-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/e2e45122ef9e70cb2d908ed8526adc5b.pdf
9249f8696092e8afe4877df8df5c1201
PDF Text
Text
Leadership Conference
on Civil Rights
l'a, "K- At... NW. Illite lUI'
W••hl..... D.c. aaDo,
nODe; I02/.'~311
Faa: 101 /«'i.stU
1Tfr'1 101/115-1859
MEMOR4..ND UM
TO:
FROM:
Septanber29.1997
RE:
--
Wade Henderson
Executive Director
DATE:
"
Marshall S. Smith
Acting Deputy Secretary
Department ofEducation
Meetina on National Voluntary Tests
Thank you for the invitatioll to the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights to meet 011
September 30. 1997 from 3:00·4:30 p.m. at the Department ofEducation. 600 Indiana AVenl.lC,
S.W., Room 6200 (Secre~'s Conference Room) Iegar~thc issue ofttational voluntary tests.
The, following individuals will anend the meeting:
'
Wade Henderson, LeeR
William Taylor, Vicc-Chair;LCCR
Geo:rgina Verdugo, MALDEF
·Thomas Henderson, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights U1'lde.r Law
Judy Appelbaum~ National \yomen's Law Center
Janice Weinman, AAUW
Nancy Zirkin, AAUW
Robert M~Alpine, National Urban League
Maria Fisher. Nationa.l Council of La Raza ,~
Janell Byrd, NAACP fLDF
Paul Weckstei.n. Center for Law and Educa~on
Mike Lux, People For The American Way ,
,
"~-
�.'
Leadership Conference'
'on Civir~Rights
·OII'COW
U.29 "I(" st.. ""'. hit. 1110
WI."lnltoa. D.C. 11006
P1IV;ft.. 202/4'.."IU
fBI 202/4'501435
n'Y:I!I2.I7SWU9
September 4, 1997
Arnold Aronson'
A. PfIII~ Randolph'
Roy WIIItIIlS"
CHAI _ _
OFfICCllll
The Honorible William J. Clinton
Prealdent of the United States
The White House
Washington, D.C.
Dorvtlly L H.Ig/l1
'WICI_IISCINS
Antollia toItMI$
Judith l. Uc:htman
William l. TayfOf
IECMTAII'Y
Har_o.u
~IG w~·
Dear Mr. President:
\.CcIoar;u.lMl~
Jane O'Gta"Y. •
•
=
CI:IUIIIIL . .IIMVS·
•
The undersigned members of the Leadership Conference on
~~~~. Civil Rights write to urge you to edoptseveral. Important
Iknj=~
Clarence M. Mltdlell. ~.'
~~
8ar1:1araAmwlne
ucr,;::::t:
Blzablch BIrch
.....=
-,..,.,.~
changes in you~ plan for voluntary national tests in reading and
mathel1latics. If these changes are made; it would enable many
.
of our member orgonlzatlons to support implementation of the.
.national test proposal.
~
~c::.~~=
RobIItChaH
..
At ~e outSet we wish to express our appreciation for the
attention you have grven to the improvement ~f public .
"'--=~. education and our support for the broad goals contaIned. in the
~"""::= proposals you have made. Our organizations oppose
..----,..,..,~. discrimination In the schools based on race, national origin, sex
Matt"" flnuc;aM
---~- or condition of disability. We represent many children of color,
-::,~~ children with limIted prOficiency in English and children
_'__
"=L~ disabilities and girls - an of whom have suffered' discrimination
,....,..,. .....
~.!!:= and stereotYping In the public schools, have -been denied critical
•PllIIICIa Indand
1II&IoIMII~:= teaching resources and have had their life chances Impaired by
~VVOteo,.o...,..~ _ _ . . the failure of the schools tp offer them a chance to aucceed.
'wi"" .
== .
-ew;Prtae
--~~~
~~
.....,~=
.
'.
.
Thus, wa fael we have .much at stak·thbttl·eto make the
a In e a
IAunI
pul?!ic achools responsive. to the chlldren with the greBte~
needs. And we agree with what we unde.rstand to be the'
'.
""";=-pa"':; central tenets of the A~minlstration"8 proposal: 1) that sl/
.
- ·......=:w=children can leamend..thBt high standards should-be~stablished
---.for-en·children;
' . ' ....
.. _-,...........,.,w.iM;1fitij
be
..
..;.~.,.;;.,~--.
�will not serve the children most in nead of educational' op ortunity:
a
ho BV • • ad
r
va Isabll s:
With respect. to c~ildren with limited proficiency in, EngllshJ tt)e most serious failure
Is the A~m{nuttr8tjon's refu~81 thus far to requi~ that the ~~Urth grade reading
,
'assessment be given In language&' ottier than English. Mue reseatch informs us
that children who are able to reed in a foreIgn language wi I .oon be able to read in
English. Similarly the math test should be glvan In langu8 es other than English
and Spanish.·
Similarly, large numbers of children with disabilitieS are lik Iy to be excluded based
on inappropriately low expectations In their education plan. Nor for that matter
does anything appear to prevant school authorities from In ucing minOrity or
children from low-income families to stay home on Ule' da of Ule assessment. If
the purpose of the Administration's proPOB81 is to 'assure' accountability, ~must
come to 'grips with the fact that children who are not 'per~itted, tp participate will
become non-pers,?ns with no accountability by school au,t ritie! for their progress.
These accommodations will in no way compromise the hiS standards that should
be expected of all stUdents.
2)
• n's P 0 osa
s 0 0 "de S f
al st e nvalid
lind' Inappropriate Use of Teu Resurls. Absent firm action y the Administration,
there 1$ every rea$ot:l to.beIJ~e,thlt the reiu,ts of the n8tiqnal test will be used by
IYtSny school offICial:; for high-stakes purposes such as abHIt\' grouping, tra,c~ng,
retention In grade and graduation. Any such usa would be armful to the children
represent and would be totally inappropriate since the ieats have not been and
will not be varldated' for any of these purposes., One smon many inappropriate
uses would be the use of tests for high mkes 'purposes were children have not
had an opponunltyto learn the skills and Icriowledge being est~d. The' ,
Administration must take steps to prohibit these hCJrmful a dlnipproprfateuses.'
we
.
"
-"
. .
;...~.~
,
,-.,..-'--"
�,.
Results. We recognize that the Administration's test IJrODos:al
serve as the vehicle for redressing the. valrt inequIties in
ed.ucation resources that deny the opportunity to learn to rnU'lInf'llc!
minority children throughout the na:tJon. At the same time
recognize that unless these resource b8rrie~ facing 80
children ere recognized, Identified and ultlmatelv eddre
fall to improve educational opportunity forthe children wh are most neea of
assista.,ce. One modest step would be to Include with the
some basic
.
'~.
'f} ~uestions !""'Concerning the tea9her's ce"ification and·
qualifications in
'Y .
fr.{C;;,~ mathematics and reading, class size and the ,avallabftity 0,1
In the
~.
assroOm-that licensees would be required to answer.
information is now
_ ~ '1" ?; ollected on II sample basis by the National Assessment of Educational Progress.
~
Cf While modest, gathering this data would be consi~tent
provisians of the Title
~ l'
't;
~ reform that the Administration sponsored ,calling on sc~a districts to deliver
"7
., such critical ,resources to poor children and calling upon
s to assure that local
districts have the capacity to meet the responsibility.
In
;>t.>
•
...:...
'U?'.'
'i' .'
'Enforced~
As presently proposed, the Administration's plan·
a complex and Interlocking network of largely private test n
..."PlrlnOII"C!
contractors and iicansees. It does not appesr that the
through how It will, assure that civil rights, often spottily AnT,nrl'j.",
government agencies are Involved, will not be denied and
occur there will be prompt redress. The Administration
enforcement. It will not suffice to leave this problem In the InA'''..._
rights groups, which do not have adequate resources to
thet are likely to occ,..r.
If you agree that fundamental guarantees of falmess and
ihould"be eart:of any ·plan for a national test, It will not be
appropriate linguage:o accomplish the·ta$k. Indeed, SPElClT,IC
Improving America's Schools·Acl of.1994 deal with me.ny
-Inclusion and accommodation of limited English proflclem
.. and with the publIc reporting-~ofthe~results.of..asse!,smlen1l&
...•. :'already 'h~s some experi.nc.in-gatherlng-baslainfonnation laboU1ttt1le
..
. vital educational relources~,Our_organlz~tions would be Wlllllng
:;~.''':·-''~i;:''·;·:VVIl!l· . recognlze(thatther•. -.
. .~fficials and ...nIOOI
.
view. the Step, we have,c.lled,fOr;8sthe intrusive .
. .
,':govemment Interferingwithetate and local control. There
states or di~cts that will b~se their refusal to particlpat~
"'lcm-ihTrfi"(rri~·",7;':;.~m"';i:~t
llU1thOlritil
�~.
I
-
i
I
I
,
I
these requirements. But such opposition is not different in ~haracter from the
resistance over the years by some to any step to Implement the equal protection
clause of the fourteenth Amendment and the Supreme Coart!s decision In Brown
v. Board of Education. Where Presidents have stood firm, ~uch resistance has
ultimately melted away.
I
!
! •.
,
.
"
,
'
I
I
We believe that If you are' prepared to fight to 'assure that ~he least advantaged and'
most discrimInated against ,children In the nation reap the benefits of your national
,
I
'
!~~ ~r::~~:~~~ucatlon proposals you will pravail and leale a legacy of which we
I
We of. course stand ready to meet with you or your
to pursue these matters ~urther.
_. . '..
deSign~es at your convenience
Sincerely yours,
I·,"
..
i
Antonia Hern4ndez
President and General Counsel
Mexican American legal Defen'se '
& Education Fund
I
Elaine Jones ,
"
Director Counsel
NAACP-legal Defense. & Edllca1jon Fund, Inc.
, Raul Yzaguirre
President
National Council of LaRaza
Barbara Arnwine; 'DIrector
Thomas Henderson
Deputy Director, Director
lawyers Committee for
Marcia Greenberger
Co..Presldent' .
,
;"
.,
. ,
.L0/9lJOd "'lZ#
CO::C::ILl
;
~
�I
I
i
I
I
Nancy Zfrkin
i
Dfrector of Government Relations
American Association of Uhiversity Women·
,I
Paul Weckrrtein
I
Co-director,
Center for Law and Education
i
!
I
,
,
by:' Wade Henderson W~ \.:k~{tt
,'«--
Executive Directo,l:, •. , __
William L. TaylorJj(M J
Vice Chair
leadership Conference on' Civil Rights
I
I
I
I
I
co:
Secretary Riley'
i
I
j
:.
I .
I
I~
�(
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
THE SECRETARY
September II, 1997
Mr. Wade J. Henderson
Executive Director
Leadership Conference on Civil Rights
1629 K Street, NW. Suite 1010
Washington, DC 20006
Dear Mr. Henderson:
President Clinton has asked me to respond to your letter of September 4, 1997, regarding our
proposal for national standards and national tests. Before turning to the specific issues you have
raised, let me first share my view of the larger context in which the debate about national
.
standards and tests is occurring.
President Clinton and 1 are firmly convinced that one of the biggest obstacles to improved
educational opportunities and results for low-income and' minority students has been the
widespread and mistaken belief that students from these backgrounds cannot learn to the same
high levels as other, more advantaged students can. This belief-- the foundation of what I have
called a tyranny oflow expectations -- has pervaded the schooling experience of our most
disadvantaged youngsters, resulting all too often in watered do\VI1 curricula, poorly prepared
teachers and under investment by the public in their schooling.
Challenging national standards and tests are a fundamental tool for overcoming these obstacles.
They will help raise ex.pectations for all of our students in;the basic skills. They will provide
parents and communities with accurate, reliable jnformation about student and school
performance. They win make it impossible for schools to mask inadequate performance and ,to
. claim that studerits and schools are performing satisfactorily when in fact they are not. And tliey .
will help mobilize parentS and community leaders in seriotis national, state and local efforts to
raise student achievement in the basics, including through the commitment of additional, needed
resources.
Student testing has often been a difficult and controversial issue, I know that tests have al1 too
often been used to penalize rather than expand opportunities for minority students, and that there
is great fear that these national tests may also do more harm than goad. But they can, and I
believe will. ultimately help lead to increased student achievement and greater opportunities for
the students we all care about.
The President and I are aware that not everyone will do well on these tests the first time around
and that same will need extra help to master the basic skills. But, difficult as this may be for
students, teachers and schools, .we believe that there is far greater risk ror our most disadvantaged
/
.
000 INDEPENDENCE A'I/F,.• S.W, WASHINGTON. D.C. 20202~100
OU~ tIl(ss!an fs to ensufl!' +:-qu.al access to education and to promote educational €JCcellertc£' thro·ughou( chI: Natlo ....
�Page 2 • Mr. Wade J. Henderson
students in accepting the status quo. These tests will empower paren1s and communities, and
challenge students to realize their full potential. Denying these tests to parents and students will
simply perpetuate lower expeC1ations, limited accountability, and continued poor results for the
most vulnerable young people in our society.
Raising standards and measuring student and school progress toward meeting them works. Last
week I was in Philadelphia when Superintendent Hornbeck announced the results of such efforts.
One year after instituting a program of higher standards and tough tests, Philadelphia students
made significant gains in reading, math and science at the 4th, 8th, and 11 th grades. They were
able to achieve these impressive gains at the same time that student participation in the tests also
increased substantially, with some 40% ofthe increased participation brought about by increasing
the number of students with disabilities. limited-English-proficient students, and low-income
students taking the tests. This is a tribute to the parents, students and teachers in Philadelphia
who were willing to make real, constructive reforms that- made progress possible.
We have similar evidence from Milwaukee, where only 21 % of the school district' s eleventh
grade students initially passed a rigorous mathematics proficiency examination required for high
school graduation. The next year, students, staff, and the community, including business groups;
worked together to help students pass the tests, by providing special classes before and after
school, instituting Saturday academies, utilizing business volunteers, upgrading teaching, and
increasing parental involvement. As a result, 98% ofthe seniors in the cfass of 1996 passed the
test. This shows that high standards and'rigorous tests can indeed mobilize whole communities to
support student achievement.
In this context, let me address a number ofthe issues you have raised:
Safeguards against invalid and inappropriate use of test results: The President and I have
strongly encouraged states and local school districts to institute policies that require students to
demonstrate they have met challenging academic standards before moving from elementary school
to middle school and middle school to high school, and in:order to graduate from high school, and
that require schools to provide students who need it extra' help in order to meet 'the standards. '
Such policies would help'make standards real in every schOol and classroom, underscore the
seriousness ofincreased ~ectations, better focus and increase the efforts of both students and
teachers, and strengthen each school's accountability for the success of every child.
Decisions about promotion and graduation policies are and must remain primarily state and local
matters. We believe it would be a mistake to institute policies with respect to the national tests
that would limit the ability of state and lo'cal policymakers to incorporate student performance on
the national tests into sound, non-discriminatory promotion policies,
However, we believe just as strongly that promotion policies must be sound and fair, and that test
results should not be used for high·stakes purposes -- such as for school-to-school promotion or
graduation •• unless they have in fact, been validated for those purposes. Because test validity for
�IU
Page 3 -:Mr. Wade J. Henderson
high-stakes purposes depends heavily on the extent to which local cuniculum prepares students
for the test, it
only be demonstrated in the specific local or state context in which the tests will
be used. Therefore, it is the responsibility of state and local school systems wishing to use the
national tests for high-stakes purposes to first demonstrate their validity for these purposes, prior
to implementation.
.
.
can
Tosuppon state and local school systems in making sound and appropriate decisions about the
use of national tests, and to avoid the misuse oftests, the Education Department is developing a
strategy designed to eliminate potential problems before they occur. Our approach will include
the following steps:
o GYidance from the Office for Civil Rights: Within the ne)'1 three months, the Office for Civil
Rights at the Department of Education will issue final guidance for its regional enforcement
offices to assist in the evaluation of cases surrounding the discriminatory use of tests, including
but not limited to the national tests. The guidance will set forth well-established federal legal
standards relating to the use and misuse of tests, and wi'II clearly articulate the existing principles
of law that should guide any decision regarding the use of tests under Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 or Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972.
This guidance has been' made available to the public in its draft fonn, and the settled legal
principles set forth in the guidance have established the basis ofOCR's test·related work When
the guidance is issued in final form, it will reflect extensive Department ofEducation reView, as
weJI as that ofthe National Academy of Sciences Board on Testing and Assessment. In addition,
we plan to make it widely available to school systems and the public, so that educators,
policymakers, parents and community groups can all be;well-informed about the requirements a
test must meet in order to be used for high-stakes purposes. I believe that this approach will go a
long way toward helping state and local school systems make appropriate judgments about the
use oftests, and ensure that they take the steps necessary to validate the tests as needed. The
Department welcomes your continued input regarding this guidance prior to its issuance in final
fonn.
.
o Technical Assistance to State and Local School Systems: The Office for Civil Rights will offer
technical assistance to state and local school systems ba~ed on the guidance discussed above. .
OCR regional office staffwiIl work with school systems1 ensure they understand the practical
implications of the legal principles set forth in its guidance, and can incorporate them irito their
own efforts. Moreover; relevant offices within the Department, including the Office of
. Educational Research and Improvement and the Office 6fElementary and Secondary Education.
along with OCR., will also work to identify and disseminate best or promising practices with
regard to the validation and use oftests,.and will offer infonnation about "what works" in specific
cases where feasible. Along with the guidance, this tec.hnical assistance strategy can help prevent
potential misuse before it occurs. We welcome your thoughts and strategies for ensuring thatthe
best infonnation regarding model practices·is widely available.
to
�IU
Page 4 • Mr. Wade J. Henderson
o Enforcement: The Office for Civil Rights will continue to conduct compliance reviews and
conduct investigations to ensure that the nondiscrimination requirements of the law are met.
While we do not oppose use of the tests for high-stakes purposes, we will.do everything within
our power to ensure that such uses compJy with all legal requirements.
As you know, we are working to ensure that the President's request for funding for OCR in
FY 1998 .;.. a $ 6.6 million increase -- is supponed by Congress. Without adequate funding, much
ofthe core work orOeR -- enforcement of antidiscrimination Jaws at our schools and colleges
nationwide based on complaints ofdiscrimination -- will be in jeopardy. If all students are to
achieve to high standards. they must be able to ~eam in enVironments free of discrimination.
°
National Tests -- Guidelines for Test lise: The Department plans that guidelines for test use -
which would acknowledge the need to validate the national tests if they are to be used for high
stakes purposes -- wiU be developed by the test contractor and approved by th~ National
Assessment Governing Board. These guidelines will be used by school districts and states as part
.
.of their participation in 1999.
°National Tests .- Independent Evaluation: OUf proposal includes an overall evaluation ofthe
national tests to be conducted by the National A,cademy of Sciences. The Academy will report on
how states, districts and schools are using the tests, along with how they have handled test
administration and reporting. This evaluation will provide objective and independent information
that will help determine if the tests are being used appropriately_
!
Public Reporting and School Accountability: I believe we are in complete agreement that the
tests will accomplish their intended purpose only if they are reported to the public on a school-by
school.and school-district-by-school-district basis. and o~ly if these reports show the performance
of racial, ethnic and socioeconomic subgroups and of males and females, as well.. Such public
reporting is at the heart ofincreased public accountability for results, r will urge NAGB to
require testing contractors to provide states and school districts with aggregate results for
districts and schools, and to provide disaggregated data by race, ethnkity, gender, and other
popUlations. This will 8,0 a long way toward facilitating the provision of this information to the
public.'
.
Further, states and school districts throughout the country .are aJready well on the way to
reporting an test score r~sults in this fashion. For exampJe, according to a recent study by the
Council ofChief State School Officers, 42 states already'require or use school profiles or school
performance reports to make public the results of student assessments, and 38 also require district
Jevel r e p o r t s . '
.
.
At present. some 17 states require the disaggregation of results at the school- or district-level for
at least one demographic subgroup. While this is a good start, it is not enough, and we must do
better if schools are to be held accountable for the penormance of all students.
�SEP-11-1997
14:27
FROM
U.S. Oed US/eXcL
~cL
IU
Page 5· Mr. Wade 1. Henderson
An important tool to improve the current situation is through the implementation of the Title I
assessment and reporting requirements, which have historicaUy had a powerful impact on state
and 10cal practice. Title I requires states to fully implement their assessment systems by school
year 2000-2001. By that time, state assessment and reporting systems must enable the
disaggregation oftest data at the State, local school district and school levels. by gender. major
racial and ethnic group, English proficiency status, migrant status. students with disabilities
compared to students without disabilities, and economically disadvantaged students as compared
to students who are not economically disadvantaged. In addition, each local school district is
required to publicize and dis,seminate the results of the a.nnuat review of all schools in individual
school performance profiles to parents, teachers and other school staff, administrators, students,
and the broader community.
Because Title I funds are received by every state, nearly every local school district (and ~
school district serving Significant numbersoflow·income and minority students) and two thirds of
aU public schools, the Title I requirements in this area will affect the reporting of test results in
virtually every school and school district in the Nation. And, with respect to the public reporting
oftest results, they will accomplish exactly what we agree is needed.
In order to accommodate and support state and local efforts to raise academic standards and
implement assessments aligned with the standards, Title I appropriately provides states with ample
time to implement the testing and reporting requirements. Once the implementation deadline is
reached, this Department will vigorously enforce complia.nce with it.
Based on experience and on conversations with state and local officials around the country. I am
convinced that jurisdictions that participate in the national tests "Will report the results in a fashion
consistent with how they will report the results of other test scores. The Council of Great City
Schools has recently indIcated that the cities participating in the national tests have pledged to do
precisely that. Indeed, enhanced public accountability for schools compared with national
standards and inteTJlatio~al benchmarks is clearly one of the main reasons for state and. local
interest in the national test initiative. State and focal school officials in jurisdictions partiCipating
in the tests would be hard-pressed to justify a more restrictive and less informative reporting
policy for national tests than for state and local tests.
:
Appropriately reporting individual test results to parents is as important as reporting aggregate
results to the public. The Department ofEducation will ~ndertake an aggressive campaign to help
parents understand the reading and math standards on which the tests will be based, so they can
have a very clear understanding ofthe kind of work expected of their children. Test publishers
that provide the tests to states and local school districts will be r~quired to provide the results to
parents in easily understa,ndable formats, including providing the test results and other appropriate
information to parents in; languages they understand. And the Department ofEducation's Office
ofBilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs ~ill work with a group of urban school
districts that enroll large 'numbers ofLEP students to develop strategies and materials to help
inform parents about the purposes ofthe tests, and to help prepare students to meet the standards.
�5EP-11-1997
14:27
FROM.
U.S.U~d U~/~X~L ~~L,
IU
Page 6 - Mr. Wade 1. Henderson
Title I requirements 'Will reinforce these efforts. Under Title I parent involvement provisions, each
school and local school district is required-to provide assistance to parents in understanding
assessments and monitoring their children's progress, and to provide appropriate interpretations of
individual student assessment results.
Accommodations for students with disabilities: I must respectfully disagree with your
'assessment that large numbers ofstudents with disabilities are likely to be excluded from the
assessment. We are working hard to make precisely the opposite the case, and I am committed to
seeing ~hese tests as a model for inclusion of students with disabilities.
Under our proposal, final decisions on inclusion guidelines a.s well as on the type and format of
accommodations win be made by the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGS), after broad
public participation and input. Our intention is that the national tests be a model for how to best
accommodate students with disabilities and to be as inclusive as possible. I wil1 urge NAGB to
act in accord with this intent. And test publishers that provide the tests will be required to
incorporate the approved accommodations and indusion criteria into the tests.
The test development contractor, in consultation with test advisory committees· and others will
develop draft guidelines for the inclusion of students with disabilities, as part of the development
and field test process. Studies ofaccommodations for students with disabilities will be conducted
by the test development contractor, and will be included in the evaluation by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS). These studies will include examinations of the validity of the test
results for students with disabilities tested with accommodations, using data from the 1998 field
test. The NAS evaluation will examine the actual accommodations offered, and adherence to the
inclusion guidelines during test administration.
The development and refinement of accommodations will also .be informed by National
Assessment ofEducation~l Progress (NAEP) research on the most effective types of
accommodations. Accommodations that will be considered during the test development and field
test process include extended time and/or mUltiple testing sessions; one-on-one testing or small
group sessions; the use ora scribe or computer; assistance with test directions (though not with
test items); an audiocassette version of the mathematics test; a sign language interpreter; a
microphone worn by the test administrator; the useofmagni£Ying instruments; or other
appropriate accommodations. Students with disabilities will receive accommodations as specified
in the student's Individualized Education Plan developed under IDEA. Under the IDEA
Amendments of 1997. students with disabilities must be induded in assessments and each
studetlCs lEP must state the acconunodations the student needs to partiCipate in assessments',
Accommodations for limited-English·proficient (LEP) students: Similarly. we will strongly
encourage NAGB to develpp appropriate accomm~dations :and inclusion criteria for LEP
students.
.
�SEP-11-1997
14:28 FROM
U.S.DEd as/EXEC SEC
IU
Page 7 - Mr. Wade 1. Henderson
Our proposaJ includes the development of a bilingual Spanish-English version of the mathematics
test by 1999. and bilingual versions in languages other 'than Spanish in subsequent years. This will
enable students to demonstrate their competency in mathematics regardless of their English
language proficiency.
As you know, we have a difference of opi.mon regarding the language of testing for 4th grade
reading. As I indicated in my September 3, 1997, letter to members of the Hispanic Caucus, in
our proposal, the purpose of the 4th grade test is to test student proficiency(in reading in English,
not general reading comprehension. Therefore, we (io not propose to develop the 4th. grade
.
national test in other languages.
As I also indicated in that same Jetter, we will work vigorously to assist states and local school
districts in meeting the LEP-related 'assessment requirements of Title I, including assessing
general reading comprehension in the language in which1 students can best demonstrate
competency.
;
There are a number of high quality native language reading tests, and at least one that, according
to its publisher, is by design based on the NAEP 4th grade reading framework and achievement
levels and yields individual scores reported in tenns of the NAEP achievement levels. Any district
that, at its option, wishes to test LEP students in reading comprehension in terms that are
consistent with NAEP, and would like to do so in coordination with its administration and
reporting of the national reading test, already can do so.
In addition to these specific responses, let me also point out that President Clinton and I see these
national standards and tests as an integral pan of an overall strategy ofimproving education by
raising standards and increasing our federal investmentsrin education where they can do the most
good. Since the begirui.ing ofthis Administration, we have increased federal investments in
elementary and secondary education by $4.1 billion, some 30%.
.
.
~
For example, since the beginning of the Clinton Administration, we have increased Head Start
funding by 55% including the increase secured in the Bipartisan Budget Agreement. Title I and
IDEA have both increased by more than $1 billion. We ihave initiated significant new funding for
... education reform in support of higher studards, with a total of$1.3 billion for Goals 2000 since
its enactment 1994, and we will continue to urge Congress to fully fund the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools Program. We have provided substantial new resources to help scho'ols use computers in
the classroom, with $425 milJion secured this year toward a goal of $2 billion over five years. In
addition, the FCC has approved a.plan that MIl provide discounts worth $2.25 billion annually to
help schools and librari~s bring technology into the' classroom and gain access to the Internet at a
fraction of the full cost '-- meaning a discount ofup to 90% for our poorest schools. We are
working to help ensure that these funds go to schools arid classrooms most in need.
in
�•
IU
<
Page 8· Mr. Wade J. Henderson
We have also made significant increases in higher education spending.as well, including record
increases in Pell Grant and work-study funding and $35 billion in tax cuts to help families pay for
college. '
.
In addition, for the coming fiscal year, we fought to ensure that the Budget Agreement included
an effort specifically targeted to children who need extra help in learning to read, as well as a 27%
increase in funding for bilingual education, to nearly $200 million, and a 50% increase, to $150
million, for immigrant education. We will continue to propose increases in the federal investment
to strengthen education, including new initiatives such·as President Clinton)s five-year, $350 .
million initiative to attract and prepare nearly 35,000 talented people of all backgrounds for
teaching at low-income urban and rural schools across the nation. The Administration will
continue to push Congress to help address the serious need for renovating and building schools
nationwide.
All ofthese investments are important, because they provide families and schools with resources
to help all children achieve high standards. We need to challenge our students to reach .high
standards and challenge our schools to respond to their needs. At the same time that we press
forward to raise standards for our nation's students, we will continue to fight for the necessary
investments as well.
:
,
Yours sincerely,
�RESPONSES TO CIVIL RIGHTS CONCERNS
DRAFT -- September 5, 1997
.,
National tests win exclude limited English proficient (LEP) students •
Math: The 8th grade math test will be provided in English and Spanish versions since the test is
seeking to measure math proficiency rather than an ability to read English instructions or word
problems. Additionally, the test contractor will conduct research into the feasibility, reliability .
and validity of other accommodations, such as glossaries in languages other than Spanishfor use
by LEP students on the math test.
Reading: The purpose of the fourth grade reading test is to test student proficiency in reading in
English, not general reading comprehension. Therefore, the voluntary national test itself will not
be developed in other languages. However, we will be making appropriate accommodations .
which may include giving LEP studel1ts extra time for completing the test, or making the test ~
"untimed test" in which all students are given the time they need to complete the test, short
breaks, one-on-one testing, small group sessions, help with test directions (not items), oral
. reading of test items in English (math test) and glossaries ( math test)
National tests will not accommodate disabled students.
The intention is to make these tests' as accessible to students with disabilities as possible, Braille
and large print versions of the tests will be developed by the test developers. An audio cassette'
version of the mathematics test wiIi also be ,developed. Tests administra~ors wiII.be expected to
provide additional accommodations at the.testing site. These accommodations would include
extended time, one-on-one testing and other accommodatiol)S normally provided to the particular
student when he or she participates in other tests atthe school. Ongoing research will be
cOnducted to identify other acc:ommodations that wo~d improve acCess to these tests for
disabled and LEP students.
-Proposal fails to provide safeguards against the inappropriate use oftest results.
High standards and high-stakes testing can eo-exist with the enforcement of civil rights: " "
Prevention oftest misuse and abuse is a,key priority for the DepartrnentofEducatio~'s Office
,t:ir.
for Civil Rights (OCR) which is charged with enforcing civilrightslaw~ to provide equal access
to educational opportunities. The voluntary national tests cannot be ,used inappropriately in ways '
~', ' ,,~, V' that r~sult in .di,scn,'~a,tion,on,the grounds, of race,~l~,r, nation,al O~gin,' ,s,ex, ,d,iS~bility,,or age. ' .
·.JJlf'~;~~~v}:
~CR IS proVl~g gwdance.toschools and schoo~ distncts on the ~tnctleg~ req~~enten~ for' , ".
", .,~ ~ i / •'" high-stakes testIng, nam~IY:, th,e!ests must b,e:val~,datedfor,a specifiC.Purpo,se,an,d,' thestuden"ts.~, :~,;::"
··-;'~'·',d-:-·'·"-: ust be taught·the matenal·to be,te~te,dThe nattol1altests are not
,
, ',', "
, " " ,:
to
V.
\.
-'G'
�'y
for new resources to improve local schools and help students reach hjgh standards. The
President's Budget Agreement with Congress includes the largest increase in our investment in
education in 30 years and the largest single boost in college aid since the Gl Bill.
Moreover, the Clinton Administration's Improving America's'Schools Act of 1994 overhauled
Title 1. which provides extra help with basic and advanced skills to disadvantaged students in
elementary' and secondary schools. As a result of this Act, states now hold more than ten million
low income students to the same high standards set for all other students in the state, and hold
schools accountable for the results. The new law also provides funds for teacher training, and
strengthened requirements for parental involvement Under the Clinton Administration,
investment in Title I has grown by over $ 1 billion, .
The President has also recently announced a new teacher recruitment and training initiative to
recruit talented new teachers to teach in underserved. poor urban and rural areas. This initiative
.will help mobilize a new corps of teachers with high skills and training in order to help all
children reach the same high standards.
Proposal should include provisions for gathel'ing data about the schools.
Based on what we have learned from the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMMS),
it does appear that there are helpful data that can be gathered for parents and school officials on
school instruction and curriculum. As we move forward on test implementation, those types of
items may be added as funding permits,
o
•
~ r,J:.
Y
~
There is no plan for civil rights enfOl'cement regarding the national tests •.
The Departinent of Education's Office for Civil Rights has embarked on.a multi-pronged
approach to help prevent' and remedy all test abuse and misuse. The national tests will also be
included in this high:';priority enforcement activity which includes: (1) coordinated enforcement
.. oftest misuse and abUse; (2)·provision of draft guidance on·ptoper test administration to schools
\' and school districts; '(3) targeted delivery oftechni.cal assistance on how to properly use and
validate tests; and (4) identification of likely problem-areas and corrective actions for test
mIsuse..
.Specifically, with· regard to the national tests, OCR will provide education and technical
assistance to schools and school districts to increase' the understanding of, and compliance with;
. federal nondiScrimination requirements. Also, the test development contra~tors will consult with
. , .civil·rights ..organizations both during test development and after .field-testing:
.
:. ,' .,. ' . ';
.
'.
.,
~
.; ,
'
�I'
Accommodations
I:
Our intention is for the YOluntary national tests to be as inclusive as possible. The VNT
development contractOllJ in consultation with the test advisory committees and others, will draft
guidelines for the inclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency (LEP).
Final decisions on the t~pe and format of accommodations will be made with broad participation
and in a public forum. Test publishers that market the tests will be required to incorporate these
accommodations into tJ~t administration procedures.
(
Ii
Studies of accommodations for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency will be
conducted by the VNT ~evelopment contractor, and also by the National Academy of Science as
part of the evaluation of the VNT. The test contractor will investigate the validity bfthe VNT
results for disabled and ~EP students, tested with accommodations, using data from the 1998
field test. During the eialuation phase, information will be collected and reported on the actual
accommodations otferea for disabled and LEP students and on adherence to the inclusion
guidelines. The development and refinement of accommodations will also be informed by NAEP
research on the most effective types of accommodations.
i
Students with Disabilities
A student identified as llaving a disability should be included in the assessment, if possible, based
on that student's individualized education plan (IEP). Accommodations that will be considered
include:
Ii .
•
accommodation~ specified in the student's IEP
•
extended time a#d/or multiple testing sessions
•
on:-on-one test~pg or small group sessions
•
scnbe or use of computer
.
,
•
help with test dir:ections, but not items
•
for mathematics;i an audio cassette English version
•
sign language tdnslator, microphone worn by administrator, use of a magnifYing
instrument or ot~er appropriate accommodations.
.
Ii
1i
Limited English Proficient CLEP) Students
.
A bilingual Spanish-English version of the mathematics test will be developed for 1999 and
bilingual versions in languages other than Spanish will be developed over time. Students who .
have not been instructed in English for at least three years may be exempted from the English
reading test; students who have not been instructed in English or Spanish for at least three years
may be exempted from the math test. Some of the accommodations being considered for LEP
students include:
•
Accommodations offered to students by schools in usual test situations (e.g. frequent
breaks and reading instruction only aloud in English)
•
Extended time ::
One-on-one test~ng and small-group sessions .
•
I,
Ii'.
Test Use Guidelines/qvil Rights Enforcement
'.
For at least the last thre~ years, the Department of Education's Office of Civil Rights (OCR) has
made test misuse and ab,use a key priority. The voluntary national tests cannot be used
"
�I
!
,
o~gin,
inappropriately in ways lat result in discrimination on the grounds of race, color, national
sex, disability or age. ~~at means, prior to any use for high-stakes purposes, the VNT must be
properly validated. OCR's objective is to develop a broad education program, through
distribution of its guid~hce and the. provision of technical assistance, to eliminate potential
problems before they 04bur. OCR also continue to enforce the protections of Title VI with regard
.
to the national tests, an~ any other tests used for high-stakes purpose~. .
I'
Guidance
11
OCR will issue guidanc~ for its regional enforcement offices to assist in the evaluation of cases
surrounding the discrimfnatory use of tests. The guidance will set forth well established (federal)
legal standards relating the use and misuse of high-stakes tests. The guidance will articulate the
existing principles oflaw that should guide any decision regarding the use oftests under Title VI
or Title IX. Draft guidapce has been made available to the public -- a final version of this guidance
will be available shortlYlflnd will also be made public.
to
i
I,
Technical Assistance i
.
OCR will offer technic~l assistance to states and school districts regarding the practical
implications of the lega21princiPles set forth in its guidance. OCR will also work to identify
promising or best practi,ges among schools, and where information can be offered about "what
works" in a case specifi9 way, OCR will do so.
;1
Ii
I!
Enforcement)
OCR will continue to i~vestigate compliance reviews and conduct investigations to ensure that the
laws requirements of nQhdiscrimination are met. During tests development and prior to
implementation, OCR W'ill develop a civil rights enforcement plan, with input from stakeholders,
to address possible misJ'ses of the VNT. For example, once pilot results are in, OCR can convene
I'
appropriate experts to aavise the Department on the types of disclosures needed and the best·
practices that exist for avoiding test abuse.
.
Reporting
This Administration believes strongly that, for test results to be of maximum benefit as a tool for
raising achievement, they should be reported not only for the individual student, but also by
school and district. SuqP reporting is important so that parents, teachers, and others in the
community can see which schools and districts are making progress and which ones aren't, and
then press for needed irrtprovements.
I,
.
II
..
The administrators oftli~ national tests will be required to provide parents with the scores of their
individual children. Aggregate reporting of scores, such as on a school-wide or district-wide basis
will be reported in accofdance with state or local procedures and policies.. While the
I,
.
Administration proposal, would not impose a federal requirement, the large majority of states and
school districts are alre~dy moving to provide district and school level information on progress in
raising student achievement. Forty-two states (including all 7 participating in the Voluntary
National Tests) report r~quiring or using school profiles or school performance reports for public
reporting. In addition, the majority of state assessment systems require reporting at the district
(38) and school levels (37), including 6 of the 7 states participating in the Voluntary National
�...
q
II
II
:
~
Tests. Moreover, test Rpblishers report routinely being asked to provide disaggregated test
results to states, district1s and schools.
q
I,
Helping foster the mov~' towards school and district level accountability are the requirements of
Title I. Under Title I, e~ch participating LEA must publicize and disseminate the results of an
annual review of all Titlf l schools in individual school performance profiles, to parents, teachers
and other staff, students\ the community and administrators. Because Title I serves 66 percent of
public schools and 75 p¢rcent of public elementary schools, a very high proportion of schools
(especially of those serV,ing disadvantaged youngsters) either have in place or will soon be
establishing systems to disseminate school-level data~ it is highly unlikely that such districts would
elect to participate in the voluntary national tests, but withhold information on'school
performance.
'
Given these clear trend~; and the clear desire that communities' have for this information, we are
confident that the vas~ *~jority o~jurisdictions partic~pa~ing in the tests,:ill pr~~ide parents, .
~ea~~ers and others wlt~ mformatIOn on school and dlstnct performance m addItion to reportmg
mdIvldual student resultr.
'
!I
1
Ii
. ~.
i,
!:
i!
�CLiNTON ADMINISTRATION EDUCATION AGENDA:
Ii
HELPING STUDENTS REACH HIGH STANDARDS
::
II
[TJlle struggle for e*cellence fora" must be our great mission. We must demand high standards of
.
I
every student; our sc,hools and teachers must meet world-class standards. But we must demand that
every child. be given ;~he opportunity to meet those standards. Every child must have a chance to
succeedin this new <:ponomy.
Ii:1
President Clinton, Speech to the NAACP National Convention,
July 17,.1997
j~
I:
High Expectations fo.' AJI Students and Resources to Help Them Learn
,.
A hallmark of President Clinton's efforts to improve American education has been that we should
have high expectations for every student. He has urged states and school districts to adopt
challenging academic standards in all core subj~cts, and to adopt high na~ional standards in the
basics of reading and mathematics. The President has strengthened existing federal programs and
fought for new resources to improve local schools and help students reach these standards.
President Clinton's Budget Agreement with Congress includes the largest increase in our
investment in education ~n 30 years and the largest single boost in college aid since the G.I. Bill.
But we still have much t9 do in orderto meet the President's goa!ofinsuringthat all Americans
. have the best education i:h the world.
'
i!
I'
StI'engthening Existing iP.'og.'ams
.1:
•
Expanding Head Sta.. f to Reach 1 Million Children a Yea... President CJinton has made
Head Start an Ad~inistration priority. For over 30 years, Head Start has helped low-income
families create ad! environment where their children are ready to learn by taking a
I
.
comprehensive approach to child development.; improving children's learning skills, health,
nutrition, and soq'ial competency. Under the Clinton Administration, funding for. Head
Start has increased 80% to $4 billion in 1997. These additional funds have enabled Head
Start to serve 189,000 more children and their families. And' President Clinton's Budget
Agreement with Congress continues expansion of Head Start toward the President's goal of
serving 1 million children in2002.
•
•
•
1
'
,
'
Raising Standa.'ds fo.' Over' Ten Million Low Income Students. .The Clinton
. Administration's Improving America's Schools Act of 1994 overhauled Title I, which
provides extra help with basic and advanced skills to disadvantaged students in elementary
and secondary schools. As. a result of this Act, states now hold more than ten million low
income students fO the same high standards set for all other students in the state, and hold
schools accountaple for the results. The new law also provides funds for teacher training,
and strengthened!:requirements for parental involvement. Under ~he Clinton Administration,
investment in Ti~ie I has grown by over $ 1 billion ..
Making Schoolsi'Safe, Disciplined and Dmg F.'ee. The Clinton Administration passed the
Safe and Drug-Ft~e Schools and Communities Act and successfully fought Republican
efforts to cut this!'program, which supports school security, drug prevention and education
programs.
�I
!
i
•
Bilingual and I~migrant Education. The President's budget includes major increases in
bilingual and im~igrant education. These increases are specifically protected in the
I
.
.
balanced budget agreement.
.
.
New Initiatives Already Working to Strengthen Local Schools
•
America Reads. President Clinton launched the America Reads Challenge, a nationwide
effort to mobilize a citizen army of a million volunteer tutors to make sure every child can
read independently by the end of third grade. The President's Balanced Budget provides for
a child literacy i~itiative consistent with these goals.
• .
Goals 2000. Goals 2000, President Clinton's education reform initiative enacted in 1994,
helps States estahlish standards of excellence for all children, and plan and implement steps
to raise achieverribnt. Communities in every state are using Goals 2000 funds to upgrade
I.
.
curriculum, improve teac~ing, increase parental involvement in schools, and make greater
use of computers!iin the classroom. Since Go~ls.2000 was enacted in 1994, over $1.3 billion
has been investeq in this vital initiative.
•
•
.
I:
,
of Classroom Teachers. Under the Clinton Administration,
Strengthening t~'e Skills.
.
I
.
funding for the E!senhower Professional Development has increased by over 25%,
strengthening the[ability for teachers to improve their teaching skills in math, science and
other core subjedts.In addition, the President has called for supporting the work of the
National Board f8r Professional Teaching Standards to help certify 100,000 master teachers
- at least one for ~very school -- over the next ten years., .
Expanding school choice and accountability in public education. The President has
challenged every state to let parents choose the right public school for their children. The
Clinton Administration is helping teachers, parents and community groups start charter
schools -- innovative public schools that- stay open only as long as they produce results and
meet the highest ,standards. The President's proposed budget doubles funding to $100
million helpstart;!charter schools so that there will be more than 3,000 charter schools at the
dawn of the 21st :century.
.
.
II
:j
•
Expanding Acc¢~s to Educational Technology
Bringing Computers to the Classroom. The President's 1997 Budget Agreement with
Congress double~ the funding for. America's Technology Literacy Challenge, catalyzing
private-public sector partnerships to put the information age at our children's fingertips. The
President is com~itted to helping communities and the private sector ensure that every
student is equipp'ed with the computer literacy skills needed for the 21st century. For 1998,
the budget propo~es $425 million, more than doubling the $200 million that Congress
provided in 1997d
I
Linking Schools ~nd Libraries to the Internet. The Clinton Administration is implementing
a plan to create an "E-Rate," a discounted education rate for telecommunications services so
schools and libraries will be able to bring technology into the classroom, set up phone lines
and access the Internet at a fraction of the cost. The FCC has already approved a plan to
make discounts worth $2.25 billion annually available to our schools and libraries, with low
�II
income schools eligible for discounts of up to 90% ..
•
Expanding Scho;ol-To-WOI'k. The Clinton Administration is providing hundreds of
thousands of stud'ents with school-to-career opportunities, where they experience work
based learning aria gain access to pathways from high school to good jobs and post
secondary education. In 1994 and 1995, over 500,000 young people in 1,800 schools
throughout the n~tion, as well as 135,000 employers, participated in school-to-work systems
that integrate aca~emicand vocational instruction and provide work-based learning.
\'
New Pl'oposals to Impl'~ve Student Leal'l1ing
ji
•
Attracting and ~reparing Tomorrow's Teachers. President Clinton has proposed a 5-year
initiative to attract nearly 35,000 talented people of all backgrounds into teaching at low
income urban and rural schools across the nation, and to dramatically impr~ve the quality of
training and prep~ration given to our future teachers. The President's initiative will help .
recruitand prepare teachers nationwide to help our neediest students succeed in the21 st
century.
•
Cl'eate 1,000 aftel'-school safe havens in communities across the country. The President's
budget calls for extending learning opportunities for children and their familiesat schools
across the country, keeping schools open late, on weekends, and in the summer so young
people will stay off the streets and out of trouble.
•
I'
!
•
;
Widening Access to
.
.
•
.
School Constl'udtion. The Administration wilLcontinue its push to help address the serious
need for renovati~g and building .schools nationwide.
.
.
.
,
II'
Col~ege
L
I
and Lifelong Leal'l1ing .
"
The largest Pell Grant incl'ease in20 years.' President Clinton has already increased PeH
Grants from $2,300 in 1993 to $2,700 in 1997. These grants will provide a total ofi8
million low-income students the opportunity to attend collegethis year. And he plans to do
more. The Presid.ent's Budget Agreement with Congress includes the largest increase in Pell
Grants in two de2ades -- a funding boost of 25%. The maximum award will reach '$3,000,
I"
'
$700 more than i'n 1993. In the 1998 budget alone, an additional 348,000 students will
receive grants: 1~'O,OOO young people from moderate income families, and 218,000 low
income students ()ver the age of24.
'
Higher education tax cuts. The balanced budget agreement calls for roughly $35 billion in
tax cuts to help families pay for college. Congress has enacted the President's $1,500 HOPE
Scholarship tuition tax credit, to make the first two years of college universally available.
Students beyond the first two years, or part-time students seeking to improve or acquire job
skills, can now receive a 20% lifelong learning tax credit for up to $5,000 of tuition and
required fees thro;ugh 2002, and $10,000 thereafter.
I
Expanding EdJlational 0ppol1unity Thl'ough Selvice•. The Clinton Administration has
enabled :0,000 ~?lu.nteers to earn mO.ney for ~olleg~ by serving their communities and their
country In the A.ri1enCorps program SInce the InCeptIOn of the program.
I,
'.
�09/05/97
,
fill 005
19:12
.
,
NATIONAL STANDARDS AND TESTS PROMOTE
. EXCELLENCE AND EQUITY FOR ALL STUDENTS
Looking ahead, the greatest step of011- the highest threshold of th~ fUture we now must cross
- and my number one priorityjor the nextjO'llr yean: i.e: to ensure Ihat all AmeriCCll'l$ have 111($
best education In fhewarld
-President Clinton, State ofthe Union, February 4, 1997
JJ
CONSISTENCY. National standards and tests in the basic skills will eU5ure consistent,
ht8h stAndards (or all students. No matter where they live; all children will have the saine
expectations for a. strong foundation in the basics of reading and math. The voluntary national
tests will provide information for parems 011 what all students should know to do well in school.
Consistent stand;u-ds will help identitY schools that need improvement. and students that need
extra help, 80 that we begin to eliminate lower expectations for students. in oitiesllow income
areas.
ACCOUNTABn..rrv. National standa.rds and tests are DOt just an.t.ss~ssment of the
student, but are an a.ssess""ent of the school - and a tool to be used by the parents and
local communities. Along with demanding rnore ofour students, we· must hoJd $chools mQ
teachers to rugher standards. Standard measures ofexcellence wiU allow parents and communities'
to compare how well their sch.ools are doing in educating their students in the basics. These tests
will help schools to focus their efforts to strengthen curriculum. improve teacher training and
increase investments in teclmology in those areas where the most he]p is needed.
INFORMAnON. National standards and tests wiU empower parents. For the first time,
parents wil1 know how well individual students do compared to challenging, widely accepted
national standards in 4th gride reading and 8th grade math. Reading well by fouIth grade and
mastering mathematics -- including algebra by grade 8 - are the gateways for further learning and
achievement. No other test currently prO\,ides parel1ts with the infonnation they need in order tl"l .
determine.if their children are on track in the basic skills. With this information, parents can act
on behalf of their children to demand the necessary changes in the schools to ensure that all
children succeed,
.
INVOLVEMENT. National standards nnd tests in the basic skills will mobilize
communities around learning. .The national tests can become a raUying point for local efforts to
strengtben eurriculum,provide trairiing to teachers, increase parental and community involvemeIll,
and support the necessary investments at the loca~ state, md nationalleve1s to iinprove our
schools. Edi.\cators and parents ean use results of the tests to provide valuable help to low
performing students, while communities can use the results to hold schools accountable for poor
performanoe.
FAIRNESS. Rigorous teSt d~velopment process to provide protecitons a.gainst test bias.
During the test development stage, a considerable amount oftime will be spent on the review and
revision of the test items for biases by teams of content experts. Then u$ing large samples of
students, the test wiD undergo rigorous field testing to further ensure fairness. Moreover,
�09/05/97
IllI006
19:13
broadly representative advisory comillittees are involved in the test development that include
reading and math teachers, parents, local and state education leaders; and test experts, And as
always, the U.S. Department of Education has oversight to enforce civil rights protections
regarding the validity, administration and use of the voluntary national tests.
APPROPIUATENESS. Civil rigbts el1fareenlellt Rnd bigb standards, high-stakes testing
can to-exist. The Departnumt of Education will ~ntinue to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 to seCure equal access to education. The voluntary national tests cannot be used
inappropriately in ways that result in discrimination On the groWlds of race, color national origin,
sex,. disability or a.ge. As with .other federal education programs, the Department's Office for
Civil Rights retains responsibility to ittvestigat.e complaints and conduct compliance reviews to
ensure that the stringent federal requirements of nondiscrimination are followed,
ACCOMMODATIONS. Participation of Hmited English proficient students in the
voluntary national tests.
(1) 8th grade math test: A bilingual math test in Spanish 'Will he provided since the te~ is seeking
to measure math proficiency rather than an ability to read English instructions or word problems..
.
.
(2) 4th grade reading test: The reading test 'Will not be· developed in other languages since the
purpose is to measure the ability to read in English, although appropriate accommodations will be
offered.
(3) Accommoda.tions for the math and reading tests are being developed and may inc1udegivins
LEP students extra time for completing the test, or making the test an lIuntimed test" in which all
students are given the time they need to complete the test, acCOmInOdaLions offered to stude11ts In
usual test situations (short breaks), one-on-one testintt small group sessions, help with test .
directions (not items). oral reading of test items in English (math test) and glossaries (mathtest).
(4) Parents ofLEP students who have been in U.S. schools for less than three years may request
that their children take the reading test.
(5) Under Title I, local school systems, including ~hose parti~ipating in the national assessments,
must include LEP students in assessments of reading Mlnprehension. The Department will work
with·school districts serving high numbers ofLEP students, and with commercial tesfpubHshers,
to provide technical assistance on the assessment requirements and to identifY existing blgh
quality native language reading compreheIl.sion tests that are consistent with high national
standards.
.
�c r; Ii
u'f:r.
'
h
OF SEeR
).
,\ vV
.-,!,~
,., 200
'
.)
':01tESTIC POLlCrCOL
I)
,
DELAYING THE vOLUNTARY NATIONAL TESTS WOULD
WOULD BRlNGBACKTHE 1YRANNY OF LOW EXPECTATIONS
MINORITY STUDENTS IN URBAN AND RURAl, 'AREAS
~en 'we don't expect or encourage our chi Idtfm 'to learn we indirectly encourage th
rri'fen we .set high .standards and when we im:ist on rhenr,rhere 's no end fo what 01.11'
- Pres/dentelinlon, July 2S, 1997
o
The Voluntary National Tests would make it \clear that ill .c~ldren. wherever
whatever their color, and whatever their language background, can and should
the same hidt standards as students throughout the nation, Any delay in th
Alerribluigno! thAt we doubt whether our kid~ ~an ac~ieve.
.over the long run, the national tests in 4th grade ~eading and 8th grade math I Ul
benefit the kids in ~oor urbAn and rural areas who' currentl),: need the most hc;:lp, .
.
;
•
"
Las~ _k fifteen mgjor urban ss:.bool.sy9telTl9, including the thl'ee largest (Ne
Los Angeles, and,Chicago), as well 89 cities. ranging from Atlanta and San Ant.
Paso, Philadelphia and Detroit, boldly pmE;Ji tbat their stydents will particj
lliltlQnal tests b,glnning in 1999 and that they will we.rlc: to prepare their studen
on those tests. .
'
York City,
nio. to EI
.1) ~»,~
s to excel .
.
For the first time ever, parents. teachers and the PUblic in these communitie.!L~
hg.~~lLs1u.d.enn.p_~no.an~m-P.ilre.Q to D{ltiQ.naL5.tMdal1bj!l.atllding,.8!1d.1t.l.<1 t
students in other cities and states throughout the nation, making it harderJQ..ft
any stud~l when
it 'Qmes to leargini
. .
,
•
The national tests clln become a rallyjn~ lWint for ,local efforts to strengthen cu .c\llum,
provide training 10 teachers, increase parental and· community involvement, an Sllpport
'the necessary ipvestments at the [oea[, state, ~d n,&tionalle'....els to; improve (>1.1 choob.
,
.
•
.
I
Educators and)a.renu call us:eres:ulrs of the tests to provide valu~ble belp to..
performing students, while communities can use the results to hold admjnjstraj,..............""
W.chers a~S(puntabJe for poor aggregate performance.
' '
.
: I
1
,
.I
I'
I
�.
,,/...
~.
NATIONAL STANDARDS AND TESTS PROMOTE
EXCELLENCE AND EQUITY FOR ALL STUDENTS
Looking ahead, the greatest step ofall -- the highest threshold ofthe future we now must cross .
-- and my number one priority for the next four years is to ensure that all Americans have the
'
best education in the world"
--President Clinton, State ofthe Union, February 4, 1997
CONSISTENCY. National standards and tests in the basic skills will ensure consistent,
high standards for aU students. No matter where they live, all children will have the same
expectations for a strong foundation in the basics of reading and math. The voluntary national
. tests will provide inforrpation for parents on what all students should know to do well in school.
Consistent standards will help identify schools that need improvement, and students that need
extra help, so that we begin to eliminate lower expectations for students in cities/low income
areas.
ACCOUNTABILITY. National standards and tests are not just an assessment of the
student, but are an assessment of the school --- and a tool to be used by the parents and
local communities. Along with demanding more of our students, we must hold schools and
teachers to higher standards. Standard measures of excellence will allow parents and communities
to compare how well their schools are doing in educating their students in the basics. These tests
will help schools to focus their efforts to strengthen curriculum, improve teacher training and
increase investments ~n technology in those areas where the most help is needed.. '
INFORMATION. National standards and tests will empower parents. For the first time,
parents will know how well individual students do compared to challenging, widely accept~d
national standards in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math. Reading well by fourth grade and
mastering mathematics -- including algebra by grade 8 -- are the gateways for further learning and
achievement. No other test currently provides parents with the information they need in order to .
determine if their children are on track in the basic skills. With this information, parents can act
on beI1alf of their children to demand the necessary changes in the schools to ensure that all
children succeed.
INVOLVEMENT. National standards and tests in the basic skills will mobilize
communities around learning. The national tests can become a rallying point for local efforts to
strengthen curriculum, provide training to teachers, increase parental and community involvement,
and support the necessary investments at the local, state, and national levels to improve our
schools. Educators and parents can use results of the tests to provide valuable help to low
. performing students, while communities can use the results to hold schools accountable for poor
performance.
FAIRNESS. Rigorous test development process to provide protections against test bias.
During the test development stage, a considerable amount of time will be spent on the review and
revision of the test items for biases by teams of content experts. Then using large samples of
students, the test will· undergo rigorous field testing to further ensure fairness. Moreover,
�broadly representative advisory committees are involved in the test development that include
reading and math teachers, parents, local and state education leaders, and test experts. And as
always, the U.S. Department of Education has oversight to enforce civil rights protections
regarding the validity, administration and use of the voluntary national tests.
APPROPRIATENESS. Civil rights enforcement and high standards, high-stakes testing
can co-exist. The Department of Education will continue to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights
Act of 1964 to secure equal access to education. The voluntary national tests cannot be used
inappropriately in ways that result in discrimination on the grounds of race, color national origin,
sex, disability,or age. As with ,other federal education programs, the Department's Office for
Civil Rights retains responsibility to investigate complaints and conduct compliance reviews to
ensure that the stringent federal requirements of nondiscrimination are followed.
ACCOMMODATIONS. Participation of limited English proficient students in the
voluntary national tests.
'
(1) 8th grade math test: A bilingual math test in Spanish will be provided since the test is seeking
to measure math proficiency rather than an ability to read English instructions or word problems. '
(2) 4th grade reading test: The reading test will not be developed in other languages since the
purpose is to measure the ability to read in English, although appropriate accommodations will be
offered.
(3) Accommodations for the math and ~eading tests ar~ being developed and may include giving
LEP stu~ents extra time for completing the test, or making the test an "untimed test" in which all
students are given the time they need to complete the test, accommodations offered to students in
usual test situations (short breaks), one-on-onetestirtg, small group sessions, help with test
directions (not items), oral reading of test items in English (math test) and glossaries (math test).
(4) Parents ofLEP students who have been in U.S. schools for less than three years may request
that their children take the reading test.
(5) Under Title I, local school systems, including those participating in the national assessments,
must include LEP students in assessments of reading comprehension. The Department will work
with school districts serVing high numbers ofLEP students, and with commercial test publishers,
to provide technical assistance on the assessment requirements and to identifY existing high
quality native language reading comprehension tests that are consistent with high national
standards.
�1
i
~.
, ,'" -;
l'
'.
,RIlUlHoltd e.
Pierce
'DePlllv AssislllNt Secreillfll
Offke lor eivil x'igltts
II. S. Dept 0/ edUClltioll
600 l/111tpt1tlltlftt ~ S. W.
Wtzslti",llJlf. 1). e. 20202
eJIIIIill fIl!IIII411''-pier~@d."",
...
.
.
TO
. ....,J ,
Telephone
•
FaX
FROM:
I
'--"
.
5C;7~
'-1 S-G, - '':>''-g /
:
Telephone:, 2021205-9556
Fax " : 2021205-9889
COMMENTS .
Sev<!-tafl
((/;;16;. -~
~Csa.70
L
.aclcks~eCf
$&.-: ~O"..;rr"..-.·I.r;1 ~J rjks
IVrJI ... J.
-
ct~~~, '~"~;i, :.;,
•
" .
~
• . • --;';1'
-:
~,,;:'
":
"
~ /I';;'~<A1Te~is..
I"
S-e c 71 ~
a::r--rlu-i r
,Th'~'V£:'~J' . ~sl1'ff' '(!)epoS177/;:0', 70" , ".' ,
,
.»
tIv-
: ,,-
"
-,'
.•
.
<.-, .
. ,::
-
,
L
.'
.
".
.
,~. . ,
\
7f~ r~~"elq ~e.so/!p~ u~'f.1.~i
J.e-/7- oS; -rk -res, · .x w~d b~ YI1etll'''l w'~ ~
'1;- et 0+
0
c;;. tIi r ~ "," rh)tv.s
fit
Se (.Tr ~
~1. ~'J:..
1\ €I
F yJ-.
/7
I
t~""f m~
�,RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, ,President Bill Clinton has
proposed that the U. S. Department of Education
develop a' national competency test to be
administered to students nationwide; and '
WHEREAS, the U. S., Departnlent of
Education has failed to develop' or es~blish
national minimum standards or criteria fQr"
, instruction to assure that students are actually
taught ,the material on which they would be
,tested; and
WHEREAS,
the 'establishment ' and
administration of a national' competency 'test
without first insuring that students are receiving
adequate instruction will 'doom ,nous~nds of '
Mrican ,American students to failure and, '
further' diminish their level of seH esteem 'and
promote hopelessness within our cOlTlntunities;
/
!
'fi
.
,,,
\
'
••
;
'
.. "."
11018 S9L
zo~s
"~'.
,
�.',
" :.',,1'" :"; ....
~,
,
.
IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED:
That the National'Bar Association, the Nation's
.
','
'
oldest minority bar association representing more '
.
,
than 17,(100 African American lawyers and judges, we
the members of the National Bar' Association, urge ,
:
,
and
implore
President
Bill
"
Clinton
to
delay
implementation of a national competency test, to be
administered to students nationwide until minimum
instructional standards have been established' to .
· insure that our nati~n' s ,stud~nts~re receiving the
· kind of education and training which would enable
them
to
have
a
reasonable '''opportunity
· successfully . mastering
for
a· national , competency ,
examination.
coolVl
6RR6
~07.
7.07. xv::!' 60: Ll <T3M
l6/07.IRO
�9,cT .8.1997
4:11PM
DEPT
i
~
,
.'
ED1DEP SECY
I '
NO. 497
P.2/4
,
-:ICVTG'(lrtlAL
10/8/97
National Test Issues and proposals
A.
-Lr- rK~
High Stakes Testing
OCR: Develop a strategy and plan for technical assistance
B4:~t~ and for monitoring complianoe with Title VI. Widely disseminate
--)A \'\.. . ~ existing guidelines and the new guidelines that are in final
\-t: orl;'
stages of preparation. Underscore that the guidelines must
follow the federal legal requirements. We can suggest that they
follow the APA/AERA/NCME standards that, among other things, hold
that single tests should not be used alone for making high stakes
decisions for students such as promotion, tracking, or
graduation. OCR will also put out a clear, readable statement
that sets out their guidelines in a few pages, as well as
specifioa1ly addresses the voluntary national tests.
1.
'1r
2. NAGB: Specify in conference re~Qrt language that NAGB
should put out clear guidelines for use of the national tests in
high stakes situations for students'. The guidelines should
follow the federal legal requirements and the APA/AERA/NCME
guidelines.
3. The Department will issue a publication for teacher,
parent, and community use to talk about how to use the tests most
effeotively.
4. OEEMLA,and OESEwou1d publish a clear brochure for
parents about the uses of the test and how they can be used by
parents. There also are MOUs for the development of materials on
the use of the tests with NSF. In addition, the test contractor
will be putting out materials on the use of the tests.
B. LEI' Testing:
Propose the Use of Private Sector Developed Reading Tests in
Spanish: Our goal is to assist and enable interested looal school
districts to administer high quality, privately developed reading
tests in Spanish, which are oonsistent with the national reading
test framework and performance standards. These tests would be
administered at the same time as the national reading tests, and
the results would be reported along with the national results.
From the point of view of LEP students and parents, there would
�OCT. 8.1997
..
4:12PM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
.
NO. 497
f ••
~
be rio difference between taking the Spanish language version of
the tests and taking the English version of the test.
We are working with CGCS to identify and analyze existing tests
to determine which are suitable for these purposes. Harcourt
Brace has indicated that SUPERA, a Spanish-language version of
Terra Nova, is based on the NAEP4th grade reading framework, is
linked to the NAEP performance standards, and is consistent with
the draft specifications for the national test. The test is
.being analyzed to determine if this is in fact the case.
Once suitable tests are identified, we will work with interested
school districts, NAGB, and the test contractor to ensure that
test administration and reporting can occur simuitaneously with
the national teet.
The Education Department will (work with local school districts)
to develop and distribute sample Spanish reading questions and
materials comparable to those that will be distributed each year
when the national test items will be made public.
The Education Department will seek ways to pay for test
administration, and determine i.f it is possible to add $ to
existing grant programs for these purposes. [When we talk about
this, we need to be a little equivocal right now]
If no existing teats are suitable for these. purposes, we
anticipate that interested school districts will meet with test
publishers and ask them to make necessary modifications to·
existing tests. We will provide the school districts with
technical assistance in this effort if needed.
C. Reporting Requirements:
1. In conference report la.p.guage .NAGB would be required to
develop reporting reqUirements for the use of the test. The
reporting requirements should meet the conditione set out in
Title I.
«
2. NAGB would be required in conference report lansuase to
work with states to report state data.
�.
QCT. 8.1997
..
4:12PM
DEPT OF ED/DEP SECY
NO.497.
P.4/4
.;.
"
3. Testing report materials would be developed to be as
readable as possible by parents and teachers and others
unfamiliar with testing .. F~cus groups, document design people,
etc. would be used to insure that the materials are
understandable and useful .. R&D would be carried out on this to
determine that the materials are in fact useful.
D. Accommodations:
CONVERSATION ONLY:
1. Conference RepOrt language should make clear that NAGB
will insure that all feasible and useful accommodations are made
available for students that need them (LEP and disabled and
others?) .
2. The Department will develop a clear list of
accommodations that have a core of must include accommodations, a
set of desirable ones, and a set of possible accommodations that
require research. The core of basic acoommodations set must be
equal to or exceed the highest standard set for a nationally
available test.
�Provisions in Development Contract dealing with Special Populations
Schools will be required to include all students with disabilities with appropriate
accommodations specified In their IEP or other individualized accommodations provIded
pursuant toSection504 or the ADA, unless their IEP or other plan or severe cognitive
disabilities exclude them from standardized or group testing. Test administrators will be trained
to. appropriately serve such students.
LEP students receiving academic instruction in English for three years or more are to be included
in the tests. LEP students receiving instruction in English for less than three years are to be
included unless school staff judge them as being incapable of participating in the assessment.
.However, all Spanish-speaking LEP students are to be included iri the math test.
Braille and large print versions of the reading and math tests will be developed by the contractor
for the field and operational tests. Additionally, the contractor will develop an English audio
cassette and a bilingual SpaniShfEnglish version of t~e math test.
In the first year of the contract, research will begin to be conducted into the comparability of the
tests administered under non-standard conditions on the validity of the test scores, including
looking at the feasibility and the impact on validity of native language glossaries for the math test
for non-English and non-Spanish test takers, as well as the validity of the test for various uses,
such as the performance in later grades, reading ability in other subjects, promotion, title I
evaluation, etc.
Guidelines will be developed for providing appropriate accommodations to studentswith
disabilities taking the test, via the consensus process.
'
Test use guidelines will be developed that specify the appropriate uses and interpretations of test
results. These guidelines will be developed via consensus process and in accordance with the
most regent version of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing. Subject-specific
advisory panels and specialist committees will assist in the development and review of these test
utilization guidelines which are targeted at the test user audience and which are to address
appropriate educational uses of the test scores.
Steps will be taken to ensure that information about the tests is effectively communicated to
parents who are disabled or do not speak English.
Test items and responses will be designed or selected that are accessible and/or can be put into
accessible formats. Students and parents of students with disabilities and limited English
proficiency will be included in cognitive labs, focus groups, and at other early stages of item
development. The contractor's subject specific advisory panels, which will revj.ew items
developed for the test, each have 2 persons .(out of 16)-with expertise in working with special
populations. Additionally, some of the teachers on the panels have knowledge and expertise in
working with special populations. Further, the expeJ.:l committee of specialists with knowledge
of special populations will be convened to work on specific issues dealing with speCial
populations, including the development and review of the test use guidelines.
�TEST ACCOMMODATIONS
National Assessment of Educational Progress
Contractor provides large print and Braille versions, as well as a bilingual Spanish version of the
math assessment. Other approved accommodations for the 1998 administration are listed below, '
and must be provided by the school. Accommodations can only be used on the NAEP if they
have been deemed necessary (e.g. IEP) and if the'y are normally used during testing situations.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Administer the test in several sessions
Extended time
Change in time of day
Adaptive or special furniture
One-on-one testing
Preferential seating (e.g. study carrel)
Small group testing
Interpreting oral directions (e.g. signing, cued speech)
Magnifying equipment (visual or auditory)
Simplifying oral directions
Bilingual dictionary (not available for reading assessment)
Scribe
Typewriter/computer (not available for reading assessment)
-Kentucky
Any adaptation or accommodation that is written on student's IEP or 504 form is·used. Typical
accommodations include:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Paraphrasing, repeating directions
Scribing, dictating
Interpreter
Reader(oral administration)
Personal cueing system
Technology
Stanford 9
Accommodations provided by test publisher:
•
•
•
Braille
Large print
Spanish
Instructions suggest that school may provide extended time or make any other accommodations
normally used for a student. However, no norms are available for these scores.
�I'
f'• . :
Voluntary National Test:
Suggested Accommodations
.
.
(These are based on NAEP. They will be further developed by
the contractor and approved by the Policy Board in an open, public proce'ss. )
Mathematics. Test
Reading Test
--
Students with Disabilities
Accommodations speci fied in IEP
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Extended time and/or multiple testing sessions
One-on~one testing
Small-group, sessions
Scribe or use of computer
Help. with test directions (but not items)
Large print or Braille
Other, such as sign language translator,
microphone worn by administrator, use of
magnifYing instrument
LEP Students
•
•
•
•
Accommodations offered to student by school in
usual test situations (e.g .• frequent breaks,read
instructions aloud in English, etc.)
Extended time
One-on-one testing
Small-group sessions
Students with Disabilities
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Accommodations specified in IEP
Extended time andlor mUltiple testing sessions
One-on-one testing
Small-group sessions
Scribe or use of computer
Help with test directions (but not items)
Audiocassette English version
Large print or Braille
Other, such as sign language translator,
microphone worn by administrator, use of
magnifYing instrument
LEP Students
•
•
•
•
•
Accommodations offered to student by school in
usual test situations (e.g., frequent breaks,
bilingual dictionaries, read aloud in English, etc.)
Bilingual Spanish-English version
Extended time
Gary PhiIIips
One-on-one testing
9/18/97
Small-group sessions.
.
\;
'.'
�"Ii,
Suggested Inclusion Criteria for the
Vol~ntary National Test
(These are based on NAEP. They will be further developed by
the contractor.and approved by the Policy Board in an open, public process. )
.•
Students with Disabilities
A student identified as having a disability; that is, a student with an Individualized Edu~ation .
Plan (IEP) or equivalent classification should be included in the assessment unless:·
• The IEP team or equivalent group has determined that the student cannot
participate in the test or similar assessments, OR
~ The student's cognitive functioning is so severely impaired that shelhe cannot
participate, OR
. • The. student's IEP requires that the student be tested with accommodations that
the test does not permit, and the student cannot demonstrate hislher knowledge
ofreading or mathematics without that accommodation. . .
./
•
Limlted-English-Proficient Students
A student who is identified as Limited English Proficient and who is a native speaker of a
language other than English should be included in the test unless:
.'
• The student has received language instruction primarily in English for less
than three school years including the current year, AND
• The student cannot demonstrate his or her knowledge of reading
in English even with an accommodation pennitted by the test.
Gary Phillips
9/18/97
�.,.;'
Voluntary National Tests
Accommodations for Limited English Proficient Students
ReJlding.Ie~t
Mathem.atic.8.Tes_t
Accommodatiolls Currelltly Required by the COlltract*
Accommodations Currently Required by the Contract *
•
Extended time
•
Extended time
•
Any accommodations already provided by the school
•
Any accommodations already provided by the school
•
Bilingual test in Spanish and English
Desireable Accommodations*
..
Desireable Accommodations*
More breaks during testing
•
More breaks during testing
•
Testing spread out over additional days without
exceeding .total time allowances
•
Testing spread out over additional days without
exceeding total time allowances
•
Testing sessions over several days with extended time
•
Testing sessions over several days with extended time
•
General education classroom with additional support
person
•
General education classroom with additional support
person
•
Take the test alone, e.g: in a testing carrel
•
Take the test alone, e.g. in a testing carrel
•
Take the test in a small group
•
Take the test in a small group
•
One-on-one testing
•
•
Give oral responses to a scribe
•
. One-on-one testing
Give oral responses toa scribe
�-.:
'~
"·7
, Mathematic.s_Le£LCc_QJlt~d •.)
ReadiugIesJ_CcJlJle.d) .
•
Tape responses for later verbatim transcription by school
personnel
•
Tape responses for later verbatim transcription by school
personnel
•
Simplification of test directions
•
Simplification of test directions
•
Repetition of directions, as needed
•
Repetition of directions, as needed
•
Translating directions into student's primary language
•
Reading directions out loud in English
•
Translating directions into student's primary language
•
Use of dictionaries
•
Use of word lists or glossaries
Need Furt/,er Research
Neeli Further Research
•
•
Give responses in the primary language
Alternative test with as Iowa language load as possible
*All accommodations would be included in the Department's research agenda.
2
�10/08/97
16:25
u
.
__...
The White House
Domestic Policy ~ouncn
Old Executive Office Building, Room 220
Washington, DC 20502
Telephone Number: (202) 456-2857
Alternate:
(202) 456-2216
FAX Number: (202) 456-7028
Alternate FAX! (201) 456-7431
FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
FM:~_~_·a_·)-_- ~~~.~·~~ __7_7
__
_ 3 ________
FROM:
BILL KINCAID
Tms FAX INCLUDES THE COVER SHEEr PLUS
'2- PAGES>
IF YOU DID NOT RECEIVE THE COMPLETE FAX, PLEASE CALL (202,) 456-2857.
~001
�.
'i,
",10/OS/97, WED 11:15 FAx 202336 5953
.
i:
" ~,SC IENeE DlREC;T~:RATE.:.~
.
. :,.'~
'"
"
,.,.
,
319
Standard 13.1
320
When the same tes,tis used to serve:m1iltiple purpo&es, evidence .ofteclmica1qualityforeacll
321
purpose is needed.
'
.
.
-
.
,
.
.
..
322
323
Comment: In educational
testing~ it
has. become common practice, to use the same test
. for multiple pwposes(e.g., monitoring achievement of individual students. providing ,
324
infonnation t~ assist in instructional planning for individuals or groups of students,
325
evaluating schools or districts). No assessment system will serve all purposes equally well:
326
Choices in test development and evaluation that enhance validity for one purpose may
327
diminish validity for other purposes. Different purposes require somewhat different kinds
328
of technical evidence, and appropriate evidence of technical quality for each purpose
329
should be provided. If the test user wishes to use the test for a pUrpose not supported by
330
the available evide.nce, it is incumbent on the user to provide the necessary additional
331
evidence.
.
,
332
Standard 13.2
333
When a test is used as an indicator of achievement in an instructional domain or with
334
respect to specified curriculum standards, analyses of the fit between the test domain and
335
the instructional domain or curriculum standards should be provided. Both domains should
336
be described in sufficient detail so. that coherence between the domains can be evaluated.
337
The analyses should make explicit those aspects of the target domain that the test represents
338
as weD as those aspects that it fails to represent.
339
\
Comment: Increasingly, tests are being used to monitor pro~ess of individuals and
340
groups towards local, state or professional standards. Rarely can a single test cover the
341
full range of perfonnances reflected in the standards. To guard against misinterpretation or
342
overinterpretation of test scores as indicators of performance on these s.tandards, it is
343
essential to document and evaluate both the relevance of the test to the standards and the
344
extent to which the test underrepresents the standards. When existing tests are selected by
345
a school. district, or state to represent local curricula or standards, it is incumbent on the
346
user
347
those who use test scores.
(0
provide the necessary analyses. This information should be made available to all
MARCH 1997
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE
12
�348
Standard 13.3 .
349
When a test is
used as an indiCator ·of achievement in an· instructional dOan3m or·witb .
350resped to specified cuniculum standards, empirical evidence. of the· extent to which the test
351
.. in fact samples the range of knowledge and. ~gages the proc~es reflected:inthe target
352
domain should be provided. When such evidence is not available, users Should be cautioned
353
against unsupported generalizations from the test scores to the target domain.
354
Comment: For ~xample, correlational studies among alternative indicators of
355
performance, carefully conceived to reflect the full range. of peIformance. implied· by· the
356
broader domain. accompanied by studies of the processes in
357
.enable evaluation of the extent to which generalizations to the broader domain are
358
supported.
~hich
test' takers engage,
359
Standard 13.4
360
When a test is used to make decisions about student promotion or graduation, there ~hould
361
be evidence that the test covers only the specific or generalized content, skill, and
362
performances that students have had an opportunity to learn.
363
Standard 13.5
364
Students who must demonstrate mastery of certain skills or knowledge before being
365
promoted or. granted a diploma should have multiple opportunities or be provided with
366
construct equivalent alternativeS to' demonstrate the skill.
367
Comment: If parallel test forms are not available, the provision of multiple trials on the
1
368
same test form may erode the inference to the construct intended. Furthermore, some
369 '
students may benefit from a different testing approach to demonstrate their achievement.
370
Care must be taken that evidence of construct.-equivalence of alternative approaches is
371
provided as well as the equivalence of cut scores defining passing expectations.
372
When students are provided with multiple opportunities to demonstrate mastery,
373
the specification of the time interval between the opportunities should consider the need to
374
provide relevant instructional experiences to students.
MARCH 1997
DRAFT • DO NOT CITE
13
�.
.
375
Standard 13.6
376
A decision orcharacterizationthatWillha~emajorimpact ona test taker should: not···.·
'
.
"
377
automatically be made on the basisofa single test score•. Other .relevant infonriationfor the
378.
decision should also be.taken into aceouot·by the professionals makiDgtbe decision.
.
.
.. .
"
379
Comment: When the pwpose oftesting is to identify individuals with special needs. a
380
comprehensive assessment should be conducted. The comprehensive
381
involve the use .of multiple measures. and data should be collected from multiple sources.
382
It is important that in addition to test scores, other relevant information (e.g., school
383
recorrl; teacher observation. parent report) is taken into account by.the professionals
384
making the decision.
ass~sment
should.
385
Standard 13.7
386
Whe~ test
387
individuals or programs, logical and empirical evidence of the v8tidity of the decision should
388
be provided.
scores are used directly, without collateral information, to make decisions about
389
Comment: At the inruviduallevel. test scores have been used. for instance. to make
390
decisions about promotion. placement into special programs, and certification for
391
graduation. At the program level, aggregate scores have been used to allocate resources or
392
to designate schools in need of special assistance. When such decisions rest on test ~cores
393
alone, empirical evidence should be provided of the meaningfulness of the proposed cut
394
scores and the appropriateness of any associated decision.
\
395
Standard 13.8
396
It test results are used in making statements about the differences between aptitude and
397
achievement for an individual student, any educational decision based on these differences
398
should take into account the overlap between the two constructs and the reliability or
399
standard error of the d.ifference score.
400
Comment: When difference scores between two tests are used to aid in making
401
educational decisions. it is important that the two tests are standardized on the same
402
nonnative sample at about the same time. In addition, the reliability and standard elIOr of
403
the difference scores between the two tests are affected by the relationship betwee~ the
MARCH 1997
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE
14
�404
_~o~~~ctS measured by the tes~ as \VeIl '. as the standaIderrorsof measurement of-the: -
...,..
,'.
"
. '
ofcomparing aptirudewith achievement rest scores, the
405"
scoreS of the. two tests. In the case
406
overlapping nature' of the two C;On5nucts may render the reliability of the d.iffcren~ scores
407
lower than test users normany would assume. If. the aptitude andlorachievement tests
-
.
.
"
,
.
408
involve a significant amount of measurement error. this will also reduce _ coDfidence
the
409
one -may place on the difference scores. All these factors affect the accuracy of difference
410
scores between tests and should be considered by professional evaluators in using
411
difference scores as a basis for making important decisions about a student.
412
Standard 13.9
413
When results of a test are intended to be used as a basis for educational placement,
414
promotion, or implementation of prescribed educational plans, empirical evidence
415
documenting the relationship among particular test results, the instructional programs, and
416
desired students outcomes should be prol'ided. When adequate empirical evidence is not
417
available, users should be cautioned to weigh the test r~sults accordingly in I_ght -of other
418
information about the student.
419
Comment: The validity of test results for placement or promotion decisions rests, in part,
420
upon evidence about whether students, in fact, benefit from the differential instruction.
421
Similarly. in special education, when test resultS are used to develop specific ed~cati.ona1
422
objectives and instruction strategies, evidence is needed to show that the prescribed
423
instruction enhances students' learning. When there is limited evidence about the
424
relationship among test results, instructional plans, and student achievement outcomes. test
-
\
425
developers and users should stress the tentative nature of the test-based recommendations
426
and encourage teachers and other decision makers to consider the usefulness of test results
427
in light of orner infonnation about the students.
428 .
Standard 13.10
429
Judgments about the technical quality of achievement tests should consider the impact of
430
instructional bistory on performance. Findings from studies using uninstructed examinees
431
should Dot be applied to instructed examinees without additional support, or conversely.
432
Comment: By design, achievement test scores are sensitive to the effects of fonnal
MARCH 1997
DRAFT • DO NOT CITE
IS
�10/0S/97
WED '11,: 17, ,FAX 21)2336, 5953,'
:"" ~C IENC~ D:~~~TORA~':", :';/(~~;r.:I'~-~ij~~<~~i~l~~!J~'W;i'~;ir.p>~it;;l~':;;-.:':' 'taJ.~2 0,: ., ' .
.'
. •... .
""
',)'.-
.
"".;,'
t".
"
....
433, '
434·
435'
instru~tion. The psychometric properties 'of achievement test seoresandtheir,relationsio,
'otller. variables may vary substantially de{)Cnding upon the' jnstnictionex~J:lees have' '"
receivC(i The same test item may call for complex reasoning' the part of one examinee
on
.
.
.
'
pa.i:t of another. '
436
and rO,te retallor routine application ,of a leamedproceclure on the,
437.
Instruction' may result in improved performance on test items of a certain kind Without
438
bringing about any concomitant improvement in performance on other kinds of itenis or
439
tasks that call for similar knowledge or skills. When new assessment formats are .
440
,introduced, it may be especially important to monitor scoregeneralizability and
441
correlations with other variables. Inferences about,test quality will also depend upon the '
442
distribution of performance by examinees, another aspect of instructional history. '
,
'
"
443
Standard 13.11
444
Those responsible for educational testing programs should ensure that the individuals who
445
administer the testes) are properly instructed in the appropriate test administration
446
procedures and that they understand the importance of adhering to the directions for
447
administration provided by the test developer.
, 448
Standard 13.12
449
Those responsible for educational testing programs should ensure that the individuals who
450
use the test scores within the school context are properly instructed in the appropriate
451
methods for interpreting test scores.
452
Comment: The interpretation of some test results is sufficiently complex to require that
i
453
the user have relevant psychological training and experience, Examples of such tests
454
include individually administered intelligence tests, personality inventories, projective
455
techniques, and neuropsychological tests, As formal testing programs become a more
456
prevalent strategy for guiding instructio.n. teachers expected to make inferences ~bout .
457
. instructional needs may need assistance in interpreting test results for this purpose.
458
Standard 13.13
459
Score reports should be accompanied by a dear statement of the degree of measurement
460
' error associated with each score or classification level.
MARCH 1997
DRAFT .. DO NOT CITE
16
:'
.:;
""
~
'.
�10/08/97
WED 11:17 FAX 202.336 5953
. .
SCIE.NCE' DI~CTORA~~<~~{~l0.f~'~\-~'!.~rrwr~.~,.8j~~,i~.i:~.;.~~~!:l'~~';;!:': .:,~.~:: ... ~ 021 "':." ,' :
,.
... ,.:,'.'
,
~ . '. ' '.. .', :.. ,' .c~. ;,-': ~'.
,
..... ,
':'. .
'.
',-,'
.".,
,"
461
.. Comment:Thi~ infonnation should~Comm~nicaredina;\\IaYthatis ~ssible to
462
persons receiving the score report.Forinstance~. the degree of~~~*ty D:ngh[ be
463
. .indicated by.a likely range of scores orhy the probability. of misclassification... " .
464
Stand3rd 13.14
465
Reports of group differences in test scores should be accompanied by sufficient background
466 .
information, where possible,
467
appropriate background information is notavaiJable, users should be cautioned against .
468
overinterpretation.
to enable meaningful interpretation of these differences. Where
469
470
racelethnicity, schooJJdistrict. geographical region) can be influenced by factors like course
471
taking patterns, differences in curriculum, or differences in access to educational
472
resources. Differences in group perfonnance across time may be influenced by changes in
473
the population of students tested or changes in learning opportunities for students.
474
Consumers should be made aware of the range of factors likely to contribute to any
475
observed differences in test scores.
Comment: Observed differences in lest scores between groups (e.g;, classified by gender.
476
Standard 13.1S
477
Whenever a test score is reported, the date on which the score was collected should be
478
indicated. The age of the test score should be considered by test users in making imerences.
479
Comment: Depending on the particular construct measured, the Validity of score
480
inferences may be questionable as time progresses. For example, inferences from aptitude
481
test scores may be more valid over a longer period of .time than inferences from
482
achievement measures. This is because achievement as a construct is more susceptible to .
483
intervention and therefore less stable than is aptitude. When a test score is used for a
484
particular purpose, the date of the test score should .be taken into consideration in
485
determining its worth or appropriateness for making inferences about a student. For
486
instance. a reading score collected six months ago for a student may no longer reflect his
487
or her current reading ability. Thus, a test score should not be used if it has been
488
detennined that sufficient time has passed since the time of data collection and that the
489
score no longer can be considered a valid indicator of a student's present functioning.
~
MARCH 1997
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE
17
�, 10/08/97 . ,WED
ii: 18 FAI202 3365953
.'
-
" . '
'.
,SCIENCE', DIRECTORATE'",""
"
490,
,Standard 13.16' '
49]
, When testing p~gr8ms are mandated byschool, distri~t, state, .orother anthori.ti~,the,.., '
.'
.
.
. ..
'.:.
492,
493
.
,
.'
,
"
,.:.
ways in which test sc()res are intended to be uSed should be clearly describeci. Potential'
' conseqnencesoftheproposed uses, both intended and unintended, should b~,coDsidered.
. .
.
,
'
"
"
~
494
Those iinplementing the testing program shouId'be cautioned against,uistructionaI'and
495
administrative practices likely to res,Jlt in negative consequences. 'Where resources permit,
496
evidence of the impact of the testing program, both intended and unintended, should be
497
monitored.
498
Comment: Mandated testing programs are often justified in tenns of their p~tential
499
benefits for teaching and learning beyond those directly associated with the meaning of
, 500
test scores. In conjunction, concerns have been raised about the potential negative impact
501
of mandated testing programs, particularly when they ,result directly in important decisions
502
for individuals or institutions. Concerns frequently raised include narrowing the
503
curriculum
504
among students who do not pass the test, or encouraging other instructional or
505
administrative practices designed to raise test scores without a concomitant improvement
506
in the quality of education. Ie is the responsibility of those who mandate the use of tests to
507
monitor the impact of their use on the qualicy of education and to minimize potential
508
negative consequences.
(0
foc;us only on the objectives tested, increasing the number of dropout:s
509
Standard 13.17
5 ~l,0
Documentation of design, models, scoring algorithms, and methods of classification should
"
51"1
be provided for assessments administered and scored using multimedia or compnter support
512
when results will be used to make decisions about individuals or programs.
513
Standard 13.18
514
Sample sizes permitting, reports of average scores for demographic groups or geographic
515
regions should be supplemented. with additional infC;lrmation about the shape or dispersion
516
of score distributions.
517
Comment: Score reports should be designed to communicate clearly, and effectively to
518
their imended audiences. In most cases, reports that go beyond average score
MARCH 1997
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE
18
�,., $C I~~, ,D I~~'fO~~:~f~jJ~~~:'~A~l~'~*~~}~'!rj;if~~~t:f~~);fFi'~f:':~k!,:;;'- '/ ' raJ 023"
·
519" ,
520
','
"', ,;: ":':', ::,£~'/!;'.'..~': ," '. :: "::~":'; ;"', '
,,comparisons'are belp1\d infurtlieringthoughtfuI 'use,
'. ',',
and interpremtlon Of'8ssCss~nt, .,'
findings., ,i>ePeridlngori the intencledpurposeand,audience of 'tI.tescore. tepo", additional ", ' , ",
.
".
.
"
.
,
'
.
,"
521
,infoimation mighttak.e the form of staIidard de~aticins or, Qther common
S22
523
score variability • or of selected percentile points foJ." each distribution. ' , Alternatively,
benchmark score levels might be established and then~ fOf'each group or region, the
524
pr~portions
525
benchmarks might be defined, for example,
526
527
528
distribution for all groups or regions. Other distributional sununaries of reporting formats
of clarity and conciseness conununicating assessment findings. Excessive detail· may
529
invite overinterpretation of trivial or unreliable groupdifferenccs.
measures of
of examinees attaining each specified level could be reported. Such
as selected percentiles ,of the pooled
may also be useful. The goal of more detailed reporting must be balances against goals
MARCH 1997
DRAFT - DO NOT CITE
19
�OCR's Fairness in Testing Guidance: Central Principles
o
Federal law prohibits the use of a test for any high stakes purpose· if that test
has not been validated for that purpose. Accordingly, the use of a test as a sole
criterion in high stakes decision making is not appropriate if the test is not
designed and validated for that purpose. This means, for example, that federal law
prohibits the placement of students in special education classes solely on the basis of
an IQ test that has not been designed as a single placement instiument for such
purposes.
o
Federal law prohibits the use of a high stakes test that has a statistically
significant adverse impact on the basis .of race, national origin, or gender unless
the recipient of federal funds can demonstrate that the test is valid and reliable
and there is no alternative with less disparate impact. This means, for example,
that where a test designed to make decisions about students' promotions from one
grade to the next (and, thus, must be instructionally valid) has a disparate impact on
the basis of race, the use of that test constitutes a violation of federal c~vil rights laws
if those students have not been provided with adequate instruction in the content areas
tested.
o
Federal law prohibits tests from being used for high stakes purposes where
students are treated differently' on the basis of race, national origin, and gender,
without ~ legitimate nondiscriminatory reason.
10/97
For the purposes of the OCR Guidance, high stakes tests are defined as those that have an
impact on the educational opportunities of students - through placement, promotion or .
graduation decisions, for instance. The Guidance does not apply to tests designed to assess
student or institutional progress or advancement where such assessment has no performance
or placement consequences for the student, ilidividually.
�OCR's Technical Assistance and Enforcement Strategy
OCR will enhance its national testing network (through which current trends; issues, and best
practices are shared) and will supplement it current strategic planning and targeting of
compliance reviews and technical assistance with an initiative in which two staff in each of
OCR's· four national divisions will be responsible for developing expertise in the area of
testing misuse; monitoring developments in their respective jurisdictions regarding the use of
tests for high stakes purposes; establishing relationships with stakeholders to ensure OCR's
early opportunity to provide advice regarding federal legal standards and assistance; and
providing input in national enforcement planning related to the initiation of compliance
reviews or other proactive efforts to resolve problems of discrimination through the misuse.
of tests. Two national testing coordinators will support these efforts.
OCR anticipates the establishment of an external network of stakeholders, nationally, focused
on this subject. OCR expects to broadly disseminate its testing guidance along with other
related informational documents that will guide recipients regarding the appropriate uses of
high stakes tests under federal law.
'
Work regarding these efforts is currently underway. OCR expects to establish 1998
timelines and detailed strategies in the fall of 1997.
�_
..... :::;J
- - , . _ _ .. -
--.';"
~.,--
.,.------
... "n.
..
....
.w
I
Date:
. IIoIIIaa
BI'O'IftI'Cl Cowlry
a.aEfido
~e
.QiQr
Clark CoUftty
.
c:Jnocb.nd
Dade County .
Dallas
Dayton
Denwr·
Dcctoic
£1"P.uo
FonWonh
fresno
Houston
lndi.aitapolis
Lone Beach
. Los An setCl
Memphis
Mawaukee
Minneapolil
'. Nashville
NcwOrl.w
New York City
.Organization: -'.-'~~-~~------.;.-~-Fax:·_...;;;4'-:1'.Ca.....&'___...~~...,)k..::;fi'w....""":"•.,....:_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __
· ?
·
··1F1S®im
Name:
/1; ~J
0f!1
Newark
Nonoll:
OUJand
Oklahoma City
Oma.ha
. Phibdelphia
Pirubu"h
Pordand
Providence
. Richmond
itoc:hest'er
5(. !..ouil
Sr.
i>~ul
S~n Diego
S"ft fr;ancasco .
Scalde
Toledo
Tucson
. Council of the Great City Schools
1301 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W. + Suitc702
(202) 393·2427 + (202) 393;..2400 (fax)
+ Washington. D.C. + 20004
.
�vL...1
VV
..;,
L
• .... V . t'1U
.VV";
September 8, 1997
The Honorable Maxine Waters
Chair. Congressional Black Caucus .
U.S. House.ofRepresentativcs
.
Washington, D.C. 20515
. Dear Madam Chair:
..
'
.. 1 a.:n writing on behalf of the Council ofthe Great City Schools, the coalition
of the nation's largest urban school systems, to describe our perspective. on
President Clinton's proposal for Voluntary National Tests and to address issues that
the urban 'community has raised about them.:
.
.
.
·First, you should know that the Council opposes the Goodling amendment to
the LaborIHHS/EduC8tionAppropriations.bill barring federal funds from being
used to develop or administer the tests. No doubt, you also know that 15 urban
public school systems from aUf C()alition recently volunteered to take these tests in
1999. Others cities did not volunteer, but others are expected to. I ,want you to
know why,
.'
,
Urban' public school systems volunteered to take the Nations'! 4th Grade
Reading Te,st 8:nd 8th Grade Math Test to put to rest, once and fOf all, the notion
that we are satisfied with inferior ~tandards for our kids. We wanl and expect the
same
better for'urban kids lhan' what much wealthier communities expect for
. theirs. OUf children ofcolor have heen tyrannized and subjugated bY'society's low'
'. expectations long enough:
'.'
.
or
The second' reason is the flip side of the first: urban schools want: to' state
emphatically that we are confident in the ability of our children to Compete again!.'t
ally students in the nation. anywhere, anytime, on any standard,· -given the same
opportunj~yto meet them,
And it is to ,these two goals-high standards for urban children and the
opportunity to learn to thosestandards--that the Council of Great City Schools is
committed· with equal fervor and passion.
..
We hear too often fro~ policy*makers, the media and others tl;at investing
. more in urban children would simply be pumping good money after bad~ that urban
childrencsnnot Jearn~ .and that ui'ban communities do notsccin to care 'about low
. ,performance from their schools. These are self-serving excuses by America for not
I
.. VL
�providing poor urban and rural kids wit~ the resources that ,the averagechi]d has. We want. t.o
take that excuse away from America, not by setting the bar high and then allowing some kids tu
jump from a platform but by setting it high n.rut making everyone leap £i'om the same leve1. 111
short. our goal is to set. high. standards for urban schoolchildren .and pursue the resources they
, need to obtain them. We think both are important to pursue simultaneously.
to
Before ehiborating on that poi~t. 'howevcr~ we would like address concerns importanl.to
'.
our communities that have been raised about th~ National Tests. .
1. Testi!.1gjn Languages Other Than El)gU~Q. The Councilor Great City Schools shares the
conCerns raised by the Mexica.n American Legal Defense Fu'nd (MALDEF) and,otllers about
the Clinton Administration's decision not to provide the 4th grade Tcadinglestirl' any
language other than English. We are proud of our alHance with MALDEF in advocating that'
accommodations be made in the reading test lor students who are stiI1learning English, We
· were profoundly disappointedin 'the decision by thc Administration and released a statemellt '
to the press following it indicating that we thought the intent of the exam to raise standards
for iill children had been c,ompromised. The likely resuh of this ·decisionis that some urban
schoql districts which have volunteered for the test wiH .reconsider their participation in the
reading portion but participate in the math portion that IDll be offered in Spanish at least. The
Council of.Great City Schools has asked the Adlninistrat.ion to revisit its decision.
,.
.
.
.
. 2. ·lJ.~~"Q[.Test.s to Track and J,abel St~(,hmts. The Council also agrees with the conccm about
. using the tests to track, label or retain student.s.Schl)olshave'had abad history ofusing tests
· to do t.hat, creating a two-tier system for poor students and students of co]or. The Council
opposes the use of the National Tests, or any test for that, matter, to track, students or to create
"high stakes" consequences· for them.· We are in . favor ,of using them to create more
accountability for adults. Wc will urge every district pal1icipatialg in these exams to use them
only for purposes of system-wide assessmcnt and parental information. If school districts use
them in·some other manner, we would like to know about it so we can intervene. The Council
continues to . SllPpolt t.he testing initiative for distriCts wishing to participate, knowing that
'
urban schQois are not inten~ing to use l~e test fort.racking.purp<,)ses. . .
3... Reporting of R~~y,IJ~, The Council is not asc<)ncernoo, however, about issues of t:eporting
results as others have' been. Urban school systems at one time were very reluctant to rclease
the results of standardi7.ed testing, especiallY by race, income group or school. This is no
longer thc case. The vast majority of big city school systems report their scores according to
these variablcs, 'and some even 'prepare school.by.school repon cards. We 'are inclined to
believe that the National Tests would further that trend rather than dampen it. The Council
would also Iikc to assure members that urban schools intend to sharc results with parents and
the community, pot hide them. We are, in fact, eager to inform parents about the results in
· order to encourage t.hem to get more involved" in the'schools and to spur t.hcir pushing states
and the federal government for greater funding of urban programs,
4, Edycationa]' Resour~$. ~nd Opportunity. The Council of Great City Schools agrees with
inany that the tests do not directly redress. the vaslopportunity gap betwccn poor' urhun
school children and wealthier communities. The Council' win publ i!>h a report t8;lcr t.his year
:
'I
�showing that the resource~av!lilable to'schools comp~isingthe «First in the WorldCo~liti()n"
(i.e." of suburban Chicago school systems that .out-scored every . nat,ion on the Third
lntemational Math and Science Study) are nearly twice those available to America's urban
. school students, a fact around which we annollJlced new federal litigation in coHaboration
with the Rainbow Coalition. We agree that the challenge is to provide bpponunity for·,
achievement, not just the measurement of it. 'The sony'truth, however. that '!Ne are never
going'to get to issues of opportunity until the debates on"standards' are more, settled. The
nalion should be able to walk and chew gum at the same time as it. pursues both ends
the
school reform process, 'but apparently it cannot-or will" not. Still, the data coming from the
tests should g~ve us better information from which to advocate, better opportunity.
is
or
These' ;concerns arc critical. The Council of Great City Schools is . suppollive of the
Voluntary National Tests because high standards in education' have' more significance to urban
cOmmunities from which so little lias been expected than anywhere else. America's thinking that
we do not care much about performance contributes to the nation's reluctance to providc the'
rcsources we need to get thejob done well. Again, we wanll0 strip the nation of this excuse by
not making it o u r s e l v e s . '
'
The initial'test results, particularJy out of urban schools, may-in fact-be low. That
should caich few by, surprise. It may astound more peOllle that some city schools will do ~ell.and
lhat niany wealthier districts are not as good as they adverlise. Few people have noticed yet that
America's,urban public schools are coming back. This recent asccndance has a lot to do with the
attention they are paying to their bottom line: student achic~ement.
We are eager to, work with the Congressional Black 'Caucus and other concerned
individuals an~ groups to niakc sure that our mutual concerns are resolved, and that these lcsts
are opportunities forour children's success rather than a barrier.
I would be pleased to discuss these issues with' you. at any 'time. Thank you for your
consideration .
.~incerely. '
MichaCI Casserly
Executive Director
�
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Michael Cohen - Subject Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36062">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Description
An account of the resource
<p>Michael Cohen held the position of Special Assistant to the President for Education Policy within the Domestic Policy Council from 1996 to 1999. Prior to being detailed to the White House, he served as Senior Advisor to the Secretary of Education.</p>
<p>This series of Subject Files contains materials relating to education reform, the Goals 2000: Educate America Act (1994), America Reads initiative, bi-lingual education and the ballot initiative in California which proposed to eliminate bi-lingual instruction and limit the amount of time for bi-lingual students to transition to English only, test standards, teachers, tribal schools, school safety and school violence. The records include correspondence, reports, faxes, emails, handwritten notes, schedules, publications, and memoranda.</p>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Extent
The size or duration of the resource.
318 folders in 24 boxes
Text
A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text.
Original Format
The type of object, such as painting, sculpture, paper, photo, and additional data
Paper
Dublin Core
The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/.
Title
A name given to the resource
Testing Civil Rights Groups Letter 9/11 [1]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Michael Cohen
Subject Files
Identifier
An unambiguous reference to the resource within a given context
2012-0160-S
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 21
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/2012-0160-S-Cohen.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="https://catalog.archives.gov/id/7763316" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Provenance
A statement of any changes in ownership and custody of the resource since its creation that are significant for its authenticity, integrity, and interpretation. The statement may include a description of any changes successive custodians made to the resource.
Clinton Presidential Records: White House Staff and Office Files
Format
The file format, physical medium, or dimensions of the resource
Adobe Acrobat Document
Publisher
An entity responsible for making the resource available
Clinton Presidential Library & Museum
Medium
The material or physical carrier of the resource.
Reproduction-Reference
Date Created
Date of creation of the resource.
8/12/2013
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
2012-0160-S-testing-civil-rights-groups-letter-9-11-1
7763316