: These percentages do not include students who took these courses before they entered high school.\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The 1994 High School\nTranscript Study Tabulations: Comparative Data on Credits Earned and Demographics for 1994, 1990, 1987, and\n1982 High School Graduates Revised. 1998\nDo You Know the Good N.W. about American Education? 11\nSchool Participation\nand Curriculum\nDo You Know?\nMORE STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES ARE\nBEING EDUCATED IN REGULAR CLASSROOMS\nTHE FACTS\nThe federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requires children with\ndisabilities to be educated in the \"least restrictive environment\" and encourages\nthem to be educated in general classroom settings, with appropriate services and\nsupports. When students with disabilities are educated alongside other children\nin regular classrooms, they have increased opportunities to study the same\ncurriculum as their peers, meet higher performance expectations, and learn the\nknowledge and skills necessary for independent adult life. This approach also helps\nchildren without disabilities avoid damaging stereotypes and understand how much\npeople have in common.\nBetween 1986 and 1996, the percentage of children with disabilities who were\neducated in regular classrooms increased from 26% to 45%. The proportion of\nchildren with disabilities served in resource rooms or separate classes decreased,\nexcept for students with certain severe disabilities, such as autism. The percentage\neducated in separate facilities, such as state institutions for the disabled, dropped\nfrom 7% to 4%. These trends represent significant progress from 25 years ago.\nwhen 90% of developmentally disabled children were housed in state institutions\nand approximately I million children with disabilities were shut out of schools\naltogether (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and\nRehabilitative Services, IDEA General Information: Overview, 1997).\nPercentage of Students with Disabilities, Ages 6-21\n1986\nPlaced in Various Learning Environments\n1996\n1986 and 1996\n80%\n68%\n70%\n60%\n50%\n50%\n45%\n40%\n30%\n26%\n20%\n10%\n7%\n4%\n0%\nRegular Classroom\nResource Room or\nSeparate Facility\nSeparate Class\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. The Condition of Education\n1999. Indicator 20. Percentages do not total 100% due to rounding\n1.' 11, You Know the N.... about American Education?\nTHE WORK AHEAD:\nSCHOOL PARTICIPATION AND CURRICULUM\nSchool Participation\nand Curriculum\nThe U. S. job market has changed considerably since the early 1970s. Young people\nwithout a high school diploma are limited mostly to low-paying jobs with little\nchance for advancement. Indeed, some economists predict that the only way to get\na well-paying job and have a secure career will be to complete additional study\nbeyond high school. So the first step of the work ahead is for states and school\ndistricts to ensure that all students earn at least a high school diploma.\nStudents need more than a credential, however, to be ready for the workplace or\nhigher education. They also must have high-level knowledge and skills, which are best\nlearned by pursuing a rigorous high school curriculum. In a technology-dependent\nworkforce, a strong mathematics and science background is especially important.\nThe growth in the number of students taking challenging coursework is a promising\ntrend. The work ahead should include aggressive efforts to encourage all students\nto complete four years of English and three years each of social studies, science and\nmathematics before they graduate. These efforts should begin in middle school, with\nstrategies that encourage students to take gateway courses like algebra before 9th\ngrade. At the high school level, states and school districts should eliminate the\n\"general track\" of courses that do not adequately prepare students for either the\nworkplace or higher education. High schools should also offer advanced courses\nlike calculus and physics, so that students are not hindered from progressing because\nthese key courses are not available.\nSome students will need extra help to meet graduation requirements and succeed\nin a rigorous curriculum. States and school districts should adopt strategies that\nhave proved to be effective with students who are struggling to keep pace or who\nlearn in different ways. These strategies include:\ncounseling and mentoring programs that connect students with caring adults\nwho can guide their academic progress;\nteaching methods that emphasize how academic knowledge applies in real-world\ncontexts;\n\"tech-prep\" programs that integrate academic and technical education and lead\ndirectly into a two-year college or technical certificate program; and\n\"career academies\" that teach high-level academic skills through a curriculum\ncentered around particular employment sectors, such as health care, hospitality,\nor finance.\nThe work ahead must also include continuing attention to students with disabilities.\nAlthough these students have benefitted from inclusion in regular classrooms and\nare graduating at higher rates than 15 years ago, they still drop out at twice the rate\nof their peers (OSERS, IDEA General Information: Overview, 1997). States and school\ndistricts should hold students with disabilities to high standards, while recognizing\nthat they often need intensive assistance to graduate and make the transition from\nschool to work or further education. Effective strategies include building relation-\nships between students and caring adults, teaching problem-solving strategies and\nmonitoring student behavior.\nDo You Know the vired Visa about American Education? 13\nDo You Know?\nSTUDENT MATHEMATICS ACHIEVEMENT\nIS IMPROVING\nTHE FACTS\nBetween 1982 and 1996, students improved their achievement in mathematics,\nas measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. (NAEP is the\nonly national testing program that measures trends in student achievement in\nStudent Achievement\nkey subject areas.) Average NAEP mathematics scores rose for all three age\ngroups tested, with 9-year-old students making the most progress. Black and\nHispanic students have made significant gains so that racial/ethnic differences in\nachievement have narrowed since 1982.\nTrends in Average NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores\n1982\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982 and 1996\n1996\n9-YEAR-OLDS\n219\nTotal\n231\n224\nWhite\n237\n195\nBlack\n212\n204\nHispanic\n215\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\nNote: NAEP uses a scale of 0-500. Students who score at or above 200 on the NAEP mathematics scale\ncan add and subtract two-digit numbers and recognize relationships among coins. Those who score at or\nabove 250 can add. subtract. multiply and divide using whole numbers and solve one-step problems Those\nwho score at or above 300 can compute with decimals, fractions and percents; recognize geometric figures;\nsolve simple equations; and use moderately complex reasoning.\nSource: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1996 Trends in\nAcademic Progress and The Condition of Education 1998. Indicator 18\n14 no You Know the Good Notes about American Education?\nTrends in Average NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores\n1982\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982 and 1996\n1996\n13-YEAR-OLDS\n269\nTotal\n274\n274\nWhite\n281\n240\nBlack\n252\n252\nStudent Achievement\nHispanic\n256\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\nTrends in Average NAEP Mathematics Scale Scores\n1982\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982 and 1996\n1996\n17-YEAR-OLDS\n298\nTotal\n307\n304\nWhite\n313\n272\nBlack\n286\n277\nHispanic\n292\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\nNote: NAEP uses a scale of 0-500. Students who score at or above 200 on the NAEP mathematics scale\ncan add and subtract two-digit numbers and recognize relationships among coins. Those who score at or\nabove 250 can add. subtract, multiply and divide using whole numbers and solve one-step problems Those\nwho score at or above 300 can compute with decimals. fractions and percents; recognize geometric figures;\nsolve simple equations: and use moderately complex reasoning\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, NAEP 1996 Trends in\nAcademic Progress and The Condition of Education 1998. Indicator 18.\nD₀ You Know the Good Names about American Education? 15\nDo You Know?\nSTUDENT SCIENCE ACHIEVEMENT\nIS IMPROVING\nTHE FACTS\nBetween 1982 and 1996, science achievement increased for all three age\ngroups tested by NAEP, with the greatest gains among black and Hispanic\nstudents. (NAEP is the only national testing program that measures trends in\nStudent Achievement\nstudent achievement in key subject areas.)\nTrends in NAEP Average Science Scale Scores\n1982\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982 and 1996\n1996\n9-YEAR-OLDS\n221\nTotal\n230\n229\nWhite\n239\n187\nBlack\n202\n189\nHispanic\n207\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\nNote: NAEP uses a scale of 0-500. Students who score at or above 200 on the NAEP science scale under-\nstand simple scientific principles; for example. they show some knowledge of the structure and functions of\nplants and animals. Those who score at or above 250 can apply general scientific information; for example,\nthey can interpret data from simple tables and make inferences about the outcomes of experiments. Those\nwho score at or above 300 can analyze scientific procedures and data\nSource: US Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education\n1999, Indicator I\n10 De You Knew the Gred News about American Education?\nTrends in NAEP Average Science Scale Scores\n1982\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982 and 1996\n1996\n13-YEAR-OLDS\n250\nTotal\n256\n257\nWhite\n266\n217\nBlack\n226\n226\nStudent Achievement\nHispanic\n232\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\nTrends in NAEP Average Science Scale Scores\n1982\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1982 and 1996\n1996\n17-YEAR-OLDS\n283\nTotal\n296\n293\nWhite\n307\n235\nBlack\n260\n249\nHispanic\n269\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\nNote: NAEP uses a scale of 0-500 Students who score at or above 200 on the NAEP science scale under-\nstand simple scientific principles; for example, they show some knowledge of the structure and functions of\nplants and animals Those who score at or above 250 can apply general scientific information; for example,\nthey can interpret data from simple tables and make inferences about the outcomes of experiments. Those\nwho score at or above 300 can analyze scientific procedures and data.\nSource: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education\n1999, Indicator I.\nDe You Know the Good News about American Education? 17\nDo You Know?\nSAT SCORES INCREASED DURING THE 1990s\nTHE FACTS\nHigh school students who plan to apply to college often take the college entrance\nexamination known as the SAT, or Scholastic Assessment Test. Although some\npeople are under the impression that SAT scores are falling, scores actually went\nup during the 1990s. The 1999 SAT mathematics average is markedly higher\nStudent Achlevement\nthan the average for either 1983 or 1989. The 1999 verbal average is 1 point\nhigher than it was in 1989 and has remained the same for the past four years.\nThis is good news, since the proportion of test-takers who did not speak English\nas a first language increased from 6% in 1989 to 8% in 1999. It is also encouraging\nthat mathematics and verbal scores have increased even as the population of\ntest-takers has grown much larger and more racially and ethnically diverse.\nMean SAT Scores for College-Bound Seniors\n1983\n1983, 1989 and 1999\n1989\n1999\n520\n515\n511\n510\n505\n505\n504\n503\n502\n500\n495\n494\n490\n485\n480\nMathematics\nVerbal\nCaution: College entrance exams, such as the SAT and ACT. are designed only to be predictors of college\nsuccess and should not be used as indicators of how well American schools and students are doing. Further,\nsince students voluntarily choose to take these tests. the results are not based on a representative sample.\nNote: The SAT uses a scale of 200-800.\nSource: The College Board, News From the College Board, 'College Board Reports 'Decade of Promise' for\nAmerica's College-Bound Students As Record Numbers Take the SAT and Advanced Placement Courses,\"\nAugust 31, 1999.\n18 D₀ You Know the Good News about American Education?\nDo You Know?\nACT TEST SCORES ARE UP\nTHE FACTS\nThe ACT is another popular college entrance examination taken by high school\nstudents who want to go to college. In 1999, the national average composite score\non the ACT remained the same as in 1998. continuing a 10-year trend of stable\nor increasing scores. These results have occurred at a time when record numbers\nof students are taking the exam-a factor that normally would cause scores to\ndrop. The ACT program has concluded that the students taking the exam today\nmust be at least as well prepared as those tested in the past.\nStudent Achievement\nACT National Average Composite Scores\n1983\n1982, 1990 and 1999\n1989\n21.4\n1999\n21.2\n21.0\n21.0\n20.8\n20.6\n20.6\n20.4\n20.3\n20.2\n20.0\nCaution: College entrance exams. such as the ACT and SAT, are designed only to be predictors of college\nsuccess and should not be used as indicators of how well American schools and students are doing. Further,\nsince students voluntarily choose to take these tests, the results are not based on a representative sample.\nNote: The ACT uses a scale of 0-36.\nSources: ACT August 17. 1999 press release; and US Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics\n1997\nDe You Know the and Viva about American Education? 10\nDo You Know?\nSTUDENTS ARE TAKING MORE AP EXAMS\nTHE FACTS\nBetween 1984 and 1997, the number of Advanced Placement (AP) exams\ntaken by high school students nearly tripled, growing from 50 exams per 1,000\ntwelfth-grade students to 131. Since then, the numbers have continued to rise.\nMinority students now comprise 30% of all AP test-takers, up from 22% a decade\nStudent Achievement\nago (The College Board, press release, August 31, 1999). AP exams are annual\ntests offered in many different subject areas that give students an opportunity to\ndemonstrate college-level achievement. Many institutions of higher education\noffer college credits to students who score at least a 3 on a scale of 0 to 5.\nNumber of AP Exams Taken Per 1,000\n1984\nTwelfth-Grade Students\n1990\nBy Race/Ethnicity, 1984, 1990 and 1997\n1997\n160\n140\n131\n132\n120\n103\n100\n100\n85\n80\n60\n54\n50\n48\n40\n37\n26\n24\n20\n8\n0\nTotal\nWhite\nBlack\nHispanic\nNote: Includes exams taken by both 11th and 12th graders.\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education\n1999, Indicator 14.\n20 Do You Know the Gard Now about American Education?\nTHE WORK AHEAD:\nSTUDENT ACHIEVEMENT\nAlthough U.S. students have made promising achievement gains during the past 15\nyears, the nation still has a way to go before all young people are academically well\nprepared. This is especially apparent at the secondary level. In a recent international\nachievement study, U.S. 4th graders performed above average in math, but our 8th\nand 12th graders lagged behind students from many other countries. In science,\nU.S. 4th graders performed in the top tier of nations, and our 8th graders achieved\nabove the international average, but our 12th graders performed below average\n(U.S. Department of Education, Third International Mathematics and Science Study, 1998).\nStates and school districts should persist in their efforts to raise achievement in all core\nsubjects. Students who take rigorous academic courses have higher test scores than\nother students. All students, whether headed for the workplace or higher education,\nStudent Achievement\nshould be encouraged to take challenging academic courses. Other critical steps for\nstates and school districts include:\nsetting high standards for student learning;\nstrengthening the secondary school curriculum to provide more focus and depth;\nensuring that subject-matter courses are taught by qualified teachers with\ncredentials in the field they are teaching;\nencouraging all students to take college entrance examinations and providing\nextra help to prepare them for these tests; and\nmaking AP courses available in the 44% of high schools that do not offer them.\nStrategies to raise achievement should also include extra assistance or different\nteaching methods for students who are struggling to meet high academic standards.\nIn science and math. for example, many students do better when teachers make\nclear how the content and skills being taught apply to real-life problems and careers.\nClosing the gap between white and Asian students and their black and Hispanic\ncounterparts should be a major thrust of the work ahead. Although minority\nstudents have made considerable gains, a gap still remains. Socioeconomic factors,\nsuch as racial-ethnic differences in family income and parents' educational levels, play\na role in this gap. Poverty has a negative correlation with school achievement, and\nblack and Hispanic children are more than twice as likely to live in poverty as white\nchildren (NCES, The Condition of Education 1997). Yet teachers in schools with high\nminority enrollments or high poverty are somewhat less likely to have a master's\ndegree or a college major or minor in their main field of assignment than teachers\nin schools with few minority children or low poverty (NCES, Teacher Quality: A\nReport on the Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, 1999).\nTo close achievement gaps, states and school districts should make special efforts to:\nrecruit and hire teachers for high-poverty and high-minority schools who have\nacademic backgrounds and full certification in the fields they are teaching;\nencourage all middle school students to take rigorous coursework; and\nmake low-income students aware of programs to help finance the costs of AP\nexams, as well as the costs of postsecondary education.\nDr You Know the Good News about American Education? 21\nDo You Know?\nU.S. STUDENTS RECEIVE\nMORE INSTRUCTIONAL TIME THAN\nEUROPEAN STUDENTS\nTHE FACTS\nStudents in the United States receive more instructional time than students\nin the seven European countries studied by the Organization for Economic\nCooperation and Development. In 1994. U.S. primary schools provided an\naverage of 958 teaching hours per year. compared with 923 in France and 760\nhours in Germany. The U.S. secondary school averages were also higher.\nNumber of Teaching Hours Per Year in Public Schools\nPrimary Level, 1994\nPRIMARY\nU.S.A.\n958\nEducational Climate\nDenmark\n750\nFrance\n923\nGermany\n760\nIreland\n915\nItaly\n748\nSpain\n900\nSweden\n624\n0\n100\n200\n300\n400\n500\n600\n700\n800\n900\n1000\nNote: Number of teaching hours is the total number of hours per year during which a full-time classroom\nteacher is responsible for teaching a group of students.\nSource: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators.\n1996. and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education\n1998. Indicator 38.\n22 D₀ You Know the doal Vess about American Education?\nNumber of Teaching Hours Per Year in Public Schools\nLower Secondary Level, 1994\nLOWER SECONDARY\nU.S.A.\n964\nDenmark\n750\nFrance\n660\nGermany\n712\nIreland\n735\nItaly\n612\nSpain\n900\nSweden\n576\n0\n100\n200\n300\n400\n500\n600\n700\n800\n900\n1000\nNumber of Teaching Hours Per Year in Public Schools\nUpper Secondary Level, 1994\nUPPER SECONDARY\nEducational Climate\nU.S.A.\n943\nDenmark\n480\nFrance\n660\nGermany\n650\nIreland\n735\nItaly\n612\nSpain\n630\nSweden\n528\n0\n100\n200\n300\n400\n500\n600\n700\n800\n900\n1000\nNote: Number of teaching hours is the total number of hours per year during which a full-time classroom\nteacher is responsible for teaching a group of students.\nSource: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Education at a Glance OECD Indicators,\n1996; and U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education\n1998, Indicator 38.\nDo You Know the Good News about American Education? 23\nDo You Know?\nSCHOOL CRIME IS DECLINING\nTHE FACTS\nThe overall school crime rate decreased between 1993 and 1997. In 1993,\nthere were 155 school-related crimes for every 1,000 students ages 12 to 18,\nwhile in 1997 there were 102 such incidents. The most common crime at school is\ntheft, rather than violent crime.\nAlthough recent, tragic school shootings have reminded the nation that\nviolent death at school is intolerable no matter how rare an event, children are\nsafer in schools than in the community or at home. Less than 1% of the 2,500\nchild homicides and suicides during the last 6 months of 1997 took place at\nschool or on the way to and from school. There were also significant decreases\nbetween 1993 and 1997 in the percentages of high school students who carried a\nweapon on school property or were involved in a physical fight at school (U.S.\nDepartment of Education, 1999 Annual Report on School Safety).\nEducational Climate\nSchool-Related Crimes Against Students\n1993\nAges 12 to 18\n1997\n1993 and 1997\n200\nNumber of Incidents per 1,000 Students\n155\n150\n102\n96\n100\n63\n59\n50\n40\n12\n8\n0\nOverall Crime\nTheft\nViolent\nSerious Violent\nNote: Serious violent crimes are defined as rape, sexual assault, robbery and aggravated assault. Violent\ncrimes include serious violent crimes and simple assault.\nSource: U.S. Departments of Education and Justice. Indicators of School Crime and Safety 1999.\n24 D₀ You Know the Good Names about American Education?\nTHE WORK AHEAD:\nEDUCATIONAL CLIMATE\nCreating a safe climate that promotes learning is a joint responsibility of the\ncommunity, schools, educators, parents and students. Continuing steps to reduce\ncrime and violence at home and school should be part of the work ahead. Even\nthough serious crime is down, students seem to feel less safe at school than they did\na few years ago. In 1989, 6% of students ages 12 to 19 feared being harmed at\nschool, but by 1995, this figure had risen to 9%. Street gangs and drugs on school\nproperty continue to be a problem at some schools. In 1995, 28% of students\nreported that there were gangs at their school, and almost one-third said they had\nbeen offered, sold, or given an illegal drug on school property (U.S. Departments of\nEducation and Justice, Indicators of School Crime and Safety, 1999).\nParents and families need to teach children respect for others and help them to\nresolve conflicts through non-violent means. States, communities and schools\nshould ensure that schools have and enforce strict codes of student behavior and\nhave in place preventive approaches, such as conflict resolution strategies, counseling\nfor troubled students and character education. States, communities and schools\nalso should develop special strategies to improve the safety of children in urban\nareas, who are more vulnerable to serious violent crime than suburban or rural\nchildren.\nTime devoted to teaching and learning is another factor that both educators and\nparents can influence. Recently many schools have sought to boost the amount of\ntime spent on instruction, and the international data cited above suggest these\nefforts may be paying off. Whether added instructional time translates into higher\nEducational Climate\nachievement, however, depends on how well the time is used. To improve the\neducational climate, states, communities and school districts should:\norganize the school day so that students have adequate instructional time to\nlearn core academic subjects;\nkeep interruptions to a minimum;\nprovide teachers with professional development in effective use of classroom\ntime; and\noffer before- and after-school activities in a safe and structured environment.\nStudents themselves must also make a serious effort to stay focused and learn while\nin class.\nParents can shape the learning environment by setting clear guidelines for children\nabout study, homework, television, and other recreational activities. Children who\nspend several hours a day watching TV or playing computer games obviously have\nless time to spend on homework, reading and other active pursuits. In addition,\nparents can help to create a learning climate at home by reading aloud to their\nyoung children and having their children read to them, and by talking with their\nchildren about the television programs they watch and the books they read.\nDr You Know the deal 1.4. about American Iducation? 25\nDo You Know?\nPUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS\nARE WELL-EDUCATED\nTHE FACTS\nPublic school teachers are well-educated, according to a 1998 national\nsurvey by the National Center for Education Statistics. Virtually all public\nschool teachers have a bachelor's degree, and nearly half (45%) hold a master's\ndegree. One percent have doctorates. These percentages have remained much\nthe same since 1993-94.\nOther good news about teacher qualifications came out of this survey:\nTeachers have stronger backgrounds in academic disciplines than crities have\nasserted. Two-thirds of high school teachers, 44% of middle school teachers\nand 22% of elementary teachers have an undergraduate or graduate major\nin an academic field (such as English or mathematics). rather than a major\nin an education field (such as general education or mathematics education).\nNinety-three percent of general elementary teachers and 92% of subject-\nmatter teachers are fully certified in the field of their main teaching assignment\n(in other words. the field in which they taught most often).\nPercentage of Full-Time Public School Teachers\nWho Hold Various Degrees, 1998\n100%\n100% (rounded)\n90%\n80%\n70%\n60%\nTeachers\n50%\n45%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n5%\n1%\n1%\n0%\nBachelor's\nMaster's\nDoctorate\nOther\nOther\ndegree\ncertificate\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Quality A Report on\nthe Preparation and Qualifications of Public School Teachers, 1999.\n26 De You Know the desa New about American Iducation:\nDo You Know?\nPUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS ARE\nBETTER EDUCATED\nTHAN PRIVATE SCHOOL TEACHERS\nTHE FACTS\nIn 1993-94, virtually all public school teachers (99.3%) had completed at\nleast a bachelor's degree, compared with 93.4% of private school teachers.\nPublic school teachers also had more experience on average: 14.8 years of\nexperience for public school teachers versus 12.2 years of experience for private\nschool teachers.\nEducational Attainment of Public and Private\nPublic\nSchool Teachers\nPrivate\n1993-94\n100%\n99.3%\n93.4%\n90%\n80%\nBachelor's or Higher\nTeachers\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing in the\nUnited States: A Statistical Profile, 1993-94 and The Condition of Education 1998.\nNote: Although data on teacher education were updated for public school teachers in 1998. comparable\ndata were not collected that year for private school teachers.\nDo You Know the Good News about American Education? 27\nDo You Know?\nTEACHERS HAVE LITERACY LEVELS\nCOMPARABLE TO\nOTHER COLLEGE GRADUATES\nTHE FACTS\nSome critics of public education contend that school teachers have low\nliteracy skills, but this isn't the case. Data from a 1992 national study of adult\nliteracy suggest that teachers have a level of literacy comparable to that of other\ncollege graduates. The prose literacy of teachers is not significantly different\nfrom that of engineers, physicians, writers, sales representatives, registered\nnurses and other college-educated professionals. (\"Prose literacy\" means the\nability to understand, analyze and synthesize information from written texts.)\nScientists were the only professionals who had measurably higher prose literacy\nskills than teachers.\nProse Literacy of Teachers and Adults in Other\nOccupations, 1992\nAverage prose literacy scores\nAll adults with\n334\nbachelor's degrees\nScientists\n354\nEngineers\n339\nPhysicians\n335\nTeachers\n333\nTeachers\nWriters and\n332\nArtists\nSales\n328\nRepresentatives\nRegistered\n326\nNurses\n0\n50\n100\n150\n200\n250\n300\n350\n400\nSource: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. National Adult Literacy Survey\n1992 and The Condition of Education 1995. Indicator 58.\n28 D₀ You Know the Good New about American Education?\nTHE WORK AHEAD:\nTEACHERS\nPublic school teachers have the education, certification and academic backgrounds\nnecessary for teaching. States, school districts, colleges and universities must next\naddress the issues of out-of-field teaching, recruitment and retention, competitive\ncompensation, teacher preparation and professional development.\nAlthough the vast majority of public secondary school teachers have an undergraduate\nor graduate major or minor in their main field of assignment, some still teach\ncourses outside their field. In 1998, 18% of mathematics teachers, 14% of English\nteachers and 12% of science teachers in grades 7 through 12 did not have a major\nor minor in their main field of assignment (NCES, Teacher Quality, 1999). These\nfigures probably understate the problem because they omit teachers who teach\nmost of their courses in their major field but teach a few courses outside their field.\nIssues of teacher qualification are most acute in low-income areas, central cities, and\nschools with high minority enrollments; teachers in these settings are somewhat less\nlikely than other teachers to have full (rather than provisional) certification, to have\na master's degree, or to have a major or minor in their assigned field. States, higher\neducation institutions and school districts should work together to ensure that all\nteachers-especially in schools with the greatest needs-have at least a major in the\nsubject they are teaching.\nLarge cohorts of experienced teachers are approaching retirement age at the same\ntime that secondary school enrollments are about to surge-a combination that could\nintensify existing teacher shortages. College graduates with good literacy skills can\nchoose from a wide range of occupations, including many that pay better than teaching.\nIn 1992, for example, teachers who scored at prose literacy level 3, the middle range of\nthe National Adult Literacy Survey, had median weekly wages of $475, compared with\n$603 for other college graduates scoring at level 3 (U.S. Department of Education,\nNational Adult Literacy Survey 1992). School districts should raise teacher salaries and\noffer other incentives to attract and keep highly qualified candidates. States and higher\neducation institutions should develop incentives, such as alternative certification, to\nencourage knowledgeable, experienced people from other fields to become teachers.\nState and local reform initiatives have raised the bar for student learning, which\nplaces greater demands on teachers. To prepare new cohorts of teachers for these\nheightened expectations will require reforms in teacher education programs.\nColleges and universities should strengthen the academic course requirements for\nTeachers\nprospective teachers and should provide them with high-quality education and\npractice in effective teaching methods. School districts should provide supports for\nnew teachers. such as mentoring and sustained professional development.\nSchool districts should also provide all teachers with more sustained professional\ndevelopment, rather than short-term workshops. Teachers need professional\ndevelopment in such areas as teaching to high standards, integrating the use of\ntechnology into their teaching, acquiring deeper content knowledge in their field,\nteaching students with limited English proficiency, and teaching students with\ndisabilities in the regular classroom. Currently, 37% of teachers said they felt only\nsomewhat well prepared or not at all prepared to address the needs of children\nwith disabilities (NCES, Teacher Quality).\nDo You Know the Good Visa about American Education? 29\nDo You Know?\nMORE STUDENTS ARE GOING ON\nTO HIGHER EDUCATION\nTHE FACTS\nCompared with young people of the early 1980s, many more students today\nare going to college soon after they complete high school. Especially noteworthy\nare the increases among black students and women.\nCollege Enrollment Rates of High School\n1983\nGraduates Ages 16-24\n1997\nBy Sex and Race/Ethnicity, 1983 and 1997\n100%\n90%\n80%\n70%\n70%\n67%\n68%\n66%\n64%\n60%\n60%\n55%\n53%\n53%\n54%\n52%\n50%\n39%\n40%\n30%\n20%\n10%\n0%\nTotal\nMale\nFemale\nWhite\nBlack\nHispanic\nNote: Chart shows percentage of high school completers (including GED recipients) ages 16-24 who were\nenrolled in college during the October after they finished high school. Due to small sample sizes, the\npercentages shown for black and Hispanic students are subject to relatively large sampling errors\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics\n1998. Tables 183 and 184.\nHigher Education\n30 Do You Knew the Gred New about American Education\nDo You Know?\nMORE YOUNG ADULTS ARE COMPLETING\n4-YEAR COLLEGE DEGREES\nTHE FACTS\nBetween 1985 and 1998, there was an increase in the percentage of young\nadults who had completed a bachelor's degree or higher by age 29. The completion\nrates rose for white and black students, but decreased for Hispanic students.\nParticularly noteworthy is the rising rate among women, who are now more\nlikely than men to complete a college degree.\nPercentage of Adults Age 25-29 Who Had\n1983\nCompleted a Bachelor's Degree\n1998\nBy Sex and Race/Ethnicity, 1983 and 1998\n50%\n45%\n40%\n35%\n35%\n32%\n31%\n30%\n30%\n28%\n27%\n26%\n25%\n25%\n20%\n18%\n18%\n17%\n16%\n15%\n10%\n5%\n0%\nTotal\nMale\nFemale\nWhite\nBlack\nHispanic\nSource: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Condition of Education 1999,\nTable 59-3.\nHigher Education\nD₀ You Know the Good N.W. about American Education? 31\nDo You Know?\nMORE WOMEN ARE EARNING GRADUATE\nAND PROFESSIONAL DEGREES\nTHE FACTS\nSince passage of Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which aimed\nto bring about equal educational opportunity by gender, the number of women\nearning graduate and professional degrees has gone up significantly. Women now\nconstitute a larger share of medical, dental and law graduates, and of doctoral\ndegree holders, than they did two decades ago. For example, women earned 43%\nof the law degrees granted in 1994, compared with only 7% in 1972.\nPercentage of Degree Recipients Who Are Women\n1972\n1972, 1983 and 1996\n1983\n1996\n50%\n45%\n43%\n41%\n40%\n40%\n36%\n36%\n35%\n33%\n30%\n27%\n25%\n20%\n17%\n16%\n15%\n10%\n9%\n7%\n5%\n1%\n0%\nMedical\nDental\nLaw\nDoctoral\nSource: U.S. Department of Education. National Center for Education Statistics. Digest of Education Statistics\n1998, Tables 244 and 259.\nHigher Education\n32 Do You know the if Name about American Education:\nTHE WORK AHEAD:\nHIGHER EDUCATION\nMore students are enrolling in college than ever before, but only about 31% of high\nschool graduates ages 25 to 29 had completed a bachelor's degree or higher in 1998\n(U.S. Department of Education, Condition of Education 1999). About 9% had completed\nan associate's degree (U.S. Department of Commerce, Current Population Survey,\nMarch 1998). although this figure does not include students who left higher education\nwith a technical certificate or who transferred from a two-year to a four-college to\npursue a bachelor's degree.\nHigher education institutions and secondary schools must work together to ensure\nthat more students who start college complete a technical certificate or an\nassociate's or bachelor's degree. This is especially important for black and Hispanic\nstudents, who have lower college completion rates. States and school districts\nshould implement programs in middle and high schools to:\nlet students know early on which courses they need to take-particularly\nmathematics, science and language courses-to prepare for success in\npostsecondary education;\nprovide more intensive academic help for students who are struggling: and\nstrengthen counseling programs to help students better understand the kinds of\npreparation required for various jobs, make wise choices about courses of study\nand types of institutions, and be well-informed about access to financial aid.\nAlthough gender and racial-ethnic gaps have narrowed in higher education, women\nand minorities are still underrepresented in mathematics, engineering and the\nphysical sciences. A mathematics or science degree often leads to a high-paying\ncareer and is good preparation for a job in fast-growing technological fields. Schools\nand higher education institutions should take steps to:\nkindle early interest in mathematics and science among girls and boys, and\nparticularly students of color;\nbe aware of and address gender and racial differences in attitudes about\nmathematics and science;\nprovide better counseling about course decisions and career options related to\nmathematics and science; and\nprovide supports so that students can persist in a challenging curriculum all the\nway through high school and postsecondary education.\nHigher Education\nDe You Know the Good N.... about American Education? 33\nCONCLUSION\nThe statistics highlighted in this brief report are a sample of the many benefits\nemerging from a decade and a half of school reform and sustained investment in\nour schools and our teachers. What is perhaps most remarkable is that our\nnation has made these improvements with a very diverse population, a strong\ntradition of local control of education. and enormous variation among states and\nschool districts in their student population, policies and practices.\nAmericans should give credit to public education for the progress made thus\nfar in course-taking, school completion, student achievement, school safety,\nteacher quality and access to higher education. But this is just a beginning.\nThere are still many areas where our nation should improve or fine-tune education\nreforms. Examples of needed improvements include:\nclosing racial and ethnic gaps in achievement, high school graduation and\ncompletion of postsecondary degrees;\nencouraging more students to take harder courses at an earlier age;\nimproving student achievement in reading, writing and other key subjects and\naccelerating the gains already made in mathematics and science;\ncontinuing the drop in school crime and eliminating violent crime; and\nstrengthening the preparation of new teachers and ensuring that all courses are\ntaught by teachers with a certification or major in that field.\nAs the data in this report demonstrate. educational improvement is an\nachievable goal. Public education is moving in the right direction. Continued\nsupport from citizens and political leaders will maintain this welcome momentum.\nit Dr You Know the deal Now about American Education?\nThis publication is not copyrighted and may be\nfreely quoted without permission. provided the\nsource is identified as:\nDo You Know the Good News about American\nEducation? Published in 2000 by the Center on\nEducation Policy and the American Youth Policy\nForum. Washington, D.C.\nSee our\nother publications\nCENTER ON\nEDUCATION\nPOLICY\nCEP\nCenter on Education Policy\n1001 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 619\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nPhone: 202-822-8065\nFax: 202-822-6008\nE-Mail: [email protected]\nWeb Site: www.ctredpol.org\nAMERICAN\nF\nY\n0\n()\nR\n0\nU\nT\nM\n11\nPOLICY\nAmerican Youth Policy Forum\n1836 Jefferson Place, NW\nWashington, D.C. 20036\nPhone: 202-775-9731\nFax: 202-775-9733\nE-Mail: [email protected]\nWeb Site: www.aypf.org"
}