doms, offer new electives, cut back on graduation requirements, and generally "democraticize" the schools. It was a time of "doing your own thing", in school as well as out of school. The focus was direct and strong-enroll everybody and retain everybody to graduation or else, Mr. Principal, find a new job! Few concerns were raised about writing, was not oral English sufficient? Little attention was given to rigorous courses or to "lighthouse schools"; were not they already a favored group? To some degree this thrust was a success. Dropout rates were reduced and special education programs flourished. But then the bomb hit. Suddenly, the SAT score decline and complaints about illiterate graduates hit the nation's headlines. Schools were once again expected to be intellectual, as well as social institutions. Could they, it was asked, be equal and excellent, too? THE CRISIS IN CONFIDENCE The opinion began forming in small corners of community conversation, but it spread like wildfire during the later 1970's. The view, suddenly popular and accepted as fact, was that public schools no longer were doing the job. They had gone soft. Students were not being taught to write. Reading was atrocious. The curriculum had become as formless as jello, soft and sugary. In short, the schools had forgotten how to teach and the students had forgotten how to learn. Today this opinion is expressed in action, not talk. Public school enrollment is dropping and private schools face waiting lists. New private schools are springing up like mushrooms, some religious and some lay, but all focus upon "the basics", student discipline, and values. Some two million fewer students today attend schools than in 1975 because of the declining birth rate. All of the loss has been in public school enrollment. Whereas a decade ago many private schools closed, today many public schools are closing even as new private schools are founded. Unfortunately, we cannot cite an authoritative study to provide the underlying causes of this dramatic shift away from the public schools. Subjective observation and informal citizen opinion, however, suggest these as the roots of public disenchantment with public schools: (1) Concern that discipline is lax and supervision minimal. (2) Fear that drugs and the pressure to use drugs infect schools. (3) Anxiety about the size of many schools and the lack of individual attention. (4) Concern that students will not be academically prepared for college work. (5) Belief that the public schools are focusing upon services for special needs students for the handicapped and the underprivileged and the bilingual studentto the detriment of the "average" student. How much these perceptions are based in fact is debatable. Certainly most schools argue that they serve all students well, and that students are successfully navigating the first years of college. But the anxieties remain, and we find more and more second and third generation families of the public school system looking at the private school option today. These covetous glances come apart from questions of busing or integration or minority mix. They are a broad, nationwide phenomenon based upon, among other factors, fifteen years of Federal policy. THE FEDERAL ROLE This past year at Janesville High School in Wisconsin, according to Principal Bill McBay, he was required to release 18 "regular" teachers and employ 15 "special education" teachers. The release was caused by budget cutbacks, by a small decline in enrollments and by mandatory legislation that requires the employment of the 15 special education teachers. About 80 percent of the salaries of these teachers came from local tax funds. Multiply this small vignette by a thousand or more secondary schools, and we can begin to understand the concern of the parent majority as they see algebra and English classes moving up to 35 to 40 students per teacher, while at the same time special needs students enjoy classes one-third that size. The impact of Federal policy upon public schools has caused some unintended outcomes in public attitudes about schools as well as a misallocation of resources. The total effect of substantial Federal categorical funding for specifically targeted groups, together with the attendant publicity and pronouncements has caused the large majority of parents to feel their own students to be increasingly disenfranchised by Washington, D.C. Sensing a benign neglect, at best, the typical parent has become more and more uncomfortable with the narrow focus of Federal policy. What had begun as a Federal program to supplement education for special needs students had come to dominate the entire national education scene. Whether press release or presidential pronouncement, Federal programs in education came through as solely for handicapped and minority students. The Federal budget reflected this emphasis with $900 million for handicapped students in fiscal year 1979, and $4 million for gifted and talented students. Where was Federal attention to academic excellence? Who was looking to the welfare of the "lighthouse schools," those traditional pioneers to better education in America? Perhaps the singularity of Federal policy for the handicapped student was handicapping the vitality and quality of the nation's entire school system. The term "comprehensive high school" traditionally means that all the youth of all the people are equally served. It means strong programs for the talented as well as for the marginal student. It supports the college bound student as well as the job bound student. We need today to regain that balance. The new Education Department and this distinguished Subcommittee must represent all of the students of all of the people-not just some of the students of some of the people. The Department needs once again to include science and mathematics and libraries as its concern as well as basic skills or work experience programs. This appeal, it seems to me, can be made not only on the basis of fair play, but also as a positive response to public fears about the quality and emphasis of public schools today. Most of all, however, a new focus upon excellence would acknowledge the changed world of the 1980's, a decade in which our nation must rely more upon human resources and less upon natural resources for its own welfare. Quality schools, as a concious dimension of Federal policy, are the generators of this human talent. We urge a Federal policy of quality as well as equality. Thank you. Mr. ERDAHL. We will proceed with the panel, then if members of the committee or staff have questions, we will welcome those after the testimony. We will hear from Dr. E. Alden Dunham, program officer, Carnegie Corp. of New York. STATEMENT OF DR. E. ALDEN DUNHAM, PROGRAM OFFICER, CARNEGIE CORP. OF NEW YORK Dr. DUNHAM. I am here to discuss a report of the Carnegie Council called "Giving Youth a Better Chance." What I would like to do is touch very briefly on five different topics. This report has been in the making for a number of years. It is 317 pages long, very complicated and complex. It is difficult to summarize in a short period, but I will do my best. At the same time, I will probably exhaust my own knowledge of the subject. Mr. ERDAHL. If I might interrupt at this time, I think this is the proper place to request that report in its entirety be submitted so it can be a part of the record. Dr. DUNHAM. I have submitted a half dozen copies of the full report and the summary, in addition to my written testimony. [The report referred to follows:] Reprinted from: GIVING YOUTH A BETTER CHANCE Options For Education, Work, and Service The Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education Copyright 1979 by: The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching Jossey-Bass Inc., Publishers 433 California Street San Francisco, California 94104 Jossey-Bass Limited 28 Banner Street London EC1Y 8QE Copyright under International, Pan American, and Universal This report is issued by the Carnegie Council on Policy Studies in Higher Education with headquarters at 2150 Shattuck Avenue, Copies of the full report are available from Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, Australia, New Zealand, and Japan. Copies for the rest of the world available from Jossey-Bass, London. Manufactured in the United States of America JACKET DESIGN BY WILLI BAUM Preface Most of the work of the Carnegie Council has related directly to problems of higher education, but we have become convinced that those who are concerned with the future of higher education must also give serious consideration to the severe labor market and school problems facing segments of youth, especially minority group youth in inner cities and in some rural areas. This conviction is based on several considerations: • There are serious inequities between the increasing resources devoted by our society to young people enrolled in higher education and the much less adequate resources allocated to those who do not enroll in college. • Talent is lost to higher education and to society because of societal circumstances that push or pull potentially talented young people out of the educational stream at too early an age. Society must be increasingly as concerned with the qualifications and motivation of non-college youth entering the crafts, trades, and services as those entering occupations that require college training; to paraphrase John Gardner: in the excellence of its plumbers as of its philosophers. The costs to society of unemployment and delinquency among youth, as well as of lifelong patterns of unemployment and criminal activity among adults who get a poor start in life, are a drain on societal resources for other purposes, including support of higher education. |