Editor’s Introduction

The "current issues" discussed in the essays following this introduction revolve around several "Rs" — Reagan and ^Reports and Reappraisal and, of course, Risk. However, it is not the nation but our schools and our children that are "at risk" according to our four authors, and the Reports and Reagan are greatly to blame. The "risk" they see and describe is very different from the "risk" of the reports . Maxine Greene speaks for each of them when she says, "One of my concerns has to do with a narrowing that might be a consequence of the recent reports, a channeling of human possibilities. If stress is placed on a prescribed range of li teracies, if people are thought of primarily as resources to promote the national interest , opportunities for different ia l growth and development may be severely limited — especially for those whose capaci t ies are not so prized today." The four essays are arranged (1) to set the general political context through Gordon Cawelt i ' s review of Reagan Administration policy; (2) to review and analyze several of the reports through Daniel Tanner 's answer to his rhetorical question, "Who speaks for our schools?"; and (3) to provide cogent , fundamental criticisms of the current reforms in brief pieces by Maxine Greene and Mary Anne Raywid. As an inducement to your reading on, I have selected several short, but I hope intriguing, quotations which can be found in the pages which follow. I think you will find the arguments and analyses surrounding these quotations interesting and worthwhile. Gordon Cawelti , Executive Director of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development — "It has always been my impression that the media can make presidential contenders out of extremely marginal candidates — as were Ronald Reagan in 1979 and George Wallace in 1971, and as Jesse Jackson was in the 1984 primaries. Such persons, despite their lack of experience are great communicators who are able to oversimplify and dramatize emotional but relatively meaningless issues that other candidates, in trying not to offend significant segments of the voting population, choose not to overemphasize."