In the last 25 years, there has been a steady decline in the scores of U.S. students on standardized tests used to measure college and university applicants. Some observers see in this another indicator of the failure of U.S. education.

Not so, argues Gerald Bracey, a leading scholar of U.S. education. Bracey points out that a much larger percentage of total U.S. secondary-school students is now taking these tests. Twenty five years ago, the group tested represented the top quarter of U.S. secondary-school students. Today, more than 60 percent of secondary-school students go on to college or university the following academic year. Most of these students are taking these tests. We are testing a much broader range of our students, so of course the average score has gone down.

Does this mean that U.S. colleges and universities are now accepting students who have no place in these institutions? No. Facile assumptions that the students of 25 years ago represented something of an educational golden era are not borne out by standardized graduate school admission tests, by employer experience or by educational success rates, Bracey says.

Bracey and other analysts argue that the examples above demonstrate both the simplistic assumptions which have led many to conclude that U.S. education is in deep trouble, and the kind of more detailed analysis which is required to fully understand the current situation.

There are pockets of real trouble, and they get a lot of visibility. Some schools in poor districts of major cities are seriously failing their students and communities. The context of unemployment, family disintegration, community decline and violence is having an undeniable and destructive impact on community schools.

In some rural districts, rapid technological and economic change has translated to rapid demographic change, in turn challenging the traditional education funding sources for schools in these areas.

Society's expectations of education are also changing. In 1950s America, society accepted an educational structure in which fewer than half of total students earned even a secondary school diploma. Our labor market, with lots of pent-up demand for industrial production, had an abundance of opportunities for semi-skilled labor. Today's employment picture is vastly different, and so are the educational needs and expectations of students and communities.

In addition, our expectations of whom we educate are continuing to change. During the last 15 years, well over half of the increase in educational spending has been directed at programs of "special education" for students whose physical, mental and emotional condition requires particular, often extra cost, support. These programs are very much in accord with the U.S. commitment to equal opportunity for all its citizens, but fulfillment of this commitment has come with a significant cost.

Fifty years ago, most primary and secondary students in the U.S. spoke sufficient English to handle their basic educational needs. Today, it is routine that 25 percent of students enrolled in schools in some of our largest states (California, Texas, New York) do not speak sufficient English to handle basic instructional processes. In the schools of Los Angeles and some other large cities, the number of non-English speaking students approaches one half.

In addition, the range of first languages in some school districts is extraordinary. In one Washington, D.C., suburban school system, students come into the schools speaking some 81 languages. All of these students are entitled by law to public education; for these students, schools must provide not only the standard curriculum appropriate to their grade level, but also instruction in English which will enable them to function in those regular classes. And outside of the language needs, there are the diverse cultural backgrounds of these students and their parents. All of this constitutes a serious challenge to a healthy interaction between the schools, the students and their parents. Yet educators have long recognized that this interaction is one of the key factors needed for successful educational outcomes.

The above is not a litany of excuses for failing schools. But if we are to make the U.S. educational structure even more effective, as we must do, Bracey and others say, we must view and understand the structure in its complexity. Our picture must acknowledge areas of difficulty and areas of achievement. And there are very substantial areas of achievement.

In the late 1940s, educators and policymakers assumed that no more than 20 percent of the populace could appropriately participate in higher education. Today, almost two thirds of graduating secondary-school students go directly on to college, and participation in adult and continuing education is continuously expanding.

More students are being educated, to a higher level. Many schools are coping with an incredibly expanding knowledge base in creative and responsive ways. We should not despair, for instance, if we do not yet know exactly how to make the most appropriate use of personal computers in our educational institutions. It helps to keep things in perspective. IBM introduced their PC (personal computer) in the early 1980s. It takes time to train to new technologies, and we are only now coming into a time when teachers know computers as well as do most of their students.

Schools in this country do present both good and bad news, and we must acknowledge both. But the Clinton administration argues that our efforts to correct the deficiencies must not imperil the comprehensive public education system which has been so vital a player in the shaping of our nation. Understanding that we are coping with extraordinary challenges with some real success should reinforce our willingness to provide the intellectual and economic resources to correct areas of deficit, and take advantage of the opportunities of technology to produce an education structure for all citizens which the U.S. needs and deserves.

To Usdan