[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 160 (Thursday, November 13, 1997)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2380-E2381]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                            NATIONAL TESTING

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. WILLIAM F. GOODLING

                            of pennsylvania

                    in the house of representatives

                      Thursday, November 13, 1997

  Mr. GOODLING. Mr. Speaker, over the past few weeks there has been 
much debate in this body and across the country about whether we should 
have national testing of fourth and eighth graders as proposed by the 
Clinton administration.
  Just a few days ago, the Congress said ``no.'' The conference report 
on the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education appropriations 
bill, H.R. 2264, prohibits any pilot testing, field testing, 
implementation, administration or dissemination of national tests in 
fiscal year 1998. And, I might also add, during the course of 1998, the 
National Academy of Sciences will be conducting three studies related 
to testing and reporting back to Congress.
  Next year the Committee on Education and the Workforce, which I 
chair, will hold several hearings on the authorization of the National 
Assessment of Educational Progress and the National Assessment 
Governing Board. At that time, the issue of national testing will be 
back before the Congress.
  In the regard, I wanted to bring to the attention of my colleagues a 
well-thought-out letter and op-ed article ``The Tyranny of Testing'', 
The New York Times, October 2, 1997, I recently received from Dr. Mark 
F. Bernstein, Superintendent of Schools in North Merrick, NY. In his 
letter and article, Dr. Bernstein points out how national tests could 
nationalize school curriculum. I commend his letter and article to my 
colleagues, both of which are attached to this statement.

                                           Administrative Offices,


                                            North Merrick, NY,

                                                  October 9, 1997.
     Hon. William Goodling,
     Chairman of the Committee on Education and Work Force,
     U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Congressman Goodling: Enclosed is a copy, which you 
     may have already seen, of my recent submission that appeared 
     in The New York Times Op-Ed page (October 2, 1997) entitled 
     ``The Tyranny of Testing.'' I believe this topic to be 
     extremely important to the future of public education. I'd 
     like to share my thinking with you and ask for your advice.
       The main premise of my piece is that national testing and 
     national curriculum are one and the same. In spite of 
     Secretary of Education Riley's assertion that one can 
     differentiate between supporting national testing (which he 
     does) and opposing national curriculum (which he also does), 
     educators agree that ``what is tested is what will be 
     taught.'' Teachers and administrators spend incredible 
     amounts of time pouring over test questions to analyze the 
     content of each question so to assure that no curriculum gaps 
     exist. And, when a significant number of students answer 
     certain questions incorrectly, teachers rework the curriculum 
     to guarantee that students will be taught that specific 
     material so to answer these questions correctly the next time 
     around. We call this process ``item analysis.'' In addition 
     to using tests for the purpose of differentiating among 
     students through grades, tests are specifically developed to 
     drive curriculum and textbook selection. If one accepts my 
     premise that national testing is synonymous with the 
     development of national curriculums, then one must decide if 
     it is in the best interests of our children to have a uniform 
     curriculum in the areas of reading and mathematics (and 
     perhaps social studies, language arts and science). Though a 
     good argument can be offered to support such a decision, the 
     inherent risks far outweigh the potential benefits.
       People who support a national testing program believe that 
     too many students are failing and drastic steps must be taken 
     to improve their education. And, they hold, the Federal 
     government is the only one who can do it. Through a series of 
     national tests which will point-out failing schools, the 
     argument goes, learning will be improved as a result of 
     increased public attention. They point to student populations 
     in many of our large cities or rural areas where student 
     results are absolutely dismal. (There are probably some 
     suburban communities that have less than stellar results as 
     well.) If only parents were aware of how poorly their 
     children's schools were performing, increased competition and 
     accountability would force schools to improve. How 
     simplistic! Ignored is the research which strongly suggests 
     that poor student performance is significantly correlated 
     with low per-public expenditures, parents' own educational 
     attainment levels, and family poverty. Though we all want 
     higher educational standards and improved student 
     achievement, national testing poses real dangers to public 
     education, and to the role delineation between the Federal 
     government and the states.
       One has only to recall our recent experience with the 
     process of developing history standards to shudder at the 
     prospect of national tests. A panel of ``recognized experts'' 
     was brought together after the panel membership was debated 
     ad nauseam to insure a proper balance of ethnicity, gender, 
     religion, geography, etc. These well-intentioned individuals 
     then embarked on the never-ending task of determining what 
     all American school children should learn about their

[[Page E2381]]

     country's history. Before they reached the American 
     Revolution, their work was torn asunder. Advocates for 
     American Indians, for African-Americans, as well as Italian-
     Americans, and a host of other cultural interests, not to 
     mention religious groups, screamed that their constituents' 
     contributions were under represented. Scholars were 
     vociferous in asserting their disagreements regarding the 
     proper priority given geography versus economics, environment 
     versus nationalism; human rights versus urbanization, etc. 
     The end-product was an incoherent set of history standards 
     which continues to be attacked to this day and not utilized! 
     Whether the new panel of experts is to be selected by the 
     Secretary of Education or a nonpartisan board is 
     inconsequential; more troubling is the process that would be 
     followed to create a consensus, to reduce criticism, and to 
     advance the political correctness of our time.
       The ineffectiveness of such a panel of experts is far less 
     dangerous as compared to the possibility that the panel 
     members have a preconceived agenda motivated by strong 
     desires to change American education and society. Is it 
     inconceivable that a certain group of idealogues--be it 
     political or religious--will achieve a dominant position on 
     this panel? And, is it inconceivable that they would then use 
     the position to pernicously advance their deeply-held 
     beliefs? And, what better way to effectuate a change in 
     America than through its children's education? Consider the 
     formulation of history standards, once again. A national 
     history curriculum offers innumerable and immeasurable 
     opportunities to inject one's biases into material related to 
     world religions and cultures, political and economic systems, 
     human and societal rights, etc. The dangers of curriculum 
     intrusion are real in that many Americans feel that our 
     schools are devoid of values. What better way to integrate 
     values than through a uniform national curriculum?
       A third reason to reject national curriculum is to prevent 
     the bipartisan panel of experts from imposing a specific 
     educational strategy upon all American students. We have had 
     several examples over the past years of education ``fads,'' 
     products of university think tanks that often did little 
     real-life research to support their conclusions. The 1960s 
     saw the ``new math'' assume prominence in elementary and 
     secondary math classrooms. Set theory was in vogue and 
     replaced more traditional math computation and word problems, 
     practically ousting them from the curriculum. In the 1970s 
     ``creative writing'' was the emphasis in elementary and 
     junior high school classrooms. Teachers were told to ignore 
     spelling errors or sentence structure mishaps for fear of 
     limiting students' creative energies. The result was 
     obvious--students could not spell, punctuate, or clearly 
     express themselves as they reached high school. In the 1980s, 
     the purist version of ``whole language'' replaced the 
     teaching of phonics, suggesting that all students would 
     benefit from a literature-based curriculum devoid of phonics. 
     (Recently, the National Institute of Health reported that a 
     sizable percentage of American children need a strong 
     phonetic foundation because they have significant learning 
     problems which require a sound phonetic foundation if these 
     children are to even learn how to read.) Until national 
     testing, exposure to the fads of a particular university or 
     school of thought could have been confined to a singular 
     state or region of the country.
       Though I've used history at the prime example because of 
     our actual experience, President Clinton has suggested 
     national testing for reading and math. Are the risks as great 
     in these subjects? Yes. Whether it be the reading tests' 
     focus being upon vocabulary, spelling, punctuation, or 
     comprehension, choices will have to be made by the panel. 
     Will calculators be permitted and, if so, in which parts of 
     the math test? Should open-ended word problems be emphasized, 
     and what role will math computation play? And, why would we 
     believe that a national testing program would stop at reading 
     and math?
       Developing a national curriculum is subject to the same 
     pressures as affects other public policy decisions--pressure 
     to create a consensus among well-intentioned scholars; 
     pressure from unrelenting idealogues and lobby groups; or 
     pressure to be part of a larger school of thought (or 
     educational fad). These same pressures exist, but to a lesser 
     extent, in each of our State's departments of education. New 
     York State, for example, has finally replaced its 13 year old 
     Global Studies curriculum with one entitled Global History. 
     The former Global Studies course applied a regional approach 
     to the study of history: through the study of distinct 
     regions of the world, students would learn to make 
     connections, or linkages, between different economic systems, 
     or the influence of geography on civilization, etc. Students 
     were confounded by the approach. New York will now return to 
     a chronological approach studying the linkages of major 
     historical themes over time. Local educators have been 
     suggesting the chronological approach for years; yet it took 
     13 years for us to convince the New York State Department of 
     Education. One can only imagine how long it would take to 
     change a national curriculum and how many millions of 
     students would have suffered in the meantime. States have 
     served well as the laboratories of education, allowing 
     different strategies and practices to be tried, modified, and 
     then expanded or discarded.
       Through this rather lengthy letter, I have attempted to 
     describe my concerns regarding a national curriculum and its 
     potential for harm. In addition, there is a strong argument 
     to be made that the Federal government has no right, under 
     the Constitution, to impose a curriculum upon the States and 
     their schools, but I leave that case to others better 
     situated to respond to constitutional issues. Even though 
     President Clinton's proposal is for ``voluntary testing'', 
     most would agree that the monolithic educational textbook 
     industry would not take very long to distribute to American 
     schools the new curriculum needed to address these tests 
     whether or not districts chose to utilize the test. And now I 
     ask for your advice. Are the concerns expressed in this 
     letter worthy of pursuit and, if so, in what way? Being a 
     local superintendent of schools, I have had the opportunity 
     to express my opinions and influence to some small degree 
     educational policy matters in New York. But, clearly, the 
     subject of national testing is quite different. I would 
     appreciate any insights that you can provide me.
           Sincerely,
                                          Marc F. Bernstein, Ed.D.
                                        Superintendent of Schools.


     
                                  ____
                [From the New York Times, Oct. 2, 1997]

                          The Tyranny of Tests

                         (By Marc F. Bernstein)

       North Merrick, N.Y.--The debate over President Clinton's 
     proposal for voluntary national testing in reading and math 
     has paid too little attention to whether a national 
     curriculum benefits, American children.
       I know that the President has not recommended a national 
     curriculum, only national testing, but educators know all too 
     well that ``what is tested will be taught.'' Teachers and 
     administrators will pore over sample test questions to 
     determine what material must be taught so that students--and 
     therefore teachers and schools--do well.


           standard exams will nationalize school curriculum.

       Without doubt, there are benefits to focusing the public's 
     attention on academic results. It fosters healthy competition 
     among schools and keeps them accountable for teaching 
     children properly.
       There is the risk, however, that even the best-intentioned 
     test makers will create a misguided national standard, even 
     though the Senate has stipulated that a bipartisan board 
     independent of the Federal Department of Education be 
     responsible for designing the tests. Who creates the test is 
     less troubling than the process that we in the United States 
     follow to create a consensus, to reduce criticism and to 
     advance the political correctness of our time. One has only 
     to remember the recent debate over history standards to 
     shudder at the prospect of national tests. Plus, national 
     tests would be the battle-ground for proponents of the latest 
     educational trends.
       Past movements, like ``new math'' (and perhaps the more 
     recent ``new-new math'') or the purists' version of ``whole 
     language,'' were products of university think tanks that 
     often did little real-life research to support their 
     conclusions.
       Until now, exposure to the fads of a particular university 
     or school of thought could be confined to a state or to one 
     region of the country. Imagine the risks of applying a 
     little-tested theory to the design of a test given to all 
     American students, a national examination that would in turn 
     determine curriculums and standards.
       States have served well as the laboratories of education, 
     allowing different strategies and practices to be tried, 
     modified and then expanded or discarded. Almost every state 
     now has a statewide testing program that permits parents to 
     evaluate their schools and to compare them with similar 
     districts nearby.
       A national report card, on the other hand, would be of 
     little use. Is there any validity in having parents in New 
     York compare the state's scores on an eighth-grade math test 
     with those of a more homogeneous state like New Hampshire or 
     Vermont? Most parents can already tell whether their children 
     are getting a good education. Yes, we must continue to strive 
     for higher standards for our children's education, but we can 
     do it without national tests.

     

                          ____________________