\doc\web\98\06\ashcroft.txt posted by dggarner@swbell.net on
1998-08-10 19:46 (9648 bytes): Published in Roll Call -- August 1998
=================== Parents Must Control Education 


By Sen. John Ashcroft 


The President's plan for federal testing of America's schoolchildren
is a grab for power over every classroom in the nation. National
testing will lead directly to Washington control of what is taught,
and how it is taught. 


This plan -- or any movement to national control of education --
savages principles that Americans hold dear. These principles are
parental authority and control over: the schools' teachers who are
free to teach and school boards and administrators who are responsive
to their communities -- and not captives to Washington bureaucrats. 


The President's federal testing plan would take power away from
parents and communities, and place it in the hands of Washington
bureaucrats. This proposal must be stopped. It should be shredded,
bagged and hauled to the nearest landfill.  Congress should prohibit
federal funding for federalized individual testing in order to
protect and preserve parental involvement and local control of
education. 


The President announced his plan for voluntary national testing of
fourth graders (in reading) and eighth graders (in math) in his 1997
State of the Union address.  Acting without Congressional authority,
the Department of Education then raced to begin developing these
tests, with plans to administer them starting in 1999. An intense
battle ensued over the President's attempt to impose federal testing
without Congressional approval. The central issue became the wisdom
of any scheme for national testing. 


After 36 Senators joined me last fall to threaten a filibuster to
force this issue, a compromise was reached to prohibit federal funds
from being used to field test, pilot test, implement, administer or
distribute any national tests through Sept. 30. 


Nonetheless, the President continued to move ahead. In this year's
State of the Union address, he even mischaracterized the legislation
he signed last fall. The President implied that federalized testing
would arrive when the prohibition expired.  Columnist David Broder of
the Washington Post described these statements as thoroughly
misleading without being literally false. Ironically, only days
before the President's speech, the National Assessment Governing
Board, the body charged 


with overseeing the sharply limited development activities allowed by
Congress, announced that under no circumstances should tests be given
prior to 2001. 


Congress responded. Led by Rep. Bill Goodling (R-Pa), chairman of the
Education and the Workforce Committee, the House voted to ban
permanently any federal funds for the Clinton tests. I offered this
ban in the Senate, as an amendment to the Education Savings and
School Excellency Act. 


The Senate approved the measure by a vote of 52-47. When I called for
rejection of testing last fall, only 13 Senators voted against the
Clinton testing plan. This rush of support for preserving local
control was a direct result of Senators taking time to examine the
issue closely. 


In conference committee, the testing ban was removed due to concern
that it would give the President an additional reason to veto the
legislation. At that time, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott (R-Miss)
and House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga) provided to Goodling and
myself a formal commitment that the Labor, HHS, Education and related
agencies appropriations bill for 1999, or other must-pass
legislation, will carry testing language acceptable to us. 


Why are clear majorities in the Senate and the House strongly opposed
to national testing? After all, testing has a good connotation.
Students and parents should know how well the schools are doing their
job. Further, there would be benefits to being able to compare
results across state lines. On this point, many uniform benchmarks
already exist. 


The larger truth is that federalized tests mandated from Washington
will hurt education. There is no doubt that we should hold our
children to high, challenging academic standards. But any such
standards should be set at the state and local levels, where parents,
teachers and local school boards can make the crucial decisions that
will affect our children's educational experience. 


The arguments against federalized testing are numerous and
compelling. 


First and most importantly, we know what causes children to succeed
at school: parental involvement, buttressed by a responsive and
supportive community. 


As governor of Missouri, and through my work with the Education
Commission of the States, I learned that the most important factor in
student achievement is the involvement of parents. Research confirms
common sense. One study in Chicago found that family involvement
improved elementary school children's reading comprehension by 0.5 to
0.6 grade equivalents. 


Another study showed that students in a Maryland elementary school
increased their average California Test of Basic Skills math scores
by 19 percentile points after implementing a partnership program
between parents and teachers. Studies too numerous to list confirm
the positive impact of parental involvement. 


Second, there is wide consensus among teachers, administrators and
education experts that what gets tested is what gets taught. Hence, a
national test will lead to a national curriculum. When a national
test was proposed in 1977, Joseph Califano, President Jimmy Carter's
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare, warned that "any set of
test questions that the federal government prescribed should surely
be suspect as a first step toward a national curriculum." 


If federal tests are administered widely to children, teachers will
"teach to the tests." This will fundamentally change curricula,
textbooks and instruction nationwide. When Washington writes tests
and determines curriculum, it will have replaced parents and teachers
and federalized our children's education. Why do we want to eliminate
the participation of these key elements of success from educational
decision-making? 


Third, Lynne Cheney, former chairwoman of the National Endowment for
the Humanities, reminds us that past efforts to set federal standards
have been disasters. Politically correct federal history standards
were unanimously rejected in the Senate; English/language arts
standards were such an ill-considered muddle that even Clinton's
Department of Education cut off funding after wasting nearly $1
million. We should learn from these mistakes, not repeat them. 


Fourth, it is difficult to understand why President Clinton wants to
create and administer a national test when there is an abundance of
tests already. Nearly every state either has or is developing
assessments for students; a number of private, commercial tests have
been used for years throughout the nation. Additionally, there are
two federally supported tests, the National Assessment of Educational
Progress and the Third International Mathematics and Science Study,
which are used to compare student progress across the nation and
throughout the world. 


Moreover, students are already tested many times through the year,
which cuts into learning time. Mandatory testing takes a toll on
school time and resources, consuming about 20 million school days and
somewhere between $700 million and $900 million in expenditures each
year. According to Boston College's Center for the Study of Testing,
children are already overtested, taking between three and nine
standardized tests a year. 


Imposing federalized tests on our schoolchildren will undermine the
role of parents and local communities. Instead of imposing
Washington's values on the country, the federal government should
defer to school boards, parents and teachers to shape the education
of their children. Local control of education has served America well
for two centuries. 


The final exam on the Clinton plan for federally controlled testing
will come on the Labor, HHS, Education and related agencies
appropriations bill for fiscal 1999. I 


will do everything in my power to protect the ability of parents,
teachers and local schools to shape the education of their children
by developing curriculum, standards and testing. 


The Clinton plan for federalized testing is worse than a waste of
time and money.  If implemented, it would harm the quality of
education. 


Sen. John Ashcroft (R-Mo) is a member of the Commerce, Science and
Transportation Committee.