Page 56 - teachers.PDF

Six states and 16 large school districts signed onto the plan for voluntary national testing, though some urban districts, including Houston and Los Angeles, later retreated from their commitment to the reading test when it was determined that the test would be given in English only. The tests were to be put on a fast track, with implementation scheduled for spring of 1999.
While there were many unanswered questions about the national tests, the administration selected the subject areas and grades to be tested for sound reasons. It is widely held that students should be fluent readers by the end of third grade when the academic emphasis shifts from “learning to read” to “reading to learn.” Mathematics proficiency is important to enable students to take higher math courses that are in turn considered “gatekeeping” courses for college entrance. The core question, however, and one which ultimately derailed the momentum of national testing, was whether the testing of individual students was a responsibility of the federal government or a preemption of states’ rights.
Because the U.S. Department of Education is poorly regarded by many politicians, the first tactical move was to wrest control of the test from the Department of Education to the nonpartisan National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB), which provides policy guidance for the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Clinton concurred, and the Senate voted 87 to 13 in September 1997 to give NAGB control of both the policy and operations of the test. A few days later, however, the House voted 295-125 to ban any funds for the tests and made no mention of NAGB at all. A look at the rhetoric of the time is instructive. House Speaker Newt Gingrich spoke out strongly against imposing “Washington standards” on local schools and proposed instead that tax breaks and federal vouchers be put in place for parents who wished to pull their children out of public schools and put them in private schools (Houston Chronicle Interactive, September 9, 1997). Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott likened the national tests to stationing the IRS in the schools (Los Angeles Times, November 2, 1997).
Clinton signed a compromise bill in November 1997 that gave NAGB authority over contract work to develop the national tests, but stipulated that no FY 1998 funds could be used for pilot testing or field testing the instruments and instructed the National Academy of Sciences to evaluate the test and related testing issues. By February 1998, opposition to the testing led the House to vote 242-174 to approve a bill that would require Congress to “specifically and explicitly” authorize any test development in future fiscal years. Twenty- five Democrats joined 217 Republicans in the vote; only two Republicans voted against the measure. Marshall S. Smith, then acting deputy secretary of the U.S. Department of Education and point man for the voluntary national tests, viewed this vote as decisive evidence that the tests were in trouble. He told an audience of educators, business leaders, and reporters, “I don’t think [voluntary national tests] will ever come about” (Hoff, 1998).
In March 1998, NAGB adopted specifications for a 4th grade reading test and an 8th grade mathematics test to be scored according to Basic, Proficient, and Advanced levels of achievement. The proposed reading test, should it come to pass, would be administered in two 45-minute segments and include multiple-choice and open-ended responses related to reading literature (such as classic and contemporary short stories, essays, biographies) and
reading for information (encyclopedias, magazine articles). The proposed mathematics test,
Rudner, L. and W. Schafer (2002) What Teachers Need to Know About Assessment. Washington, DC: National Education Association.
From the free on-line version. To order print copies call 800 229-4200
51