-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/412ee9756ba9fbdc0ff7d99fa7714863.pdf
423364e65bd8ed1d0a7c09bf6646e895
PDF Text
Text
Draft Managers Report
National Testing
Managers and the Administration agree that it is important to have high, voluntary
national standards in the basic skills of reading and math, to measure whether students are
meeting these standards, and to provide that information to students, parents and'teachers. The
Administration has proposed voluntary national tests in order to measure student achievement
related to national standards. However, every state already administers a number of tests, and
many are concerned that an additional, national, test would be an unnecessary burden ..
To address this concern, the National Academy of Sciences will be commissioned to
conduct a study of the feasibility of equating existing state and commercially available tests with
each other and with the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The purpose of this study
is to determine whether it will be possible to use existing tests administered by states and local
school districts to compare individual student performance with existing, challenging national
content and performance standards. The purpose is also to determine if the same tests can be
used to compare the performance of students in different states and communities, on different
tests, to each other. The NAS shall report the results of this study to the Congress no later than
June 1, 1997.
The NAS will conduct this study in consultation with the National Governors'
Association (NGA), the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), NAGB, the
Congress and the White House. While the NAS study is being conducted, NAGB will oversee
the development of voluntary national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math, which will
be based on the same content and performance standards as are used for NAEP, and which are
linked to NAEP to the maximum extent possible. However, no pilot testing of items for the
national test may be conducted until June 1, 1997, the deadline for the NAS report.
The Administration and the House Committee on Education and the Workforce will work
together to incorporate the findings from the NAS study into the reauth<:>rization ofNAEP and
NAGB. The Administration agrees that, where it is feasible and practical to validly and reliably
. equate test scores and' link performance levels on State assessments and commercially available
standardized tests with the National Assessment of Education Progress, then these tests may
serve the same purpose as the proposed national test. To the extent that NAS study demonstrates
ways in which existing tests can be equated with each other and with NAEP, or ways in which
existing tests can be modified in order to facilitate such equating, the Administration and the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce intend to work together to implement these
recommendations through the reauthorization ofNAEP.
�-
'::.-?
.-~.--
.rHE WHrrE HOUSE
,
WASHINGTON
September 19, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR ERSKINE BOWLES
FROM:
BRUCE REED
MIKE COHEN
SUBJECT:
CONFERENCE STRATEGY FOR NATIONAL TESTS
White House and Education Department staff met this week to develop a conferenCe strategy for
the national testing initiative~ This memo outlines our basic approach.
I. Basic Objectives
We must come out of the conference with a bill that provides both the authority and the funds to
proceed with the testing initiative, and with the tests under the control of an independent National
Assessment Governing Board. The Senate bill provides the NAGB provisions we need.
However, neither bill provides the funds. The Gorton block-grant amendment in the Senate
eliminated the funds for the Fund for Improving Education (the account from which test
development is funded), while the Goodling amendment prohibits the use of any funds for test
development.
At the same time we should keep working to assemble a veto-proof margin of support for these
provisions in the House. This requires picking up 20 votes over the 125 Who initially opposed
Goodling. In a4dition, in order to put the testing plan on firmer footingover the long haul, we
will aim generally to secure broader support within the Democratic Caucus and among moderate
. Republicans in the House.
II. Timing
The conferees are likely to be appointed and begin work next week. In addition to the
conventional practice of naming the subcommittee chairs, itis conceivable that Goodling will
'
push to be named a conferee as well.
Staff from Legislative Mfairs predict that this will be a long conference, with the prospect ofone
or more short-term CR's that will carry us through to mid-October before likely completion.
The testing issue will be one of the most difficult conference issues, along with the Gorton
amendment and funding levels for several speci_fic programs including Goals 2000, Pell, and
�America Reads. Outside of education, it appears that the Teamsters election will also be a
difficult issue. At this point, it is too early to determine the likely interplay among these issues,
the tradeoffs we may be forced to consider among them, or additional modifications to the testing
initiative itself that we will need to consider. As we continue to consult with our current and .
most likely supporters in the House, we will clarify what our options are likely to be.
III. Communications
Our best strategy for achieving victory is to·convince the Republicans that they will pay a heavy
price, again, for opposing our efforts to improve public education.
Therefore, we will work to tie the House vote on testing, the Senate block grant vote, and the
anticipated DC voucher proposals together to support an overall message that the President is
trying to improve public education, while Republicans are once again trying to abandon and
weaken it.
We have sever3.I key opportunities to begin to hammer the message home over the next several
weeks, starting with this Saturday's radio address and Charter Schools event. The Education
Department is planning a press conference for Secretary Riley next week to amplify this
message, and we are working With the Vice President's office to develop events that would
enable him to carry this message as well. In addition, we will look for additional events for the
President and other principals in the next several weeks.
The Education Department will continue its efforts to speak to editorial boards around the
country, now targeting key editorial boards in the states and districts of conferees.
We will again urge business leaders .- CEO's affiliated with the Business Roundtable, the
Chamber of Commerce, and the National Alliance of Business, as well as the high tech CEO's
who endorsed the President's plan last Spring -- to place op.eds in support ofthe tests and to
seek other opportunities to visibly highlight their support. In addition, we will ask supportive
Republican opinion leaders (e.g., Finn, Ravitch, Engler) to place op.eds. Both groups can be
particularly helpful in framing the Senate provision as a compromise Ho~e Republicans can and
should accept.
IV. Legislative
White House and Education Department staff, as well as Secretary Riley, will work with our.
friends in the House to determine how best to broaden our support on both sides of the aisle. On
the Republican side, Porter, Riggs and Castle are most likely to assemble moderate support
behind the Senate provisions, though it is not yet clear how they will deal with Goodling, who
remains dug in. We expect our business supporters to reach.out to both the House Republican
leadership and targeted members who are most likely to be supportive.
On the Democratic side, we will continue to work to address concerns ofthe Black and Hispanic
Caucuses. Secretary Riley will meet next week with Reps. Harold Ford Jr., AIWynn and Chaka
Fattah, the three members of the Black Caucus who voted against Goodling, to seek their advice
on how we can best approach others in the Caucus. Right now, we believe the primary issue for
�the CBC is school construction. If it becomes clear that the support ofthe Black Caucus for the
tests can be gained only by committing to a school construction initiative, we would recommend
serious consideration ofthis, outside our normal budget process. In this case, the best move we
can make on this front in the short-term would be to support the DaschleiGephardt proposal.
We will continue to look for steps we can take to reduce the concerns of the Hispanic Caucus.
. As you know, the central issue here is our decision to give the reading test only in English. We
are exploring a number of ways to address this. One would identify existing, commercially
available reading tests in Spanish that are based on the same national. standards as our reading
test, and would therefore be highly ~mparable. We are addressing a number of feasibility issues
before we will be ready to discuss this option with the caucus and others in the Hispanic
community. This option may not be acceptable to the Hispanic Caucus. However, it woUld not
require Congressional approval, and therefore could not be easily blocked by Republicans. In
addition, we can offer one ofthe new slots on NAGB to an Hispanic mayor. Further, we are.
working to develop some legislative options (e.g., to explicitly provide for the tests, to permit
NAGB to decide whether to provide them) and to determine whether any could be acceptable to
the Hispanic Caucus without losing Republican support or precipitating an effort to add language
in conference that would prohibit a Spanish language test.
V. Outreach·
In addition to the steps above, we will work with our allies in the education and business
communities to continue to support the President's initiatives, oppose amendments that stop
them, and mobilize behind our overall message to support public education.
�..
Congressional Proposals
Proposal! (Porter): Trigger for implementation by majority of states (or students?)
Key Advantages:
o
Enables implementation to occur without further Congressional authorization
Key Objections:
o
51 % participation is too steep a climb from current participation level (approximately
20%)
o
Subject to disputes about participation (e.g., how do we count L.A. ifit is participating in
math but not English?)
o
Requirement is unfair to states and cities that have already signed up; their cornrnittment
was never conditioned on the participation of others
o
Creates unacceptable uncertainty for current and prospective state and local participants:
trigger makes it impossible for them to plan for implementation because the
implementation year is unknown.
Possible Improvements:
o
Reduce trigger to 25%-33% range
Proposal 2 (Obey): Make administration of tests an allowable use of funds under Chapter
II
Key Advantages:
o
Provides authorization for implementation
o
Provides (imperfect) continuing funding source for state and local administration ofthe
tests (if additional funds provided for Chapter II), eliminating the need for continued
Congressional action for implementation
Key Objections:
o
Fails to keep President's pledge to pay for first year of test implementation
o
Limits Administration's ability to fight for reductions in or elimination of Chapter II
Possible improvements:
o
Provide separate FY 1999-only funding for test implementation, either as part of FIE
account used to pay for test development, or as new subpart of Chapter II; in subsequent
year fold into Chapter II as proposed
�.
Proposal 3 (anticipated from Specter): Proceed with development, but require additional
authorization for test implementation
Key Advantages:
o
None
Key Objections:
o
We already have authority under FIE to implement; shouldn't need additional authority
o
There is no reason to put control of the tests back in the hands of a hostile authorizing
commitee chair who can kill needed legislation; now is the time to resolve this issue
Possible counteroffer:
If Congress wants to provide specific authorization for the tests, it can already do so as
o
part of reauthorization ofNAGB and NAEP
Possible alternative proposals from Administration
o
Option 1: Implementation proceeds unless Congress enacts legislation prohibiting
implementation
o
Option 2: NAGB reports to authorizing and appropriating committees by fixed dates (1 )
test specifications and sample test items; (2) results of National Academy of Sciences
evaluation (already required in both House and Senate-passed bills) of test development
and pilot test (perhaps combined with option 1 above--idea is that Congress is provided
with ample information about the tests in time for it to prohibit implementation if it
wishes, and before implementation funds are appropriated
o
Option 3: Congress will take up reauthorization ofNAEP and NAGB sometime this
session; that is appropriate vehicle for any action Congress wants~-from specific
authorization to prohibition
o
Option 4: Congress removes ban from current NAGBINAEP legislation prohibiting
NAEP from being used to test individual students or to provide school-district and school
data, and authorizes NAGB to develop individual version ofNAEP for administration at
state or local option
(Note: This one is a stretch: it does precisely what we are already trying to do, but puts it
on different terms: Instead of using general authority to create a national test, and get
around specific prohibition in NAEP statute, we are simply asking them to end the
specific prohibition. They only reason this might work at all is because the Repbulicans
have generally hated the existing prohibition, a provision stuck in by Dem's at the
insistence of the education groups;)
�Congressional Proposals
Proposal! (Porter): Trigger for implementation by majority of states (or students?)
Key Advantages:
o
Enables implementation to occur without further Congressional authorization
Key Objections:
o
51 % participation is too steep a climb from current participation level (approximately
20%)
o
Subject to disputes about participation (e.g., how do we count L.A. if it is participating in
math but not English?)
o
Requirement is unfair to states and cities that have already signed up; their committment
was never conditioned on the participation of others
o
Creates unacceptable uncertainty for current and prospective state and local participants:
trigger makes it impossible for them to plari for implementation because the
implementation year is unknown.
Possible Improvements:
o
Reduce trigger to 25%-33% range
Proposal 2 (Obey): Make administration of tests an allowable use of funds under Chapter
II'
Key Advantages:
o
Provides authorization for implementation
o
Provides (imperfect) con!inuing funding source for state and local administration of the
tests (if additional funds provided for Chapter II), eliminating the need for continued
Congressional action for implementation
Key Obiections:
o
Fails to keep President's pledge to pay for first year oftest implementation
o
Limits Administration's ability to fight for reductions in or elimination of Chapter II
. Possible improvements:
o
Provide separate FY 1999-only funding for test implementation, either as part of FIE
account used to pay for test development, or as new subpart of Chapter II; in subsequent
year fold into Chapter II as proposed
�.~l
J.
Proposal 3 (anticipated from Specter): Proceed with development, but require additional
authorization for test implementation
Key Advantages:
o
None
Key Objections:
o
We already have authority under FIE to implement; shouldn't need additional authority
o
There is no reason to put control of the tests back in the hands of a hostile authorizing
commitee chair who can kill needed legislation; now is the time to resolve this issue
Possible counteroffer:
IfCongress wants to provide specific authorization for the tests, it can already do so as
o
part of reauthorization ofNAGB and'NAEP
Possible alternative proposals from Administration
o
Option 1: Implementation proceeds unless Congress enacts legislation prohibiting
implementation
o
Option 2: NAGB reports to authorizing and appropriating committees by fixed dates (1)
test specifications and sample test items; (2) results of National Academy of Sciences
evaluation (already required in both House and Senate-passed bills) of test development
and pilot test (perhaps combined with option 1 above--idea is that Congress is provided
with ample information about the tests in time for it to prohibit implementation if it
wishes, and before implementation funds are appropriated
o
Option 3: Congress will take up reauthorization ofNAEP and NAGB sometime this
session; that is appropriate vehicle for any action Congress wants--from specific
authorization to prohibition .
o
Option 4: . Congress removes ban from current NAGBINAEP legislation prohibiting'
NAEP from being used to test individual students or to provide school-district and school
data, and authorizes NAGB to develop individual version ofNAEP for administration at
state or local option
(Note: This one is a stretch: it does precisely what we are already trying to do, but puts it
on different terms: Instead of using general authority to create a national test, and get
around specific prohibition in NAEP statute; we are simply asking them to end the
specific prohibition .. They only reason this might work at all is because the Repbulicans
have generally hated the existing prohibition, a provision stuck in by Dem's at the
insistence of the education groups.)
�October 18, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR BRUCE REED
ELENA KAGAN
MIKE SMITH
FROM:
MIKE COHEN
SUBJECT:
NATIONAL TEST COMPROMISES
The purpose of this memo is to summarize Friday's discussion about possible compromises on
the national test, to place the options we considered in a broader context, and to raise several
additional issues.
I.
p'rovisions already likely to be part of the final package
There are two key provisions already in the Senate-or House-passed bills that will almost
certainly be part of the final testing provisions.
•
NAGB in control of tests: It is virtually impossible to imagine any compromise that .
won't retain this provision. However, there are several issues that are likely to come. up
before this is finalized.
Finn and Ravitch now regret their proposal to eliminate the testing experts on NAGB, and
to add mayors (who they view as unduly subject to local, parochial pressures). I believe
I've read that Goodling has said that the testing experts should remain on NAGB. While
these are not major issues, I would recommend that we agree to add back some or all of
the testing experts, and that we hold on to the slots for mayors; we have talked about
using one of them for a Hispanic mayor.
AFT has raised more general concerns about NAGB's technkal capacity and access to
technical expertise. They want to make sure that NAGB can continue to rely on NCES
staff for support. We need to make sure that the current provisions don't preclude this (I .
don't believe they do), and check with Mark Musick (NAGB's chair) about NAGB's
views on this. In addition, within the past few weeks we have requested an additional
$600K-$1 million for NAGB in FY 98, so that it can handle its new responsibilities. I
need to check on the status of this request.
•
National Academy of Science evaluation of 1998 pilot test: Both the House and Senate
bills have somewhat different provisions that require the National Academy of Sciences
to conduct an evaluation of the pilot test and report to Congress before next year's
appropriations decisions are made. The Education Department had already been planning
�to contract with NAS for an evaluation, and we supported these provisions. The time line
for the reports is very tight, and there will be very little time between the March pilot test
and the dates for providing the report.
II.
Possible Additional Compromises
Below are four compromise proposals that DPC and ED think we can offer and work from. We
would put them on the table one at a time, essentially in the order listed below, and use as few of
them as needed .
. •
Linking state and/or commercial tests to the national test: NAGB would work with
interested states and school districts, on a voluntary basis, to determine if the reading and
math tests used by the state or local district could be statistically linked to the national test
(or to NAEP???). If so, this would enable the state or district to administer its own test-
instead of the national test developed by NAGB--and report the results in terms of
national standards and achievement levels. NAGB would be given the authority to
determine the criteria tests must meet in order for results to be reported in terms of
national standards, and would therefore be able to determine if a state could use its own
test as an appropriate substitute for the national test.
At its best, this approach essentially creates a system of national content and performance
standards in reading and math and an anchor test which is either administered to all
students in a jurisdiction, or which becomes the benchmark against which other tests are
calibrated. This approach therefore contemplates that more than one test that could be
used to measure student performance against the standards, though it does not presume
that therefore any and every 4th grade reading and 8th grade math test could be
meaningfully linked to the national standards.
We still have several issues to sort out under this option. First, how would this approach
actually work, and how will we describe NAGB's authority to carry out its responsibilities
here (do we provide general language that authorizes linking studies and requires NAGB
to figure out, by a date certain, a plan for doing carrying out this approach, or do we need
to spell out how this would work in some detail in the legislation itself? Second, do we
treat states, local school districts and commercial publishers all on the same footing? Can
all of them "bring their test to NAGB"? Third--how do we pay for this work to get done?
How much additional are we likely to need, and will we need additional funds in FY 98
or later? Should the federal government pay the total cost of linking a test to the national
test, or should it require some kind of cost-sharing?
•
Consider 1999 as a Field Test year rather than the first year of full scale implementation:
Instead of implementing the tests in the Spring of 1999, we would treat 1999 as a field
test, to try out the procedures for publicizing, prep~ing students for, administering and
reporting the results of the national test. Unlike the Spring 1998 pilot test which involves
a national sample of students, this field test would involve the administration of the test to
every student in a participating jurisdiction. We should also fund an evaluation of the
�field test.
From the public's point of view, the field test is an opportunity to get the "kinks" out of
the system before full scale implementation. From our point of view, it is a recognition
that state and local participation is not likely to skyrocket over the next 18 months. It
could also be an incredible marketing opportunity for us. We could work closely with a
finite set ofjurisdications to help them mobilize significant efforts to prepare kids for the
tests, and demonstrate the value of the materials we will develop and the resources we
will provide, such as information for parents, reading tutors, teacher training materials,
etc. This would enable us to show that the tests are, as the President has said, " ... about
lifting people up, not putting them down."
There are a couple of issues we still need to address here. First, I believe we should still
ask Congress to appropriate funds for the field test (perhaps capped at some figure). If so,
we may want to authorize that in whatever compromise is ultimately fashioned. (If we are
able to do this, Ithink we should also seriously consider Obey's proposal for making the
administration of the tests an allowable use of Chapter II funds for subsequent years;
while the formula isn't great, taking Obey's proposal for 2000 .and beyond would provide
specific authorization for implementation, and would take care of long term funding for
implementation as effectively as anything else we are likely to get.)
Second, we need to check with the states and districts that have already signed up an see
how such a move would affect their decision. I doubt it would have a serious impact in
most cases (especially if we continued to fund the 1999 administration), but I want to find
out if I'm wrong before we go too far down this road.
•
Report to Congress on Field Test: We could be required to submit a full report on the
field test to Congress by a fixed deadline, after the Spring 1999 field test but before
implementation in 2000. While we would agree to do no more than report our findings to
Congress, there is implicit in the reporting requirement that, particularly if there are
problems uncovered in the field test, then Congress could act to ban additional
implementations.
•
Cap participation in the 1999 Field Test: If necessary, we could limit participation in the
Field Test phase, perhaps to jurisdictions with no more than 50% of the kids.
I believe we could live with all of these provisions, although both the linking option and the field
test options increase the odds that the tests never get off the ground, either because the substitutes
are easier and less costly to use, or because the timeline is pushed back too far into the future.
Certainly taken together, these provisions would mean that the particulars of the testing
initiative--the fact that the test items will be released to the public, the procedures for reporting
test results, the material provided leading up to the test to encourage and help students, schools
and parents to prepare for the tests--more than the idea of national standards and tests, will need
�to operate well enough to capture the attention and strong interest of parents, educators and
policymakers. From that perspective, the field test may be a good thing, because it will provide a
deliberately limited but highly visible opportunity to demonstrate to the nation the value of the
tests to those who participate. We can work with states and districts to make this a success for
them and for us.
In addition, if we combine the already-required NAS report to Congress after the pilot test with
our proposed additional report after the field test, we can make a pretty strong argument that we
are giving Congress a number of additional opportunities to be involved in this initiative, to
make mid-course corrections it determines are needed based on the reports, and to end the
program if it wishes to. Consequently, we could argue more effectively that there should be no
need for a specific Congressional authorization before we proceed with implementation.
III.
Implications for Discussions with the Hispanic and Black Caucuses
Several of the options above may have implications for the issues raised by the civil rights groups
and the caucuses.
•
Testing LEP kids: Our approach to testing LEP kids has been to explore the feasibility of
encouraging commercial publishers to link existing reading comprehension tests in
Spanish and other languages to the national test. Our proposal for linking existing tests to
the national tests mo~e generally makes it easier to advance this option. Ideally, the
statutory language we draft about the linking studies would not preclude tests in other
languages, though I'm still inclined to try and avoid language that would explicitly permit
~
.
We would still need to work out administration and reporting issues with interested
districts. It occurs to me that, if we went down this road, it might well turn out to be
easier for cities that wanted to give a linked Spanish-language reading comprehension test
to give the English version of that test (presumably also linked to the national test) rather
than the national test.
.
•
High stakes testing: We have already indicated to the civil rights groups that we would
have no problem making clear that the national test was not validated for high stakes
purposes, and describing what kind of validation studies would need to be conducted at
the local or state level in order for the test to be used for high stakes purposes.
Our Field Test proposal would make it relatively easy for us to prohibit the use of the test
for high stakes purposes at least until 2000--not all that the civil rights groups want, but a
step in their direction.
.
At the same time, the proposal for linking other tests to the national test could make it
more likely that some tests that are part of this national testing system could be used for
high stakes purposes, on the assumption that state and local tests are more likely to be
. validated for high stakes purposes. I presume that if a state or district wanted to require
�that kids meet the NAEP achievement level in order to be promoted, the state or district
would have to be able to demonstrate the validity of that cut point for that particular use.
I would anticipate that the civil rights groups would want us to prohibit high stakes
testing for any test that is linked to national standards. This would be a huge mistake.
•
Reporting Requirements: The civil rights groups want us to use the Title 1 reporting
requirements for the national test.. State and local tests linked to the national test are
likely to be the tests used for Title 1 purposes, and therefore will already have to meet
these requirements. This solves some fraction of the civil rights groups concern,though
not the major one. It isn't clear to me if these new circumstances would make it any
easier for NAGB to require that the national tests be reported in a manner consistent with
the Title 1 requirements, or more appropriate for us to advocate such a move.
•
Accommodations: I need some help on this one. If we are going to link state and local
tests to the national test, would there need to be any specific comparability in the types of
accommodations between the tests? Would the same answer hold true for
inclusion/exclusion criteria for LEP kids-and kids with disabilities?
Finally, we might want to think about how we could design and conduct the field test so that we
demonstrate and learn some things about how the tests can best be used to help low income and
minority kids boost thdr achievement. This might involve several components, including, off
the top ormy head: (l) a component of the evaluation design that looks specifically at the impact
of the testing on low income and minority students; (2) special help to participating jurisdictions
on the most effective use of federal resources; (3) in partnership with business, community and
other groups, a serious America Reads-like effort to mobilize out-of-school resources to help
kids prepare for the tests, including, for example, the intensive efforts that OBEMLA is planning
for a number of urban communities with a focus on LEP kids and their families.
�,,'10/-2%/97
wE'D
is: ,f7
DEPT OF EDUCATION/OLCA3 .
FAX 202 401 1438
_ " . dC,T;'2Z' 97IWED) l4;45
p, 004
EMPOWER AMERICA
Section (c)
Reads "No.Swe or.loca! gQuQstioaal .gen,y Jl14)' reqUite BtlY private or plIIlodUal schOol
srudenr. or bOalc.sc:bQoled jndiviU\1al. 10 take arsy !cit clevolopc:d u.adet this A.ct ~thQut
the written cOnsent ofthc stUaent or individual:'
SU;lSS\Jd(;b'DI.-;
Tnnstorm tbisse:ction to a IIBil'1 of Rights" forhPme schooled studc.ats. parents in public:
IChOD!6.
parochial school s'CUdt:D1:s. LEAs Rlld Stites•
.'.
PL: lOJ:"llllmpro¥ing AlIlert.ca'J SG'bool. Acl 01 19'4, Sip"", by the President,
Odober 30, 1'94 .
Sec:ttuIl411{f)(2)(A)
Re1i.d.s "The: Sec~taty '""1 appOint at the 'flljuesl of..•real)DasibiUtiei"
Suucsh!dCblDU
"The Sccrelat)' ~ appomt. al the dji'¢stiollofthc B~ard ...rte.pcnijbilith;I."
.SClctioJl412(f)(l)(B)
Rew ItSUch 8J)pomtmants...,tb: technical. CI21l'loyces...pay rates." .
=
$uge!lted Ch&iaP
Change six to
SutiOIl 413(c)
&ead~ "There QiI: i.ulharited.•..•U,OOO,OOO•..•5ec:tion 412,"
§YU¢.tCd Cil8y,e
Change $3,000.000 tg H,QOO,QOO
9
3~t:jd
�. 10/22'/97
.
WED
141002
DEPT OF ED1JCATION/OLCA3
18: 46 FAX 202 401 1438
'
S'ENATE BILL .l,ANGUAGE ON .TESTING
'
.. Gives the Ntitione.l A~Se5Smt5nl Glweming Board (NAOSy) the exclusive: autho~jt)'
oye! aU ,polic;.eS~ direction and guidelines for e~1:ablisbing yohmtary ,national test<; tor
1h
41h grade reading and 8 grade 11l~tlh.
'
• Directs the NAGB Y to ensure Ulilt the content and standarqs forthc test shall 'b£ the
StlO1ti: ao; the current Natlonal AsS{!:(sment of EducatiollSI Progress Test
.. Ch.Ulge:s the c;;omposition of the 2S rriembci:r NAOB Y Boa.Td t6 ensUre that it is a bi·
partisan and independent board and glves NAGBY the atJthority to n.omi.nate
indivjdurus to that boar.d.
e Rea11irms that the use uf' th'e rests Clilnnot be a condition of r.eceiving federal funds.
• ReafliriTls that no privDte, parochial nf hom(H~cbooled student may be required to take
tbe tests without the written COllSe.ot of the studel1l or indiyidua!.
• Requires the btlicc of Educational Rese~ll"ch and Improvement to submit tot he
Sena.te Conuuittees on Appropriations a spending plnn 'I-or activities funded under that
office,
, ~I
PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO ,THE SENATE BILL LANGUAGE ON tESTING
fuIl~s intb~s
\l~t!dto
l1~minister
natjon~
/ . NOI:e ofthe
Act shall be
imple.ment or
any
tcst.mg pJ;ogrmn an n::adl1l8 or mathe,nultlcs, excc,p~ for the National Assc$smenL 01
Progress (NAE.P) and
Inte:~:ltiol1aJ Matb al1d Sciel'ict!! Study (TJMSS).
.J
~
~
.
o&~~
t..:;;:;/
eo&l~teIY
\0
The lise
shaUb<
voluntary D1Id no state or school district shall
be ri>lu~to lmplem<nl or adntinister such lests.
,
' /
./Nothing in this Act shaU be construed as a l11ilO.date, directive, or requirement [hal a
/ ~t'ate~ school district, or school alter its cur.riculutn, program of instructIon. 01'
allocatioli of state or local 1'Csources as a condition of participating in the national
·testing program.
~ti"o"
L
G-1\'-'J
No individual Sludent test scores sh.all be r~portcd to the Fedoral government.
.
<jJ~('f
\~"
- \J\\<~
\'"
vJ
~&:~
"
",;,~
,
�10/23/97
THU 09:51 FAX
IaJ 005
,
ott·ZT 97 (W£O) 14 :4'4'EMPOW£R AME~I,CA
.
P. aOJ
-'
S 1061 - Grou"C08t11
Secdon(b)(9)
R.e8ds "nlat tbi: tcsts shall be mad. available to a St:D.b; local cdue.8.tionnl ai£:ricy. or '
private or piuochial schoo!. •.. any Federa.l funds:'
Suge.itlcd Chanie
i'that the Les~ sball be made BYaildhle to a. State. local educational agency. (insert)
qualified p,iiltllt: ,uting Dl'giJilUfliiDM. Or pri....ate or parochial.sohooL.any Fede.n.l
funds."
(b)(l)
(13):'(%1)
R.eads "That Within 2Q days after the dBle at enllclment ofchis Ac1. tho Board. shall fCview
the c8lionaJ test d.l:velopmQilt srontnl.cl ....a.s the Baud detmnine9 necesS:uy...'·
SuegMted enaaee 1
,
IInls.: withi.n 120 c:la.Yt a.fterthc cnac:tmlmt ofthi!f Act. the Board shalJ ~vie'tllt all conl1'tlcts
diui JFu'll~ piI,tllffllr.g ID the proPOSIti Ittltt"lftll reSTS ••• (mike an subsequellt rer~::u:£s in.
pLYra!)
,
SUggested Ch8Jl~e Il
'"lett the loUOf(ips:
''AM p1'Oi)idtJdfo,thaT.
,htir within J (J dtiy's tifier th~ tir.tlf! oft!I1I.IClml!ir.1 ofthis A,r, lite
S(!c,erary.rhtzll,
oy t41,II/(1I Jl!legalfo" ofClul/to,i,y, u1tllho,iz~ 'hili Board 10 se,."e tIS the
admlllLr'I'Qlhiil clJ1i.tnIr:rl1tg ojJ1cel' f(JJl' a/l cu",nt ti"d J"bstt/uenl "onlrClcLf and grants
p~;taini"S! to lite Mllo1lulldlrs. The JJoClfd shlJll havi: lJuthorlry 10 negOtlare, award, und
ad.Ji.ri"lsl~' all cri1'll'1'.at:tl flM gfQllt.t pflI',ai"i"g ttl rlre 1IarloiraI16.tts. "
(b)(J)
eel
Re8.ds "ensu.r'l: th.8t thJ:; tests are linked
.
to lhc Nntional A.s3cssment to the maximum
degreo possible. II
Su=eJted C'luli,p
.
"ensure that the test! BJ'e ll.nkt:d 1:0 the National ASSCSSDlc4t md the j,r(e~"QH,,"al tilMS
to rhc maxit'a'iuru dcg.rCc possible."
(j)
wer1(J)
"Tile Bot:Vd sholl eleCt til ,0 Will 'Chair,""" find otntl' offict!"!I. "
�·10/23/97 THU
~006
09:51 FAX
,O·CT-l2' 97IWED) 14: 45
P.004
EMPOWER AMERICA
Section (c:)
Reeds "No sts.Uc or.loc&l Qcb:&clWoaal agency may feql.Unt any private Dr Pllochlal school
stUdent, or liot:b~·sc:bGaled Individual, to take any Uta.: cl.volopcd u.nder:this Act Without
the written c:o~c.a.t afthe student ar inctivJdual."
Sut!Wtcd ChUge
Tra.nsfohn this aectioil to fI "BiU ofRlgbts" for home schooled stud=ts. plU'ellts in public; .
ichoois, parochial Ichool S1ud~ LEAs and States.
PL: 103-382 lapPovinl America', SChoo11) Ad at 1"4, Sf.gta"d by the Prcsideut.
October 20, 1994
,
SetW'D 411(f)(1)(A)
Re!!.ds liThe Secretary ~ appoi,Dt at the 1"1!,/uest of...nsponsibiUties"
suuc..atla .Chapge
.
"The Sc:c.rela.ry .!hJ.Il. "ppoUlr.. at the dire'Etioll.of the Board._n:.sponsibilitic;s."
SccUaa 412(i)(2)(B)
.Rew "SlIf:b 8ppOlntme:litS•••.t&l technical employees...pay t8tCS.;I
Suggested Ch•• p
Change six to YiD
ScttiOIl 4i3(c)
Readlf "There ate autbarized.....fJ.OOO.OOO....iec:tion 412."
SlrRxellfcd Chill!!.&!
Change S3.000,000 to Si.OOO,OOO
9
39tkf
:01 EI:ll lS.
ZZ~OtvSv
'ON
311~
�N~I!:
Kristy, Jack
·Uas. Department of Education
Office of the Deputy Secretary • Control Document
Assigned to:
Action:
Signature:
Writer:
Control #:
APPROPRIATE HANDLING
OS
Priority~
Due Date:
DS Doc #:
Kristy, Jack
ODS
DS97..19935
OS
10/30/97
59560
Title:
Organization:
Office ot' General Counsel
Salutation:
Subject:
LEGISLATIVE 0 CONFERENCE PROPOSAL FOR NATIONAL TESTING
URGENT
Note.s:
RETURN ALL DOCUMENTS
.............-"':'------.--...
ASSIGNED
TO THIS CONTROL TO MARGIE LEWIS, 6236 FB-10B
Assignment Tracking Section ------~.._a_--.,--Ii!"D~••__....... a:II.-•.".~.-!.a...~..
RE~ATED
~--~------- ... ~aoao.oa •••
COMMENT
DUE
DATE
RETURNEr:;
", ",'
APPROPRIATE HANDLING
ODS-DS
10/30/97
:,'
10/30/97
,
','
......
Aelatod
rVt'd
"C0L'ON
If" FUe!
COnt~l j,
AJ35 d3Q/Q3
~o
Id3Q
Wd"CE:2"C
: ,0'
"1 . t,
:,,'t"J .
L661'0E'lJO
j,' '
�URGENT
.;
Note to: Mike Smith, Terry P~terson, Jamie Studley, Scott Fleming
From: Jack Kristy
Date: October 30, 1997
Concerning: Conference Proposal for National Testing
We have reviewed the eight page package*(draft sections 524 and 525} forwarded by the White
House last evening, and these are your conclusions:
(1) Both sections 524 and S25 are "permanent" legi~lation, i.e., their effect is not tied solely to
the funds appropriated for FY 1998.
(2) Section 524 co~si.sts ofthe original Gregg/Coats amendment, plus a ser~es of a~di~oI.1al
provisions (page 3, line 11 through page 4, line 5 and page 4, line 11 through page 5, li,ne 13)
designed to delay implementation ofthe tests until adequate field-testing is conducted; prohibit
th~ Federal Government from requiring States and LEAs to "use the tests; prohibit the reporting of
the seores of individual students to the Federal Government; ensure that the tests are properly
validated for any use States or LEAs intend; and require the National Academy of Sciences to
su,bmit a report by September 30, 1998 that evaluates the quality, validity, and utility ofthe tests
and their development and contains recommendations for appropriate ~eguards to ensure that
the tests are not used for discriminatory purposes, Qr for any purpose for which they are n9t
properly vali4ated. While quibbles could be raised about certain word choices in these additiQnal
provisi.ons, we do not see si~nificant legal or policy problems with them. (Indeed, they were
included on the recent "master list" of possible amendments that ED could live with.)
(3) Section 525 would prohibit the use of funds appropriated in this act, as well as any past or
future appropriation act, to "implement or administer any national testing program in 4th grade
reading or 8th grade mathematics, unless specifically authorized in statute." but would allow any
such appropriations to be used for development or field-teS#ng aCtivities. The uunless .
specifically authorized in statute" limitation does not appear to us to be a significant problem,
because it could be satisfied by a simple, express, statutory eannark in an appropriation, and
would not require a free"standing "authorization act." Thus, the only funding option for the
national tests it would make unavailable would be tht;: use ofnon-earmarked appropriations under
some broad discretionary authority, such as FIE. However, you may wantto consider the iI~pact
ofthe September 30, 1998 due date for the proposed report ofthe National Academy of Sciences
on the availability of implementation funds ~ough next year's appropriation.
(4) The Appointments Clause problems persist.
* Page seven of the proposal is missing, and we have not reviewed it, although it appears to be
nothing more than the Gregg/Coats provisions relating to NAGB vacB:l1cjes 8lld indep~ndence.
cc: Paul Riddle, Steve Winnick, Phil Rosenfelt
t0L·ON
�.
I.
I
I' .
'
.'
-'
1_..- _
~
.... ' ..
•
<
,I
:der& :
'ilp~Y'ees
.'IJ.W&lian. OIn;. I)f
~
l'8r1sa'
4~ .LIt the
on lor lWagf
FECA. reae
: 'tnsatIC". Itllilatl
:!e$'yI'IUI'
_
'---,
•
,
.....
...
.,::
f
•
I' ~a.
..
p
,om: .
.-eftA.
ll/E'd
102. 'Or.J
A)3S d30/03 JO Id30
WdlE:21
2.661'~E'l)O
�..
"
'II',~'
G
"
H.l.t.o.
F;.\BG\TESTlNO.OOl
"
~O.
1
524. Cal NotwitbMlldiJ.'lIF I.ZI1 other ~IioJl
2 of la,,_ the Office of BdDeatiDnal
a..a.rch and Imp1'O'fO
J rnent Ihall IIlhmit to the Cornmitta (In Apprvpriationa of
4 t.he llD1;lM 01 Be~~lltatiVBII and the Se.aate a lpeudiDg
5 plu. tor ICtivitiu fazuW v.zade th1a title UJU1u the ~..
6 in! 1'E1)11(:ATIUN BlAtSK.ARCH, lS'tA'TISTtl1S, ANn ~MPROVR..
1
N,gNT't.
8
prior to the ObliptiOD of t.he Nud.;.
Jaw,
(b){1) Notwithatandinr IIZl1 other provision of
.
9 the Nation&1.
~ent
Guwr.aiDr Board
'
established.
,
10 uwlcr soction 411 of the National Education Btatilt.ics ~
11 of 1994 (20 U.B.C. 9011) (henafter In tbis IflOtion
12 'ferJ.'8d to
II
the ''Bo8l'd'')
J.'ec
m..u ~Rtter ha1e ~e'
13 au.t1:Lority O\V all policies, direat4qD, ad pidelhl,U for •
14 tabUab.lnc aud impimnentlDg voiunta1'7 1'l&tio.u.l testa fbI'
15 4th snde E1:Ja'liah zeadiD« 8DC;l 8th .,... matbematiea:
16 ,Ptwide4, That the 'tee1S ah.aU be made available to & State,
17 looaiedw:a1Jollll apo.ey. or priva~ or parvehiasl lIDbuol.
18 upon the req~st ~ ~ S~t age:.acT,
19 ~
01'
~~1, I.lU~
the
ci the ~ ahaD lI,ot be a con,clition for raeeiviDg av
20 Feder&l timda: PftMtJatJ~, That within 90 ~
a.r;.er
21 the data of arLII:ltmaDt of. ~ Aat. tho BOU'd ,hall 'I'ttfIew
22 the utional test dsvelopmant IDDtraBt in etFect 011 the
23 date of ~ of thia Ad, and. 111~ tba contn&t\t
24 as the s.M ~ I!.BCO~ ~J.l.rl'her,
AJ35 d3Q/Q3 ..:10 Id3Q
T¥t
Wd2E :21
L1:i61'0E'lJP
�$E7I/T SY:!53437
!.l~c.
"
2
"
1 it the contract oezmot be moaitlcd to the atent dc8:erm
2 mined meeeuar:r b1 the Board. tile COII.traat ihall be termi..
:3 m.atbi Uld the Boanllhall DOID.lt. •
DeW COIltmct,
under
4
S
(2) h.
~
the Board'. nlponll'bilitiea wdet
6 paracraph (1) :reprdmg ~ national tBlItlI, and IJOtwith..
7 ~ ~ aetion ~
.
.
'bJ
tbi,Deparimcnt
or
8 Encation 0' a penon contractinc witll or ~ ."...
9
i"". for the Department ~ the phl.1:!Ding, or the
10 development r:Il apeeiftcatiotll t for the
t1
t.cstl,
the Board
..
aha~
CA) enmre tt:wt the eontebt an,d staJ'lda.rds for
12.
13
the testa are til!
14
(B) eR1."1!ise
15
the eo_Ill
~ ~
tor. the Na.tional AIae...,oDt;
I&ID8 U
e.sc!ume authority o~r ~ u;pert
t6
pa.neI Dr IJI.tri.Iory e.ommittee
t7
l~
..nth respect tG the . .;
(0) ~ that the teafa _
18
19
tba.t will be or ia eatab
un1re4 to tile !ta..
tiODal AueumeD.t to the mNimllDl der:ee
us ObjactiriliB
20
(D) donlop
21
P081l"b1~i
tBIrt speNt5omOllB,
mel test methodoloDP
(E) c1eve1op ~.. for ~
22
WrUnietnr.tio., h;l..
23
24
~
25
ll/£'d
cludirlg pida';,'"" far ~ ~ azul accoPl1D~"
with Jimited EqUah 'Proficien~
10l'ON
IIr. ItucJcIl1a with cliu.bDitiea aDd ltud."t,
AJ3S d3Q/Q3 .:10 Id3Q
Wd22 :21
l661 '02 ' D.O
�"
",
a
1
(F) rleftlop po!lclea far reportitll ~Jt ~.
2
:3
.iD.cJ:u.diDr the use of It@,dardI or performam.oe m,wi,
aDd tal" tMt 'LIM,
4
(G) haw tmaI au1hority ove~ ,the aPPropriate-
S
11__
of all ted jtcme~
(D) euare that all ite.ml NleDtad far 1IIe on the
(;
"I
&Data ue &eo
8
trolll racial,
aDd '
cultma1, or pDder bias;
(I) tab II1mh actiolll IDcilll. auell paliciel as
9
the Boud detenaiDes aeoeasary.
10,
7{- . (9) No ~W1t&11 aational tutI tor 4th grade re.piq
11
12 and '8th grade mathematics shall be impIemenWd Qt ad·
13 toiniatered v.ntil the en~ of the 60-day perioli folJ.owiDg the
I
'
14 c1eveloPllllDt and. :6ela·taJtillg of BUch 't.csta,
d1U'iJlc '9J'h.ida
1S :period the Nation&1 Asaes!IJll!Dt f'IGVP.l"ninC Boa:rd Bhell
16 hold public hearings at 11hieh i:ntereated parties 1I'D&1 r:mn.
17
, 18
m.eut, on the
*'
'taJtiDc propam.
(0) The I'ederaL GoveflUllellt ..., DOt
19 State
Q!'
laeal edm:a~ ...." •
tf!ClUlle I1V
admjnieter 01'
impJ.e.
20 DleDt utioDal r.erta for ,th grade Jeadillg and 8th gra4e
21 mathematiaa.
22
*" 'Cd) No
State, local educatloDll apuy~ or _001 ahaIl
or be 'reqa.I.raQ tA;) report, 't:be lCOM ot iDdmdusl
24 atodenta em. . , iata 'dcaarW iD. tm. iection to .Y om..
23 II'l!port,
25
eel' or emp'JD.)'ee
of tbP. Ffdera1 Govemment.
AJ3S d30/03 jO Id30
Wd2E:21
L661'0E'l)O
�'.
*'
a
1
,
<.:)
,~
Ce) No State. Jar.a1 edUe&~ apDCy, or ..,Ql1Dl1
2 use matJl)na1 taRa
3
.
~ grade reading IIId 8th
rradC1
D;IA~ma.tiCl for IItv.r1eAt ~ t.rackiDr, ~tUm~
4 or IIq other pl.lI'pole UZIl.I IU.I!h tel~ have 1leezl P1'DperV
S 'Validata! for auGh pul'pole.
6.
(f) No State or local eGucatiouI&l asene;y may raquire
7 ADJ priyutc or pDl'OChial ecnool atadcmt, or hDmc-lICboolad
a indivi4~ to take &1lY R.ct. dtmdoped UDder this _~n
9 wi~\1t tb.~ writfAm COJlBent of ~ p~ts or lepJ
10
itlr.&l
11
r
paTd
ot Lbe'l1.ub or irldl~u.al.
,(go) The Nati~II8l.AeadelD.Y ~£ SoiencelS shall, I1Dt later
12 ~8.D "September 80. 1995, IiIbmit
&
nport tp tile Bo.,u.,
13 the ~t&r1 of ~tio.a, &Dd CoDII'U1 that
14
(1) evaluatea-
W the
IS
16
teata
~
tecbnlC\tl
quality of thf. lIational
ItIde
nading ami 8th grade
4th
17
18
19
0'1 the administration af,the field tA!IItI.
[O} the: ftlidit,y of the desip for linkb",
20
21
felt ~1t1 to ~ peztOnD.I.DDeJ . .t
.
202
(Il) the ctepv;e to ~ ~ ~ wiD. pro..
23
'ride valid. . . uefal infonuation to tbe p~p;
24
uul
.
AJ3S d3a/03 JO ld30
Wd2E:21
L661'0E'lJO
�-\~S.n:3"Tl!43:r7-~---- :10-2B-91 ;iO:l~
.
.
i
LEliISl.ATJ\t. CXK.IUfL..o
,
'.
6
(2) ~ appropriate u.l'epudJ to en...
1
2
IIIU"8
tbat mBh taItII &:I'll DDt tiled.
3
(A.)
4
' (8)
ma diserl.m.ibatar:r 'Jft&Me1'; and
tor ~ ~,jDl!lndml meldt pr0
S
~OA,
6
teats ha. been properlJ 'VCI6dater1 for IU.Ob. pu,r'
7
pose.
I
tratJdll',
Dr graduatiou,
UDlaII moh
>r(h) NotbiDr in th1s section Je, or aball be ou.tnled
9 t9 mandate, direct, or nquhe
&
S_ loa&l edw!ational
10 agency, or .alta chauge ;LB Durr:iasulu m, PJ"Oll"1Dl of ill..
J1 IJtl"Iletion, or aD.ocation of St.te or loeal ftllOlU'Cel U a con..
•
12 (tition of ~cipatinK in thallatioDll teltmg PI!'O&TUn
13 UDder this section.
14
(i)
Section 412 ot the
N~tional
Ed.ucation
~
IS ~t of 1994 (20 11.~.O. 9011) il amend~
16
(1) in su~ ('0)(1)
(A) by amending aubparagn,ph (A) to read,
11
18
19
18
tollows=
areA)
three Go\WDora.
of whom Ilot
f;tr
torme'f Qgy..
I!J'D01"I,
21
1DC1Dber of the eam.e polltiaal party-
22
PJM;idsi ";
23
24
11/S'd
10L'ON
JDDI'B than
1
I\.2&U lJc
20
8,8
&
the
(8) bJ mendinr subplZ'aeraph (8) tD read
.. followu:.
),,)35 d30/03 .:10 Id30
kJd2E : 21
L661 '0E . DO
�-i"
, st.'il.Bf: 53431
/I ::I
lLl.t.C.
f:\BQ\'1"&STING.0CI2
6
1
two State 1eplatoras
GI{B)
of' whom. DDt
2
more than 1 Iba11 be It member of the
3
BitiaAl pa:rt;y • the Preaident;lt;
4
(0)
in IUbpal"aar&pb
I~
em, b.r .trilr.:i.Dg
po-
lIOJle
S
repreaeatatlnu mel iDlertinr '\b.ree npreaema
6
ti:veau ;
7
8
(D)
81
b7 NJiendinc iIDl>p&rlltapb (I) to ~
toDows:
"(I) two mqars, of whom 40t
9
~
than
10
1 ahaD. be a. member of the l&JJI,e P01iti.cal P4lt.Y
11
as the PnBident;t';
12
(E) by st:rikmg IIIhParacraPh (I); ~d
13
(F)
14
(L), and (M)
15
(L), respeotive1Yi
16
(2) in so.baeotioD. «(5)
1'7
b7 reclcliignAtiDg subpaTlll'ap'ha
fiB
subpAragraphs (J), (X). lL~a
CA) ill paragraph (1), by Itriki.,q "and
18
1Da1 IlDt eIt!8I!Il • periacl of Stl uul
19
I~t.nd
:w
21
(X),
inaertiDa'
abaU he for peri*. of 4"; a:o.cl
(B) -in ParagI"8ph (2), by iue~
u
ean•
aecu.\i90n IIlf.t.er "\wou 8
•
.
.
22
23
24
2S~cnr ~.mben
tt/6'd
t0L'ON
of the Board. aball ba appoiAW b7 ~ &,e
AJ35 d30/03
~o
ld30
WdEE:2t
L66t'0S'lJO
�. .,
F: \llG \ 'l"ESTING.OO2
8
SIlo. 52S. Notwitbstatuting
1
2 this Act,
3
l10DQ
&1'1)"
othS' pmiBion of
car the fun,ds a.ppropri.,.ted. in tbia
Qth~~~ ~ used. to impl~aDt
4 DfIoUolliil tertWg
~m
5 lC"1ll1c mathematics, 1lJIley
QI'
fr
u.Il1
.dzn;niKter uy
ill 4111 I(rDde n'adIIJ, or SLb.
spr~~
authoriled in Atat
6 ute, Prr:Ni4d, 'rb4t fanda 11JAy'be usa1. for aevdop~~t
7
un4 field-te.s'tImg Anttvitiea
\JL..t~...-r~
that precedo tJ:Le im'Pl~tu..
8 tinll or BdmiWtrv.tioil. of BW!h tt.stH or &0
~
out tbe
9 NItLionll1.6..qaessment Dr Educa.tiona11~greda or thu Third
10
n>12n'd
IntA!~ticmal ~th and
taL'ON
Science Study (TD!SS).
AJ35 d3Q/Q3 ..:10 Id3Q
~dEE :21
LE?61'0.E' DO
�....
.
.
,.
.
'
.
...
B.T••O.
8
".
SJal', 525. Notwitbstar.Ldi1l8' 8D.'I uther provision of
1
2 tbia.(oct, nODe
~~
or the
fazI~_appraprilltld. in
tms£
ur;y
\lMd.t.u~t ~ ~ 4Jl1
3
ahaIl be
4 n&\iollll teltWg l)tDgr&m in 'til ,rode .rcud:ID,
til"
SLh.
S l"zW,c mAtAematies, unlw ~('.ciacllllr ."thoril!ed in Itat
6 >,:.~I That fonda IIl!tI 'be us",l for c1et1cl.opment
7 IIlld~elcJ.tatizlc ACltmtiea tUt precede: the j~plemeutuD
8 dOD or II.dD;dniltntiliA of BUeb. testis or to ~ ou,t the
9 NJitiu~ .AsSMsm811-t of EduDatiorl&lll~gress ~ tnq T~
10 International 'Math a.nQ Science Study (TIMBS).
tt/tt"d
tBL"ON
)..:)35 d3a/a3 jO 1d3c;I
WdEE : 2t
1,66 t . BE "1)0
�.
"
'~
.•
.' .'
,
•
.. '.
. ,'" -;. ~ ~'.~. "
' .
:q"""";' .·.. . ·~,i'fl
. '.. '.~' ,~.' tl.'l·~f.....;:-:t,t....
~,:\,.jfI"'...
"
•
.. ' ','.
..
NATIONAL TESTING CONFERENCE PROPOSAL ';! :~·:·::'?.t~~f..\~,lkF'~~,~~~.i:f·;~~~~1';
• .
,
:,\.;""
•
~:".'
.
, ....~
, ,
;;"r'
;"'~~".~'.
t/.. \ ... iIf..:
"~:-.\
~.:J;"
I
•
~I 0'
' '-
·~i,.Jtt.~;:l":~'i:.;:!it::·s~Ii.~W~\'~~l~,'ii.~;~f'>·/·~' '~';~{
~)r:'4.tC ...·. i~I:::\~I.:t';-;fl:.>'I.il:'\I:': ' ... ·..
I~.) f .. " ~
1. : . "
I'~ . '
• •,
'.
l
• "",.'
.... ..".:.
'I'
•
• • 1(~l'>"~~'l..~I..
,ProVIdeS that no funds 1ft thIs, Act oran)' othot Acuhall be shall be used to Implement, ~ ,'" .' '.,"
,I.',
administer. or disseminate for the purposes ofnadonal resting. national tests. unless
specifically authorized in statute. ~pt that fUnds rna)' be used for development acrivities
that precede the implementation or administration ofsuch (ests or to carry out the National
Assessmeat of Educational Progress (NAEP) and tha Third International Math llnd Science
Study ('I1MSS)~ .
.
• Gives the National As$essment Governing Board (NAGB) the exclusivo authority over all
policiea, direction and guidelines for estab1ishlngvoluntary nitional tests.
•
Di~ts NAGB to ensure that the conlent and 5tandards for the test shat! be the same as the
current National Assessment ofEducational Progress Test. .
• Diroct.s NAGB to ensure that aU items selected
cu ltural. or sender bias.
for use on the tests are free from racial.
.
• Chinges the composition of the 25 member NAGS to ensure that ic is a bi·partisan and
independerit board and gives NAGS the authority to nominate individuals to that bOard.
,._'
,
I
'I
'III,
• Requires NAGS to hold public hearings within 120 days after the test development period in
which Interested parties may comment on the temrig prOgram,
• Requires the National Academy ofScionces to submit a report to Consr~~s no later than
September 30. 1998 that (1) evaluates the techni~1 quality ofthe test development, !ho
adequacy of the administration ofthe field tests. the validity and reliability ofthe field tests,
the validity ofthe design for linking test results to student performanee. and the degree to
which the testS provide valid and useful Information to the public, and (2) recommends
appropriate safegUards to ensure that such tests are not used in a discriminatory mannor, and
for student promotion, tracking or graduation,
• Requires tho National Academy of Sciences, National Governor's Association and National
Conference of State ugillatures to jointly conduct a feasibilitY study to determine ifan
equivalency scale can be developed that would allow test scores from commercially
llvailable sta.ndardi!ed tests to be compared, and to submit a report to the authorizing and
appropriations committees no later than Match 31, 1998.
• Provides that. the followin& s~all apply to national tests if authorized:
I. Tho federal government rna)' not require lin)' state or local educational agenc), to
.administer or implement national tests.
stat,. local educational agonc),..Dr school sball report. or be required to report, the
.
2. No
scOres ofihdividuaJ students on Illy national tests to any ofticer or employee ofthe
Fedoral government. .
.' .
,
"
,:~\
�Ii.L.O.
F:\RG\TESTING.003
I;. "
!;,
I
•
CONFERENCE PROPOSAL FOR
2264 (Labor, HHS)
!
1
SEC.
524. None of the funds appropriated in this or
2 any other Act shall be used to implement, administer, or
3 disseminate for the purpose of national testing, national
4 tests, unless specifically autholized in statute: Provided,
5 That funds may be used for development activities (includ.
6 illg field-testing) that precede the
implem~ntation
or, ad..
7 nUllistration of such tests or to carry out the National As· .
8 sessment of Educational Progress or the Third Inter
9 national Math and Science Study (TIMSS).
10
SEC.
525. (a)(l) 'Not\\~thstanding a,ny other provision
11 of law, the National .Assessment Governing Board estab
12 .. lished under section 412 of the National Education Statis·
13 tics Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9011) (hereafter, in this sec
14 tion referred to as the "Board") shall hereafter have ex-·
IS clusive authority over all policies, direction, and guidelines
16 for establishing and implementing "oluntary national
17 tests: Provided, That \\ithin 90 days after the date of en
18 actment of this Act, the Board shall review the national .
19 test development contract in effect on the date of enact
20 lnent of this Act, and modify, the contract as thf.f Board
21 determines necessary: Provided fu:rtk8r~ ·That if the con.;
22 tract cannot be modified to the .e}..1;e~t determined nec·
23 essary by the Board, the contract shall be terminated. and
October 30, 1997 (10:00 a.m.)
�•
"
•
F:.\RG \ TESTING.OOa .
H.L.C.
2
rio"
I
1 the Board shall negotiate a new contract, under the
!
2 Board's exclusive control for the tests.
I
3
,
(2)
In e."Cercisin,g the Board's responsibilities under
4 paragraph (1) regal'ding the national tests, 'and notwith
I
,
'
S standing any action undertaken by the Department ·of
6 . Education or a persoll contracting with or pl'oviding serv
7 ices for the Department regarcling the planning, or the
8 ' development of specifications, for the tests, .the
Bo~rd
9 shall
10
,(A) ellsure thai the coutent and standal'ds for
11
the tests are the saine as the content and standards
,12
13
for the National Assessment;
(B) exercise e.'\:clusive authority over any e~-pert
14
panel or advisol'ycolnmittee that will be
15
o~
lished with respect to the tests;
16
is estah·
(0) ensure that the tests are linked to the Na
17
tional Assessment to the maximum degree possible;
18
(D) develQP test objectives, test specifications,
19
20
and test methodology;
(E) develop policies for t~st administration, in-'
21'
eluding guidelines for inclusion of, and aceoD1ll1oda
22
tions for, students with disabiHties and students
23
with limited English proficiency;
October 30. 1997 ('0:00 a.m.,
�F:\RG \ TESTING.ooa
IU...C.
s
(F) develop
1
poli~iesfor
reporting test l'esults t '
2
including the use of standards or performance levels,
3
and for test use;
(G) have final authority over the apPl'opriate
4
5
lless of all test items'; .
(H) ensure that all items selected for use on the
6
I
.!
I
7
tests are free from racial, cultural, or' gender bias;
8
and
9
(1) take sl.l.ch actions and make such ·policies as
10
the Board determines necessary.
11
(3) The National Assessment Goyerning Board shall
12 hold public hearings at which interested parties may com
13 ment· on' the testing program within 120 days after the
14 'end of the test development period.
IS
(b)(l) The National Academy of Sciences shall, not
16 later than September' 30, 1998, submit a l'eport to the
17 Board, the Secretary ,of Education, and Co-ngress that
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
October 30,1997 (10:00 a.m.)
(A) evaluates~
(i) the technical, quality of the national
tests;
(ii) the \yalidity, reliability, and adequacy of
the administration of the field tests;
(iii) the' validity· of the design for linking
test results to student performance; and
�""'-,
,
'".-
I
.,
.
.__ . --_.
H.L.C.
F: \ RG\ TESTING.003
.
4
(iv) the degree to which the tests will pro- '
I
1
I
2
vide validal1d useful infol'mation to the public;
3
and
4
-(B) recommends appropriate safeguards to en
I
S
6
sure that such' tests 'are 'not used-
,
(i) in a discriminatory manner; and
7
, (ill for' student promotion, tracking, or
8
graduation, 1.1111ess such tests have been prop
9
erly validated for such purpose.
10
(2) The NationalAcademy of Sciences, the National
11 Governor's Association, aud the National Conference of,
12 State Legislatures shall jointly conduct a feasibility study
13 to determine if an equivalency scale can be developed that
14 would allow test scores from commercially available stand·
I
15 ardized tests to be compared.
.16
(8) The NatiOllsl Academy of. Sciences., the Natiollal
17 Govetnor's Association, and the National Conference of
18 State Legislatures shall jointly report their findillgs to the
19 'Comlmttee on Education and the Workforce in the HOllse
20 of Representatives, and., the Committee on Labor and
21 Human Resources in the Senate and the Committees on
22 Appropriations in the House of Representatives and the
'23 Senate no later than March 31, 1998.
24
(c) Section 412 of the National Education Statistics
2S Act of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9011) is amended-
October 30. 1997 (10:00 a.m.)
�V"- I • """'-' . . . """-' I
_
- ... ,."
1
•
-_.._.
JI.L.C.
F: \ RG \ TESTING.OOS
5
1
2
3
4
(1) in subsection (b)(l)
(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read
as follows:
({(A) tlll'ee Governors, 01' former Gov
of
S
ern01'S,
6
member of the same political party as the
7
PresidentjH;
8
whom
110t mOl'e
than 1 shall be
a
(B) by arilendil1g subparagraph (B) to read
9
as follows:
10
"(B)
1;\'·0
State legislators, of whom not
11
more than 1 shall be a member of the same po
12
iitical party as the President;";
13
(e) in subpar~OTaph(H), by striking "one
14
representative" and inserting "three repl'esenta
15
tiyesHj
16
17
18
(D) by amending subparagraph (I) to read
as follo,''S:
. "(I) two mayors, of whom not more than
19
1 shall be a member' of the same political party .
20
as the President;" j
21
(E) by striking subpal'agt'aph (J)j and
22
(F) by redesignating subparagraphs (K),
23
24
25
October 30. 1997 (10:00 a.m.)
(L), and (M) as subpaI'agl'aphs (J), (K),. and·
. (L), respectiv£.!ly;
(2) in subsection (c)
�U\... I • .::il::! • .I. '=' =' (
i
,"
;J' J. ::;or..."
JJt:..r I
vr.
1 1 V . l ......
t:..JJ' JJt:..r
;;;II:....... I
H.L.C,'
F: \RG \ TESTING.OOS
G
1
(A) ill parag1:aph (l);' by striking "and
2
, lllay not exceed a peliod of 3" and inserting
"and shall be for periods of 4"; and
3
(B) in parsgl'aph(2), by inserting "con
4
5
secutive" after "two";
6
(3) by amending subsection (d) ,to read as fol
7
lows:'
"(d) VACA..\CIES,-As Yac8ncies on the Board occur,
'
,8
9 ne'\\' l11.embers of the Board shall be appointed by the Sec~
10 retary from among indhidl.lals 'who are nominated by the
11 Board aftel' consultation with representatives of the incli
12 viduals described in subsection (b){l). For each vacancy,
13 the Board shall llominate at least 3 indhiduals '\"ho' are
14 qualified by e;"""Perience or training to till the particular
15 Board vacallcy," j and
16
(4) in subsectiol'l' (e) by adding at the end the
17
followillg:
18
"(7)
I~1)'EPE~DEXCE.-,In
the
e~ercise
of its
19
functions, powers, and duties. the Board shall be
20
independent of the Secretary and the other offices
21
and officers of the'Department. The Secretary shall,
22
by written delegation of authority, authorize the
23
.Board to award, grants and contracts, and otherwise
24
operate, to the maximum e),.'tent practicable, inde-·
2S
pendent of the Department.".
I
I
I
I
October 30. 19Q7 (10:oq un.)
I
I
�OCT.30.1997
.. • . .
5:20PM
I1V.
DEPl OI'I:..IJ/IJI:..l-' 51:..C,(
r .L:'
F:\RG\TESTING.OOS
H.L.C.
7
I .
1 .
(d) Not later than 30 days after the date of enact
2 ment of this Act, the Secretary of Educatioll, in eonsultn
3 tion "ith the Speakel' and Minority Leader of the House
. 4 of Representatives, Rnd the Majority Leader and Minority
5 Leader of
t~le
Senate, shall appoint individuals to fill va
6 cancies on the National Assessment Governing Board·
7 caused by the e:\.-piration of the terms of members of the'
8 Board, or the creation' of .new membership positions on
.9 the Board pursuant to ainendmel1ts made by tlus Act.
10
(e) In the event that an autholization permitting the
11 adlrunistration of a yoluntary national test is enacted, the
12 test shall be administered in accordance ,,;th the following
13 . pro\;sions:
14
(1) The Federal Government. may not require
1S
.any State or local educational agency to administer
16
01'
implerpent national test$.
17
(2) No State, local educational agency, or
18
school shall report, or be required to report, the
19
scores of individual students on any national tests to
20
. any officer or employee of the Federal. Gm·ernment.
21
(3) No· State, local educational ageilcy, or
22
school may use national tests for student promotion,
23
tracking, or graduation.
,
.
24
(4) No State or local educational agency may
2S
require any private or parochial school student, or
Oclober 30•.1997 (10:00 8,in.)
�·.
UI.,.. I • .:;;~. J.
::,.=' (
;>. c.~rl·1
.LJl:..r I
vr
I:...LJ .... .LJ1:..r:- ::It..\.. T
I.,V. r J. .It.
.
r- • ;)/ J
Ii.L,C.
F: \RG \ TESTING.003
:.cl
I
8
1
home-schooled indhidual, to, take any test developed
2
under this Act "ithout the written consent of the
3
parents or legal gllardians of the student or indhid
4
ual.
I.
5
(5) Nothing ill this Act shall be construed to .
6
mandate, direct,
7
agency. or school to change its curriculum, progranl
8
of instlllction. or allocation· of State or local re
9
sources as a. condition of participating in. the na
10
. Oclober 30; 1997 (10:00 a.m.)
01'
require a State, local educational
tional testing program under tills Act.
�- ..
.
CONFERENCE PROPOSAL FOR
1
H.JJ.C.
1>"RAFT
F;\RQ\TESTING.002
SEC.
2264 (Labor, HHS)
524; (a) Notwithstanding any other provision
2 of law, the Office of Educational Research and Improvc
3 ment shall submit to the Committee on Appropriations of
.
4 the IIouse of Representatives and the Senate
a spending
5 plan for activities fi.ilided under this title under the
6 ing "E))(JCATlON
7
Ml<m'1,1',
8
head~
REH~l«.lH, S'rA'l'IH1'IOS, AND IMf'ROVE
prior to the obligation 01 tho funds.
(
(b)(l) Notwith.standing any other provision of law,
9 the National Asseso1nent Governing Board established
10 wldcr section 412 of the National Education Statistics Act
11 of 1994 (20 U.S.C. 9011) (hereafter in this section re
12 felTed to as the "Board") sha.ll hereafter have ex.clb.sive
13 authority over all policies, direction, and guidelines for es
14 tablishing and implementing voluntary national tats for
1S 4th grade English reading and 8th grade· mathematics:
J6 P'IYJ1Jided, That the tests shall be made available to a State,
17 local educational agency, or privaLe or PiilVChiaJ. I:IchooI.
18 upon the request of the State, 8.gency, or school, and the
19 usc of the tests shall not be a condition for receiving any
20 Federal funds: Provided furt'Mr, That within 90 days after
21 the date of enactment of this .Act, the Board shall review
22 the national test development contract in effect on the
23 date of enactment of this Act, and modify the contract
24 as the Board determines necessary: Provitkd jUrlherl That
Odober 29, 1997 (~:64 a,m.)
�'\.
...
U.lJ.C.
F:\RG\TESTING.002
2
1 if the contract cannot bc modified to the extent deter
2 mined :necessary by the Board, the contract shall be tcnni
3 nated and the Board shall negotiate a new contract, under
4 the Board's exclusive control, for the tests.
5
(2) ·In exercising the Board's responsibilities under
6 paragraph (1) regarding the national tests, and notwith
'"
7 standing any action undertaken by the Department of
8 Education
Or
a person contractiTig with. or providing serv
9 ices for the .Department regarding the planning, or the
10 development of specifications, for the tests, the Board
11 shall
12
(A) ensure. that the content and standards ,for
13 .
the tests arc the same as the content and standards
14
for the Nationa! Assessment;
15
(B) exercise exclusive authority over any expert
16
panel or advisory committee that will be
t7
lished with respootto the tests;
Or
is estab
18
(0) ensure that the tests are linked to the Na
19
tional Assessment to the maximum degree possible;
20
(D) develop test objectives, test SPe<'.ificatioDB,
21
and test methodology;
22
(E) develop policies for test administration, in
23
eluding guidelines for inclusion of, and accommoda
24
tioos for, students with disabilities and students
25
with limited English proficiency;
Oc;cober 29.1997 (9:54 &.",.)
�lU..r~.
F:\RG\TESTING.OO2
3
1
(F) develop policies for reporting test results,
2
including the use of stand81'rlR or performance levels,
3
and for test use;
(G) have final authority over the appropriate
4
ness of all test items; .
5
6
(H) ensure that all items selected for use on the
7
tests arc free from racial, cultural, or gender bias;
8
and
...
9
(1) take such actions and make such policies as
10
the Board determines necessary.
11
(3) No voluntary national tests for 4th grade reading
12 and 8th grade mathematics shall be implemented or ad
13 ministered until the end of the 60-day period following the
14 development and field-testing of such tests, during which
15 period the National Assessment C'TOverning Boa.rd shall
16 hold public hearings at which interested parties may com
17 ment on the testing program.
(c) The Federal Government may not require any
18
19 State or local educational agency to administer or imple
20 ment national teats for 4th grade reading and 8th grade
21 IIJ1l.thematies.
22
(d) No State, local educational agency, or school shall
23 report, or be required to report, the scores ot individual
24 students on any tests described in this section to any ofti- .
25
eel
October 29. 1991 (9;54 a.m.)
or employee of the FAderal Government.
�,.
F:\RG\TESTING.002
4
(e) No State, local educational agency, or school may
.___ ~
2 use national
fR,,~ts
3 mathematics for
f6t\4th - grade. reading and
8th gracte--'i
)
'----
~dent
~
(
promotion, tracking, graduation,-
-./
>
4 or any other purpose unless such tests have been properly
5 validated for such purpose.
6
(f) No State or local educational agency may require
...
7 any private or pnrochial school student, or home-schooled
H individual, to take any test developed under this section
9 without the written consent of the parents or legal guard
10 ial18 or Ute student or individual.
11
(g) The National Academy of Sciences shaH, not later
12 than September 30, 1998, submit a report to the Board,
13 tbe Secretary of Education, and Congress tha1r
14
(1) evaluates
15
(A) the
~al
quality of the national
16
tests for 4th grade reading and 8th grade
17
mathematics;
. (B) the validity, reliability, and adequacy
18
19
of the administration of the field tests;
20
21
(C) the validity of th.e design for linkjng
test results to student performance; and
(D) the degree to which the tests will pra
22
23
vide valid and useful infonnation to the public;
24
and
octobIIr 29, l1J97 (9:5-4 a.m.)
_~,
1
\
/
�n.J•.c.
F:\RG\TESTlNG.002
5
1
2
(2) recommends nppropriatp. s~reguards to en
sure that sueh tests are not used
3
(A) in a discriminatory manner; and
4
(B) for any purpose, including student pro-
S
motion, tracking, or graduation, unless such
6
tests have been properly validated for such pur
7
pose.
8
(h) Nothing in this section is, or shall be construed
9to mandate, direct, or require a State. local educational
10 agency, or school to change its currieulurn, program. of in
] 1 struetion, or allocation of State or local resources as a
COn
12 dition of participating in the national testing program
13 under this section.
14
(i) Section 412 of the National Education Statistics
15 Act of 1994 (20
16
(1) in subsection (b)(1)
(A) by amending subparagraph (A) to read
17
18
n.s.c. 9011) lR 8.mended
as follows:
19
H(A) three Governols,· or fonner Gov
20
emom, of whom not more than 1· shall be a
21
member of the same political party as the
22
President· n •
,,
(B) by amending subpara.graph (B) to read
23
24
Oclobet 2.9, 1997 (9:54 a.m.)
88
follows:
�H.L.e.
F:\RO\TESTING.OO2
6
"(B) two State legislators, of whom not
1
2
more than 1 shall be a member of the same po
3
litical party as the President; n;
4
(C) in subparagraph (II), hy striking "one
5
representative" and inserting "three representa-.
6
tives";
7
8
(D)
by amending subparagraph (I) tQ read
as follows:
9
"(1) two mayors, of whom not more than
10
1 Bhall be a member of the same political party
l I a s the President;";
12
(E) by striking subparagraph (J); and
13
(F) by redesignating subparagraphs (K),
14
(L), and (M) as subparagraphs (J), (K), and
15
(L), respectively;
16
(2) in subsection (c)
17
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking "and
18
. may not exceed a period. of 3" and inserting
','and shall be for periods of 4"; and
19
(B) in paragraph (2), by ioBe.rting "con
20
21
8eCutivc" after "two";
22
(8) by amending subsection (d) to read as fol
23
lows:
24
"(d) VACANQTES.-As vacancjes on the Board occur,
2$ new members of the Board shall be appointed by the Sec-
Odcber 29, 1991 (8:64 ~m.)
�JI.J..(J.
F:\RG\TESTING.002
7
1 retary from among individuals who are nominated by the
2 Board .aftcr oonsultation with representatives of the indi
3 viduals described in subsection (b)(l). li'or each vacancy,
4 the Board shall nomina.te at least
a individuals who
are
5 qualified by experience or training to fill the particular
6 Board vacancy."; and
(4) in suBsection (c) by adding at the end the
7
8
following:
9
"(7)
lNDlilPENllENeE.-In
the exercise of its
10
functions, powers, and duties, the Board shall be
11
independent of the Secretary and the other offir,cs
12
and officers of the Department. The Soorcta:ry shaH,
13
by written delegation of authority, authorize the
14
Board· to award grants and contracts, and otherwise
15
operat.e, to the maximum extent practicable, inde
16
.. pendent of the Department.".
17
(j) Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment
18 of this Act, the Secretary of Education, in consultation
19 with the Speaker and Minority Leader of the House of
20 Representatives, and the MaJority Leader and Minority
21 Leader of the Senate, shall appoint individuals to fill va
22 caneies on the National Assessment Gtwcrning Board
23 caused by the expiration of the terms of members of the
24 Board, or the creation of new membership positioIiB on'
25 the Board pursuant to amendments made by this.Act. .
October 29. 1997 (9:54 a.m.)
�H.hC.
F: \RG \ TESTING.002
8
1
SEC. 525. Notwithstanding llny othE'.r
2 this Act, none of the funds appropriated in
(0
3
ot.b~;r\~~t
provi~ion
of
th.u/i~~y
\----
sh.all be used to implement or adminhlter any
\~ --~
4 national testing program in 4th grade reading or 8th
---
........,
5 grade mathematics, unless specifically anthorized lin_ Atat-
6
:\®,~rOvided,
7
'andDeld-testirig
8
tiOll
J---"
.
'l'hat funds may be
L~
us~l for development
sli";t.ivitles that precede the implementa
or administration of such tests or to carry out the
9 National Assessment of Educational Progress or t.hc Third
10 International Math and Scienee Study (TIMSS).
OdDbar 29,1997 (1:54 p.m.)
�L S~;>BY:ED·N·& THE WORKfOKCE
;11- (j-tH; (j:~~rM ;
. v't '.10:,):,)0.1. ,tr
'Section SZ4. (a) Notwithstanding 2lIlY olhtr provision of Fcderallaw I n,., funds
provided to·the Department ofEdueatioll or·to an applicable program·(as defined in
~.
• ,I
';,' :
'
"
.
section 400(e){l) of the General F..ducalion Pro"i~ion~ Act (20 USC 1221(e)(1»), in this·
,
\
Act or in any· other Act in fiscal year 1998. may be u.~d to JieJd test, pilot test,
ilnplement. administer or distribute in any -way. any nationailcsrs.
-.
(b) Exccption.-- Subsection (a) shall not apply to the Third International Math
and Science Study or the. National Assessment of Educational Progress.
Section 525. '(a) Sludy--The National Academy of Sciences. in cOllsuiLaLion withthc:
Natio,llal Governor's
A~sociation. the
National Conference of State Legislatures. the
,
.White Housc,thc Nado;D.al Assessment GovcrJl..ins Board. and the Congress. shall,
conduct. a fea~ihilily sC:udY LO delerm;ne iF an equivalency scale can be developed that .
. would allow test scor:es from eomme:reial1ravailahJc standardized !.ests and State
Hl:iSeSsmcnts to
be compared with each other aDd the' National Assessment of
F.ducational Progress...
(b) Repo11 of Findings to'Congress. (I) The National Academy of Sciences
shall submit a written report to the White Hou~e. (he Committee on Education and the
Workfo.rcein the: House of Representatives, and the Commiru:e ori Labor and Human
,
Resources in the Scm[c not later than
,f.
;
~
t
Sepl~mber
';
.~;:
'
... ~
-, -
.•; ,
,,: '
I, t998. :
(2) The N alionat Academy of Science~ shall submir an interim report no
,than June 15. 1998.
,I
1
iater .
Col
�SENIBY:ED'N & THE WUKKtOKCt.
,1'1- tr~' . O:Z;:::l:"'oo •
U~'-'U'-''-'UJ.
Section 526. National Assessment Governing Buard. Nn[Wilbstan~ng' any other
provi~jon
of law, the
cxcl~siye
p()licic:~.direction.
authority over a11
and guidelines for
ti~veJoping voluntary national ICsts,pUrsuan[ [0 cnntr.u.:tRJ971S3o{)lpreviousJy entered
into belweenthe ,United States Department ofllducation and the American Institutes tbl.
Research and executed C?" AUJ,l'Ust IS, 1997,sbalJbe vested in the National Assessment
.
.
'
,
Governing Board established. underscction 412 ofthe NalionaJ F.diJc:ation Statistics Act
0'[,1994 (20 usc 9011); Provlded, That within 90 days after the date of enacnnent of
.
.
~
thi~ Act, the Bo;rd !\hal~ review,the national testdevelopment contract in effect on the
date' of enactlnent of this Act,' and modify the cnntraci' as the ~ard determines
necessary and notinconsistell[ Wilh this ACl Qr applicable laws: Pro."idedfurther; That
if tbe:: contract cannutbeJilodined to the
extenl derermincd neceSsary ~y the B(lard. the
contract shall be [crminated and the Board shall TX:gotiate a new contract. under the
Board'scxclusivecontrol, for the tests. not inc:on~isten{ wirhlhis Act or applicable
laws.
Section'527. ' Study~'The National Academy DfScicncc~ ~han, nOllater than,
September 1. 199)), submit a writtcn.report to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce in rhe Hou.c;c of Representative:s, the Cumminee ont.abor and Human'
.
.
.
.
.
Rl:sourccs in [he Senate. and the Cormnittees on Appropriadon:o in the House and
"
SCll.ac~
' , , '
tb.a[ evaluales aH Lest items developed or funcc4 by the Department of Educ.iltion
or any other agency of'the Federal gO\lerruncnt p~nuant to corllrac[ RJQ7153001, any
,,,.
UI . I
�sllbsequerucomract rclatcdtherCt<l, or ariycnntract Inodificarltinby tbe National
Assc:ssment Governing Board pursuant [0 section S26 of this, Act.
f9r-
(A) the (cchnicalquality of any test item... for 41b 'grade reading nnd gIlt grade
mathematics;
(8) tl1evalidily,re1iabili~y. and adequacy of dc:vell)ped [e~t item!\;
. "
,
(C) the validity
of ~y devel(lpe4 df~ignwhich links test results to studcnt
.
.
.
.
,
pc rforrriallce;
(D) the degree· co which any developed. test itctll!i' pray ide. valid and u~eful
information to the pubJic;
(E) whetile,r the test. items ~e free frOIn racial,culrurat, or gender bias;
(F) whetherthc IC.Cit ~em.s, address !.he needs of disadvantaged. li~nittiu' English
prot'icient a~ disa~led·studcnt5; imd.
(G) hether. the teslilems can be used for tracking,graduation'or promotion
w
,
,
.
'
,
>,
of
swdC:l1ts.
Section 528.
(a) The Fcdcral.(iQvernment slmll not require any Sune or local
, .
.
,
,
'
~
,
:
"
'
,
'
.
"
educational agency or s<;h(mJ LO administer or implc:mcnr any pilot or, field test in any
subject or grade. nor shalilheFcdtral govern merit requircmy. studcnt to take any.
muional
,
~st
111 any subject 9r grade. '.
,
-
'
(b) NQ\:hingin section 528(a) shaH
~
-
.
construed as affecting the National Assessment of
.Educalional Progress or the Third Inlelllationai Math and Science St!-1dy.
�SENT BY: ED' N & THe nOI'\.KtOKLt.
dJ. - .0-'"
, o· Lvrtll. '
Section 529. Nu federal. Slate or local educational agency may rcq~irc any'private or
. parochial schuul srudcllt. or home-school~ individual. to take
,
"
any 'pilot or 'field teSt'
'
developed under this Act, cOIirrac( RJ971S3Q01, or any contract related thereto,
. without the wriu.en oo.nsem of t~e parents or legal guard'ian~ of lhe ~'Lude1')L or
individual.
..
�SOO
..
BY: ED' N & THt W()KKt()J(Ct.
.
; 11- O-tj ( • o· .Gvn~
u'1:vVvvuJ. ,..
Draft Managers Report
NaticJnal Testing
,
,
.
.
Mana~ers and the Administration agree that it is jmporta~t to have high•. voluntary
standards in the basic skills of reading and'math. to measure whether students are meeting
these sb..ndards, and to provide that information to students, parents and teachers. The' .
Administration has proposed voluntary national tests in order to, measure student'
achievement related to national standards. However. eVery state already administers a
.number of tests, and many are concerned that·an ~dditional; national, test would be ~n
unnecesS8IY burden and interfere with local schools.
.
i,
'. To address this concern, the National Academy of Sciences will be commissioned
to Conduct a study ofthe feasibility of equating'existing state and commercialiy available
tests with each other and with the National Assessment ofEducational Progress. The
purpose ofthis study is to deternune whether it win be possible to use,existing tests .'
administered bY states and local school districts to compare individual student .
performance with existing, challenging national content and performance standards. The
purpose is al$o to determine ifthe same tests can be used to Compare the performance of . . .
students in different states and'communities. on differ~nt tests. to each other. TheNAS
shall submit a report on this study to the Congress no later than June 15.1997, and a final
report no later thali September I, 1997.')
,
'
The NAS will conduct this study in consultation with the National Governors'
Association (NGA); the National Conference of State Legislatures rCSL), NAGB.• the
Congress and the WhIte House. While tlte NAS study is being conducted, NAGS will
have exclusive authority over C()ntract RJ971 53001. as stated in this Act, which will be .
based on the same content and performance standards as are used for N¥f, and which
are linked to NAEr .to the maximum extent possible. However. no pilot testing of items.
for the national test may be conducted until September 1, 1997, the deadline for the NAS
report..
a..
The Administration and the authorizing Committees ofthe U.S. Congress win
work together to inc()rporate the findings from the NAS· study into the reauthorization of
NAEP and NAGB~ The Administration agrees that, where it is feasibJe and practical to·
v
. alidly and reliably equate te~t scores and link performance levels O,n State assessments
aild commeI:ciallY,available :'1andardized tests with the National Assessment ofEducalion
Progress. then these:tests may serve the same purpose as the proposed nationaf test. To
. the extent that NAS study demonstrate's ways in which existing tests can be equated'.with
each other and with NAEP, or ways in which existing tests can be modified in order to
facilitate such equating, the Administratinn and the House Committee on Education and
the Workforce intend to work together to implement these recommendations through the
reauthorization afNAEP.
' .
VI
I'
�st:N~r
tfl': ED' N & THE WOKKfOKCt . ; 11- t)-l:U ; b: Gi)rM
•
~
In order to evaluate the work to develop national tests and to help inform future
deliberations, the NAS. is also directed to develop recommendations to prevent the misuse
ofte5t5. particularly for minority students. In particular, NAS js to recomme~d
appropriate safeguards to ensure that tests are not us&:! in a discriminato'ry manner or for
tracking students or other "high stakes" purposes.. It is also directed to'recommend ways
to ensure that sucli tests adequately assess students· reading comprehension and
mathematics skills in a form most likely to yield accurate information.
.
�,
,
'.
"
'u.s. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
'COMMITIEE ON
EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE
1181 RAYBURN HOUSE OFFICE BUH.,DING
WASRlNGTON, D.C. 20515
"SENTTO: '
DATE:
--..l.~~~_ _ _ _
NUMBER OF PAGES
FROM:
Vic .K1att ..
FAX # ______.=--({}_ _s-:)~
_ _ _..........._____
'V"£7- ,
(iD~luding this cover Iheet>....·_-;)_5::oo-.. . _,. _______
_
...
'f
.
Sa.lly Lovejoy_ _~_ _
_i+'
..
Tammy Husli..
=-' _._____
.
"
COMMENTS
lfthereaTe problems with this tTansmission, please'call (202) 225-4527 .
�S~T.
BY:EO'N & THEWORKfOKCt:
;11- 7-';j7
,
1
Conference Agreement on National Testing Prohibition
Summary
. November 7, 1997
Stops National Testin2 in FY'.199S.
• No federal funds may be used to field test, pilot test, implement. administer,or distribute in
, any way. any national [ests in FY '1998.
No Required Testine of Individlta]s or Mandated Participation of Private Schools. Home
Schools or Parochial Schools.,
• No student is required to take any national test in any subject or grade,
• No federal. ·stale or 1000al educational agency may require any private or parochial schoo'l
student, or home·schooled individual, Lo take any pilot or fie1d test without the written
consent of the parents or legal guardians of the srudent or individual.
'.:
,
'
.
National Academy of Sciences CNASl Studies.
-NAS will conduct t.hree studies and submit written reporLSto Congress and the White
,
House onits findings.
• The first NAS study will determine whether an equivalency scale can be developed that
would allow test scores from' commercially available standardized tests, stare assessments
and the National' Assessment of Educational Progress.' to be compared with one another.
• The second NAS study wilJ evaluate the technical quality, validity. reliability, design, and
racial,cultural. or gender bias of test items already developed by the Deparunent of
Education.
' "
• The, third NAS study will recommend appropriate s~fegtia~'ds to ensure that tests are not
"used in a discriminatory or inappropriate manner;'
. Test Development wntract Moved Out of Department of Education.
• The test development contract previously entered into by' the Department of Education will
be transferred to the National Assess~ent Governmg Board (NAGB). '
Con&ress' Involvement in TestinK"
o
The House Committee on Education and tI~e, Workforce will hold 'ceaUlhorization hearings
on NAEP and NAGB in the spring of '1998, and the President will have an opportunity to
have his testing proposal fully debated at that time.. Congress .Will have the opporlunity to
.
work its will through the normal, .legislative process.
�SEN!'BY:ED'N &THE WORKfORCE :11- 7-57
Agre~ment
6:16fM
on National Testi~g Prohibition
Summary
November.7, 1997
Stops National Testinf: in FY 1998.
• No federal funds may be used to field lest, pilot test, implement, administer or distribute in
any way, any national tests in FY 1998 ~ _The only. exceptions arc the Third International
Math and'Science Study and the National Assessment ofEducational Progress.
No Required Testtnl of IndivIduals or Mandated Participation of Private Schoo1s. Home
Schools or Pargcbial Schools. ' '
in
• No student is required to tak.e any national test any subjcc[ or gr.ade.
• No federal. state or local educational agency may require any private or parochial school
student, o,r home~schoolcd individual, to take any pilot or field test without the written
consent of the parents or legal guardians of the student or individual.
National Academy of Sclellce.s (NAS)
.
. '
,
Studie.~
.
• NAS will conduct three studies and submit written reports to Congress and the White
House on its findings.
.
... '
• The first NAS study will determine whcither an equivalency scale c~n be developed that
would allow [est scores from commercially available standardized tests. state allsessments .
and'the National Assessment of Educational Progress, to be 'colnpared with one another.
• The seCond NAS study will evaluate the lechnical quality, validity; reliability. design, and
racial, cultural, or gender bias of test items already developed by the Department' of
Education.
• The third NAS study will recommend appropriate safeguards to ensurc that tests are not
used in a discriminatory or inapp'ropriate·1l1.amter.
.
Test Development Contract Moved Out of Department 01 Education.
• The test development contract previously cn(crcd into by the Depanmenl of Education wi1l
be transferred to the National Assessmen( GovemingBoard (NAGB)~
Conmss' Involyement in TestinK.
• - The Hou~e Committee on Education and the Workforce will.hold rcau[horization hearings
on NAEP and NAGS in the spring of 1998, and the President will have.an opporrunity to,
have his testing proposal fully debated at that time .. Congress will have the opportunity to
work: its will through the nonnallegislative process.
.
�SENT. BY: ED . N & THE WORKfORCt::
'
,
: 11 - '.7 - ~7
ti : 1tit'M :
November.7, 1997, 1:40
p.m.
'Sectlon'lOS. (a) Notwilhst3.ndin, any other provision of Fed,erallaw. no funds
provided 10 the Department of Education ~r to anapplieable program (as defined in'
section 400(c)(l) of the Genenl Education ProvisIons Act (20 USC 1221(c)(l»). in
.
,
"
~
this Act orin any other Actin fiscal year 1998, may be used 10 field test, pilot test,
"
implement, administer or distribute in any way, 'any national tests.'
.
,
(b) ExeeptloD••-Sub~tion (a) shall not apply to the Third International Math
and Science Study or the National J\ssess!!1ent of Educational.Progress~,
Section 306. (a) StudY-··The Nalional Acad~my'of Science.!, in consut'tation with the
NationalO~v~mors Association, the National Conference of Stale Legislatures, 'the
White House, the National Assessment 90verning ~d, and the Congress, shall
conduct a feasibility studytO'determine if.an equivalency scale can be developed that
.
.
;
would allow test scores from commercially available standardized tests and State,
assessments to be compared with each other and the National Assessment of
Educational Progress.
(b) Report .,r,Fmdtng5 to Congress. (1) The National Academy ofSciences
.
"
shall submit a written report to the \Vhite House,· the Committee on Education and the
.Workforce in the HOU~ of Representatives, the Committee onl.abor and Human
Resources in the Sen,ate, and the Committees on Appropriations of the House of
Representatives and the Senate not later than September 1, 1998.,
(2) The NaUonal Academy of Sciences shall su~mit an interim report no later
than June IS, 1998.
�SENT.BY:EO'N'& THE WORKfORCE :11- 7-97
,",l1<15b551:H : 1(. 5/1;j
6:16PM
Section 307 (a)1 National Assessment Govemlna Board. Notwithstanding any other, '
provision of law f the exclusive authority over aU policies. direction. and guidelines for
developing voluntary national ,tests pursuant to contract RJ97153001 previously e~tered
,
,
, nto bCtwee~ the United StaleS Department of Education and the American Institutes for'
i
Research and executed,on August t5~ 1997, shall be vested in the National Assessment' '
Governing Board established under seclion 412 of the National Education Statistics .Act
of 1994(20 USC 90"~ 1); Provided, That within 90 days after the date ofenactment of
this Act, the Board shall review the national test development conlract in effect on the
•
,
,<
•
•
)
•
date of enactment of this Act. and modify the contract as the Board determines '
necessary and not inconsistent with this !,-~t or applicable Jaws: Providedfunher. That
if the contrac,' cannot be modified to
co~tract
the extent determined necessary by the Board, the,
shall be terminated and the Board. shall negotiate a new contract, under the
Board's exclusive control. for ,the tests. not inconsistent with this Act or applicable
.
,
"
laws.
(b) In carrying out its exclusive authority (or-developing voluntary national tests
pursuant to contract RJ97153001, any subsequent contract related thereto. or
any contract modification pursuant to subsection (a), the National
'.
.
"...
. . Assessment OoverningBoard shall ~etennine--~
.
(1) the extent to .which
"
test items seleCted for use on the tests are frce
from racial. cultural 'or gender bias; .
(2) whether ,the test development proccssand test items adequately assess
, I
. "
.
student reading and mathematics comprehension in the form most
,
�SEN1 BY: ED' N & THE WOI{KtOI{Ct
; 11- 7-'<17
0.: 17rM
likely to yield accurate information regarding student achievement in
readin& and mathematics;
(3) whether the test development process and test items ta1ce into acc.ount
the needs of disadvantaged. limited English proficient and disabled
students; and
(4) whether the test development proc.esstakes into account how parents,
guardians, and students will appropriately be informed about testing
content, pUlJ)()se.and
~ses.
.
.
Section 308.
September I,
Study ~ The National Academy of Sciences shall, not later than
1998.s~bmit
a written report to the Committee on Education and the
Workforce in the House of Representatives, the Committee on Labor and Human
.,
.
.
Resources in the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations in the House and
Senate that evaluates ali test items develoPed or funded by the Department of Education
or any other agencyoCthe Federal government pursuant to contract RJ971S3001, any
,
.
'
,
subsequent contract related thereto, or any contract ~odification by the National
.
A~.sessment
.
Governing Board pursuant to section 307 of this Act, for-A.
(A) the technical quality of any test items for 46 grade reading and 86 grade
mathematic~;
(B) the validity, reliability, and adeq~acy of developed test items;
(C) the validity of any developed design which links test res'ultsto student
performance;
, '.
�SENT. BY:ED 'N & THE WORKfORCE
,
; 11- 7-';j7'; 6: 17PM
(0) the degree Eo which any developed test items provide valid and useful.
information to the public;
(E)' whether the test items are
free from racial, cultural. or gender. bias;
(F) whether the lest Uems address the needs of disadvantaged. limited English
proficient and disabled st~dents; and,
.,.,
.
(~)
"
' .
whether'the test items can be used' for tracking, graduation
or promotion of,
students.
,.'
...."'
a
Section 309{a). Study-The National Academy or SCiences shaJl conduct study and
make written recommendations on appropriate methods, practices, and safeguards to
ensure that •.::..;,
(1) existing and new tests that are used to'assess student performance are not
used in a disCriminatOry manner or inappropriately (or student promotion~"
tracking or graduation; and
, (2) existing and new tests adequately assess studenlreading and mathematics
; .
'/
comprehension in the form most likely to yieJd accurate information
'regarding student achievement of ~ea~ing and mathematics skills.
-1,.,
(b) Report to Concress~ The Natio~aI Academy of SCiences shall submit a
.,
written report to the White House. the National Assessment Governing Board, 'the .
Committee on Education and the Workforce in the House of Representatives~ the
Committee on Labor and Human Resources in the Senates and
th~
Committees on
Appropriations in the Hou,seand Senate not later than September 1, 1998. ,
�SENT. BY :ED . N & THE WOI{KrOI{Ct
SectiOD 310.
.
; 11 - 1- 'oj,
b· 111M ;
(aj The Federal Government shall not require any State or local .
.
. .
.
.
educational agency or' school to administer or implement any pitot or field test in
any
subject or grade. nor shall the Federal government require any student to take any .
national test in any subject Of grade.
, ' (b) Nothing in section' 309(a)sball be :construed 'as ~ffecting the'National
Assessment of EducationclJProgress or the Third rntemational Math and SCience Study.
Section 311. No Federal, State or local educational agency may require any private or
parochial 5C~OOt student, or home-schooled
individ~aJ. to
take any pilot or field lest
developed under IhisAct, contRct Rj971S3001, or any cOntract related thereto,
without the written consent of lheparents or legal guardians of lh~studentor
individual.
�S~T"BY:ED'N
& THE WORKFORCE :11- 7-S7
,:
6:17PM
!
PROHIBITION ON VOLUNTARY NATIONAL TESTING
. The House bill contained a prohibition on the use offederal funds for the
dev~lopment.
planning or adminbtration of any national p~ogram for testing in reading or .
mathem~tics. The pr~visione"empts the National Asses.sment of Educational Progress
and the Third I~temational Math and Science Study.
.
,
',.
,The HoU$C bill also contained a provision prohibiting the administration ofany
d1
. national tests in 4 ·gtade reading and 8111 grade, mathematics until the submission of a finaJ
report by thc. NationaJ ACademy of Sciences,
The Senate bill ~ontainecheveral provisions. the first required the Office of
Educational Research and Improvemenl to submit to the Senate Appropriations
,
'
Committee a spending plan ror activities under thc.Education Research, Statistics. and
Improvement account ..
prior to obligation.
~
,
The second gives the National Assessment Governing Board exclusive authority
overthe policies, direction and guidelines for implementing voluntary national tests for 411l
grade reading and 8" grade malh~matics. The provision also required that 'any such tests
be volunta,y and that within 90 days of emlctmenllhe Board shallreview the contract for '
the national tests and, ifnecessary~ modify 'or terminate and renegotiate any contracts.
The provision 'lists the specific authorities ofthe board.
The third provision also expressly prohibited any State orloeal educational agency
from ~equiring any' p~vale, parochial schooJ·student or home-schoqled student to take any.
national test without' th~ wilnen consent of the student.
..'
�S~T.
BY:ED 'N & THE WORKFORCE
: 11- 7-37
6: 17fM ;
, l:I'E)OiJiJO 1 .;t! U / 1 U
The rourt~provision oflhc Senate, bill changed the composition of the National
,
,
Assessment Governing Board to add one governor, two mayofS,'and two busi~ess .
.
.
'
.
'
',~
'
,;
.representatives and make lcchnicaichanges ro the make-up and process for appointment
to the Board.
, The conferees and the Administration agree that it 'is important to have high, ,
,
,
, voluntary standards in the basic skills of reading and math, to measure whether students
'are meeting these standards, and to provide that information to students, parents and
teachers. The Administr!-tion has proposed voluntary national tests in order to measure
"
...
-~
.
.
'.
.' .
,
,
;
.
,student achievement related to nation81 standards. However, every state already
,administers a number of tests, and m~y are concerned that an additional; national, test
would be an UMccessary burden.
To address this concern, the conference agreement (sec. 30S·31 1) state$ that the
,"
", Nationai Acade~y of Sciences will be commissioned to conduct a study ofthefeasibility
of equating existing state and commerciaJly available'tests with each other and withthe
National Assessment ofEducational Progress. The purpose of this study is to determine
whether it will t,e,possiblelo use existing tests administered by states andloc.aJ school,
~istrictsto
compare individual student performance with existing, challenging national
content and performance standards. rhe purpose is also todetennine if the same tests can,
be used to cOmpare the performance of students in different states and communities, on
to each other.
different tests,
The NAS shali submit a report on this study to the Congress
no lat~r than rune IS, 1998, and a final report no Jaterthan September t.
, 1'·-'
,
,
'
,J'
1998~
�SEl'{T.BY :ED .N & THE WORKfORCE
.
; 11- 7-97
~45b55tll
_202225~571"',
6 : 18PM
. :.
,
.
,
; ;11/10
'."
, The NAS will CQnduct thi~ study in consultation with the National Govemors'
Association (NGA). the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), NAGB, the
.
.
.
..
Congress and the WhiteHouse. Wrule the NAS study is bei~8 conduc~edi NAGD will
"have exclusive authority over contract RJ971S3001, as stated in, this Act, which will be'
.
.
,
.
. .
" .
, based 9R the same content and performance standards as are used for NAEP, and wroch
are linked to NAEP to the maximum extent possible.
The conference agreement further provides that the National Academy of Sciences
, .~haJI submit a written repon by September I, 1998 to the Committee on Education and,
,
"
',"
J
. Workforce in the House ofRcprcscntatives, the Corruitittee on Labor and Human
,
.
Resources in the Senate, and the House and Senate Appropriations Committees that '
'
evaluates the technical quality, validity and reliability of de~etoped -test items on national
4,11. grade reading and S"grade mathematics tests; evaluates whether test-items are,free'
from racial, cultural or gender bias: evaluates wh~ther the test items address the needs of
disadvantaged, limited EngJj~h proficient and disabled students; and evaluates whether the
test items can be used for tracking, graduation or promotion of students. '
The conferees intend that the National Assessment Governing Board shall hold
public hearings on these test development activities and on the recomme~dations
submitted by the National Academy of Sciences. The National Assessment Governing
Board shall ensure that such hearings are widely publicized. arid that activi,ties conduct~d
, to publicize such hearings communicate effectively with the broad and diverse populations
that may be' affected by such tests.
"
,.,. ,'
, '-,
�.
, SENT BY:ED'N
.
& THE WORKfORCE :U- 7-'d7 "
t):ll:St'M
The Administration lind the authorizing Committees of the U,S. Congress will
work together to incorporate the findi~gs from the NAS study into the reauthorization'of
NAEP and NAGB.The conferees understand that the Administration igrees that, where
i,t is feasible and praetica1to validly and reliably equate test scores and link perfonnance
levels on State assessments and c(unmercially available standardized tests with the
Naiional Assessment of Education Progress, then these'tests may serve the ,same purpose
, as the proposed (lationaJ test. To the extent that NAS study demonstraies ways in which
existing tests ca.n be equated with each ocher and with NAEP, or ways in which existing'
tests Can, be modified in order
to facilitate such equatbig, the Administration and the
House Committee on Education and the Workforce intend to work together to implement
, these recommendations through the reauthorization ofNAEP.
,
'
In order to info~ future deliberations on the appropriate uses oftestsmea.suring
student academie performance. and to prevent the rrususe of sueh tests, particularly for
minority and limited, English proficient students, the conference agreement provides for a
third study to be C(lnducted P)' the National Academy of Sciences that makes
, recommendations on appropriate methods, practices, and safeguards to ensure that,
existing and new tests that may be used to' measure student perfonnance arc not used in a
discriminatory maMer pr inappropriately for tracking or other "high stakes" purposes.
, he NAS is also directed,to report on ways to el1,sure that ,such tes!s adequately assess
T
student reading an~ mathematies compre~ension in the form most likely to yield accurate
information regarding student achievement in reading and,' mathematics. The conference
ag1"eementp~o'vides that this, ~AS report shall be submitted to the White H~use. National
Asse.<tsment Governing Board. the Comrr\ittee on Education and the Workforce in the'
�SENt BY:ED'N & THE WORKfORCE
.
,
'
;11- 7-97 ; 6:18PM
I
House of Representative's and the Cominitteeon Labor and ~uman Services in theSena;te.
and the Cornmittecson Appropriations in the House of Representatives afld S~nate not
,
"
'later than September I. 1998.
The conferees encourage ,the National Assessment Governing Board and the
National Academy of Sciences. in'convening any advisory committees or e~peJ1 panels
, needed to cany out the requirements of this Act. to take into account racial, ethnic and
gender diversity and baJance.
The conference agreement further provides that the federal government shan not
require any state. local educationaJ agency or school district to administer or implement
any pilot or field test in any subject or grade. or require any student to take any national
test in any subject or grade. In addition, no federal, state or local educational agency may
require any private or parochial school, student, 'or home-schooled stud~nt. tp take any
pilot or field test developed under trus:Act without the written consent of the 'parents or
legal guardians.
The Conferees'understand that the Administration wiU submit legislation for ,a
. '
~
.
':.,' . ,
revised school facilities initiative.
""
"
�.
.,::l._ •
" FILE No. 683 10/31 '97 16:18 10:
PAGE 1
'
COMl\11TTEE' ON APPROPRIATIONS
I\lINOllITV STt\FF
1016 LONG'VORTH HOB
,WASHINGTON,DC 20515
,Telephone: (202)225..3481
Facsimile: (202)225..9476
, FAX COVER SHEET
TO:
r
HJ E C1JHEtJ
FAX II;
Lj-§C';" 5-'ig J
FRUM:
CHER YL SH ITJf
DATE: J
0/3/
.PAGES (including cover):
Comments:
Lf '
�FILE
I~o,
683 10/31 '97 16:19 ID:
Tn:
Thu Spuaker
Thts Mijeri:CY. Lttl\dlf
lht MajOritY WhIp
The Chlirmun Qt'the; Kcpubl!l;t\n Cnnrcrcm:g
Tho Cjl.llTIlln ufth. CommiUed .on'Apprup~l\tlonl
'rhe Chlllr"",n'ot'th, AppropriAtiun. LlborIHHSlE~'Ic:",tion SlIhcmmmim,,,
The Jtankins MOlnbor or the Commltt•• an Appmpriltiuna ..
FI\UM:
PAGE 2
'.
f
Bill GOOdling'
.
Chalnmm, "'OUSI 'Commlul:c nnEdu,atit.1n amd Lhu Wgrkf'un.;c
S\JIi/ECT; Compromise T,,,,,ln8 LMsuogc
"
I
At~chec1 plilt•• n"d a'drllftoroompromil1e langu1i«s to tcso1vt! th~ hallti"; Issue in the
lAbllrlHHS Appropriations t::ofttil'enee, A.It you know, rhil·11 th~ rourlh compromitre prl1pasall
hllYlort'"orod tu rlsolve thll maner: Ihe t1l1t beln, tho lanaulgQ paRed ~y tho tUlI HOU5111; tho
IOGund' WI. th; lllnguqo prapo1inll NNJ .,udy or&hc cOnlpwabi1l&y or.xillting testa otTered Ift~t.
week (and ..reeel to la.t:woek by l·loUR and Sonltl Rcpubncan CDnfiJrooa lilt woek): tho .Jhlrd
wad ft modifttd prop""il oft'er.d 1 1niaHt; Ind. now 1oftir thliin t~e .pint oJcontinuina to find;
..
a r.solutlon to this dimculJ illue, l believe this lateit olTer ropreunt. ttl, beat opportunllY to tlnd
aconHnSUIl on thls.lllu, wl\llc retublina the orilinallntlmc etthe HQUIB language.
, PIOIlII n.el ~e to caUma (r:yQu havD any ftJrcher queatlonl or coummenta.
.
,
.
,
,
.
:
�FILE No. 683 10/31 '97 16:19 lD;
PRGE 3
Q~Uns
Proposal 14
Octo"'"". 1001. lIOO·"m.
Section 1. (a) NO[Wlrhsrlndtns any other proviSion of Pederal'law, funds proYide~ (0
the
Deparuncu\C·Of 8ducatlan or 10 in applicable proJ,am (tt"dctlnad In fcellon
400(107'( U of the Oonorll·Bduealion PrOvlllons AGe (20 .USO: I'allCe)( I»). shaU not be
I
I
I
.!
us;d t,o davelo,. ltnpl.m.nc, admlnlaClr, fteld fed, pUoHelt. or dLstribute in any '.10'8),.
o
~"')'
national· .I,g.thallll not specifically' and Ixplicltly provided for. in current or
future: luthcrlzlq ·Ioltll.clon cnacl.cd, Into law.
.I
I
(b) 180p&lon.- Sub*tlon (a' shill
not appl)'·l9 the·ThIrd tnremotiona! Math
IInd·eGlon" INeS),.
Seetlon 2. (a) Studf-The National Aeademy of Sctencas. fn cOrilulraUan wllh (he
.,
.
lilclanll QovDrllOr'. Alloolalion and IhoN.doaal Conl'cflAGC'of State LesblaNro••
•hall voa4\J't .·foalllbUiQi study· to 4ellrmlntlf "'1,,,IVil,ncy ac•.I' csn be developed
that would' allow' WI' ICOre. fiam comme~laU)' avallab1e.ltandardlud tests and Stare
assessment. ta bit compared•..
(b)
1l,pcn1 or'F1adlllie to Con.,..; '1'bu NadoaaJ'Academy "of 'clona., tholl
report. lis tladinp to cIltCommlUee on EducaUon 1M' the Wortroree In the House of
R.presentativel aftd the Committee Oft La_ IDd Human;'~QUNlI In 1M kn,", noc
later thin March'lIt 19P8.
1""Oft· S (I) ·1tu4l1. 'I'M ·HatioDI ACICItnU'· ot 8cl~':sball,
nOl
later thin
September 30. 1191•. submlc, roport·~·~ Ioardi the· S1cmary ot Bduoatlon, tAl
CommIttee on BducaUOft and the Wbrk~",O lD.thtHouae-of'ltlpreMntaIiYBI, the
0"
�FILE 1\10. 683 10/31 '97 16:19 ID;
Pt=.IGE 4
---,-----------_•.--_•...... _.....•. _-----"_ .. .. ------'-' -,.------_.
:
.
'
: \. .
CommIUOO·o'rLa~~:and··K;Qman· ~~OQ,,~cl.Jn:lh; ~r\4~Or:i~y,'d1.:C;nnmhl.O.'On
,
.
Appropdluionllnmcn~uac and: Sonal.·dtac~··
.
(1) 'V.hll'tol~
(A) the ,.chqlcll'quallty ofthe ·natlonal telt. tnr 4~ir&do r,ad'lnl and 811\ arade
.
mar~mldel;
(8)Che VIIlklllY'.· renablllty••ra!..•dequl;Y of cf.voloJ.Cd ~11:
.(C) ·the, valtdllY"fI1f: ,he ~~I.n tor Unkln. cesc rtl\i1t.;cc~lIcudent·.petfor'"anQOI and .
(OJ Ihe dC&rcG'to which·tb,:,••" will provlde.vaUerln4:useftJllnfurmatlon.ta the!
p~b'.iol·
(If Ihl. "":Iteansl,, rhe·develQPed'wu UnktlQrml~':~r the testllre free
fra~.r8Cial.
cutNral. or Bonder bWi and
(2). RCanmiimda.lpproprialC IIf'cp~rd.·to:lnt"r. tbllIUC~
dt.'rlznlrua~,n,. mlllU1lf.
felhai'e·nnt used In 8
aad·tteommeftda .areIUl~.I~;· •.,.ure::chat suc:h CC:IEJ 8hedl
no, be \l8'~ tor· traekIn, of studelUl.
I
~Oft
4. (a) ."rtt.:·Pcderal Ckivcnunont 'Ihatl:naf rCq1Ilrt .an)' Sca~ or I~al
"'u8",lunll 110"'1 oncbool to ~r or Imptem."t <.ny national resl 1ft any 8Qbj'O.1
or aradt. nor IblllI-,the Pederal,overnniom require any ltude"' to take an)' natiamd lISt
, . ,
' .
I
I" 'I\f 'UbJect~or' Indt,
(b)
NothlQ/J.llncerion4(a).•b.llbo.Go.,.1fVtd·ar·.~el"s tbl Nellonll
AaecsaD'ICnt·otU",.,loftl' ProSreQ.or:the.Third:lfttl~~.~lM"Ch.lnd klcnCo:Srud),.
'C'ct: 90 I' ON P·lr,'·.l
L.S.• 1£ .LJO
~.
�
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: Possible Compromise 97 [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-possible-compromise-97-1
7763316