Where were you when the first Sputnik was launched in 1957? I was in 7th grade. The Sputnik launch was the first event in my young life that linked world news with everyday events. Very simply, Sputnik meant that in order to save my country I had to learn "new math."

When the Russians launched the first orbiting object into outer space, Americans were terrified that we might lose the Cold War. We had to "catch up" in a hurry. Spurred by fears of Russian domination, America set new expectations for its schoolchildren and followed through to make sure we met these standards. Within a year we had a brand new math curriculum and textbooks so new they were merely paperback manuscripts. We struggled along with our teachers to learn about vectors and subsets, but we knew that our national security depended on our success. There also was no question in my mind that our teachers and political leaders were committed to helping us reach higher levels of achievement, and that failure was unthinkable.

Those were the "good old days," when the nation believed that if we set a goal we should also work together and commit the resources to help us reach it. It is a model that could serve us well as we consider the growing demand for "high-stakes" educational standards that aim to improve our schools and workforce.

At the 1990 "Education Summit," President Bush and the nation's governors called for a national effort to improve education. The Education Goals 2000 initiative established measurable goals, and focused growing attention to student curriculum and performance standards over the course of the ensuing decade. The original goals were school readiness ("ready to learn"), school completion, student achievement and citizenship, mathematics and science mastery, adult literacy and lifelong learning, and safe, drug-free schools. Two more goals -- teacher education and professional development and parental participation -- were added later. These goals were to be reached by the year 2000.

Initially the Education Goals initiative was controversial because it represented a new involvement by the federal government in public education. Concerns about giving the federal government too much power led to a scaling back of the initial implementation of Education Goals. Significantly, state accountability measures -- to show how states were helping schools to meet the goals --were eliminated from the original legislation.

Almost everyone agrees that setting a standard is a good idea when you want to make improvements. But that's the easy part. Here's the hard part -- who sets the standards, who establishes how they will be measured, who gets blamed for failure and rewarded for success, and what happens to those students, schools, or school districts that fall short? A standard with no consequences for success or failure is meaningless. But it is irresponsible to set standards with inadequate systemic attention and resources for improving the chances for success.

My Virginia neighbor runs a computer/writing center in a local elementary school. He's been worried a lot about his students in this rural community. Many of his students need a lot of extra encouragement to gain confidence in their capacity to learn before they can become good readers. Given enough time with them, he can help them overcome their fears and help them become eager learners. But time is scarce, and he fears early pressures from unrealistic and "high stakes" test will destroy their confidence.

My nephew-in-law teaches high school math to largely underprivileged students in New York City. Earlier this fall, the city's more than 500 math teachers were called together for a meeting on standards. He says administrators began by pointing the finger at the classroom teachers for students not performing well on the standardized math tests. In defense, the teachers argued that students enter their classrooms unable to do simple arithmetic computations, yet they are expected to pass tests in algebraic equations. My nephew also worries about his students, wondering what he can do to help those woefully behind. He's afraid that unrealistic standards and inadequate student support will drive many of his students out of school altogether.

Those who live where the rubber hits the road -- classroom teachers and parents -- have been worried about the impact of "high stakes" standards on their classrooms. Few were surprised by the December 1, 1999 report on Education Goals 2000 progress, which documented some serious shortfalls in meeting the goals. Now policy-makers and school administrators must face a serious reality-check, as test results show alarmingly low rates of success among their students. If half the students fail, can you afford to send them all to summer school?

Researchers and educators struggle with questions like: How can we implement standards so students improve performance and have a chance to succeed? How do we evaluate school-wide improvements or individual student achievement among the disadvantaged? What happens to students with special needs, or bilingual students, or students temporarily set back by a family crisis? And what should be done with students or districts that continue to fall short?

This much is clear. Standards-based measures will succeed in their goal of improving student outcomes if they propel systemic reforms that bring better strategies and adequate and appropriate resources to the classroom. They have begun to make a difference in states like Connecticut, where state resources are targeted to the neediest districts, where new guidelines help identify students with learning difficulties early on and where high preschool attendance rates boost student chances of success.

If we regress to bickering over "who's to blame," we will surely fail. If we gather together a concentrated and sustained effort on the part of parents, educators, public officials, and individual students, we might yet succeed in helping our schools and our students reach their potential.

More Information

• "The National Education Goals Panel: Purposes, Progress, and Prospects," a report prepared for the NEGP by Dr. Richard F. Elmore.