[Return to ED Homepage]
Statement by
Richard W. Riley
Secretary of Education
before the
House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Youth and Families
Committee on Education and the Workforce
Tuesday, April 29, 1997
Voluntary National Tests for Reading and Math
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I am pleased to appear before you to discuss the President's call to achieve national standards of excellence, and his pledge to develop voluntary tests for fourth grade reading and eighth grade math. I am submitting my testimony for the record.
Mr. Chairman, I want to stress at the outset that these proposed voluntary tests are about high standards, improving expectations, and giving our young people the basic skills they need that will prepare them for our knowledge-driven economy in the 21st century. Our young people need to master the basics once and for all. And parents deserve to know how their children are achieving -- how they stack up, no matter where they live or move in this great country of ours.
We are not in the business of testing for testing's sake. As a nation we are rushing headlong toward the 21st century, yet too many of our young people are falling by the wayside.
Forty-two percent of our young people cannot read as well as they should according the 1994 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). And this nation is below the international average when it comes to 8th grade math. This is just not good enough.
The results of the recent Third International Mathematics and Science Study, or TIMSS, released last fall are very instructive. TIMSS found that topics taught in U.S. 8th grade math classes are at only a 7th grade level by international standards. As a result, only 20 percent of our young people are taking algebra by the end of the 8th grade. Yet, in the rest of the industrialized world and in many countries like Japan, 100 percent of all 8th graders are taking algebra.
When it comes to reading, we simply have to make more progress. Reading is the first basic -- the very foundation for all other learning -- and every child in this country simply has to learn how to read English, and learn how to read it well. Unfortunately, too many of our children are still struggling when it comes to reading, even though as a nation we are well above the international average.
Too often, the children who struggle with reading early on fall farther behind in school, fill up our special ed classes or lose interest, give up, and drop out. This is why I have been stressing the importance of reading and improved literacy for such a long time. I am convinced that a strong and early focus on reading will go a long way to reducing special education and remedial costs, reducing truancy, and keeping more young people from dropping out of school.
The need to increase expectations and set challenging academic standards is widely accepted by the public. Indeed, the public is demanding it. I am encouraged by the strong support we are getting for these tests from both educators and business leaders.
Governor Engler and Governor Hunt, two well-recognized national leaders, have become strong bi-partisan advocates for these tests. These leaders have announced that students in their respective states -- Michigan and North Carolina -- will take the tests. I am also pleased to say that the State of Maryland led by Governor Glendening was the very first state to sign up.
Several weeks ago, more than 240 of America's high-tech industry leaders endorsed the bipartisan call for national education standards. CEOs and company presidents such as Jim Barksdale of Netscape Communications, Steve Case of America OnLine, Louis Gerstner of IBM, and Lewis Platt of Hewlett-Packard joined this effort and pledged to write Governors and other state officials in support of the President's national testing initiative and high national education standards.
The Business Roundtable's Education Task Force has also publicly endorsed the President's call for voluntary national tests. So we are moving in the right direction -- with strong public support -- but our work is not done.
Let me explain why by citing a study done by the Southern Regional Education Board (SREB). In that study, Mark Musick -- the author and a member of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) -- compared the percentage of students on a nationwide basis who reached the proficient level on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) test to the percentage who reached the proficient level on the assessments given by various states who make up the SREB.
In many cases, far more students scored at the 'proficient level' on the state assessment than on NAEP national assessment. The point that Mark Musick is making is that state standards are still not high enough. States are adopting standards with the best of intentions, but they could be more challenging. As you can see from the chart that I have brought along this dilemma is not just specific to states in the South.
This is why these proposed national voluntary tests are important. Our tests in reading and math will give parents, teachers, and state leaders, wherever they live, an opportunity to measure the progress they want to achieve. They will have national benchmarks to measure against, as they seek to refine and define state and local standards of excellence.
I want to stress here that our decision to test fourth grade reading and eighth grade math was very deliberate. We chose these grades very carefully. Reading and math are the core basics, and fourth and eighth grades are critical transition points in a child's educational experience.
We know, for example, that being able to read independently by 4th grade is the prerequisite for all other learning. We place a heavy emphasis on reading in the first three years of schooling. By the 4th grade, we expect children to be good readers so they can go on to learn the rest of the core curriculum. The latest NAEP results tell us, however, that many of our 4th graders( 42%) are not able to read the Charlotte's Web example, and understand the basic point that Charlotte has promised to save Wilbur's life (see attachment).
If reading well is the first crucial academic checkpoint, then doing well in math by the 8th grade is the second. The vast majority of experts view geometry and algebra as the gateway courses that prepare young people to take college-prep courses in high school.
Nearly 40 percent of our 8th graders are not achieving at the 'basic' math level as measured by NAEP (see attachment), and 76 percent are not achieving at the proficient' level. Fully 55 percent of U.S. students score below the international average in eighth grade math.
In both cases then -- in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math -- we are talking about ensuring opportunity. If we don't set high expectations, and if we don't provide challenging curricula and excellent teaching, children will not learn all that they are capable of learning. Quality and equality are tightly linked. The sooner we make that connection, the better off we will be as a society when it comes to improving education.
Let me now tell you a little about the tests we envision.
First, these tests are totally voluntary, and the decision to use these tests is a decision that must be made by state and local authorities. I want to be quite clear in stating that states and localities will not lose one penny of federal funding if they choose not to participate. These proposed tests are an opportunity, not a requirement; a national challenge, not a national curriculum.
Second, the specifications for these tests will be based on the frameworks used to develop the 4th grade reading and the 8th grade math assessments that are part of the National Assessment of Educational Progress. These test frameworks were developed by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and they are widely accepted. At present, 43 states participate in the state-level NAEP assessments.
To further ensure consistency with NAEP, we are asking the Council of Chief State School Officers along with MPR Associates in California to develop the test specifications for these national tests. I believe that this inclusive approach will give state leaders a positive way to be fully engaged early on in developing these tests to meet their needs.
The development of these tests must be done in partnership with parents, teachers, research experts, state leaders, and, as always, we will listen to the good advice from committee members. We want results, not ownership. Ultimately, these tests must have their own independent standing. They should reflect a broad national consensus of what we think our children should know as we prepare for the future.
Third, new test instruments must be developed because the NAEP assessments are not designed as individual student tests. In NAEP, for example, no student takes the entire NAEP test or receives an individual score. In this way, NAEP can assess performance on a very comprehensive set of items while keeping the testing time for individual students to a minimum. This works well for getting a state or national average, but it doesn't tell a parent, a teacher, or a principal how an individual child is doing.
In contrast, with the new assessments, all participating fourth graders will take the same reading test, and all participating eighth graders will take the same mathematics test. Each student will also receive an individual score. The tests will be 90 minutes in length. Ninety minutes is about the same amount of time it takes for a young person to sit through a showing of Jurassic Park.
The results from these tests will be compared with the results from the NAEP fourth grade reading and eighth grade math assessments and, in the case of mathematics, to the results from the eighth grade mathematics test used in TIMSS.
Fourth, comparing the results of these voluntary tests to NAEP and TIMSS will give parents and teachers a very clear "benchmark" to measure how their children and students are performing in relation to those in other states. And, in the case of mathematics, they will also be able to know where they stand in terms of the international average.
This is a very powerful idea that should not be discounted. Education and academic experts have known for a very long time about the importance of our NAEP findings. They debate and think hard about the results at the state level. But I think it is high time to share these findings with parents as well as teachers. Parents are the ultimate decision-makers when it comes to the education of their children.
Fifth, no data from individual students will come to the U.S. Department of Education. We will not give these tests. We will not keep records on any individual test scores. We will pay to have contractors develop both of these tests, with advice they receive from the panels of experts they establish that should include teachers and parents.
Once the tests have been developed, they will be licensed to test publishers, states, and school districts that can show that they can ensure security and standard administration and scoring of the tests. School districts that are not licensed and private schools will be able to obtain the tests through licensed test publishers. The first tests will be ready for use in the spring of 1999.
Sixth, it will cost us about $22 million to develop these tests -- $10 million in 1997 and $12 million in 1998. We are planning to use funds available from the Fund for the Improvement of Education (FIE). We will not need funding for the actual administration of these tests until 1999.
Seventh, we intend to do everything possible to make information available to help teachers, parents, and students prepare for these tests. If possible, sample tests will be developed and made available in the fall of 1998. Each year, after the test has been given, the test instruments and scoring guides will be made available on the World Wide Web. These tests also need to be seen as part of a much larger national effort to make sure that all of our young people are mastering the basics once and for all.
We have, for example, entirely revamped our Title I program, and we are starting to see early, positive results. We have a growing summer reading program called "Read*Write*Now" that will help 1.5 million young people keep up their reading skills this summer. The President has proposed the America Reads Challenge to support the tutoring efforts of one million volunteers. And many efforts will surely be made in the near future to apply the latest research on early childhood development. I attended the recent White House Conference on Early Childhood, and I can tell you that the research is very powerful and thought provoking.
All across America, efforts are under way to change expectations and raise standards. In Texas, Governor George Bush, Jr. has placed a very strong focus on improving reading. I am happy to say that he is using our Goals 2000 funds for this effort. In Illinois, a consortium of 27 school districts has banded together to achieve the goal of being the first in the world in math and science. Congressman Porter has the satisfaction of knowing that improving math and science education is a number one priority in his congressional district.
In Missouri, Governor Mel Carnahan has committed his state to take the TIMSS test so the people of the "show me" state will know exactly where their children stand in relationship to the rest of the world. And, in New York City, the Chancellor of Education, Rudy Crew, is creating a core curriculum and testing young people early on to ensure that they are becoming good readers.
Now, some have suggested that these voluntary tests are unnecessary and that we are already giving our young people too many tests. I want to answer them directly.
One of the first things we need to recognize is that America still remains a very mobile society. People pick up and move all the time. Parents are always looking for ways to measure the schools their children may be attending. And sometimes it is hard to get the true measure of schools in different states for the simple reason that every state has its own yardstick for measuring achievement. To my way of thinking then -- a common national standard of what young people should be achieving in these two core basics -- will be helpful to many, many parents.
I also believe that parents in poor-achieving schools whose children come home with "A's" on their report cards but low scores on these tests will begin asking some hard questions and hold their children's schools more accountable. This will be a very healthy development. We should not and must not tolerate failing schools. I will be more than happy if the results of these tests light some fires under some people and help to turn around failing schools.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I believe that these voluntary national tests are a positive step forward for American education. They will fundamentally improve our thinking when it comes to defining expectations. And that just needs to happen, sooner rather than later.
Our children are smarter than we think. I can't say that enough. We simply need to challenge them to stretch their minds so that they are prepared for the 21st century.
I believe that the support for these tests is strong and growing. I also believe these tests are absolutely essential for the future of American education. The American people are "tuned in" to education, and they have made it quite clear that they expect us to make education this nation's number one priority. These voluntary national tests are at the very heart of our efforts to achieve excellence.
I will be happy to answer any of your questions at this time. Thank you.
Additional information can be found on the Voluntary National Tests homepage.
-###-
[ Return to Speeches and Testimony ]
[Return to ED Homepage]