The Future of American Education

As the old saying goes, history often repeats itself. If that is true for the American public education system, then its future is certainly predictable. For example, test scores have followed a specific pattern since the 1980s. Core subjects have also followed a predictable trend, because the subjects paid the most attention are the ones that keep America at the top of the world economy. In addition, current policy follows a trend of high demands from the federal government, but more responsibility for the states. If American education continues to follow the same trends, then test scores will plateau, the public will focus on subjects for the economy, and policies from the federal government will set goals but leave the methods up to the states.

After some gains in the 1980s and again after No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was enacted, test scores across the nation seem to follow a trend of improving slightly, then stagnating. Test scores will most likely follow the same trend of slight improvements and then plateaus in the future. For example, on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), fourth grade reading and math test scores improved from year to year (Manna, Collision Course 135). Then NCLB was enacted, and test scores continued to rise, but after 2006 scores plateaued and grew very little or not at all (Manna, Collision Course 135). Earlier in American educational history, as the public school system was changing after overcoming initial struggles from segregation, black and Hispanic student achievement increased steadily up through the 1980s. However, “the modest progress that occurred during the 1980s has largely come to an end” (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 23). The future of American education will most likely follow the same trend in test scores. While new legislation is enacted or major changes are made, test scores will improve slightly, and then eventually the upward trend will stop and student achievement will plateau.

In addition to trends in test scores, US public education focuses on subjects that policymakers believe will help the country economically. For example, No Child Left Behind focuses primarily on math and critical reading with a small emphasis on science. Critical subjects, such as history, art, and foreign languages, are not tested because policymakers and a large portion of the population do not find them valuable enough to emphasize. Whenever education policy is addressed, American children themselves are given considerable weight, but then the strength of US schools is usually tied to the strength of the nation economically. It is never just about the students: “their future—and that of the nation—is in jeopardy” (Thernstrom & Thernstrom, 40). Education is always tied to the United States’ ability to keep its status as a major world power. Subjects such as art and music that students may want to learn are not emphasized because many influential policymakers believe they will not advance the nation economically. The focus for American public education is not always the individual student; rather it is the adult population of the nation (Rhee, 4). Based on the focus for US education policy historically, it seems that the focus will shift again towards a subject that may benefit the economy further in the future—science. As a subject that can help the US retain its status in the world, science will garner more attention from the American public and policymakers, leaving out other critical subjects.

The trend in previous years of American education policy has been for the federal government to demand achievement and accountability, but to leave the methods to meet these goals up to the states. The most recent and best example of this trend is No Child Left Behind, in which the federal government receives annual reports of student achievement and has an end goal of 100% passing by 2013, but NCLB left almost all responsibilities with the states. Federal policies establish clear goals and attempt to hold schools, teachers, districts, and states accountable for student performance, but the “law’s corrective-action and restructuring provisions take shape primarily when state and local officials act” (Manna, “NCLB in the States” 33). NCLB was designed under the umbrellas of “accountability and administration;” with the federal government as a check for states to see if they could meet the bar set for them (Manna, Collision Course 41). If the United States stays on the same path as NCLB, then federal demands will increase, and so will state responsibilities. Federal policymakers will push for increased accountability and more reports on student achievement, but leave the specifics to the states.

Based on the history of American education and current trends, it would seem that the US is destined for plateauing test scores, a narrow focus, and policies from the federal government that ask much of, but provide little to, the states. If test scores follow the same pattern that they have for thirty years, then periods of slight improvement and stagnation will alternate in the future. If policymakers and the public continue to keep a narrow focus, primarily on subjects that will keep America at the top of the world, then another subject is sure to be ignored for the sake of success in science. Policies in the future, if they follow the mold of NCLB, will demand an incredible amount from the states, but offer them little support. Taken separately none of these predictions seem to be overwhelmingly negative, but taken together they paint a bleak picture for the future of US public education. However, something can be done to change the path that America is currently on. The American education system needs reform, needs a new direction, and a new voice. Otherwise, test scores will stagnate, key subjects will continue to be ignored, and states will have little support in their fight for achievement.

Works Cited

Manna, Paul. Collision Course. Washington, DC: CQ, 2011. Print.

Manna, Paul. No Remedy Left Behind: Lessons from a Half-Decade of NCLB. Ed. Frederick M.

Hess and Chester E. Finn, Jr. Washington, DC: AEI, 2007. Print.

Rhee, Michelle. "What I've Learned." Editorial. The Daily Beast, 6 Dec. 2010. Web. 1 Sept. 2011.

Thernstrom, Abigail, and Stephan Thernstrom. No Excuses. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster Paperbacks, 2004. Print.