[House Report 105-409]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
105th Congress Report
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session 105-409
_______________________________________________________________________
PROHIBITION ON FEDERALLY SPONSORED NATIONAL TESTING
_______________________________________________________________________
January 30, 1998.--Committed to the Committee of the Whole House on the
State of the Union and ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Goodling, from the Committee on Education and the Workforce,
submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
SUPPLEMENTAL AND MINORITY VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 2846]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Education and the Workforce, to whom was
referred the bill (H.R. 2846) to prohibit spending Federal
education funds on national testing without explicit and
specific legislation, having considered the same, report
favorably thereon with an amendment and recommend that the bill
as amended do pass.
The amendment is as follows:
Strike out all after the enacting clause and insert in lieu
thereof the following:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS.
The Congress finds the following:
(1) High State and local standards in reading, mathematics,
and other core academic subjects are essential to the future
well-being of elementary and secondary education in this
country.
(2) State and local control of education is the hallmark of
education in the United States.
(3) Each of the 50 States already utilizes numerous tests to
measure student achievement, including State and commercially
available assessments. State assessments are based primarily
upon State and locally developed academic standards.
(4) Public Law 105-78, the Labor, Health and Human Services
and Education Appropriations Act, 1998, ensures that Federal
funds may not be used to field test, pilot test, implement,
administer, or distribute in any way, any federally sponsored
national test in fiscal year 1998, requires the National
Academy of Sciences to conduct a study to determine whether an
equivalency scale can be developed that would allow existing
tests to be compared one to another, and permits very limited
test development activites in fourth grade reading and eighth
grade mathematics in fiscal year 1998.
(5) There is no specific or explicit authority in current
Federal law authorizing the proposed federally sponsored
national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth grade
mathematics.
(6) The decision of whether or not this country implements,
administers, disseminates, or otherwise has federally sponsored
national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth grade
mathematics or any other subject, will be determined primarily
through the normal legislative process involving Congress and
the respective authorizing committees.
SEC. 2. PROHIBITION ON FEDERALLY SPONSORED TESTING.
Part C of the General Education Provisions Act is amended by adding
at the end the following:
``Sec. 447. Prohibition on federally sponsored testing
``(a) General Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
Federal law and, except as provided in sections 305 through 311 of
Public Law 105-78, the Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Act, 1998, funds provided to the Department of Education
or to an applicable program under this Act or any other Act, may not be
used to develop, plan, implement (including pilot testing or field
testing), or administer any federally sponsored national test in
reading, mathematics, or any other subject that is not specifically and
explicitly provided for in authorizing legislation enacted into law.
``(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the Third
International Math and Science Study or other international comparative
assessments developed under authority of section 406(a)(6) of the
National Education Statistics Act of 1994, and administered to only a
representative sample of pupils in the United States and in foreign
nations.''.
Purpose
The purpose of the bill is to reaffirm that the decision of
whether or not to have Federally-sponsored national tests
(hereinafter referred to as ``Federal tests'') rests primarily
with Congress and the legislative process.
Committee Action
On April 29, 1997, the Subcommittee on Early Childhood,
Youth and Families held a hearing on the President's proposal
for Federal voluntary tests in reading in the 4th grade and
mathematics in the 8th grade. U.S. Secretary of Education
Richard Riley was the sole witness.
On January 21, 1998, the Committee on Education and the
Workforce held a field hearing at Frost Middle School in
Granada Hills, California on the issue of national testing,
with a particular focus upon the Administration's plan for
national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade mathematics.
Ms. Yvonne Larsen, President of the California State Board of
Education, testified on the first panel. Witnesses on the
second panel included: Mr. Paul Clopton, Cofounder of
Mathematically Correct; Ms. Roxanne Petteway, a parent from
Walnut, California; Ms. Rebecca Bocchino, a parent from San
Clemente, California; and Ms. Teresa Bustillos, a parent and
representative of the Mexican American Legal Defense and
Education Fund (MALDEF), Los Angeles, California office.
Legislative Action
On September 16, 1997, the House adopted an amendment,
offered by Congressman Bill Goodling (R-PA), to prohibit the
spending of any Federal funds under the FY 1998 Labor, Health
and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies
Appropriations bill to develop, plan, implement or administer
President Clinton's new Federal tests in 4th grade reading and
8th grade mathematics. The amendment was adopted by a vote of
295 to 125. Subsequent to the vote on this amendment, an
agreement was reached on this issue in the appropriations
conference on the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations bill. This agreement, contained in the
FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education
Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-78; enacted November 13, 1997),
prohibits any Federal money from being used for field testing,
pilot testing, administration or distribution of any new
Federal tests in FY 1998.
On November 6, 1997, Rep. Bill Goodling (R-PA), Chairman of
the Committee on Education and the Workforce, introduced H.R.
2846, a bill to prohibit Federal testing without explicit and
specific legislative authority.
During Full Committee markup on January 28, 1998, an
amendment in the nature of a substitute was offered by Mr.
Goodling (R-PA) and adopted by a voice vote. Mr. Andrews (D-NJ)
moved to postpone consideration of H.R. 2846 and was defeated
by a vote of 15 to 23. H.R. 2846 was ordered reported, as
amended, out of Full Committee by a vote of 23 to 16.
Summary
summary of h.r. 2846 as introduced
H. R. 2846 as introduced amends the General Education
Provisions Act and the Fund for the Improvement of Education to
prohibit Federal funds from being used to develop, plan,
implement (including pilot testing or field testing), or
administer any national tests in reading, mathematics, or any
other subject that is not specifically and explicitly provided
for in law.
An exception is provided for the Third International Math
and Science Study (TIMSS). In addition, because the regular
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is
specifically and explicitly authorized in sections 411-413 of
the National Education Statistics Act of 1994, it would be
unaffected by the legislation.
changes made to h.r. 2846
The Committee substitute amends H.R. 2846 as introduced to
add six findings. The findings relate to state and local
control of education; state and local assessments; the actions
on testing taken under the FY 1998 Labor, HHS, and Education
appropriations bill; the lack of specific and explicit
authority for national testing; and the role of Congress in
testing.
The Committee substitute amends only the General Education
Provisions Act rather than both the General Education
Provisions Act and the Fund for the Improvement of Education.
Because the General Education Provisions Act applies to all
education programs, no amendment is needed to the Fund for the
Improvement of Education.
The Committee substitute continues to prohibit any national
testing without specific and explicit authority. However, to
conform with the FY 1998 appropriations bill, the limited
testdevelopment activities that were allowed to go forward only in FY
1998 would be excepted from the prohibition.
The Committee substitute modifies the exception to the
prohibition for the TIMSS test to include any future
international assessments which are administered to a
representative sample of pupils in the United States and
foreign nations.
Summary of Committee Substitute to H.R. 2846
The Committee substitute to H.R. 2846 amends the General
Education Provisions Act to clarify that there can be no
Federal tests unless specifically and explicitly provided for
in authorizing legislation enacted into law. The bill provides
exceptions for: (1) limited test development activities
pursuant to P. L. 105-78 and only in fiscal year 1998; and, (2)
the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) or
comparable international assessments administered to
representative samples of students pursuant to section
406(a)(6) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994. The
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), which is
currently specifically and explicitly authorized in sections
411-413 of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994, would
be unaffected by the legislation. Finally, H.R. 2846 is not
inconsistent with the actions of Congress taken on Federal
testing in sections 305-311 of P. L. 105-78, the FY 1998 Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education Appropriations Act.
Committee Views
Federal Testing--Background and General Discussion
Beginning with the first announcement of proposed Federal
tests on February 4, 1997 and up until enactment of Public Law
105-78, the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act, the Clinton Administration and
the Department of Education had sought to unilaterally and
expeditiously develop and implement Federal tests in 4th grade
reading and 8th grade mathematics without the participation of
the Congress. The Federal testing effort was one which had, for
several months, effectively bypassed Congress and the normal
legislative process. Congress had no role in the proposed
testing effort, nor did the outside community--except for the
Department's hand-picked participants. The negative effects of
the unilateral and expeditious actions of the Department have
recently become known to the Committee. At its January 22, 1998
board meeting, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB),
which oversees the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), recently reviewed the Department's test development
contract, and found it wanting. NAGB rejected several parts of
the contract. They found flaws in the Department's timetable,
the test specifications developed by the Department, the
Department's plans for the frequency of calculator use, and
several other technical shortcomings.
With enactment of the P. L. 105-78, the FY 1998 Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies
appropriations bill, any attempts at pilot testing, field
testing, implementation or administration of Federal tests were
stopped in FY 1998. This prohibition allowed Congress to bring
its views to bear upon what the testing policy of this country
should be. The prohibition gave the authorizing committees
(Committee on Education and the Workforce in the House of
Representatives and Committee on Labor and Human Resources in
the Senate) time to determine what, if any, consensus there
might be in Congress on Federal testing. The Committee on
Education and the Workforce has already begun to hold hearings
and gather information on this matter. It will continue with
several hearings and public debate on Federal testing during
the reauthorization of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) and the National Assessment Governing Board
(NAGB) in 1998.
During calendar year 1997 and subsequent to enactment of
the appropriations law for FY 1998, the Clinton Administration
has expressed its view that its proposed Federal tests are
already authorized in Federal law and that pilot testing and
field testing will automatically go forward in the fall of 1998
with the beginning of a new fiscal year. At the November 13,
1997 signing ceremony for the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education and Related Agencies Appropriations
Act, President Clinton stated ``* * * This bill represents a
genuine breakthrough in what is now quite a long effort by many
people to achieve national academic standards in the United
States * * * and for the very first time, Congress has voted to
support the development of voluntary national tests to measure
performance in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math. The tests
will be created by an independent, bipartisan organization and
will be piloted in schools next October [1998].''
The Committee believes that no Federal testing of any kind
(whether development, pilot testing, field testing,
implementation or administration) should go forward, without
specific and explicit legislative authority having been granted
by Congress. No such specific and explicit authority for the
proposed Federal tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade
mathematics currently exists, except for the limited test
development activities allowed under the FY 1998 Labor, Health
and Human Services and Education and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act. This preserves the normal legislative
process and the proper role of Congress in setting education
policy. For the Committee to stand by idly would be to ignore
the Committee's duties and responsibilities in education,
particularly on an issue of such magnitude as Federal testing.
The Question of Existing Legislative Authority for Federal Testing
Shortly after the President announced his proposal for
Federal tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade mathematics in
February 1997, Rep. Bill Goodling (R-PA), Chairman of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce; Rep. Frank Riggs (R-
CA), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and
Families; Rep. Peter Hoekstra (R-MI), Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations and Rep. John
Porter (R-IL), Chairman of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health
and Human Services, Education and Related Agencies of the
Committee on Appropriations sent a joint letter (included in
this report as Exhibit A) to the Honorable Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of the Department of Education, on the President's
testing proposal. The letter noted the signatories' concerns
that State and local communities and parents need objective
information to determine how students are performing
academically. The letter also stated the President's testing
proposal constituted a major changein Federal education policy,
that Congress should receive clear information on the Administration's
intentions and such far-reaching proposals need to be backed by a
consensus in Congress. Attached to the letter was a list of 27
questions for which the Members sought answers. Two of the questions
related directly to purported legislative authority for the Department
to unilaterally develop and implement the Federal tests. The questions
were:
Do you intend to seek explicit Congressional
authority and approval for the development and
implementation of the national tests, similar to the
explicit statutory authority Congress gave for the
National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)?
If you believe authority already exists under current
law for the development and administration of the
national tests, under what specific statutory
authorizations does such authority exist? Include
specific U.S. Code title and subsections.
On March 19, 1997, Acting Deputy Secretary of Education,
Marshall S. Smith, responded in writing to the letter (included
in this report as Exhibit B). The letter included the following
question/answer responses:
Question: Do you intend to seek explicit
Congressional authority and approval for the
development and implementation of the national tests,
similar to the explicit statutory authority Congress
gave for the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP)?
Answer: We do not believe that additional authorizing
legislation is necessary for us to develop these tests
and make them available for use by States and
districts. Under our plan, we will need additional
funds in 1999 to reimburse States, districts, or other
entities such as test publishers, for the costs of
administering the tests in the first year, and we may
need funds for test administration in subsequent years
as well. We look forward to working with the Committees
to gain approval of appropriations for this purpose.
Question: If you believe authority already exists
under current law for the development and
administration of the national tests, under what
specific statutory authorizations does such authority
exist? Include specific U.S. Code title and
subsections.
Answer: We believe that authority exists under the
Fund for the Improvement of Education authorized by
Title X, Section 10101 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (20 USC 8001).
While the Department claims to have authority for Federal
testing under the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE)
(20 USC 8001), a review of the legislative history of the
statute casts substantial doubt upon that argument. First, the
predecessor statute to FIE--called the Secretary's Fund for
Innovation in Education--specifically and explicitly provided
for ``Optional Tests of Academic Excellence'' in section 4602
of Public Law 100-297. However, that testing language was
purposely deleted from Federal law in the Improving America's
Schools Act of 1994 (Public Law 103-382). A conscious decision
was made to take away the Secretary's authority for Federal
testing. Clearly, the intent of Congress was that there should
be no Federal testing under the FIE statute. Despite this clear
intent, the Administration sought to move ahead, unilaterally,
in 1997 to put their Federal tests on the fast-track with plans
to pilot test in early 1998, and fully implement the tests in
March 1999.
It is clear that there is no current explicit and specific
authority for Federal tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade
mathematics under FIE. At best, the Secretary has broad
authority under the law to use FIE funding ``to support
nationally significant programs and projects to improve the
quality of education, assist all students to meet challenging
State content standards and challenging State student
performance standards, and contribute to achievement of the
National Education Goals * * *'' and for the ``development and
evaluation of model strategies for--(I) assessment of student
learning * * *'' 20 USC 8001(a), 20 USC 8001(b)(1)(A)(ii). A
reasonable and ordinary reading of this latter language would
imply the development and evaluation of strategies (i.e. a
planning process without anything further). It is the
Committee's view that strategies does not include the
development of specific Federal tests, the signing of test
development contracts, the development of test questions, or
the widespread promotion of Federal tests to States and school
districts across the country such as has been done by the
Clinton Administration.
The Committee also notes that the existing National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Sections 411-413 of
the National Education Statistics Act), also known as the
``Nation's Report Card,'' consists of random sample testing of
4th, 8th, and 12th graders in several subject matter areas, and
is explicitly and specifically provided for in statute. The
statute provides for the establishment of a governing board for
the tests; sets forth the random sampling technique for the
tests; sets forth a clear purpose for the tests; tells how the
tests are to be conducted; tells how and under what
circumstances test results are made available in the aggregate;
sets forth performance levels; sets forth reporting
requirements; sets forth confidentiality protections; and many
other related provisions.
By contrast, there are no such explicit and specific
provisions in law authorizing the President's tests. In
addition, the Committee is aware that the current version of
NAEP, as amended in 1994, came about through a consensus
process, involving multiple hearings over a two year period. By
contrast, the President and the Department of Education sought,
unilaterally, to move from announcing the tests in February
1997, to signing a $13 million test development contract in
August 1997, to pilot/field testing in the spring of 1998, and
to implementation in March 1999. The negative effects of such
unilateral and expeditious actions of the Department have just
recently become known to the Committee. At its January 22, 1998
board meeting, the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB),
which oversees the National Assessment of Educational Progress
(NAEP), recently reviewed the Department's test development
contract, and found it wanting. NAGB rejected several parts of
the contract. They found flaws in the Department's timetable,
the test specifications developed by theDepartment, the
Department's plans for the frequency of calculator use, and several
other technical shortcomings.
With enactment of Public Law 105-78, the Labor, Health and
Human Services, and Education and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act for FY 1998, the pilot/field testing was
prohibited in FY 1998, as well as any dissemination or
implementation activities. Again, the Committee believes,
particularly for something of the magnitude of Federal testing,
that the normal legislative process should be followed, much
like occurred with NAEP. This bill, H.R. 2846, will help ensure
the normal legislative process is followed, by requiring
specific and explicit authority for any new Federal testing to
occur.
The Committee notes, however, that it did receive a short
two section, one-page bill from the Secretary of Education in
early September 1997, well over six months after the test
proposal was first announced. That bill gave broad authority to
the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) to formulate
policy for new Federal tests in reading and mathematics, rather
than the Department of Education and its hand-picked advisors.
The Administration's bill can hardly be said to grant explicit
and specific authority for Federal tests. It skips over the
issue of authority and jumps to policy. That bill presupposed
that authority for the testing already existed; it did not.
The Committee strongly believes the proper forum for
addressing the President's Federal testing proposal is during
reauthorization hearings on NAEP and NAGB. These hearings are
scheduled for the first half of 1998. Both supporters and
opponents of Federal testing will have an opportunity to
advance their views and shape any legislation that might emerge
from the Committee. However, to ensure that Congress's role in
education policy is respected, H.R. 2846, provides that there
will be no further Federal testing activity unless specifically
and explicitly provided for in law. Exceptions are provided for
the limited test development activities that were permitted in
the FY 1998 Labor, HHS, and Education Appropriations Act (P. L.
105-78), and for the Third International Math and Science Study
(TIMSS) and similar international assessments involving
sampling of students. The National Assessment of Educational
Progress, which is currently specifically and explicitly
authorized, is unaffected by H.R. 2846.
Other Department of Education Activities
The Committee has also been concerned about a number of
other Department of Education activities in 1997 that gave the
appearance of a continued, unilateral effort to push its
Federal testing agenda upon the American people, all without
Congressional approval or involvement. Those activities are as
follows:
(1) September 16, 1997 Title I Memo to Chief State
School Officers. The Committee has been made aware of a
September 16, 1997 memorandum (included in this report
as Exhibit C) from Assistant Secretary Gerald Tirozzi
to the Chief State School Officers in each state which
says that the new Federal tests can be used for Title I
assessments. The following language was included in the
memo:
Question. May the national tests be used by the
States, in part, as the assessments required under
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?
Answer. Yes. Title I requires a State to use
challenging content and student performance standards
developed for all students under the Goals 2000:
Educate America Act or under another process or, absent
such standards for all students, to develop for
children served under Title I challenging content and
student performance standards that reflect the State's
expectations for all children. The State must also
develop or adopt assessments aligned with these
standards. Thus, if a State determines that the
national tests are aligned with the State's standards,
those tests may be used for Title I purposes * * *
Question. Will use of the national tests by a State
fully meet its assessment obligations under Title I?
Answer. For most children, use of the national tests
will meet a State's obligations under Title I to assess
performance in reading at the fourth grade level and in
math at the eighth grade level * * *
(2) Four Seasons Hotel. On September 22-23, 1997,
under the auspices of the Department of Education and
its agents, a meeting of the voluntary national tests
advisory panels was convened at the Four Seasons Hotel
in Washington, DC, costing taxpayers approximately
$13,654 for meals, rooms and conference space; $7,600
for transcription services; $7,350 for stipends to
panelists; and approximately $10,000 in transportation
costs. The Committee is aware that this meeting
occurred a full six days after the House overwhelmingly
expressed its opposition to national testing by a vote
of 295-125 on the Goodling testing amendment to the FY
1998 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations bill. Copies of relevant correspondence
are included in this report as Exhibits D and E.
(3) October 1997 Secretary of Education's Letter to
School Board Chairs. The Committee has been made aware
of an October 1997 letter from the Secretary of
Education to local school board chairs which promotes
the President's Federal tests in 8th grade mathematics.
The letter (included in this report as Exhibit F),
states in part,
In 1999, your district has the opportunity to
participate in a voluntary national test of mathematics
at grade eight that will provide individual student
scores, and will be linked to the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) and Third International
Math and Science Study (TIMSS). Participating in this
mathematics test will tell you how your students are
doing compared to students in other states and other
nations. There will also be a voluntary national test
in reading at grade four--another critical subject * *
* We encourage you in your stewardship of your local
schools, to share this information with members of your
board, and take this opportunity to begin a dialogue
with your superintendent, principals, teachers,
parents, and others who are concerned about improving
our students' achievement.
National Assessment Governing Board Activities (NAGB)
Pursuant to the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services,
and Education Appropriations Act, the National Assessment
Governing Board (NAGB) was given exclusive authority over all
policies, direction and guidelines for voluntary national tests
pursuant to contract # RJ97153001 between the Department of
Education and the American Institutes of Research. NAGB was
also required to review the contract and accept, modify, or
terminate it within 90 days. As part of that process NAGB
convened a Special Committee to Review the Test Development
Contract, chaired by William T. Randall. The Special Committee,
through its Chairman, prepared a January 15, 1998 memorandum to
the full membership of NAGB (included as Exhibit G) reporting
on its work.
While the Committee is pleased with the expertise of NAGB
and the professionalism it has shown in its review of the
contract, the Committee is concerned with statements in the
memorandum that indicate the first pilot test will be
``conducted in March of 1999, the field test in March of the
year 2000, and the operational test in March of the year
2001.'' Such a statement appears to presume or conclude that
there will automatically be pilot testing and field testing in
1999. The Committee finds this to be an inappropriate
presumption or conclusion in light of Congress not having yet
addressed, what, if anything will be permitted on national
testing in 1999. The same analysis applies to the
implementation in March of 2001. Again, Congress has not
addressed what, if anything, will be permitted on national
testing in 2001. What is clear is that Congress has never
affirmatively approved pilot testing, field testing or
implementation of the Administration's national tests.
Why is the Committee marking-up H.R. 2846 at this time?
The Committee is concerned about the recent misperceptions
that this Administration and others have that pilot testing,
field testing, and implementation of Federal testing will be
permitted to go forward starting on October 1, 1998, which is
the beginning date of fiscal year 1999. The Committee believes
it is important to quickly clear-up these misperceptions and
state unequivocally that no Federal testing goes forward
without specific and explicit legislative authority. Included
below are reasons why it has become necessary to mark-up H.R.
2846:
The FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act (PL 105-78)--which the
President signed into law on November 13, 1997--was
supposed to be an agreement to stop this Administration
from going forward with administering Federal tests
prior to any Congressional action or public input.
Yet, at the bill signing ceremony on November 13,
1997 for the Labor, HHS and Education Appropriations
bill, the President stated:
* * * This bill represents a genuine breakthrough in
what is now quite a long effort by many people to
achieve national academic standards in the United
States.
* * * And for the very first time, Congress has voted
to support the development of voluntary national tests
to measure performance in 4th grade reading and 8th
grade math. The tests will be created by an
independent, bipartisan organization and will be
piloted in schools next October.
Further evidence that the President and his
Administration are seeking to circumvent the
legislative process can be found on the Department of
Education's web site. The page states: ``The bill [PL
105-78] provides full funding to proceed with immediate
development of the first-ever voluntary national tests
in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math * * * The bill
permits pilot testing to begin in Fall 1998.''
More detailed information about testing provided on
the Department of Education's web site (updated after
the President signed the Appropriations bill) notes:
``The first pilot tests are scheduled for the fall of
1998 and the field tests in the spring of 1999. The
voluntary national tests will first be officially
administered in the spring of 2000.''
In a December 2, 1997 press release, Mark Musick,
chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board
(NAGB), stated: ``We will carry out the job Congress
has asked us to do--develop an individualized version
of the National Assessment of Educational Progress.''
The NAGB press release went on further to state: ``The
Board will seek to complete all preliminary development
work by September 30, 1998, so there can be pilot
testing and field testing later.''
Secretary of Education Dick Riley sent a letter to
the Chairman of the Education and Workforce Committee,
Rep. Bill Goodling (R-PA) on January 20, 1998 asking
him to reconsider this markup. He noted the Chairman's
involvement in reaching a bipartisan agreement under
the FY 1998 Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education Appropriations Act on how to proceed with
regard to Federal tests including the transfer of
responsibilities to NAGB and the deadlines established
for studies by the National Academy of Sciences. This
agreement did not include language authorizing pilot
testing, field testing or implementation of tests in FY
1999, as the Administration has asserted will occur.
As earlier mentioned, a January 15, 1998 memo from
William Randall, Chairman of the Special Committee to
Review the Test Development Contract, to members of
NAGB states the first pilot test will be ``conducted in
March of 1999, the field test in March of the year
2000, and the operational test in March of the year
2001.'' NAGB clearly views its role as laying the
foundation for pilot testing and other activities soon
after the September 30, 1998 expiration date for the
ban of pilot testing in the FY 1998 Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act.
To NAGB's credit, they determined that the
Administration's plans and ill-conceived timetable for
Federal tests were so flawed that NAGB decided to re-
write the test development contract. It is clear the
test specifications were developed in a rush so as to
be administered prior to the end of the President's
second term. Again, this shows that the Department of
Education's original work was done in a very haphazard
manner, and provides even more reason for Congress to
prohibit Federal testing without specific and explicit
authority.
Conclusion
The actions of the President and the Department of
Education in calendar year 1997, and pronouncements by
Administration officials subsequent to the enactment of the FY
1998 Labor, Health and Human Services and Education
Appropriations Act (P.L. 105-78), continue to indicate the
Administration's plans to move forward with Federal testing.
H.R. 2846 ensures that Federal testing activity does not go
forward unless specific and explicit authority is provided in
law. This legislation preserves the proper and appropriate role
of Congress by prohibiting all Federal testing activity unless
specifically and explicitly authorized by Congress.
Exhibit A
House of Representatives,
Committee on Education and the Workforce,
Washington, DC, March 5, 1997.
Hon. Richard W. Riley,
Secretary, Department of Education,
Washington, DC.
Dear Secretary Riley: We are pleased to know of President
Clinton's commitment to improving the education of all
students, just as we are. Likewise, we agree with the
Administration that states and communities need objective
information, often in the form of statewide systems of
standards and assessments, about how students are doing. This
information can help provide a needed spark for education for
education improvement.
In this light, we will review the Administration's
proposals on standards and assessments. However, other than a
few brief mentions in budget documents and other Departmental
public relations materials, our Committee has yet to receive
any official guidance on the Administration's plans in this
area.
From what we ascertain, the President's national testing
proposal in reading and math constitutes a major change in
Federal education policy. Given this change, we believe
Congress should have clear information on the Administration's
intentions, and that your proposal receive the careful scrutiny
it deserves--both by Congress and the public at-large. In our
view, proposals like this must be backed by a consensus on the
Hill and in the country if they are to achieve success when
implemented.
We are particularly interested in knowing the explicit
statutory authority on which the Administration relies for the
testing. It is also important that we know what specific
category of funds the Administration intends to allocate for
the tests. We would appreciate your assistance in clarifying
these two issues, as well as in answering several questions
that are included in the attached document. The answers to
these questions will assist us in giving the Administration's
proposal the careful consideration it deserves.
In our view, this is a serious proposal that deserves
serious debate and consideration. Tests, whether national or
state, are but a measure of progress. While testing does
provide a measure of progress, we believe national education
policy should give priority to the things that we know work--
helping children master the basic academic subjects, engaging
and involving parents, and getting dollars to the classroom
where they can do the most good. These are our top priorities,
and we look forward to working with you on these issues, as
well as on your standards and testing proposal.
We would appreciate receiving the responses to the
questions no later than March 19, 1997. Thank you in advance
for your assistance. We look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
Bill Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on
Education and the
Workforce.
Peter Hoekstra,
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Oversight and
Investigations.
Frank Riggs,
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Early Childhood, Youth
and Families.
John Porter,
Chairman, Subcommittee on
Labor, Health and Human
Services, Education and
Related Agencies of the
Committee on
Appropriations.
1. Why did the Department not include a specific written
budget request for the proposal in the Department of Education
budget documents that were submitted to Congress earlier this
year?
2. What does the President perceive to be the difference
between ``federal government standards'' and ``national
standards''?
3. Do you intend to seek explicit Congressional authority
and approval for the development and implementation of the
national tests, similar to the explicit statutory authority
Congress gave for the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP)?
4. If you believe authority already exists under current
law for the development and implementation of the national
tests, under what specific statutory authorization does such
authority exist? Include specific U.S. Code titles and
subsections.
5. Under what specific program's appropriation does the
President propose to pay for the development and implementation
of the new national tests? What, if any funds, do you intend to
reprogram in FY 1997 or FY 1998 for the national tests?
6. (a) What do you expect will be the total cost of
development of these tests and on what basis do you make the
estimate?
(b) What do you expect will be the total costs per student
and on what basis do you make the estimate?
(c) What portion of the costs will be borne by the federal
budget during the development phase and what portion will be
borne by states and school districts?
(d) What portion of the costs will be borne by the federal
budget during the first administration of the tests?
(e) What portion of the costs will be borne by the federal
budget in the years following the first administration of the
tests?
7. (a) What is the specific timetable for the development
of these tests?
(b) What is the specific timetable for including any
``requests for proposals'', grants, or contracts?
(c) What is the specific timetable for the meeting of
advisory committees on this issue, if any?
(d) What is the specific timetable for any other stages in
the process or activities associated with the process not
mentioned in (a)-(c) above?
8. (a) Do you plan to use actual NAEP tests (i.e. those
used for the national and state assessments) for the
individualized tests you propose or do you intend to create new
test instruments?
(b) If the latter, what specifically will be their
relationship to NAEP?
(c) How do you know their results will be comparable?
9. (a) If you are proposing to engage outside organizations
in the preparation and conduct of these tests, such as through
grants or contracts to non-federal entities, which specific
ones do you propose to use?
(b) How will the grantees or contract recipients be
selected and by whom?
(c) If by officials of the Department of Education, name
those officials.
(d) If by ``peer review'', please name the federal
officials who will select the reviewers and the types and
qualifications of reviewers to be used.
10. (a) What specifically, if any, is to be the
relationship of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB)
to the proposed new tests?
(b) It has been reported that you may have decided that
these tests, although based in some way on NAEP frameworks and
NAGB standards, will be created and managed outside the
existing NAEP administrative and policy structures. Please
explain.
11. (a) Do you plan to use the NAGB ``proficient''
standard, or the ``basic'' standard as the fundamental
``national standard''?
(b) If the latter, how do you justify changing from the
standard that both NAGB and the National Education Goals Panel
have adopted as the level of achievement that all young
Americans should be expected to reach?
12. How will you assure that use of these tests will be,
and remain, voluntary and not become mandatory tests?
13. (a) Will it be possible for states and communities to
``embed'' or integrate the national tests in their own state
and local testing programs?
(b) How exactly will this be done?
14. (a) Please explain in detail the ``standards'' in the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) that,
in your view, qualify TIMSS to be the proper basis for the
eighth grade math test?
(b) How do TIMSS standards differ, if at all, from NAEP
standards?
(c) If the President's plan for testing moves forward, does
it not make more sense to use eighth NAEP standards and tests
for math? Why or why not?
15. (a) Why have you decided to limit this program to
fourth grade reading and eighth grade math?
(b) How do you plan to deal with states, that might prefer,
for example, to use NAEP instruments for fourth grade math and
eighth grade reading? Or science?
16. Will the reading test be given only in English or in
other languages as well?
17. What accommodations, if any, do you intend to make for
students with disabilities who take these tests?
18. (a) In what form do you expect the test results to be
made available to parents?
(b) How will the confidentiality of individual test-takers
be protected?
(c) Will parents be able to obtain school-specific data?
(d) Will parents be able to obtain school-specific data for
schools other than the one(s) their own child or children
attend?
19. (a) Do you intend to create new advisory committees to
help design and oversee this program? If so, please explain.
(b) If so, why are you doing that rather than relying on
NAGB?
(c) Who will appoint these new committees?
(d) What types of individuals will be appointed?
(e) How many individuals will be appointed to such
committees?
(f) What criteria do you intend to use for such appointees?
20. How do you plan to deal with states which may have
state assessments and standards which are more rigorous than
any new national tests or standards?
21. Will states that wish to do so be free to use these
test results for ``high stakes'' purposes?
22. What is the relationship of the new tests to the state
standards and state assessments aspects of goals 2000?
23. (a) At least 32 states have developed state standards,
and an additional 14 report that standards development is
underway. In addition, 45 states report that they have
statewide assessment systems. How will ``national standards''
affect states who have already developed and are using state
standards?
(b) If the national standards are different from the states
standards, will the states have to change their standards?
24. What provision, if any, does the President's proposal
make for private and home-schooled students to be able to take
these tests?
25. How will you ensure test security?
26. Will states be permitted to require teachers to take
the same tests that their pupils are taking?
27. If a state decides not to use the national tests in
reading and math, can a local educational agency still go
forward and use the test?
----------
Exhibit B
U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC, March 19, 1997.
Hon. Bill Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter to the
Secretary requesting more information about the President's
plan to develop voluntary national tests for individual
students in fourth grade reading in English and eighth grade
mathematics. I am sending identical replies to Congressmen
Hoekstra, Riggs, and Porter.
Our plan is to make these tests available for use by States
and school districts in the spring of 1999. They will offer a
common set of expectations and standards in the basic skills of
reading and mathematics, and allow every parent to compare the
performance of his or her child with the performance of
children around the country and the world.
In these two basic skills areas--of fourth grade reading
and eighth grade mathematics--there is little disagreement
about what children should know and be able to do. Children
need to be able to read independently and well by the fourth
grade, or they will be unable to read to learn other subjects.
They also need a strong background in challenging mathematics
by the eighth grade, or they will be unable to take the
rigorous courses in high school that prepare them for college.
All children must be provided the challenging curriculum and
quality teaching that enables them to achieve these basic
skills. The voluntary national tests will be a strong force for
making that happen.
We plan to develop these tests under the authority provided
by the Fund for the Improvement of Education, using monies made
available for that program under the appropriation for
Education Research, Statistics, and Improvement. Enclosed with
this letter are responses to the questions you posed regarding
the details of our plan.
We appreciate your careful consideration of this
initiative. We look forward to working with you on the various
issues as we proceed.
Sincerely,
Marshall S. Smith,
Acting Deputy Secretary.
Enclosure.
Questions Regrading National Tests in Fourth Grade Reading in English
and Eighth Grade Mathematics
1. Question. Why did the Department not include a specific
written budget request for the proposal in the Department of
Education budget documents that were submitted to Congress
earlier this year?
Answer. The President made the decision to develop
voluntary national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth
grade mathematics following his return from a trip to
Northbrook, Illinois, on January 22, 1997. During that trip,
the President participated in the release of results comparing
the mathematics and science performance of students in the
districts comprising the First in the World Consortium with the
performance of students in the 41 countries that participated
in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS). We had already sent our budget documents to print by
that time so that we would be able to deliver them to the
Appropriations Committees on the day that the President
released his fiscal year 1998 budget.
2. Question. What does the President perceive to be the
difference between ``federal government standards'' and
``national standards?''
Answer. Federal Government standards would be standards
somehow imposed or required by the Federal Government. The
President and the Secretary are opposed to developing such
standards. National standards are voluntary standards that are
developed through a consensus process and widely accepted as
representing what students should know and be able to do. They
are developed by groups of individuals outside of government
such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the
National Assessment Governing Board. The standards embodied in
the National Assessment of Educational Progress are an example
of national standards. The national tests will be based on
these standards.
3. Question. Do you intend to seek explicit Congressional
authority and approval for the development and implementation
of the national tests, similar to the explicit statutory
authority Congress gave for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP)?
Answer. We do not believe that additional authorizing
legislation is necessary for us to develop these tests and make
them available for use by States and districts. Under our plan,
we will need additional funds in 1999 to reimburse States,
districts, or other entities such as test publishers, for the
costs of administering the tests in the first year, and we may
need funds for test administration in subsequent years as well.
We look forward to working with the Committees to gain approval
of appropriations for this purpose.
4. Question. If you believe authority already exists under
current law for the development and administration of the
national tests, under what specific statutory authorization
does such authority exist? Include specific U.S. Code titles
and subsections.
Answer. We believe that authority exists under the Fund for
the Improvement of Education authorized by Title X, Section
10101 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (20 USC
8001).
5. Question. Under what specific program's appropriation
does the President propose to pay for the development and
implementation of the new national tests? What, if any, funds
do you intend to reprogram in FY 1997 or FY 1998 for the
national tests?
Answer. We will use funds made available for the Fund for
the Improvement of Education (FIE) in the appropriation for
Education Research, Statistics, and Improvement to develop
these tests. We expect to use up to $10 million in FIE funds
for this purpose in 1997 and up to $12 million in 1998. Because
we are using funds originally made available for the program
under whose authority we intend to carry out this activity, we
do not believe that reprogramming is needed.
Funds will not be needed for the implementation (or
administration) of these tests until 1999 when they first
become available for use by States and districts. Our 1999
budget for FIE will include funds to reimburse States and
districts, or other entities, such as test publishers, that
administer the tests, for the costs of administering the tests
in the spring of 1999. These administration costs will include
the costs of printing the tests, scoring the tests, analyzing
the results, and reporting the results to parents and teachers.
6.(a) Question. What do you expect will be the total cost
of development of these tests and on what basis do you make the
estimate?
Answer. We intend to make available new versions of the
national tests each year. We estimate that annual development
costs will be approximately $10-12 million, with inflation
increasing costs slowly over time. Our estimate is based on the
Department's experience with NAEP and on the experience of
State assessment programs.
These tests will be based on the test frameworks used to
develop the NAEP fourth grade reading and eighth grade
mathematics assessments. The tests will be linked to the NAEP
tests and, in the case of mathematics, also to the eighth grade
mathematics test used in TIMSS. This will permit parents and
teachers to compare the performance of individual students with
the performance of their peers around the country and the
world. It also means that the costs of developing the national
tests will be low compared to other tests because the test
frameworks and performance levels that will be used have
already been developed for NAEP and TIMSS.
6.(b) Question. What do you expect will be the total costs
per student and on what basis do you make the estimate?
Answer. We are still refining our estimates of per student
costs. We are not including in these estimates any of the costs
related to the development of the tests, as the development
costs will be paid directly by the Department to the
contractors competitively selected to develop the tests. The
per student costs are essentially the costs of administering
and scoring the tests and reporting the results, and they will
be the basis of our fiscal year 1999 request for funds to
reimburse States, districts, and others for administration of
the tests. Based on input we received in the course of three
public meetings, primarily from State assessment directors, our
current estimates are that administration costs will be between
$10 and $12 per student. These estimates may change as issues
arise in the test development process.
6.(c) Question. What portion of the costs will be borne by
the federal budget during the development phase and what
portion will be borne by states and school districts?
Answer. We intend to include in our budget each year the
costs of developing a fourth grade reading test and an eighth
grade mathematics test. New versions of the tests will be made
available each year, beginning in 1999. We do not intend to
pass the costs of development on to States and school
districts.
6.(d) Question. What portion of the costs will be borne by
the federal budget during the first administration of the
tests?
Answer. We intend to provide reimbursement for the costs
incurred in administering the national tests in the spring of
1999, the first year they will be available. Our 1999 budget
will include funds for this reimbursement. The budget will also
include funds for test development, as contractors will be
developing and field testing versions of the tests to be used
in subsequent years.
6.(e) Question. What portion of the costs will be borne by
the federal budget in the years following the first
administration of the tests?
Answer. We are not certain about this at the present time.
We will continue to bear the costs of developing versions of
the tests for use in subsequent years. We may also request
funds to reimburse States, school districts, and other eligible
entities for costs of administering the tests for additional
years beyond 1999, but no final decision has been made yet on
this point.
7.(a) Question. What is the specific timetable for the
development of these tests?
Answer. We intend to have the first fourth grade reading
test and the first eighth grade mathematics test available for
use in the spring of 1999. This means that the tests will have
to be field tested in the spring of 1998. In order for this to
occur, development contracts must be in place no later than
September of this year.
7.(b) Question. What is the specific timetable for
including any ``requests for proposals,'' grants, or contracts?
Answer. We intend to issue a request for proposals by late
April for two test development contracts, one for fourth grade
reading and the other for eighth grade mathematics, with the
contracts to be awarded by August or September. The draft scope
of work for these contracts will be made available on the World
Wide Web, probably during the week of March 17, with an
invitation for public comment.
We are exploring the possibility of having the technical
specifications for the tests and for the test items developed
under a separate award so that the specifications will be
available for the test developers to begin work in August or
September. The specifications will be based on the test
frameworks already developed for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress.
7.(c) Question. What is the specific timetable for the
meeting of advisory committees on this issue, if any?
Answer. The test development contractors will be required
to establish certain advisory panels, but we do not presently
have a firm timetable for the meetings of those groups. Our
current thinking is that meetings should probably be held
shortly after the award of the contracts in 1997 and in March
and September of each subsequent year. The request for
proposals will outline the specific timetable.
We have no schedule at this time for meetings of any other
advisory committee(s) that might be established to provide
advice on the tests. We have had a meeting with experts for
input, and we have had a series of three public meetings at
which we heard from test publishers, State assessment
directors, and others. The transcripts of all of these meetings
are being made available on the World Wide Web. The meetings
have been very helpful. Other such meetings may occur.
7.(d) Question. What is the specific timetable for any
other stages in the process or activities associated with the
process not mentioned in (a)-(c) above?
Answer. The request for proposals will outline the stages
of the test development process. It may contain a specific
timetable for all activities, or it may contain a timetable for
certain activities or results, with bidders asked to propose
schedules for other activities.
In addition to conducting field tests, test developers will
have to conduct studies to equate the versions of the tests
currently under development with the prior year's versions of
the tests. Ongoing research related to accommodations for
special populations and other issues will also be required. A
separate contractor will work with the test developers to link
the national tests with the appropriate NAEP and TIMSS tests,
so that results on the national tests may be compared with NAEP
and TIMSS performance standards. This contractor will be
competitively selected next fiscal year.
After the time period for actual administration of the
national tests ends, the test instruments and scoring guides
will be made available on the World Wide Web. This will allow
others to use the tests, and it will provide parents, teachers,
and the public an opportunity to see what students should know
and be able to do. If possible, sample tests will be made
available in the fall of 1998 so that parents and teachers will
also have access to this information prior to the first
administration of the tests. We want to do everything possible
to make information available to help parents, teachers, and
students prepare for these tests.
An evaluation contractor will be engaged before the first
administration of the new national tests.
8.(a) Question. Do you plan to use actual NAEP tests (i.e.,
those used for the national and state assessments) for the
individualized tests you propose or do you intend to create new
test instruments?
Answer. New test instruments must be created, because NAEP
is not designed to provide individual student results. No
student takes the entire NAEP test. A number of different test
booklets are used in the assessment, with some students taking
one booklet, others another booklet, and so on. In this way, it
is possible to keep testing time for individual students to a
minimum and yet provide estimates of student performance on a
very comprehensive set of items.
With the new national tests, all participating fourth
graders will take the same reading test, and all participating
eighth graders will take the same mathematics tests. Each
student will receive his or her own score.
8.(b) Question. If the latter, what specifically will be
their relationship to NAEP?
Answer. The test and item specifications for the new
national tests will be based on the NAEP frameworks for fourth
grade reading and eighth grade mathematics to ensure that the
new tests measure the knowledge and skills that are measured by
the NAEP tests. In addition, we will support linking studies so
that when test results are reported to parents and teachers,
they will receive not only the student's score on the national
reading or mathematics test, but also an estimated NAEP score
in reading or mathematics and, in the case of mathematics, an
estimated TIMSS score. This will allow parents and teachers to
know where the student performed in relation to the NAEP levels
of basic, proficient, and advanced. In the case of mathematics,
they will also know, for example, whether the student scored
above or below the international average, and if above, whether
the student scored on a par with the top 10 percent
internationally.
8.(c) Question. How do you know their results will be
comparable?
Answer. We will base the national tests on the NAEP
frameworks, and we will conduct studies to link results on the
national tests with NAEP results to ensure that they are
comparable. The many experts whom we have consulted believe
that the technical aspects of this plan are sound.
9.(a) Question. If you are proposing to engage outside
organizations in the preparation and conduct of these tests,
such as through grants or contracts to non-federal entities,
which specific ones do you propose to use?
Answer. Separate contracts will be awarded for the
development of a national fourth grade reading test and for the
development of a national eighth grade mathematics test as the
result of a competitive procurement process. We have no idea
who will win those contracts.
States, school districts, test publishers, and others will
be eligible for certification to administer these tests. In
order to receive certification, they will have to demonstrate
that they can ensure standard administration and scoring of the
tests. There will be no charge for certification. States and
districts that are not certified to administer the tests, as
well as private schools, will be able to have their students
take the tests by making arrangements for administration and
scoring with a certified entity. Our current plan is to award a
competitive contract to an organization that will certify and
enter into agreements with those States, school districts, test
publishers, and others that meet the certification
requirements.
9.(b) Question. How will the grantees and contract
recipients be selected and by whom?
Answer. We do not intend to award grants related to these
tests. Contractors will be chosen through a competitive
process. Technical proposals will be evaluated by Department
officials and outside experts. Cost proposals will then be
evaluated by contracting personnel, with the final source
selection the responsibility of the contracting officer.
9.(c) Question. If by officials of the Department of
Education, name those officials.
Answer. The selection of contractors is the responsibility
of a contracting officer. The Assistant Secretary for
Educational Research and Improvement, or his or her designee,
and employees of the Office of Educational Research and
Improvement will provide advice, in accordance with the source
selection criteria that will be set forth in the solicitation.
9.(d) Question. If by ``peer review,'' please name the
federal officials who will select the reviewers and the types
and qualifications of reviewers to be used.
Answer. The contracting officer will make the final
decision regarding who will evaluate the technical proposals,
based upon recommendations received from the Assistant
Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement or his or
her designee. The ``peer'' reviewers involved will be
nationally recognized reading and mathematics experts and
testing and measurement experts.
10.(a) Question. What specifically, if any, is to be the
relationship of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB)
to the proposed new tests?
Answer. The National Assessment Governing Board currently
has no relationship to the national tests. The Governing
Board's role is circumscribed by the National Education
Statistics Act of 1994. The Board is established solely to
formulate policy guidelines for the National Assessment of
Educational Progress. Provisions of the NAEP authority require
that all personally identifiable data about students and their
performance remain confidential. This means that NAEP
activities cannot include the development of tests for which
individual student scores are reported, and thus that NAGB can
have no role in such tests.
10.(b) Question. It has been reported that you may have
decided that these tests, although based in some way on NAEP
frameworks and NAGB standards, will be created and managed
outside the existing NAEP administrative and policy structures.
Please explain.
Answer. Please see our response above. A statutory change
would be required to involve NAGB in these activities. We may
ask Congress to consider this issue. However, we do not believe
that NAGB's involvement is essential at this juncture, and we
do not want to delay the development of these tests.
11.(a) Question. Do you plan to use the NAGB ``proficient''
standard, or the ``basic'' standard as the fundamental
``national standard?''
Answer. We do not plan to establish a ``fundamental''
national standard. We intend to ensure that students' scores
can be reported in a manner that permits parents and teachers
to know whether the students have attained NAGB's ``basic,''
``proficient,'' or ``advanced'' levels. We believe, as does
NAGB, that all children should be at least ``proficient'' in
the basics and other subjects.
One immediate goal, however, is to motivate all students to
attain at least the ``basic'' level in reading. Currently, 40
percent of fourth graders cannot read at the ``basic'' level,
and yet we know that students must be able to read
independently by fourth grade, or they will be unable to read
to learn other subjects. This does not obviate the overall goal
of reading ``proficiently.''
And, in mathematics, students must also master more
challenging content. U.S. eighth graders scored slightly below
the international average on the TIMSS eighth grade mathematics
test, and only 20 percent of them had studied algebra, compared
with 100 percent of students in some of the top performing
countries. We know that, without a strong background in
mathematics by the eighth grade, students are unable to take
the kinds of courses in high school that prepare them for
college.
We must ensure that all students master the basic and
advanced skills of reading and mathematics. We absolutely want
to see more and more students attain the ``proficient'' and
``advanced'' levels. And, in the case of mathematics, we not
only want to see all students score above the international
average, we want to see more and more students perform with the
top 10 percent internationally.
11.(b) Question. If the latter, how do you justify changing
from the standard that both NAGB and the National Education
Goals Panel have adopted as the level of achievement that all
young Americans should be expected to reach?
Answer. We are not in conflict with NAGB or the Goals
Panel. We hope to see parents and teachers provided with
information about how students' performance on these tests
compares with the NAGB achievement levels. States and school
districts that use these tests may establish whatever
challenging goals they wish. All children should be able to
read independently and well by the fourth grade and prepared in
mathematics to take the courses in high school that prepare
them for college.
12. Question. How will you assure that use of these tests
will be, and remain, voluntary and not become mandatory tests?
Answer. We have no authority, nor do we want any authority,
to make these tests mandatory. That would require legislative
action, which we will not seek.
13.(a) Question. Will it be possible for states and
communities to ``embed'' or integrate the national tests in
their own state and local testing programs?
Answer. It will be possible for States and communities to
integrate the national tests into their own testing programs.
However, in order for the results to be compared with NAEP, it
will be necessary for the tests to be administered under
comparable testing conditions. This means that the national
tests will have to be taken in their entirety in a given
testing session. The items could not be commingled with other
items from other tests. Released versions of the tests can, of
course, be used as States and communities wish.
13.(b) Question. How exactly will this be done?
Answer. There are a number of ways it could be done. We
will leave those decisions to State and local officials and to
test publishers. We will ask the developers of the national
tests to outline criteria, to ensure test validity, which will
be used in the process of certifying test administration
organizations.
14.(a) Question. Please explain in detail the ``standards''
in the Third International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) that, in your view, qualify TIMSS to be the proper
basis for the eighth grade math test.
Answer. We have decided that the NAEP eighth grade
mathematics test should be the basis for the national test in
eighth grade mathematics. The framework, or content standards,
for TIMSS was the result of international negotiations, which
required that compromises be made. We believe that the content
standards for the NAEP test are more reflective of widely
accepted standards for what U.S. students should know and be
able to do in eighth grade mathematics.
However, TIMSS provides a very important and useful
international benchmark, and we intend to link the national
eighth grade mathematics test to the eighth grade mathematics
test used in TIMSS so that students can be provided with
estimated TIMSS scores. This will allow them, and their parents
and teachers, to know how their performance compares with that
of their international peers.
14.(b) Question. How do TIMSS standards differ, if at all,
from NAEP standards?
Answer. There is a great deal of overlap in the TIMSS and
NAEP frameworks for eighth grade mathematics. That is why we
will be able to link the new national test in eighth grade
mathematics to the TIMSS test and provide students with
estimated TIMSS scores, even though the test itself will be
based on the NAEP mathematics framework. The NAEP framework is
more elaborated than the TIMSS framework and more consistent
with the content standards developed by the National Council of
Teachers of Mathematics.
14.(c) Question. If the President's plan for testing moves
forward, does it not make more sense to use eighth grade NAEP
standards and tests for math? Why or why not?
Answer. We intend to use the NAEP framework for the eighth
grade mathematics test, and students will receive estimated
NAEP scores, as well as estimated TIMSS scores, so that their
performance can be judged according to NAEP performance level
standards. The rationale for this plan is explained above.
15.(a) Question. Why have you decided to limit this program
to fourth grade reading and eighth grade math?
Answer. The purpose of these tests is to offer a common set
of expectations and standards in the basic skills of reading
and mathematics. We all know that being able to read
independently by the fourth grade is a critical skill. Children
who are unable to read independently by that critical
transition period cannot read to learn science, history, and so
on, and they are the children who most often go on to drop out
or fail in school. Mathematics is the second basic, and the
critical transition here seems to be at the eighth grade.
Students who do not have a strong background in mathematics by
the eighth grade are not able to take the kinds of courses in
high school that prepare them for college.
15.(b) Question. How do you plan to deal with states that
might prefer, for example, to use NAEP instruments for fourth
grade math and eighth grade reading? Or science?
Answer. As explained in response to question 8(a), NAEP
instruments are not appropriate for individual student use.
They cannot be used to provide individual student scores. We
plan to develop national tests only in fourth grade reading and
eighth grade mathematics because reading and mathematics are
the basic skills, and the critical transition period in reading
is the fourth grade and in mathematics, the eighth grade.
States can now and can continue in the future to participate in
State-level NAEP assessments at other grade levels and in other
subjects.
16. Question. Will the reading test be given only in
English or in other languages as well?
Answer. The reading test will be a test of reading in
English. Consequently, it will not be given in other languages.
However, the mathematics test will be made available in a
bilingual (Spanish-English) version.
17. Question. What accommodations, if any, do you intend to
make for students with disabilities who take the tests?
Answer. Our intention is to make these tests as accessible
to students with disabilities as possible. Braille and large
print versions of the tests will be developed by the test
developers. An audio cassette version of the mathematics test
will also be developed. Test administrators will be expected to
provide additional accommodations at the testing site. These
accommodations would include extended time, one-on-one testing,
and other accommodations normally provided to the particular
student when he or she participates in other tests at the
school. Ongoing research will be conducted so that
accommodations can be improved as time goes on.
18.(a) Question. In what form do you expect the test
results to be made available to parents?
Answer. This decision will be left to States and school
districts. The test developers will provide guidelines for
reporting results, which will be used in the process of
certifying test administration organizations. The tests will be
designed so that results can be reported to parents and
teachers in an easily understandable metric. Estimated NAEP
scores and, in the case of mathematics, estimated TIMSS scores
will also be available.
18.(b) Question. How will the confidentiality of individual
test-takers be protected?
Answer. In order to become a certified test administration
entity, a State, school district, or test publisher will have
to demonstrate that the confidentiality of students will be
protected. These tests and the use of them will have to meet
the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing of the
American Psychological Association, the American Educational
Research Association, and the National Council for Measurement
in Education.
18.(c) Question. Will parents be able to obtain school-
specific data?
Answer. This decision will be made by the State or the
school district, not by the Federal Government. We will
encourage States and districts to provide overall school
performance data to parents without breeching the
confidentiality of individual student test scores. We believe
that informing parents about how schools stack up against
national performance levels is a significant potential benefit
of these tests.
18.(d) Question. Will parents be able to obtain school-
specific data for schools other than the one(s) their own child
or children attend?
Answer. This decision will be made by the State or the
school district, not by the Federal Government. As indicated
above, we will encourage States and school districts to provide
this information.
19.(a) Question. Do you intend to create new advisory
committees to help design and oversee this program? If so,
please explain.
Answer. We are considering options for the establishment of
appropriate advisory committees. Contractors will be required
to establish their own committees to advise them on their work,
including committees to advise on technical issues.
19.(b) Question. If so, why are you doing that rather than
relying on NAGB?
Answer. We explained in response to question 10(a) why NAGB
presently has no role regarding these tests. We are not
opposed, however, to further considering this option.
19.(c) Question. Who will appoint these new committees?
Answer. Contractors will be responsible for appointing
their own committees. If any advisory committees are
established by the Department, members will be appointed by the
Secretary.
19.(d) Question. What types of individuals will be
appointed?
Answer. The types of individuals who will appointed to any
advisory committees include reading and mathematics experts,
testing and measurement experts, persons who are knowledgeable
about making tests accessible to limited English proficient and
disabled students, educational leaders, teachers, and parents.
Appointees will be selected to assure public confidence in the
integrity and non-partisan nature of this initiative.
19.(e) Question. How many individuals will be appointed to
such committees?
Answer. We have no specific numbers at this time.
19.(f) Question. What criteria do you intend to use for
such appointees?
Answer. Contractors will be expected to appoint nationally
recognized experts. If any appointments are made by the
Department, we will do the same.
20. Question. How do you plan to deal with states which may
have state assessments and standards which are more rigorous
than any new national tests or standards?
Answer. States will not be required to use these tests.
However, whatever level a State's standards, these tests should
be useful to inform parents how their children score against
national--and in the case of mathematics, international--
performance levels.
21. Question. Will states that wish to do so be free to use
these test results for ``high stakes'' purposes?
Answer. As is the case with all tests used by States and
districts, the use of these tests will have to be consistent
with the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing.
This means they can be used only for purposes for which they
have been validated. States that wish to use the tests for
``high stakes'' purposes will have to collect the information
to demonstrate that they are valid for such uses. This could
not be done prior to the first administration of the tests.
22. Question. What is the relationship of the new tests to
the state standards and state assessments aspects of Goals
2000?
Answer. States will have to make these decisions. They will
be free to use the national tests as part of their State
assessment programs. No State will be required to use these
tests in order to continue receiving Goals 2000 funds.
23. (a) Question. At least 32 states have developed state
standards, and an additional 14 report that standards
development is underway. In addition, 45 states report that
they have statewide assessment systems. How will ``national
standards'' affect states who have already developed and are
using state standards?
Answer. This will be up to the States. We will work with
them to make sure that the national tests can be integrated
with their assessment systems. For many States, however, NAEP
proficiency levels are more challenging than the State's own
standards. In general, the percentages of students who reach
the proficient level on NAEP are lower than the percentages who
reach the proficient levels on States' assessments.
23. (b) Question. If the national standards are different
from the states' standards, will the states have to change
their standards?
Answer. Such decisions will be left entirely to the States.
As far as content standards are concerned, however, there seems
to be widespread agreement across the country about the basic
skills of reading and mathematics. The Council of Chief State
School Officers, for example, managed the consensus process
that resulted in the frameworks for the NAEP fourth grade
reading and eighth grade mathematics assessments. The
mathematics framework is very consistent with the content
standards developed by the National Council of Teachers of
Mathematics, and those standards are heavily relied upon as
States establish their own standards. In these two basic skill
areas, the differences in standards will probably relate
primarily to performance levels, not content.
24. Question. What provision, if any, does the President's
proposal make for private and home-schooled students to be able
to take these tests?
Answer. Private schools will be able to use these tests by
obtaining them from certified test administration
organizations, such as States, school districts, or test
publishers. A private school that wants the Federal Government
to reimburse the costs of administering the tests to its
students would have to provide certain civil rights assurances
related to admissions and test administration.
Home-schooled students will be able to take these tests
when they are released to the public following the close of the
test administration period. Anyone may use the tests at that
time. Scoring guides, as well as the tests themselves, will be
made available.
25. Question. How will you ensure these security?
Answer. The test development contracts, as well as the
agreements with certified test administration agencies and
organizations, will include procedures to ensure the security
of these tests. Particularly because new test questions will be
developed each year, we expect these tests to be more secure
than most tests that are widely available.
Question. Will states be permitted to require teachers to
take the same tests that their pupils are taking?
Answer. Yes. This is a decision for States and districts to
make, consistent with State and local law and any collective
bargaining agreements.
Question. If a state decides not to use the national tests
in reading and math, can a local educational agency still go
forward and use the test?
Answer. Yes, a school district may use the tests whether
they are used throughout the State or not. In fact, we would
encourage districts to use the tests.
----------
Exhibit C
U.S. Department of Education,
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education,
Washington, DC, September 16, 1997.
memorandum to chief state school officers
Subject: Questions and Answers on the relationship of Title I
Requirements to the National Voluntary Tests.
Enclosed are questions and answers that clarify the
Department of Education's position on the relationship between
the standards and assessment requirements of Title I and the
proposed National Voluntary Tests in reading in grade 4 and
mathematics in grade 8.
If you need further clarification, call Mary Jean LeTendre
at 202-260-0826 of fax your questions to 202-260-7764.
Gerald N. Tirozzi.
Enclosure.
Question. May the national tests be used by the States, in
part, as the assessments required under Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act?
Answer. Yes. Title I requires a State to use challenging
content and student performance standards developed for all
students under the Goals 2000: Educate America Act or under
another process or, absent such standards for all students, to
develop for children served under Title I challenging content
and student performance standards that reflect the State's
expectations for all children. The State must also develop or
adopt assessments aligned with these standards. Thus, if a
State determines that the national tests are aligned with the
State's standards, those tests may be used for Title I
purposes. Because the national tests will be based on the
content frameworks of the National Assessment of Educational
Progress, they will reflect a national consensus among
educators, testing experts, and other leaders on what children
should know and be able to do in reading English at the fourth
grade level and in mathematics at the eighth grade level. We
therefore expect that the tests generally will be aligned with
most, if not all, States' efforts to develop challenging
content and performance standards in these subjects at the
indicated grade levels. Moreover, the national tests will be
developed according to the highest professional and technical
standards; will be administered with accommodations for
children with disabilities and limited English proficient
children; will yield scores at three levels of performance; and
will permit scores to be disaggregated in accordance with Title
I provisions. The national tests thus can be an important
resource to States in carrying out Title I's vital goal of
holding students who participate in Title I to the same high
standards expected of all students.
Question. Will use of the national tests by a State fully
meet its assessment obligations under Title I?
Answer. For most children, use of the national tests will
meet a State's obligations under Title I to assess performance
in reading at the fourth grade level and in math at the eighth
grade level. However, consistent with the inclusion criteria
for the national tests, some students with limited English
proficiency or with disabilities may not be included in the
national tests. Other appropriate assessments would need to be
administered for these students in reading/language arts and
math to meet the Title I requirements. Moreover, Title I
requires annual State assessments in at least reading/language
arts and math in at least one grade in each of the following
clusters of grades: grades 3 through 5; grades 6 through 9; and
grades 10 through 12. Therefore, other assessments would be
needed for the grades 10 through 12 cluster if there are Title
I programs in schools serving those grades. In addition, other
State assessments in math in the grades 3 through 5 cluster and
in reading/language arts in the grades 6 through 9 cluster
would be required under Title I.
Question. Since the fourth grade national reading test will
be given only in English, can it be used for Title I assessment
purposes?
Answer. States generally are required by Title I to test
all students--including children with disabilities and limited
English proficient children--in reading/language arts in the
grades selected for assessment. Limited English proficient
children are to be assessed, to the extent practicable, in the
language and form most likely to yield accurate and reliable
information on what those students know and can do to determine
their mastery of skills in subjects other than English. Thus, a
State may use a particular test, such as the national reading
test, for limited English proficient children for whom the test
would be appropriate, and use other comparable reading tests
that assess the State's standards, but would be more
appropriate for children with less English proficiency.
We believe that the fourth grade test in reading English--
with appropriate accommodations for children with disabilities
and limited English proficient children--will be appropriate
for most fourth grade children. Inclusion criteria for the
tests will reflect that judgment. Limited English proficient
students who may be excluded from the national reading test--
i.e., children who have received instruction in English for
less than three years--would need to be given for Title I
purposes, another State reading/language arts test in, to the
extent practicable, the language and form most likely to yield
accurate and reliable information on what they know and can do.
Title I requires the States to make every effort to develop
assessments in languages other than English as they are needed
and directs the Secretary, through the Office of Bilingual
Education and Minority Languages Affairs, to assist the States,
at their request, in identifying appropriate assessment
measures in other languages. The Department is prepared to
provide that assistance.
----------
Exhibit D
Washington, DC, October 1, 1997.
Hon. Richard W. Riley,
Secretary of Education,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Secretary: When it was announced on Thursday,
September 25, that you had halted temporarily the Department's
work on the President's plan for federalized testing of all
students, we took the announced suspension as a sign of your
good faith.
However, it now appears the reported ``suspension'' of work
came at the close of a busy and costly week designing test
development. We must say, it would have been better for the
country, and cheaper for taxpayers, if you had called timeout
before the swarm of test developers descended for a two-day
session at one of the capital's most expensive hotels, The Four
Seasons. We are told that a one-night stay for two people there
costs $370--unless you want the best view.
These meetings cast doubt on the Administration's ability
to work with Congress on this issue. Please note in the
enclosed news article that the test designer participants in
this gathering expressed their discomfort at flying in the face
of congressional deliberations by suggesting that the meeting
be put off until Congress settled the testing controversy.
According to the article, your Deputy Secretary rejected the
suggestion out of hand.
Moreover, while the expenditure of millions of dollars for
federal testing concerns us deeply, the extravagance and
arrogance of this session are an affront to the taxpayers of
this nation. The taxpayers deserve to know the cost of this
gathering on September 22 and 23, and what you will do to
assure that they are not stuck directly or indirectly with the
cost of travel, meeting rooms, lodging, and catered meals.
Perhaps the next bunch of experts you bring to Washington could
be persuaded to conduct the meetings at a college campus, or at
the Department itself.
The extravagance of the venue and the arrogance attributed
to the Deputy Secretary reinforce the justifiable suspicion
held by American families over federalized student tests. The
government's record in the area of federalized academic
standards is one of abject failure. This new attempt by the
Department to intrude further into local schools should be
halted permanently.
The Department's experiment with nationwide testing is
multiply flawed. First, it will undercut the control of schools
by parents, teachers, and local boards. This will occur because
nationalized testing inevitably will drive curriculum and
instruction, leading to a national curriculum designed in
Washington. Such a national curriculum depriving families of
their right to shape education at the local level would be a
disaster.
Second, schools already administer many different tests.
Our students need more knowledge, not simply more tests.
Finally, the use of ``fuzzy'' math, or whole math, in the
proposed tests aligns the Department with yet another
educational fad, one associated with falling test scores among
Defense Department students subjected to such teaching methods
and curriculum.
Please provide detailed responses to the following
questions by October 7, 1997.
Did the Deputy Secretary in fact reject the idea of
deferring test development until Congress had settled the
issue? What was the total cost (including all expenses)
associated with the meetings held at The Four Seasons Hotel on
September 22 and 23? What will you do to assure that the
taxpayers are not billed directly or indirectly for the cost of
these meetings? How much has the Department expended to date on
the development of nationwide individualized testing?
Thank you for your immediate attention to these matters.
Sincerely,
John Ashcroft,
U.S. Senate.
William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on
Education and the
Workforce, House of
Representatives.
Enclosure.
[From the Weekly Standard, Oct. 6, 1997]
Clinton's Contractors Dis Congress
If anything is clear in the murky debate about national
education testing, it's that Congress doesn't want the Clinton
administration to continue in the course it's been on:
constructing tests of fuzzy math and whole language with the
help of committees and contractors picked by the Education
Department from the heart of the public school establishment.
In recent weeks, the Senate voted 87-13 to reassign the
testing venture to an independent board, while the House voted
295-120 to call a halt to the whole thing. You might suppose
the White House--which says salvaging this ill-begun venture is
its top priority and is threatening vetoes if Congress kills
it--would at least put its contractors on hold while it seeks
to work with Congress. But no.
Last week, Georgetown's posh Four Seasons Hotel hosted a
two-day meeting of test developers and several dozen
``advisers'' convened by the Council for Basic Education, which
stands to earn a tidy sum for its part in the $13 million
contract now in force. When nervous participants asked the
Education Department if maybe the meeting ought not be deferred
until Congress makes up its mind, Deputy Secretary Marshall
Smith (who picked all these folks) said: Nothing doing.
Smith's Folly, as some Hill-dwellers term the testing
scheme, continues at flank speed. ``They're sticking their
fingers in our eyes,'' complains a House staffer. Someone as
deft at education politics as William Jefferson Clinton might
be expected to know better. But the administration is getting
cocky. Congress is scared to fight back. The contractors are
getting paid. The hotel welcomes the business. And we foot the
bill.
----------
Exhibit E
U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC, October 9, 1997.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to respond to your letter
of October 1, 1997. I regret that you have been misled by a
press account of the meeting held by the Council for Basic
Education on September 22 and 23 and am happy to take this
opportunity to provide factual information about the meeting.
Furthermore, I was disappointed to see that you described this
as ``federalized'' testing for all students. I am sending a
similar reply to Senator Ashcroft.
I think it is important to note that the meeting was
planned, announced and held prior to the decision by the
Department to cease temporarily the contractor's work on test
item development. In order to secure the best advice from
classroom teachers, experts and citizens, the meeting was
attended by 60 people at costs of $13,654 for meals, rooms and
conference space; $7,600 for transcription services; $7,350 for
stipends to panelists; and approximately $10,000 in
transportation costs.
While the meeting was held at the Four Seasons Hotel, the
meeting participants did not stay there. They stayed at the
Georgetown Suites as a cost of $124.00 per night, which is the
standard government rate of Washington, D.C. The meeting was
conducted at the Four Seasons because the Georgetown Suites did
not have conference rooms available, the Four Seasons is within
walking distance of the Georgetown Suites, and the Four Seasons
provided meals for conference participants at rates comparable
to other hotels, but with a lower service charge. The hotel
accommodations and meeting costs were well within established
government rates and do not represent an extravagant cost to
the taxpayer.
The Acting Deputy Secretary of Education, Marshal S. Smith,
did not attend the meeting or provide instructions to the
participants. The panelists at the meeting were selected solely
by the Council for Basic Education.
With reference to your characterization of this as
``federalized testing of all students,'' it is important to
reiterate that these tests will be no more ``federalized'' than
the highly regarded and widely used National Assessment of
Educational Progress. While development of the tests would be
supported with federal funds, under our proposal as passed by
the Senate they will be developed under the control of the
independent, bipartisan National Assessment Governing Board. As
you well know, the Administration has made quite clear that
they will be totally voluntary in nature, administered at the
discretion of state and local officials.
In closing, you inquired as to how much the Department has
expended to date on development of the tests. The Department
estimates that the contractors have expended approximately $3
million for those purposes to date.
I hope this information is useful.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley, Secretary.
----------
Exhibit F
U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC, October 1997.
Dear School Board Chair: The American public is focused as
never before on education, and on the need to ensure that no
student is left behind in mastering basic and advanced skills,
especially in reading and math. As a school board member, you
are in the position to develop policies that articulate clearly
what students should know and be able to do in your schools.
Also, you have the forum to engage your school district
leadership and staff, as well as the public in an ongoing
dialogue about these expectations.
I am writing to make you aware of vital information that
you can use to inform your efforts and I am also sharing it
with other educational leaders. The Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), the most thorough
international study of math and science education ever
conducted, provides important information comparing the
performance of a half million students, including 33,000
Americans, at levels corresponding to U.S. grades 4, 8, and 12.
We now have the results for the fourth and eighth grades.
TIMSS shows that the achievement of our fourth-grade
students is quite high: above the international average in both
math and science, and in science outperformed only by Korea.
However, by eighth grade, our students are not doing as well,
particularly in mathematics. Among the 41 nations participating
in TIMSS, U.S. eighth graders score above the international
average in science, but below the international average in
mathematics.
Our fourth-grade performance in math and science should
give us all renewed hope and excitement about the importance
and promise of public education in America. However, our poor
performance in mathematics at the eighth grade suggests that we
must increase our efforts to improve the teaching and learning
of this critical subject in the late elementary and middle
school years. Information from TIMSS can inform those efforts.
TIMSS thoroughly investigated curricula, teaching methods, and
other factors that help explain differences in student
achievement and found important differences between the U.S.
and high-performing nations. Two key differences the study
identified are: our expectations for our students and our
teaching methods.
Expectations. The U.S. expects less of its middle school
and junior high students compared to high performing nations.
In Germany and Japan, virtually all students in grades five
through eight move beyond arithmetic to the foundations of
algebra and geometry. In the U.S., students generally are not
exposed to these more advanced topics prior to high school. As
a result, the content taught in U.S. eighth-grade mathematics
classrooms is usually at a seventh-grade level compared to the
40 other nations in the TIMSS study.
Teaching. TIMSS found that U.S. mathematics classes require
students to engage in less high-level mathematical thought and
solve fewer multistep problems than classes in Germany and
Japan. A U.S. mathematics teacher's typical goal is to teach
students how to do something, while a Japanese teacher's goal
is to help them learn these basics and also understand
mathematical concepts. In a typical U.S. classroom, students
follow the teacher as he or she leads them through solutions to
mathematics problems. In Japan, students are asked to solve
problems, present them to the class, and describe how they
approached the problem to increase their own understanding.
A full summary of TIMSS fourth- and eighth-grade findings
related to mathematics is attached, along with information on
useful materials for parents, teachers, and school district
leaders based on TIMSS. This new research can inform the work
of school boards: the reports you commission, the questions you
ask, and the policies you adopt. For example, school board
members can:
Examine whether the curriculum in grades five through
eight in your district includes significant amounts of
algebra, geometry and complex problem-solving.
Ask what percent of students have the opportunity to
take algebra or a similarly demanding course in eighth
grade, and how that percentage can be increased to near
100 percent;
Ask administrators about instructional practices,
such as how often students are asked to solve multistep
problems, to explain their solutions to the class, and
to answer the question, ``Why?''
Another important way to use TIMSS is to look at the
specific questions on the fourth- and eighth-grade tests,
examples of which are attached. These questions are concrete
examples of what internationally competitive standards look
like. They allow you to determine whether students in your
community can meet this standard, or even perform as well as
the U.S. average.
In 1999, your district has the opportunity to participate
in a voluntary national test of mathematics at grade eight that
will provide individual student scores, and will be linked to
the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and to
TIMSS. Participating in this mathematics test will tell you how
your students are doing compared to students in other states
and other nations. There will also be a voluntary national test
in reading at grade four--another critical subject.
It is clearer than ever that mathematics proficiency is a
gateway to college, productive employment and civic
participation. In order to succeed in the world they will
inherit from us--a world of great complexity, opportunity, and
uncertainty--all U.S. students will need to perform at world-
class levels. We encourage you in your stewardship of your
local schools, to share this information with members of your
board, and take this opportunity to begin a dialogue with your
superintendent, principals, teachers, parents, and others who
are concerned about improving our students' achievement.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley, Secretary.
----------
Exhibit G
National Assessment Governing Board
national assessment of educational progress
To: National Assessment Governing Board.
From: William T. Randall, Chairman, Special Committee to Review the
Test Development Contract.
Subject: Committee Recommendations on the Test Development Contract for
the Voluntary National Tests.
Date: January 15, 1998.
Background
At the November 1997 Governing Board meeting, Chairman Mark
Musick established this Special Committee. The Chairman asked
the committee to review the Voluntary National Test Development
Contract (RJ97153001), as required by P.L. 105-78, and to
present recommendations on the contract at the January 22, 1998
Board meeting.
Under P.L. 105-78, the Governing Board is given exclusive
authority over all policies, direction and guidelines for
developing voluntary national tests pursuant to the contract.
In addition, the law requires the Board to review the contract
and accept, modify, or terminate it within 90 days (i.e., by
February 11, 1998).
The Special Committee has completed its review. Following
below is an overview of the committee recommendations, which
will be discussed in detail at the Board meeting.
Overview of Committee Recommendations
The committee's recommendations are contained in revisions
to the Statement of Work under which the contract was first
awarded. They directly address what the Congress asked the
Governing Board to do:
Ensure that the voluntary national tests are based on
the same content and performance standards as are used
in the National Assessment of Educational Progress and
are linked to the National Assessment to the maximum
extent possible;
Provide for broad public involvement as the tests are
developed;
Assure that the tests are fair, accurate, and
technically sound;
Assess what students should know and be able to do,
as defined by NAEP frameworks and achievement levels,
independent of how students were taught;
Respect the prohibitions under P.L. 105-78;
Assume responsibility for policy and oversight of
test development.
The primary aim of the Voluntary National Tests is to
produce an individual form of NAEP that will provide student-
level results according to the Governing Board's performance
standards: Basic, Proficient, and Advanced.
The committee recommends that the current contractor be
instructed to modify the contract consistent with specific
changes to the Statement of Work to be approved by the Board.
The Statement of Work should be changed to reflect: (1) the
policy and oversight responsibility given to the Board by
Congress, (2) congressional intent that the voluntary national
tests be based on NAEP, (3) activities that are prohibited
using FY 1998 appropriations, (4) only activities necessary and
desirable for test development, and (5) the first year of test
administration being 2001. These are described more fully
below.
1. The Governing Board should require the current
contractor to modify the contract proposals.
The Contract Proposal must be changed in significant ways
consistent with the revised Statement of Work, as approved by
the Governing Board. Tasks, activities, and/or deliverables
must be deleted, modified, or added, consistent with the
revised Statement of Work, in order for this contract to be
acceptable. The Governing Board should transmit to the
contractor by January 23, 1998, the revised Statement of Work
and complete action on the contract changes with the contractor
by February 11, 1998. The contract shall be terminated if the
contractor's response is not acceptable.
2. The Statement of Work and contract proposals should be
revised, consistent with P.L. 105-78, to clarify that exclusive
authority over all policies, direction and guidelines for
developing voluntary national tests pursuant to contract
RJ97153001 is vested in the Governing Board.
The original Statement of Work was written, and the
contract awarded, prior to enactment of P.L. 105-78. The
original Statement of Work and contract proposal assume no role
for the Governing Board in setting policy with respect to the
voluntary national tests. Instead, management and oversight of
the contract are assumed to be responsibilities of the
Department of Education. The attached Statement of Work
contains the recommendations of the Special Committee on
changes that should be made to reflect the Governing Board's
responsibilities under P.L. 105-78. This includes changing
certain tasks, deliverables and timelines (e.g., regarding the
development of policies on reporting, test use, and
accommodations) to take into account the Board's policy setting
role, the schedule of Governing Board meetings, and the need to
obtain expert advice and wide public comment.
3. The Statement of Work and the contract proposal should
be modified to reflect the intent of Congress that the
Voluntary National Tests be based on the same content and
performance standards are used in the National Assessment of
Educational progress and be linked to the National Assessment
to the maximum extent possible.
The conference report accompanying P.L. 105-78 states that
the Voluntary National Tests will be based on the same content
and performance standards as the National Assessment of
Educational progress and will be linked to the National
Assessment to the maximum extent possible. The current contract
states that test specifications will be prepared by a separate
contractor and transmitted when completed to the test
development contractor. However, under P.L. 105-78, the
approval of final test specifications and of all test items
will be the responsibility of the Governing Board. Accordingly,
the attached Statement of Work contains the recommendations of
the Special Committee on changes that should be made to reflect
congressional intent on the relationship of the Voluntary
National Tests to the National Assessment.
4. The Statement of Works and contract proposal should be
changed to reflect activities that are prohibited using FY 1998
appropriations.
Under P.L. 105-78, no FY 1998 funds may be used to pilot
test, field test, implement, administer, or distribute in any
way, any national tests, with the exception of NAEP and the
Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS).
Accordingly, the attached Statement of Work contains the
recommendations of the Special Committee on changes that should
be made to clarify that: (1) the conduct of pilot tests, field
tests, implementation, administration, and distribution of
national tests shall not begin prior to October 1, 1998 and (2)
as appropriate and necessary, planning and preparations for
pilot testing, field testing, implementation, administration
and distribution may be carried out consistent with the
Statement of Work.
5. The contract proposal should be changed to ensure that
only work that is necessary and desirable for test development
is supported under the contract.
In reviewing the contract proposal, the Special Committee
found examples of activities beyond the scope of test
development. The attached Statement of Work cites specific
examples in the current contract proposal and requires the
contractor to delete from the proposal all activities not
specifically required under the Statement of Work.
6. The target year for the first administration of the
Voluntary National Tests should be changed from the year 2000
to the year 2001 to provide adequate time for test development
and to ensure the technical quality of the equating of multiple
versions of the tests and the linking of those multiple
versions to NAEP and TIMSS.
Developing an individual form of NAEP, reporting results to
individual students by achievement levels, using multiple
equated versions of the tests, and linking the results to NAEP
and TIMSS all are ``first ever'' undertakings that will involve
many technical challenges. Therefore, minimizing threats to
success should be a central principle in the design of the
pilot and field testing. Under the contractor's current design,
pilot testing would occur in the fall and, therefore, include
4th and 5th graders for the fourth grade reading test and 8th
and 9th graders for the eighth grade mathematics test. However,
field testing would occur in March, the same time of year as
planned for administration of the Voluntary National Tests.
The Special Committee believes that pilot testing should
occur in March, the year before field testing, using 4th and
8th graders only, so that the conditions for pilot, field and
operational testing are as similar as possible and so that
there is ample time for test development, analysis and planning
from stage to stage of this complex activity. Accordingly, the
Special Committee has recommended changes to the schedule in
the attached Statement of Work. This schedule will result in
the first pilot test being conducted in March of 1999, the
field test in March of the year 2000, and the operational test
in March of the year 2001.
The members of the Special Committee to Review the Test
Development Contract appreciate the opportunity to review the
contract and prepare these recommendations. We look forward to
the discussion with the Board at the meeting on January 22.
Section by Section Analysis
H.R. 2846, a bill to prohibit spending Federal education
funds on national testing without explicit and specific
legislation, as reported by the Committee on Education and the
Workforce on January 28, 1998.
Section 1 contains the findings of the bill.
Section 2 inserts language into Part C of the General
Education Provisions Act to prohibit spending on the
development, planning, implementation (including pilot testing
or field testing) or administration of any Federally sponsored
national test that is not specifically and explicitly
authorized in law. The bill provides exceptions for: (1)
limited test development activities pursuant to P. L. 105-78
and only in fiscal year 1998; and (2) the Third International
Math and Science Study (TIMSS) or comparable international
assessments administered to representative samples of students
pursuant to section 406(a)(6) of the National Education
Statistics Act of 1994. The National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP), which is currently specifically and explicitly
authorized in sections 411-413 of the National Education
Statistics Act of 1994, would be unaffected by the legislation.
Explanation of Amendments
The Amendment in the Nature of a substitute is explained in
this report.
Committee Estimate
Clause 7 of rule XIII of the Rules of the House of
Representatives requires an estimate and a comparison by the
Committee of the costs which would be incurred in carrying out
H.R. 2846. However, clause 7(d) of that rule provides that this
requirement does not apply when the Committee has included in
its report a timely submitted cost estimate of the bill
prepared by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office
under section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act.
Constitutional Authority Statement
The prohibition on federally funded national testing and
the other elements of this bill are within Congress' authority
under the spending clause of the Constitution, Article I,
section 8, clause 1.
Application of Law to the Legislative Branch
Section 102(b)(3) of Public Law 104-1 requires a
description of the application of this bill to the legislative
branch. This bill prohibits federally funded national testing;
the bill does not prevent legislative branch employees from
receiving the benefits of this legislation.
Unfunded Mandate Statement
Section 423 of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment
Control Act requires a statement of whether the provisions of
the reported bill include unfunded mandates. This bill
prohibits federally funded national testing, and as such does
not contain any unfunded mandates.
Statement of Oversight Findings and Recommendations of the Committee
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI and clause
2(b)(1) of rule X of the Rules of the House of Representatives,
the Committee's oversight findings and recommendations are
reflected in the body of this report.
Statement of Oversight FIndings of the Committee on Government Reform
and Oversight
With respect to the requirement of clause 2(l)(3)(D) of
rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, the
Committee has received no report of oversight findings and
recommendations from the Committee on Government Reform and
Oversight on the subject of H.R. 2846.
Budget Authority and Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
With respect to the requirements of clause 2(l)(3)(B) of
rule XI of the House of Representatives and section 308(a) of
the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 and with respect to
requirements of 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the House of
Representatives and section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, the Committee has received the following cost estimate
for H.R. 2846 from the Director of the Congressional Budget
Act:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, January 29, 1998.
Hon. William F. Goodling,
Chairman, Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 2846, as ordered
reported by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce
on January 28, 1998.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Justin Latus.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
H.R. 2846--A bill to prohibit spending Federal education funds on
national testing without explicit and specific legislation
CBO estimates that enacting this bill would have no impact
on the federal budget. Because the bill would not affect direct
spending or receipts, pay-as-you-go procedures would not apply.
The bill contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
and would not affect the budgets of state, local, or tribal
governments.
The fiscal year 1998 appropriation act for the Department
of Education allows only certain very limited activities
related to testing. H.R. 2846 would allow these activities to
continue but would prohibit any expansion of these activities
unless specifically provided in authorizing legislation. Since
CBO assumes that no expanded activities related to testing
would occur under current law, CBO estimates that H.R. 2846
would have no budgetary effects.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Justin Latus.
This estimate was approved by Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by
the bill, as reported, are shown as follows (new matter is
printed in italic and existing law in which no change is
proposed is shown in roman):
PART C OF THE GENERAL EDUCATION PROVISIONS ACT
* * * * * * *
Part C--General Requirements and Conditions Concerning the Operation
and Administration of Education Programs; General Authority of the
Secretary
* * * * * * *
Subpart 3--Administration of Education Programs and Projects by States
and Local Educational Agencies
* * * * * * *
Sec. 447. Prohibition on federally sponsored testing
(a) General Prohibition.--Notwithstanding any other
provision of Federal law and, except as provided in sections
305 through 311 of Public Law 105-78, the Labor, Health and
Human Services and Education Appropriations Act, 1998, funds
provided to the Department of Education or to an applicable
program under this Act or any other Act, may not be used to
develop, plan, implement (including pilot testing or field
testing), or administer any federally sponsored national test
in reading, mathematics, or any other subject that is not
specifically and explicitly provided for in authorizing
legislation enacted into law.
(b) Exceptions.--Subsection (a) shall not apply to the
Third International Math and Science Study or other
international comparative assessments developed under authority
of section 406(a)(6) of the National Education Statistics Act
of 1994, and administered to only a representative sample of
pupils in the United States and in foreign nations.
SUPPLEMENTAL VIEWS
Congress is preparing to consider HR 2846, which forbids
the use of federal funds to develop or implement a National
Test without explicit authorization from Congress. Supporters
of protecting the United States Constitution from overreaching
by the Executive Branch should support this bill. Article I of
the United States Constitution grants Congress sole authority
to determine how executive agencies spend taxpayers' monies.
Therefore, the Administration's plan to develop and implement a
national education test without Congressional authorization is
a power grab by the Executive Branch violative of the
constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
However, support of this bill should in no way be
interpreted to imply that Congress has the power to authorize
national testing. After all, Congress, like the Executive and
the Judicial branches of government, must adhere to the
limitations on its power imposed by the United States
Constitution. Although many seem to have forgotten this, in our
system, the limits set by the Constitution, rather than the
will of any particular Congress, determine the legitimate
authority of the United States Government.
Under the United States Constitution, the federal
government is prohibited from developing and implementing a
national test, or any program dealing with education. Education
is not one of the powers delegated to the federal government,
and, as the ninth and tenth amendment make clear, the federal
government can only act in those areas where there is an
explicit delegation of power. Therefore, the federal government
has no legitimate authority to legislate in the area of
education rather all matters concerning education, including
testing, in the hands of those best able to educate children--
individual states, local communities, and, primally, parents.
Implementation of a national test also must be opposed
because of its primary effect: the de facto creation of a
national curriculum. Many supporters of national testing try to
minimize this threat to local and parental sovereignty by
claiming the program would be voluntary. However, these are
many of the same people who consider Goals 2000 a ``voluntary''
program, despite the numerous times Goals 2000 legislation uses
the terms ``shall'' and ``must'' in describing state functions.
Furthermore, whether or not schools are directly ordered to
administer the tests, schools will face pressure to do so as
colleagues and employers inevitably begin to use national tests
as the standard by which students are measured for college
entrance exams and entry-level jobs. At the very least, schools
would soon find federal, and perhaps even state, funding
conditioned upon their ``voluntary'' participation in the
national testing program.
When all, or at least the majority of, schools are
administering national tests, the tests will then be the
standard by which all schools will be measured. Those schools
whose students did poorly on the national tests would be
labeled as doing a poor job of educating children.
Educators would react to this pressure to ensure students
scored highly on the national test by ``teaching to the
test''--that is, structuring the curriculum so students learn
those subjects, and only those subjects covered by the national
tests. As University of Kansas Professor John Poggio remarked
in February of last year, ``What gets tested is what will be
taught.'' Government bureaucrats would then control the
curriculum of every school in the nation, and they would be
able to alter curriculums at will by altering the national
test!
Private schools and home schools will be affected as well,
as performance on the national tests becomes the standard by
which student performance is judged. Those in private and home
schools will face increasing pressure to participate in
national testing and shape what is taught to fit the criteria
of the tests.
National testing is a backdoor means by which the federal
government can control the curriculum of every school in the
nation. Implementation of national testing would be a perhaps
fatal blow to constitutional government and parental control of
education.
The Executive Branch has no constitutional authority to
implement and develop a national test and the Congress has no
authority to authorize the test. I therefore urge my colleagues
to support HR 2846, which stops the Administration from
ultimately implementing national tests and oppose all
legislation authorizing the creation of a national test.
Instead, this Congress should work to restore control over
their children's education to the American people by shutting
down the federal education bureaucracy and cutting taxes on
America's parents so they may provide for the education of
their own children.
Ron Paul.
MINORITY VIEWS
The majority states in its views that ``the Committee
strongly believes the proper forum for addressing the
President's federal testing proposal is during reauthorization
hearings in NAEP and NAGB.'' We wholeheartedly agree.
It is premature to act on this legislation. Testing
language, negotiated by Chairman Goodling in the FY 1998 Labor,
HHS, and Education Appropriations bill, is very clear. It
prohibits the use of 1998 fiscal year funds to field test,
administer, distribute or implement any national test. Further,
it transfers oversight for testing from the Department of
Education to the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), an
independent, 26-member Board which is composed of state, local,
and federal officials, educators business representatives, and
members of the public.
We note that there is bipartisan concern about the passage
of H.R. 2846. Secretary Riley respectfully requested the
Committee delay action on the bill, urging Chairman Goodling to
choose bipartisanship and consensus over politics (letter
attached). During the Committee's markup of the bill,
Representative Castle expressed his serious reservations about
the bill:
``First, I really do not think this legislation is
necessary right now. We still have before us the
reauthorization of NAGB and the National Assessment of
Education Progress, NAEP, that would provide a better vehicle
for this discussion. The legislation before us does not give
Congress a chance to consider the studies on national tests
which were a key part of the hard fought compromise by the
chairman * * * in essence, this bill muddies the waters of
compromise and negotiations * * *. (Representative Castle, at
the January 28, 1998, markup of H.R. 2846).''
In fact, the appropriations bill called for three separate
studies to be completed by the National Academy of Sciences.
These studies will examine (1) the feasibility of linking pupil
scores on existing state and commercial tests to each other and
to National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) \1\
results; (2) the technical quality of test items developed for
the national tests, including their reliability, validity, and
freedom from racial, cultural, or gender bias; and (3)
safeguards and appropriate uses of pupil scores.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NAEP--is mandated by Congress to survey the educational
accomplishments of U.S. students and to monitor changes in those
accomplishments. Often referred to as the Nation's Report Card, NAEP
tracks the educational achievement of 4th, 8th, and 12th-grade students
over time in selected content areas, which includes reading, math,
writing, science, U.S. History, geography, and civics. For over 27
years, NAEP has been collecting data with the aim of providing accurate
and useful information to educators, policymakers, and the public.
Since 1990 NAEP has collected student achievement data at the state
level. Participation in NAEP is voluntary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We should act to resolve the national testing issue with
the benefit of these important studies, in a measured,
deliberate, bipartisan way during the reauthorization of NAEP
and NAGB. Taking up H.R. 2846 now only diverts attention away
from a number of other education priorities that require prompt
Committee action. We should be taking action to repair our
nation's crumbling and overcrowded schools. We should be moving
legislation to support locally-driven public school renewal so
that all our children can become high achievers. And we should
immediately begin consideration of President Clinton's
proposals to reduce class size, strengthen after school
programs, and improve teacher training.
U.S. Department of Education,
Washington, DC, January 20, 1998.
Hon. William Goodling,
Chairman, House Committee on Education and the Workforce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Bill: I have recently learned of your plan to hold a
mark-up of legislation relating to the President's proposed
voluntary national tests on January 28. I am writing to
encourage you to reconsider this plan.
Last fall, you worked directly with White House officials
and the President and with members of Congress in both parties
to reach a bipartisan agreement on how to proceed with regard
to the proposed national tests. The agreement called for a
series of studies to be conducted by the National Academy of
Sciences that would help inform future actions by the Congress
and the Administration on this issue. The deadlines for the
studies were carefully established in order to provide the
Congress and the Administration the benefit of the additional
information and analyses before Congress took up this matter
again.
Since that time, the Administration has transferred
relevant responsibilities to the National Assessment Governing
Board (NAGB), and the studies and reports called for in the
agreement are under way. The outcome of those studies will be
very important to future discussions and, I am sure, to the
work of NAGB in this regard.
I strongly believe that the agreement, which was developed
as a result of your efforts, should be fully implemented and
that any votes taken before then would prejudge the findings
from the studies. I can assure that the Administration and NAGB
are operating within the parameters of that agreement. In the
same spirit, I would hope that your Committee would withhold
further action in this reagrd at this point in time.
Yours sincerely,
Richard W. Riley, Secretary.
----------
National Assessment Governing Board,
Washington, DC, January 30, 1998.
Hon. William L. Clay,
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Education and the Work Force,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Clay: This is in response to your request for
information about the National Assessment Governing Board's
decisions and plans with respect to voluntary national tests.
Public Law 105-78 (the Act) vests in the Governing Board
``exclusive authority over all policies, direction, and
guidelines for developing voluntary national tests pursuant to
contract RJ97153001 * * * '' The Act requires the Governing
Board to review the contract and modify it `` as the Board
determines necessary and not inconsistent with [the provisions
of P.L. 105-78]'' or, if it cannot be so modified, terminate
the contract and negotiate a new one. The Act provides that the
review and modifications be completed by February 11, 1998.
On January 22, the Governing Board deliberated on the
recommendations of its Special Committee to Review the Test
Development Contract. As a result, the Governing Board approved
a detailed set of changes to the contract and, on January 23,
delivered those changes to the test development contractor,
American Institutes for Research. The contractor's response is
due on January 30 and all actions by the Governing Board on the
disposition of the contract are planned for completion by
February 11, as required by the Act.
As you will see in the highlights of our changes to the
contract (below), we do not presume that test development will
continue beyond September 30. That is why we changed the
contract performance periods to end on September 30 and why we
specified in the contract that pilot and field testing may not
be conducted with FY 1998 funds.
We are aware that the Committee on Education and the
Workforce plans to take up reauthorization of the National
Assessment of Educational Progress and the Governing board this
year and that the future of voluntary national test is
anticipated to be deliberated at that time. Also we understand
that the deliberations will be informed by the results of three
congressionally mandated National Academy of Science studies.
Our plans are based on the expectation that we will receive
timely guidance through the congressional authorization
process. We have taken steps, including changing the timing of
the contract to coincide with reauthorization and the Fiscal
Year to ensure that we are positioned to act in accordance with
that guidance.
While we intend to follow the dictates of Congress, for our
planning purposes we cannot presume that test development will
stop on September 30, just as we have not presumed that it will
go forward. We have included in the contract, planning
activities that are essential components of test development.
For example, although pilot testing and field testing will not
occur during FY 1998, we have asked the contractor to provide a
detailed description of its plan for sampling and data analysis
for the pilot and field tests. This plan will be reviewed by
the Governing Board for technical quality and revised as
directed by the Board. However, pilot testing and field testing
will not be implemented until we have clear guidance from
Congress. Thus, we will be in a position to continue to
discontinue test development work, as Congress indicates
appropriate.
We have enclosed a copy of the contract revisions. This 34-
page document has many detailed, specific changes. These
include:
Changing the contract performance periods to end on
September 30 rather than August 15;
Specifying that no FY 1998 funds may be used to pilot
test, field test, implement, administer, or distribute
in any way, any national tests, except the National
Assessment of Educational Progress and the third
International Mathematics and Science Study, as
provided by the Act;
Setting the schedule so that test questions are
written during 1998, pilot testing (if the Congress
indicates we are to continue test development) is moved
from October 1998 to March 1999, field testing is moved
from March 1999 to March 2000, and the first testing of
students in 4th grade reading and 8th grade mathematics
is moved from March 2000 to March 2001.
Adding provisions regarding the four determinations
the Governing Board is to make under the Act with
respect to: test bias; testing in the form most likely
to yield accurate information; meeting the needs of
disadvantaged, limited English proficient, and disabled
students; and how parents, guardians and students will
be informed about testing content, purpose, and uses;
Removing activities that are beyond the scope of test
development.
Again, these changes are consistent with the Act and
intended to meet its letter and spirit.
Thank you for your request. Please feel free to contact me
if you have any additional questions.
Sincerely,
Roy Truby, Executive Director.
Bill Clay.
Dale E. Kildee.
Major R. Owens.
Lynn C. Woolsey.
Chaka Fattah.
Carolyn McCarthy.
Ron Kind.
Harold E. Ford, Jr.
George Miller.
Matthew G. Martinez.
Donald M. Payne.
Robert E. Andrews.
Bobby Scott.
Carlos Romero-Barcelo.
Ruben Hinojosa.
John F. Tierney.
Loretta Sanchez.
Dennis J. Kucinich.