[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 142 (Tuesday, October 21, 1997)]
[House]
[Pages H8909-H8916]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                              {time}  2000
                      NATIONAL EDUCATIONAL TESTING

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 7, 1997, the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] is recognized 
for 60 minutes.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time to speak on a topic 
that is of great concern to me this evening. It is a topic that is 
growing more and more important as we move into this week of the 
proceedings of the U.S. Congress. It is a topic that touches me very 
personally because I have two children.
  The topic I want to talk about tonight, Mr. Speaker, is the 
President's proposal to impose on America a national test, that is so-
called national testing. And by that, what the President means is that 
he wants to require all students in America to take a federally written 
national examination. His proposal is that we give this examination to 
all fourth graders in the subject of reading and to all eighth graders 
in the subject of mathematics. And, in fact, he is going to do that and 
has already gotten the basic test specifications written.
  Right here we can see, in this document I am holding up, which says, 
the report of the national test panel, item and test specifications for 
the voluntary national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth grade 
mathematics.
  This  is,  I  think, a critically important topic for every Member of 
the U.S. House of Representatives and for every single American, and 
that is why I wanted to talk about it.
  Let me first explain how I feel about the subject of education and 
where I come from. I am a Republican, and for that reason some of my 
Democrat colleagues like to say I do not care about education. They 
like to claim that for us Republicans education is not important.
  Well, I am offended by that remark. I care deeply about education, 
and I not only care deeply about education, I care very deeply about 
public education because I got all of my education in public education.
  I attended public schools from eighth grade through college. Excuse 
me, not eighth grade through college, from kindergarten through 
college, and I am proud of the education I got. I am also proud that my 
two children, Courtney and Stephen, who are home in Phoenix, AZ, 
tonight, are obtaining their education at public schools, at public 
schools that I am proud of. And I am married to a woman, the mother of 
those two children, who was herself a

[[Page H8910]]

public schoolteacher. So do not tell me I do not care about education 
or that I do not care about public education.
  Now, the topic here tonight is not generally public education; the 
topic here tonight is voluntary national tests. Many in America cannot 
understand this issue. Indeed, they cannot understand why there would 
be a controversy around this issue. Indeed, many Americans kind of 
listening to the topic of Bill Clinton proposing here in this Chamber 
in his State of the Union a national test for every fourth grader in 
America and every eighth grader in America in reading and math say, 
well, what is wrong with that?
  How is it that someone could oppose that? Why would, for example, the 
Family Research Council put out an extensive paper opposing it? Why 
would Lynne Cheney, a nationally syndicated columnist and former 
official of the Federal Government, write and oppose it? Why would a 
series of other experts speak out and speak out stridently against 
national testing? Why would 290-plus Members of the U.S. House of 
Representatives, this very body, vote to prohibit the President from 
going forward, at least unilaterally, on his own with just the aid of 
his Education Department? Why would over 290 Members of this U.S. House 
vote to deny the President one dime to spend on national testing?
  Why am I here on the floor trying to educate other Members of this 
Congress? Why am I asking Americans across this country, from New 
Hampshire to Arizona, from Oregon to Florida, to speak out and join me 
in opposing the effort to impose on our children a federally written 
national mathematics test and a federally written national English 
test?
  Well, let me explain that. Just today the Secretary of Education, Mr. 
Riley, took to the stump. ``White House Campaigns for Education 
Agenda.'' And this is an article from today's Washington Times. In it 
the Secretary of Education, Mr. Riley, says that he is here to fight 
for national testing. He says, for example, citing a recent report that 
says, ``The report, Mathematics Equals Opportunity, is a report 
released yesterday which shows that rigorous teaching of mathematics 
does a tremendous job in helping children get into the best colleges in 
America, and those children who get rigorous mathematics education do 
very, very well.'' There is a quote. Mr. Riley. ``These courses demand 
discipline, they demand hard work and they demand responsibility.''
  In that regard, I totally agree with Mr. Riley. But, unfortunately, 
the national test that Mr. Riley advocates, the national test that Mr. 
Clinton wants to apply does not test mathematics skills. You say, well, 
wait a minute, how can that be true, it is a math exam? How can it 
possibly not test mathematics skills?
  Well, let me just find for my colleagues a copy of the materials 
already written. The report of the national test panel, October 1997, 
released this month, prepared for the national test panel by NPR 
Associates Inc., and it says here, ``Item and test specifications for 
the voluntary national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth grade 
mathematics.''
  I have not had a chance to read every word of this report, but there 
is a fascinating section of it I want to call to my colleagues' 
attention. It says in here that on the eighth grade mathematics test, 
every single student will be allowed to have throughout the entire 
duration of the test a calculator. That is to say, at no point in the 
eighth grade math examination that is being proposed by President 
Clinton and that will, in fact, be implemented and be imposed on every 
single education department and every single school in America, if Bill 
Clinton and Mr. Riley have their way, that exam will not at any point 
in time require the eighth grade student to demonstrate his or her 
ability to do basic pen and pencil mathematic calculations without a 
calculator.
  Now, my colleagues may be saying to themselves, well, maybe it is 
important to test higher skills. That might be true, and there is a 
national assessment test which is given in which a portion of the exam 
includes an examination of doing certain calculations with a 
calculator. But in the NAEP test, which is currently given to test or 
to evaluate performance from State to State across America, and to see 
how Arizona is doing as compared with Michigan, or how Wisconsin is 
doing in comparison with Louisiana, in that exam at least a portion of 
the test requires the students to do pen and pencil calculations.
  But in the test Bill Clinton is proposing, in the test Mr. Riley 
wants, in the test that Mr. Riley is demanding this Congress agree to, 
on the front page of the Washington Times today he is demanding that we 
agree to a test to be given to every single student in America to test 
their math skill, in point of fact in that test, as the materials 
already prepared for the Department of Education, and this was written, 
by the way, if we turn the first page, it says this report was funded 
by the U.S. Department of Education. It was prepared for the U.S. 
Department of Education. And there will not be a single question on the 
test that requires an eighth grade math student to demonstrate that he 
or she can do multiplication, division, addition, or subtraction.

  Now, my colleagues might say, well, why is my fellow colleague so 
concerned about that? Maybe the experts thought that was the right way 
to go. Maybe we will just assume that students by the time they get to 
eighth grade can do basic math. Well, I am not alone in my concern and 
in my objection, because at the back of this report there is a letter 
of dissent. It is one of several, but it is the only one I will talk 
about tonight because that is all I have time for.
  This is the overall report. One of the gentlemen who was on this 
committee to write the exam, the actual test panel to which this report 
was given, was a gentleman by the name of Alan L. Wurtzel, W-U-R-T-Z-E-
L. Mr. Wurtzel is an executive with a prominent company here in 
America, and he was invited to participate on the test panel, that is, 
to help write the exam.
  He writes a letter raising the very point I am concerned about and 
that is, he says, ``I disagree with your allowing the use of 
calculators on the entire test.'' And he writes, and I quote, in a 
letter written to Mr. Wilmer Cody, Commissioner of the Kentucky State 
Department of Education, a letter dated September 25 of this year, 
``The test assumes that by Eighth grade children can do basic 
arithmetic including addition, subtraction, multiplication, and 
division of whole numbers, decimals and common fractions by hand.'' But 
he goes on to say, ``We shouldn't do that. We shouldn't make that 
assumption.''
  He says, ``We already know that the NAEP test tests, at least in 
part, the ability of children to do basic math skills.'' And he says 
that he believes, in his letter of dissent, that the national test 
should include those basic math skills.
  Interestingly, Mr. Wurtzel is with a large corporation in America 
that used to give an examination to people who run cash registers for 
his company, and he used to ask those people applying for a job as a 
cashier to do basic calculations. He writes in this letter that they 
gave up on that. They gave up on that because so few people applying 
for the job as a cashier could do basic calculations. And he, 
therefore, says that to assume that America's eighth graders can do 
basic math, basic math skills, is a mistake, and he pleads with the 
President's committee, this test panel, to include at least a part of 
the exam to be focused on basic math skills.
  Now, this illustrates, I think, a larger issue of what is desperately 
wrong with this national testing proposal, and that is it puts all of 
the power and all of the focus and all of the authority in Washington, 
DC.
  Now, I have to say a couple of different things. Mr. Riley may think 
strongly that this national test is a great idea, but I suggest that 
Mr. Riley has not done some reading he should have done. Because as a 
first basic argument there is not a word in the U.S. Constitution which 
calls upon the Federal Government to educate our children. Indeed, not 
a single American who has completed a civics class fails to understand 
that our Constitution gives certain roles to the Federal Government, 
like national defense, like trade with foreign governments and foreign 
countries, and trades between the States. But in the 10th amendment it 
reserves every single other power of government not expressly given to 
the Federal Government, it reserves those

[[Page H8911]]

to the States and to the people respectively.
  Now, Mr. Riley has not read that part of the Constitution. I suggest 
he has not read the 10th amendment at all or he does not understand it. 
But the Founding Fathers had a good reason for writing the Constitution 
in that fashion, and that is the idea of Federalism.
  Now, I do not want to get off on notions of Federal Government and 
government theory, but it comes down to this simple premise: I trust 
the teachers and the administrators and the parents at my daughter's 
high school, Thunderbird High School in Phoenix, AZ. I trust them. I 
know them. If I want my voice to be heard in the curriculum at the 
Washington school district or at Thunderbird High School, my wife or I 
can go to their curriculum discussions and have input. We can make our 
voice heard.
  If they propose to radically alter the curriculum at Courtney's high 
school, at Thunderbird High in Phoenix, AZ, I can speak out and I can 
be heard. If at Lookout Mountain Grade School, where my 11-year-old son 
is in school, if the principal or the teachers or the other 
administrators or the parents want to alter the curriculum, Shirley and 
I can drive down there and we can talk about that curriculum change.
  But in this examination we have no input. Indeed, we will see, and my 
colleagues can get a copy of this report, in this report even the 
people on the test panel lacked input. Because the gentleman who wrote 
and dissented and who said we are going to give an eighth grade math 
exam and we are going to assume as a nation that this is a valid test 
of the performance of all children across America in eighth grade math, 
which does not devote a single question to testing whether or not those 
eighth graders can do a basic math calculation without a calculator, 
even he could not be heard.
  Yet that is what we are going to do. We are going to write this 
entire test in Washington, DC.

                              {time}  2015

  I happen to trust, as I said, the local school officials in Arizona 
and the local school officials in Washington Elementary District and at 
Thunderbird High School to do a good job of teaching my daughter 
Courtney and my son Stephen. I do not happen to trust Mr. Riley and the 
national experts that will write a Federal test and dictate it all the 
way across the country. I think we would be making a grave mistake if 
we put all of our eggs into one basket of a national test.
  Some people say, but what could be wrong with a test? After all, this 
is not a national curriculum in mathematics. This is not just 
Washington, D.C. deciding what will be taught in every school in 
America. This is just Washington, D.C. deciding what will be tested in 
every school in America. Let me suggest to Members that what is tested 
is what will be in fact taught. Think about that one for a moment. If 
we as a Nation adopt a national test in mathematics and we say as a 
part of that national test as this report says and this is the test 
specification written for the national test panel, if we in that 
national test say we are not going to test 8th graders on any basic 
math skills, we are going to let them take a calculator and use that 
calculator on every single question, you have to understand, what is 
tested is what will be taught. What is tested is what will be taught. 
Courtney, my daughter, is a sophomore in high school. She cares very 
much about getting into the best possible college she can. Every one of 
her teachers has made sure that as a teacher he or she knew what 
Courtney would be tested on. And every one of her teachers having 
learned what Courtney would be tested on has made sure that in the 
classroom, in the classroom curriculum, Courtney was taught what she 
would later be tested on and therefore Courtney has done well on the 
tests that she has taken in her education to this point in time. 
Stephen's teachers are exactly the same. Teachers are caring people. 
They enjoy their jobs. They do not do it for the pay, I can tell 
Members that much. Both of my sisters are teachers today. One in North 
Phoenix and one in the Chandler School District. Both of my sisters, 
and I have two older sisters, are teachers today. Teachers care about 
their students' performance. They do not do it for the money. Go look 
at a teacher's salary anywhere in America. If they care about their 
students' performance, they are going to learn what is to be tested and 
they will make sure that they teach what is to be tested.
  Therefore, if we write a national test, if we embrace as a Nation 
that there is one correct theory in mathematics, if we decide that in 
mathematics what we should do is not test 8th graders on basic 
mathematical computational skills, we ought to give every one of them a 
calculator because it is not a good idea to force them to do basic math 
skills without a calculator, then that will be the emphasis in America. 
I suggest that that is a grave error.
  I want to in this discussion talk about one of the experts that 
helped write this point. I am talking now about the national math test 
because that is where I think this debate focuses at the moment. It 
seems that Lynne Cheney, who is an expert in this area, did some 
research. She discovered that one of the people who helped write the 
national math test and who serves on this test panel is a consultant to 
the Connecticut Department of Education. His name is Mr. Steven 
Leinwand. Mr. Leinwand is in fact a part of the National Association of 
Mathematics Teachers. Mr. Leinwand believes and has written an article 
in which he argues strenuously that it is, and I quote, downright 
dangerous to teach children, to teach students things like 6 times 7 is 
42. Indeed, he argues that it is improper and, as I said in his words, 
downright dangerous to continue to demand that our children master 
basic pencil and paper computational algorithms. What he writes is that 
the problem with teaching those things and by the way, therefore, the 
problem with testing them, according to Mr. Leinwand, is that it sorts 
the some out from the many.
  Lynne Cheney wrote an article on this, discussed Mr. Steven Leinwand, 
an article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal on September 29, 
1997. She points out that Mr. Leinwand believes that such instruction, 
instruction in basic computational mathematics skills sorts people out. 
That is, it anoints the few who can do those pen and pencil 
calculations and it casts out the many, and that is a direct quote from 
Mr. Leinwand, casts out the many who fail to do them. I happen to 
disagree with Mr. Leinwand. I happen to think, first, that in America, 
the many are those who actually master those skills and do learn basic 
computational math. But I also disagree with his more basic premise, 
which is that he says it is wrong to sort out those who master those 
skills from others because it makes them feel bad. I suggest that if 
making children feel bad who do not learn basic math is the worst we 
are doing, we are not doing great damage, because the alternative 
proposal is to say to those children, ``Don't worry about math. Don't 
worry about pen and pencil and computations. Don't worry about 
mastering those skills.'' If we say that to them, we condemn them to a 
lifetime of not being competitive in the world in which they live. We 
condemn them to living in a world where they can be taken advantage of 
by businesspeople, by unscrupulous people, by whoever wants to take 
advantage of the fact that they simply cannot do basic math skills.
  I think Mr. Leinwand is dead wrong. But I want to make one last point 
on this. Let us assume that I am right and he is wrong. If we have a 
single test just in Connecticut where Mr. Leinwand is from, we can look 
at whether or not the children of Connecticut following Mr. Leinwand's, 
I would suggest, radical theories do better than the children in 
Arizona or whether they do not do better. If Mr. Leinwand turns out to 
be right and his system turns out to be better, Arizona can follow 
that, California can follow it, Florida can follow, and adopt his 
theories on their own. But if Mr. Leinwand is in fact wrong and he 
succeeds and Bill Clinton succeeds and Secretary Riley succeeds in 
imposing their one-size-fits-all Federal test following Mr. Leinwand's 
radical theory on every school child in America, I suggest to you, to 
all my colleagues in the Congress and to every American watching that 
we will be condemning a generation, maybe a generation and a half of 
America's children to living in a world where they are not competitive

[[Page H8912]]

with the rest of the children around the world. I suggest to you that 
children in Germany and Japan and France and England and in many other 
countries around this world are indeed being drilled on these skills, 
they are mastering them and they will beat our children if we adopt a 
one-size-fits-all program. But even if he is right, the States could 
follow suit later. But if he is wrong, the risk of handing over the 
control of all of our children's education to one single Federal test 
is I think an absolute disaster.
  This is an issue which is going to be fought out right here in the 
Congress in the next few days. The President is proceeding with his 
national exam right now. The report I held up just moments ago is in 
fact the report on that national exam. There is only one way to stop it 
and that is by passing legislation stopping the President from spending 
Federal moneys which he wants to take from other parts of the 
Department of Education's budget and put it into his national testing 
program. If we do not stop him in a vote on the House floor and on the 
Senate floor within the next 2 or 3 weeks when this issue is resolved, 
it will be too late. I think there is no more time, no more urgent 
moment in our Nation's history if you care about education than to 
speak out on this topic.

  I am joined by the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Weldon]. I hope he is 
interested in jumping into this topic. I yield to the gentleman.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I appreciate the gentleman yielding. I want to 
commend him for rising this evening to speak out on this issue. I share 
his concerns about the President's plan to institute a national test. I 
want to just commend the gentleman for his actions here tonight and 
indeed I also want to commend him for his work in the whole area of 
education. I have had the opportunity to work with him on the 
Republican Policy Committee and he has exemplified the level of concern 
that I think many of the people who got elected with us in 1994 share 
about education in America and about the terrible decline in 
educational standards in America and the decline in academic 
performance. You cannot speak to any college professor in the United 
States without them lamenting the fact that over the past 30 years, the 
quality of math and verbal skills of incoming freshmen has deteriorated 
dramatically and many, most of our colleges now have to have 
rudimentary courses particularly in English skills, in writing skills.
  I am a product of the public education system in the United States. 
My mother was a public school teacher. Not only did I go through the 
public school system K through 12, I also went to a public college and 
then I went to a public medical school. I am a medical doctor. My 
mother was a public educator. I understand the value and importance of 
public education. I think the debate that we should be having in this 
city today, and the gentleman is touching right on it, is what can we 
really do to help education in the United States. Certainly I think one 
of the most important things we can do is we can make it more 
affordable for parents to send their kids to school and we are doing 
that with our tax relief package.
  We also can help parents to have more choice, and this is critically 
important in our inner city schools where so many of those parents in 
those poor neighborhoods have no choice. Unlike wealthy people who can 
select the best academic environment for their kids, people like Bill 
and Hillary Clinton, they were able to send their child to a very 
prestigious private school, many poor Americans living in our inner 
cities have no choice and they are locked into some of the worst and 
most failing schools.
  Also, one of the issues that we are debating in this city today, and 
the gentleman from Arizona [Mr. Shadegg] is bringing it up, is should 
we have national testing. Let me just say, I have a 10-year-old 
daughter, we have chosen to home-school my daughter so that my wife and 
daughter can spend part of their time up here with me and part of their 
time in Florida when we are on recess and we consider testing extremely 
important. We test my daughter every year to make sure that she is 
meeting national standards or accepted standards. Actually our goal is 
that she exceeds standards and that is why we test her every year. I am 
very thankful to have my wife who bears the primary responsibility for 
educating my daughter and who makes sure that she gets the testing 
scheduled every year.
  The question is, is it an appropriate role of the Federal Government 
to be instituting a national test? Just to point to Sweden, a country 
of 7 million people or some other little foreign country that has 
national testing and say they do it, therefore, we should do it is 
ludicrous in my opinion. This is a country of 260 million people, 50 
different States, people of all kinds of diverse ethnic backgrounds. 
There is no way that a one-size-fits-all concept could be put on the 
United States. This is just a different country.
  But the most important issue that the gentleman has brought up today 
and the biggest reason why I oppose national testing is because I do 
not have confidence in the Federal Government to do it correctly. This 
report that has come out clearly spells that out for every voter to see 
with their own eyes. They are going to give a math test and they are 
going to give the kids a calculator. Mr. Speaker, as far as I am 
concerned, I am not a lawyer, I am a doctor, but I know there is an 
expression in the legal profession, it says I think it is res ipsa 
loquitur. The thing speaks for itself. In other words, if you have got 
video footage of the perpetrator coming through the window with a TV in 
his hands, res ipsa loquitur. ``I rest my case, your honor. We don't 
need to debate this in front of the jury. The man is guilty. We've got 
him on tape.'' Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, Mr. Speaker, they want 
to give a math test and they want to give the kids a calculator. Do we 
think that the Federal Government can run a math test and run it 
properly?

                              {time}  2030

  I say, no. I say it is fraught with hazard. I say it is destined to 
fail. I say it is inappropriate.
  I agree with you that it is unconstitutional. What we need to be 
doing are the things that I spoke of earlier. We need to give parents 
choice, and the most crucial thing is we need to give poor, working-
class families real choice.
  Rich people in America today have choice. Doctors and lawyers have 
choice, wealthy businessmen have choice. The hard-working people in our 
poorest communities, they do not have choice.
  Do you want to improve educational performance in the United States 
today? Give those people choice and get money to the classroom. Get 
money out of the hands of bureaucrats.
  To say somehow by having this national test it is going to help 
educational performance, I think, is ludicrous. I, again, commend the 
gentleman for his speaking up, for coming to the floor tonight to talk 
about this issue. It is a critically important issue.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, perhaps we could have a dialogue 
here. It seems to me, first of all, the most important premise is to 
establish the fact that for those of us who oppose national testing, 
our opponents on the other side, that is the President and Secretary 
Riley and the educational experts and bureaucrats in the Education 
Department, would argue that if we oppose national testing, it is 
because we do not care about education.
  Let me ask the gentleman, you indicated you had a long history in 
public education. Do you believe that those of us who oppose a one-
size-fits-all national test; that is, that a Federal Government 
mathematics test, written inside the Beltway, in Washington, D.C., is a 
bad idea. Do you believe those of us that think that is a bad idea do 
not care about education?
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Well, you know, you touch on a real 
fundamental issue of this city, in my opinion. Before I came here I 
practiced medicine in Melbourne, Florida, for eight years. Prior to 
that, I practiced medicine in the Army. I was an Army doctor. I was not 
really used to all the crazy stuff that goes on in this city.
  But one of the things I have learned very quickly is if you, if the 
President or some of his colleagues here in the House or Senate have an 
idea, and they all think it is a great idea, everybody thinks their 
kids are beautiful and their ideas are brilliant, so they come up with 
an idea and they think it is a great idea, they are going to improve 
education in America by establishing

[[Page H8913]]

this national test. So, because you oppose it, then, oh, you must be 
anti-education.
  We were trying to fix Medicare last year, trying to preserve it so it 
would be there for senior citizens, seniors like my dad. They did not 
like our plan, so, therefore, we suddenly hated seniors and we hated 
Medicare, and they ran around misquoting Newt Gingrich saying he said 
Medicare was going to wither on the vine. He was talking about the 
bureaucracy here in Washington that screwed things up.
  Anyway, to get back to the issue, that is the theme always, always 
the attack. You do not like their agenda; therefore, you do not like 
education.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, it seems to me their point is, well, 
if they are against our proposal for national testing, they must, by 
definition, be against education.
  I will tell you, that argument makes me angry. I do oppose national 
testing. I think it is dead wrong for America. I think when the 
national testing would be a national math exam for eighth graders, that 
does not have a single question on it which requires the student to 
demonstrate he can do one math calculation without a calculator, I 
think I am right and I am demonstrating that I care about education.
  In my view, more testing is not the answer. If the answer were more 
testing, we would not have a problem in education in America today, 
because American students are tested, and tested, and tested.
  Now, what does the national test do? In this case, the national test 
that President Clinton is proposing is not only wrong on the merits, 
because it does not test basic math computational skills, thanks to Mr. 
Steven Leinwand and a handful of other radical theorists who do not 
want to test basic math skills, that say that will make students feel 
bad, but what does it do? It takes money away from education.
  That is right, the Congress was not presented with a bill from the 
President saying let us fund a national test. Let us define it by 
legislation, and let us then fund it through appropriations, the way 
this government is supposed to work.
  He is doing an end-run around the Congress, and his national testing 
program is going to be implemented without the approval of the Congress 
because the President just wants to do it, and he says he can do it.
  But do you know what? He has got to have money to do it. What is he 
going to do? He is going to take money out of other pieces of the 
Federal Department of Education and give it to national testing.
  Now, I think that is an abuse of this process, and it is dead wrong. 
Do you know what? As a House Republican, as a Member of this Congress 
who got public education and who believes to the depth of his soul in 
public education, I think it is dead wrong to steal money from other 
parts of the Federal Department of Education to push national testing, 
at least when that national testing will not even test the basic math 
skills that America's kids cannot do now.
  So am I playing politics with this, because I want to see the money 
already in the Department of Education spent for what it was supposed 
to be spent for? Am I anti-education, or is Bill Clinton anti-education 
because he wants to take that money away?
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will yield, as my colleague from 
Arizona knows, we came to Arizona, you were there when we did a 
hearing. We have been to 13 other States with my subcommittee and we 
have talked about testing, we have talked about charter schools, we 
have talked about vouchers, we have talked about innovation and 
improvement in public schools. We have really taken a look at the full 
range of education reforms that are going around and taking place in 
the country today. It is amazing. Testing is one of those issues. 
Testing is a very complicated issue.
  We had a hearing in the State of Delaware where we talked about 
Delaware's experiment with testing. Delaware has done it right. 
Delaware did not go to Washington and say, hey, Washington, would you 
develop a test for us and we will implement it?
  Delaware started at the grassroots level. They got parents involved, 
they got teachers involved, they got administrators involved.
  Remember, Delaware is the size of what? One Congressional district. 
They have one very good Congressman. He was there at the hearing. They 
started at the grassroots level and talked about where are our kids, 
what do we want to test them on? After a three-year process they 
developed a test that they felt was appropriate.
  This President wants to develop a test in six months?
  Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, he has already developed the test, 
as near as I can see. He proposed it here on the floor of the House in 
his State of the Union address in January, and now they already have, 
as I have talked about earlier this night, item and test specifications 
for the voluntary national test, and we ought to talk about whether or 
not they are voluntary, for fourth grade reading and eighth grade 
mathematics, the report of the national test panel.
  So while that panel in Delaware included parents and teachers and 
local school administrators, and probably students from all over 
Delaware, and it took them three years to write what they felt was a 
good test, to make the model, and recognizing that States are, in fact, 
charged with educating their children, the President has done a one-
size-fits-all, it is here, finished, done, he got it finished between 
January and October.
  By the way, it says we are not going to test whether or not you can 
do any math computations with a pen and pencil; we are going to give 
you a calculator for the whole exam.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. The gentleman is absolutely right. Delaware, three 
years, they still haven't figured out exactly how they are going to use 
it and what they are going to do with the test results. This President, 
in six or eight months, wow, he develops a test, no parental 
involvement, no local involvement, has not gone to the Governor of our 
State of Michigan, hasn't gone to California and said what would you 
like in a national test?
  How will that integrate with what Michigan is doing in the area of 
testing? He has developed a national test, meaning he is going to drive 
national curriculum.
  And he now believes that a test that a few people here in Washington 
have developed over a short period of time is going to work in Florida, 
is going to work in Arizona, is going to work in Detroit, is going to 
work in L.A., is going to work in New York City, Cleveland, Louisville, 
all of these places we went to, and the one thing we found in all of 
these places, there are tremendous things going on in education, but 
the problems and opportunities in the educational focus that they need 
to have in their schools varies, in some cases ever so slightly, in 
other cases dramatically, because the circumstances are different.
  He is going to try to impose a one-size-fits-all test, and then he is 
going to come back and say, see, those kids in Cincinnati, those 
schools are not doing well because they did not do well on my test.
  Those teachers and those school administrators and those kids may be 
doing great, depending on where and what their environment is. But he 
wants one-size-fits-all, and it will not work.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Reclaiming my time, there is a great tendency in these 
discussions on the floor to focus on the partisan bickering and on the 
President wants this and I listened to the gentleman do that and 
reflected on it earlier in the evening. I was talking about the 
President's plan and his wants and his goal and he wrote this test.
  I hope that people understand, this is not a partisan fight between a 
Republican Congress and a Democratic President. This is not a partisan 
attack on Bill Clinton, the person. For all I know, the President and 
the First Lady genuinely care about educating America's children. But 
this is a vitally important debate about that, that is, about educating 
America's children.
  The gentleman mentioned we held a field hearing of your committee in 
my city, in Phoenix. I cannot tell you how proud I am of the strides 
that have been made in Arizona in the education field. We are doing new 
and innovative things. We are charting new ground. We are doing, I 
think, not a perfect job, but a yeoman's job in a workmanlike

[[Page H8914]]

fashion to try to craft for Arizona school children the best education 
possible.
  In some regards we are failing. We have an education funding debate 
going on in the State that needs to be resolved. But this much I know: 
I trust the parents and the teachers and the administrators and the 
local school boards in Arizona to focus on my children's education and 
to adapt the education that is necessary in my community, and I know 
that a test written thousands of miles away in Washington, D.C., a test 
written deep in the bowels of the Federal Department of Education, a 
test written by a handful of Federal education experts, cannot reflect 
my input or the input of the parents and the principals and the school 
administrators and the school board officials and the other people in 
Arizona that care about Arizona kids.
  You know, it is the point, can you say that Mr. Leinwand and 
Secretary Riley care more about my kids' education than I do? If so, I 
would like to ask them what their names are, because they do not know 
the names of my kids, but parents and teachers know their kids and care 
about their education. They do not want to have shoved down their 
throat a federally written Department of Education test.
  I want to just ask the gentleman, either gentleman can comment on 
this, you mentioned that a national test will drive school curricula 
all across America. That is, it will take choice, it will take 
educational options about curriculum away from the parents in Michigan 
in your district, or the parents in Arizona in my district, or the 
parents in Florida. I would like you to explain that.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. I just want to comment on that, and maybe the 
chairman of the education subcommittee can add to this, but that is one 
of the very important issues that I think we need to get into tonight.
  We all know that testing is extremely valuable. It gives parents an 
idea how their kids are doing. It gives parents an idea how good the 
school is doing. But when you have the Federal Government in charge of 
testing, that is a whole different situation. When a school decides 
they want to use Iowa basic or want to use SAT, that is one issue. But 
when you have the Federal Government promulgating a test that has all 
kinds of very complex political and economic ramifications associated 
with it, and I am sure the gentleman from Michigan can comment on this 
issue, that is one of the other reasons why I am extremely concerned 
about this.
  The point you are alluding to, that suddenly you can have a scenario 
where everybody's academic program is tailored to meet the requirements 
in the Federal test, I am not sure that is a good thing for the United 
States of America. I am not sure it would be the best thing for the 
people of the State of Florida to adopt standards that would allow them 
to do well on the Bill Clinton, Federal-promoted test. I am not sure 
that is good for our economy in Florida.
  I have some very serious concerns. I think the President is 
definitely moving much too hastily on this issue, and it really needs 
to be debated within this body, and the Committee on Education and the 
Workforce needs to take this issue up. I would be happy to yield to the 
gentleman from Michigan.

                              {time}  2045

  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  What we have found, as we have gone around the country, and again, in 
the 14 States that we have been to, and I think we have had multiple 
hearings in a couple of States, so we have probably been in 16 
different cities, we have seen tremendous things in education, 
tremendous things in public education, private education. That is 
really the good thing of all these hearings. We have seen some 
wonderful things. There are some common ingredients.
  We go into these environments, we ask the teachers, we ask parents, 
we ask administrators, we ask the business community, what is working 
in your school district, or who is making a difference? Why are your 
schools improving? What is the catalyst? I have still yet to hear 
someone say, it is that new Federal program, or it is this Federal 
program.
  The schools that are doing well are typically where a group of 
parents, administrators, and teachers have taken back their school and 
said, we are going to focus on these kids, and we are not going to 
focus on the bureaucracy and the red tape that either comes from 
Sacramento or comes from Lansing; but we know the kids' names, we know 
what their needs are. We are going to focus on our kids. We are going 
to take our schools back.
  We are going to, and this is what they are trying to do in Michigan 
as well, and what we are trying to do here in Washington, DC, as well, 
we are going to debate it next week, we are going to focus on getting 
the dollars from the bureaucracy and getting them into the classroom.
  When we do national testing, what is going to happen? We are going to 
spend a dollar on a national test, and the first 20 or 30 cents is 
going to be spent on bureaucracy. Only 65 or 60 cents will actually be 
spent on giving a test that they really should not be taking anyway. We 
are going to get dollars into the classroom and focus on basic 
academics.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield for a 
question, Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, one of the additional 
concerns of this test is that this will take time away from teachers 
and their students in terms of basic education, learning, that they 
will have to devote a week, they are proposing, or several days out of 
a week, to sitting down and taking a test, when they could be educating 
those children in crucial issues that are important for them to learn.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. What we talked about earlier, Mr. Speaker, what happens 
in this process is, No. 1, our kids go through all kinds of tests 
already. This is one more layer on top. It is not only the time that is 
spent on taking the test, but if a school district is going to be 
evaluated on a national basis, and every child in a classroom is going 
to be evaluated against every other child in the country, we can bet 
parents are going to expect and teachers are going to want to prepare 
their students for that test. They are going to spend a week or 2 weeks 
teaching to the test.
  That is not what we want. We do not want teachers teaching to tests. 
We want teachers teaching to basic academics, the basic skills we want 
our children to learn.
  Then there are other ways to measure how they are learning. There is 
not a need for the Federal Government to come in and put one more 
overlay on things that are already being done at the State and local 
level.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, sometimes in these 
discussions we get a little esoteric and just talk theory. I want to 
bring this back home.
  There is a woman who teaches at Arizona State University in Phoenix, 
AZ, and in Tempe, AZ, who is a scholar herself and quite an expert in 
education. Her name is Marianne Jennings. She has written a nationally 
syndicated column on this issue.
  It turns out that 1 day her eldest daughter was doing some homework 
in her bedroom, and Marianne walked in and interrupted the child as she 
was doing the homework. She looked down, and what the child was doing 
was using a calculator to calculate what 10 percent of 470 was. Mrs. 
Jennings looked at that and said, what are you doing?
  And she discovered that her daughter needed a calculator to calculate 
10 percent of 470, and needed a calculator to calculate what 25 percent 
of a fairly simple number was, and did not fully understand that 25 
percent equaled one-quarter.
  She became enraged, and started to get involved in this issue, and in 
her daughter's education. She discovered that what was happening was 
that her daughter was being taught whole math or new, new math. She had 
to inject herself deeply into her own daughter's education, because the 
focus was in the wrong direction.
  I want to make the point that it is not that we do not understand the 
goal of national tests. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to compare the 
performance of kids in Arizona with the performance of kids in 
Michigan. But there are already ways we can do that, and in this 
proposal, we would create a single national test. That single national 
test could embody radical theories inside the Federal Department of

[[Page H8915]]

Education like Mr. Leinwand's new, new math or whole math, where 
students are not taught basic computational skills because Mr. Leinwand 
believes it is downright dangerous to teach them those basic skills.
  I want to read or I want to emphasize this issue of ``voluntary.'' 
The President says and listeners tonight might think, what is wrong 
with a voluntary test? I have heard our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle here defend the national test by saying, look, if you out in 
Arizona, if you do not want to participate in these national tests, if 
you think the Department of Education should not write a one-size-fits-
all math test on which every eighth-grader should be tested, you may 
simply opt out.
  I want to point out to those listening that that option, that claim 
that that is voluntary, is a hollow claim. It will not work. In point 
of fact, and this is pointed out by Lynne Cheney in her article ``A 
Failing Grade for Clinton's National Standards,'' she points out that 
even if my State, Arizona, chooses not to participate in the national 
tests, or your school district in your hometown chooses not to 
participate in the national test, there are in reality in America only 
a handful of textbook writers.
  The minute we adopt as a Nation a single test, the minute we give 
away from Phoenix, AZ, to Washington, DC, the authority to write one 
test, every textbook writer in America will be compelled to bring out 
their next edition in math for 8th graders or reading for 4th graders 
to meet that national test.
  The curriculum will indeed have been written in Washington, DC, as a 
result of that test, and so my school department, my school board, the 
principal at Stephen's school or Courtney's school, will not have 
hardly any choices but to adopt a text, a textbook, written to teach to 
that national test. I think it is a disastrous idea that scares me a 
great deal.
  I want to point out that in today's Washington Times Mr. Riley makes 
a point. I want to quote. Mr. Riley says that instead of being 
controversial, he believes the country will embrace national tests as a 
chance to show their support for education.
  ``We think it's going to catch on, and we think the people in this 
country are going to almost look at it,'' that is, national testing, 
``as a patriotic thing, to get involved in getting this country to read 
well, getting this country to do math well, and getting our children 
ready for college and important jobs.'' It is like do not dare 
challenge us, we in Washington, DC, know all the answers.
  The gentleman mentioned earlier that in his field hearings across the 
country what he found was that those schools that were succeeding were 
schools where the parents and teachers and the administrators in that 
school took possession of their children's education. They said, the 
heck with the State capitol, the heck with Washington, DC, we are going 
to make education better right here.
  I would like to ask the gentleman, will a nationally dictated 
curriculum in the form of a national test, to top-down give this test 
and do it on these subjects because we think this is the way math 
should be tested, is that going to help those people and encourage them 
to take control of their schools?
  I yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra].
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  No, Mr. Speaker, what our hearings have shown, as we have talked with 
parents, teachers, and administrators, developing a test is a very 
personal and very important issue.
  In the State of Michigan, we have made progress in developing a test, 
but if this test is not embraced at the local level by the parents and 
by the teachers, the American people will not rise up and embrace this 
test that they have had no input in.
  Secretary Riley may be a bright person, but there is no way, without 
bringing that grass-roots support and involvement in at the beginning 
of the process, that we can expect that a bunch of bureaucrats here in 
Washington are going to write a test that is going to be embraced in 
Hawaii, Detroit, Holland, Phoenix, or in Florida. There is absolutely 
no way.
  This is not about patriotism, this is about what works. This is a 
test that has to be developed at the grass-roots level up. If we issue 
a national test and we then test our kids, and that test is not a well-
developed test and is not supported by the parents, we will not have 
Americans embracing this, we will have American parents in an uproar, 
because we will have tested their kids and given them a grade or score 
on a test that they do not believe in, and a test that has not been 
validated. It is the greatest disservice we could do to our local 
school districts, to our kids, and to their parents.
  Mr. SHADEGG. It is a basic character of human nature to take 
possession of your own ideas. If you get involved in your own school 
and in your own children's education and you start working on making 
their education better, you are going to work at it and care about it.
  If you get told, no, we do not need your input, we have gotten some 
experts in Washington, DC, to write the test, and those experts know 
what the right curriculum is, so do not bother showing up for the 
school board meeting where the curriculum is going to be discussed, 
that has already been decided in Bill Clinton's Washington, DC.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the question 
we really ought to be asking is why is the administration rushing to 
write a test? Why are they not involving Congress, why are they not 
involving the appropriate committees, why are they not involving the 
Governors, why are they not involving teachers and parents and school 
administrators? Why are they rushing to get this thing done without any 
involvement?
  It is absolutely going to fail, and the question is why? Why do we 
need to rush through this, and why can we not involve different people 
in this process?
  Mr. SHADEGG. I think it is an excellent question, and probably a 
great question on which to kind of end this discussion.
  The reality is that we are on the verge of adopting a national test 
on which Congress will have had no input, on which local parents and 
teachers will have had no input. I simply want to make clear to 
everybody who might be listening tonight across America that this issue 
will be decided within the next few days to few weeks here in the U.S. 
Congress, in the House and in the Senate.
  If they do not think a one-size-fits-all Washington, DC, exam written 
that is crammed down their throats without the chairman of the 
subcommittee in charge of this area having some input, without the 
local State superintendent of public instruction having the ability to 
have input, but most importantly, without them as parents or teachers 
of their children, or as a school principal, if they do not want that 
crammed down your throat, we need their support now to stop this, and 
stop it before it goes any further.
  I think it holds the potential, as one of the articles that has been 
written suggests, of being a national calamity. I think it will be an 
absolute disaster if we turn the education of our children in America 
over to Washington, DC. We owe the children of America more than 
abdicating our responsibility to Washington, DC, and letting their 
education be dictated millions of miles from their homes and thousands 
of layers of bureaucrats from their own principal or their own teacher.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. If the gentleman will continue to yield, Mr. 
Speaker, I just want to add that what the gentleman says is critical. 
The future of our children's education, it is not just about them and 
their lives, it is about our whole Nation.
  We have learned, we have discovered, that the future lies not only in 
our ability today to be innovative, but in the ability of our children 
tomorrow to compete, to be inventive. We need to be doing what we can 
to make sure we are making education better in America. This is an ill-
advised scheme, in my opinion, that the President should shelve. I 
again commend the gentleman for his initiative.
  Mr. SHADEGG. It may be well-intended, but it has the potential to be 
a disaster. If we write one test in Washington and it is bad, we will 
not be able to change it for decades to come. In a global economy, we 
will perhaps be handicapped.

[[Page H8916]]

  I will yield to the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Hoekstra] to close, 
if he would like.
  Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. What 
we have found as we have gone across the country is schools, where they 
are working, where they have done a good job with the children, are 
those where there is local parental control, not where Washington is 
dictating the agenda.
  This is about where are education decisions for our children going to 
be made. Is the direction going to be at the local level, or is it 
going to be moved to Washington, DC? All we have to do is go around the 
country, take a look at the grass-roots level. We will be surprised at 
the wonderful things that are going on in all types of education, 
public, private, parochial, religious education efforts. But it is 
because of grass roots, not because of what we are doing here in 
Washington.

                              {time}  2100

  Moving to national testing is moving more decision making to 
Washington away from the very people that are making a difference in 
our kids' lives today. We need to begin a process of moving power and 
money back to parents and the local school districts, not continuing on 
this trend of moving it to Washington. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for this special order.
  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for joining me. I 
want to conclude by saying that national testing is one of those ideas 
where the proponents believe that Washington knows best and I suggest 
they are wrong. Washington does not know best how to educate your 
children in your school or my children in my school. You can do it 
better.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to help us to reject the idea of 
national testing, which would give too much responsibility to 
Washington and take too much away from the parents and their child's 
teacher.

                          ____________________