In an earlier documentary, we chronicled the report’s creation and reception; in today’s sequel, we look at the immediate action it spurred — and how it continues to shape the education conversation today.

Watch our previous documentary, see all our additional anniversary coverage, and read our dispatches from the 2018 Reagan Institute Summit on Education — click here: The74Million.org/NationAtRisk

— Directed by James Fields, Produced by Emmeline Zhao

“They certainly had no idea that the risk was the school.”

No, they (the Reagan administration) and we (the American people) didn’t. That revelation landed like a nuclear bomb, which, as former North Carolina governor Jim Hunt points out, is what most Americans thought they had to fear 35 years ago when “A Nation at Risk” was released.

In this gripping new 74 documentary directed by Jim Fields, Hunt and other key players recall how they went about determining that “the condition of American education K-12 had deteriorated badly in the previous 25 years,” and the essential promise they extracted from President Ronald Reagan beforehand that the report would be published regardless of what it revealed about America’s schools. (Credits: Archival documents courtesy of Harvard University Archives)

Ahead of the Reagan Institute’s Summit on Education, which commemorates the 35th anniversary of the release of “A Nation at Risk,” ����Ӱ�� is publishing a special series of articles, essays, and retrospectives about the release and the aftermath of the famous education report.��See our full series here.��

the damning report that sparked the modern education reform movement, turns 35 this year. The Ronald Reagan Foundation and Institute is marking the anniversary with to discuss progress since the report’s release and the future of American education.

The report, released during Ronald Reagan’s presidency, warned of a “rising tide of mediocrity” in American schools that demanded national attention.

The , slated for April 12 in Washington, D.C., will convene a diverse group of education and political leaders, including Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Rep. Virginia Foxx of North Carolina, Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, State Superintendents John White of Louisiana and Carey Wright of Mississippi, and Télyse Masaoay, a Vanderbilt University student, among others.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos will join former Education Secretary William Bennett for a conversation on past and present policy priorities. It was also announced April 11 that former Second Lady Jill Biden will appear.

“Our current political climate is characterized by factionalism and increasing division,” Reagan Foundation Executive Director John Heubusch told ����Ӱ�� in an email. “But the next generation of leaders — who are the hope of this democracy — need us to unite on common ground. There is a need for substantive, bipartisan discussion on American education policy.”

“A Nation at Risk” called on Americans to cultivate “a learning society” that values rigorous academic standards and constant teaching and learning across industries. In that spirit, the summit will open with a conversation between former secretary of state Condoleezza Rice and former secretary of homeland security and current University of California president Janet Napolitano about what the learning society looks like in 2018 and how it can create opportunities for all students.

The summit will close with a panel discussion among four former secretaries of education. John B. King, Arne Duncan, Margaret Spellings, and Rod Paige will talk about the “the role education plays writ large in society” to prepare students not only for college and career but also to “come to the public square both engaged and informed,” Tony Pennay, chief learning officer for the Reagan Foundation, told ����Ӱ��.

In between, the conference will host discussions about current topics like the Every Student Succeeds Act, “the new basics” students need to succeed today, and the changing role of college in American society.

Pennay said he is excited about the star power and political diversity of the speakers.

“Getting that really big cross section of folks all coming together … is a really good thing,” he said.

Pennay added that he hopes the summit will become an annual event and that this year’s is just “the start of a conversation.” He sees the summit as part of the foundation’s work to continue Reagan’s legacy in education, grounded in the president’s , which declared, “An informed patriotism is what we want.”

Disclosure: The Walton Family Foundation provides financial support to the and ����Ӱ��.

Imagining the future of higher education in America requires a degree of cognitive dissonance.

On the one hand, higher education is still our nation’s most powerful lever for social and economic mobility. College graduates outperform their peers without a degree on of economic well-being and career attainment.

But on the other hand, our nation’s postsecondary system needs radical change to continue delivering on its historic promise of mobility and realized potential. of Americans born in the 1940s made more money than their parents; only half of today’s generation of young adults can make that claim.

In 1983, “” warned that the nation’s educational achievement rates were dangerously low and pointed to the dire economic consequences that would result if left unaddressed. At the time, the college enrollment rate of high school graduates was .

Thirty-five years later, our country has made enormous strides in expanding access to postsecondary education. About of high school graduates now enroll in college. And those gains in access have been felt across income levels. Enrollment rates have nearly doubled for the lowest third of earners since the report was published, rising from .

But as we’ve closed enrollment gaps across income levels, have grown. Although low-income students born in the 1980s were far more likely to enroll in college than those born the 1970s, the graduation rate for both groups largely remains flat, at about 11 percent. At a time when a degree is fast becoming the coin of the realm in our information economy, just 14 percent of students from low-socioeconomic backgrounds earn bachelor’s degrees (compared with 60 percent of students from high-socioeconomic backgrounds).

And the data suggest that consumers of higher education are grappling with cognitive dissonance of their own. They value higher education: believe it is important to have a certificate or degree beyond high school. But only of those without a postsecondary credential say they are very likely to return to college to get a certificate or degree. At the same time, of working Americans feel the need for additional training and education in order to keep up with changes in the workplace.

Of equal concern: While a majority of Americans say job and career outcomes are their for attending college, only one-third of current college students — and just half believe their major will lead to a good job. As it turns out, access is not equivalent to equity, and completion alone is insufficient in fulfilling higher education’s promise of social and economic mobility. We are still “A Nation at Risk.”

The good news is that consumer insights are also helping us identify scalable solutions. They’re telling us that work-related experiences like internships and apprenticeships significantly increase and alumni success and satisfaction. Education consumers that when college coursework is relevant to their work and lives, they are more likely to believe that they received a high-quality education — and that it was worth the cost.

Against that backdrop, our nation’s colleges and universities must be ready to meet the needs of a generation of “new traditional” students who are very different from college students of the past. As the number of students work and family obligations with their education grows, institutions are being asked to be flexible to meet their needs. Our colleges and universities must recognize that technology presents both challenges and opportunities, transforming the world of work in ways that compress the shelf life of skills — but also enabling deeper learning at an unprecedented scale.

It is no longer enough just to help as many students as possible get their foot in the door of higher education. We must build stronger pathways between education and employment throughout every step of the student life cycle, from career exploration and support through completion, to successful workforce transitions and retooling of skills throughout their working lives.

By paying attention to what consumers want and need from higher education, we can help resolve the dissonance between the strengths and weaknesses of our current system. If we listen to education consumers and each other, I’m optimistic the conversation we’ll be having in 15 years — at the 50th anniversary of “A Nation at Risk” — will tell the story of a country that continues to deliver the best educational opportunities in the world so that all citizens have clear pathways to realize their potential and succeed in work and in life.

Bill Hansen is president and CEO of Strada Education Network, a national nonprofit united to strengthen America’s pathways between education and employment. He will be participating as a panelist at the Reagan Institute Summit on Education.

Education reform has always been a journey on multiple roads, united by the underlying belief that a nation’s vitality depends on the quality of its schooling

This week marks the 35-year anniversary of The report, likely the most widely referenced case for reform, is a model advocacy tool, conveying urgency from its opening line: “Our Nation is at risk.”

The report’s release was certainly an inflection point for public education, though reports don’t change history — people do. Over time, the advocates attracted to this cause added their ideas to the mix, expanding the work’s scope and possibilities. It set social innovators and education reform advocates on the multiple footpaths that grew into many on-ramps to education reform today. Here are three ways “A Nation at Risk” gave a voice to a new generation of advocates:

1. Empowering Civic Leaders to Take a Stand

As this federal commission’s work was underway in Washington, D.C., another government-appointed commission was at work in Kentucky to improve higher education. Its efforts went the way most such bodies’ do — they were ignored. Undaunted, the formed as a nonprofit advocacy organization to ensure that citizens would have an ongoing voice in raising the state’s education system from the bottom rung.

Ultimately the Prichard Committee helped advance the Kentucky Education Reform Act, one of the earliest models of standards-based reform. Other similar civic-led powerhouses lead in states today, including influencers like , , and .

2. Engaging Business Leaders in a Commonsense Framework

The recommendations in “A Nation at Risk” for standards-based reform also attracted business leaders to the cause. The led the charge, with CEO-driven business associations springing up across the country. While some of these efforts were business-only, others followed a different model, forming partnerships whose boards comprised equal parts business and education leaders.

As more businesses globalized, fewer CEOs had vested interests in specific states, and these models of advocacy devolved, though strong examples remain, such as the . Today, business-backed advocacy is resurging as organizes the voice of business leaders in more states to remind us that education is essential to the in this country.

3. Inspiring Entrepreneurs to Improve Teacher Quality

The need for innovations to strengthen educator quality was also plainly made in “A Nation at Risk,” which argued that the nation’s schools couldn’t improve if we attract teachers from only the bottom quartile of college graduates. Only a few years later, a scheme for attracting the best and brightest to America’s classrooms was launched: . And from the first wave of TFA alumni came a host of other innovative models to improve the delivery of schooling, including talent pipeline organizations such as , , and charter management organizations like . The venerable , founded in 2000, brought sustained research to the cause.

Today’s advocacy sector is far more crowded than it was in 1983, with more voices lining up at microphones in state capitols, testifying to the importance of continued improvements in our nation’s schools. But the pathways into education reform that have been made wider since this early work are still clear by the many contributions of leaders who have added ideas and urgency over time.

There is, of course, so much more to this story, though this much is clear: Even when inspired by a common purpose, the ideas that excite education reformers have set us on divergent paths that converge again when interests align. Our story has always been a journey on multiple roads, united by the underlying belief that a nation’s vitality depends on the quality of its schooling.

Ahead of the Reagan Institute’s Summit on Education commemorating the 35th anniversary of the release of “A Nation at Risk,” ����Ӱ�� is publishing a special series of articles, essays, and retrospectives about the release and the aftermath of the famous education report. See our full series here.

It’s hard to believe that this month marks 35 years since the National Commission on Excellence in Education, formed by then–Secretary of Education Ted Bell, issued its blockbuster report on education in America, “A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform.”

Edward B. Fiske, who for 17 years was education editor of The New York Times, the report as “35 pages that shook the U.S. education world [and became] one of the most significant documents in the history of American public education.”

It was unlike the usual studies, analyses, and broadsides in education. For example:

● Instead of being directed to education experts and others in the field, the Commission called it an “Open Letter to the American People.”

● It contained apocalyptic rhetoric like “… the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and a people.”

● It used military analogies to call the nation to arms to roll back that tide and end the threat: “If an unfriendly foreign power had attempted to impose on America the mediocre educational performance that exists today, we might have viewed it as an act of war.”

Initial battles within the Reagan administration

Politically, the report caused significant early wrangles between White House aides to President Ronald Reagan, who had opposed creating a presidential commission, and Secretary Bell, who when faced with that resistance opted to employ the Department’s statutory authority to create the commission at the cabinet level.

These tussles intensified when the report didn’t focus on White House priorities for education circa 1983, namely abolishing the young Education Department itself (widely seen as a bone tossed to teachers unions for their support in the 1980 election), allowing organized prayer in schools, and supporting vouchers and tuition tax credits for private school expenses. The Department of Education had only begun operating in 1980 under Jimmy Carter’s administration.

Embracing the report

Eventually, however, as they saw the report striking a major chord with voters, White House aides embraced it. Reagan would himself attend three of 12 regional meetings convened by Bell to discuss the report. Surprisingly, he would also accept an invitation from Albert Shanker, then president of the American Federation of Teachers, to address the union’s 1983 annual convention and the report’s findings.

Bell would also undertake a new initiative inspired by discussions he had on the report with the nation’s governors during their 1983 summer meeting. Many governors criticized the U.S. Department of Education for not providing yearly, reliable, national, state-by-state information in a simple and straightforward format that allowed for comparisons on multiple indicators.

This led Bell to create the Secretary’s Education Wall Chart, which contained numerous indicators that allowed for state-by-state comparisons, including information on SAT and ACT scores and the percentage of high school students in each state taking the exams, the percentage of students who lived below the poverty level, student dropout rates, minority student enrollment, teacher salaries, and more.

It was released for the first time in January 1984 at a Department of Education press conference. As Bell “The [reporters’] reactions were sharp and animated … [including] compliments and brickbats [as well as comments by others who] described the data as the most complete they had ever seen.”

Finally, the administration would make education reform into a political issue for the 1984 presidential campaign, using Reagan’s deftness in the “bully pulpit” to argue for the commission’s conclusions regarding the lackluster state of student achievement in the U.S.

Bill Bennett and the three C’s

Once Reagan was re-elected, he nominated William Bennett to be the nation’s third secretary of education, coming to the department from the National Endowment for the Humanities, which he chaired during the first term.

It fell to Bennett and his team to create a formal policy agenda for K-12 education reform, an agenda that would be based on “A Nation at Risk” but also aligned with the administration’s political and policy priorities. Bennett unveiled it on March 27, 1985, in a at the National Press Club.

Bennett suggested that the traditional three R’s — reading, writing, and arithmetic — a long-standing, shorthand way of reminding the nation of what K-12 students should learn, needed to be supplemented due to the new challenges facing education in America as described in “A Nation at Risk.” He called this a “new trilogy of ideas” and summarized it as “the “three C’s of content, character, and choice.”

Content

For Bennett, content was about curriculum. He was clear that the federal government is prohibited from prescribing curriculum for states and localities. But he framed the content discussion by talking about how Washington can contribute to educational excellence by urging high educational standards — what the report described as “more rigorous and measurable standards, and higher expectations, for academic performance.”

This focus included what the commission dubbed “the five new basics” — i.e., 4 years of English, 3 years of mathematics, 3 years of science, 3 years of social studies, and one half year of computer science. (Two years of language were strongly recommended for college-bound students.) Later, Bennett would make his own strong personal curricular recommendations in two publications released by the department: and . He was not at all inhibited in spelling out what he thought students should know and be able to do before graduating from high school.

Character

For Bennett, the mastering of content developed intellect, which goes hand-in-hand with developing character — what the report called “student conduct” while acknowledging that developing intellect is no guarantee of good character. Schools must expose children to good character and invite its imitation.

Schools must also have character themselves; that is, they must model what they want students to develop. Educators must articulate ideals to students, develop a school ethos, and transmit it to them by example. With a nod to the administration’s political posture, Bennett commented that “voluntary school prayer [can] be an auxiliary to character in some places.”

Choice

To Bennett, a key problem with schools was — and still is — that they cannot be directly held accountable by parents. A key way to improve them is “if parents had a greater ability to choose another school — a better school.” He called for a redesign of public education through “instruments of choice … within public education and between public and non-public education.” This would include both vouchers and tuition tax credits.

He observed that many Americans already had “a voucher … known as the ability to buy the school of their choice by buying the neighborhood of their choice.” With this formulation, Bennett was again able to link the administration’s agenda to what he proposed for the Department’s K-12 policy agenda.

Finally, while not explicitly calling for the agency’s abolition — Bell had earlier failed to locate any congressional support for such a move — Bennett made clear that the role of the department vis-à-vis the “three C’s” was “limited by the fact that education in America has been and always should be a local and state responsibility … [and that] real reform … cannot come from inside the Department of Education in Washington. It has to come from inside our schools and our communities.”

A legislative agenda

The Department went on to advance four legislative proposals grounded in the three C’s to create what Bennett called “our agenda for the next four years.” The first two items were predictably contentious:

● Converting traditional Title I basic grants that went to school districts and provided special financial support to schools with high percentages of children from low-income families into compensatory education vouchers worth several hundred dollars to purchase public or private education services.

● Creating tuition tax credits whereby parents could recover up to $300 of a child’s private school tuition.

The other two items were more esoteric but garnered from significant elements of the K-12 reform community:

● Expanding data collection for the National Assessment of Educational Progress — the nation’s report card — from providing only national and regional data on student achievement to state-specific achievement data, thereby making state-to-state student achievement comparisons possible for the first time.

● Reorganizing the National Center for Education Statistics to address problems associated with its data-collection quality, accuracy, and publication timeliness, including significant expansion of its data-collection surveys for K-12 public and private education.

The administration failed in the first two efforts, though various Republican administrations since have continued to propose similar legislation.

Bennett and his team did, however, succeed in working with the Democratic Congress to enact the other two proposals, thereby establishing a recurring state-by-state trove of student achievement data and background information for different academic content areas. It would go on to include international assessments, making comparisons possible between U.S. students and other students around the world. (As befits this 35th anniversary, results were just released today.) This formed the basis for all types of analyses that led to debates that continue to this day about how well — or poorly — schools are preparing students for college, careers, and citizenship.

The long-term outcome

The continuing flow of solid information on K-12 education emerging from the Reagan administration’s legislative successes would become the fuel that stoked the education reform movement — or what would be called by some “the excellence movement” — to this day.

So with the three C’s, Bennett and his team skillfully integrated the administration’s political agenda for education with a broader K-12 “excellence” agenda that he would magnify with his use of the bully pulpit for the remainder of the Reagan administration.

Moreover, his forceful articulation of content, character, and choice along with a legislative agenda would prove to be prescient.

For example, significant elements of that agenda were taken up by the nation’s governors under their multiyear project that spanned 1985 to 1991 called “” and also in their 1989 in Charlottesville, Virginia, with President George H.W. Bush.

In short, the three Cs and that legislative agenda would frame many of the education reform conversations that occurred over the following 30-plus years (and that continue even now). They would create the framework for the two key elements that would dominate education reform discussion to this day: standards-based reforms — including testing and accountability — and choice-based reforms like charter schools, vouchers, tax credits, education savings accounts, and other mechanisms that allow public dollars to be used for a variety of educational options.

Over these 35 years, the message of “A Nation at Risk” has had remarkable durability and resilience.

Bruno V. Manno served in several senior positions in the U.S. Department of Education from 1986 to 1993, observing firsthand the development of the agenda described in this piece. He is now senior adviser for the Walton Family Foundation’s K-12 program and co-author of Charter Schools at the Crossroads.

In April 1983, a week before the release of “A Nation at Risk,” I handed a copy to then–Secretary of Education Terrel H. Bell, and he read the report for the first time as I waited. When he finished, he said he was “surprised, elated, and apprehensive.”

The report’s brief 36 pages presented a stinging criticism of an American education system whose student performance was mediocre when compared to other developed countries. Bell thought the report’s provocative title and contents would engender the wrath of the education community.

Bell was right, of course. There was backlash from the education establishment — some educators felt they were under attack for the condition of American education. But the overall effect of the report on educators, parents, students, politicians, business leaders, and academics was, as wrote in June 1983, to bring education “to the forefront of debate with an urgency not felt since the Soviet satellite shook American confidence in its public schools in 1957.”

Now, it seemed everyone was a stakeholder.

The report’s influence was evident in the leadership of state governors. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) and Bill Clinton (D-AR) were among the governors who quickly to addressing the report’s issues. In 1989, newly elected President George H. W. Bush convened all the governors for a in Charlottesville, Virginia, to discuss education goals for the nation.

The report’s brevity deserves special attention. As National Commission on Excellence in Education members and staff began to write the final report, we had thousands of pages of research papers, public statements, and private commission deliberations. We struggled to find the best way to craft a report out of the material the commission had absorbed over more than a year of work.

The members, with their different life experiences and points of view, were nonetheless able to reach consensus on the content and format. Their conclusions and recommendations needed to be delivered not as a research paper but as a report to the nation. The members wanted the public to respond to the central message — the imperative of education reform.

Each commission member signed this devastating critique of American education, concluding that consistent themes ran through everything that they had heard and read: Our students did not have an adequate curriculum and were not spending enough time on basic academics. Students and teachers had to meet higher standards. It was in our national interest to provide a quality education to all, regardless of race, class, or economic status.

Although naysayers questioned the length and format, it is clear that this brief report had such power and certainty that it not only survived but has become a landmark in American education history. Then and now, our nation’s future economic security and our ability to flourish as a democratic society demand a generation of students with solid academic knowledge, world-class technical skills, conscientious work habits, and eager, creative, and analytical minds.

There have been positive changes in the education system since “A Nation at Risk” was published. There is now general acceptance of higher standards and expectations for student learning and achievement. We’ve seen new emphasis on the quality of teaching, as exemplified by the of the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The numbers of students taking the defined in “A Nation at Risk” has increased exponentially. The growth of demonstrates the willingness of states and school districts to seek organizational changes for improved student performance.

But there is one issue that we sometimes forget when we focus on education reform. Ultimately, our schools must help prepare young people for life in a democracy. Students must have the attitudes and skills that enable them to contribute to the larger community. Education must foster in every student civility, respect for others, and understanding of civic responsibility.

After the report was released, Bell and President Ronald Reagan began to tour the country to speak about education reform, holding a series of public forums focused on the report’s recommendations. The president and the secretary encouraged states and localities to direct their efforts toward the improvement of education in their school districts.

In 1984, in a ceremony on the South Lawn of the White House, “It’s not overstating things at all to say that your report changed our history by changing the way we look at education and putting it back on the American agenda.”

He was right. Thirty-five years after its release, “A Nation at Risk” is still a reminder that quality education is essential to our nation’s health and prosperity.

Dr. Milton Goldberg is the former executive director of the National Commission on Excellence in Education, which published “A Nation at Risk” in 1983. He will be participating as a panelist at the Reagan Institute Summit on Education.

This month marks the 35th anniversary of “,” the seminal report that changed the face of American education. Released in 1983 by the Reagan administration, the report took a critical look at the state of American public education. It was, to put it mildly, not a pretty picture.

The report found that SAT scores had fallen from 20 years prior, only a third of public school students could complete multi-step math problems, and just 20 percent could compose a persuasive essay.

These alarming statistics were followed by a call to action: All Americans must come together to create a society characterized by learning and excellence — one “prepared through the education and skill of its people to respond to the challenges of a rapidly changing world.”

It’s a call that bears repeating. Three and a half decades later, the world is still changing — and changing far more rapidly than the authors of the report could ever have foreseen. The complexities and challenges facing American society have shifted dramatically since 1983.

We need an education system that can prepare students to meet these challenges. And to realize that, we need another national conversation on education that addresses those very students as well.

Take advancements in classroom technology as an example. The devices that are now available to enhance student learning would have been unthinkable even 10 years ago, let alone at the time of the release of “A Nation at Risk.” On the one hand, such innovations allow unprecedented levels of connectivity and access to information. And, rightly used, they can help prepare students for the job market. The report’s observation that “the demand for highly skilled workers in new fields is accelerating rapidly” continues to hold true: There are in the country, waiting for qualified applicants to fill them, according to Code.org.

On the other hand, many that technology in the classroom can be a distraction, and the pace of technological development makes it difficult for schools to keep up. How can we prepare students to have the nimbleness and flexibility they’ll need to succeed as technological changes become more and more rapid? And what possibilities are there for those who have already spent decades in the workforce? has put thousands of workers all across the country but created new, previously unimagined jobs for many. We must consider the possibilities of adult education, equipping older workers to adapt alongside technology.

If we don’t start investing more wisely in our children’s future now and preparing them to thrive amid these challenges, we won’t just negatively impact the job market or the economy. We’ll seriously compromise the future of our democracy.

Our democracy can sustain seismic economic and cultural shifts, but that only works if we educate students on the unique privileges and responsibilities of citizenship. As Ronald Reagan wisely , “Since the founding of this nation, education and democracy have gone hand in hand … The founders believed a nation that governs itself, like ours, must rely upon an informed and engaged electorate.”

Our track record since he spoke these words in 1983 hasn’t been especially strong. A 2017 Brookings Institution study showed about the nature of the First Amendment among university students. And we’re not just failing to prepare our students to become full-fledged participants in our democracy; in many respects, we’re also failing to prepare them to become active contributors to our economy. Thanks to the gargantuan size of student loan debt, more and more millennials , and fewer and fewer are investing in or . Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell recently admitted that student loan debt — now at a whopping $1.38 trillion nationwide — in the long run.

With these realities at play, the purpose and power of higher education is coming under increased scrutiny. Some important voices have started wondering ; others have called on universities to better prepare students for the job market. The University of Wisconsin–Stevens Point is considering pulling standard liberal arts majors like English and philosophy altogether in favor of programs with “.”

No matter what you think of the proposal, the fact that it’s even up for consideration is indicative of the major shifts currently shaping our education landscape. Ignoring these forces is no longer an option. If we want our students to thrive in the decades to come, we need to take a serious look at all aspects of education — from civics to careers and from elementary school to college. Failing to do so is, ultimately, failing our students — and, in the long run, our nation.

A call for a substantive, honest bipartisan conversation on education in this hyperpartisan age might sound naive — but it is, at the end of the day, a necessity. That’s why we’re hosting the Reagan Institute Summit on Education this week. Leaders from across the aisle and across various industries will come together to have this conversation, each offering insights and raising concerns specific to their sectors.

In the meantime, the conversation starts here, in the pages of ����Ӱ��. I invite you to follow along in the following days as we examine several of the topics and themes that RISE will address. It’s a great opportunity to gain perspective on the most pressing issues in our education system and develop your own thoughts on them as well. Only by carefully considering and openly addressing these issues can we realize the full measure not only of the potential of our students, but of the promise of our great nation.

John Heubusch is the executive director of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation and Institute, which is presenting the Reagan Institute Summit on Education in April 2018. He is also the author of the best-selling novel The Shroud Conspiracy.

As technology continues to advance, we have a shared responsibility to ensure that everyone benefits in the future.

In 1983, the commissioners of “A Nation at Risk,” the report on American education, understood the need to foster a society of learners. They wrote, “At the heart of such a society is the commitment to a set of values and to a system of education that affords all members the opportunity to stretch their minds to full capacity, from early childhood through adulthood, learning more as the world itself changes.”

It’s clear that previous eras of innovation brought job disruption and transitions to new kinds of education and skills. Just as the workplace of today bears little resemblance to the one in which I began my career, the workplace of tomorrow will be vastly different. Change is also happening more rapidly than before, because of the speed of technology, and job disruption along with it. That’s why it is equally important for both students and those already in the workforce to have opportunities to gain new skills throughout their careers.

A new report from the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and nearly 28 percent will be transformed into positions requiring a clutch of new skills. Even today, more than half of America’s employers say they can’t find enough workers with the right technology skills to fill open jobs. In the manufacturing sector, for example, many jobs lost during the recession are unlikely to come back, but there are still more than 427,000 positions unfilled. That’s enough to employ more than half the population of Detroit.

These challenges in the manufacturing sector are relevant to discussions about changing the way we educate students and retrain adults. In an important study from Deloitte, manufacturing executives say that among the highest-demand attributes for workers .

Machinists today, for example, program numerical control technology to cut precise metal parts and shape raw materials — a different skill, but adapted from the hands-on work of years past. And the demands for technical skills go far beyond the manufacturing and technology sectors. Nearly every field, from medicine to customer service to marketing, increasingly requires some level of technical skill.

Given these developments, what it means to be “educated” today has also evolved. Reading and math literacy are still fundamental. But now students must also have a deeper understanding of the language of computers, mixed with the ability to problem-solve and adapt. In fact, “A Nation at Risk” laid out five “,” including computer science coursework, necessary for the success for America’s students. What was true in 1983 is even more so today. By learning to code, students learn a process to form a problem statement and express a solution ready-made for people or computers. Computer scientist and professor Jeannette Wing calls this “computational thinking.”

I recently spoke with a high school principal whose university-educated daughter lost out on an advertising job because she could not code. This confirmed for me that computational thinking gives students the confidence not only to be creators, but also to better adapt in an increasingly technology-driven workplace.

Despite the importance of computational thinking, there is a significant gap in our schools. In the U.S., most high schools do not offer computer science. At the college level, according to , there will be 1.4 million computer science–related jobs in the U.S. by 2020, yet college graduates are expected to fill less than a third of those jobs.

Microsoft, , and other technology companies to promote funding at the federal and state levels to support computer science teacher training. We also work together to encourage students to study computer science by allowing such classes to count toward math and science graduation requirements. Many technology companies also help schools bring computer science into the classroom. Microsoft’s program, for example, helps high schools build and grow sustainable computer science programs through partnerships between teachers and technology industry volunteers. We’re proud to have robust participation from employees at many of the largest technology companies, including Google and Amazon, which also run their own computer science education programs.

We also need to continue investing in programs to help Americans find and train for better-paying jobs while connecting employers with the talent they need to thrive in the digital economy. A new in which we’ve invested works with stakeholders to help those already in the workforce learn what skills are in demand, where to get training, and how to connect with employers.

Being “educated” is more than a credential, a license, or a degree. Today, an educated person must embrace learning throughout their lifetime to continually add competencies that employers value. A lifelong learner increasingly will seek additional education, often with technical instruction, throughout their career. That’s why we need to prepare young people to learn how to learn and to give them confidence to understand changing technology. And we need to make training available to adults later in their careers, to help them adapt to a fast-changing technological world.

As technology moves forward, no one should be left behind. Nothing is more important. Working together — the private sector, the public sector, and nonprofits — we can ensure that all workers can thrive, both today and tomorrow.

Mary Snapp is Microsoft corporate vice president and lead of Microsoft Philanthropies. She will be participating as a panelist in the Reagan Institute Summit on Education.