National tests strengthen case for strong schools
September 12, 1997
In this story:
Web posted at: 11:31 a.m. EDT (1531 GMT)
An essay by CNN Interactive writer Emily Looney
(CNN) -- Nearly everyone has clutched a No. 2 pencil in apprehension of a standardized test. But the proposal for national tests that was left in limbo by Congress this week is nothing to fear -- if we're ready to cope with the results.
There appears to be little public debate about whether to set national educational standards for children. What is controversial is the idea that the tests -- though voluntary -- might be only the beginning of federal meddling in local school affairs.
The Senate on Thursday easily passed a modified version of President Clinton's proposal to give reading tests to fourth graders and math tests to eighth graders. But it attached an amendment the White House doesn't like that would curtail the role of the Department of Education in administering school aid. And the House, where a bipartisan alliance is bent on killing the testing plan, postponed its vote.
Politicians on both sides of the aisle like the idea of national standardized tests, and a recent Gallup Poll cited by the White House shows most other people do, too.
But the dispute over federal vs. local control has little to do with discovering if Johnny can read or add.
Skeptics are right in saying that the proposed tests would influence what's taught in what grades. But far from establishing federal control, the tests will only work with -- not in spite of -- local input.
Think globally, act locally
The proposed tests would give parents and educators a new tool to let them compare individual achievement, which current standardized tests do not provide in the same way.
The tests would do this, in part, by comparing test results against set standards, instead of average scores, which would allow for more accurate inter-state as well as international comparisons.
Clinton isn't interested in the details of what's taught when, or how -- only that all students can read and do math at a defined level by a certain point in their schooling, said Marshall Smith, acting deputy secretary of education.
Even Smith acknowledged that would influence local curriculum decisions, and he wasn't apologetic about it. But he argued that the tests would only emphasize the "very basics."
And the White House insists states will not be forced to participate. States and school districts would be free to decide whether to give the tests, which would be introduced in March 1999.
Before this week's votes, seven states and 15 cities had volunteered to take part, according to the Education Department's Web site. But once some schools began giving the tests, others no doubt could feel peer pressure to participate.
And some educators are right to worry that the results may only further stigmatize disadvantaged schools and students, without providing a remedy.
That's where the tests can really earn their multimillion- dollar keep. Their national visibility would expand our awareness of floundering, underfunded schools in a significant and unavoidable way.
It would still be the local communities that are stuck with the hands-on work of fixing the educational inequities made plain by the test results. Students would still learn one-by-one, and need supportive parents, teachers and tutors.
With such tests, there could be no more broad-based dismissal of unequal results as the product of uneven standards. Local and regional inequities would become a national concern.
Don't worry, the students can't vote yet
Letting the federal government help define and measure what we need to learn, even if it's only with the basics, would give education -- already a highly politicized issue -- an even higher political profile.
The tests have all the makings of election fodder. But the potential for political manipulation of the tests and their results can, with voter willpower, be checked.
Already, in an effort to shield the tests from the whims of partisan dispute and political trends, Clinton agreed in a compromise to give oversight to the National Assessment Governing Board instead of the Education Department. And the Senate measure aims to adjust the makeup of the independent board, created by Congress to oversee national tests given only on a selective basis, to allow for broader input.
It's worth the political risks. Leaving it largely to states and schools to determine what children need to know doesn't serve the children themselves well, either in our mobile society or a global economy.
Colleges and universities, admitting students across state lines, have long recognized the need to try to even out local inequities in evaluation methods. These schools widely rely on the Scholastic Aptitude Test, an independent exam for high school students.
The fundamentals of what we want our students to learn should be defined and refined in a national debate. New ideas about education are coming along all the time, and any national tests should be revised accordingly.
And however imperfect the means, the goal remains the same: improving local education.
Related sites:
Note: Pages will open in a new browser windowExternal sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
Previous Y's
