[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 75 (Wednesday, June 4, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1110]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          EDUCATION STANDARDS

                                 ______
                                 

                          HON. LEE H. HAMILTON

                               of indiana

                    in the house of representatives

                        Wednesday, June 4, 1997

  Mr. HAMILTON. Mr. Speaker, I would like to insert my Washington 
Report for Wednesday, June 4, 1997, into the Congressional Record.

                      National Education Standards

       Contrary to the grim portrait often painted of American 
     education, I believe we do a reasonably good job of educating 
     our students and preparing them for work. But I also believe 
     we can do better, and so I have had an interest in the debate 
     now building in the country as to whether there should be 
     national education standards for U.S. schoolchildren. Central 
     to this debate is the desire to ensure that our children have 
     the base of knowledge they need to lead productive lives in a 
     competitive workplace.


                          Nature of standards

       Education standards set out what students should be 
     expected to know at certain grade levels. For example, 
     standards for math might say that by the 4th grade students 
     should know how to work with fractions and decimals and by 
     the 8th grade they should know how to apply algebra and 
     geometry to real-world situations.
       Most industrialized nations have stringent national 
     academic standards and tests for core academic subjects. The 
     U.S. does not. The U.S. has created some voluntary national 
     education standards, most notably in math. Some states have 
     used them as guidance for setting their own standards. Some 
     46 states have developed or are in the process of developing 
     challenging standards in the core academic areas. In Indiana, 
     for example, Hoosier students in grades 3, 6, and 10 must 
     take tests measuring their mastery of essential math and 
     English skills. But the standards and testing vary 
     considerably across the country.


                              Controversy

       To be sure, national standards are a controversial topic. 
     Supporters see them as a way of giving content to national 
     education goals and holding students and teachers 
     accountable. They believe national standards provide a 
     benchmark against which state and local curricula may be 
     judged. They stress that students in every state need to know 
     the same math and English and develop strong reading and 
     problem-solving skills. They point out that U.S. students 
     often score lower on achievement tests than students in other 
     countries, and see standards as a way of encouraging equal 
     opportunity and excellence in education.
       Opponents think the national standards would do more harm 
     than good. They think the likely result would not be better 
     schools, but a shallow national curriculum and too large a 
     federal presence in what has been an area of state and local 
     control. They worry about what happens when students or 
     schools fail to meet the standards, and think the states and 
     localities can do a good job in determining what their 
     students should know.
       Most of the experts have endorsed the idea of national 
     standards generally, pointing out that the new math standards 
     have shown that standards can be done at the national level 
     without federalizing the educational system. At the same 
     time, the experts are cautious, saying that the standards 
     should steer clear of too many specifics.
       My view is that it would probably be useful to have more 
     national standards of what students should be expected to 
     know at given points along the educational path. Student 
     advancement ought to be more or less the same thing in 
     California or Indiana or Mississippi. It is difficult for me 
     to see how we achieve both equity and excellence in education 
     without high standards.

                                Process

       Yet I also realize that the prospect of national education 
     standards makes a lot of people nervous, even if they are 
     voluntary standards. That is why it is critically important 
     that the standards be developed through a credible public 
     process, one that relies heavily on consensus-building.
       The standards should be national standards, not standards 
     developed by the federal government. Developing credible 
     national standards is going to take some time. The 
     formulation of the standards should involve not just teachers 
     and educators but members of the public. These standards 
     should be reasonably precise and not too lengthy. They should 
     cover both content and performance, and focus on what 
     students should know so that they are well prepared for 
     subsequent education and careers. They should be scrutinized 
     in public forums and be widely distributed for comment. They 
     will clearly have to be tested and revised as experience 
     with them grows. The success or failure of national 
     standards, quite simply, depends on how they are 
     developed.
       In addition, whatever is done, I think state and local 
     officials should be free to adopt these standards as they 
     please, as they set concrete, rigorous standards of what 
     students must learn in basic areas such as math, science, and 
     English. In addition, teachers and schools must remain free 
     to use their own educational methods and their own judgment 
     on how best to achieve the standards. That's the way it ought 
     to be in a country as large and diverse as ours.


                          Lingering questions

       Setting the standards does not by any means resolve all the 
     tough questions, such as whether high standards alone will 
     really increase achievement or whether high standards alone 
     will really increase achievement or whether in the end states 
     and communities will be committed to sanctions such as 
     holding students back. One question that lingers in any 
     discussion of national standards is how to measure whether 
     the students are meeting the standards. Assessment is a very 
     complex topic, posing questions of cost, equity, and 
     political control. These questions have not all been worked 
     out. But they should not deter us from proceeding with 
     national standards, and I do think the debate over what we 
     expect from our schools is healthy.


                               Conclusion

       It will certainly take some time before voluntary national 
     standards are available in every subject area, and it will 
     also take some time before the standards are broadly accepted 
     by school officials, teachers, and parents. But we must push 
     ahead. Such standards clearly have the potential to improve 
     the quality and equity of American education. They can 
     represent a vision of what can be accomplished and can 
     challenge a community or state to create circumstances in 
     every classroom to achieve those standards. They should not 
     be a national curriculum, nor should they imply a 
     standardized education. They should be a goal that permits 
     local administrators and teachers to find ways to achieve the 
     standards. Excellence in education and equal opportunity will 
     not be achieved without high standards.

     

                          ____________________