It just might. According to Teacher magazine, it rests on three propositions. First, there never was a Golden Age when all schools were superior. Second, schools must cope with more varied student populations than ever and compensate for many social problems (family breakdown, crime). And third, schools still succeed; students who always would have gone to high school are no worse off, and those who wouldn’t have are better off.

There’s evidence for all these propositions. In 1940, the high-school graduation rate among young adults was 38 percent; by 1998, it was 88 percent. Perhaps there’s been some “dumbing down” at the top, but America still produces lots of first-class scientists, managers and even lawyers. And scores have risen for many students who, a generation ago, wouldn’t have gone to high school. Among black 17-year-olds, reading scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress-though still below those of whites-rose by roughly two grade levels between 1971 and 1992.

Bracey was once almost alone in his view. No more. Last year, a report by the Rand Corp., a well-known think tank, reached similar conclusions. The latest echo is a book (“The Manufactured Crisis: Myths, Fraud and the Attack on America’s Public Schools,” Addison Wesley) that dismisses most criticism of public schools as inept journalism or a conservative conspiracy. “People confuse what schools are with what they would like schools to be,” write educational pscyhologists David C. Berliner and Bruce J. Biddle.

Fair point. Recently, my 10-year-old daughter asked: “Was fifth grade harder when you were young’.?” (No kidding, she really did.) Well, I don’t know. She reads more than I did, but she writes less. Her history is spottier. On the other hand, in math, she’s dabbled with exponents (10[2], 10[3], etc.), which I didn’t tackle until junior high.

So it may be impossible to tell whether schools have gotten better or worse. There’s a huge variation in quality among 15,000 school districts, and many comparisons with the past can be treacherous. Much standardized testing didn’t begin until the late 1960s. If (as I suspect) schools got worse in the 1960s, then matching today’s scores with the early 1970s uses a low point as a base period. Also, lower scores on some recent tests (the 1994 reading assessment, for example) have reduced earlier gains.

But the relevant question now is not whether public schools have gotten better or worse. It’s whether they are as good as they could be-and the answer is no. Even Bracey seems to concede this. In one essay he writes: “When my own children started in college, both of them saw their grade-point average tumble . . . . They ratcheted up their performance and achieved better in college than in high school . . . . There is no good reason for such a high school/college performance gap to exist. We could increase the intellectual challenge of many high school courses.”

Precisely. Staunch defenses of public schools are not necessarily wrong as history, but in practice they abet complacency, which isn’t justified. Nor do they illuminate the schools’ weaknesses. Liberals say schools lack money. Not really. Even the liberal Economic Policy Institute estimates that inflation-adjusted spending per student rose 61 percent between 1967 and 1991, which is a sizable gain. The connection between spending and student performance is, at best, weak. In 1992, New Jersey and New York ranked first and second in per-student spending; meanwhile, their fourth graders ranked 13th and 25th in reading.

Conservatives plug vouchers as if “choice,” by eradicating rigid school bureaucracies and high-cost unions, would miraculously produce good schools. Gosh, higher education has had a quasi-voucher system–consisting of generous scholarships, federal loans and grants–for years. Yet, it is hardly a model to emulate. Amid pockets of excellence, it has lax admissions standards, high dropout rates and soaring costs.

The true “inputs” to education are students’ hard work, quality teaching, rigorous standards and parental engagement. When these are missing, money and reorganization can’t compensate. In some ways, public opinion is the biggest obstacle to better schools. Our delusion is that “the schools” are solely responsible for educating our children, and that asks too much of schools.

In a self-published book, educators Jack and Marsha Youngblood argue that parents play a critical role by helping their children cultivate study habits. This is common sense. It raises academic performance and nurtures the skills (discipline, perseverance) required for success in life and on the job. But as the Youngbloods write, parents can’t simply command good study habits. Doing so requires personal commitment–taking time to help, being patient and abstaining from watching TV while children work.

My main gripe with our local school is that it doesn’t tell parents what’s expected of students, or how, exactly, parents can help. But this failing is widespread and reflects a silent compact between schools (administrators, teachers) and parents. Schools find engaging parents too hard and threatening. Harried parents don’t want more demands on their time, and also want to blame schools if children don’t do well. The compact encourages mediocrity. Making standards and grades stricter tends to upset more and more parents and students. Why do it?

The alarmism about the “education crisis” has aimed, perhaps unconsciously, to counteract the natural tendency of schools and parents to reassure each other. If there has been an overreaction, the pressure for schools to raise standards has been healthy. The public schools may deserve one cheer; they don’t deserve three.

  • Positive Involvement: How to Teach Your Child Habits for School Success," BrownWood Press, Greenbelt, Md.