[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 147 (Tuesday, October 28, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11246-S11248]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       VOLUNTARY NATIONAL TESTING

  Mr. BINGAMAN. Mr. President, I want to take a few minutes this 
morning to debunk a few myths that are being spread about how the 
Senate voluntary national testing plan would

[[Page S11247]]

work and explain why a so-called compromise that has been discussed 
here in the Capitol in the last few days misses the mark almost 
entirely.
  As many of my colleagues here in the Senate already know, the 
opponents of a voluntary national test are blocking what in my view is 
a reasonable and carefully crafted proposal to improve our schools. 
Over a month ago here in the Senate, we voted 87 to 13 in support of 
this proposal. Since then, the opponents of it have refused to even sit 
down at the table and talk about the issue. In fact, they have 
threatened to shut down the Federal Government again rather than to 
allow States and school districts and parents to decide for themselves 
whether or not they want to use these new tests.
  In recent weeks, the opponents of voluntary national testing have 
tried to spread a series of myths about the proposal that was passed by 
the Senate. Many of these are described on the chart here. Let me just 
go through a few of them.
  First of all, one of the myths is that this is ``just another test.'' 
In reality, these national tests would provide essential information to 
parents that none of the commercial tests presently available provide, 
by allowing a comparison. The tests that are being considered by us in 
this legislation would allow a comparison between students across the 
Nation as to their level of performance on reading in the fourth grade 
and mathematics at the eighth grade.
  Another myth is that the tests are not voluntary. The claim is that 
they are not voluntary. In fact, we have written into the language of 
the bill a specific requirement that they be voluntary; a prohibition 
against any impediment or any force being put on a State or district or 
community that chooses not to use the tests.
  Another of the myths is that they would not do anything, when in 
reality we have various States and communities and school districts 
around the Nation that are showing that high standards and uniform 
measures of achievement can engage and empower area communities to put 
more emphasis on their schools and increase the learning that occurs 
there.
  But, despite the mischaracterizations of the voluntary testing 
proposal, I am glad to report that educators and business leaders and 
the American public support this proposal overwhelmingly, the proposal 
that the President sent forward. I know this from having heard it from 
people on the front lines.
  This last Friday we had a meeting with various people. An elementary 
school parent and PTA member, Laura Scott, told about how important 
independent tests were for parents who are handing their children over 
to schools and need all the leverage they can get to make sure the 
education their children are getting in those schools is adequate. Gov. 
Roy Romer of Colorado spoke about the efforts that are being made in 
Colorado to develop their tests in these various subjects and how he 
would appreciate a chance to know how his State is doing relative to 
other States. He could not see any justification for each of the 50 
States having to reinvent the wheel. Obviously, the President's 
proposal would eliminate the need for that. The Governor of North 
Carolina, Jim Hunt, also spoke eloquently about the importance of 
having benchmarks so that he can determine the appropriateness of the 
education that is being provided to his own grandchildren in the public 
schools of North Carolina.
  From a business perspective, Alan Wurtzel, of the National Alliance 
of Business, and Chris Larson, of the Technology Network, described how 
important uniform measures of achievement are to preparing a qualified 
work force for the 21st century and how the business community insists 
upon objective measurements of achievement in the training that they 
do. And they believe that same concept makes a lot of sense in our 
schools as well.
  Representing large, urban school districts, Philadelphia School 
Superintendent David Hornbeck said that the tests, as he saw it, would 
be, and the phrase he used was a ``sword of equality'' for poor and 
minority students in Philadelphia and elsewhere who today are receiving 
an inferior education, unfortunately, in many of these school systems 
but, by virtue of this kind of objective performance testing, would be 
able to improve the situation.
  Most recently, opponents of the voluntary national tests came up with 
the so-called compromise proposal that in my view reveals a basic 
misunderstanding about what the voluntary national testing proposal is 
supposed to do. The proposed compromise preserves the status quo. It 
relies on a type of test --the type which many of our school districts 
are now using--which creates the impression that students are doing 
better than they really are. We could refer to this proposal as the 
Lake Woebegone proposal. It is clearly a situation, which we have 
today, where ``all the children are above average.''
  First off, the compromise they are proposing is not much different 
from an outright prohibition on the development of any new tests. 
Further development of a voluntary national test would be immediately 
and completely prohibited under this compromise, so-called compromise, 
that has been discussed. That is nothing else but protecting the status 
quo, in denying States, denying school districts the choice to 
participate in a national measure of student achievement. Seven States 
have already indicated they want to participate and 15 major school 
districts have opted to do so.

  Second, this proposed compromise wouldn't really accomplish anything 
useful in terms of focusing more attention on world-class standards for 
all children. That is because instead of developing new national tests 
on fourth grade reading and eighth grade math, this antitesting 
proposal would fund a $3 million study of the feasibility of linking 
various commercial tests that are already there with each other. These 
commercial tests that would be linked under this study do not conform 
to the rigorous academic standards of the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress. The whole idea behind this development of a 
fourth grade reading test and eighth grade math test is we want these 
kinds of rigorous national academic standards that are reflected in the 
National Assessment of Educational Progress available for all schools 
to look at.
  In addition, the tests that would be studied are all ``norm-
referenced'' tests, which means their scores are all reported by 
percentiles. They show how you scored compared to others, but they do 
not show how you score relative to any kind of objective criteria, as 
to whether or not you can read at a reasonable level or do math at a 
reasonable level.
  In many ways, this proposal misses the point. It suggests that the 
current hodgepodge of commercial tests can adequately solve the 
problem. It proposes to preserve the status quo rather than allowing 
States and districts to make their own choices. It undercuts the 
National Assessment for Educational Progress which is the most rigorous 
national measure of student achievement. And this so-called compromise 
is completely unsatisfactory in that it would block the proposal we 
agreed to here in the Senate, to allow this test to be developed by the 
National Assessment Governing Board.
  Here in the Senate, the compromise that was negotiated, it was clear, 
was supported overwhelmingly by a bipartisan group of Senators. Leading 
scholars in this field such as Checker Finn and Bill Bennett supported 
that compromise. Since then, 43 Senators have pledged to block the 
appropriations bill or to uphold a veto, if the President is required 
to veto the bill, if that original compromise is not maintained.
  So, if testing opponents want the National Academy of Sciences to 
study whether commercial or even State-developed tests are as rigorous 
as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, I have no problem 
with that. I think studies can sometimes be useful. But until it is 
clear that State and commercial tests are up to the task, I believe we 
should be able to go ahead with the voluntary national test development 
and that funding should be kept in the bill and not be prohibited as 
the House is considering doing.
  Mr. President, I know there are others waiting to speak. I yield the 
floor and suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.

[[Page S11248]]

  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, I also ask unanimous consent I be able to 
speak as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

                          ____________________