[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 127 (Tuesday, September 13, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 13, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
                            BRIDGING THE GAP

 Mr. SIMON. Mr. President, I have frequently said that one of 
the most stimulating and thoughtful educators on the American scene 
today is Albert Shanker, president of the American Federation of 
Teachers.
  I turn to his column regularly when I read the Sunday New York Times.
  Recently, he had an article titled, ``Bridging the Gap,'' in which he 
quotes from an article written by Jeffrey Mirel and David Angus.
  I have not seen the original article, but the general thesis that we 
have to be fair but tough on everyone seems to me to be absolutely 
sound.
  I ask to insert the Albert Shanker column into the Record at this 
point.
  The column follows:

                       [From the New York Times]

                    Where We Stand--Bridging the Gap

                          (By Albert Shanker)

       One of our most troubling problems is the large and 
     persistent gap between the achievement of white, middle-class 
     students and that of poor, minority youngsters. This gap puts 
     minority children at a terrible disadvantage. It also 
     threatens the health of our democratic society. There is no 
     dispute about the seriousness of the problem, but there is 
     plenty about how to solve it.
       Minority kids often go to schools with poor quality 
     curriculums where little is expected of them. Should we set 
     higher standards and work with these youngsters to help them 
     meet the standards? Or is this another form of unfairness? Is 
     it better to try to bring the youngsters along gradually by 
     offering them a curriculum that doesn't expect too much of 
     them?
       In ``High Standards for All'' (American Educator, Summer 
     1994), Jeffrey Mirel and David Angus reveal that this debate 
     on how to achieve equity in education is nothing new--it goes 
     back at least 70 years. More important, they present evidence 
     that minority youngsters are not turned off by high 
     standards. When more is demanded of them, they produce more. 
     Standards, Mirel and Angus say, are the most powerful lever 
     we have to achieve equity in education.
       Early in the 20th century, when large numbers of youngsters 
     from white working-class and minority families began staying 
     in school past the elementary grades, educators were somewhat 
     uneasy. They believed equity demanded that they ``educate'' 
     these youngsters--which meant keeping them in school until 
     they got their diplomas. But educators had serious doubts 
     about the youngsters' ability to master an academic 
     curriculum--what we would now call a core curriculum--of 
     English, history, mathematics, science and foreign languages. 
     If the kids were pushed into these courses, educators 
     believed, they would drop out in huge numbers.
       Their solution was to differentiate and dilute the 
     curriculum. And the result can be clearly seen in the high 
     school course-taking patterns that Mirel and Angus follow 
     over a 60-year period, from 1928 to 1990. The number of 
     different courses that were offered skyrocketed from about 
     175 in 1922 to 2,100 in 1973--as Mirel and Angus say, 
     ``curricular expansion run amok.'' At the same time, the 
     percentage of academic or core courses being taken went 
     steadily downward. In 1928, over 67 percent of the courses 
     taken were academic; by 1961, the number had dropped to 57 
     percent. This sounds like the phenomenon described in The 
     Shopping Mall High School--when kids are offered a choice 
     between easier courses and tougher ones, they choose the 
     easier.
       The impact on working-class and minority children was 
     particularly significant:
       ``While these curricular decisions sought to promote equal 
     educational opportunity, in reality they had a grossly 
     unequal impact on working-class and black children. * * * 
     Beginning in the 1930s, these students were 
     disproportionately assigned to non-academic tracks and 
     courses and to academic classes that had lower standards and 
     less rigorous content.''
       However, that's not the end of the story. Thanks to various 
     reform initiatives, course-taking patterns began to change 
     direction again in the 1970s. Students started taking more 
     academic courses, and the percentage of academic courses has 
     risen steadily until it is now over 66 percent--close to the 
     1928 high. Minorities have shared in this increase in 
     academic course taking, and it has led to some remarkable 
     changes for African-American and Hispanic students, both in 
     terms of the percentage of academic courses taken and 
     improved achievement, as shown in standardized tests.
       For example, in 1982 only 28 percent of African-American 
     students took four years of English, three years of social 
     studies and two years of math and science. By 1990, 72 
     percent were taking these core courses. Did this increase in 
     the academic course work lead to a big increase in dropouts? 
     Not at all. In fact, the dropout rate for African-American 
     students fell from 18 percent to 13 percent. And SAT scores 
     for these youngsters rose 21 points on the verbal section and 
     34 points on the math.
       The gap that remains between black and Hispanic students 
     and white students is enormous and unacceptable, but the way 
     to close it is to ask more of minority youngsters, not less. 
     Students will not all be able to learn exactly the same 
     material in exactly the same way--though these differences 
     have nothing to do with racial or ethnic background: ``The 
     idea that all students should meet high standards (and 
     essentially follow the same curriculum) does not deny that 
     there are educationally relevant differences among 
     individuals in interests and abilities.''
       Goals 2000 offers states and communities a chance to 
     develop standards and curriculums and assessments that take 
     individual differences in ``interests and abilities'' into 
     account while pushing all youngsters to achieve their best. 
     As Mirel and Angus warn us, we must be sure that we don't 
     repeat the mistake of 70 years ago and confuse being easy 
     with being fair.

                          ____________________