"’Nation at Risk’: The best thing or the worst thing for education?" asks Gregg Toppo in USA Today. Good question, and an interesting article. Toppo reports on some of the policy developments that came in the wake of that report’s denouncement of a "rising tide of mediocrity" in education - things like a rise in federal education spending, and what Paul Houston of the American Association of School Administrators denounces as "a cottage industry of national reports by people saying how bad things are." But what about the kids? What’s happened to them in the 25 years since "A Nation at Risk" raised the alarm? (A look in on the topic 10 years ago - 15 years after the initial report - offered continued cause for concern.)
 
So, in a nod to the rigors of AP and the rhetoric of Reagan, we ask:
Are our children better educated now than they were 25 years ago? In your answer, discuss issues such as assessment, accountability, access, choice, funding, teacher quality, curriculum, standards, or other education efforts and issues and their relative relevance to the question.

In yesterday’s Washington Times, Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, declared that it’s high time America had national science standards. “With the No Child Left Behind Act up for renewal,” he wrote, “an essential next step is clear….Revise NCLB to set voluntary nationwide education standards.” But is having national standards really the clear next step toward educational excellence? Not if history or current events has anything to say about it.

Consider recent history. Anyone remember the voluntary national standards debacle of the mid-1990s? You know, when the standards went nowhere politically but created a huge, nationwide controversy? What happened there?

More “National Standards: A Hopeless Cause”

Jay Mathews touched a nerve last month when he declared that he was "tired of the voucher issue" that enables politicians to "raise money on that issue forever, while in the meantime not doing much for schools." In the real world, he said, vouchers are "too risky, and too inconvenient." To which Robert Enlow responded, "Give me a break." So, picking up where they left off…

Jay Mathews is an education reporter and online columnist with the Washington Post. Robert Enlow is Executive Director of the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.

More “May 14-18: Robert Enlow vs. Jay Mathews on Vouchers (UPDATED, May 18, 4:43 p.m.)”

Place yourself back in First Grade. Given the chance to choose any of the following options for your personal schooling, select the education you would like to receive for the greatest chance of success later in life:

A.    Washington, District of Columbia inner city public schools
B.    Los Angeles, California inner city public schools
C.    Chicago, Illinois inner city public schools
D.    none of the above

Was your answer D? According to John Rawls’ theory of “Justice as Fairness,” if those schools are not suitable for you in theory, then they are not suitable for low-income children in practice.

More “Education in Terms of Social Justice”

Edspresso wants you to voice your thoughts, ideas, concerns and responses to education reform news that is important to you and to so many others. With an ever-increasing blaudience above 40,000 per month, we are moving in the direction of a blogging community called to action and informed about grassroots movements throughout the United States. Join us in making Edspresso the forum for education reform education that translates into action in your school communities, districts and states.