
          "A Nation at Risk"
          By Mcdonald, Joseph A.Joseph A. Mcdonald
          Vol. 5, No. 4, 1983, pp. 8-10
          
          The Report from The National Commission on Excellence in Education,
"A Nation at Risk," has generated tremendous reaction. Newscasts,
newspapers, journals, and magazines, in the South and across the
nation, are devoting more space than usual to a commission
report. What does this document offer for our region's schools which
consistently rank near the bottom in test scores and finances?
Unfortunately, the Report barely scratches the surface in its analysis
of causes of our educational problems and thus reflects no
understanding of the role that poverty and racism play in subverting ~
quality education. One of the reasons for the impressive' and
overwhelmingly favorable attention, in fact, is that it allows us to
pay lip service to high ideals and express indignation over the state
of education without having to make any fundamental changes that might
threaten the status quo.
          To quote from the Report, "We conclude that declines in educational
performance are in large part the result of disturbing inadequacies in
the way the educational process itself is often conducted." This line
tells us that the report ignores the fact that our educational system
does not exist in a vacuum. Its form and content are shaped by the
larger society of which it is a part. We can never adequately
understand education unless we first examine this connection to the
larger society, yet this report fails completely to do so.
          Instead, the Commission cites four specific areas of criticism
about the educational process itself: content, expectations, time, and
teaching. In a nutshell, content refers to curriculum and the easing
of standards within the schools. Expectations refers to the decline in
demands placed on students by graduation requirements, grading
practices, college admission requirements, and so on. Time refers to
length of school day and school year as well as extent of homework
assignments. Teaching refers to training, abilities, shortages, and
salaries of teachers. Finding fault with all four areas, the report
recommends that we devise a new and tougher curriculum, raise
expectations by implementing higher standards, lengthen the school day
and year and assign more homework, and train and pay teachers
better. The Report concludes with great optimism: "We are the
inheritors of a past that gives us every reason to believe that we
will succeed."
          It is almost impossible not to be offended by this report. Its
obvious emphasis on symptoms rather than causes, the great care taken
not to be too critical, its refusal to deal with issues of power and
conflict, make it a document without teeth and without meaning for
educational change. It therefore is a document, ironically, which
supports the status quo, which argues for minor tinkering at best. It
allows politicians, business leaders, and the middle and upper classes
to demonstrate concern about education, to present themselves as
high-minded citizens without committing themselves to any change which
would threaten their interests. Its very acceptance by these elements
of the population informs us of its ideological compatibility with
these interests.
          To be more specific, this document is a smokescreen for the real
issue plaguing our educational system--the huge inequality
characterizing our society. That the Commission could spend eighteen
months researching and writing a document which does not mention
inequality and class structure is a slap in the face of the poor, the
working class, and minorities. Studies over the last twenty years
(Coleman in 1966 and Jencks in 1972 are the most frequently cited ones
out of a much larger number) conclusively show student performance is

strongly related to socio-economic status, or class background. More
than quality of schools or teachers, or money spent per pupil, or
class size, or nature of libraries, this factor explains why some
students do well and some do poorly. This explanation makes people
uncomfortable since it represents a challenge, a moral challenge, to
inequality. Thus it is ignored when possible and viciously attacked
when publicized.
          Class background is important because those with wealth, power, and
status can use their resources to insure that their advantages are
passed on to their children. Schools merely reproduce the inequality
in one generation in the next generation. Tracking systems, teacher
expectations, IQ tests, peer pressure, financing, and curriculum have
all been found to contribute to this reproduction. Clearly, schools
are not a vehicle for upward mobility. Again, this finding is rejected
by most because it means that quality education for all is possible
only through the reduction of inequality in our society. It is
interesting, and telling, that the United_States is second rate in
education as well as in other areas indicative of the quality of life
of citizens, such as infant survival rate and the availability of
decent housing and medical care. All of these reveal the terrible
consequences befalling a society when one-fifth of the people receive
over forty-four percent of the income each year while another fifth
receives less than four percent. The distribution of wealth (financial
assets, property, valuables) is even more unequal. Since those who
monopolize income and wealth are also those with significant political
influence, programs involving income redistribution are kept to a
minimum. And as long as inequality is unlikely to be reduced,
publicity about the role of inequality in the production and
maintenance of educational mediocrity is unwanted.
          We can go even further. Perceptive analysts, over the years, have
pointed out to us that our educational system is actually performing
the exact function intended. Corporations, and politicians who must
count on corporate support, have certain needs. One of these is for a
labor force to handle semi-skilled and unskilled jobs without undue
complaint, armed only with the skills necessary to punch a clock,
follow directions, and tolerate repetitive, meaningless work. Our work
world has been so deskilled and dehumanized that the talents and
abilities basic education transmits can be reduced to a
minimum. Corporate America does not need well-educated people in great
numbers. The ones that are needed can be supplied by the middle and
upper classes. Middle level management can come from the middle and
lower middle levels with occasional upwardly mobile working-class
students allowed as proof that anyone can make it. In South_Carolina,
for instance, the textile industry has strongly opposed Governor
Riley's call for increased taxes to improve the state's poorly funded
school system. The industry does not want to lose the large number of
semi-skilled and unskilled workers that the schools currently
provide.
          The schools thus accomplish two important goals. One, they keep
industry supplied with an ample supply of workers, and two, they
insure that wealth and power remain in the same hands from generation
to generation. Those who are exploited by these goals have the least
amount of power in our society to protest. Thus the only changes
publicized are those that would tinker with the system.
          But if this system is working as intended, why would political and
economic elites support the report and the tinkering (as they have
been doing)? I can think of several reasons. One, criticism of
education has become quite pervasive. This report might mollify the
critics and coopt the issue of educational-change, insuring that
proposals are acceptable to the elites. It also demonstrates, falsely,
to the parents of children being cheated by our educational system
that help is on the way. And it serves a further ideological purpose
in this regard by telling all of us that the problem lies within the
educational process which, if modified, would work well (with the
implication that children will have only themselves to blame if they
do poorly).
          Second, the Report offers a scapegoat for the tremendous economic
difficulties we are facing today. It strongly suggests that our loss
of dominance in worldwide markets and the faltering of our automobile
and steel industries have been caused by the "rising tide of
mediocrity" that afflicts our educational institition. There is no
mention, of course, of monopolistic practices, failures to invest in
new equipment, continued production of larger cars because of the
greater profits expected, expensive mergers, and the host of other
problems which lie at the bottom of our current economic
morass. Instead, our schools are to blame.
          Thirdly, and most importantly, the Report does reflect some serious
economic concern being felt by multinationals. The very first line of
the document states, "Our nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged
preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological
innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world."
Some tinkering, therefore, is actually desired by the economic and
political powers that be to bring U.S. education more in line with the
demands being placed on our corporations by changes in the world
economic system. Specifically, education needs to be more technical,
more mathematical, more computer oriented. Social science is valuable
only so that future executives can understand the geopolitical
parameters of the battle against Communism and the exploitation of the
Third World.
          The Report falls woefully short in its portrayal of the personal
and humanitarian purposes of education. Little concern is expressed
over the failure of our schools to stimulate critical discourse,
social criticism, and other safeguards of democratic ideals. For the
economic and political elite, education is an instrument, an
instrument to promote advantage for a few and to instill acceptance,
conformity, and complacency in the many. Elites in the South do not
want the schools to become sources of challenge to right-to-work laws
or to the low levels of voter_registration among blacks. As long as
public_schools continue to be mechanisms for maintaining inequality,
these elites can continue to hold a disproportionate share of the
region's wealth and power. At the same time, they can send their own
children to the segregation academies.
          Until we come to grips with class and racial inequality 

in our
society, education will continue to serve the needs of the
few. Reports such as this offer no hope for significant change. The
Commission fails to mention even basic problems such as variations in
funding of schools depending on the wealth of local areas. It does not
mention the continued housing discrimination which keeps minorities in
poor neighborhoods, the job discrimination which makes it difficult
for the poor and for minorities to obtain good jobs even if they
succeed in school, or the need for continuation and improvement in
special programs for the disadvantaged.
          That the Report fails to mention such elementary ideas and instead
opts for minor tinkering with curriculum, teacher training and school
days is sufficient reason for progressives to reject it, loudly. The
Report is worse than meaningless. It will be used in justifying
challenges to teacher unions, making curriculum more conservative and
purging progressive personnel and ideas. Its omissions and the uses to
which it will be put place the report squarely behind the status
quo.
          
            Joseph A. McDonald is assistant professor of sociology at
Newberry (SC) College. He its currently investigating the impact of
textile mill closings on Southern workers and
communities.
          
        
