To critics of the educational bureaucracy and standardized testing, the Reagan administration's publication of "A Nation at Risk" in 1983 was a key part in promoting the belief that public education is severely damaged. On Tuesday, October 29 at 5:30 p.m., the Action Speaks lecture series at AS220 (115 Empire St., Providence) will dig deeper into this topic.

The Phoenix conducted an e-mail interview with one of the panelists for the forum, Susan Ohanian, a long-time Vermont- based teacher and writer on education, whose Web site can be found at www.susanohanian.org. Here are excerpts from our exchange.

Q: What did the publication of the Reagan administration's "A Nation at Risk" mean for public education in America?
A: First and foremost, it meant that public schools never had a chance. As Susan Fuhrman, dean at the school of education at the University of Pennsylvania, once pointed out, "If you want money, you gotta say the schools are lousy."

But "A Nation at Risk" is about much more than run-of-the-mill school-bashing. It's about the government attacking its own public schools. The report was sponsored by the secretary of education and endorsed by the president. Politicos and corporate leaders wanted us to believe then -- as they do now, with increased vigor and vitriol -- that the nation's economic strength in the global marketplace depends on the standardized test scores of young children. Never mind the policies of the president, the Congress, the Federal Reserve Board. Never mind the greed of corporate CEOs to downsize, outsize, and stuff away their whopping bonuses. No, they keep shouting the message that the economic health of the nation depends on the standardized test scores of eight-year-olds.

"A Nation at Risk" demonstrated that school-bashers can say whatever they damn well please about public schools -- and get away with it. "A Nation at Risk" contains no evidence and no citations of evidence. The disinformation campaign against schools was deliberate and strategic, fitting well with both the conservative and the corporate agendas.

If you want to control people, then it is a good strategy to scare them. Tell parents that the schools aren't teaching their kids and their kids won't be able to get a good job when they get out of school, and then parents will accept the notion that schools should be fiercely competitive -- starting in kindergarten. This rhetoric started with "A Nation at Risk" and has been going strong ever since.

Q: Given the general recognition that public education works better with smaller groups of students, why hasn't this approach been adopted more widely?
A: Schools are driven by economics, not by what's good for kids. Small classes cost more money, so most districts are forced to keep classes large. You don't have to build more classrooms to get smaller class size. Putting two teachers with 30 students has worked to good effect. Maybe parents should ask how many more teachers a school could hire if they reduced their testing program.

Q: What steps would you recommend to improve the quality of public education in cities like Providence?
A: I'm not sure I know of any cities like Providence, but I just heard about a remarkable program in Rochester, New York, [in which each of the city's 250 public buses have been outfitted with racks of children's books].

Imagine that. Here are people not wringing their hands over the purported failure of public schools, the bad manners of kids, or the increase in Plantar's warts. Instead, they are figuring out something practical and positive they can do to help kids. Schoolteachers support the idea. Kids in Rochester schools have collected and catalogued books -- and learned a whole lot in the process. Signs in buses ask kids to return books to the rack at the end of the ride, but many children ask drivers if they can take a book home. [As a Rochester transit official] notes, "There are a lot worse things to happen than a family taking a book home and it not being returned."

What if Providence and other communities took this on as a challenge? Stop pointing fingers at the schools and come up with some community plans to benefit children.

At the same time, I would call a moratorium on the test score hysteria. I'd eliminate state testing for three years, inviting teachers to take a breather from this pressure. I'd eliminate elementary school homework too, giving kids and parents a breather. This emphasis on testing is as bad for the kids who do well as for those who do poorly. It convinces them that the standards and tests are objective and fair and they get what they deserve. If that's so, why are tests scores so closely related to zip codes?

A short answer to improving the quality of public schools is to raise the minimum wage. Anybody who doubts this should read Barbara Ehrenreich's Nickel and Dimed.

Ian Donnis can be reached at idonnis[a]phx.com.

Issue Date: October 25 - 31, 2002