DIANE RAVITCH
The War on Standards
We
can ' t blame the fall of standards in Ameri can edu ca tion on politi cal
co rre ctn ess; depending on your perspec tive, you can trace th e decline o f
standards to the 1930s o r th e 1960s. And possibl y, if it is fa ir to speak o f
" PC Diaper Babi es," th e war on standards is a ge ne rati o nal ph e–
nomenon .
It was in th e 1930s that many of th e tenets of progressive edu ca ti o n
we re instituti o nali zed in th e publi c schools. The literature of the pro fes–
sio n , the repo rts by city and state superintendents and pedagogi cal ex–
perts, contains numerous references to th e perni cious effects of competi–
ti o n fo r grades and di stin cti o n ; to th e need to elimin ate spellin g and
grammar as artifi c ial ac tiviti es that have no value; to the value of abo lish–
ing co ll ege entran ce requirements and allowin g free cho ice for students;
to th e virtu e of repl ac in g subj ec t matt er with to pi cs releva nt to
tee nage rs. Some, but no t mu ch , o f thi s baggage was th rown out in th e
post-Sputnik era, that bri ef expl os io n of publi c conce rn about standa rds
and academi c pe rfo rmance . Th en wh en the 1960s bro ught a rev iva l o f
th e attac k on obj ec tive standards, th e edu ca tional pro fess ion - at leas t
that part that had any instituti o nal memo ry - kn ew that it was aga in
able to reassert its ega litari an , anti-meritocrati c valu es.
T he campus rebelli o ns o f th e 1960s, inte nded to pro tes t the wa r in
Vietnam, o ften turn ed into pro tests aga inst th e standards in hi gher edu–
ca ti on. Under pressure from student (a nd faculty) ac tivi sts, colleges and
uni ve rsities di luted or abandoned their entrance requirements; weakened
th eir graduati o n requirements; retrea ted from th eir curri c ul ar require–
ments so that students could have mo re freedom to choose their courses.
Few uni ve rsities emerged with their curri cul ar requirements intac t.
In
consequ ence, th e number o f hi ghl y selective instituti o ns declined , as did
th e number o f sele ctive institutions. The form er (in stitutions such as
H arva rd , Yale , Amh erst, Brown ) make up less than ten percent o f all
instituti o ns o f hi gher edu ca ti o n and co uld be hi ghly selec ti ve because
th ey had eight to ten appli cants fo r each place in th e freshman class; th e
latter could ca ll themselves "selecti ve" o nl y because students had to pre–
sent some qualifYin g credenti al, like a hi gh school diploma. By the mid-
1970s, Ameri can hi gh schoo l students knew that th ey could go to co l–
lege if th ey wi sh ed , rega rdle ss o f th eir academi c perfo rmance in hi gh
schoo l, if th ey could pay th e usually minimal fee s o r quali fY fo r federal
student aid (whi c h was based o n need , no t on academi c ability) - re–
ga rdless of th eir academi c perfo rmance in hi gh school.
T he effec t o n hi gh schools was predi ctable . Incentives fo r academi c
excell ence w ere removed for all but th e most able students, th ose wh o
