This paper compares two landmark American education policy documents — "A Nation at Risk" (1983) and Goals 2000 (1998) — as ideological statements reflecting distinct national priorities. The paper argues that neither document is objective; both reflect the concerns, values, and political climates of their respective eras. "A Nation at Risk" emphasized technological literacy, national competitiveness, and workforce readiness, particularly at the high school level. Goals 2000, by contrast, took a more holistic approach, stressing basic skills, early childhood education, health, and teacher development across all grade levels. The paper ultimately concludes that Goals 2000 offers a more philosophically sound framework for education from an educator's perspective.
No statement of educational goals and aspirations is objective. All learning methods and goal statements reflect a particular ideology of the educators who construct them. They also reflect the decade's concerns and national preoccupations, as well as the needs of students. This is not to discount the value of mission statements and guidelines for the nation — it is merely to offer a caveat to the reader when encountering prescriptions such as A Nation at Risk and Goals 2000. These documents, authored in 1983 and 1998 respectively, are not directives from higher educational authorities. Rather, they are ideological statements that create selective agendas regarding what is valuable for children to learn. Selectivity, it should be noted, is not necessarily a criticism — of course, no child can learn everything.
A Nation at Risk was an open letter to the American people in 1983, authored by the Commission on Educational Excellence in America. According to the commission's introduction, its "charter directed it to pay particular attention to teenage youth, and we have done so largely by focusing on high schools." Consistent with its title, the commission stressed: "Our Nation is at risk. Our once unchallenged preeminence in commerce, industry, science, and technological innovation is being overtaken by competitors throughout the world." Implicit in this statement is that keeping America competitive through commerce and technological advancement in science and business is the most important priority for educators when selecting a curriculum. Learning for learning's sake is treated as less important than what will make the student a competitive candidate in the marketplace — and what will make the United States competitive with other nations.
There is a veneer of concerned and caring educational philosophy in the commission's introduction, which states that "regardless of race or class or economic status," all students "are entitled to a fair chance and to the tools for developing their individual powers of mind and spirit to the utmost." Yet, more important than the mere development of a student's mind and spirit, "this promise means that all children by virtue of their own efforts, competently guided, can hope to attain the mature and informed judgment needed to secure gainful employment, and to manage their own lives, thereby serving not only their own interests but also the progress of society itself." What makes one employable is presented as what is valuable to learn — not what makes learning enriching or enjoyable to the learner — and societal advancement, rather than self-discovery or self-empowerment, is the primary goal.
"Cold War anxieties shaped the report's emphasis on technology"
"1998 initiative shifts focus to basic skills and early childhood"
"Goals 2000 deemed more philosophically sound for educators"
You’re 42% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.