In the Odyssey, among the various episodes that divert Odysseus and his crew from their course is a brief sojourn in the land of the Lotus-Eaters. Homer tells us that when Odysseus spotted the island, he sent three men ashore to discover who lived there. The messengers, Homer writes, "fell in with the Lotus Eaters, who showed no will to do us harm." The natives offered them a taste of the lotus, and once they had eaten it the unsuspecting crew lost all desire to complete their journey. Tennyson wrote a poem called "The Lotus Eaters" which depicts at length how sloth, cowardice, and gluttony creep over the crew and keep them from their journey. Fortunately, Odysseus is able to set things straight by tying the stricken men to the deck, setting the rest to work, and reminding them all of their hopes, their mission, and their final destination.

Recently I have become worried that our national movement for educational excellence has entered a phase akin to what befell Odysseus' crew in the land of the Lotus-Eaters. Increasingly, it strikes me that in some places - in too many places - the education reform movement is being detained, that the journey is in danger of not being completed. I am worried that in some states and in some districts the steering has gone awry long before we have reached the destination. And I am concerned that in some places the education reform movement is being hijacked and held ransom by those who do not have educational improvement as their first priority. We cannot allow this to happen.

Given the consensus of public opinion and solid research, the most striking feature of education reform today is the relative lack of progress - the relative lack of results - before us. By and large, we know what to do; by and large, we agree on what must be done; but by and large, we have not done it. SAT scores are still far below what they were 20 years ago. American students still lag sadly in international comparisons in math and science. American knowledge of geography is poor. We know what to do; there is broad agreement to do it; but we are not yet getting it done.

Let me be clear about what I mean by education reform. Fundamentally, education reform is a matter of improved results. It aims directly at bringing about measurable improvements in the knowledge and skills of American students. Education reform looks first to output, not input. This represents a sea change from the overwhelming emphasis on imputs, resources, and processes of the nearly two decades prior to A Nation At Risk.

A Nation At Risk, the closest thing we have to a national education grievance list, cited, among other problems, poor performances by American students on a variety of international education tests; a decline in scores on most standardized tests; and a decline in student knowledge in crucial subjects, such as English and physics. It is these things that we must change. Whatever changes we make in American education - and changes clearly are in order - their value must be determined, finally, by their impact on student performance, on what students learn. Improved results - better outcomes - is what we are after: not intentions alone; not action in and of itself; not inputs; but outcomes, results.

In the national compaign to improve results, we have seen some progress. We have taken some important first steps. For one thing, lest anyone say money is lacking, the American people have made resources available. Indeed, the American people have been remarkably generous in their contributions to our schools: in 1987, national expenditures for education will, in real dollars, reach a new high - over $300 billion.

Second, we have achieved a broad consensus on many ideas: content, character and choice among them. As we enter a new school year, there is ample new evidence of that consensus. Read the 1987 Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Take it to heart. In it you will find overwhelming public support for increased parental choice; for greater accountability; for higher and more rigorous academic standards; for school's role in the formation of character; and for emphasis on the basic subjects of math, English, history, and science. The American people's views are clear, and significantly, they find broad support in our best research.

Emphasizing results brings with it some other important shifts in our thinking about education. First, emphasizing results means emphasizing achievement. It means emphasizing the achievement of students - holding high expectations and setting correspondingly high standards. Reform also means emphasizing the achievement of teachers and principals. How well do they know their subjects? How well do they teach? How well do they manage their schools? Teachers and principals should be hired on the basis of what they know and can do, not what courses they have taken. They should be paid and promoted according to their performance, not according to the number of additional courses taken in educational theory. Pay based on performance is a genuine, original, and indispensable article of education reform; it is endorsed in A Nation At Risk; it is suggested in Time for Results, the report of the National Governors Association; and it has the support of the American people.

Second, emphasizing results means emphasizing assessment. In order for states, districts, and individual schools to make the adjustments necessary to improving student performance, they must have timely, accurate information on performance in particular subjects and skills. How are students performing in math in this district? How are students perfoming in writing in this school? Has achievement gone up or down over the past three, five, and seven years? This is the sort of information necessary to launching effective efforts to improve educational results. Right now, the Department of Education is working to provide more accurate assessments through the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Improving assessment is a task to be undertaken by individual schools, districts, and states as well.

Finally, emphasizing results means emphasizing accountability, not bureaucracy. Another memorable adventure in the Odyssey is Menelaus' wrestling match with the sea-god Proteus. While Menelaus struggles to pin him down, Proteus attempts to slip away by assuming different shapes and forms. The education bureaucracy, with its myriad levels and divisions, can have a similar slippery quality. If we are going to produce results, we must hold individual leaders and institutions accountable for their performance.

Right now, we don't have enough of it. Accountability is the linchpin, the keystone, the sin qua non of the reform movement. In our discussions of education in the coming years, at the local, state, and national levels, accountability should be at the top of the agenda.

Of American education as it currently operates, we can say this: in general, if you do a good job educating a group of students, nothing happens to you or for you. Similarly, if you do a bad job educating a group of students, again, nothing happens to you or for you - except, in the latter case, you often will get more money. There are greater, more certain, and more immediate penalties in this country for serving up a single rotten hamburger in a restaurant than for repeatedly furnishing a thousand schoolchildren with a rotten education. This must change.

Schools that produce good results should be rewarded; those that do not should face penalties that will spur them to improve. One way to increase accountability is through state-supported incentives; another is by enabling parents to choose which school their children attend. Both are policies endorsed by the governors report in Time for Results.

Achievement, assessment, and accountability, all adding up to results - these are the fundamental principles of education reform. And these are the principles that, in several places, are under assault.

In four years of the movement for education reform, we have grown accustomed to taking a step back for every two steps forward. This is not necessarily bad. Sometimes a mid-course correction is needed to maintain progress toward the ultimate goal. Yet we must be sure that we do not slip to taking two steps back for every one step forward. In my first address as Secretary of Education, I said that it would take constant vigilance to sustain education reform. The fact is that political movements, like ships, can be blown off course. Crews tire. Crews can lose will.

Finally, crews can mistake their own contentment and security for the final destination. Let there be no mistake: since the release of A Nation At Risk - indeed since before A Nation At Risk - there has been entrenched and determined opposition to education reform. This opposition has taken many forms. Early on, it was a voice counseling that things are not as bad as they seem. This was denial. It emerged later as a voice saying that things may be bad, but they cannot be fixed through the schools. This was "let's blame society." More recently, it has been a voice saying, "We really don't know how to make schools work, what needs to be done." This is undue pessimism.

Perhaps most persistently, opposition to education reform has surfaced as a voice advising that things might be fixed, they could be fixed, even that they should be fixed, but they will require lots of money first. This is polite extortion. This most durable and persistent lament is nothing short of hijacking education reform and holding it for ransom. The American people have paid and paid dearly for education, but as yet they have not been given their money's worth. They have not been given the good results they and their children deserve.

How do we restore momentum and direction to the education reform movement? I do not claim to be Odysseus, and I will refrain from recommending lashing anyone to the deck. But let me emphasize this: in order for education reform to continue, concerned governors, legislators, parents, and educators must not succumb to sloth. The education establishment possesses its own remarkable inertia; we cannot afford to add our sloth to it. Those concerned for education reform must be diligent. They must not be cowardly in pursuing and defending the reforms most essential to improving American education: they must push harder than the force that pushes against them. In order to succeed, they must beware of the gluttony of interested parties, even friendly-seeming inhabitants of the world of education. Finally, like Odysseus' crew, we must keep our sights on the destination we are after: results - achievement, assessment, and accountability.

I believe that we now stand at a critical juncture in the movement for education reform. We must either go forward with the goals that I have mentioned, or fall back to reliance on inputs, processes, and bureaucracy. This will mean the bureaucratization of reform, which will be the slow death of reform. The outcome is still in doubt. Education reform is neither irredeemably lost nor irreversibly won.

The American people have invested tremendous amounts of hope, trust, and money in education reform. Their investment must not be betrayed. Let's not let anybody or any special interest hijack it. As Odysseus of old might have said, let's bring it home, at last.

At the end of his address, Bill Bennett wondered if education reform in America would move forward emphasizing achievement, assessment and accountability or "fall back to reliance on inputs, processes, and bureaucracy."

Whatever changes we make in American education - and changes clearly are in order - their value must be determined, finally, by their impact on student performance, on what students learn. Improved results - better outcomes - is what we are after: not intentions alone; not action in and of itself; not inputs, but outcomes, results.

Falling back to reliance on inputs, processes, and bureaucracy, he believed, would mean the bureaucratization of reform, which would be the slow death of reform.

We are now sixteen years further down the road of education reform - sixteen years since Bill Bennett shared his concerns with his audience in California. Where are we today and how have we done?

Happily there are many schools in America that are moving forward, truly emphasizing achievement, assessment and accountability.

There are, however, too many schools and school systems that continue to focus on inputs, processes and bureaucracy.