Setting the Bar

President Clinton, speaking at a fundraiser in Boston Tuesday, wisely spent much of the afternoon pitching his plan to improve the quality of the nation's public schools. The proposals, which would spend an extra $4.98 billion on a variety of teacher training and class-size reduction initiatives from his fiscal 2000 budget request, are most significant because they place greater emphasis on school accountability. Under the plan, first unveiled in last month's State of the Union Address, school districts would receive federal funding only if they meet a certain level of minimum standards.

Many conservatives, wary of having Washington on our schoolhouse steps, have criticized the plan for "micromanaging" what normally is the role of state and local governments. We do not agree. The introduction of reasonable educational standards is both a well-warranted and limited act of federal intervention.

Contrary to what we would like to believe, the urgency of the educational situation in our country is mind-boggling. According to a recent report released by the Department of Education, less than 20 percent of our nation's full-time public school teachers feel qualified to teach in a modern classroom. Only a minority of teachers surveyed claimed they felt "comfortable" using new technology, working with disabled students and implementing new curricula. These trends are deeply disturbing and clearly unacceptable.

The report also found that the vast majority of teachers claimed they could have benefited from better training programs, more professional development and a degree in the subject they taught. In this light, Clinton's minimum standard to ensure teacher quality is almost intuitive: Teachers must be state-certified, pass a performance exam and possess a relevant college degree.

Massachusetts has recognized the need for teacher testing and now holds its schools to a statewide standard. Unfortunately, the secrecy surrounding the methodology of the teacher test and teacher-bashing by high-level state officers has prevented a successful standardization process. For this reason, a thoroughly researched and well-publicized national standard--which incorporates the views of parents, students and teacher unions--would be preferable to the current system.

Granted, teacher quality is but one of the standards Clinton proposes. Under the plan, schools would be required to end the "social promotion" of academically unqualified students, institute school report cards and strengthen discipline to keep schools safe. And to help poorer districts who might have trouble meeting these standards, an additional $200 million will be given to the states to identify and resuscitate these lowest-achieving districts.

We still believe the best administrators of our local schools are the localities themselves. Nevertheless, the current proposal--that schools be required to provide a safe environment under the supervision of reasonably competent teachers--is one our future generations deserve.