It’s surprising how much energy, rhetoric, time and political chits Congress and President Clinton have spent on the issue of national testing.
Ostensibly, testing 4th graders in reading and 8th graders in math will only tell us what we already know: The United States lags behind most other industrialized nations in educational achievement. And children in poor school districts and those with high minority enrollment are the most behind.
Clinton, however, sees national testing as a key part of his effort to upgrade the nation’s schools. He has threatened to veto the $80 billion bill authorizing funds for the Departments of Education, Labor and Human Services if it doesn’t contain money for national testing. The Senate approved an amendment to allow national testing. The House voted it down.
Republicans and Democrats in Congress are sharply divided over the bill, in part because they see different bogeymen and benefits in the tests. Some of the concerns are realistic; others are political bombast.
In theory, Clinton’s national testing program would encourage the establishment of national standards in math and reading. It would prod underperforming school systems to jack up requirements. And it would alert parents and state education agencies to schools that have fallen behind. Parents would be able to compare school achievement across school, district and state lines and pressure school authorities where improvement is necessary.
National testing is also necessary, supporters say, to show that school reforms are working, assuming they are. Besides, they add, the testing, scheduled to start in the spring of 1999, is voluntary. Any school or state can refuse to participate.
The most obvious objection to national testing is that it will waste classroom time and effort to show what is already clear from other standardized testing programs and international comparisons. Children in rich, predominately white, school districts will score best. Those in poor areas, in poor states and in school districts heavily populated with non-English-speaking minorities and single-parent families will have the lowest scores.
The Congressional Black Caucus opposes national testing that “may further stigmatize our children and force them into lower educational tracks and special education classes,” in the words of chairperson Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.). Hispanic groups complain that their children will suffer if tests are given only in English. (The reading test would be in English; the math test in English and in Spanish.)
It is difficult, if not impossible, to develop any kind of academic tests that won’t be blamed for being biased in favor of middle-class whites–for school achievement, college admission or job qualification–however carefully they are constructed. The University of California system, for example is considering eliminating the use of SAT and ACT scores for admission in hopes of increasing the number of minority students eligible for top-tier colleges.
Many teachers object to the national testing plan, saying it will force them to devote months of classroom time preparing pupils for the exams, at the expense of what they may consider more appropriate lessons.
Experienced teachers also complain that cheating is inevitable, especially if individuals’ scores are to be recorded. The New York Times this week has been reporting on cheating scandals involving exams administered by the Educational Testing Service, which develops and gives 9 million tests a year.
Cheating is common among schools, too, which often exclude children with learning problems from taking standardized tests. Youngsters likely to get low scores on the exams may be told to stay home on test day or sent on a field trip, lest they pull down averages for the school or reflect poorly on the teacher.
Congressional Republicans oppose national testing as a poorly disguised effort to give the federal government more control over the nation’s schools, sneaking power away from state education agencies and local school districts. Setting a national education agenda is, of course, one of the basic objectives of Clinton’s proposal.
Opponents also fear the influence that education fads and their promoters could have on the tests and through them, on the curriculum of the nation’s schools and on textbooks. The major concern now is for the math test and how much it would be influenced by what is called the “new, new math” or “fuzzy math.”
Called “interactive” and “inventive” math by supporters, it rejects traditional drill in calculations and lessons in math principles in favor of calculators and open-ended problems that supposedly prompt children to develop their own solutions–if they can. The new math is spreading widely, especially in California, but has triggered growing revolt among parents who fret that their youngsters are adrift and falling behind.
Critics of the new math charge that panel members set to prepare questions for the proposed national math test for 8th graders are advocates of the new system and that national testing will force even reluctant schools to adopt the program, however much they dislike it. Richard Riley, U.S. secretary of education, has tried to deflect this opposition by announcing that the use of calculators would be strictly limited on the exam.
We already have a National Assessment of Educational Progress, which shows how states compare to each other and in 1994, documented the worrisome deficiencies in reading ability that exists among the nation’s 4th graders. All but three states also do their own education assessments.
We don’t need to waste time, energy, money and goodwill on Clinton’s national testing program, especially when it carries downside risks. Let’s just get on with solving the problems.
