perceptions about a “crisis” in education,A Nation at
Riskbecame enormously influential and played an
important role in elevating education concerns into
the national spotlight. In September, 1989, Presi-
dent George H. W. Bush met with forty-nine of the
nation’s governors in Charlottesville, Virginia, to
discuss problems that existed in America’s school
systems. (Bill Clinton, the Democratic governor of
Arkansas, was one of the governors who participated
in the summit.)
The National Education Summit of 1989 resulted
in the announcement of the following six national
education goals (a figure that was eventually ex-
panded to eight): First, the number of children
served by preschool programs would increase an-
nually; by 1995, all at-risk four-year-olds would be
served. Second, all American students were to have
basic skills commensurate with their grade level;
by 1993, the gap in test scores between white and
minority children would be reduced. Third, high
school graduation rates would improve every year,
and the number of illiterate Americans would de-
crease. Fourth, the performance of American stu-
dents in mathematics, science, and foreign lan-
guages was to improve until it exceeded that of
students from “other industrialized nations.” Fifth,
college participation, particularly by minority stu-
dents, would be increased by reducing the contem-
porary “imbalance” between grants and loans. Sixth,
more new teachers would be recruited, particularly
minority teachers, to ease “the impending teacher
shortage”; other steps would be taken to upgrade
the status of the profession. In addition to these
six recommendations, the governors and President
Bush agreed “to establish clear, national perfor-
mance goals.”
Impact The National Education Summit of 1989
represented a unique, bipartisan effort to reform
American education. Furthermore, the summit at-
tracted national attention to the problems that ex-
isted in U.S. schools. Few of the summit’s goals were
met, but they remained agreed upon as crucial goal
to achieve, and later governmental attempts to re-
form the U.S. educational system often made refer-
ence to the same goals agreed upon in 1989.
Further Reading
Bush, George. “Address Before a Joint Session of the
Congress on the State of the Union, January 31,
1990.”Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents.
Washington, D.C.: National Archives and Record
Administration, 1990.
Vinovskis, Maris A.The Road to Charlottesville: The
1989 Education Summit. Michigan: National Edu-
cation Goals Panel, 1999.
Renée LoveSee also Education in the United States; Magnet
schools; Mainstreaming in education; Multicultural-
ism in education;Nation at Risk, A; School vouchers
debate; Standards and accountability in education.National Energy Program
Identification Canadian government policy
Date 1980-1984
In response to the energy shortages of the 1970’s, Prime
Minister Pierre Trudeau instituted the National Energy
Program, which aimed to promote energy self-sufficiency,
increase Canadian ownership in the energy industr y, en-
courage oil exploration and alternative energy, and in-
crease government revenue. The western provinces and
multinational energy companies bitterly opposed the pro-
gram from its inception.
Energy was a major issue in Canada’s 1980 national
election, and the Labor Party campaigned on greater
control of Canada’s resources, revenues, and future.
Rising oil prices had hit the urban, industrialized
eastern provinces hardest, but the oil-producing
western provinces were alarmed by federal promises
to control the price of Canadian oil. When the Na-
tional Energy Program (NEP) was announced in Oc-
tober, 1980, neither the provinces nor the energy
companies had been consulted.
The NEP, administered by the Department of En-
ergy, Mines and Resources, addressed foreign con-
trol of oil companies with a proposal to boost Cana-
dian ownership to 50 percent and to give tax and
lease incentives to Canadian-owned companies. The
government also claimed a right to 25 percent of oil
or gas discovered on federal property. Most contro-
versially, the NEP established price controls and a
new tax on gas and petroleum that opponents de-
cried as double taxation. Although the price controls
and taxation were intended to encourage reinvest-
ment in Canadian exploration, the oil-producing
provinces faced lower revenues, and the energy com-
panies feared loss of profits.The Eighties in America National Energy Program 693