By David S. Broder
Sunday, February 16, 1997; Page C07

On this one, there seems to be unanimity. The only question – but a very serious one – is whether we're going to put our money and our effort behind what nearly everyone says should be done.

In his State of the Union address, President Clinton said that he was launching "a national crusade for education standards – not federal government standards, but national standards, representing what all our students must know to succeed in the knowledge economy of the 21st century."

The day after Clinton's speech, the heads of both major teachers' unions, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, issued their own calls for quality schools. AFT President Albert Shanker has been preaching the importance of standards for years. But the speech NEA President Bob Chase gave at the National Press Club signaled a revolution for his group, which counts 2.5 million teachers as members.

In blunt language, Chase said that "too often, NEA has sat on the sidelines of change, naysaying, quick to say what won't work and slow to say what will. . . . The fact is that, in some instances, we have used our power to block uncomfortable changes, to protect the narrow interest of our members, and not to advance the interests of students and schools."

Recognizing that his union in the past has been "too quick to dismiss the critics of public education and their ideas for change," Chase said that henceforth "school quality – the quality of the environment where students learn and where our members work – must be our responsibility. . . . The vast majority of Americans who support public education, but are clearly dissatisfied, want higher quality public schools, and they want them now."

A week later, the nonpartisan Public Agenda Foundation released a national survey of public high school students – and guess what? They too want tougher standards in their schools. Three out of four said students should be promoted only when they have learned everything they are supposed to learn in the previous grade. Seven out of 10 favor requiring after-school classes for youngsters who are failing. Almost nine out of 10 say the standards should be as high for inner-city schools as for middle-class and affluent suburbs. Deborah Wadsworth, executive director of the foundation, said that in focus groups that accompanied the survey, "students across the country spoke about how little work they do to earn acceptable grades and, consequently, how boring and meaningless their classes are."

With this much agreement from students, teachers, the public and the president, you would think that the path to progress would be clear. But in fact, it is proceeding by fits and starts at the state and local level. And the president's proposal to spur the drive for higher standards and better performance is so circumscribed by budgetary limits and political caution that his contribution may fall short.

Clinton has been seeking to improve schools and increase access to education throughout his public life. Along with his commitment to racial justice, the quest for better schools has been a hallmark of his career. He may have wavered on many other things, but never on these.

But his reach exceeds his grasp. Educators agree that standards are meaningless unless backed by rigorous tests. The president understands that, too. But he has proposed only two tests in the long span of years from kindergarten to 12th grade: an English test in fourth grade and a math test in eighth grade. Marc Tucker, who has headed an effort that has developed a set of tough standards for elementary, secondary and high schools and is encouraging their adoption by individual states and school districts, makes the obvious point when he says that two tests in two subjects fall far short of a systematic set of standards.

There are two other problems. Hemmed in by budget rigidities resulting from his desire to compete with Republicans on tax cuts and his reluctance to curb senior citizen retirement and health benefits, Clinton is proposing to spend only $90 million over the next five years on the standards project – barely more than the purchase price of one F-22 fighter and just enough to develop the tests and administer them once, in 1999. After that, it's up to the states.

And because he is spooked by conservative rhetoric about federal intrusion, the one-time test will be purely voluntary. Will superintendents and principals who think their kids will not measure up "volunteer" for the embarrassment of testing? Who knows?

If national standards are as important as everyone seems to agree, then more than token gestures are needed.