-
https://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/files/original/d58fbede2c3ac256c6be65039ac51327.pdf
b44ee83322a4aeee2ea344bd05bd68b2
PDF Text
Text
Document Noo'---_ _ _
I?': 30 aiM.
WHITE HOUSE STAFFING MEMORANDUM
DATE:
!
1--/ q i t1 '1
j
ACTION/CONCURRENCE/COMMENT DUE BY:
AC~
VICE PRESIDENT
BOWLES
~
McLARTY
0
PODESTA
MATHEWS
RAINES
BAER
EMANUEL
GIBBONS
HALE
HERMAN
HIGGINS
. HILLEY
KLAIN
FYI
~
0
~
~
0
f¥
~
V
~
BERGER
0
LINDSEY
.0
McGINTY
NASH
QUINN
RASCO
REED
SOSNIK
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
I
ACTION
McCURRY
0
0
0
0
0
J I~ /1'7
'LEWIS
YELLEN
STREETT
SPE:RT.JNG
HAWLEY
WILLIAMS
RADD
LJJdVh~
E'I~ KIA j aN\
0
0
0
0
:
~
0
0
0
0
)
0
~ 0
0
0
0
0
rfI'~ 0
0
0
0
0
0
~
V
~
~
0
0
REMARKS:
UMtvtoctS to'· £'\; Awe.
RESPONSE:
Staff Secretary
Ext. 6-2702
�PRESIDENT WILLIAM J. CLINTON
MARYLAND STATEHOUSE, ANNAPOLIS, MD
Monday, February 10, 1997
Acknowledgments: Gov. Parris Glendening; Lieutenant Gov. Kathleen Kennedy
Townsend; Speaker Cas Taylor; President of the Senate Mike Miller; Sen. Barbara Mikulski;
Sen. Paul Sarbanes; Rep. Wayne Gilchrest (represents Annapolis); Rep. Ben Cardin (served as
Speaker of this body); Rep. Al Wynn and Rep. Elijah Cummings (both served in this body); .
President of Maryland State Board of Education Christopher Cross; State Superintendent of
Education Nancy Grasmick.
I'm pleased to be here today, in the building that served as our nation's first peacetime
capitol, to talk about one of the greatest challenges in our peacetime history: preparing America
for the 21st Century, and ensuring that all Americans have the tools to make the most oftheir
lives.
It is appropriate that we gather here today, at an important turning point in our history. It
was in this statehouse that George Washington resigned his commission as General ofthe
Continental Army -- in fact, it was right down the hall in the Lieutenant Governor's office that
Thomas Jefferson wrote General Washington's words of resignation. It was here that the Treaty
of Paris was prepared and ratified -- ending the Revolutionary War, and beginning the greatest
experiment in democracy and opportunity the world has ever known.
As a country, once again, we face a moment of peace, prosperity, and extraordinary
opportunity -- having won the Cold War, reversed the tide of crime and welfare and budget
deficits, and built the strongest national economy in a generation. Thanks to Governor
Glendening's leadership; there is much to celebrate in Maryland as well: unemployment is at a
six-year low. Family incomes here have risen to fourth in the nation. Maryland's welfare rolls
have dropped almost a quarter since 1995. Student'achievement has risen, with more schools
mee~ing the high standards Maryland had. the courage to set.
But today's peace and prosperity is not something we can rest on -- it is something we
must hYilil on. That is why I stood before the Congress last week, and issued a call to action.
For the first time in decades; we are strong enough to truly prepare ourselves for the 21 st Century
-- to help all our people seize the promise ofthe global economy, the Information Age, and life
enhancing new technology. But if we do not all take responsibility, and rise to this challenge -- if
we do not summon the energies of all our people, from our statehouses to our schoolhouses, from
our homes to our houses of worship -- we could lose this opportunity to shape our future.
That is why I am here tOday -- with a message I will carry not just to this state legislature,
but to other state legislatures, comm~ties, and forums in the months to come. To prepare
America for the 21 st Century, I am asking for a new kind of partnership -- with the people in this
chamber, and people all across America. The era of big' government is over. But the era of big
national challenges is not. And while national leadership can point the way -- while national
leaderspip can remove some of the barriers that had prevented our states and our people from
solving their own problems -- the real responsibility is one we all share. As President, I ~
prepared to point the way -- to shine a light on what is working -- and to leverage the efforts of
�all Americans to meet our challenges. But you must be prepared to work with me, to seize this
moment of opportunity while America stands strong enough to do so. '1
Today, I want to talk about what we must do in two critical areas: giving our children the
best education, and breaking the cycle of dependency by moving millions from welfare to work. .
Taken together, these issues are at the core of what we must do to prepare America for the new
Century. We must help everYone have the tools to succeed in this knowledge economy - and
that means high-quality education and training. And we must make sure everyone willing to use
those tools -- everyone willing to work hard and take responsibility -- has a chance to do so.
Education reform and welfare reform are about bringing all Americans to the starting line of this
.
new economy, and then making sure they are ready to run the race.
Our number-one priority -- the high threshold of the future we must cross-- must be to
ensure that all Americans have the best education in the world: that every 8-year-old can read; .
every 12-year-old can log on to the Internet; every 18~year-old can go to college; and every adult
can keep learning for a lifetime. .
Education has always been the heart of opportunity in this country. As we prepare for
unimagined new work and careers, the best investment we can make is not in land or factories or
equipment, but in our J!liruls. -- the one asset we can carry with us no matter what the future
holds, so we can make and remake our lives at every turn.
We must never forget that one of the greatest sources ofour strength throughout the Cold
War was a bipartisan foreign policy. Because our future was at stake, politics stopped at the
water's edge. Now we need a non-partisan commitment to education -- because education is the.
critical national security issue for our future, and politics must stop at the schoolhouse door.
That is.why America's states and businesses, parents and teachers must work with us, above and
beyond the old divisions, to renew our schools -- and I am pleased that a number of parents,
teachers, and business people could join us today.
In my State ofthe Union address, I laid out a ten-point plan, a Call to Action for
American Education [hold up booklet], that describes the steps we must take -- and the State of
Maryland is already doing many of the right things. We must help every child to read by the
third grade -- and I am pleased that the University of Maryland at College Park has already
pledged more than 2,300 students to work as reading tutors over the next five years. We must
expand public school choice -- as Baltimore City is doing through its new charter schools. We
must rebuild crumbling schools -- a priority for Governor Glendening as well.
We must open the doors ofcollege wider than ever before -- and I am pleased that the
Governor is proposing state HOPE scholarships to open the doors to college. They will
complement my national HOPE Scholarships to make the first two years of college as universal
as high school-- a $1,500 tax credit for the fJist two years of college and a $10,000 tax deduction
for all college.costs, plus expanded IRA's to save for college and the largest increase in Pell
Grants in 20 years. We must give more of our workers the ability to learn and to eam for a .
lifetime through my G.I. Bill for Workers -- transforming the tangle of federal training programs
.- 2
�into a simple skill grant that goes directly into workers' hands.
We must teach our children to be good citizens as well as good students -- and thanks to
Lieutenant Governor Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, you have begun a comprehensive, statewide
program of character education. You have developed a statewide code of discipline, and are .
removing and helping disruptive students, so all oUr children have a chance to learn. Yoli have
heeded my call to promote community curfews, as part of your plan to prevent youth violence.
Again under the leadership of the Lieutenant Governor, Maryland is the only state in America
that requires community service to graduate from high school, with the first class ofthose seniors
graduating this year.
My education plan is a comprehensive one. But any education plan can only be as strong
as the things our children learn each day. That is why our success depends upon holding our
students to the highest standards -- making sure they learn the basics that will be the foundation
of success in the 21st Century. When 40% ofour fourth graders do not read as well as they
should -- when students in Germany or Singapore learn 15.to 20 math subjects in depth each
year, while our students often race through 30 to 35 without really learning them at all -- we are
not doing what we should to prepare our children for a knowledge economy~'
Let's understand why these basics are so important. The point is not merely to teach our
children facts and figures, but to teach them the ability to think and reason and analyze -- to give
them the tools and skills that will serve them in jobs and careers we cannot even contemplate
today.
Maryland is making a good start. You have developed clear standards for what our
children should learn by the 3rd, 5th, and 8th grades, in particular in reading and math, and clear
tests to measure them, school district by school district, and school by school. You are holding
schools accountable for making the grade, rewarding excellence, and intervening in schools that
are not performing. Because you have set high standards, Maryland has seen five years of steady,
sustained progress in meeting those standards.
But Maryland, and all states, must do more. To compete and win in the 21st Century, we
must have a high standard ofexcellence that all states can agree upon. That is why, in my State
of the Union address, I called for national standards of excellence in the basics -- not federal
government standards, but national standards, representing what all our students must know to
succeed in the 21st Century. I called on every state to test every 4th grader in reading and every
8th grader in math by 1999, to make sure these basic standards are met.
We already have widely-accepted, rigorous national standards in both reading and math
and widely-used tests based on those standards. In reading, Maryland and more than 40 other
states have participated in a test called the National Assessment of Educational Progress -
which measures the state's overall performance against a high national standard of excellence. In
math, tens of thousands of students across the country have already taken the Third International
Math and Science Study -- a test that reflects the world-class standards our children must meet
for the new era. Last month, I visited Northern Illinois, where 8th grade students from 20 school
-3
�,
",
districts took that test, and tied for first in the world in science and came in second in math. We
know it is the right st:a.ridard -- and we know our children can meet it if they are challenged to do·
so.
Unfortunately, the current tests don't provide individual scores; they only measure how
an entire state is doing. What we need are tests that will measure the performance of each and
every student, and each and every school. That way, parents and teachers will know how every
child is doing compared to students in other schools, other states, and other countries.
That is why I am presenting a plan to help states meet and measure the highest standards.
Over the next two years, our Department of Education will support the development of new tests
for 4th grade reading and 8th grade math to show how every student measures up to the existing,
widely-accepted standards. The tests will be developed by independent test experts in
consultation with leading math and reading teachers. The federal government will not require .
them, but these tests will be available to every state that chooses to administer them. I believe
.that every state must participate, and that every parent has a right to honest, accurate information
about their child's performance.
To anyone who says that in a country as big as America, we can't possibly have
common national tests in the basics, I say: from Maryland to Michigan to Montana,
reading is reading and math is math. We have plenty of standardized tests in America
today; what we need are tests that reflect standards - and they are two very different
things. If we are serious about holding·our children to.the highest standards, every state in
America must take up our challenge, and test our children in the same rigorous way.
If anyone understands the importance of high standards, it is the businesses that will
depend upon our children in the 21 st Century.· . They know that only by ensuring that we have the
best-educated, the best-trained, the best-skilled workforce in the world can we compete and win.
Today, I am pleased to announce that National Business Roundtable is endorsing our call
for national testS in 4th grade reading and 8th grade math. Together with America's
parents, teachers, and lawmakers, they will join our crusade to make American education
. the best in the world. I want to offer a: special word of thanks to Norman Augustine, CEO of
Lockheed Martin and head of the Business Roundtable's Education Task Force, who has done
so much to help reform Maryland's schools.
To reach high standards, we must also have the best teachers. For years, educators have
worked to establish nationally accepted credentials for excellence in teaching. Just 500 of these
teachers have been certified since 1995. My new budget will enable 100,000 to seek national
certification as master teachers.' We should reward and recognize our best teachers -- quickly and
fairly remove those few who don't measure up -- and challenge more of our finest young people
to consider teaching as a c a r e e r . ·
.
Raising standards will not be easy. Some of our children will not be able to meet them at
first. But good tests will show us who needs help, what changes in teaching we must make, and
which schools need to improve. We're not doing right by our students when we set low
-4
.','
�expectations. For too long, too mnay students have moved through our schools who could not
read and write at the most basic levels. That is why, in addition to the 4th and 8th grade national
tests we are urging, states should develop their own comprehensive benchmarks of what student
should know to move up in school, and to graduate from high school. It's time to put an end to
social promotions, and make sure a high school diploma really means something -- not to put our
. children down, but to lift them up.
Throughout my career in public life -- as a Governor, and as President -- I have worked
harder on education than on any other issue.. That is because renewing educatio~ raising our
standards, and lifting up our schools is the embodiment of everything .we must do to prepare for
the 21st Century -- to promote opportunity, demand responsibility, and build community.
Nothing will do more to open the doors of opportunity to every American. Nothing will do more
to awaken a sense of responsibility from every American, as they work to make the most oftheir
education. And nothing will do more to build a strong, united community of all Americans - for
ifevery American has the tools to succeed, we can move forward together, as one America.
When it comes to providing the tools to succeed, our other great challenge is helping to
move the permanent underclass itito our growing middle class. Working together, we ended the
old welfare system. Over the past four years, we worked with 43 states to launch welfare reform
experiments, moving a record 2.25 million people off our nation's welfare rolls. Here in
Maryland, you used your waiver to move 51,000 people off the welfare rolls in the past two years
alone -- placing a special focus on teen parents by linking benefits to school attendance, breaking
the cycle of dependency and making responsibility a way of life, not an option. You have
answered my call to revoke driver's liceilses from those who don't pay child support, to demand
responsibility from all parents. Now we have enacted landmark national welfare reform, to make
responsibility a way of life all across America.
That legislation brought an end to the old welfare system - but it was really a new
beginning. Now that we have demanded that those on welfare take responsibility, we must all.
take responsibility to see that the jobs are there, so people on welfare can become permanent
members of the workforce. Our goal muSt be to move two million more Americans off welfare
by the year 2000.
I have challenged the nation's businesses to join in this effort, and I have a offered a plan
to help them: Tax credits and other incentives for businesses to hire people off welfare;
incentives for job placement firms and states to create more jobs for welfare recipients; training,
transportation, and child care to help people go to work. I urge Maryland's businesses, non
profits, and religious organiZations -- large and small -- to heed this important call. Each and
every one of us must fulfill our responsibility -- indeed, our moral obligation -- to make sure that
those who now must work, can work. I am especially pleased that Maryland's religious
community is playing a strong role in providing child care, transportation, and job placement,
and working closely with the State to make sure that welfare reform succeeds here.
The most direct and effective steps must be taken by the states. The legislation we passed
gives states the authority, for the very first time, to take the money that had been used on welfare
-5
�checks, and subsidize private sector paychecks. Missouri began doing this under one of oUr
waivers -- and it is working. Now I challenge every state to follow their example. Use the new
flexibility you have been given. Turn those welfare checks into paychecks. There is no better
way to find jobs for welfare recipients, or to keep them employed. .
.
Second, I urge you to use the money saved from welfare reform to make sure that even
more people can move from welfare to work. I know that Maryland has taken its considerable
savings from its own welfare reform efforts, and put them into a special "rainy day" fund to
create jobs and move people from welfare to work. Ifwelfare reform is to succeed, all states
should use those savings on efforts such as child care, wage subsidies, employment incentives,
and other ways to help create private sector jobs for welfare recipients.
I also applaud Maryland for using its own money to continue providing benefits for legal
immigrants -- even after the federal bans have taken effect. That's the right thing to do, but you
.
shouldn't have to bear that burden alone. That is why every state and every Governor,
Republican or Democrat, should join with me to get Congress to restore basic health and
disability benefits when misfortune strikes immigrants who came to this country legally, who
work hard, pay taxes and obey the law. To do otherwise is simply unworthy of a great nation of
immigrants.
We passed historic welfare reform-- giving states the authority and flexibility they had
asked for for years. We were right to do it. Now states must live up to their responsibility, and
help us finish the job.
On education reform, onwelfare reform, on all our major challenges --let us build new
partnerships across old lines of responsibility: Preparing for the 21st Century is not a job for any
one level of government alone. Many of oui' greatest challenges do not fall under the authority of
Washington, nor should they. The power to solve our problems rests with all levels of
government, and IDl sectors of society -- and that is where we must forge our solutions as well.
Together, we must seize this moment ofopportunity, and prepare our people for the
changes and challenges of a new century. Together, we must renew our basic bargain of
opportunity, responsibility, and community, and give everyone the tools to make the most of their
own lives. If we rise to that challenge, we will enter the 21 st Century full of new promise and
possibility, for all who share a stake in the American dream.
Thank you, God bless you, and God bless America.
- 6
�Q&
A's for Testing Proposal
I. Goal of Proposal
Q.
How did the President arrive at this decision to c::aIl tor
national test?
•
this; voluntary
'
These tests target the basics -:'reading well by grade 4 and ma1tering the basics
of math and algebra by grade 8. The American public accepts:;that reading is
.the cornerstone of all future learning. and math is the cornerstone of preparing
students to go to college and succeed in many other courses, fostering the
nation's future economic growth"
'
•
But the standards movement needs a jolt to inject rigor into the system -- quality
of state standards is uneven, and only 12 states have benchmarked to world-dass
standards (AFT report).
..
Public consensus on importance of standards of excellence in education: 48 states
have developed or are developing their own academic standards. Currently, we
have no way to compare how students are doing in Tennessee to, how srudents are
doing in Maine. Parents want'to know.
'
1
'
•
The test is VOLUNTARY. but we're urging every state and :district to do it ..
Since many Americans move from district to district, and ev~n stare to state, a
voluntary national test can help provide parents and schools a ,common basis on
which to evaluate sUldenI achievement in these critical areas.
Q.
What is so important about these tests?
•
The public understands that if you can't read independenIly by ~e 4th grade. your
learning will be undermined in all academic subj~ts for the rest of your school
career. And, if you haven't mastered the basics of aritlunetic and moved i..nt.o
algebra, geometty. and problem solving by the end of the 8th grade. you will be
at a disadvantage when it CQmesto taking more challenging cou.rses in high school
and succeeding in high school and college. .
.
•
President Clinton is absolutely committed that every child should read
independently by 4th grade and be internationally competitive in math by 8th
~ade.
The assessments on which these national tests will be based reflect broad consensus
in the nation. Both the Third ·Imernational Matheinatics and Science SUldy
�. (TIMSS) and the National As:sessment of Educational Pro~ess (NAEP) have
gained professional and public regard as true measures of ex6ellence. The new
tests would be similar to tbesetests but designed for individual studems to take and
adri:rlnistered and scored locally.
I
...
This test will reaffirm the importance of ALL American chil~n being able to
achieve. these standards, and the test results will help states arid districts identify .
areas of the system that ~ improvmem if all childien are to have the opportunity
to do so.
Q. What kind of effect do you see this ha~g?
...
This will be the jolt needed for:taising standards in our schools ,to inject rigor and
provide a benchmark for schools, communities. and states to 1~ how well their
students are performing on a national and international basis. :
These tests provide coDCrete examples of what are nleant by na!ional standards of
excellence in education.
President Clinton challenges all states to get their students ready for the new
asssessment in 1999.
TIMSS provides new insights into teaching arid achieve~nt in American
education. This effort will help :make the results more useful in au classrooms that
• •
,. , .
J
.p a r u c l p a t e . . •
. :
.
Q.
How will schools, communities/districts, or
results?
states
be expected to use· the
. ;
Ii is up to local school boards. cOmmunities and states to detembe how they will
utilize results of this test.
The federal government is not dictating a course of action and will not collect
individual test results.
...
The test will provide parentS, reachers. principals. conununities. and states with
a benchmark to fmd out how their srodents are performing compared to national
aDd international achievement standards.
..
This test will let every parent know how his or her child is doing compared to
national and international standards of excellence and let every teacher know
. whether students are being adequaJely prepared to succeed in the future.
" ' A s soon as tests are adm.i.nistered. the questions will be made public and put on the
O:::>I?IJOCt:>C-
nl
�.
,
. Internet and available for public use so parents and teachers can uSe them as guides
in improving teaching and learning..
By focusing on high standards "in reading and maihifqf~l srugents, this test is
consistent with the America ~ Program and otherpiogr~, such as Title I,
which respond to the needs of children in low-income areas. ~.
..
,
Q.
Didn't President Bush propose a national test thatCongressionai Democrats
... opposed? How is this proposal different from that propOsaI?' , J
The President agreed with former President Bush that a national ilssessment might '
be a good idea. He took issue with the other proposals in' Ame~ica ·2000 such as
using public taxpayer dollars for private school vouchers which would not move·
the country in the right direction.
.
1)e President supports public, school choice, and the 1997 education budget
includes $51 million to support innovative new'schools cr~ted by pareDt$,
teachers. and community .leaders. . And the 199.8 budget '~i11 double this
investment.
Fonner President Bush's America 2000 called for American. Achievement Tests,
a voluntary nationwide examination system based on five core subjects. The plan
was never implemented. President Clinton's proposal tests stude$ on areas where
there is a national consensus on standards of excellence. In ollier conteD! areas,
cOnsensus has not yet been reached, which is why it is critical for local school
districts and states to continue their work on standards in these areas.
.
Q.
•
Won 't this proposal add to
,
¥. testing burden ~t'$ face?
This proposal should not signitibamIy increase the testing burdeh on students. In·
1990-91 GAO found that testing took up only about 7 hours for ~ average student
out of an approximately 1080 hours in the classroom. AD. addjrlonal2 hours of
testing in only two grades wouldainount to only 9 hours out of the school year in
these 2 grade l e v e l s . '
By comparison 43 percent of 4th graders watched television 4 or more hours daily.
The addition of 2 hours for testing during the school year is,minjrnal (.2 of 1
.
percent of the school year)., .
.
•
Moreover, if they choose, states and districts may use this test as a supplement or
replacement to parts of their existing testing program if given the opportunity to
panicipate in benchmarking against national and international standards.
fil
�. . T h e benefit is well worth the small amount of additional rest~ time. ParelllS,
districts. and states can use the test to compare how well srude~ts are performing
compared to national and international benchmarks.
this
Does
proposal mean that state education reform efforts have not been
succ~CUI and the federal government bas to step in?
. .
Q.
..
Over the past 5 years, states a¢ local districts have been moving forward on
standards ata rapid rate. Almost all states have content sta.nd.aJ:ds. and 45 states
have .statewide assessment systems.
).
..
;
,
,
;-,
By independent judgment, the quality of state standards is uneven, and most do not
compare to national and international benchmarks of excellence. The special
report by Education Week gave only 22 states 'A's and 13 states B's for their
standards and assessments. A recent AFr report says only 12 states have tried to
-compare their standards to the high expectations of nations with top-performing
smdents.
..
There are disparities between state and national evaluations of whether a student
is proficient in the basics. Foi;example, Louisiana reportStha( 85 percent of its
fourth graders are proficient in reading. although on the National Assessment of
Educational Progress, only 15 percent of its students scored at ~proficient level.
.
i
,~
;
..
A natioml test will provide a common basis on which.to.e~alua~ achievement of
students in these critical subjects.
Q.
What will happen to students who fail?
The uses, and consequences, of this test are entirely under: state and local
control.
.
What we are doing here is merely providing reliable instruments tor measuring our
effons to achieve high standard.s:in reading and math in the U.S.
"
,
Testing will occur early enough in smdems' educational development to allow time
to help them overcome difficulties and guide srudents tOward ev~ success. In
-addition. other federal. programs. like Title I, will provide additional assistance to
foster success.
If a srudent fails this test, it says more about the failure of some systems to educate
than the failure of the student. States and districts can use information about
...
4
("~'.1
nl
�•
,
I
_
, student failure to identify ~ of me system that need to ~ improved if aU
children are to have·the oppo~ty they deserve.
. ~
.
..
.
I
The U.S. Department of Education will work with states. and s~hool districts and
provide resources to help mem prepare their schools•.teac:¥rs, s~nts and parents
to understand the level of mastery of the basics expected~'~:>nthi~ test.
Q.
Why these subjects and grade levels?
•
Reading and math are two of the most basic skills nece~sazy to perform
academically and to succeed as a productive and contributin~ member of the
workforce and society. We have proposed reading' in·the fourth grade- the
primary sldll to acquire in the ea.rly years of school is the abilitY to read well and
independently. Children spend ~.major portion of the first years ~f school learning
to read so that they are then abl~ to read to leamin ~all ot;1ler aCademic subjects.
If srudenrs fall behind in reading, it often has the effect of causing them to fall
behind in school generally. There is a strong correlation between low reading
skills, falling behind in school, disruptive behavior. and dropping out. Mastering
reading opens the opporrunity to successfully learn.1ill 0W:ersubjects.
..
.
We have proposed a test in math in the eighm grade becaUse the ability to perform
basic mathematical skills is critical to emolling in algebra- prerequisite for
college and for getting a job intoday~s high skill environment, Advanced math is
the gatek.eeper in high school for career and college choices in a tkhnologica! age.
Taking algebra and geOmeay is a·strong predictor for whether the student will take
the sequence of rigorous high sthool courses needed to be prepated to attend and
succeed in college.
'. ,
....
a
Q.
..
,.
What is the relation of this to Goals lOOO?
1bere is no relationship between choosing to participate or not participate in these
tests and having access to U.S. Depart.ment of Education funds for Goals 2000 or
any other program.
Goals 2000 funds should be used by states and local scllools to raise and meet their
own local and state academic standards. For Goals 2000 to be successful, the
quality of standards and theaixuracy of measuring student achievement is
essential.
'
The Department of Education will continue to upgrade the. resting instrument and
s
Or:l'..!
�will revise it annually to ensure that it reflects national
expectations of achievement.
Q.
international
What is the relationship betw~ this ,test and the Am~ Reads Challenge?
~.
) ~
..
imd
.J:
\..
This test helps suppon the Alnerica Reads Challenge:' . President Clinton is
absolutely committed to the notion that children should. be able to read
independently by the 4th grade.
,. ,
~
, The America Reads ChaIlengemobUizes parents,' teache~" reading specialists,
tutors, Americorps, college swdeDts. early cbildh()OCl prbgra:ri)s, libraries, and
senior citizens to help give parents the tools to improve t4eir child's reading. and
this test lets parents know how their children are domg. ':
.
.
'
I
America Reads will give grants to local reading parmerships'to help low-achieving
students get after-school. weekeI1d and summer help to
better;: America Reads
will provide extra support to fOmmunitles where 'children may not at first be
reaching standards of reading proficiency.
' \ ~,'
"
read
:':<:' .
Q.
What is the relationship between this test and other r~~ etforts to improve
math education?
'
,
,
~
'Ibis test builds On existing federal efforts to improve matheducarion and provides
the necessary check to see whether efforts are succeeding, the stimulus for
continuous improvement.
'
In the past decade, the federal government has. spent milliohs of dollars to
strengthen math and science education. Programs such as Goals 2()(X). Title I, and
the Eisenhower Professional Development Program reinforce eff~tive innovation
in teaching and learning. Tile National Science Foundation also supports
significant activities to enhance:matb and science 'education,. Statewide, Urban,
and Rural Systemic InltiativeS are designed to encourage higher standards and
facilitate cooperation among states, cities, school systems. and other organizations
in order to systemically improve science, mathematics, and. .techIlology education .
. The National Science Foundation's Teacher Enhancement:Program supports the
development of effective approaches and creativ~ materials for, the continuing
education of elementary, middle, and secondary school mathematics and science
teachers. The Instruetional Materials Development Program fosters the design
and creation of materials that address the new curricular standards in mathematics
and science. and enable all smdents to acquire sophisticated co~tem knowledge,
higher-order thinking abilities, and problem solving skills.
6
nl
�.
. '
These efforts have helped improve math education for many students throughout
the nation. NAEP results 'show slow but steady progress in QJ.ath achievement
time, the TIMSSstudy indi~testbat we must
since the early 19805. At the
do more to bolster curriculum and instruction in math if American students are to
be competitive with their peers~laround the world.
;, .
same
a;
President Clinton has issued "First in the World Challenge" to states and
communities across the United States .to administer the TIiird International
Mathematics and Science Srudyi(TIMSS) test to their studenrs in,the next 2 years.
States and districts that take up the challenge will help prepare ,their students for
the new assessment in 1999.
~
II. Questions about the President's motives and putting the proposal together
Q.
Why is the President proposing this national test in reading ~nd math at this
time?
/I>
We are at a critical juncture in oUr,nation's history--our schools win be a key factor
.in how we perform in the global ~nomy. As we head toward the,21st century, our
students must be able to demonstrate excel1ence in the basic. ski~ls of re8.dmg and
,.
mathematics.
/I>
The President has determined that although there is wide public acceptance of the
need for national standards of excellence in education, the system needs a jolt and a
quality control check to ensure that students are being prepared to succeed in the
Infonnation Age and global economy.
.
.
.Q.
The President is the leader of tbe free world yet he seems t~be nmliing for
school boa", eIlairma~ Given the fac~ ~t the federal government h~ little if any role
in elemeatary school education, isJl't *~ really an over-reach?
.. f:.
:
'
/I>
/I>
"..
.
The President is playing precisely the role in educationtbat presidepts should play
that is, he is exercising national leadership on an issue of critical importance to
families. schools, and the development ofthe nation.
.
If our students are going 10 be able to compete in an increasingly global economy.
they must be able to measure up to international standards ofachievement. This test
provides us With a means ofcomparison as we strive towards stand8:rds ofexcellence.
Q.
Ilntt this just a way for the PreSident to create a "legacy' for himself since he
failed to get national health insurance passed? Wby should people take this idea
seriously when the federal government right DOW plays suell a minor role in finaneing
education?
: •.
.
.'
7
0(.;1·....1
nl
�:....;.
,.
This is an issue that has always been closest to the PreSident'~ heart.. President
Clinton has long been involved with the need for the nation t9 set standards of
excellence in education, first as a governor and a leader o,f all ~e governors, and
now as president.
. .•. .. . . :
.
,.
Over the past 4 years, President Clinton has galVanized ',activity throughout the
nation on setting challenging standards for children 8Ild,,~elping students achieve
to those high expectations. Fony-eighr states have develoPed or are in the process
of developing their own academic standards, aDd most are' also developing
assessments to measure whether students are reaching the goals. ~ Public consensus
on the importance of national standards of excellence for edu~tion is broad and
deep.
.;.
,.
This is part ofa comprehensive strategy that President Cliritrin is p~g forward to
improve our schools and make it possible for studenT.$.whoStudy hard and make the
grade to go to college. This is not a legacy for th~;l>resi4ent, but one we will all
achieve for the nation if we work together.
.
. . . .
.
Did the President consult with any education experts before he';decided ro make
this proposal and if so who? Who are the people behind this new pr~posal?
Q.
,.
The President regularly consults With parents, teachers, principals, Gollege presidents,
and a variety ofeducation experts as part ofhis comprehensive strategy in education.
Secretary Riley made the cali for reading more than a year ago. The
i'
. READ*WRITE*NOW program8.Dd America Reads Challenge are both focused on
making sure that students read well and independently by 4th grad~. Both programs
involve families, teachers. and OOD:lIIlUnity members in student leari,rlng, and this test
will allow parents, teachers. and reading tutors to see whether their efforts are
succeeding.
. .
i
,.
TIMSS was a major effon of the Education Department in coordination with 40
other countries, the National Academy of Sciences, and the National Science
Foundation. The International Association for the Evalutation of Educational
Achievement (lEA), a Netherlands-based organization of ministries of education
and research instirutiODS in its member countries, came to a consensus about what
. students need to know and be able to do in math and science in .urder to succeed
in the global economy and the technological age.
m.
Getting Teachers and Schools Ready
Q.
Row will you ensure that teachers are prepared to help students meet these
high standards?
'
.
8
C~·..J
nr
�i
..
The President bas confidence iD,the nation's teacheTS.and schoolS toacbievethese
goals, but he also understands thac they.will need support and assistance ..
..
The President has Iriade a bigh-quality reaching force a key priority. Both the
report of the National Commission on Teaching and America~s Future and the
report of the Third International Mathematics and Science Study conclude that
much more is required to prepa.re and support, teachers to enable;: them to teach to
high standards. The President recognizes these challenges and has called on the
states and local school districts ,to support teachers in their effoits.
•
President Clinton has directed the U.S. Department ofEducatiQh to focus on the
most effective strategies to addr~ the challenges in improving teaching quality
and accountability. including recruitment. alignment with challenging standards,
.
professional development, and rewards for excellence~
•
The D~panmem will provide fiscal support for these efforts through its programs.
including Eisenhower Professional Development, Ti~e It and G~s 2000 funding.
as well as by helping to identify and share best practices in the field.
•
The Department is also providing,teachers with materials that they can Use as toolS
to prepare their studeIlIS to meet these high standards. For exaIllBle in reading. the
Department has launched the America Reads Challenge and :summer reading
. materials for Read*Write*No~! that teachers and families caD. use to develop
"
i
young children's reading s~, 8.nd their enthusiasm for readipg. Additional
expanded items to the national assessment will also be available to teachers to use
, in their classrooms to diagnose problems early.
.
,
o '
President Clinton has also challenged staces and communities across the country to
admjnister the TIMSS test to their students in the next 2. years. Those that do so
. will help prepare their students and teachers for ~e new assessn;.ent in 1999.
Q.
If youbave a national test for students, why not ana~onal test for teachers?
A.
We are not advocating a national teSt for teachers. but we are supporting voluntary
board Certification through the National Board of Professional Teaching Standards and
other measures·to upgrade teaching quality.
,
\
,
.
,
•
We hope to encourage and support the board certification of over 100,000 master
teachers, at least one teacher in each schooL
•
We are also supporting national acaediting organizations and encouraging states
in their efforts to align their teacher entry examinations. liCensing.' and certification
9
fAT' -I
�. requirements with the challenging standards
students.
that tbe~· arJ'idetreloping for .their
. . /.
'.
Q~
How can you have these types: of tests when students in pooter schools don't
,get the trained teachers'and other •resources they need to , I to meet these '
be able
.
standards? What is the administration doing to help poor schools; to get ready for
these tests? What will you do to help schools that do ba~y';91J, ~ tests?
..
The proposal recognizes that these tests will show meshortcOm.i.t)gs in schools and
curriculum and identify students and schools that ~extra ,help. If the test
identifies failure. it will be the failure of systems to educate. not ·studerus to learn.
•
The President and the Seaetaryare committed to ensuring that)all children have
the opportuDity to be successful learners. Through'Title I·.and'other elementary
and secondary programs, the (federal government targets' ad9itional funds to
districts and schools that l.ack the resources .to meet "ilieneeds of their students,
particularly students with needs that may cost more to ~t. .Oqa1s 2(XX) seeks to
make challenging standards an achievable reality for all studenis. The America
Reads Challenge will build on these effons by supponing~ 30,000 reading
specialists as they mobilize a million volunteers to enable 8:year-olds in the
country to read independenlly by the 3rd grade. The National SCience Foundation
!
has focused attention on urban and rural school systems in its ~ffons to upgrade
.,
.'
.
math and science teaching.
.
..
.',
'.'';:
';':"',.'
(
At the present time. many schools offer children, especiarly disadvantaged
srudents, a "dumbed-down" curriculum focused only on the most rudimentary
skills. A watered-down cwriculum denies children the challenge of meeting high
expectations. Research by cognitive scientists over the past two decades tells us
that in fact all children engage in higher-order thinking from th¢ very beginning
and can and willleam basic skiiIs better if given more challengi,ng materiaL
..
~
. • Parents need to know how well their children are progressing in school and
whether they will be ready for higher level work. Srudents' grades are not an
ac.eurate measure for parents. particularly in poor communities. On average. n A "
students in high-poverty schools in math perform about as well as "c" srudents in
low-poverty schools on the same math test, suggesting that sOldents in high-poverty
schools are neither exposed to nor held to the same high standards as their more
advantaged peers
'
IV. FEDERAL ROLE AND STATE RIGHTS
Q.
The President says that he does not intend to take power f~om local
, 10
no
s~hool
�.
.
boards yet this seems to be the first step toward a Datio~al t:qnic,ulum?
";
. ','.,
,"
A.
No. The President's proposat is entirely consistent with'the 11mjted role of the
federal government in education-one 9f leadership and support for states, c.ommunities,
educators, and parents in providing ~best education for their cbildrert:. It also does not
specify curriculum. and instruction, matters for states and communities, to decide.
)
I
.
Enabling teachers and parents to gauge how well their children ar~ ~rforming against
national and international benchmarks provides them with apowerful tool in their efforts.
Such benchmarks offer a North Star to guide improvement fu are3;s where there is
consensus on what should be learned. These tests will be administered aQd scored locally.
. .'
I
Q.
Isn't this a vote of no-confideDce that our public schools can~t even teach the
. basics and the federal government has to step in?
..
,
A. . Not at all. We know that many'schools are successfully teaching the basics arid
challenging coursework in communiti~ across the country.. We .als~· know that other
schools are performing' not as well aDd that all schools need to accelerate the pace of
improvement and support all students in learning more. Our proposal~offers individual
communities and schools the opporomity to measure the perfortnance of individual
srudents against standards that are recogni%ed as challenging nationally arid internationally.
This will suggest to local communities where their students are excelling and where they
need to make curriculum and instruction more challenging. As in the caSe of Northbrook,
Illinois. it will show where they are dQing it right. For individual (amilies, such an
assessment will let them know whether their children are on the right t:raGk and where they
need extra help. This is a vote of confidence that when. given good information, schools .
and families will act on it.
.
Q.
Will tb1s proposed national ~ take the. place of state tests
belng administered? If so many stateS
.national test redundant?
hw: are already.
are already giving these types of test,
isn't this
., .
A.
This short assessment is not a substitute for the tests states and local districts are
,developing; rather it is designed to supplement and anchor state and loc3l assessmenIS to
national and international benchmarks for student performance. Indeed trur assessment .
will be offered by test publishers and used by states and cOmmunities in conjunction with
their: own tests. It will provide two points of comparison, one for fourth grade reading and
one for eighth grade math, without adding measurably to testing burden.
Q.
You seem to be. saying that the federal government knows more about
improviDg education than Governors, and you seem to be implying thal state standards
aren't strong enough and that the fedei'a1 government has to step in?;
(
11
":'T· J
"'.
,
�'; .
.
.
A..
No one governor or one state has the resources or capacity to dete10p this kind of
internationally beDchmarked assessment. Only the U.S. Deparanem of EdUcatioD has the
capacity to regularly benchmark student perfonnance with othercoUIlllies.
TIle assessment is being offered as a support for stateand,loca1 ¢fforts to develop
challenging standards and assessments by offering an externaIbenchInark for student
perfonnance. State assessments vary widely in how they define proficiency for their
students, according to an analysis ofNational Assessment ofEdu.catiorial :Progress (NAEP)
results and states~ own assessments. The Southern Regional .Education BQard compared the
..
percent of 4th graders scoring at the proficient level on NAEP with the percent each state
reported for its state assessment and foUIld wide variation, withth~ states generally scoring
lower on NAEP. For example, under 35 ~cent of4th graders ht:Lo:uisUmB., South Carolina. .
. and Wisconsin qualified as proficient 9n NAEP. while ()ver'80percent scored at the
proficient level on their respective state assessments. (Southern Regional Education Board,
. 1996).
.
;,
.
'
Q. . Are these tests voluntary for states, districts, stu4ents?: If they don't
participate, will they lose funds? Even though you say these are vol~tary, won't you
be tying federal funding or other strings to these ~ making them essentially,
mandatory?,
"
A.
These tests tests are completely voluntary for states and district.J and are not tied
to any federal program or fundlng. Q~tricts wj11 not lose fundsjf ~y choose DQt to
rticipate...., G sese . sts wou
\.
Y
•
..
provisions for families to opt out ofpaIt1cipation. if they so des!!:'
---;;::",,-----
~----~"
.
1:-----------
Q.
How many states and districts do you think will cboose to use this test? Have
you spoken to many already? ,What kind of response are you getting?
.
,
:
A.
The Department intends to pay for the test administration in ~ first year to
encourage states, school districts. and schools to participate. Some.states and locals may
choose to adopt this as their own assessment system, others may choose to supplement
assessments they are developing in additional grades and subject areas.;, The American .
public sees the need for an external benchmark for perform.ance; Six in 10 Americans
(61 %) say academic standards are too low in their own local schools. The public by a wide
, margin (87 %) favors setting "higher s~ds than are now required aboJlt what students
should know and be able to do" in "math., history, English and science fori promotion from
grade to grade." (Gallup. 1995).
Q.
DaI!=eDlfS
choose for their children not to be tested?
1districts woUld :make provisions
01
wo~~
vc:v0
~661-£0-a3~
�,
"~
"
,,',
::";'
for Op~ out for families.
;
. ....,'".'
,
"
Q.
Won't this lead to a national curriculUJJl? Doesn't this undermine the work
states and', districts have already done" to develo~: ~eiK ',o~ standards and
assessments?
" , ,,',
A.
The assessment is not a national curriculum. A curriculum, spec,ifies what subject
matter is going to be covered. when it will be taught. and often . how Jt will be taught.
The assessment only sets a goal. Its value tD parents, teachers, 'and' students is measuring'
the performance of individual students: benchmarked against ~qQnal,~and international
standards. It would provide states and lOcals with an independentclleck pn the quality and
rigor of their own tests.
'
Q.
Will the federal government require teachers to teacb'toa' spJ.me curriculum?
"
,
'!
'
For eDmple, will teacbers teach either pbonies or whole btngtiage when it comes to
preparing for the reading section of this test?
' ,
No. Curriculum is a state and local matter. .The national and international
:
assessments from which the tests derive broadly cover cuqicuhlmthat are used across our
countty and in other coun1ries as welL 'They take a balanced app~oach in testing the kinds
of skills s1l1dents will need to be successful in reading and~th'~ school generally.
A.
,
,
'
.'\'
,
,
' - ,,"
~.
::"',
','
,':, "',<
.,
Q.
So you say participation in thiS test is voluntary. That~snne for now, bUt what
will yoo say next year or two years n:om DOW? IsnIt this the first &"rep to the federal
govermnent setting standards and requiring tests?'
,
A.
States and locals would decide ~ they wished to use these tests. lust as they make '
decisions about other assessment progr3ms such as the state NAEP. ' f The tests would
locals with an independent check on the quality and qgor of their own
provide states
testing programs. There would be nothing to coIIq."el states and l~s to1participate, ever,
other than responding to the desire of parems, local educators, and co~unities to know
how well their stlldents are performing. '
' ,
am
"
'.,
Q.
If there is such a need fora new test, why are tbe>test publishers not
deveiopiDg sodl a test? Why does tl\e federal government need to ~et ~volved?
A.
1be federal government needs to support the front-end wotk.,oftest development
that would be linked with assessment programs the government ilieady funds. The two
tests to which the assessment will be' tied. the National Assessment of Educational
Progress and the Third InIemational Math and Science Study are accepted as providing
national and international standards for srudent performance at critical transition points in
reading and math. This linking is a logical extension of the work the, U.S. Department of
Education has undertaken to provide valid and accurate assessments that' will be of use to
13
..... T ·
•
,..."
�parents, communities. and states.
v. Test Quality and Fairness'
Who determines the standar:~ - the knowledge aud
measured by thiS test?
/ ,r
Q.
l
..
'
'
sldlh -
"
that will be
A.
The knowledge. skills, and abilities measured in this, test will be, based on well
developed content frameworks already muse at the national and,intematiopallevels. In the
case of reading, we will use the framework developed by the 'Nati,onal Assessment
Governing Board (NAGB). It was developed through a national conse~ effort in which
ideas were sought from hundreds of individuals involved and interested,: in this country·s
reading education. The mathematics fi:amework ofthe Third Interriational Math and Science
, Study (TIMSS) was similarly developed at the international leveL 'Both frameworks are
based on challenging cpntent.
'
;
Q.
How will we know that these tests are fair? For ex~pl~~:how ~ we know that
J
these reading tests are "good?" How.:tfill we know that they b~~eelwhole language
and phonics? How will we know that these tests are noteulfurally biased or too
politieaUy correct?
'
,
,
,
'
,,0,'
'.'
A.
As ~th any standardized test, dUring the test development stag~.a considerable
amount of time Will be spent on the review and revision of the item~ by ~ of successful
, math and reading teachers and prontent expense They will focuson curri~ulum. relevance,
as well as cultural bias. Then using large samples of students. the testwiUbe undergoing
rigorous field testing to determine the technical soundness of the iteins, and to verify the
absence of subgroup bias through stalistical ~sts. With regard to politic8.J. correctness. an
independent Board is proposed to oversee the development aJ?d implementation ofthe test.
How does this test eompare to the types of tests that Dlost stu<lents take now?'
Will the test be muldple ehoice,
8I1d false, ud fi1l in the bubble? Qr wiJJ. it require
students to write?
';
Q.
tnle
'. :
.~
These testS will represent state-of-the-art testing standatds.That is,they will include
both multiple choice and constructed response items (e.g., items requinng students to
produce their own answers). Specifically, ,the test will include about 80% multiple choice
and about 20% constructed response questions. At least one of the constructed response
items will require an extended response. Additional constructed responSe items will be
available to teachers to integrate in their i.nstructionand use in diagnosing potentialleaming
problems.
A.
VI. Teehnicai Questions about the Proposal
14
rT·
I
�Q. 'Why will th. tests be challenging? Are they better than the ~ther tests being
used by sdools across the country? Who says?
'
,
(
The reading test will be based on ~ NAEP reading framework. ,:This framework
represents the agreement among ~hers, educators. reading tesearchers, and
representatives of the busmess commi~. Over almost two years, this D;itional COnsensus
was built based on the best practices at the school level and the most recent developments
in reading research. The framework developers em.phasiud reading performance, that is,
they wanted to know what successful r~ are able to do.. They believed that a variety
of approaches and progr2:JD.S can produce good readers and did:oot ~phasize.any one
approach over any other. The framework emphasizes "'readingiiteracy~ and mastery of
the basics. SUccessful readers know bow to read arid understand what they have read.
"
"'
't
'
,
,
,
"
The mathematics test is based on the international framework and' benchmarks set by the
Third Inremational Mathematics and Science Srudy (TIMSS). The TIMSS was developed
through a consensus process of more than ,40 countries examining what t4ey expected there '
students to know and be able to doai the end of 4th.~8tlr. and;i~tb. grade. The
mathematics challenge is based. on the ;$th grade, but na~y 'reflects ,what is expected
up to that point and what should na1l1I'liUy follow throughout a stUdent's education.
;
•
i"
\
The challenge levels have been set by [examining how thousands, of students actually
perfoImed on the 8th grade test. It sets the international benchniark for what 8th graders
should know and ,be able to do by looking at what they are actually able; to do.
"
;:
Q. Does the test tell if students can spell, construd: a sentence, or ~ a comma?
I
The reading challenge is looking at a 4th graders ability to read. There are many pans to
being literate, including writing) spelling, grammar. and puncniation ~t are taught and
measured in the Nation's classrooms. 1lte reading challenge is foeused\on one aspect of
literacy - reading - because we know it~ the key to future learning. Without the ability
to read and to read well. no student c;an succeed. Specific assessIl1ents to diagnose a
. student's reading difficulties would remain a responsibility of local Schools and teachers.
Q.
Will nonpublic school studentS be iDcluded?
A. Yes, at the option of the nonpublic school. The test will be availa1)le to non-public
schools QS are any released items produced with Federal ftmds. Similar to NAEP and TIMSS,
we will work with non-public school organizations and interest groups to ensure
, comprehensive distribution of the test along with training and scoring guides. In addition,
after each administration, the test (along with answers, scoring guides and other materials)
would be released to the press and placed on the Internet for access by anyone. People who
home school their children could give the released test to their children ift4ey wanted to and
score it themselves.
.' !
IS
t:')T • •1
�Q.
How does the test differ from the current NAEP andTIMSS;,tests?
.
,
A.·The test will differ from NAEP and TIMSS in several ways. Fir;!" not J~ery student takes
every item on the NAEP and TIMSS ~sts. Students' knowledge: and ~bilities are sampled '
across books.contai.ning different sets of items. In the proposed test; all st\ldents would take
every item on the test, and each student would take the exiu:t
testbooklet. Ser;ond, the
proposed tests will yield an individualseore-NAEP and TIMSS'can onl~ prod~e reliable
group estimates (e.g~, state and national data) about student performanc¢. Third, all items
from the proposed test will be released annually following each &.iminisnation. NAEP and
TIMSS typically release only a few items following each administration .. The rest of the
items are retained for future assessments. And fourth the new ~sessInent would provide
teachers with materials to help their st:ucrents prepare to meetth~~hallengitig standards ofthe
test.·
'. .:'. ,.. .
'
,
sam¢
. :>v~ ;.:.
..)
<.
Q.
Will children with disabilities,'and limited English proficiency be included in
these tests?
;' .
,
,
A.
Yes. Consistent with civil rights requirements that apply to most s~hools that would
participate,reasonable accommodation for smdents with disa1:>iliti~or witplimited English
proficiency would be provided by school administrators of the ;teSt~ These responsibilities
will be specifically addressed in. the development and distriqMpoIl 0(. the teSt. Such
acconunodatioDS may include extended response time for studentl;~ili disabilities or access
to an English dictionary for the math test for students with limit#Erigllsh proficiency.
Q.
When will these tests be ready? Who will develop them? Who, will administer
them? How will tbey be made available to states and districts? Why aren't they
aVailable now?
'
..
~
A The new test will be developed during' 1997 and 1998 with a full admhlistration planned
in the spring of 1999. The development 'of the test will be funded by the tJ.S. Departlnent
of Education's Office of Educational Research and Improvement. A public or private
organization 'Will be competitively selected to develop the test and make iiavailable to test
publishers and schools for their use. It is also expected that a representative. independent
Board, including successful local math and reading teachers. parentrepreselltatives, and state
and local leaders, will be created to advise on the development'aIld implementation of the
test.
. '
Regarding administration, the test will be made available through School ,district and state
testing coordinators. It would also be used by test publishers for obtaining recent national
norms in reading. or national and inteq:tational norms in mathematics. The test will be
adminjstered and scored by local teachers;using training guides and scoring: guides provided
by the test developer.
,:
16
,..,.
�.
~
Q.
How will you protect the privacy rights ofindividual students?: Will the Federal
govemment keep a reeord of how stUdents do on these tests?
'
.
.
.'
-f
A.
Individual results ofthe tests will not be reported to the FederaJ Government. The
test users will have the responsibility for test admjnistration, scoring, analysis, and
reporting of this new test. Thus, state directors, school districts. and schools will be
expected to follow their local laws and regulations, as well.' as the" Federal Family
Educational Rights and Privacy M.t, regarding privacy rights of individual students. Also,
at the Dationallevel, when separate studies are conducted to:link student responses on the
new test to NAEP and TIMSS scores, special Federal cOnfidentiality laws apply. All
government and contractor employees who will work on these studies',will be sworn to
uphold confidentiality and are subject to criminal penalties if they fail t() do so. Persons .
who violate the confidentiality law by disclosing the identifies of any respondent are
subject to penalties, including fines and,';prlson terms. In addition;;'it sho~d be noted that
the Federal Government does not rer.a.iD names of any smdents once liiiking procedures
(e.g., to teacher, school, or other tests) have been compl~ci.~t~ local. level.
'.,-,,!
'
.:.;>'"
.:.;~
Q.
Will this test be administered every year?
A.
.
,:,:~."
,,-'
Yes, the test will be administered annually.
Q.
Who will pay for the development of the test? Who wiU·pay fO.r administering
tbe test? Who will pay for analysis ed interpretation of the test?
A.
. The U.S. Department of Educarion. will support the development ofilie test. In 1999.
the Department 'Will reimburse states. diStricts, schools, testing companies and others who
wish to administer the new test. After 1999, it would fund contiriued development, as well
as provide the technical support and ass~ needed to continueannuai. testing, but the test
users would be responsible for the test administration. scoring, analysis;'Jrui reporting.
.
.
•
t
t,<
J
Q.
At what level will results be reported? By state? By schqol district? By
individual schools?
A. Results for individual students will be reported to parents,' teachers, and schools.
Assuming appropriate statistical, methodological, and administrative standards have been
upheld, test users at the state, district, and school levels could report on tlteir own data. Test
publishers could report national norms, and the Department could report n,ationai and state
data linked to NAEP and TIMSS.
.
Q.
. Will this be some kind of matrix sampling, or will every 4th grader in a
participating district be tested? If the latter, will results for individuals be available?
17
OT·""
nl
�A. The new test will not use malrix sampling. In each particip~ting ~chool, individual
students will take the same test, yielding individual scores available to'the teacher and parent,
consistent with applicable privacy protections. There will bea co*tinua~on ofNAEP aild
,'..,"
TIMSS each year to norm the results and maintain trend data.
Q.
How much additioDal teacher time will be required to score the tests, aDd how
will this time be compensated? Aren't teachers overburdened, already?
Some publishers who have been licensed will carry out their own sboring ofthe core
tests. Teachers, in this case. will use guidelines for judging the ,supplemental questions
(which will not count in the scoring ofthe test). Teachers may Use these ~pplemental items
as pan of their instructional program. "
A.
.
'
!
In other instances the teachers will have the training necesSarYtoscorethe:main body of the
, ' "~ "\ :,~'if,
test as well as the supplemental items.
,
.
'
•
:
',1
The time demands will not be great or excessive UDder either cQnditiJn .- and in both
,'conditions the actual activity of scoring,,~ould inform the te8cherabo~tthe strengths and
weaknesses ofstudents.
"
. ' . '
In terms of compensation, this would DDrmally be seen
responsibilities.
as pflit of a teacher's regular
t; ,
' ,','
;,
"
Q.
CaD you trust teachers at the low level to score their own stu~ents' tests?'
. "',
r
A.
If trained, yes.
,
'
.
I
Q.
How will you emure that there will not be objectionaJ:jle mater,ial (e.g. reading
passages) on the test? Will parents be given Information about the type of passages
and math questions before deciding to have their cbiJd partidpate? .
,
.
,
,
i
'
A.
The tests will be reviewed by samples of teachers. testex~,and parents prior
to deliVery. Every test will also be released directly after it hasbe~nMmjnistered so all
parents will have access to prototypic ~sts. This includes ~ttial' tests given in 1998
which will be released so parents an ~View these items before' the testi given in 1999.
Q.
Can distJjcts and' schools opt 'to give the 1m: to only some of their students
rather than all?
'
"
,
A.
We will strongly urge districts and schools to include as lriany srudents as
conceivably possible in the administration of the test. We wilt build in time
accomodations for disabled students and whatever accommodations are possible for limited
English proficient students (such as English-Spanish dictionaries). Guidelines from test
publishers will urge the same thing. We would expect all schools and dis~ts to follow
18
('11
�our guidance.
Q.
What is this "independent board" that will oversee ,the 'development and
implementation of the tests? Who will sit on it and how·. and 'by whom will its
members be appointed? Is this anotherNAGB? What will the Board's authority be?
t'
, .
A.
Our thinking about the OOar'd is only JUSt firming up. We expect it to be made up
of at least 51 % math and reading teachers, and include pirent(·aild some political and
.business leaders and some educators bther than teachers, including testing experts. We
have not settled on who would do the' appointing. The 1x>aid woUld have advisory
authority over the general policies of t1;Ie.developm.ent an4)mpleinentation oftqe testing.
VII. Budget and Legislation
.
, , ' .' :
.
..
Q.
t
'
How much will this proposal cost?
We currently estimate a five year price-tag of about 90 miJJiofl dollars; Much of this is
to pay aU the costs associated with Iet$g every fourth gradei'in A.merica take the reading
test in the Spring of 1999, and every eighth grader take the mat:lj~st that Spring. After
1999 we would pay for development. costs and technical assistance but not for the
administration of the exam, which will be made available through licenSing arrangements
(
. .
.
to commercial test publishers, states, and others..
. .
.
....
Q.
Will you need legislation to implement this?
,~
"
"'.,
A.
The DepartIDent bas ample authority to conduct this ne~ ass~ssment under its
current legislation. however Congress will certainly be consulte4~
vm. Background on MatbJReading
of
Q. ' How do our students fare in mternationaJ comparisons r~ding and math?
Isn'tthe reason that our students perform poorly onintemational(comparisons of
reading and math because we educate more of our students an;«i have a more diverse
student body?
";
Our studenrs do not perform poorly on international comparisons 9f reading. The recent
IEA International Reading Literacy Study found that U.S. fowth::and ninth graders are.
exceeded only by their counterparts in Finland. But given tdday;s~ literacy demands. the
U.S. must do better. The lEA TIMSS study showed that our eighth-gr~ers do perform
below average in international comparisons of mathematics. TlMSS data' on fourth-grade
madlematics perfon:nance will be announced in June, 1997.
•
In hodl the reading .and madl imernationalassessments, virtually ali of the nations
that participated educate all of their students through the niildl grade. It cannot be
19
�said that at these age levels the U.S. educates more of its srudents than other
industrializM countties. Student diversity is also regarde4' as a major challenge by
teachers in EngJand and Germany. For example, unlike typical U.s. practice,
Japanese eighth-grade teachers instruct both high and low achievers in the same
classroom.
•
The recent TIMSS study comparing our eighth grade math achievement with that
of forty other countries reveals the US to be below the international average. We
are also underrepresented in the percentage of our srudents in the international 'top
.10% of achievement. NAEP results do show that the nation bas made slow but
steady progress in math since the early 19805, but evidently such progress bas not
been fast enough to propel US to be among world's highest performers.
..
The federal government is paying for administration of the test in the 1st year.
20
T:;:>·...I
�Maryland Speech
Standards and Testing portion
••• 1 have long believed that one of the most important steps
we can take to improve education for our children is to set high
standards of academic excellence for them to meet, and then
measure how well students are meeting. those standards.
[tests
will tell us which students and schools need help, how we have to
change teaching methods, etc •••. ]
Maryland has been a leader in this approach, and you should
be proud of your efforts. The Maryland School Performance
Assessment Program (MSPAP) -- for grades 3, 5, and 8 in core
academic subjects -- reflects high standards of learning, and
makes clear what students are expected to learn.
Maryland is one of the few states in the country that has
made an effort to learn what other countries expect of their
students as you developed your own standards. You know that in
this global economy nations around the world are setting the
standard of excellence our students must reach, just as the
finest athletes anywhere in the world define the benchmarks of
~xcellence for our Olympic athletes.
Your performance assessments, among the most highly regarded
anywhere in the country, measure what really matters for students
. to learn rather than what is easy to test.
You.know that setting standards and testing students doesn't
work like magic. That is why you have been working hard to
provide Maryland's teachers with the extra professional
development they need to be able to teach to these standards, and
to upgrade the curriculum as well.
.
And you know that accountability is important. 1 commend
your efforts to provide report cards for each school district and
school, to hold schools accountable for their performance, and to
intervene in schools that are failing if they can't be turned
around on their own. The students in those schools deserve
nothing less than a first-rate education, and we can't let them
down.
The Maryland State Board of Education is now embarked ona
significant effort to extend the assessment program to high
school·students as well. The high school assessments proposed by
. the Maryland State Board of. Education -- a series of ten "end-of
course" exams in core academic subjects -- will measure
individual student as well as school performance, will hold high
school students accountable for their own learning and encourage
them to work hard and do their best, and will once again make the
high school diploma mean something.
�So I commend you for all of these efforts and the others you,
have taken to improve education in Maryland. [might want to add
sentance indicating that charter school legislation is under
discussion, and that President hopes that the state will pass a
strong charter schools law -- I am still checking the politics
and status of this proposal] As a result of your sustained
efforts over the past five years, Maryland schools have shown
five years of steady, sustained progress, and stand as a model to
the nationo
But you must do more, for your students, their parents and
the schools. Last week in my State of the Union Address, I
proposed that every state -- including Maryland -- adopt national
standards and national tests, for fourth grade reading ,and eighth
grade math.
Let me tell you why.
We are a highly mobile society, and students must master the
basic s~ills no matter where they live. If a student doesn't
learn to read well by 4th grade, they will fall behind in all of
their subjects~ And students who don't master algebra by 8th
grade won't be prepared for college and high skilled jobs.
While every state, including Maryland, has worked to develop
its own definition of what students should know and be able to do
with respect to reading and math, at present, no 'state can
compare its standards or its student performance with other
states or with national or international benchmarks.
More importantly, no parent has the means to determine if
her child is doing well enough against widely (nationally),
recognized benchmarks. _The state or local test their children
takes tells them how well their child performs; but there is no
way for a parent to, tell how good is "good enough. tI And,
unfortunately, for some (many???) states, the (performance)
standard for satisfactory performance is still quite low.
'\).l\ ... (,0. .
*t~
Yet we already have widely recognized and utilized national
standards and national tests of student performance, for reading
and math.
~~~J~
In reading, 40 [check number] states participate in the
National Assessment of Education Progress, measuring state
M~"
i performance against a rigorous national, standard. The, test was
~r~S~ designed to reflect what reading teachers and other experts have
.Jo ~P"""'. learned is important for student to be able to do, and to ref lect
~~
what states generally teach as well.
~I~.
~",g1'"
In math, in 1995 U.S. students participated in the Third
International Mathematics and Science a Study, a 41-nation study,
including tests given at the 4th, 8th, and 12th grade levels in
math and science. In this case, the test measures what an
international consensus of educators believes students should
learn. And the framework for this test reflects very well the
widely accepted national standards developed ,in 1989 by the
�National Council of Teachers of Mathematics, used by every state
including Marlyand. So, for mathematics we have a good measure
of rigorous international as well as national standardso
And these tests sets very rigorous performance standards.
Nationally. some 40% of the 4th grade students do not reach the
"basic" level of performance in reading, which most people
consider minimally acceptable. This is not an easy test.
In math, on average, U.S. students performed below the
international average at the 8th grade level. Only 45% of our
students performed at the international average, and only 5% of
our students performed in the top 10% of students
internationally. We have a long way to go to 'reach international
standards.
These tests help raise our sights higher. Unlike previous
generations of tests of basic skills, they don't dumb down our
curriculum or our students.
These widely accepted tests do an excellent job of reporting
on state and national education progress. However, they are
designed only to be administered to a small sample of students
nationally or in each state. Only a few students take them at a
time, and no student, and no school, can find out how he or she
did
I' \.c-...
0
'l"Jr ~
""'"
I believe that every parent de~es to know whether his or
her child is meeting these high national and international
standards in the most basic of subjects, reading and math.
,
Students must know this as well, for this is how they can tell if
they are on track or in danger of falling behind. But we can't
have an honest assessment of our students or our schools unless
this information is available for every student and every school.
My plan, announced in my State of the Union Address last
week, will address this need, by 1999. The U.S. Department of
Education will fund the development of a 4th grade reading test
and an 8th grade math test for individual students, based on the
existing NAEP and TIMSS tests. The scores on these new tests
will be comparable to the scores on the existing tests, so that
students can learn how well they perform compared to rigorous
national and international benchmarks.
The development work will take two years. Once completed,
the tests will be licensed to interested commercial test
publishers and states. States and school districts can then
purchase these tests the same way they purchase the rest of the
tests they use.
No state or local school district will be required to
administer these tests in orQQr to rooeive f~deral edHOet1o~ .
ftiHds~
They will not be administered or scored by the federal
government.
�But I urge every single state to use these tests, not to
replace but to supplement and enhance their own testing program.
They provide information that is simply essential for students,
parents, teachers and the public must have if we are to improve
our schools. And this information cannot' be obtained in any
other way_
Announce: National Business Roundtable Education Task
Force, led by Norman Augustene of Martin Marietta, and an
important supporter of Maryland's education reform efforts, has
endorsed this plan for. national standards and national tests.
Challenge: The Maryland State Board of Education to
incorporate these tests into the state's overall approach.
[Chris Cross, the President of the Maryland State Board of
Education (and the President of the Council on Basic Education, a
nationally recognized group promoting academic standards and also
a former Assistant Secretary of Education in the Bush
Administration) is prepared to respond positively]
�A CALL TO ACTION FOR AMERICAN EDUCATION
IN THE 21sT CENTURY
In his State of the Union address tonight, the President will make clear that his number
one priority for the next four years is to ensure that Americans have the best educ~tion in the
world. He will issue a lO-point call to action for American education in the 21st Century to
enlist parents, teachers, students, business leaders, local and state officials in this effort:
'"
Set rigorous national standards, with national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th
grade math to make sure our children master the basics. Every 4th grader should be
able to read; every 8th grader should know basic math and algebra. To help make sure
they do, the President is pledging the development of national tests in 4th grade reading
and 8th grade math, and challenging every state and community to test every student in
these critical areas by 1999. These tests will show how well students are doing compared
to rigorous standards and to their peers around the country and the world. They will help
parents know if their children are mastering critical basic skills early enough to succeed
in school and in the workforce. Every state and school should also set guidelines for
what students should know in all core subjects. We m'ust end social promotion: Students
should have to show what they've learned in order to move from grade school to middle
school and from middle school to high school. We must make sure a high school
diploma means something.
Make sure there's a talented and dedicated teacher in every classroom. In addition
to the talented and dedicated teachers already in the classroom, two million new teachers
will be needed over the next ten years to replace retirees and accommodate rapidly
growing student enrollments. We must take advantage of this opportunity to ensure
teaching quality well into the 21st Century by challenging our most promising young
people to consider teaching as a career, setting high standards for entering the teaching
profession, and pro~iding the highest quality preparation and training. We should reward
good teachers, and quickly and fairly remove those few who don't measure up. The
President's education budget will make it possible for 100,000 master teachers to achieve
national certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards over
the next ten years.
'"
Teach every student to read independently and well by the end of the 3rd grade.
Reading is the key to unlocking learning in all subjects. While America's 4th graders
read on average as well as ever, more than 40 percent cannot read as well as they must to
succeed later in school and in the workforce. Research shows that students unable to read
�well by the end of the 3rd grade are more likely to become school dropouts and truants,
and have fewer good options for jobs. The President's "America Reads" challenge is a
nationwide effort to mobilize a citizen anny of a million volunteer tutors to make sure
every child can read independently by the end of the 3rd grade. Parents, teachers, college
students, senior citizens, and others can all pitch in to give children extra help in reading
during the afternoons, weekends, and summers. At the same time, schools must
strengthen the teaching of reading in the school day, and the President's budget invests
more in programs that address reading achievement in school.
Expand Head Start and challenge parents to get involved early in their children's
'learning. A child's learning begins long before he or she goes to school. That's why the
President's budget expands Head Start to cover one million childTen by 2002. Parents are
their children's first teachers, and every home should be a place oflearning. The
President and First Lady will convene a Conference this spring to review recent scientific
discoveries on early child learning and to show how parents, teachers, and policymakers
can use this new knowledge to benefit young children. And in June, the Vice President
and Mrs. Gore will host their sixth annual family conference, and focus on the importance
of parents , involvement throughout a child's education.
Expand choice and accountability in public education. The President has challenged
every state to let parents choose the right public school for their children. Innovation,
competition, and parental involvement wili make our public schools better. We must do
more to help teachers, parents, community groups, and other responsible organizations to
start charter schools~innovative public schools that stay open only as long as they
produce results and meet the highest standards. The President's budget doubles funding
to help start charter schools so that there will be 3,000 charter schools at the dawn of the
21 st Century, providing parents with more choices in public education.
Make sure our schools are safe, disciplined and drug-free, and instill American
values. Students cannot learn in schools that are not safe and orderly and do not promote
positive values. We must find effective ways to give children the safe and disciplined
conditions they need to learn, such as by promoting smaller schools, fair and rigorously
enforced discipline codes, and teacher training to deal with violence. We should continue
to support communities that introduce school uniforms and character education, impose
curfews, enforce truancy laws, remove disruptive students from the classroom, and have
zero tolerance for guns and drugs. We should also keep schools open later as safe havens
from gangs and drugs, expanding educational opportunities for young people in the
afternoons, weekends, and summers, and providing peace of mind for working parents.
Modernize school buildings and help support school construction. Just as we face
unprecedented and growing levels of student enrollment, a recent report by the General
Accounting Office shows that a third of our nation's schools need major repair or outright
replacement. To keep children from growing up in schools that are falling down, the
Administration has proposed $5 billion to help communities finance $20 billion in needed
school construction over the next four years.
�Open the doors of college to all who work hard and make the grade, and make the
13th and 14th years of education as universal as high school. To prepare ourselves for
the 21st Century, we must open the doors of college to all Americans and make at least
two years of college as universal as high school is today. The President's HOPE
scholarship, a $1,500 tax credit for college tuition, would be enough to pay for a typical
comri1Unity college tuition or provide a solid down payment for four-year colleges and
universities. The President also is proposing a $10,000 tax deduction for any tuition
after high school, an expanded IRA to allow families to save tax-free for college, and the
largest increase in Pell Grants for deserving students in 20 years.
Help adults improve their education and skills by transforming the tangle of federal
training programs into a simple skill grant. Learning must last a lifetime, and all our
people must have the chance to learn new skills. Adults should take on the responsibility
of getting the education and training they need, and employers should support their
efforts to do so. The President's G.I. bill for workers would provide a simple skill grant
that would enable eligible workers to get the education and training they need.
V'
: Connect every classroom and library to the Internet by the year 2000 and help all
students become technologically literate. Our schools must now prepare for a
transition as dramatic as the move from an agrarian to an industrial economy 100 years
ago. We must connect everydassroom and library to the Internet by the year 2000, so
that all children have access to the best sources ofinfonnation in the world. The
President is proposing to double the funding for America's Technology Literacy
Challenge, catalyzing private-public sector partnerships to put the Infonnation Age at our
children's fingertips. CEOs of some of America's most innovative technology and
communications finns have already responded to the President's challenge to work with
schools to get computers into the classroom, link schools to the Internet, develop
effective educational software, and help train our teachers to be technologically literate.
�A CALL TO ACTION FOR AMERICAN EDUCATION
IN THE 21sT CENTURY
To prepare America for the 21st century, we need strong, safe schools with clear standards of
achievement and discipline, and talented and dedicated teachers in every classroom. Every 8
year-old must be able to read, every 12-year-old must be able to log onto the Internet, every 18
year-old must be able to go to college, and all adults must be able to keep on learning.
We must provide all our people with the best education in the world. Together, we must commit
ourselves to a bold plan of action:
V
Set rigorous national standards, with national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th
grade math to make sure our children master the basics.
V
Make sure there's a talented and dedicated teacher in every classroom.
V
Help every student to read independently and well by the end of the 3rd grade.
V
Expand Head Start and challenge parents to get involved early on in their children's
learning.
V
Expand choice and accountability in public education.
V
Make sure our schools are safe, disciplined and drug-free, and instill basic
American values.
V
Modernize school buildings and help support school construction.
V
Open the doors of college to all who work hard and make the grade, and make the
13th and 14th years of education as universal as high school.
Help adults improve their education and skills by transforming the tangle of federal
training programs into a simple skill grant.
Connect every classroom and library to the Internet by the year 2000 and help all
students become technologically literate.
�A CALL TO ACTION FOR AMERICAN EDUCATION
IN THE 21sT CENTURY
In his State of the Union address tonight, the President will make clear that his number
one priority for the next four years is to ensure that Americans have the best education in the
world. He will issue a 10-point call to action for American education in the 21 st Century to
enlist parents, teachers, students, business leaders, local and state officials in this effort:
V'
Set rigorous national standards, with national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th
grade math to make sure our children master the basics. Every 4th grader should be
able to read; every 8th grader should know basic math and algebra. To help make sure
they do, the President is pledging the development of national tests in 4th grade reading
and 8th grade math, and challenging every state and community to test every student in
these critical areas by 1999. These tests will show how well students are doing compared
to rigorous standards and to their peers around the country and the world. They will help
parents know if their children are mastering critical basic 'skills early enough to succeed
in school and in the workforce. Every state and school should also set guidelines for
what students should know in all core sUbjects. We must end social promotion: Students
should have to show what they've learned in order to move from grade school to middle
school and from middle school to high school. We must make sure a high school
diploma means something.
11"
Make sure there's a talented and dedicated teacher in every classroom. In addition
to the talented and dedicated teachers already in the classroom, two million new teachers
will be needed over the next ten years to replace retirees and accommodate rapidly
growing student enrollments. We must take advantage of this opportunity to ensure
teaching quality well into the 21 st Century by challenging our most promising young
people to consider teaching as a career, setting high standards for entering the teaching
profession, and providing the highest quality preparation and training. We should reward
good teachers, and quickly and fairly remove those few who don't measure up. The
President's education budget will make it possible for 100,000 master teachers to achieve
national certification from the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards over
the next ten years.
Teach every student to read independently and well by the end of the 3rd grade.
Reading is the key to unlocking learning in all subjects. While America's 4th graders
read on average as well as ever, more than 40 percent cannot read as well as they mustto
succeed later in school and in the workforce. Research shows that students unable to read
�well by the end of the 3rd grade are more likely to become school dropouts and truants,
and have fewer good options for jobs. The President's "America Reads" challenge is a
nationwide effort to mobilize a citizen army of a million volunteer tutors to make sure
eveI):' child can read independently by the end of the 3rd grade. Parents, teachers, college
students, senior citizens, and others can all pitch in to give children extra help in reading
during the afternoons, weekends, and summers. At the same time, schools must
strengthen the teaching of reading in the school day, and the President's budget invests
more in programs that address reading achievement in school. .
Expand Head Start and challenge parents to get involved early in their children's
learning. A child's learning begins long before he or she goes to school. That's why the
President's budget expands Head Start to cover one million chil4ren by 2002. Parents are
their children's first teachers, and every home should be a place oflearning. The
President and First Lady will convene a Conference this spring to review recent scientific
discoveries on early child learning and to show how parents, teachers, and policymakers
can use this new knowledge to benefit young children. And in lune, the Vice President
and Mrs. Gore will host their sixth annual family conference, and focus on the importance
of parents' involvement throughout a child's education.
Expand choice and accountability in public education. The President has challenged
every state to let parents choose the right public school for their children. Innovation,
competition, and parental involvement will make our public schools better. We must do
more to help te~chers, parents, community groups, and other responsible organizations to
start charter schools-innovative public schools that stay open only as long as they
produce results and meet the highest standards. The President's budget doubles funding
to help start charter schools so that there will be 3,000 charter schools at the dawn of the
21st Century, providing parents with more choices in public education.
Make sure our schools are safe, disciplined and drug-free, and instill American
values. Students cannot learn in schools that are not safe and orderly and do not promote
positive values. We must find effective ways to give children the safe and disciplined
conditions they need to learn, such as by promoting smaller schools, fair and rigorously
enforced discipline codes, and teacher training to deal with violence. We should continue
to support communities that introduce school uniforms and character education, impose
curfews, enforce truancy laws, remove disruptive students from the classroom, and have
zero tolerance for guns and drugs. We should also keep schools open later as safe havens
from gangs and drugs, expanding educational opportunities for young people in the
afternoons, weekends, and summers, and providing peace of mind for working parents.
Modernize school buildings and help support school construction. Just as we face
unprecedented and growing levels of student enrollment, a recent report by the General
Accounting Office shows that a third of our nation's schools need major repair or outright
replacement. To keep children from growing up in schools that are falling down, the
Administration has proposed $5 billion to help communities finance $20 biliion in needed
school construction over the next four years.
.
�Open the doors of college to all who work hard and make the grade, and make the
13th and 14th years of education as universal as high school. To prepare ourselves for
the 21 st Century, we must open the doors of college to all Americans and make at least
two years of college as universal as high school is today. The President's HOPE
scholarship, a $1,500 tax credit for college tuition, would be enough to pay for a typical
community college tuition or provide a solid down payment for four-year colleges and
universities. The President also is proposing a $10,000 tax deduction for any tuition
after high school, an expanded IRA to allow families to save tax-free for college, and the
largest increase in Pell Grants for deserving students in 20 years.
Help adults improve their education .and skills by transforming the tangle of federal
training programs into a simple skill grant. Learning must last a lifetime, and all our
people must have the chance to learn new skills. Adults should take on the responsibility
of getting the education and training they need, and employers should support their
efforts to do so. The President's G.!. bill for workers would provide a simple skill grant
that would enable eligible workers to get the education and training they need.
Connect every classroom and library to the Internet by the year 2000 and help all
students become technologically literate~ Our schools must now prepare for a
transition as dramatic as the move from an agrarian to an industrial economy 100 years
ago. We must connect every classroom and library to the Interrtet by the year 2000, so
that all children have access to the best sources ofinformation in the world. The
President is proposing to double the funding for America's Technology Literacy
Challenge, catalyzing private-public sector partnerships to put the. Information Age at our
children's fingertips. CEOs of some of America's. most innovative technology and
communications firms have already responded to the President's challenge to work with
schools to get computers into the classroom, link schools to the Internet,develop
effective educational software, and help train our teachers to be technologically literate.
�\Gco....c..
"t'Or
P(Mo)a..I.'t\
-~ lOrt-~lc-- -rOo ~ .(; (t...
.
~t'skk
c=ow.4, (C4.s- (~) ,/
.
-"'.:4~ s~ ulc..V"~ iCQl~~. ~~..,. ~IC-~I/ ~/8
'.l:qe> , itA: ~ 1""6ltG",ff1l.f, ~.vb, FU"t..(c:. UlOlc:E,
Q~S/ 1{,)(I~~G';f:
A- "'" ~'.,.,.,.,
.
,Javs -:. ~A(r, f~A CALL TO ACTION FOR AMERICAN EDUCATION
.,.. l
~J(. 1"'" "''' BfL. • 4o'to UA-';riPJ
.
(D...~ -CoIf' t-:.
..fp~
IN THE 21sT CENTURY
f
(!)~As ~. -1\0 ~.; ~..,-...
ILV~" ~~/'~~:'~ct't'1 h.."J
@ lJ£ "II oc.v' "P
P"'l
I
-_.c..,
1-1 . ,
tJoCCflt",. .
J J6'rdS_
.
.
/3> AII1..f&1"""To prepare America for the 21st century, we need strong, safe schools with clear standards of .
~
..... achievement and discipline, and talented and.dedicated teachers in every classroom. Every 8
. Jv- ~[I"O~ year-old must be able to read, every 12-year-old must be able to log onto the Internet, every 18
....
~" ~ .... year-old must be able to go to college, and all adults must be able to keep on learning.
I.:JI ~...., I t~.c.I.....~....
We must provide all our people with the best education in the world. Together, we must commit
ourselves to a bold plan of action:
•• - . .
v . Set rigorous national standards, with national tests in 4th grade reading and 8th
grade math to make sure. our children master the basics.
V
Make sure there's a talented and dedicated teacher in every classroom.
V
Help every student to read independently and well by the end of the 3rd grade.
V
Expand Head Start and challenge parents to get involved early on in their children's
learning.
V
Expand choice and accountability in public education.
V
Make sure our schools are safe, disciplined and drug-free, and instill basic
American values.
V
Modernize school buildings and help support school construction.
V
Open the doors of college to all who work hard and make the grade, and make the
13th and 14th years of education as universal as high school.
Help adults improve their education and skills by transforming the tangle of federal
training programs into a simple skill grant.
Coimect every classroom and library to the Internet by the year 2000 and help all
students become technologically literate.
1
�draft 2
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM: .
Michael Cohen
SUBJECT:
Moving Forward on National Standards
Over the past four years there has been considerable activity
throughout the nation to set standards of excellence for
education. Work on national content standards has been completed
in virtually every discipline. With the support of Goals 2000
and new Title 1 requirements, forty-eight states have developed
or are in the process of developing their own academic standards,
and most are also developing new assessments aligned to these
standards. Public consensus on the· importance of national
standards of excellence for education is broad and deep, and the
standards movement has clearly taken hold nationally.
Yet despite this progress, there are significant challenges as
well. The quality of the standards being developed by states is
quite varied. A recent AFT report indicates that only 15 states
have .standards that are clear and specific enough to lead to a
common core curriculum, and only 12 states have tried to
benchmark their own standards to world-class levels. State
progress on developing performance standards and assessments is
slower than with respect to content standards. No state is able
to determine for itself, or assure the public, that its standards
are rigorous and up to world class levels.
The state-by-state approach to standards and assessments limits
the information available·to parents, teachers and students. In
particular, the current arrangements make it impossible for
anyone to learning how well individual students perform against
national or international benchmarks. In short, there is no way
for anyone to know if a student who meets a particular state's
performance standards is doing well enough in a larger context.
This is especially important because states will vary among
themselves with respect to the rigor of their performance.
standards
0
~urther, there is considerable evidence that even high quality
and widely accepted academic standards, such as the national math.
standards, have not yet penetrated into the classroom in
meaningful ways. The recently released TIMSS study of
international performance in math and science shows that neither
textbooks and other curriculum materials, nor teaching practices,
have yet responded to the standards.
This memorandum describes three strategies for moving your
national. standards agenda forward. It is designed to respond to
the challenges indicated above, and to build on and extend
significantly the Administration's efforts over the last four
�,years. While it promotes national level activities -
particularly new national testing -- it is designed to build on
and strengthen the work underway at the state level, rather than
force states to discard what they have already been doing.
)fA.
,....,1'Ir'l:'". ~...-t.t.t""AA.\<.
_
. 'S'PRA'I'EEW 1: PROf/ISINS NM'IONAL AND IN'I'ERNM'IONAL ACHIEVEMENT
'BENCHMARKS FOR INSI'JII)UAL STUDENTS IN READING AND MATH.
Proposa~:
We propose to create new assessments that would provide
individual students, and their parents and teachers, with
information on how they perform relative to national performance
standards in 4th grade reading (as measured by the National
A~~essment of Education Progress) and international performance
standards in 8th grade mathematics (as measured'by the Third
International Math and Science Study [TIMSS]).
o A Focused Effort: This proposal~s focused on reading and math
because they are the building blo~f nearly all school
learning, and widely accepted as the most basic of basic skills.
Fourth and eighth grade are critical transition points in school,
and reading well by the 4th grade and mastering math, especially
algebra, by the 8th grade, are essential to future academic
success. NAEP and TIMSS, while not widely known to the public at
large, enjoy bipartisan support in the education and policy
communities. We believe this focus approach will minimize
politi.cal opposition to a federal testing effort.
o Information for parents, teachers and students on individual
student performance: Once available, these tests will give
parents, teachers and students accurate information on student
performance against recognized nation~l and international
standards. They will be the only assessments that can provide
this information -- no state or local testing program can
currently provide this information, and no other national efforts
are referenced to these recognized standards.
Both NAEP and TIMSS were originally designed to monitor national,
state or international performance, not to measure individual
st~dent achievement.
Therefore, at present, neither NAEP nor
TIMSS·canprovide individual-level scores. Our proposal would be
to create individual-level' versions of these tests, making it
possible for the first time to measure individual students'
against demanding national or international benchmarks. Our
consultations with leading testing experts suggests that. creating
individual level tests that reflect the performance standards in
the current assessments is feasible •.
2-Year Development Period, Led by the Federal Government:
The tests would be developed under contract to the National
Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of
Education. The contractor is most likely to be a commercial test
publisher, or consortium of publishers. The development costs
are" in the range of $2-4 million per year, and these costs would
O.A
�continue as long as the test was made available. The Education
Department, the National Science Foundation and perhaps the
Department of Defense Dependent Schools could share the
development costs. It will take 18-24 months to develop the new
tests. If the Education Department begins work immediately, the
test could be administered for the first time in the Spring of
1999. No new legislative authority would be required to undertake
this work.
To ensure the technical integrity of the work, we would organize
a technical advisory committee, or ask the National Academy of
Science to provide ongoing assistance.
We will also need to consider ways of reducing our vulnerability
to charges of federal intrusion as a result of the federal
responsibility for test development. We have considered
alternative approaches, such as asking ACHIEVE, the new entity
created by NGA and Lou Gerstner after the education summit in
Palisades. However, that organization is still not staffed or
operating yet, and is not likely to have the technical capacity
to undertake this work. Further, reaching an agreement .about how
to proceed with this work with the Governors and CEO's on. the
ACHIEVE Board of Trustees is likely' to' slow down work which is
already on a very tight timetable.
o National Tests Administered Locally, Supplementing But Not
Replacing State and Local Testing Programs: States and local
school districts would be encouraged to administer these new
assessments, in addition to their own testing program. The
combination of these new national assessments together with state
or local testing will provide both performance and diagnostic
information·forindividual students. While the bulk of the
diagnostic information would come from state and local testing
programs, the new national tests would provide some limited
amount as well.
Like most other state and local tests, these new tests would be
available from a commercial test publisher. Because these tests
perform a unique function not currently filled by the market, we
. do·, not anticipate significant opposition from the test
publishers.
State and local use of the tests would be voluntary; we advise
against requiring their use as a condition of receiving federal
education funds. Politically, such a requirement would generate
considerable opposition. Further, we think public pressure over
time, especially from the business community, is likely to be an
effective incentive to state use.
~\J'_-\.. ,~ ..- ~~\l
@
1
'~
,
After the first year of test administratl n'l\.a ersion of the
tests could be placed on the Internet and
ed by computer.
This means that, in states or school districts not using the
test, parents could administer the test to their children at
home, and learn how well their children perform against national
�and international benchmarks.
o Testing Related to Other Administration Initiatives: One
advantage of using these particuiar tests is that they are, or
can be, directly tied to other Administration efforts aimed at
helping students reach these standards. In particular, the
America Reads Initiative is aimed at helping all children reach
the NAEP 4th grade reading standard. Having this test available
at the individual student level will provide parents, tutors and
teachers with an important tOol.
There are also efforts underway or planned with regard to 8th
,
grade math. Last week at the First in the World Consortium event
in suburban Chicago, you challenged other districts, and states to
begin immediately to use the,TIMSS test, on a sample basis, to
benchmark their own standards, curriculum, and teaching
practices
The Department of Education and the National Science
Foundation are working together to develop a package of resources
that can help address curriculum, instruction, and professional
development issues ,in math. And planning has begun among the
Education Department, NSF, and the Office of Science and '
Technology Policy to more carefully coordinate resources from
executive branch ageQcies that can be directed toward improving
student performance on the 8th grade TIMSS test.
0
The focused strategy described above should be complemented by
additional efforts that address a broader range of issues. These
are briefly discussed below, and can be developed more' fully in
the near future~
~~
PROMOTING NATIONAL USE OF HIGH QUALITY STANDARDS
The focused effort on math and reading should be complemented by
one that builds on, existing state standards, addresses a broader
range of subject areas and grade levels, provides leadership to
promote nationwide consensus on what students should learn in
core academic subject areas, and assists states in developing and
using higher standards to effectively improve teaching and
learning
'-e-\..~~
,
' ,
,
,
P oposal' We propose to hold a White House Conference on
ards of Excellence in Education in the Fall of 1997. The
/l,.
purpose of the conference would be to increase the extent to
~o \ \~7i~. which states adopt and use standards of recognized high quality
and to help improve the quality of state academic standards
overall. This would be accomplished by identifying and promoting
\.
the best designed and most rigorous standards available from
~\ UJ,.,\
anywhere' in the country, and by identifying and reporting to
J ~~(
,states the extent to which there already exists agreement among
~~
states on the ,content standards in core academic subject areas.
In addition, the conference should emphasize that to be effective
in improving teaching and learning, academic standards must be
0
�placed in a system of aiigned assessments, curriculum, teaching
practices and professional development programs as a package.
Examples of such systems would include Advanced Placement exams
and New Standards.
This conference should conducted in partnership with business
leaders, governors and other state officials, and educators,
perhaps by working with ACHIEVE. The White House role should
primarily be in convening the effort, in challenging others
working on standards issues to identify quality standards, and
then to help build the consensus to use them more broadly
throughout the nation.
STRATEGY 3: LINKING STANDARDS TO ACCOUNTABILITY AND QUALITY AT
THE STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL
In your speech to the National Education Summit in Palisades, you
challenged states and local school systems to put in place
. meaningful systems of accountability for students, for teachers,
and for schools. There are several initiatives already underway
to help support these challenges, and, over the next year, the
Administration should undertake several additional ones. New and
proposed initiatives can be developed in more detail in a
subsequent memo. Briefly, these can and could include:
o Promoting Excellence and Accountability in Teaching: Expanded
support for the National Board for Professional Teaching
Standards
The FY 98 budget includes a significant increase in
support for the NBPTS. The Education Department, in response to a
Directive you issued last Fall, will inform st~tes and school
districts on ways federal resources can be used to assist in
preparing teachers for board certification. In addition, the
Education Department will more inform states and sqhool systems
on a range of ways in which federal resources can be effectively
used to promote excellence and accountability in teaching.
0
o The development of guidebooks that summarize best practices on
issues such as rewarding excellence in teaching, removing
incompetent teachers, requiring students to meet academic
standards before moving to the next level of schooling, etc.
o Working witn business leaders to help employers consider
student academic performance in employment decisionso The
business community has been working to identify ways in which
employers can reinforce the importance of academic performance
for high school students, through the review of high school
transcripts and other evidence of school performance. Many
bu~iness leaders working on this issue would welcome a
partnership with the White House that could raise the visibility
of these efforts, and lead to more widespread efforts by
employers.
�r. uc
January 26. 1997
To:
Mike Cohen
From:
Pat Forgione and Marty Orlahd
Subject:
Providing national and international achievemEmt benchmarks to
individual students.
Here are out current thoughts on the feasibility of providing rigorous national and
international achievement benchmarks for students in fourth grade reading arid eighth
grade mathematics by the Spring of 1999. We think there are two major options:
1) calibrating NAEP arid TIMSS scores to eXisting testing instruments;
2). creating a new national testlinked to NAEP and/or TIMSS.
.
Each optiOn is technically quite challenging given theprop'osed timelines, and each
offers a unique setClf advantages and disadvantages. Below are briefdescriptfons of
the options, along with their primary strengths and weaknesses. Following this isa
longer background paper about a natiOnal achievement test. where staff have been able
to do more technical work over the past week. .
Calibration .
.
.
.
It is technically feasible to generatestatistieallinks betWeen NAEprrtMSSand most
existing state and local tests. To do so requires that a sample of stUdents take both
NAEP and there own test (egs., nOrm refe'renee tests, t~eirstate or district assessment,
etc.). after which statistical analyses are cOnducted to develop linkage scores: This
option allows existing assessment systems to remain Intact, but provides additional data
from them, specifically how students fare relative t6 NAEP and/or TIMSS standards. .
Over the next tWo years and beyond, the federal governm"ent would wOrk with those
responsible for existing studehttests to provide them with the capacity to make these
' .
.
linkages.
Advantages:.
.
...
• The federal government Is not directly associated with developing a
national test, only a national and. in the case of eighth'grademath.
.
international benchmark;
• the eXisting NAEP program, and Its unique value as a national
performance indicator, is not siJbjeCt to corruption since no new tests
are produced;
"
.
.
• Existing tests that are not adequately aligned with the NAEP/TIMSS
frameWor~s for linking purposes would be encouraged to become
more aligned with these rigorous 'fra'meworks in the. future.
Disadvantages:
.• . here is not enough time between now and the Spring of 1999 to link
T
to all existing reading and mathematics tests by the Spring of 1999
(there are from 6·10 norm referenced tests, 50 state assessment
systems, and a few dozen large school districts each with their own
independent testing programs);
�VIII'
'-V
VI
""VI1
VV' 1'"1
111
Uo.)
IIcr I. vr
C.UI
\'tvc..:>
r Nfl
I'tV.
'-U'-'- 1 iJ 1 f ,JU
I
• .While some linking studies could be conducted In time for tests'
conducted in the Spring 6f 1999. fair criteria would need tc)'be .
established for determining who would be linked, and those not.
chosen would likely be quite unhappy;
..
• Some of the existing tests would not meet the technical standards of
alignment to be linked with NAEP (the overlap of the frameworks .
needs to be 80% or more).
.
.
New National Test •.
The Federal government would d~velop a new national test that is based directly on the
NAEP framework for fourth grade reading and the NAEP/TIMSS frameworks for math.
The test would be about one to one and a half hours long, and consist of mUltiple choice
and short construct~d response items.. The federal role would be to develop the
instrument, the linkages to NAEP and TIMSS, and the training materialsirlstructing
users on how to administer the test in a valid and reliable manner.. Rather than .
administering the test itself, the government would m:ake this resource available to
potential users such; as norm reference test publishers, district and state testing .
coordinators etc. Tne conditions for doing so could range from highly open (anyone
who requests the instrument can get it) to tightly controlled (we only give the instrument
to certain parties and determine who gets it based on an applicant's willingness to follow
pre-defined rules such as agreeing to test at the appropriate time, securing the
instrument, agreeing riot to 'use the test for high stakes purposes etc.).
Advantages:
.
'
....'
...
•
Directly challenges students to take an ambitious, challenging exam
linked to real national/international benchmarks;
.'. '
• B,y ereatingbut not administering the test, the direct Federal roie ,Is
limited and constructive;'.'
"
,
• Over time, existing tests and curn~ulum would likely become' more
aligned with the NAEP/TIMSS frameworks. ,
..
• BeCause of its limited nature and absence of direct administration, the
t~stwould not be seen as threatening to existing testing programs
and systems.
Disadvantages:
.
• Perceived as a back-door to a national curriculum
• Would compromise the value of NAEP as an indicator of state an'd
, national performance (the degree of NAEP corruptibility would' be
inversely proportional to the degree of federal control over the
oistribution and use of the test)
Our initial estimates of government costs to develop the test and associated materials is
7-8 million dollars per year for the first two years, and 4·5 million dollars a year after
that. To meet the time constraints of a test by the Spring of 1999 would require a
financial commitment no late than April 1, 1997. We would also strongly advocate the
creation of an independent Board to oversee the development and implementation of
this national testing program.
I
U-l
�JAN-25-9f SUN
Uo:l~
rn
U~
Utrl, ur tVI N~t~
rHh NU,
cUccl~ll~O
[,
I
.
/
.
The Development of Indi~ic\ual Achievement Tests
f.
in Reading and Mathematics
: Based on NAEP and TIMSSFramcwork
The purpose of this paper is to study the feasibility of dev~loping assessment instrumcllts for
grade 4 in the area 6freading and for grade 8 in the area ofmathemalics. These assessment
instruments would produce individual student scores and would be designed and verified to
measure the overall NAEP Reading Framework atthe 4th grade level and the TIMSS Curriculum
.
Framework for Mathem~ties at the 8th grade level.
Presently both NAEP and TIMSSuse a complex version miJltiple~matrix item-sampling
technique. Ead'!, student'selected for sample testing is ad~inistered a small portion of the total
results but not·a reliable score at the
test The overall results produce a reliable estimate of
individual level. Such trtatrix item·sampling tec1miques are appropriate and efficient for large
.
scale sllrveysof educaliQnal achievements such as NAEP and TIMSS.
group
Other testing programs such as SAT, ACT, the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery
CASVAS), and the achievement tests operated by private testing agenCies such as the
Cornprehel)sive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) and the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS) develop
test instnimcrits that produce individual scores.
Most nationaUy standar9.-ized achievement tests, both criterion- aildnorin-refetenccd tests; have
.
the following features ~at affect the development ofthete$t. .
1) Content and 'test specifications (Frameworks)~
2) Item types a~ld formats, including but not 1inU1ed to multiple.choice, constructedresponse, an~ performance items;
3) Desired standard error functions, specifically as they relate to performance standards;
4) Testing time per student; and
.
. .
5) Linking or e'luatirig requirements between fornls for the sametest.
Both NAEP and TIMS~ have welldefi~ed content and test specifications but no prescribcd
features for testing time or equating requirements. However, the NAEP and TIMSS Frameworks
are notable for the brea.dth of content coverage. This breadth in coverage has contributed to the
Ileed for a large, complex. expensive number ohest items and test booklets. For NAEP to
produce a.chievement levels, items need to be placed in the assessment to match target
achievement It:vcls. For example, to measure accurat~ly: Advanced performance, difficult iterl1S
mU!-lt be in the assessm~nt. To measure the Basic performance, more items at the low end of the
scale must be added to the assessment.
2
u't
�JAN-26-97 SUN U6:1b l"n
U~
VI!t'I.
UI- tV/
Nlit:,
r.
.
"
Feasihility of Developine Individual Achievement Tests
It is possible to develop mUltiple equated forms ofassessment instruments that measure the
NAEP and TIMSS Frameworks but with certain limitations. These include: 1) limited coverage
of the breadth of the con.tent of the Frameworks; 2) limited reporting of results (reportilig overall
malhcmaticsscore, withoUt subscores, such as, algebra, geometry, problem·solving), 811d 3) the
need to develop for each test, .parallel forms of the test (parallel forms would be clolles with
rcspect to content, format, test length, di fficuIty, and accuracy of measurement at different cut
points along the scoring scale). .
For NAEP and TIMSS, the development of individual achievement tests can be achieved by
severely constraining theseope of the content coverage and variety or test items formats. Eaeh
.
objective would be asses~ed by one or rnro items thus restricting the ability for disaggrcgate
analysis of the test to'pro'duce subscores in areas which are of interest to teachers and educational
petforinancc.
The need to produce multipleequivnlent forms is expensiVe and requires in;.deplb analysis to
ensure comparable and equated scores for each form developed. The distribution of observed
scor~s could then be compared and tracked, since with parallel equated forms there is no problem
of gauging student pro~ess and tracking change.
Both NAEPand TIMSS:relcase some items from their assessment and secure the remaining
items for future use. The released items can not be used for the desired individual achievement
tests since they have bC~ll in the public hands and often u~ed as part of construction. New test
items will have to be developed and piloted. then assembled into various forins and field tests,
then analyzed and form'l-ttcd into the proper eqUated forms pursuant to precise statistical artalysis.
It is recommel1:ded that a minimum of four equated forms
be developed at each grade level and
that one form be made available, to the schools each year.. It is recommended that valid and
reliable items devCloped, but not used in the four equated f0n11S, be made available to the public
and media as examplcs·9fthe individual tests.
.
Timc.Line
The development ofthe.items, piloting, field testing, and statistical analysis of the items and the
formatting and equatintt of the testformswill require 18~24 months.
.
Lcn~tb
.
of Tests
NAEP results have found that when students at the 4th grade are tested for longer than one
testing session (about one hour), there isa substantial loss or student participation and therefore a
reliable estimate of stugcnts ability. It is recommended (hat the length for the 4th grade reading
3
UJ
�JAN-26-97 SUN
O~:l~
u
u
PM
U~ 1)1:. PT. Ur 1:.1)/ N(;I:.~
rAX NU.
~U~~l~l{jb
r. Ub
tcst be about 45-to·50 items, with about 70% multiple-choice and 30% constructed response
items.
,
.
For the 8th grade mathematics tcst, it is recommended that the test contain 70-to-80 cognitive
items that measure the "Content Aspect" and the "Performance Expectations Aspect" of the
TIMSS Curriculum Framework. Testing time would be about 90 minutes which is consistent
'
with most testing programs at the 8th grade level.
It is expected that such tests can be scored and the results retwned to schools, parents, and
teachers within foue months from the end ofthe testing time.
�(\\.t,U..~I\).~
GARINHARTYANG
RESEARCH GROUP
J'\.Cok... j
Q: , J' \"~
E-<~
1724 Connecticut Avenue, N. W.
Washington, DC 20009
Tel: (202) 234~5570
Fax: (202) 232-8134
V"t.
- (S\2-
This report presents the key findings of an in-depth national survey of the
public's attitudes on the issue of education. The interviews for this survey were
conducted between January 21 and January 24, with a representative
s~ple
of
1,002 Americans who voted in last Novembers presidential election.
The results of this survey clearly suggest that education is the right
issue for President Clinton to take as a defining priority for his second
term.
Improving education is at the very top of the voters' agenda for
presidential leadership (Q. 3, Q. 5). Moreover, President Clinton comes to this
issue with a solid measure of credibility and trust (Q. 8a)..
What is especially striking
abo~t
the response to education is the breadth
of the audience for presidential leadership on this issue.
Fifty-six percent of
Democrats rate it as an extremely important goal for the President to work on,
but so do 44% of Independents and 42% of Republicans. While voters under the
age of 30 and mothers with school-aged children are the most likely to rank
education as an extremely important priority. the emphasis on improving
education and the schools cuts across occupational and income lines in a way
that few other issues do.
�KEY FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SURVEY
PAGE 2
Americans believe that .the country's educational needs can best be met
by· doing what is necessary to. improve the public schools, rather than by
promoting greater access to private .alternatives (Q. ·10).
believe
th~t
But Americans also
public schools have to change· to make sure children are better
prepared to meet the challenges they face in today's world. (Q. 6)..
. The policy initiatives that resonate most strongly with the public are
the ones that respond most directly to the desire to have "strong schools
with clear standards of achievement and discipline, to help instill the·
knowledge, values, and citizenship that are so important to our children
and our society." The test for SChools today is the degree to which they
provide children with a solid foundation in basic skills, in a safe and
disciplined environment.
For this survey, we tested voters' reactions to fourteen .possible policy
goals-asking voters to rate each one on a four-part
sc~le
ranging from.
"extremely important" to "less important" (Q. 13).
Six goals clearly rank above the other eight as top priorities-with 47% or
more rating each one of these as being
~xtremely
important.
These six
initiatives are:
" Making sure that all students have mastered the basics of reading, .
writing, and math by the time they complete elementary school (69%.
extremely important)
" Having an all-out commitment to literacy programs to ensure that all
children are able to read by the third grade (59% extremely Important)
GARINHARTYANG RESEARCH GROUp·
�KEY FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SURVEY
.PAGE 3
" Increasing the level of discipline and safety in the schools, with tough
measures to keep guns and drugs out, and to remove disruptive
students to alternative schools (57% extremely important)
" . Making sure that all students have up-to-date textbooks and school
,buildings that are safe and in reasonable repair (52% extremely
important)
" Establishing meaningful standards for student achievement and
performance, and making sure that students reach them before being
awarded a high school diploma (49% extremely important)
" Getting schools more involved in emphasizing basic values, such as
personal responsibility, respect, and good citizenship (47% fiJxlfem.ely
important).
Items that deal with the education of children at the elementary and secondary
level score far higher in this survey than items dealing with post-secondary
education and lifetime learning.
Moreover, items involving "getting the basics
right" resonate far more strongly than those dealing with high technology and
innovation .1
.... ,
There is a broad consensus that the federal government is doing too little
when it comes to dealing with the issue of education (61 %)-a view shared by
Independents and Republicans, as well as Democrats (Q. 1:1 a). However, there'
is an even division of opinion about whether the bigger' danger for the long term
1 The lowest rated items on this scale were: "instilling a spirit of reform and innovation in the public
schools, with programs like charter schools to provide new alternatives and greater choice" (17%
extremely important); "passing a new GI Bill for the 21 $t century that gives people lifetime access,
to training and skill development throughout their working careers" (19% extremely important);
and, "making sure that every school has computers and is wired for the Internet by the year 2000,
so students can benefit from the new information superhighway" (30% extremely important) ..
GARINHARTYANG RESEARCH GROUP
�KEY FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SURVEY
PAGE 4
is too much federal interference in education or insufficient federal leadership in
doing what is necessary to improve our schools(Q. 11b).:. This division follows
party lines-with Democrats saying by 60% to 28% that the federal government
. will not b~ involved enough. Republicans saying by 66% to 28% that the federal
government will interfere too much, and Independents evenly divided.
The one topic on which there is a broad consensus about the value of a
federal role is the establishment of meaningful national standards for what
students should .be expected to learn and achieve in basic skill areas such
as reading and math.
The public is far more receptive to the idea of national standards than the
current political debate would suggest-even when the issue of federal
involvement is raised. For example:
GARINHARTYANG RESEARCH GROUP
�KEY FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SURVEY
PAGES
• Eighty-four percent express a favorable reaction to the idea of establishing
. meaningful national standards for what students should be expected to learn
and achieve in basic skill areas such as reading and math, including fully
66% who are very favorable (Q. 14a).
• Despite the broad public interest in having national .standards, Americans say
.
by 59% to 26% that such standards donot now exist (Q. 14b).
• By a lopsided margin of 67% to 22%, voters say it is a good idea for the
federal government to be involved in promoting national standards for
students in basic skill areas such as reading and math (Q. 15a).
• Even when given the counter-argument that "federal involvement would mean
too much interference with state and local control of public schools..." voters .
say by 58% to 35% that the federal government should be involved in
. promoting national standards (Q. 15b).
We asked respondents what their reaction would be if President Clinton
proposed new efforts by the federal government to encourage states and local
school districts to participate in a national test to measure reading'skills for all 4th
grade students and math skills for all 8th grade students. Overall, 77% say they
would be favorable (including 48% who say they would be
very favorable),
8%
say they would be neutral, and just 14% say they would be unfavorable (Q. 16a).
The response is positive across the range of demographic, partisan, and
ideological groups-even among voters who earlier had expressed mixed
feelings about federal interference with local prerogatives in education.
The best reason for moving toward a system of national testing is that "in
a country where many people often move from state to state, we need a
common standard of what students should be achieving in basic skills such as
reading and math" (Q. 16c). The public believes most valuable uses for national
GARINHARTYANG RESEARCH GROUP
�« •
.
t
KEY FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SURVEY
PAGE 6
reading and math tests would be "identifying low-performing schools that need to
be improved" and "making sure that students have mastered the basics before
being promoting to the next level" (Q .. 17b).
Indeed, national standards take on
greater prprninence as a priority in the public's mind when they are harnessed to
"making sure students master the skills they need."
Eight of out nine voters say that they would have confidence in the ability
of reading and math teachers to develop and approve a national test-including
56% who say they would have a great deal of confidence in reading and math
teachers. This is a far higher degree of confidence than voters would be willing
to invest in governors, business leaders, testing experts, state and local school
boards, or the U.S. Department of Education (Q. 17a).·
At the end of this survey, we gave respondents the following argument
against federal involvement in national testing: "Some people say that the federal
government should not be involved in establishing a national te,st in reading and
math, because this will give the federal government too much power to create a
national curriculum and a one-size-fits all approach to education, when education'
should be under state and local controL" Even with this as the last word on the
subject, voters support by 55% to 33% the involvement of the .federal
government in encouraging states and local district to participate in a national
reading arid math test (0. 17c). hi this final reading on the issue, voters who we
have classified as being in the political center favor national testing by 61% to .
27%.
Support is also stronger than average among voters under the age of 40
GARINHARTYANG RESEARCH GROUP
�KEY FINDINGS FROM THE NATIONAL EDUCATION SURVEY
PAGE 7 .
(64% favor), upper-income voters (61%), mothers of school-aged children (62%
favor), and public school parents with lower confidence in their schools (64%
favor).
Senior citizens oppose the .national test by 49% to 39%. While 'white
evangelicals are evenly divided on this question, Catholic voters favor national
"
testing by 58% to 31 %.
GARINHARTYANG RESEARCH GROUP
�. Study #4838-page 1
Interviews: 1002 interviews
Dates: January 21-24,1997
PETER D. HART RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
1724 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20009
(202) 234-5570
49 Male
51 Female
[5]
. FINAL
Study #4838
National Education
January 1997
AREA
TYPE
SAMPLE POINT
D
[6]
1a.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
1c.
100
L-_.....I..._---.J11997
[13]
CONTINUE
TERMINATE AND DO NOT
COUNT TOWARD QUOTA
[14]
[15L
Did you vote in the election for president this past November, when the candidates were Bill Clinton, Bob Dole,
and Ross Perot? (IF "YES" ASK:) For whom did you vote - Bill Clinton, Bob Dole, or Ross Perot?
[16)
42
33
5
20
CONTINUE
TERMINATE AND DO NOT
COUNT TOWARD QUOTA
And in the election for U.S. House of Representatives this past November, did you vote for the Democratic
candidate or the Republican candidate in your district?
43
43
3
2
9
[17]
Thinking about the way things are going in the country these days, would you say that you are very satisfied,
somewhat satisfied, somewhat di.ssatisfied, or very dissatisfied with the direction of the country these days?
Very satisfied.....................................
Somewhat satisfied ...........................
Somewhat dissatisfied ............ ..........
Very dissatisfied ................................
Not sure...........................................
\
January
[12)
[11]
Voted for Democratic candidate........
Voted for Republican candidate ........
Other (VOL) ......... ..... ......... ...............
Did not vote (VOL) ............................
Not sure/can't recall..........................
2.
DATE
Are you currently registered to vote at this address?
Yes, voted ....................................... .
Bill Clinton........................................
Bob Dole..........................................
Ross Perot... .......... .......... ................
Refused/Other (VOL) ......................
No, did not vote .................................
. Not sure· ..........................................
(
D
I
Registered ............... ..........................
Not registered ....................................
Not sure ..........................................
1b.
FORM
5
41
33
19
2
[18)
�, ..
Study #4838-page 2
3.
(
What do you feel are the most important issues, problems, or goals that you personally would like to see the
President and Congress do something about? What issues do you think should be the top priorities for the
President and Congress to work on?
(PROBE FOR MULTIPLE RESPONSES:) Are there any other issues, problems, or goals that you would like to
see the President and Congress do something about? [19.-221
Education
21%
14
Crime, violence
Welfare reform
Balancing the budget
12
12
Healtheare
Social Security issues
11
10
-5On1know;nore~o~;------------------------------3%---
4.
Generally speaking, do you approve or disapprove of the job' Bill Clinton is doing as president? (IF
"APPROVE" OR "DISAPPROVE," ASK:) Do you strongly (approve/disapprove) of the job Bill Clinton is doing
as president, or just somewhat (approve/disapprove) of the job he is doing?
18
46
17
15
4
Strongly approve ...•.........•.................
Somewhat approve ..•........••..............
Somewhat disapprove .......•.......•......
Strongly disapprove .................. .........
Not sure...........................................
5.
[231
-
I'm going to read you some goals that President Clinton might work on in his second term. For each one I
mention, please rate how important you personally consider that goal to be-(a) an extremely important goal
that's one of the top few priorities you want the President to work on; (b) a very important goal that's near the
top of your priorities; (c) a somewhat important goal that you would put in the middle of your priorities, or (d) a
less important goal you would put lower down in your priorities for the President to work on.
How would you personally rate the importance of (READ ITEM)-do you consider it to be: (a) an extremely
important goal that's one of the ~op few priorities you want the President to work on; (b) a very important goal
that's near the top of your priorities; (c) a somewhat important goal that you woulq put in the middle of your
priorities, or (d) a less important goal you would put lower down in your priorities for the President to work on?
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE PERCENTAGE \lVHO SAY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
Extremely
ImQortant
Very
ImQortant
Somewhat
ImQortant
Less
ImQortant
Not
Sure.
Improving education and the schools .,....
48
40
6
5
1
[25]
'b'i(
Reducing crime and violence·· ................
48
37
11
3
1
[27]
lfS
Moving people from welfare to work • ~ .....
44
39
14
1
2
[28]
'is 3
Protecting Social Security and -<
Medicare ** ............... :...............................
43
33
18
5
1
[31]
Balancing the federal budget ...................
40
37
17
5
1
[261
Improving health care coverage for
children ....................................................
.38
41
15
3
3
[30]
Reducing the federal tax burden on
average families .......................................
36
37
21
5
1
[32J .
Helping families afford college and
vocational training ..................... '" ............
26
40
23
10
Reforming the campaign finance laws· ..
15
29
35
18
• Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM A)..
•• Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
[29]
3
~ (Zl."r J.W
[24J
i+
~sJ-I.s)
�,
,
Study #4838-page 3
6.
(
\
Now, I'd like to get your opinion about how well different programs and aspects of our society are working. For
each item I mention, please tell me whether you think: (a) it works pretty well as it exists now, (b) some
changes are needed, but basically should be kept the same, (c) major changes are needed, or (d) a complete
overhaul is needed.
When you think about (READ ITEM) , do you think: a) it works pretty well as it exists now, b) some changes
are needed, but basically should be kept the same, c) major changes are needed, or d) a complete overhaul is
needed.
Works
Pretty
Well
Some
Changes
Needed
Major
Changes
Needed
Complete
Overhaul
Needed
Not
Sure
Social Security...............................................
18
36
20
23
3
[33]
The federal income tax system .....................
13
32
22
30
3
[34]
Medicare ........................................................
18
37
23
15
7
[35]
The pubic education system .........................
9
35
33
21
2
436]
44-5+
_.
7.
Turning specifically now to the issue of education, what are the mosLimportant things yoit'd like to see the
President and Congress do when it comes to the issue of education? What do you feel the most important'
goals should be for the President and Congress in dealing with the issue of education?
(PROBE FOR MULTIPLE RESPONSES:) Are there any other things you'd particularly like to see the
President and Congress do when it comes to the issue of education? • [37-40]
Education funding
16%
Raise the standards
11
9
8
8
Get back to the basics
Equal education for all students
More qualified teachers
------------------------------------------------Don't know; no response
8%
• Asked of one·half the respondents (FORM A).
8a.
How. much do you trust President· Clinton to have the right kinds of policies for dealing with the issue of
education - do you trust President Clinton a lot, a'fair amount, just some, or very little when it comes to dealing
with the issue of education?
Trust a lot..........................
Trust a fair amount ...........
Trust just some.................
Trust very little ..................
Not sure..........................
8b.
22
36
17
22
3
[41]
How much do you trust the Republicans in Congress to have the right kinds of policies for dealing with the
issue of education - do you trust the Republicans in Congress a lot, a fair amount, just some, or very little
when it comes to dealing with the issue of education?
Trust a 10L.......................
Trust a fair amount ...........
Trust just some.................
Trust very little ..................
Not sure..........................
9
32
29
27
3
[42]
$'1/-:"
�,
\
Study #4838-page 4
9a.
(
'Generally speaking. how would you rate the quality of the public schools in the nation today-excellent. good,
just fair, not so good, or poor? ..
Excellent...........................
Good.................................
Just fair .............................
Not so good ......................
Poor ..................................
Not sure..........................
1
22
45
14
,14
4
[43]
- Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM A).
, 9b.
And how would you rate the quality of the public schools in your local community-exCellent. good. just fair. not
so good, or poor? ..
'
Excellent .........• .•.......... .....
,Good.................................
Just fair ...•.........................
Not so good .........•... :........
Poor..................................
Not sure..........................
13
39
27
8
11
2
[44]
• Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM A).
9c.
Excellent...........................
Good.................................
Just fair .•.......•... ....... .........
Not so good ......................
Poor ..................................
Not su're..........................
,.
"
Thinking about the country overall, how would you rate the quality of the education students receive in the
public schools today-excellent, good. not so good, or poor? ....
,
2
36
17
27
16
2
[45]
- Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
9d.
And thinking about your own local community now. how would you rate the quality of the education students
receive in your local public schools-excellent. good, not so good. or poor? ....
Excellent ....................... ....
Good ............•................,....
Just fair .............................
Not so good ......................
Poor ..................................
Not sure..........................
13
40
13
18
12
4
[46]
.- Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
10.
When it comes to meeting the educational needs of the country. which one of the fol/owing approaches would
you be more likely to favor: (a) doing what is necessary to improve the quality of education in the public
schools, or (b) using tax-funded vouchers or tax deductions to help parents pay the cost of sending their
children to private or religious schools, instead of public schools? ..
Improve quality of education in public schools ................. .
Vouchers for private or religious schools .......................... .
Depends (VOL) .................................................................
Not sure .........................................................:................. .
• Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM A).
69
25
3
3
[47]
�Study #4836-page 5
10.
(
When it comes to meeting the educational needs of the country, which one of the following approaches would
you be more likely to favor: (a) doing what is necessary to improve 'the quality of education in the public
schools, or (b) using some of the tax money we now spend on public schools to help parents pay the cost of
sending their children to private or religious schools? ....
Improve quality of education in public schools ..................
Vouchers for private or religious schools ...........................
Depends (VOL) .........:.......................................................
Not sure ..........................................:..........................,......
69
[48]
26
2
3
- Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
11a.
From what you know, do you feel thatthe federal government is doing too much, doing too little, or doing the
.
right amount when it comes to dealing with the issue of education?
Doing too much ..................................
Doing too little ....................................
Doing the right amount .,................... .
Not sure .............. :........................... .
11 b.
(
15
[49]
61
15
9
Looking ahead, which concems you more-a) that the federal government will get too involved in the issue of
education and interfere with things that are better left to the states and local communities; or b) that the federal
government will not be involved enough in doing what's necessary to improve our schools and. meet the
country's educational needs?
Federal government will get too involved .................
Federal government will not be involved enough.....
Both/neither (VOL)..................................................
Not sure...................................................................
47
44
5
4
{50l
��Study #4838-page 7
13.
/
\
Now I'm going to mention some major goals that national leaders, such as the President, might have in the
area of education and training. For each one I mention, please tell me how important you personally consider
that goal to be- (a) an extremely important goal that's one of the top few priorities you want the President to
work on; (b) a very important goal that's near the ,top of your priorities; (c) a somewhat important goal that you
would put in the middle of your priorities, or (d) a less important goal you would put lower down in your priorities
for the President to work on.
How would you personally rate the importance of (READ ITEM)-do you consider it to be: (a) an extremely
important goal that's one of the top few priorities you want the President to work on; (b) a very important goal
that's near, the top of your priorities; (c) a somewhat important goal that you would put in the middle of your
priorities, or (d) a less important goal you would put lower down in your priorities for the President to work on?
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE PERCENTAGE INHO SAY EXTREMELY IMPORTANT
Im~ortant
Very
Im!:!ortant
Somewhat
Im[!ortant
' Less
Im[!ortant
M<;:Iking sure that all students have mastered
the basics of reading, writing, and math by the
time they complete elementary school * .........
69
26
2
2
[57]
" S' ~ 'l-
Having an all-out commitment to literaCy
programs to ensure that all children are able
to read by the third grade ** ...........................
59
33
4
3.
[58]
'\1.-1
Increasing the level of discipline and safety in
the schools, with tough measures to keep
guns and drugs out and to remove disruptive
students to altemative schools ** ...................
57
30
8
3'
[68]
, '6'+-ll
Making sure that all schools have up-ta-date
textbooks and that school buildings are safe
and in reasonable repair· .........................:....
52
37
8
2
[69]
Establishing meaningful standards for student
achievement and performance, and making
sure that students reach them before being
awarded a high school diploma· ...................
49
39
8
4
[60]
"8'-12
Getting schools more involved in emphasizing
basic values, such as personal responsibility,
respect, and good citizenship ** .....................
47
34
10
Providing tax credits and deductions to help
ensure that all qualified students are able to
afford a college education * ............................
41
38
Establishing meaningful standards for student
achievement and performance, and holding
the education system accountable for
achieving those standards **..........................
39
Increasing opportunities for non-college
bound students, by expanding
apprenticeships and school-to-work
programs· ...,...................................................
Extremely
Not
Sure
2
7
2
[66]
'irHl
16
4
1
[67J
":f-'-"2c
41
14
4
2
[61]
~o-It
36
42
17
4
Providing "Hope Scholarships" that makes two
years of community college available to every
stUdent who works hard and achieves good
grades ** .........................................................
35
36
18
9
Making a greater commitment to early
childhood education, by expanding the
availability of pre-kindergartefl and Head Start
programs * .................. :...................................
32
35
20
12
• Asked of one·half the respondents (FORM A) .
•• Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM 8).
"
[65]
2
[64]
[63]
'"'H-':I+
�Study #4838-page 8
Extremely
Important
Very
ImQortant
Somewhat
ImQortant
Less
ImQortant
Not
Sure
Making sure that every school has computers
and is wired for the Intemet by the year 2000,
so that students can benefit from the new
information superhighway - ............•..............
30
34
21
12
3
Passing a new "G.I. Bill" for the 21 st century
that gives people lifetime access to training
and skill development throughout their
working careers • ............................................
19
31
·30
17
3
[59]
Instilling.a spirit of reform and innovation in the
public schools, with programs like charter
schools to provide new altematives and
greater choice ...............................................
17
27
33
17
6
[62]
Q.13 (confd)
(
\
[70]
* Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM A).
** Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM B).
14a.
What is your reaction to the idea of establishing .meaningful national standards for what stuaents should be
expected to leam and achieve in basic skill areas such as reading ·and math-very favorable, somewhat
favorable, neutral, somewhat unfavorable, or very unfavorable?
Very favorable ..................
Somewhat favorable ........
Neutral..............................
Somewhat unfavorable ....
Very unfavorable .. :...........
Not sure..........................
14b.
66
18
8
3
4
·1
[71]
Would you say that we already have meaningful national standards for what students should be expected to
leam and achieve in basic skill areas such as reading and math, or that we do not currently have these kinds of .
national standards?
We already have national standards ........................
We do not currently have national standards...........
Some of ~oth (VOL) ................................................
Not sure...................................................................
15a.
26
59
6
9
[72)
And do you think it is a good idea or a bad idea for the federal govemment to be involved in promoting
national standards for students in basic skill areas such as reading and math?
Good idea ...................................................
Bad idea ......................................................
Some of both (VOL) ..................................
Not sure .................................................. ..
67
22
6
5
[73]
(.t,33
�Study #4838-page 9
15b.
(
Let me read you' two statements about having the federal govemment be involved in promoting national
standards for students in basic skill areas such as reading and math. After you hear them both, please tell me
one of these statements you agree with more.
Statement A: The federal govemment should be involved in promoting national standards, because we have
a national interest as a country to encourage excellence in education for students wherever they live, and to
hold schools more a~untable for giving students the education they need.
Statement B: The federal govemment should not be involved in promoting national standards, because
federal involvement would mean too much interference with state and local control of public schools.
Statement Aipro-involvement.. ..•.•.............. :
Statement B/anti-involvement ................... .
Some of both (VOL) ................................. .
.Notsure ....................................................
16a.
58
35 .
(74)
6
1
There is some talk that President Clinton might propose new efforts by the federal govemment to encourage
states and local school districts to participate in a national test to measure reading skills for all 4th grade
students and math skills for all 8th grade students..
What would your reaction be if President Clinton proposed new efforts by the federal govemmetlt to encourage
states and local school districts to participate in a national test to measure reading skillS' for all 4th grade
students and math skills for all 8th grade students-very favorable, somewhat favorable, neutral, somewhat
unfavorable, or very unfavorable?
Very favorable ..... .............
Somewhat favorable ........
Neutral..............................
Somewhat unfavorable ....
Very unfavorable ..............
Not sure ...:......................
16b.
48
29
8
7
{75]
7
1
Why would you feel that way ifPresident Clinton prqposed new efforts by the federal govemment to encourage
states and local school districts to participate in a national test to measure reading skills for all 4th grade
students and math skills ·for all 8th grade students? To your way of thinking, what are the advantages or
disadvantages of this kind of a national testing proposal?
.
(PROBE:) Are there any other reasons why you think it might be a good idea or a bad idea for the federal
govemment to en~urage states and local school districts to participate in a national test to measure reading
and math skills? •• (76-83)
Net Advantages
65%
Net Disadvantages
29%
Have aU states, country on the same level
Federal govemment should not be involved
12
Need to know where we need to improve
It may not work for everyone
Focus people on where our children should be
It is a good idea
he cost of the testing
6
Will make teaching establishment more accountable 4
4
It is not needed
3
It is a waste of federal funding
2
Don't know; no response
•• Asked of one·half the respondents (FORM B).
6
7%
�Study #4838-page 10
t6c.
(
I'm going to read you some reasons that people might give for supporting a new. effort by the federal
govemment to encourage states and local school districts to.participate in a national test to measure reading
and math skills. For each one, please tell me whether you think it is a very convincing reason, a fainy
convincing reason, just somewhat of a convincing reason, or not that convincing of a reason.
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE PERCENTAGE INHO SAY VERY CONVINCING REASON
Somewhat
Fairiy
Very
Convincing Convincing Convincing
Reason
Reason
Reason
Not That
Convincing
A Reason
In a country where many people often move from
state to state, we need a common national
standard of what students should be achieving in
basic skills such as reading and math ..................
13
8
50
16
18
14
Our schools today are promoting too many
students who do not have basic skills they need;
a national test could help reverse this trend, and
target extra help to the students who need it... ......
49
20
16
Parents and taxpayers deserve to have a way of
knowing how well their schools are performing, .
and a national test will help make schools more
accountable for their performance - ........ :...........
(
20
American students consistently score less well
than stUdents in Europe and Japan on measures
of educational achievement, and we need a
national effort to assure wond-class standards of
excellence in AmeriCa's schools - .............. ~..........
.
58
48
16
A national test would give local communities a
tool for knowing how well their schools are
performing compared to schools all over the
country * ............. :.:.................................................
44
28
Not
Sure
[85]
"':.\,& .. '2..1
2
[87]
&b~3"t,.
14
1
[86]
(",'1,30
17
18
1
[88]
(.4-3S'
16
11
1
[84]
1-2-2..':\
• Asked of one·half the respondents (FORM A) .
•• Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM 8).
17a.
I'm going to mention some different kinds of people and groups that could be involved in developing and
approving the kind of national reading and math test we have been talking about. For each one I mention.
please tell me how much confidence you would have in that group being involved in developing and approving
a national test....a great deal of confidence, a fair amount. just some, or very little confidence?
How much confidence would you have in (READ ITEM).when it comes to developing and approving a national.
test-a great deal. a fair amount. just some. or very little? *
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE PERCENTAGE INHO SAY A GREAT DEAL OR FAIR AMOUNT
A Great
Deal
A Fair .
Amount
Just
Some
'Very
Little
Not
Sure
Reading and math teachers ...............
56
32
7
3
2
. [90]
The U.S. Department of Education ....
26
35
19
16
4
[89]
State and local school boards ............
22
38
20
18
2
[91]
Testing experts ...................................
25
33
19
18
5
[92]
Business leaders ................................
19
2.9
24
24
4
[93]
Governors ...........................................
12
29
23
33
3
[94]
'.
• Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM A),
/
�· Study #4838-page 11
.
17b.
(
I'm going to mention some ways in which a national reading and math test might be used. For each one,
please tell me whether you think this would be a very valuable use for a national test, a fairty valuable use, just
somewhat of a valuable use, or not really a valuable use for a national test.
THIS TABLE HAS BEEN RANKED BY THE PERCENTAGE VVHO SAY VERY VALUABLE
Very
Valuable
Fairty
Valuable
Just
Somewhat
Not Really
Valuable
A national test could help identify lowperforming schools that need to be
improved ..........................................:....
59
14
16
11
A national test could be used to make
sure that students have mastered the
,
basics before being promoted to the
next level ..............................................
56
17
14
12
A national test could help identify lowperforming students who need extra
help and attention .................................
48
19
17
14
A national test could help raise the
standards of excellence that students
are expected to achieve ........................
46
20
21
13
Not
Sure
[97]
~~;)'+
1
[98]
T~-2.\'
2
[95]
[96]
.. Asked of one-half the respondents (FORM 6).
17c.
\
Finally, some people say that the federal govemment should not be involved in establishing a national test in
reading and math, because this will give the federal government too much power to create a national
curriculum and a one-size-fits-all approach to education, when education should be under state and local
control.
.
Thinking back on everything we have discussed, who do you tend to agree with more-those who say that the
federal govemment should be involved in encouraging states and local school districts to participate in a
national reading and math test, or those who say that the federal government should not get involved in
national student testing?
Federal government should be involved ............. ..
Federal government should not get involved ........
Some of both (VOl).............................................
Not sure ...............................................................
55
33
[99]
9
3
FACTUALS: These last few questions are for statistical purposes only.
F1.
How old are you? (IF REFUSED, ASK:) Well, can you tell me which age group you belong to? Are you in the
age group 18 to 24, 25 to 29, 30 to 34, 35 to 39, 40 to 44, 45 to 49, 50 to 54, 55 to 59, 60 to 64, or 65 and
over?
18-24............................
25-29............................
5
9
30-34............................
9
35-39............................
11
13
11
40-44............................
45-49............................
50-54............................
9
55-59............................
8
60-64............................
7
65 and over ..................
Refused ....................... .
18
[100]
�Study #4838-page 12
"
F2. ,
What type of work do you do?
Professional/manager....................................
21
White collar worker ........................................
21
Blue collar worker ..........................................
22
·Farmer............................................................
(
1
[101]
Student...........................................................
2
Homemaker....................................................
7
Retired .........................................................;..
22
Unemployed..... ............ ....................... ...........
3
Never worked/not sure ....................................
F3.
What is the last grade you completed in school?
Grade school .........................................:..................
Some high school.....................................................
High school graduate................................................
Some college, no degree .........................................
Vocational training, 2-year college ...........................
4-year collegelbachelor's degree .............................
Some postgraduate work, no degree .......................
2-3 years' postgraduate work, master's degree .......
Doctoral degree11aw degree .................... ............ .....
Not sure ...... :...........................................................
F4a.
[102]
What is your current marital status?
Married .,............................................
Single/never married ..........................
Divorced............................................
Widowed ...........................................
Not sure/refused ..............................
F4b.
2
6
25
19
9
20
4
12
3
66
16
9
9
[103]
Do you have any children under age 18 living in your household at this time?
Yes, have children ...................... .
No, do not have children ......:..... .
Not sure .......................................
38
62
CONTINUE
SKIP TO Q.FSa
[104]
(ASK ONLY OF RESPONDENTS WHO SAY THEY HAVE CHILDREN 18 OR UNDER IN HOUSEHOLD IN Q.F4b.)
F4c.
Do the children in this household attend public school or private school, or are they not yet of school age?
Yes, Have Children In School
Have children in public school....... .........................
Have children in private/parochial schooL..............
Have children in both public and private school.....
Not sure what kind of school/refused.... ...... ....... ....
No, Do Not Have Children In School....................
Not Sure If Have Children In School .................... .
73
10
3.
1
13
[105]
�.,
\
Study #4838-page 13
(
(ASK EVERYONE.)
F5a.
How would you describe your overall point of view in terms of the politieal parties? Would you say you are
mostly Democratic. leaning Democratic, completely independent. leaning Republican. or mostly Republican?
Mostly Democratic ............................
Leaning Democratic..........................
Completely independent.... ...............
Leaning Republican .........................
Mostly Republican ............... ........ .....
Not sure ........................ :...................
F5b.
Thinking atiout your general approach to issues. do you consider yourself to be liberal. moderate. or
conservative?
Liberal....................................
Moderate:................................
Conservative ..........................
Not sure................................
F6.
20
41
35
4
21
26
21
18
14
[109]
If you added together the yearfy income of all the members of your family who were living at home last year,
would the total be less than $10.000, between $10.000 and $20.000, between $20.000 and $30.000. between
$30.000 and $40.000. between $40.000 and $50.000, between $50.000 and $75,000. between $75.000 and
$100.000, or would the total be more than that?
Less than $10.000...................................
Between $10,000 and $20,000...............
Between $20.000 and $30.000...............
Between $30.000 and $40.000...............
Between $40.000 and $50.000...............
Between $50.000 and $75,000 ...............
Between $75.000 and $100.000.............
More than $100.000................................
Not sure/refused....................................
F8.
[108]
How would you describe the area in which you live-a large city. a medium to small city. a suburb near a city. a
small town that is not near a city, or a rural or country area?
Large city..................................................
Medium to small city ..... ........... ................
Suburb near a city....................................
Small town that is not near a city .............
Rural or country area ...............................
Not sure .................................................. .
F7.
[107]
30
12
18
15
22
3
6
10
·14
16
13
18
8
6
9
[110]
Finally. are you from a Hispanic or Spanish-speaking background? (IF "NO," ASK:) What is your race--white.
black. Asian. or something else?
Hispanic..................................................
White.......................................................
Black ........ :..............................................
Asian.......................................................
Other.......................................................
Refused ..................................................
4
80
10.
1
4
1
[111]
�...
'
.
Study #4838-page 14
.,
F9a.
('
In what religion were you brought up?
Protestant................ ............... .....
Catholic.......................................
Jewish .........................................
Other...........................................
None............................................
Not sure/refused .......................
55
28
2
11
2
2
CONTINUE·
[131]
SKIP TO
VALIDATION
(ASK ONLY OF PROTESTANTS IN Q.F9a)
F9b.
Would you describe yourself as either a fundamentalist or an evangelical Christian, or would you not describe
yourself thlit way?
.
Yes, fundamentalisVevangelical/both .....................
No, neither fundamentalist or evangelical................
Not sure..................................................................
Non-Protestants (Q.F9a) ..........................................
(
17
32
6
45
[132]
�November 11, 1996
To: Secretary Richard Riley
Fr: Kevin Sullivan
Re: TIMSS: Discussions to date
In the last ten days there have been a series of staffdiscussions and meetings with Neal Lane of
the National Science Foundation, Bruce Alberts at the National Academy of Sciences, and the
. lead~rship ofthe National Council of Teachers ofMathematics (NCTM) regarding a response to
the TIMSS report. This memo summarizes these discussions to date. We have set aside time
on your schedule this coming Friday for a possible meeting with Bruce Alberts and Neal Lane
who will responding to the TIMSS findings at the press conference with you.
The National Academy of Sciences (Bruce Alberts)
.
.
Alberts clearly believes that we first need to explain" why we care" about improving math. In
. addition, he seems open to further discussions about a "national convocation" of curriculum
developers, state education leaders and text book publishers to foster a coherent vision of how
math and science should be taught. Alberts noted that at this point the "standards are not in
place" and we have "no efficient" way to get the standards down to the classroom level.
The idea of a national convocation came at the end of a discussion regarding the disconnect
. between textbooks publishers and a much more focused approach to curriculum development.
But as one participant suggested, "textbook publishers" are market driven, they will change the·
textbooks wheri the demand changes. Right nowthe demand hasn't changed." .
Alberts raised the issue ofchanging of the SAT test from the current multiple choice approach to
a more rigorous essay fonnat. Since the SAT test is the "gate keeper" for going to college
changing the SAT test may be one of the faster ways to encourage a fundamental change in
teaching practice, curriculum development and textbooks. Calling for and supporting a change in
the SAT test would spark a national debate and may encourage the pace ofrefonnto pick up.
National Science Foundation (Neal Lane)
Lane seemed particularly intrigued with the questions of what the data suggest regarding what .
high level science and math instruction really means. He concludes that the data ( in particular
the findings from Japan) supports the value ofinquiry-based learning strategies that "exercise
the mind" and felt that teachers were too often being scapegoated when the problem was·the
lack of support being given them. Lane was willing to search for examples of "good practice"
from his systemic refonn sites.
�The National Council of Teac:hers oCMathematic:s (NCTM)
We have held three meetings with the leadership ofNCTM and their support staff. They are
aware that the results ofTIMSS will be disappointing. and they are worried about "teacher
bashing." They have been working with us to develop possible solutions and have proposed a
a joint· project with the Department to help speed up the process of getting the national math
standards down to the classroom. NCTM is supplying us with.examples of where their
standards are being used in the country which has resulted in improved test scores.
STAFF DISCUSSIONS TO DATE
There is no "magic bullet" to cure what ails mathematics education. A coordinated strategy is
needed in terms of heightening public understanding, curriculum reform, improved teacher
training (both pre-service and in service), rigorous assessments that measure "high-level
mathematical thought", etc.
.
The press will clearly ask whether the results of these findings call for national standards. Our
response is that the appropriate federal role is not to dictate pOlicies and programs but rather to
make available the information necessary for local systems to be internationally competitive.
Professionals and citizens need to fi~st understand what is meant by "high quality" math
instruction. This means we need to heavily promQte examples that illustrate the characteristics
and qualities that distinguish high level mathematics pedagogy from what a typical mathematics
classroom looks like). Bruce Albert also raised this issue. We have asked Jim Stigler to develop
a short "script" that provides such contrasts. This should be coordinated with anything NCTM
does in this area.
.The Secretary can challenge the nation to reexamine it approach to math instruction by puting
down a challenge that all students should be expected to demonstrate basic competence in
algebra by the end of eighth grade - which has been found in TIMSS to be universally in place in
\ the highest performing countries .. This is similar to the challenge we established this year that
every child should be able to read independently by the end of third grade.
I
The implications of this suggestion, however, goes much beyond just moving up the curriculum
content one grade level forward. For students to study in algebra by the end of eighth grade in a
successful way means that their entire previous middle school math experiences (and possibly
earlier) would need to be restructured. Terry Peterson suggests that we focus our response on
the 6th, 7th and 8th grade experience.
One of the issues we will have to address is the question of the scale of our response. The
United States is second only to Finland in the world when it comes to literacy. However. we are
so concerned about reading that the President is calling fora $2.75 billion tutoring program. Yet,
at this point, we have no such response when it comes to "math scores'" that are below the
international average.
�POSSIBLE "ACTION" STEPS IN RESPONSE TO TIMSS
1. Announce a multi~year joint project sponsored by the Department, NCTM and
the NSF to "shake up" the process of how we train math teachers from top to
bottom. The goal is to make sure educators and classroom teachers fully
understand the findings of this report and learn in depth how to teach to the
newly revised math and science standards.
.
The Dept. would,sponsor a series of regional, state conferences and workshops on the
results ofTIMSS and successful international practices that illustrates content and
teaching practices. This could be coordinated with our regional labs as well as the
new entity _. ACHIEVE.
The Department should find a way to help states and local districts to compare their
own systems with the best in the world (a la the Chicago suburban school districts).
Examples could include curriculum analyses, videotaping of instructional practice,
and replicating the TIMSS exam.
.
Use the President's initiative on Promoting Excellence and Accountability in Teaching
as a way to encourage a new fundamental understanding of how to teach math and
how we improve the teaching of science.
. .
2•. Announce with the Academy of Sciences and NSF that the Department will
sponsor a "national convocation" to help develop a coherent vision of how we
teach math and science with a strong focus on how to align teacher training,
curriculum development, textbooks and testing.
The Secretary could convene leaders of the teaching profession (egs., NEA, AFT,
NCATE, NBPTS, AACTE, accrediting bodies, state education leaders, the Presidents,
of major research universities, ) to design a coordinated strategy for improving
teacher training, espeCially in mathematics.
3. Support the call by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) to
create a group of "math specialists" at the' elementary school level or master
math teachers to "sustain professional development" and create "teacher
networks".
'
The Dept. ofEnergy, for example, now sponsors a three year National Teacher
Enhancement Program through its national labs which may be a possible model for this
approach. We could "target" some ofour EisenhowerProfessional Development
money for this purpose.
�4. Set the goal that every student should learn algebra by the end of 8th grade.
Setting down this marker allows you to speak to higher expectations and put in
.
concrete terms what we mean by high standards. However, as previously discussed,
this can not be done in isolation. Everything has to be start with a new fundamental
.understanding. of how we teach math.
5. Announce that the federal government will take a " second look" in light of these ,
findings at how it now supports improvements in math and science to make sure
that federal dollars actuaUy do support the new math and science standards.
Federal funding to improve math and science cuts across a number of departments
'and agencies including NSF, NASA, The Defense Dept., the Dept of Energy, the
Smithsonian and others.
.
I have attached a memo from Mike Cohen on this subject as well. .
�11/08/96
14100,2/00
10:58
!
I
!
,
j
i
i
I
i
!
: j
Nov. 4, 1996
. MEHORAlmtJH FOB. TERRY PETBRSON
FROMe
HiRE COBEN
SUBJECT:
POSSIBLE USPOKSES TO TIHSS
ce:
HID SMITH
Below are some thoughts about pOSSible actions in response to the
reports. As we discussed, I believe the Administration's
overall reaction to TIMSS should be to: (1) take the ov.erall
findings about ,our relative performance and curriculum seriously
and nondefensively, view'them as defining a challenqe and a set
of tarqets tor improvement, and encourage the Nation to do the
same; (2) while recognizing that local communities and states
bear the primary responsibility foX' improving math and science,
point to the steps the federal government is already doing to
strengthen Eath and science education, by the Education
Department, by NSF, and by other federal agencies such as NASA,
Energy, and others; (3) highlight significant local and state
efforts, such as the 1st in the World consortium, which seriously
a.ilD. to meet internationally cOEpetitive standards, and use these
as examples of the kinds of steps that must be taken throughout
the country.
TIMBS
We should then layout a series of new steps the Administration
will take to qalvanize and support local efforts to improve math
and soience. These efforts presume that local aotion will be
,
most effective if, informed by TIMSS and focused on
I
internationally competitive standards~
~h~~'~a~l~s~o~~r~e~s~I~~~~____~~~',:~
~-"-:~I"'-"--~easrTiiIi;)TiciUy) that siqnTlIcant funding increases -- over and
I
'above current or planned federal investments ~r are not ~early as
:!
important right now as is well informed looal '~ction.
!
: j
1
i
Please call me today after you have had a chanoe to x;eylew these
suggestions. If we move in this direction. we will need to meet
with Luther Williams or others from NSF, and p¢ssiply from the
Wbit@ House Office of science and Technology Po11oy. I'll be
hePpy to set this up.
•i
'I
:.j
l
'
1. Make ~IMSS assessments available, to any interested Ijcal
oommunity, so the community can measure its stUdents and,schools
against internationally competitive standards.,! ED (and NSF) will
help any inteX'ested conununity adl'llinister and score the"test, and
analyze and interpret the results. (dependinq ~pon what is needed
and what resources are available, "helpn cQuldmean anything fram
making the. test instrument and scoring procedures available upon
request, to providing some level of technical support, to
providing some funds to provide an incentive fior local test use.)
2.
Convene seoretary's (or White House) Confe·renoe on World
:
;
i
�11/08 / 96
~UU3/UU;J
10:59
iI
\
Class Hath and science Education, open to teams fro~ local
communities that are willing to judge their, students and schools
against internationally competitive standards. The con.ference
will help local teams share strategies for improving curriculum,
training teachers, forming partnerships with businesses, .
institutions of higher education, federal laboratories and
agenoies, museums, and other community resources for math and
'soience.
3. Help local communities co.pare their curriculum, textbooks
and other instructional materials against those in high
performing countries. ED/NSF could fund an analysis of the
content overlap among the most commonly used math and science
,textbooks (probably 4-5 per subject and grade level) and the
ourriculum and textbooks in high performing countries.
curriculum specialists from districts with the greatest interest
in comparing- themselves with other countries could be trainee in
how to do the analyses, in order to lower the" cost and increase.
the speed of the analyses, and to build loca·l capacity.
!
1
4. 'Hake hiqb quality 'Videotapes of classroom instruction in hiqh
performing countries (and appropriate supporting materials)
widely available, to support preservice training and professional
development for teachers.
.
'
5. Produce a series of "World Class Hath and science ·B,ducationtl
packets for parents, including videotapes of model classroom
teaching practices, examples of textbooks and instruotional
materials, and examples of. student work,-all drawn from or
reflecting practice in, high performing countries. The pur~ose
of these materials is to equip parents to participate in local
efforts to strengthen math and science, and to enable them to be
demanding consumers.
-_._-------
,
i
G. privately encourage ACHIEVE and' the National Eduoation Goals
Panel to use their fiDucial and other resources to support state
efforts to establish internationally competitive standardS and
assessments in math and soience, and to enoouraqe states to
support the local efforts described above., I have already talked
with Roy Romer about ways in which ACHIEVE (the newly named
"entityll) can use TIMBS data and analyses to help states compare:_ .,.
", their academic standa:t'ds to those in high performing COllntries. "
He seems interested in pursuing this. Romer is also th~' incoming
ohair ot the Goals Panel, and Pat Forgione and Bill Schlnidt will
brief the Panel on the TIMSS results at its Nov. 19 meeting. It
Would be logical for the Goals Panel to follow up on this, since
one of the national goals involves being inter~ationallyi
competitve in math and scienee. We ,can work with Romer on the
type of follow up the Panel might engage in.Sinoe the Secretary
and, Carol Rasco both serve on the Panel, we'can easily 5tay
involveain this.
. i
. .
!
! :
I
i
II
!
. I'
,
!
,
I
i
�,
..
r
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Secretary Riley
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
Mike Smith
SUBJECT:
Moving Forward on National Standards
L Background
Over the past four years there has been considerable activity· throughout the nation to set
standards of excellence for education. Work on national content standards has been completed in
virtually. every discipline. With the support of Goals 2000 and new Titlt 1 requirements, forty
eight states have developed or are in the process of developing their own academic standards, and
most are also .developing new assessments aligned·to these standards. Public .consensus on the
importance of national standards of excellence for education is broad and deep, and the standards
movement has clearly taken hold nationally.
Yet despite this progress, there are significant challenges as well. The quality ofthe standards
being developed by states is quite varied. A recent AFT report indicates that only 15 states have
standards that are clear and specific enough to lead to a common core curriculum, and only 12
states have tried to benchmark their own standards to world-class levels. State progr~ss on
developing performance standards and assessments is slower than with respect to content
standards. No state is able to determine for itself, or assure the public, that its standards are
. rigorous and up to world class levels.
The state-by-state approach to standards and assessments limits the ·information available to
parents, teachers and students. In particular, the current arrangements make it impossible for
anyone to learn how well individual students perform against national or international
benchmarks. In short, there is no way for anyone to·know if a student who meets a particular
state's performance standards is doing well enough in a larger context. This is especially
important because states will vary among themselves with respect to the rigor of their
performance standards.
1
�,
it
Further, there is considerable evidence that even high quality and widely accepted academic
standards, such as the national math standards, have not yet penetrated into the classroom in
meaningful ways. The recently released TIMSS study of international performance in math and
science shows that neither textbooks and other curriculum materials, nor teaching practices, have
yet responded to the standards.
This memorandum describes three strategies for moving your qational standards agenda forward.
It is designed to r~spond to the challenges indicated above, and to build on and extend
significantly the Administration's efforts over the last four years. While it promotes national level
activities -- particularly new national testing -- it is designed to build on and strengthen the work
underway at the state level, rather than force states to discard what they have already been doing.
I'
ll. National and International Achievement Benchmarks for Reading and Math
Proposal: We'recommend that you call for a national test to determine whether students have
met national performance standards in 4th grade reading and international performance standards
in 8th grade mathematics. Over the next two years the federal government will develop these
tests, based on the National Assessment ofEducation Progress (NAEP) 4th grade reading test
and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 8th grade math test. These test
would be ready for administration for the first time by the Spring of 1999; and available on the
Internet by the year 2000.
Purpose: This proposal will serve two purposes. It will make the idea of national and'
international standards very real and concrete for students and·parents for the first time, because
students will get test scores comparing their performance to these benchmarks. In addition, these
two tests will provide a focus for national campaigns to significantly raise student achievement in
4th grade reading and 8th grade math.
A Focused Effort: This proposal is focused on reading and math because they are the building
block of nearly all school learning, and widely accepted as the most basic of basic skills. Fourth
and eighth grade are critical transition points in school, and reading well by the 4th grade and
mastering math, especially algebra, by the 8th grade, are essential to future academic success.
NAEP and TIMSS, while not widely known to the public at large, enjoy bipartisan support in the
education and policy communities. We believe this focus approach will. minimize political
opposition to a federal testing effort.
Information for parents, teachers and students on individual student performance: Once
available,. these tests will give parents, teachers and students accurate information on student
performance against recognized national and international standards. They will be the only
assessments that can provide this information-- no state or local testing program can currently
provide this information, and no other national efforts are referenced to these recognized
standards. This will make the idea of national and international standards meaningful. .
2
..
~
�.
\'
Both NAEP and TIMSS were originally designed to monitor national, state or international
performance, not to measure individual student achievement. Therefore, at present, neither
. NAEP nor TIMSS can provide individual-level scores. Our proposal would be to create
individual-level versions of these tests, making it possible for the first time to measure individual
students against demanding national or international benchmarks. Our consultations with leading
testing experts suggests that creating individual level tests that reflect the performance standards
in the current assessments is feasible.
A 2-Year Development Period, Led by the Federal Government: The tests would be
developed under contract to the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department
of Education. The contractor is most likely to be a commercial test publisher, or consortium of
publishers. The development costs are in the range of $2-4 million per year, and these costs
would continue as long as the test was made available. The Education Department, the National
Science Foundation and perhaps the Department of Defense Dependent Schools could share the
development costs. It will take 18-24 months to develop the new tests. Ifthe Education
Department begins work immediately, the test could be administered for the first time in the
Spring of 1999. No new legislative authority would be required to undertake this work.
To ensure the technical integrity of the work, we would organize a technical advisory committee,
or ask the National Academy of Science to provide ongoing assistance.
We will also need to consider' ways of reducing our .vulnerability to charges of federal intrusion as
a result of the federal responsibility for test development. We have considered alternative
approaches, such as asking ACHIEVE, the new entity created by NGA and Lou Gerstner after
the education suinmit in Palisades. However, that organization is still not staffed or operating yet,
and is not likely to have the technical capacity to undertake this work. Further, reaching an
agreement about how to proceed with this work with the Governors and CEO's on the
ACHIEVE Board of Trustees is likely to slow down work which is already on a very tight
timetable.
.
National Tests Administered Locally, Supplementing But Not Replacing State and Local
Testing Programs: These tests would be voluntary~ states and local school districts would not
be required to administer them as a condition of receiving federal funds .. They would supplement
rather than replace existing state and local tests in these subject and grade levels. The combination
of these new national assessments together with state or local testing will provide both
performance and diagnostic information for individual students. While the bulk of the diagnostic
information would come from state and local testing programs, the new national tests would
. provide some limited amount as well.
We estimate the cost of administering the tests at between $5 and $10 per student, or between
$30 and $60 million nationally if every state and school district used the test. We have considered
providing
incentive for states and districts to participate by sharing the cost of test
administration, probably on a 50-50 basis. We believe this will increase participation, while it may
also make us vulnerable to the charge that this incentive reduces the voluntary nature of the test.
an
3
�Like most other state and local tests, these new tests would be available from a commercial test
publisher. Because these tests perform a unique function not currently filled by the market, we do
not anticipate significant opposition from the test publishers.
.
.
By the year 2000, versions of the tests could be placed on the Internet and scored by computer.
This means that, in states or school districts not using the test, parents could administer the test to
their children at home, and learn how well their children perform. against national and international
benchmarks.
..
.
National Campaigns to Improve 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Math. These tests will
provide important anchors for national efforts to improve reading and math performance, as well
as measuring it. The America Reads challenge provides a model offederal programmatic support,
coupled with a national campaign to assist parents as first teachers and to mobilize an army of
volunteer tutors, that will increase reading achievement considerably. We believe that an
equivalent effort should be launched in mathematics, using existing resources in a varie~y of
federal agencies to support teaching and learning in math (e.g., the Education Department,
National Science Foundation, Energy Department, NASA, etc.), and the math and science
community at the national and local level. Preliminary discussions to launch this effort are already
underway among the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Education Department and
NSF.
The focused strategy described above should be complemented by' additional efforts that address
a broader range of issues. These are briefly discussed below, and can be developed more fully in
the near future.
ill. Promoting National Use of High Quality Standards
The focused effort on math and reading.should be complemented by one that builds on existing
state standards, addresses a broader range of subject areas and grade levels, provides leadership to
promote nationwide consensus on what students should learn in core academic subject areas,and
assists states in developing and using higher standards to effectively improve teaching and
learning.
Proposal: We propose to hold a White House Conference on Standards of Excellence in
Education in the Fall of 1997. The purpose ofth~ conference would be to increase the extent to
which states adopt and use standards of recognized high quality and to help improve the quality of
state academic standards overall. This would be accomplished by identifying and promoting the
best designed and most rigorous standards available from anywhere in the country, and by
. identifying and reporting to states the extent to which there already exists agreement among states
on the content standards in core academic subject areas. In addition, the conference should
emphasize that to be effective in improving teaching and learning, academic standards must be
placed in a system of aligned assessments, curriculum, teaching practices and professional
development programs as a package. Examples of such systems could include Advanced
4
�"
Placement exams, New Standards, College Board's Equity 2000, and the Internatiorial
Baccalaureate. Promising state efforts could include the New York State Regents exams, and
new assessments in Kentucky and Vermont. You could begin highlighting promising examples as
part of the build up to this conference, without waiting until the Fall.
This conference should be conducted in partnership with business leaders, governors and other
state officials, and educators, perhaps by working with ACHIEVE. , The White House role should
primarily be in cOQvening the effort, in challenging others working on standards issues to identify
quality standards, and then to help build the consensus to use them more broadly throughout the
nation.
IV. Linking Standards To Accountability and Quality at the State and Local Level
In your speech to the National Education Summit in Palisades, you challenged states and local
school systems to .put in place meaningful systems of accountability for students, for teachers, and
for schools. There are several initiatives already underway to help support these challenges, and,
over the next year, the Administration should undertake several additional ones. New and
proposed initiatives can be developed in more detail in a subsequent memo. Briefly, these can and
could include:
Promoting Excellence and Accountability in Teaching: Expanded support for the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The FY 98 budget includes a significant increase
in support for the NBPTS. The Education Department, in response to a Directive you issued last
Fall, will inform states and school districts on ways federal resources can be used to assist in
'preparing teachers for board certification. In addition, the Education Department will more
inform states and school systems on a range of ways in which federal resources can be effectively
used to promote excellence and accountability in teaching.
The development of guidebooks that summarize best practices on issues such as rewarding
excellence in teaching, removing incompetent teachers, requiring students to meet academic
standards before moving to the next level of schooling, etc.
Working with business leaders to help employers consider student ;tcademic performance
in employment decisions. The business community has been working to identify ways iriwhich
employers can reinforce the importance of academic performance for high school students,
through the review of high school transcripts and,other evidence of school performance. Many
business leaders working on this issue would welcome a partnership with the White House that
could raise the visibility of these efforts, and lead to more widespread efforts by employers.
5
�,.
1
I'
THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Secretary Riley
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
Mike Smith
SUBJECT:
Moving Forward on National Standards
I." Background
Over the past four years there has been considerable activity throughout the nation to set
standards of excellence for education. Workon national content standards has been completed in
virtually every discipline. With the support of Goals 2000 and new Title 1 requirements, forty
eight states have developed or are in the, process of developing their own academic standards, and
most are also developing new assessments aligned to these standards. Public consensus on the
importance of-national standards of excellence for education is broad and deep, and the standards
movement has clearly taken hold nationally.
,
"
Yet despite this progress, there are significant challenges as well. The quality of the standards
being developed by states is quite varied. Arecent AFT report indicates thatonly 15 states have
standards that are clear and specific enough to lead to a common core curriculum,and only.} 2
states have tried to benchmark their own standards to world-class levels.", State progress on
developing performance standards and assessments is slower than with respect t6 content
standards. No state is able to determine for itself, or assure the public, that its standards are
rigorous and up to world class levels.
The state-by-state approach to standards and assessments limits the information available to
parents, teachers and students. In particular, the current arrangements make it impossible for
anyone to learn how well individual students perform against national or international
benchmarks.. In short, there is no way for anyone to know ifa student who meets a particular
state's performance standards is doing well enough in a larger context. This is especially
important because states will vary"among themselves with respect to the rigor of their
performance standards.
.
1.
�Further, there is considerable evidence that even high quality and widely accepted academic
standards, such as the national math standards, have not yet penetrated into the classroom in
meaningful ways. The recently released TIMSS study ofinternationai.performance in math and
science shows that neither textbooks and other curriculum materials, nor teaching practices, have
yet responded to the standards.
This memorandum describes three strategies for moving your national standards agenda forward.
It is designed to re,spond to the challenges indicated above, and to build on and extend
significantly the Administration's efforts over the last four years. While it promotes national level
activities -- particularly new national testing --.it is designed to build on and strengthen the work
underway at the state level, rather than force states to discard what they have already been doing.
II. National and InternationalAchievement Benchmarks for Reading and Math
Proposal: We recommend that you call for a national test to determine whether students have
met national performance standards in Ath grade reading and international performance standards
in 8th grade mathematics. Over the next two years the federal government will develop these
tests, based on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 4th grade reading test
and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 8th grade math test. These test
would be ready for administration for the first time by the Spring of 1999, and available on the
Internet by the year 2000.
Purpose: This proposal will serve two purposes. It will make the idea of national and
international standards very real and concrete for students and parents for the first time, because
students will get test scores comparing their performance to these benchmarks. In addition, these
two tests will provide a focus for national campaigns to significantly raise student achievement in
4th grade reading and 8th grade math.
'.
A Focused Effort: This proposal is focused on reading and math because they are the building
block of nearly all school learning, and widely accepted as the most basic of basic skills. Fourth
and eighth grade are critical transition points in school, and reading well by the 4th.grade and
mastering math, especially algebra, by the 8th grade, are essential to future academic success.
NAEPand TIMSS, while not widely knoWn to the public at large, enjoy bipartisan support in the
education and policy communities. We believe this focus approach will minimize political
opposition to a federal testing effort.
Information for parents, teachers and students on individual student performance: Once.
available, these tests will give parents, teachers and students accurate information on student
performance against recognized national and international standards. They will be the only
assessments that can provide this information -- no state or local testing program can currently
provide this information, and no other national efforts are referenced to these recognized
standards. This will make the idea of national and international standards meaningful.
2
�:,
Both NAEP and TIMSS were originally designed to monitor national, state or international
performance, not to measure individual student achievement. Therefore, at present, neither
NAEP nor TIMSS can provide individual-level scores. Our proposal would be to create
individual-level versions of these tests, making it possible for the first time to measure individual
students against demanding national or international benchmarks. Our consultations with leading
testing experts suggests that creating individual level tests that reflect the performance standards
in the current assessments is feasible.
A 2-Year Development Period, Led by the Federal Government: The tests would be
developed under contract to the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department
ofEducation. The contractor is most likelyto be a commercial test publisher~ or consortium of
publishers. The development costs are in the range 0[$2·-4 million per year, and these costs
would continue as long as the test was made available. The Education Department, the National
Science Foundation and perhaps the Department of Defense Dependent Schools could share the
development costs. It will take 18-24 months to develop the new tests. If the Education
Department begins work immediately, the test could be administered for the first time in the
Spring of 1999. No new legislative authority would be required to undertake this work.
To ensure the technical integrity of the work, we would organize a technical advisory committee,
or ask the National Academy of Science to provide ongoing assistance.
We will also need to consider ways of reducing our vulnerability to charges of federal intrusion as
a result of the federal responsibility·for test development. We have considered alternative
approaches, such as asking ACHIEVE, the new entity created by NGA and Lou Gerstner after
the education summit in Palisades. However, tha,t organization is still not staffed or operating yet,
and is not likely to have. the technical capacity to undertake this work. Further, reaching an
agreement about how to proceed with this work with the Governors and CEO's on the
ACHIEVE Board of Trustees is likely to slow down work which is already on a very tight
timetable.
.
National Tests Administered Locally, Supplementing But Not Replacing State and Local
Testing Programs: These tests would be voluntary; states and local school districts would not
be required to administer them as a condition of receiving federal funds. They would supplement
rather than replace existing state and local tests in these subject and grade levels. The combination.
of these new national assessments together with state or local testing will provide both
performance and diagnostic information for individual students. While the bulk of the diagnostic
information would come from state and local testing programs" the new national tests would
provide some limited amount as well.
We estimate the cost of administering the tests at between $5 and $10 per student, or between
$30 and $60 million nationally if every state and school district used the test. We have considered
providing an incentive for states and districts to participate by sharing the cost of test
administration, probably on a 50-50 basis. We believe this will increase participation, while it may
also make us vulnerable to the charge that this incentive reduces the voluntary nature of the test.
3
"
~.
�Like most other state and local tests, these new tests would be available from a commercial test
publisher. Becau'se these tests perform a unique function not currently filled by the market, we do
not anticipate significant opposition from the test publishers.
By the year 2000, versions of the tests could be placed on the Internet and scored by computer.
This means that, in states or school districts not using the test, parents could administer the test to
their children at home, and learn how well their children perform against national and international
benchmarks.
.;
National Campaigns to Improve 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Math. These tests will
provide important anchors for national efforts to improve reading and math performance, as well
as measuring it. The America Reads challenge provides a model of federal programmatic support,
coupled with a national campaign to assist parents as first teachers and to mobilize an army of
, volunteer tutors, that will increase reading achievement considerably. We believe that an
equivalent effort should be launched in mathematics, using existing resources in a variety of
federal agencies to support teaching and learning in math (e.g., the Education Department,
National Science Foundation, Energy Department, NASA, etc.), and the math and science
pommunity at the national and 10cal.Ievel. Preliminary discussions to launch this effort are already
underway among the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Education Department and
NSF.
The focused strategy described above should be complemented by additional efforts that address
a broader range of issues. These are briefly discussed below, and can be developed more fully in
the near future.
m.
Promoting National Use of High Quality Standards
The focused effort on math and reading should be complemented by one that builds on existing
state standards, addresses a broader range of subject areas and grade levels, provides leadership to
promote nationwide consensus on what students should learn in core academic subject areas, and
assists states in developing and using higher standards to effectively improve teaching and
learning.
Proposal: We propose to hold a White House Conference on Standards of Excellence in
Education in the Fall of 1997. The purpose of th~ conference would be to increase the extent to
which states adopt and use standards of recognized high quality and to help improve the quality of
state academic standards overall. This would be accomplished by identifying and promoting the
best designed and most rigorous standards available from anywhere in the country, and by
identifying and reporting to states the extent to which there already exists agreement among states
on the content standards in core academic subject areas. In addition, the conference should
emphasize that to be effective in improving teaching and learning, academic standards must be
placed in a system of aligned assessments, curriculum, teaching practices and professional
development programs as a package. Examples of such systems could include Advanced
4
�"
Placement exams, New Standards, College Board's Equity 2000, and the International
Baccalaureate. Promising state efforts could include the New York State Regents exams, and
new assessments in Kentucky and Vermont. You could begin highlighting promising examples as
P;;lrt of the build up to this conference, without waiting until the .Fall.
This conference should be conducted in partnership with business leaders, govemors and other
state officials, and educators, perhaps by working with ACHIEVE. The White House role should
primarily be in cOQ.vening the effort, in challenging others workirig on standards issues to identifY
quality standards, and then to help build the consensus to use them more broadly throughout the
nation.
IV. Linking Standards To Accountability and Quality at the State and Local Level
In your speech to the National Education Summit in Palisades, you challenged states and local
school systems to put in place meaningful systems of accountability for students, for teachers, and
for schools. There are several initiatives already underway to help support these challenges, and,
over the next year, the Administration should undertake several additional ones. New and
proposed initiatives can be developed in more detail in a subsequent memo. Briefly, these can and
could include:
Promoting Excellence .and Accountability in Teaching: Expanded support for the National
Board for Professiomtl Teaching Standards. The FY 98 budget includes a significant increase
in support for the NBPTS. The Education Department, in response to a Directive you issued last
Fall, will inform states and school districts on ways federal resources can be used to assist in
preparing teachers for board certification. In addition, the Education Department will more
inform states and schoolsyste~s on a range of ways in which federal resources can be effectively
. used to promote excellence and accountability in teaching.
The development of guidebooks 'that summarize best practices on issues such as rewarding
excellence in teaching, removing incompetent teachers, requiring students to meet academic
standards before moving to the next level of schooling, etc.
Working with business leaders to help employers consider student academic performance
in employment deCisions. The business community has been working to identifY ways in which
employers can reinforce the importance of academic performance for high school students,
through the review of high school transcripts and other evidence of school performance. Many
business leaders working on this issue would welCome a partnership with the White House that
could raise the visibility of these efforts, and lead to more widespread efforts by employers.
5
�THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Secretary Riley
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
Mike Smith
SUBJECT:
Moving Forward on National Standards
I. Background
Over the past four years there has been considerable activity throughout the nation to set
standards of excellence for education. Work on national content standards has been completed in
virtually every discipline. With the support of Goals 2000 and new Title 1 requirements, forty
eight states have developed or are in the process of developing their own academic standards, and
most are also developing new assessments aligned to these standards. Public consensus on the
importance of national standards ofexcellence for education is broad and deep, and the standards
.movementhas clearly taken hold nationally.
.
. Yet despite this progress, there are significant challenges as well. The quality of the standards
being developed by states is quite varied. A recent AFT report indicates that only 15 states have
standards that are clear and specific enough to lead to a common core curriculum, and only 12
states have tried to benchmark their own standards to world-class levels .. State progress on
developing performance standards and assessments is slower than with respect to content
standards. No state is able to determine for itself, or assure the public, that its standards are
rigorous and up to world class levels.
The state-by-state approach to standards and assessments limits the information available to
parents, teachers and students. In particular, the current arrangements make it impossible for
anyone to learn how well individual students perform against national or international
benchmarks. In short, there is no way for anyone to know if a student who meets a particular
state's performance standards is doing well enough in alarger context. This is especially
important because states will vary among themselves with respect to the rigor of their
performance standards.
1
�Further, there is considerable evidence that even high quality and widely accepted academic
standards, such as the national math standards, have not yet penetrated into the classroom in
meaningful ways. The recently released TIMSSstudy of international performance in math and
science shows that neither textbooks and other curriculum materials, nor teaching practices, have
yet responded to the standards .
. This memorandum describes three strategies for moving your national standards agenda forward.
It is designed to re,spond to the challenges indicated above, and to build on and extend
significantly the Administration's efforts over the last four years. While it promotes national level
activities -- particularly new national testing -- it is designed to build on and strengthen the work
underway at the state level, rather than force states to discard what they have already been doing.
ll. National and International Achievement Benchmarks for Reading and Math
Proposal: We recommend that you call for a national test to determine whether students have
met national performance standards in 4th grade reading and international performance standards
in 8th grade mathematics. Over the next two years the federal government will develop these
tests, based on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 4th grade reading test
and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 8th grade math test These test
would be ready for administration for the first time by the Spring of 1999, and available on the
Internet by the year 2000.
Purpose: This proposal will serve two purposes. It will make the idea of national and
. international standards very real and concrete for students and parents for the first time, because
students will get test scores comparing their performance to these benchmarks. In addition, these
two tests will provide a focus for national campaigns to significantly raise student achievement in
4th grade reading and 8th grade math.
.
A Focused Effort: This proposal is focused on reading and math because they are the building
block of nearly all school learning, and widely accepted as the most basic ofpasic skills. Fourth
and eighth grade are critical transition points in school, and reading well by the 4th grade and
mastering math, especially algebra, by the 8th grade, are essential to future academic success.
NAEP and TIMSS, while not widely known to the public at large, enjoy bipartisan support in the
education and policy communities. We believe this focus approach will minimize political
opposition to a federal testing effort.
Information for parents, teachers and students on individual student performance: Once .
available, these tests will give parents, teachers and students accurate information on student
performance against recognized· national and international standards. They will be the only
assessments that can provide this information -- no state or local testing program can currently
provide this information, and no other national efforts are referenced to these recognized
standards. This will make the idea of national and international standards meaningful.
2
.
,
�Both NAEP and TIMSS were originally designed to monitor national, state or international
performance, not to measure individual student achievement. Therefore, at present, neither
NAEP nor TIMSS can provide individual-level scores. Our proposal would be to create
individual-level versions of these tests, making it possible for the first time to measure individual
students against demanding national or international benchmarks. Our consultations with leading
testing experts suggests that creating individual level tests that reflect the performance standards
in the current assessments is feasible.
A2-Year Development Period, Led by the Federal Government: The tests would be
developed under contract to the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department
of Education. The contractor is most likely to be a commercial test publisher, or consortium of
publishers. The development costs are in the range of $2-4 million per year, and these costs
would continue as long as the test was made available. The Education Department, the Natiqnal
Science Foundation and perhaps the Department ofDefense Dependent Schools could share the
development costs. It will take 18-24 months to develop the new tests. If the Education
Department begins work immediately, the test could be administered for the first time in the
Spring of 1999. No new legislative authority would be required to undertake this work.
To ensure the technical integrity of the work, we would organize a technical advisory committee,
or ask the National Academy of Science to provide ongoing assistance.
We will also need to consider ways of reducing our vulnerability to charges offederal intrusion as
a result of the federal responsibility for test development. We have considered alternative
approaches, such as asking ACHIEVE, the new entity created by NGA and Lou Gerstner after
the education summit in Palisades. However, that organization is still not staffed or operating yet,
and is not likely to have the technical capacity to undertake this work. Further, reaching an
agreement about how to proceed with this work with the Governors and CEO's on the
ACHIEVE Board of Trustees is likely to slow down work which is already on a very tight
timetable.
.
,
National Tests Administered Locally, Supplementing But Not Replacing State and Local
Testing Programs: These tests would be voluntary; states and local school districts would not
be required to administer them as a condition of receiving federal funds. They would supplement
rather than replace existing state and local tests in these subject and grade levels. The combination
of these new national assessments together with state or local testing will provide both
performance and diagnostic information for individual students. While the bulk of the diagnostic
information would come from state and local testing programs, the new national tests would
provide some limited amount as well.
We estimate the cost of administering the tests at between $s.and $1 o per student, or between
$30 and $60 million nationally if every state and school district used the test. We have considered
providing an incentive for states and districts to participate by sharing the cost oftest
administration, probably on a 50-50 basis. We believe this will increase participation, while it may
also make us vulnerable to the charge that this incentive reduces the voluntary nature of the test.
3
�·.
Like most other state and local tests, these new tests would be available from a commercial test
publisher. Because these tests perform a unique function not currently filled by the market, we do
not anticipate significant opposition from the test publishers.
By the year 2000, versions of the tests could be placed on the Internet and scored by computer.
This means that, in states or school districts not using the test, parents could administer the test to
their children at home, and learn how well their children perform against national and international
' .
benchmarks.
National Campaigns to Improve 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Math. These tests will
provide important anchors for national efforts to improve reading and math performance, as well
as measuring it The America Reads challenge provides a model offederal programmatic support,
coupled with a national campaign to assist parents as first teachers and to mobilize an army of
volunteer tutors, that will increase reading achievement considerably. We believe that an
equivalent effort should be launched in mathematics, using existing resources in a varie.ty of
federal agencies to support teaching and learning in math (e.g., the Education Department,
National Science Foundation, Energy Department, NASA, etc.), and the math and science
community at the national and local level. Preliminary 'discussions to launch this effort are already
underway among the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Education Department and
NSF.
The focused strategy described above should be complemented by additional efforts that address
a broader range of issues. These are briefly discussed below, and can be developed more fully in
the near future.
m.
Promoting National Use of High Quality Standards
The focused effort on math and reading should be complemented by one that builds on existing
state standards, addresses a broader range of subject areas and grade levels, provides leadership to
promote nationwide consensus on what students should learn in core academic subject areas, and
assists states in developing and using higher standards. to effectively improve teaching and
learning.
Proposal: We propose to hold a White House Conference on Standards ofExcellence in
Education in the Fall of 1997. The purpose of the conference would be to increase the extentto
which states adopt and use standards of recognized high quality and to help improve the quality of
state academic standards overall. This would be accomplished by identifYing and promoting the
best designed and most rigorous standards available from anywhere in the country, and, by
identifYing and reporting to states the extent to which there already exists agreement among states
on the content standards in core academic subject areas. In addition, the conference should
emphasize that to be effective in improving teaching and learning, academic standards must be
placed in a system of aligned assessments, curriculum, teaching practices and professional
development programs as a package. Examples of such systems could include Advanced
4
�Placement exams, New Standards, College Board's Equity 2000, and the International
Bac~alaureate. Promising state efforts could include the New York State Regents exams, and
new assessments in Kentucky and Vermont. You could begin highlighting promising examples as
part of the build up to this conference, without waiting until the Fall.
This conference should be conducted in partners~ip with business leaders, governors and other
state officials, and educators, perhaps by working with ACHIEVE. The White House role should
. primarily be in cOQvening the effort, in challenging others working on standards issues to identifY
quality standards, and then to help build the consensus to use them more broadly throughoutthe
nation.
IV. Linking Standards To Accountability and Quality at the State and Local Level
In your speech to the National Education Summit in Palisades, you challenged states and local
school systems to put in place meaningful systems of accountability for students, for teachers, and
for schools. There are several initiatives already underway to help support these challenges, and,.
over the next year, the Administration should undertake several additional ones. New .and
proposed initiatives can be developed in more detail in a subsequent memo. Briefly, these can and
could include:
Promoting Excellence and Accountability in Teaching: Expanded support for the National
Board for Professional Teaching .Standards. The FY 98 budget includes a significant increase
in support for the NBPTS. The Education Department, in response to a Directive you issued last
Fall, will inform states and school districts on ways federal resources can be used to assist in
preparing teachers for board certification. In addition, the Education Department will more
inform states and school systems on a range of ways in which federal resources can be effectively
. used to promote excellence and accountability in teaching.
The development of guidebooks that summarize best practices on issues such as rewarding
excellence in teaching, removing incompetent teachers, requiring students to meet academic
standards before moving to the next level of schooling, etc.
Working with business leaders to help employers consider student academic performance
in employment decisions. The business community has been working to identifY ways in which
employers can reinforce the importance of academic performance for high school students,
through the review of high school transcripts and other evidence of school performance. Many
business leaders working on this issue would welCome a partnership with the White House that
could raise the visibility of these efforts, and lead to more widespread efforts by employers.
5
�·
,
TH E WH ITE HOUS E
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Secretary Riley
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
Mike Smith
SUBJECT:
Moving Forward on National Standards
L Background
Over the past four years there has been considerable activity throughout the nation to set
standards of excellence for education. Work on national content standards has been completed in
virtually every discipline. With the support of Goals 2000 and new Title 1 requirements, forty
eight states have developed or are in the process of developing their own academic standards, and
most are also developing new assessments aligned to these standards. Public consensus on the
importance of national standards of excellence for education is broad and deep, and the standards
movement has .clearly taken hold nationally.
Yet despite this progress, there are significant challenges as well. The quality of the standards '
being developed by states is quite varied. A recent AFT report indicates that only 15 states have
standards that are clear and specific enough tolead to a common core curriculum, and only 12 '
states have tried to benchmark their own standards to world-class levels., State progress on
developing performance standards and assessments is slower than with respect to content
standards. No state is ableto determine for itself, or assure the public, that its standards are
rigorous and up to world class levels.
The state-by-state approach to standards and assessments limits the information available to
parents, teachers and students. In particular, the current arrangements make it impossible for
anyone to learn how well individual students perform against national or international
benchmarks. In short, there is no way for anyone to know if a student who meets a particular
state's performance standards is doing well enough in a larger context. This is especially
important because states will vary among themselves with respect to the rigor of their
performance standards.
1
�Further, there is considerable evidence that even high quality and widely accepted academic
standards, such as the national math standards, have not yet penetrated into the classroom in
meaningful ways. The recently released TIMSSstudy of international performance in math and
science shows that neither textbooks and other curriculum materials, nor teaching practices, have
yet responded to the standards.
This memorandum describes three strategies for moving your national standards agenda forward.
It is designed to re,spond to the challenges indicated above, and t6 build on and extend
significantly the Administration's efforts over the last four years. While it promotes national level
activities -- particularly new national testing -- it is d~signed to build on and strengthen the work
underway at the state level, rather than force states to discard what they have already been doing.
II. National and International Achievement Benchmarks for Reading and Math
Proposal: We recommend that you call for a national test to determine whether students have
met national performance standards in 4th grade reading and international performance standards
in 8th grade mathematics. Over the next two years the federal government will develop these
tests, based on the National Assessment ofEducation Progress (NAEP) 4th grade reading test
and the Third International'Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 8th grade math test. These test
would be ready for administration for the first time by the Spring of 1999, and available on the
Internet by the year 2000.
Purpose: This proposal will serve two purposes. It·will make the idea of national and
international standards very real and concrete for students and parents for the first time, because
. ~ students will get test scores comparing their performance to these benchmarks. In addition, these
two tests will provide a focus for national campaigns to significantly raise student achievement in
4th grade reading and 8th grade m a t h . '
.
A Focused Effort: This proposal is focused on reading and math because they are the building
block of nearly all school learning, and widely accepted as the most basic of basic skills. Fourth
and eighth grade are critical transition points in school, and reading well by the 4th grade and
mastering math, especially algebra, by the 8th grade, are essential to future academic success.
NAEP and TIMSS, while. not widely known to the public at large, enjoy bipartisan support in the
education and policy communities. We believe this focus approach will minimize political
opposition to a federal testing effort.
Information for parents, teachers and students on individual student performance: Once
available, these tests will give parents, teachers and students accurate information on student
performance against recognized national and international standards. They will be the only
assessments that can provide this information -- no state or local testing program can currently
provide this information, and no other national efforts are referenced to these recognized
standards. This will make the idea of national and international standards meaningful.
2
�Both NAEP and TIMSS were originally designed to monitor national, state or international
performance, not to measure individual student achievement. Therefore, at present, neither
NAEP nor TIMSS can provide individual-level scores. Our proposal would be to create
individual-level versions of these tests, making it possible for the first time to measure individual
students against demanding national or international benchmarks. Our consultations with leading
testing experts suggests that creating individual level tests that reflect the performance standards
in the current assessments is feasible.
A 2-Year Development Period, Led by the Federal Government: The tests would be
developed under contract to the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department
of Education. The contractor is most likely to be a commercial test publisher, or consortium of
publishers. The development costs are in the range of $2-4 million per year, and these costs
would continue as long as the test was made available. The Education Department, the National
Science Foundation and perhaps the Department of Defense Dependent Schools could share the
development costs. It will take 18-24 months to develop the new tests. If the Educatio.n
Department begins work immediately, the test could be administered for the first time in the
Spring of 1999. No new legislative authority would be required to undertake this work.
To ensure the technical integrity of the work, we would organize a technical advisory committee,
or ask the National Academy of Science to provide ongoing assistance.
We will also need to consider ways of reducing our vulnerability to charges of federal intrusion as
a result of the federal responsibility for test development We have considered alternative
approaches, such as asking ACHIEVE, the new entity created by NGA and Lou Gerstner after
the education summit in Palisades. However, that organization is still not staffed or operating yet,
and is not likely to have the technical capacity to undertake this work. Further, reaching an
agreement about how to proceed with this work with the Governors and CEO's on the
ACHIEVE Board of Trustees is likely to slow down work which is already on a very tight
timetable.
National Tests Administered Locally, Supplementing But Not Replacing State and Local
Testing Programs: These tests would be voluntary; states and local school districts would not
be required to administer them as a condition of receiving federal funds .. They would supplement
rather than replace existing state and local tests in these subject and grade levels. The combination
of these new national assessments together with state or local testing will provide both
performance and diagnostic information for individual students. While the bulk of the diagnostic
information would come from state and local testing programs, the new national tests would
provide some limited amount as well.
We estimate the cost of administering the tests at between $5 and $10 per student, or between
$30 and $60 million nationally if every state and school district used the test We have considered
providing an incentive for states and districts to participate by sharing the cost of test
administration, probably on a 50-50 basis. We believe this will increase participation, while it may
also make us vulnerable to the charge that this incentive reduces the voluntary nature of the test.
3
�Like most other state and local tests, these new tests would be available from a commercial test
publisher. Because these tests perform a unique function not currently filled by the market, we do
not anticipate significant opposition from the test publishers.
.
By the year 2000, versions of the tests could be placed on the Internet and scored by computer.
This means that, in states or school districts not using the test, parents could administer the test to
their children at home, and learn how well their children perform against national and international
benchmarks.,
'
National Campaigns to Improve 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Math. These tests will
provide important anchors for national efforts to improve reading and math performance; as well
as measuring it. The America Reads challenge provides a model of federal programmatic support,
coupled with a national campaign to assist parents as first teachers and to mobilize an army of
volunteer tutors, that will increase reading achievement considerably. We believe that an
equivalent effort should be launched in mathematics, using existing resources in a variety of
federal agencies to support teaching and learning in math (e.g., the Education Department,
National.Science Foundation, Energy Department, NASA, etc.), and the math and science
community at the national and local level. Preliminary discussions to launch this effort are already
underway among the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Education Department and
NSF.
The focused strategy described above should be complemented by additional efforts that address
a broader range of issues. These are briefly discussed below, and can be developed more fully·in
the near future.
'
ID. Promoting National Use of High Quality Standards
The focused effort on math and reading should be complemented by one that builds on existing
state standards, addresses a broader range of subject areas and grade levels, provides leadership to
promote nationwide consensus on what students should learn in core academic subject areas, and
assists states in developing and using higher standards to effectively improve teaching and
learning.
Proposal: We propose to hold a White House Conference on Standards of Excellence in
Education in the Fall of 1997. The purpose of th~ conference would be to increase the extent to
which states adopt and use standards of recognized high quality and to help improve the quality of
state academic standards overall. This would be accomplished by identifYing and promoting the
best designed and most rigorous standards available from anywhere in the country, and by
identifYing and reporting to states the extent to which there already exists agreement among states
on the content standards in core academic subject areas. In addition, the conference should
emphasize that to be effective in improving teaching and learning, academic standards must be
placed in a system of aligned assessments, curriculum, teaching practices and professional
development programs as a package. Examples of such systems could include Advanced
4
�Placement exams, New Standards, College Board's Equity 2000, and the International
Baccalaureate. Promising state efforts could include the New York State Regents exams, and
new assessments in Kentucky and Vermont. You could begin highlighting promising examples as
part of the build up to this conference, without waiting until the Fall.
This conference should be conducted in partnerspip with business leaders, governors and other
state officials, and educators, perhaps by working with ACHIEVE. "The White House role should
primarily be in con,vening the effort, in challenging others working on standards issues to identify
quality standards, and then to help build the consensus to use them more broadly throughout the
nation.
IV. Linking Standards To Accountability and Quality at the State and Local Level
In your speech to the National Education Summit in Palisades, you challenged states and local
school systems to put in' place meaningful systems of accountability for students, for teachers, and
for schools. There are several initiatives already underway to help support these challenges, and,
over the next year, the Administration should undertake several additional ones. New and
proposed initiatives can be developed in more detail in a subsequent memo. Briefly, these can and
could include:
Promoting Excellence and Accountability in Teaching: Expanded support for the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The FY 98 budget includes a significant increase
in support for the NBPTS. The Education Department, in response to a Directive you issued last
Fall, will inform states and school districts on ways federal resources can be used to assist in
preparing teachers for board certification. In addition, the Education Department will more
inform states and school systems on a range ofways in which federal resources can be effectively
used to promote excellence and accountability in teaching.
The development of guidebooks that summarize best practices on issues such as rewarding
excellence in teaching, removing incompetent teachers, requiring students to meet academic
standards before moving to the next level of schooling, etc.
Working with business leaders to help employers consider student academic performance
in employment decisions. The business community has been working to identify ways in which
·employers can reinforce the importance of academic performance for high school students,
through the review of high school transcripts and other evidence of school performance. Many
business leaders working on this issue would welCome a partnership with the White House that
could raise the visibility of these efforts, and lead to more widespread efforts by employers.
5
�TH E WH ITE HOUS E
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
. FROM:
SUBJECT:
Secretary Riley
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
Mike Smith
Moving Forward on National Standards
I. Background
Over the past four years there has been considerable activity throughout the nation to set
standards of excellence for education.· Work on national content standards has been completed in
virtually every discipline. With the support of Goals 2000 and new Title 1 requirements, forty
eight states have developed or are in the process of developing their own academic standards, and
. most are also developing new assessments aligned to these standards. Public consensus on the
importance of national standards of excellence for education is broad and deep,and the standards
movement has clearly taken hold nationally.
Yet despite this progress, there are significant challenges as well. The.quality of the standards
beingdevelop·ed by states is quite varied. A recent AFT report indicates that only 15 states have
standards that are clear and specific enough to lead to a common core curriculum, and only 12
states have tried to benchmark their own standards to world-class levels.. State progress on
developing performance standards and assessments is slower than .with respect to content
standards. No state is able to determine for itself, or assure the public, that its standards are
rigorous and up to world class levels.
The state-by-state approach to standards and assessments limits the information available to
parents, teachers and students. In particular, the current arrangements make it impossible for
anyone to learn how well· individual students perform against national or international
benchmarks. In short, there is no way for anyone to know if a student who meets a particular
state's performance standards is doing well enough in a larger context. This is especially
important because states will vary among themselves with respect to the rigor of their
performance standards.
1
�Further, there is considerable evidence that even high quality and widely accepted academic
standards, such as the national math standards, have not yet penetrated into the classroom in
meaningful ways. The recently released TIMSS study of international performance in math and
science shows that neither textbooks and other curriculum materials, nor teaching practices, have
yet responded to the standards.
This memorandum describes three strategies for moving your national standards agenda forward. '
It is designed to re,spond to the challenges indicated above, and to build on and extend
significantly the Administration's efforts over the last four years. While it promotes national level
activities -- particularly new national testing -- it is designed to build on and .strengthen the work
underway at the state level, rather than force states to discard what·they have already been doing.
ll. National and International Achievement Benchmarks for Reading and Math
Proposal: We recommend that you call for a national test to determine whether students have
met national performance standards in 4th grade reading and international performance standards
in 8th grade mathematics. Overthe next two years the federal government will develop these
tests, based on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 4th grade reading test,
and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 8th grade math test. Thesetest
would be ready for administration for the first time by the Spring of 1999, and available on the
Internet by the year 2000.
Purpose: This proposal will serve two purposes. It will make the idea of national and
international standards very real and concrete for students and parents for the first time, because
students will get test scores comparing their performance to these benchmarks. In addition, these
two tests will provide a focus for, national campaigns to significantly raise student achievement in
4th grade reading and 8th grade math.
A Focused Effort: This proposal is focused on reading and math because they are the building
block ofnearly all school learning, and widely accepted as the most basic of basic skills. Fourth,
and eighth grade are critical transition points in school, and reading well by the 4th grade and
mastering math, especially algebra, by the 8th grade, are essential to future'academic success.
NAEP and TIMSS, while not widely known to the public at large, enjoy bipartisan support in the
, education and policy communities. We believe this focus approach will minimize political
opposition to a federal testing effort.
Information for parents, teachers and students on individual student performance: Once
available, these tests will give parents, teachers and students accurate information on student
performance against recognized national and international standards. They will be the only
assessments that can provide this information -- no state or local testing program can currently
provide this information, and no other national efforts are referenced to these recognized
standards. This will make the idea of national and international standards meaningful.
2
�Both NAEP and TIMSS were originally designed to monitor national, state or international
performance, not to measure individual student achievement. Therefore, at present, neither
NAEP nor TIMSS can provide individual-level scores; Our proposal would be to create
individual-level versions of these tests, making it possible for the first time to measure individual
students against demanding national or international benchmarks. Our consultations with leading
testing experts suggests that creating individual level tests that reflect the performance standards
in the current assessments is feasible.
A2-Year Development Period, Led by the Federal Government: The tests would be
developed under contract to the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department
ofEducation. The contractor is most likely to be a commercial test publisher, or consortium of
publishers. The development costs are in the range of $2-4 million per year, and these costs
would continue as long as the test was made available. The Education Department, the National
Science Foundation and perhaps the Department of Defense Dependent Schools could share the
development costs. It will take 18-24 months to develop the new tests. If the Educatio.n.
Department begins work immediately, thetest could be administered for the firsttime in the
Spring of 1999. No new legislative authority would be required to undertake this work.
To ensure the technical integrity of the work, we would organize a technical advisory committee,
or ask the National Academy of Science to provide ongoing assistance.
We will also need to consider ways of reducing our vulnerability to charges offederal intrusion as
a result of the federal responsibility for test development. We have considered alternative
approaches, such as asking ACHIEVE, the new entity created by NGA and Lou Gerstner after
the education summit in Palisades. However, that organization is still not staffed or operating yet,
and is not likely to have the technical capacity to undertake this work. Further, reaching an
agreement about how to proceed with this work with the Governors and CEO's on the
ACHIEVE Board of Trustees is likely to slow down work which is already on a very tight
timetable.
'
National Tests Administered Locally, Supplementing But Not Replacing State and Local
Testing Programs: These tests would be voluntary; states and local school districts would not
be required to administer them as a condition of receiving federal funds. ~ They would supplement
rather than replace existing state and local tests in these subject and grade levels. The combination
of these new national assessments together with state or local testing will provide both
.
performance and diagnostic information for individual studerits. While the bulk of the diagnostic
information would come from state and local testing programs, the new national tests would
provide some limited amount as well.
We estimate the cost of administering the tests at between $5 and $10 per student, or between
$30 and $60 million nationally if every state and school district used the test. We have considered
providing an incentive for states and districts to participate by sharing the cost oftest
administration, probably on a 50-50 basis. We believe this will increase participation, while it may
also make us vulnerable to the charge that this incentive reduces the voluntary nature of the test.
3
,·'.If'
�,.
Like most other state and local tests, these new tests would be available from a commercial test
publisher. Because these tests perform a unique function not currently filled by the market, we do
not anticipate significant opposition from the test publishers.
By the year 2000, versions of the tests could be placed on the Internet and scored by computer.
This means that, in states or school districts not using the test, parents could administer the test to
their children at home, and learn how well their children perform against national and international
benchmarks.
National Campaigns to Improve 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Math. These tests will
provide important anchors for national efforts to improve reading and math performance, as well
as measuring it. The America Reads challenge provides a model offederal programmatic support,
coupled with a national campaign to assist parents as first teachers and to mobilize an army of
volunteer tutors, that will increase reading achievement considerably. We believe that an
equivalent effort should be launched in mathematics, using existing resources in a vari~ty of
federal agencies to support teaching and learning in math (e.g., the Education Department,
National Science Foundation, Energy Department, NASA, etc.), and the math and science
community at the national and local level. .Preliminary discussions to launch this effort are already
underway among the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Education Department and
NSF.
The focused strategy described above should be complemented by additiomil efforts that address
a broader range of issues. These are briefly discussed below, and can be developed more fully in
the near future.
ill. Promoting National Use of High Quality Standards
The focused effort on math and reading should be complemented by one that builds on existing
state standards, addresses a broader range of subject areas and grade levels, provides leadership to
promote nationwide consensus on what students should learn in core academic subject areas, and
assists states in developing and using higher standards to effectively improve teaching and
learning.
.
Proposal: We propose to hold a White House Conference on Standards of Excellence in
Education in the Fall of 1997. The purpose of the conference would be to increase the extent to
which states adopt and use standards ofrecognized high quality and to help improve the quality of
state academic standards overall. This would be accomplished by identifying and promoting the
best designed and most rigorous standards available from anywhere in the country, and by
identifying and reporting to states the extent towhich there already exists agreement among states
on the content standards in core academic subject areas. In addition, the conference should
emphasize that to be effective in improving teaching and learning, academic standards must be
placed in a system of aligned assessments, curriculum, teaching practices and professional
development programs as a package. Examples of such systems could include Advanced
4
�Placement exams, New Standards, College Board's Equity 2000, and the International
Baccalaureate. Promising state efforts could include the New York State Regents exams, and
new assessments in Kentucky and Vermont. You could begin highlighting promising examples as
part of the build up to this conference, without waiting until the Fall.
This conference should be conducted in partnership with business leaders, governors and other
state officials, and educators, perhaps by working with ACHIEVE. The White House role should
primarily be in co~vening the effort, in challenging others working on standards issues to identity
quality standards, and then to help build the consensus to use them more broadly throughout the
nation.
IV. Linking Standards To Accountability and Quality at the State and Local Level
In your speech to the National Education Summit in Palisades, you challenged states and local
school systems to put in place meaningful systems of accountability for students, for teachers, and
for schools. There are several initiatives already underway to help support these challenges, and,
over the next year, the Administration should undertake several additional ones. New and
proposed initiatives can be developed in more detail in a subsequent memo. Briefly, these can and
could include:
Promoting Excellence and Accountability in Teaching: Expanded support for the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The FY 98 budget includes a significant increase
in support for the NBPTS. The Education Department, in response to a Directive you issued·last
Fall, will inform states and school districts on ways federal resources can be used to assist in
preparing teachers for board certification. In addition, the Education Department will more
inform states and school systems on a range of ways in which federal resources can be effectively
used to promote excellence and accountability in teaching:
The development of guidebooks that summarize best practices on issues such as rewarding
excellence in teaching, removing incompetent teachers, requiring students to meet academic
standards before moving to the next level·ofschooling,.etc.
Working with business leaders to help employers consider student academic performance
in employment decisions. The business community has been working to identity ways in which
employers can reinforce the importance of academic performance for high school students,
through the review of high school transcripts and other evidence of school performance. Many
business leaders working on this issue would welcome a partnership with the White House that
could raise the visibility of these efforts, and lead to more widespread efforts by employers.
5
�TH E WH ITE HOUS E
WASHINGTON
January 28, 1997
MEMORANDUM FOR THE PRESIDENT
FROM:
Secretary Riley
Bruce Reed
Michael Cohen
Mike Smith
SUBJECT:
Moving Forward on National Standards
L Background
Over the past four years there has been considerable activity throughout the nation to set
standards of excellence for education. Work on national content standards has been completed in
virtually every discipline. With the support of Goals 2000 and new Title 1 requirements, forty
eight states have developed or are in the process of developing their own academic standards, and
most are· also developing new assessments aligned to these standards. Public consensus on the
importance of national standards of excellence for education is broad and deep, and the standards
movement has clearly taken hold nationally.
Yet despite this progress, there are significant challenges as welL The quality of the standards
being developed by states is quite varied. A recent AFT report indicates that only 15 states have
standards that are clear and specific enough to lead to a common core curriculum, and only 12
. states have tried to benchmark their own standards to world-class levels .. State progress on
developing performance standards and assessments is slower than with respect to content
standards. No state is able to determine for itself, or assure the public, that its standards are
rigorous and up to world class levels.
The state-by-state approach to standards and assessments limits the information available to
parents, teachers and students. In particular, the current arrangements make it impossible for
anyone to learn how well individual students perform against national or international
benchmarks. In short, there is no way for anyone to know if a student who meets a particular
state's performance standards is doing well enough in a larger context. This is especially
. important because states will vary among themselves with respect to the rigor of their
performance standards.
1
�Further, there is considerable evidence that even high quality and widely accepted academic
standards, such as the national math standards, have not yet penetrated into the classroom in
meaningful ways. The recently released TIMSS study of international performance in math and
science shows that neither textbooks and other curriculum materials, nor teaching practices, have .
yet responded to the standards.
This memorandum describes three strategies for moving your national standards agenda forward. ~
It is designed to re,spond .to the challenges' indicated above, and to build on and extend
significantly the Administration's efforts over the last four years. While it promotes national level
. activities:"- particularly new national testing -'- it is designed to build on and strengthen the work
underway at the state level, rather than force states to discard what they have already been doing.
n.
National and International Achievement Benchmarks for Reading and Math
Proposal: We recommend that you call for a national test to determine whether students have
met national performance standards in 4th grade reading and international performance standards
in 8th grade mathematics. Over the next two years the federal government will develop these
tests, based on the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) 4th grade reading test
and the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) 8th grade math test. These test
would be ready for administration for the first time by the Spring of1999, and available on the
Internet by the year 2000.
Purpose: This proposal will serve two purposes. It will make the idea of national and
international standards very real and concrete for students and parents for the first time, because
students will get test scores comparing their performance to these benchmarks. In addition, these
two tests will provide a focus for national campaigns to significantly raise student achievement in
4th grade reading and 8th grade math. '
.
A Focused Effort: This proposal is focused on reading and math because they are the building
block of nearly all school learning, and widely .accepted as the most basic ofbasic skills .. Fourth
and eighth grade are critical transition points in school, and reading well by the 4th grade and
mastering math, especially algebra, by the 8th grade, are essential to future academic success.
NAEP and TIMSS, while not widely known to the public at large, enjoy bipartisan support in the
education and policy communities. We believe th~s focus approach will minimize political
opposition to a federal testing effort.
'
Information for parents, teachers and students on individual student performance: Once
available, these tests will give parents, teachers and students accurate information on student
performance against recognized national and international standards. They will be the only
assessments that can provide this information -- no state or local testing program can currently
provide this information, and no other national efforts are referenced to these recognized
standards. This will make the idea of national and international standards meaningful.
2
�Both NAEP and TIMSS were originally designed to monitor national, state or international
performance, not to measure individual student achievement. Therefore, at present, neither
NAEP nor TIMSS can provide individual-level scores. Our proposal would,be to create
individual-level versions of these tests, making it possible for the first time to measure individual
students against demanding national or international benchmarks. Our consultations with leading
testing experts suggests that creating individual level tests that reflect the performance standards
in the current assessments is feasible.
A 2-Year Development Period, Led by the Federal Government: The tests would be
developed under contract to the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department
ofEducation. The contractor is most likely to be a commercial test publisher, or consortium of
publishers. The development costs are in the range of $2-4 million per year, and these costs
would continue as long as the test was made available. The Education Department, the National
Science Foundation and perhaps the Department of Defense Dependent Schools could share the
development costs. It will take 18-24 months to develop the new tests. If the Education
Department begins work immediately, the test could be administered for the first time in the
Spring of 1999. No new legislative authority would be required to undertake this work.
To ensure the technical integrity of the work, we would organize a technical advisory committee,
or ask the National Academy of Science to provide ongoing assistance.
We will also need to consider ways of reducing our vulnerability to charges of federal intrusion as
a result of the federal responsibility for test development. We have considered alternative
approaches, such as asking ACHIEVE, the new entity created by NGA and Lou Gerstner after
the education summit in Palisades. However, that organization is still not staffed or operating yet,
and is not likely to have the technical capacity to undertake this work. Further, reaching an
agreement about how to proceed with this work with the Governors and CEO's on the
ACHIEVE Board of Trustees is likely to slow down work which is already 6n a very tight
timetable.
National Tests Administered Locally,Supplementing But Not Replacing State and Local
Testing Programs: These tests would be voluntary; states and local school districts would not
be required to administer them as a condition of receiving federal funds., They would supplement
rather than replace existing state and local tests in these subject and grade levels. The combination
, of these new national assessments together with state or local testing will provide both
performance and diagnostic information for individual students. While the bulk of the diagnostic,
information would come from state and local testing programs, the new national tests would
provide some limited amount as well.
We estimate the cost of administering the tests at between $5 and $1 0 per student, or between
$30 and $60 million nationally if eve'ry state and school district used the test. We have considered
providing an incentive for states and districts to participate by sharing the cost oftest
administration, probably on a 50-50 basis, We believe this will increase participation, while it may
also make us vulnerable to the charge that this incentive reduces the voluntary nature of the test.
3
�,
.
.
Like most other state and local tests, these new tests would be available from a commercial test
publisher. Because these tests perform a unique function not currently filled by the market, we do
not anticipate significant opposition from the test publishers.
By the year 2000, versions of the tests could be placed on the Internet and scored by computer.
This means that, in states or school districts not using the test, parents could administer the test to
their children at home, and learn how well their children perform against national and international
benchmarks.
National Campaigns to Improve 4th Grade Reading and 8th Grade Math. These tests will
provide important anchors for national efforts to improve reading and math performance, as well
as measuring it. The America Reads challenge provides a model of federal programmatic support,
coupled with a national campaign to assist parents as first teachers and to mobilize an army of
volunteer tutors, that wiil increase reading achievement considerably. We believe that an
equivalent effort should be launched in mathematics, using existing resources in a vari~ty of
federal agencies to support teaching and learning in math (e.g., the Education Department,
National Science Foundation, Energy Department,NASA, etc.), and the math and science
community at the national and local level. Preliminary discussions to launch this effort are already
underway among the Office of Science and Technology Policy, the Education Department and
NSF.
The focused strategy described above should be complemented by additional efforts that address
a broader range ofissues. These are briefly discussed below, and can be developed more fully in
the near future.
ill. Promoting National Use of High Quality Standards
The focused effort on math and readinK should be complemented by one that builds on existing
state standards, addresses a broader range of subject areas and grade levels, provides leadership to
promote nationwide consensus on what students should .learn in core academic subject areas, and
assists states in developing and using higher standards to effectively improve teaching and
learning.
Proposal: We propose to hold a White House Conference on Standards of Excellence in
Education in the Fall of 1997. The purpose of the conference would be to increase the extent to
which states adopt and use standards of recognized high quality and to help improve the quality-of
state academic standards overall. This would be accomplished by identifYing and promoting the
best designed and most rigorous standards available from anywhere in the country, and by
identifYing and reporting to states the extent to which there already exists agreement among states
on the content standards in core academic subject areas. In addition, the conference should
emphasize that to be effective in improving teaching and learning, academic standards must be
placed ina system of aligned assessments, curriculum, teaching practices and professional
development programs as a package. Examples of such systems could include Advanced
4
�,.
Placement exams, New Standards, College Board's Equity 2000, and the International
Baccalaureate. Promising state efforts could include the New York State Regents exams, and
new assessments in Kentucky and Vermont. You could begin highlighting promising examples as
part of the build up to this conference, without waiting until the Fall.
This conference should be conducted in partnersJ1ip with business leaders, governors and other
state officials, and educators, perhaps by working with ACHIEVE. The White House role should
primarily be in cOQvening the effort, in challenging others working on standards issues to id~ntifY
quality standards, and then to help build the consensus to use them more broadly throughout the
nation.
IV. Linking Standards To Accountability and Quality at the State and Local Level
In your speech to the National Education Summit in Palisades, you challenged states and local
school systems to put in place meaningful systems of accountability for students, for teachers, and
for schools. There are several initiatives already underway to help support these challenges, and~
over the next:year, the Administration should undertake several additional ones. New and
proposed initiatives can be developed in more detail. in a subsequent memo. Briefly, these can and
could include:
Promoting Excellence and Accountability in Teaching: Expanded support for the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards. The FY 98 budget includes a significant increase
in support for the NBPTS. The Education Department, in response to a Directive you issued last
Fall, will inform states and school districts on ways federal resources can be. used to assist in
preparing teachers for board certification. In addition, the Education Department will more
inform states and school systems on a range of ways in which federal resources can be effectively
. used to promote excellence and accountability in teaching.
The development of guidebooks that summarize best practices on issues such as rewarding
excellence in teaching, removing incompetent teachers, requiring students to meet academic
standards before moving to the next level of schooling, etc.
Working with business leaders to help employers consider student academic performance
in employment decisions. The business community has been working'lo identifY ways in which
employers can reinforce the importance of academic performance for high school students,
through the review of high. school transcripts and other evidence of school performance. Many
business leaders working on this issue would welcome a partnership with the White House that
could raise the visibility of these efforts, and lead to more widespread efforts by employers.. .
5
�.
••-!.. • • • .
.
",
-;
:....
'"
.' - ::......
.~
. -. .
-.- '. .
'
,
- '"
-,
",
,
.
-4'.....
.'
_',
.
"
~.
"-,'
-
. :-: -
'
.. -::'
-
. -"
-
..
,'"
.'
.'
-
.....
.
.,:
-:'.~
.~:;,
... ,
.....
~>.
-'.
"
-
.
T6\>"':1 . . ~ S1JLS_).dtQIG6~··Q2~~a.§~·
------.,.,----1
.... . L··:· .' . . -.~: . ··.~·~~·BC··R~~ l~
.<--'- , - - - " ' - ."--.- "
.----,----'-:-,
",
(\RK
...
'.. .' '.
~. cL~ ~'.~ s~~
b..JJ,r ..
./."
CLO!>\~·.... ~~ l ,:.c··1-~emrul~ -- 4 ~l G¢.~~LL~~
. .' :'. \" ,.'~.: N.~ \~~~~ ~ C.~OlU: ;~.~~~ . ~-~~ :;;¢~~~
\,.
','-"
f
.
-
. K~\,-"
-.:.......,-:.-'---H---'--'----'---._..
j
-.
.
"'
l· S\-J..~~ ~o·.'5~. ~ Jb/tI\.:. . :.o: :. .':~=-=-~",-·_'",--'..,.,.........,_ _~_ _~_~_-I
~".~.z.-.:....---!~--==_-=;-~(~ :\2~. ~l.i .·)~30) 000 ~
....
-
.
l 0:>,
~
~'.~~-'-'
----,--'---.,------1
. 3. ~ c;L~ ~ ~l.l ~L\L~~:'
~---~~---~~---~-~-
'.' .
_----'-,-_~+I-.-----'-. --_--.4c-:..'_~\b,.....
..,._~_~4»~'; ~~~'>~~~ ~_G-u:.:.:....'.~ - - ,-'. . :. . :. : : . :. :. " _---'---~:.----'._
_ _~-.-. ,-,-_ _ _·_5.:--s_ ~~~C-:~\l~ ~'~L\ .~~ ~~.", .'
".
.'-'
..~_h
;;- _
_
_ .
.
..
.
-.-,
.... '
._.
... --'-r.-----'-----'-i
�10/28/96
1lI002/003
22:31
PRESIDENT CLINTON CHALLENGES SCHOOLS AND COMMUNDrIES TO
STRENGTHEN STANDARDS AND DEMAND EXCELLENCE
October 19~ 1996
Highlighting' his strong commitment to improving education,. President C!tnton today
will challenge schools, states, local communities; colleges and businesses to make academic
standards meaningful and to send our students a clear message that their performance in
school cOWlts.
The President haS Called for an end to social promotions, and for requirirlJ' students to
.pass tough tests to keep moving up in schooL. He has caned for rewarding teach(~rs who meet
increased professional standards, and for removing those who don't.
.
President Clinton has further proposed mobilizing an army of 1 million volunteers to
help all children to be able to read on their own by the end of 3rd grade. He has challenged
every state to give parents the ability to chose the public school their child attends. and to
pass legislation ·allowing teachers and parents to establish innovative, public charter schools,
which are free from most regulations, ae<;ountable to the public, and survive only if they
produce results.
Today; President abatoo will build on this foundation with three $pecil1c, new
chailen&es:
•
OD the Internet: The President will challenge eveJ'X--state and
community to publish a report card for each public school. so that parents can have
the information they need to make well informed choices and to help improve their
own school. These report cards should be made widely available. mcluding publishing
them in the newsPapers and on the Internet The State of Vermont has pioneered . .
providing parents with school report cards on the Internet.
•
RepJaciDg Failing Schools willi new Charter Sthools2 The President will challenge
Sf.'!hoot Report Cards
states and local communities to step in and fix schools that are persisteU!1I failing with
respect to academic perfoQIlance..As one ap;proacm to' doing this. he wiJl sp-ecifically
challenge them to dose doWn failing schools. and let teachers and principaJs reopen
them as charter schools - innovative schools that are free of bureaucracy. accountable
to the public for results. and which (emain open only if they produce results. Because
funding for the President's Charter Schools Initiative has almost tripled, from $18
million to $51 million, the federal government will be able to assist states that accept
this challenge. And as a result of President Clinton's leadership. 26 states now have
chaner schools laws.
A Message to Students that Performance Ceunts: President Clinton Yd~] challenge
colleges and universities to look at th~ir own admission requirements and make sure'
tbey are demanding excellence. He wjll also challenge employers to examinel..students'
high $chool transcripts. so they Can tell ifstudents are taking and succeeding in
challenging courses. have good attendanpe. and come 10 schOOl on time.· niese steps
wiU send a clear message to all students that how hard they work in school. and how
much they learn, will matter.
-30-30-30
�BILL CLINTON: A HISTORY OF FlGHTING FOR TOUGHER STANDARDS AND
FOR EDUCATION REFORM
Presid t Clinton has been fighting to raise standards for students and schools and improve
educati n for all children throughout his career.
As G emor of Arkansas. Bill Clinton:
e
sisted on StBDdards and Accountability for Seboola: In 1983, as Governor, DiU
Hoton put in place the Standards for Accreditation for Arkansas Schools, which
rovided the foUndation of Arkansasl education reform movement. The program
stablished minimum standards to be met by aU Arkansas schools. including intensive
nstruction in basic skiUs, Jimits on class sizes. and regular testing of student
erformance.
•
et Real Standards for Students: In 1984, Bill Clinlon enacted a requirement that
ighth graders pass a competency exam in order to go on to high school.
•
ioneered Public School Choice: In 1989, under BiU Clinton's leadership. Arkansas
natted the Public School Choice Act. allowing students to attend public school
utside the district in which they live, and making Arkansas among the first states in
e nation to guarantee choice of public schools for parents and students.
•
ought lor Teacher Accountability: As part of the 1983 education reform legislation
nacted as a result of Bm Clinton's leadership. classroom teachers in Arkansas were
qui red to take and pass a minimum competency test in order to retain their teacbing
As Pre ident, Bill Clinton:
•
ought to Help States and Communities Raise Aeademie Standards: President
linton fought for the enactment of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which
rovides funds to states and communities to support their efforts to raise academic
tandards, strengthen the curriculum, and promote accountability for results. He has
ntinued to speak out in support of more challenging academic standards, including
Governors and business leaders at the 1996 National Education Summit in
alisades. New York in March 1996.
•
ioneered Federal Support for Public Charter Schools: In 1993, as part of the
mproving America's Schools Act, President CHnten proposed a public charter schools
rogram that is now providing grants to help start over 300 charter schools in 20
ates. When President Clinton was elected in 1992, only two states had passed
harter school laws and there was only one charter school in the country. Now, 26
les have cbarter school laws and there are more than 400 operating ch,arter schools
i~~~
.
•
hallenged Every State in the Nation to Provide Public School Choice: In his
996 State of the Union Address, President Clinton said. "I challenge every state to
.ve all parents the right to choose which public school their children will attend; and
t let teachers form new schools with a charter they can keep only if they do a good job. II
�, h II OCT 2B '96 04:50PM OFFICE OF c : ; E C R E T A R Y . · . ·
I:l 2/4.
.
gop er: rr,......~c::.\,I .. I"."'uu .... 10'......11... "",v. "1:1" IU'V ...... n:;VIO l=Ju"""",r.llmoose.uvm.edu:70100Nermo...we%20Mlddle%20andlfc,'IJ' IIli/h%20Sehools .
vermont School Report
Produced by the vermo,ne Department of Bducation in collaboration with
the Center for Rural Studies, University of Vermont
GENERAL INFORMATION
School: Stowe Middle/High School
Towri.; stowe
Principal: Mr. Martin Giuffre
Superin~endent:
Ms. Alice Angney
STUDENT PARTICIPATION INFORMATION
1~94-9S
235
12
Total School Enrollment
Average Class Size
, .Special Education '
. % Technical Education (HS only)
Attend.ance Rate
Dropout Raee (KS only)
Length of School Year
Length of School Day
1995-96
355
12
1996-97
;I
10
94
2.75
175
6.42
115
6.57
1994-95
1995-96
28.80
5.90
28.80
5.10
8.00
6.00
7.00
STAFF' RESOURCES
Personnel
#: Classroom Teachers
# Other Teachers
# Instructional Assistants
#: Administrative Staff
#: Other Staff
1L10
6.00
10.SO
Teacher Contract Information
#: Contract Days
ij Professional Development Days
Average Teacher Salary
RISK FACTORS (County' Data)
1.996-9'
leo
5
$40,278
1991
1992
1993
9.2
t New Families at Risk
5.3
% Low Birthweigh~ Babies
Rate of Child Abuse (per 10,000 under 18)
56.7
Child Abuse and Neglecc
19.5
Physical Al:l'use
27.4
Sexual Abuse
15.0
Neglect:
9.6
4.2
10.1
62.6
22.6
63;1
32.9
33.5
1.1.6
:L3
21. 9
12.9
FINANCIAL CAPACITY
1~94-9S
cr
12
J.994·
1 \1i Ill"
otuc1e.nt""
1:>O'Y'........ Y
1 .. 2946
0.970'
124
19~5·36
6.00
S.OO
CY 1.995
7
0.9'99
124
'"
L3176
.9
1994-95
Percent of Students .in Poverty
·.....ho ........ :l.n
1.99~-97
$12,392
CY 1993
Adjusted GrOBS Income per Exemption
Index Around State Average
Relative Rank. in S,cate
Median Adjuseed Gros:s Income
Index Around Sta~e Average
~elativeRank in S~aee
1995-96
$12,260
13
Property Value/Student
! .
Dollar value
Relative Rank in State
D,o·'7
�·
OCT 28 '96 04:50PM OFFTCE OF SECRETARY
.
gopher:f(moose.uvm.eau: ... '79-'VanCl7o,,"un ll:/,i"loLV"...IIW';) 101"'1"'1;' .lImoose.uvm.edu:70/00Nermo...we%20Mlddle%20and%P . 3/4 %20Schools ,,"
-
"
Relative Rank in
St~te
201
194
FINANCIAL EXPE:N'DI'TURES (School :District Summary)
Total Education Expen~iturea
, Local
~ state
t Federal
~994-95
1995-96
1.996-97
1995-96
1996-97
.94.7%'
4.n
0.5t
Use 6f Funds (% of total)
Instruction
pupil Support Services
Instructional Staff support Services
District Adminiseration
School Administration
Business Services
Operation & Maintenance
Student Transportaeion
Central Support Services
Ot.her Support services
Elem/Sec Non·lnst~ctional
Non-Elem/Sec Programs
Capi tal Outlaz·/Eguipment
TUition, Fees, and,Assessments
Debt Service
!'
61.S\'
S.U
4.n'
0.6%
7.0t
l.:a
7.4%
3.1%
O.ot
O.ot
2. :.ilt
0.0\
L4%
1.H
4.£1%
STUDENTPE:RFORMANCE
1994-9S
Scholastic Aptitude Test (BS only)
SAT verbal Mean
SAT Math Mean
par,ticipation Rate
467
476
jOt
Continuing Education,
Four Year school
Two Year School
Vocational/Technical Training program
Homemaker
Full-time Job
Milieary
Time Off or Don't Know
Total Number of Seniors Responding
STUDENT PERFORMANCE: \
Writing Uniform Task
G8
4%
0%
Ot
ot
ot
22%
27
VERMONT· ASSESSMENT PROGRAM
Mean Score
writing uniform. Task (5/95)
Purpose
Organization
Details
Voice/Tone
Grammar/usage/Mechanics
G8
74%
(5/95)
2.7
2.9
2.'7
2.9
2.9
Distribution of Seudents (%)
1
Purpose
organizaeion
Details
Voice/Tone
.
Grammar/Usage/Mechanics
G9
Math Open Ended. Task (5/9S)
QhderD~~d~ng
y~U ~eluga
bk. prcblem
tU@ prODlem
Why solved that way
So
Whae--app~ying/exto~ding
2
3
:2
39
SO
0
2
15
33
0
0
26
28
76
57
59
9
9
9
15
54
1'7
Mean Score
2.1
2.1
1.8
1..2
4
�,
ULI
~8
'96 04:51PM OFFICE OF SECRETARY
gopher:lI,moose.uvm,e<:\u:... %20and%4!UHlgn"lOlU::>cnoOis gUIJIIIiiIIJ/moose.uvm.edu:70100Nermo.••we%20Mlddla%2Dando/J:.. ~:1/.,41%20Schools .
Use of math language
Use of math representation
Presentation of work
Ge
Math Open Ended.:Task. (5/95)
1.8
1.5
2.9
Distribution of Students (t)
1
Understanding the problem
How solved the problem
Why solved that way
So Whae--applying!extending
Use of math language
. Use of math representation
Presentati.on of work .J
G8
Math Multiple choice
NUmbers
Measurement
(5/95)
2
l6
58
58
64
16
16
27
B4
18
51
0
J
4
~.,
0
0
0
0
0
0
1G
27
9
SO
0
·2
44
23
56
4
Mean Score
84.1
64.7
Geometry .
72.4
Data Analysis·
Algebra
.
Total Score
72.0
al.l
76.5
\,
�10/29i96
08:59
1iI002/002
._---,
BILL CLINTON: A HISTORY OF FIGHTING FOR TOUGHER STANDARDS AND
FOR EDUCATION REFORM
President Clinton has been fighting to raise standards for students and schools and improve
education for all children throughout his career.
'
As Governor of Arkans$s, BiB« Cllinton:
•
Insisted on Standards .and Aecountability for Schools: In 1983, as Governor. Bill
· Clinton put in place the Standards for Accreditation for Arkansas Schools, which
provided the foundation of Arkansas' education reform movement. The program
established minimwn standards to be met by all Arkansas schoob, including intensive
· instruction in basic skills, limits on class sizes, and regular testing of student
performance.
•
Set Real Standards for Students: In 1984, Bill CHnton enacted a requirement that
eighth graders pass a competency exam in order to go on to high school.
•
Pioneered Public: Sehool Choice: In 1989, under BiIJ Clinton's leadership, Arkansas
· enacted the .Public School Choice Act, allowing students to attend public school
outside the district in which they live, and making Arkansas among the first states in
the nation to guarantee choice of public schools for parents and students. .
Fought for Teacher AuoDnll'4tabiBity: As part of the 1983 education reform legislation
enacted as a result of Bill Clinton'S leadership, classroom teachers in Arkansas were
·required to take and pass a minimum competency test in order to retain their teaching
'license.
'
As President, BiU Clinton~
•
Fought to Uelp States and Comnnanities Raise Academic: Standards: President
CHnton fought for the enactmem of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act, which
provides fwIds to states and communities to support their efforts to raise academic
standards. strengthen the curriculum, and promote accountability for results. He has
. continued to speak out in support of more challenging academic standards, including
, to Governors and business leaders at the 1996 National Education Summit in
Palisades, New York in March 1996.
•
o
Pioneered Federal SIIIIPpoll't for Public Charier Schools: In 1993, as part of the
Improving America's Schools Act, President Clinton proposed a public charter schools
program tha.t is now providing grants to help start over 300 charter schools in 20
,states. When President Clinton was elected in 1992, only two states had passed
charter school laws and there was only one charter school in the country. Now, 26
. states have charter school laws and there are more than 400 operating charter schools.
in the Nation.
Challenged Every State in tne Nation to Provide Publit Sthool Choice: In his
1996 State of the Union Address, President Clinton said, "I challenge evety state to
give all parents the right to choose which public school their children will attend; and
to let teachers form new schools with a charter they can keep only if they do a good job.
It
�PRESIDENT CLINTON CHALLENGES SCHOOLS AND COMMUNmES TO
STRENGTHEN STANDARDS AND DEMAND EXCELLENCE
October 29, 1996
Highlighting his strong commitment to improving education, President Clinton today
to make academic
standards meaningful and to send our students a clear message that their perfonnance in
school counts.
will challenge schools, states, local communities, colleges and businesses
The President has called for an end to social promotions, and for requiring students to
pass tough tests to keep moving up in school. He has called for rewarding teachers who meet
increased professional standards. and for removing those who don't.
President Clinton has further proposed mobilizing an army of I mimon volunteers to
help all children to be able to read on their own by the end of 3rd grade. He has challenged
every state to give parents the ability to chose the public school their child attends, and to
pass legislation allowing teachers and parents to establish innovative, public charter schools,
which are free from most regulations, accountable to the public, and survive only if they
produce results.
Today, President Clinton will build GO this foundation with three specific:, new
challenges:
c
Scbool Report Cards on the Internet: The President will challenge every state and
community to publish a rsmort card for each public school, so that parents can have
the information they need to make well informed choices and to help improve their
own school. These report cards should be made widely available. including publishing
them in the newsPapers
on the Internet. The State of Vermont has pioneered"
providing parents with school report cards on the Internet.
and
•
Replacing Failin, Schools with new Charte.. Schools: The President will challenge
states and local communities to step in and fix schools that are persistently failing with
resp~ct to academic performance. As one mwrQas::h to doing this. he win specifically .
challenge them to close down failing schools. and let teachers and principals reopen
them as charter schools -- innovative schools that are free of bureaucra£Y. accountable
to the public for results. and which remain open only if they produce resuJts. Because
funding for the President's Charter Schools Initiative has almost tripJed, from $]8
million to $51 million, the federal government will be able to assist states that accept
this challenge. And as a result of President Clinton's leadership. 26 states now have
charter schools laws.
•
A Message to Students that Performance Counts: President Clinton will challenge
colleges and universities to look at their own admission requirements and make sure
they are demanding excellence. H~ will also challenge employers to examine students'
high school transcripts, so they Can tell if students are taking and succeeding in
chaJJenging courses. have good attendance. and come to school on time. These steps
will send a dear message to all students that how hard they work in school. and how
much they learn, will matter.
�Bill Clinton: A History of Fighting for Tougher Standards and for Education Reform
President has been fighting to raise standards for students and school and improve education
for all children throughout his career.
As Governor of Arkansas, 8m Clinton:
..
Insisted on Standards and Accountability for Schools: In 1983, as Governor, Bill
Clinton put in place the Standards for Accreditation for Arkansas Schools, which
provided the foundation of Arkansas' education reform movement. The program
established minimum standards to be met by all Arkansas schools, including intensive
instruction in basic skills, limits on class sizes, and regular testing of student
perfonnance.
&
Set Real Standards for Students: In 1984. Bill Clinton enacted a requirement that
eighth graders pass a competency exam in order to go on to high school.
"
Pioneered Public Sc:hool Choice: In 1989, under Bill Clinton's leadership, Arkansas
enacted the Public School Choice Act, allowing students to attend public school
outside the district in which they live, and making Arkansas among the first states in
the nation to guarantee choice of public schools for parents and students.
•
Fought for Teacher Accountability: As part of the 1983 education reform legislation
ena(;ted as a result of Bill Clinton's leadership. classroom teachers in Arkansas were
required to take and paSs a minimum competency test in order to retain their teaching
license.
As President, Bill Clinton:
Fought to Help States and Communities Raise Audemic Standards: President
Clinton fought for the enactment of the Goals 2000: Educate America Act. which
provides foods to states and communities to support their efforts to raise academic
standards, strengthen the curricul urn, and promote accountability for results.
•
•
Pioneered Federal Support for Public Charter Schools: In 1993. as part of the
Improving America's Schools Act, President Clinton proposed a public charter schools
program that is now providing grants to help start over 300 charter schools in 20
states. When President Clinton was elected in 1992. only two states had passed
charter school laws and there was only one charter school in the country. Now, 26
states have charter school laws and there are more than 400 operating charter schools
in the Nation.
•
Challenged Every State in the Nation to Provide Public School Choice: In his
1996 State of the Union Address. President Clinton said "I challenge every state to
give aU parents the right to choose which public school their children will attend; and
to let teachers fonn new schools with a charter they can keep only if they do a good
job."
�. ---... --vrr lLE
OF' SECRETflR
KANSAS CITY STAR, 10/16196. P. 3
y
Kansas to ~t its open policy
for admissions
.
.
u
......
not:
'Nfll «ccept any. aduate
from state high
001$.
�<
. FROM .THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
B
(MON) 10. 14' 96 '4: !liST. 14: 1
GINO. 3560662637 P
The Buslness Roundtable
1615 L STREET, N.W.
WASlIlNGTON, DC 20036
FAX
,0
DIlI4:
I r ~ 1'1
<P
Numb«ofpages inclDdlng covu sheet
From:
ka~~-?
Phone: '
Pbonc:
• Fax phone: -0 'd.
Faxphtme~
ItSk'" 7Q;> 8
(202) 812-1260
(202) 466-3S09
CC:
REMARKS:
~A"e -
0 UilClIt
0
For ycIlD" nMew
0
Reply ASAP
0 Ple15e comment
dlr
~~/?';1'7/, ~fr.",;,;o;n,ilA1f
.hS"~/) a;,~ :rl?/ G. ~~t"~/
0;1
..
~/7*C~ 4:r- /~-'/ ck..-?,~/zg~ ~t='~.#iY
'Y'qI,1 -01017- f"'/d.:r
..5
�. FROM rHE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
IMON) 10, 14' 96 l4: I JIST. 14: IOINO. 3560662637 P 2
REVRWDRAFr
Caveats:
* Don't usa a transcript as a single or final determinant in making a selection.
• Don't ask: students under 18 for a transcript wittrout securing their parents'
permission {in writingl to obtain It.
• Don't use transcripts to gain information that could be used for purposes of
discrimination, such as a job candidate's sex, race, national ori9;nl or disabilitV.
• Oon"t require job candidates to submit proof of a high school degree, unless you
can demonstrate the connection between the degree and job requirements.
III. Examples of Companies BeneHrfng from this Practice
~
·
ti
I
i
(.....-.
t
'~
• Eastman Chemical Company. Realizing that certain entry-level jobs demanded
basic competency In math and science, in 1989 Eastman began requiring every
applicant to submit a high school transcript or a more recent school record, such
,
as a GED
certificate or
a community college transcript.
Eastman says that its use of transcripts is prudent and productive, coupled with a
system/process of good employer practices. First. the local school systems report
larger enroUments In math and science classes since the practice began. In
addition, using its employment process as a whole, the company reports an
industry low turnover rate in the first year of employment, as well as lower
training eoStS and a more agile workforce whose members are more capable of
belng retrained for different jobs as markets change.
/'
�,FROM iHE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
(MON) 10. 14' 96 14: Il/ST. l4: 1
GINO, 3560662637 P 3
REVIEW DRAFf
The company trained its staff in how to utilize a transcript for employment
purposes and what kinds of information to look for; in particular, Eastman seeks
evidence that students satisfactorily completed difficult academic courses in math,
science and English -
whether students achieved an A, B or C 'for their efforts is
less Important.
• Delaware Business, Industrv and Education Alliance {8fEt. Since 1994, some 200
Delaware employers have pledged to ask young job
candjdat~$
for their high
schooltranscr;pts through an initiative led by the Delaware BIE.
Key .state business leaders have worked to make this initiative a success by
purchasing fax machines for Delaware high schools so that guidance counselors
can swiftly provide a transcript to an employer for
8n
immediate hiring decisIon.
Like Eastman, Delaware businesses have not been challenged regarding this
practice. The BIE Alliance is working to let more employers know about the easy
availability of student transcripts and to communicate the message that transcripts
ere filled with valuable information about a student'S skills, reliability and work
ethic •
.IV. Outreach to Student$,
P8rents~
and Edut:atara
Given this new initiative, it is incumbent on American businesses to become ·even
more involved In local efforts to raise the standards and performance of American
schools.
�_FROM THE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
(MON)
10. 14' 96 14: II/ST. 14: 1OINO. 3560662637 P 4
The statement: 'Wa$ signed by James F. Orr III. chairman and CEO of
UNUM Corporation and c:h.a.i rman of the Alliance; Norman R. Augustine, vice
chairman and CEO of Lockheed Martin and chairman of the BUlSiness Roundtable
Eciuc::ltion T.ask Force; and Ed. Lupberger, chairman and president of Entergy
Corporat;on and chairman of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
'A SnowLall. Eftect'
In ingsport, Tenn.• people already know tha.t school c:ount.v. There,
K
Eastman ChemicaJ, a. major compa.ny WIth 12,000 employees, has been asking
applicants foe a high-fcbool transcript or a more recent school record, such as a
G.E.D. certificate oe college transcript. f.incc 1989. The company is looking for
evidence that entry·lcvel c:and.ida.~5 satisfactorily completed difficult coucses in
math, science and English.
The company bl'ings in high $Chool guidance counselors to train employees
how to Interpret the Ctanscripts _. and uses transcripts as JUSt one piece of
information about jab applicants.
The effoCt began "quietly, 'Without a. splash." ,ays Betty DeVinney, manager
of corpol'3tc relations. But the effect has rippled through the c:ommunity.
Employees have passed the word to their c:hilclrc:n and to the five area s.chool
districts in northeastern Te.nne~see. DeVinney reportS three major results:
• Enrollment in higher·level math and science courses in five school, districts in
northeastern TennC5See has doubled in the past three years.
•
The failure I1il.te of enuy.level employees has hit an industry low.
..
New employees zip through apprenticeship programs without need foe
remediation.
More recendy, Eastman Chemical bas banded together with 70 employers in
north~te!n Tennessce and sou.thwem:rn Virginia to give preference in birin~ to
W"r:kAtnsrioa November" Cover srory
KSA Group, Inc.
2
..
�.'
FROM JHE BUSINESS ROUNDTABLE
(MONllO. 14' 96 14: 12/8T. 14: lOINO, 3560662637 P 5
AIM (Appala.chian Intermountain) scholars. Eighth-gmders and their parents are put
on notice that if itUdents earn a C or better in college preparatory math. science and
English. and maintain a 95 percent attendance r:u:c, they get a leg up on the
competition for jobs.
'"This is snowballing all across Tennessee ~nd Virginia. n DeVinney says.
N~
Impetaa Prom. dte Education SlUIUIllt
The push to we transcripts has been bu.iJding momentum since a.t leur; the
early
1~90s,
when tbe Vital Link prognm. in Port Worth. Tex" motivated stu.dentlli
by hdping them understand. the relation.ship betWccn lichool achievement and
.success in tne\' workplace. With employer' reviewing their tran.scripts, students
increased their attendance in school~ took hjgher·leveI (:ow;ses. had. fewer behaviocaI
problems and. showed. increased achievement on $tal:e~mandated teSts.
In 1994. 200 employers 1n the Delaware Business, Industry and Education
Alliance vowed. to uk for high school transcripts from job a.ppJicants. Ddawue
employers plowed over one obstade to requests for transcripts -
the glacial speed at which schools respond
by providing evc.r:y high sc:hool in the state with a fax
machine.
Then in 1995. when t.he BWiliJl~$ Roundtable: upcLu:ed its ninc:~pojnt: agenda.
for cd.w:a.tion reform, businas leaders mentioned. transcriptS aI an item for
attention.
"It's nOI a new idea," says Susan Traiman of the Busineas Roundtable's
ed.w;ation initiative:. which is taking ,the lead in puttin.g togecher guidelines for
businesses,ln using tlllnscripcs. "It got new impetus at the .Education Summjt in
March. That
WitS
one, of the things that governors and busines51eaders carne
togethec on.,.
WorlcAmerlc2! November. Cover story
QA Group, Inc.
3
I'
�O~T-28-1996
,,11)/28/96
20:18
. CHICAGO PRESS OFC
F'.002
51
20:39
'.
,
'
PR~~mENT CLINTON CHALLENGES SCHOOLS AND COMMUNITIES TO
STRENGTHEN STANDARDS AND DEMAND EXCELLENCE
Of,ltob., 2', 1990 .
..,,,,,,,,' ..' .', '.
.
"
d, . -:
'
·. . . ··,':>HigtlUghtiulfhiistrong commitment to improving eduf;iation, President Clinton today
will cha.ueng~$choOls :tes. local communities; colleges and businesses to make academic
standardS meaningful'to send our studont5 a clear message that their performance in
scbool ~ou.nts,
'
The President bas called for an end to sociw promotions, and for requil'ina students to
pass toujh tests to keep moving up in schooL He has cAlled for rewarding teachers who meet
incroased professional standards. and for/ removing those who don't.
President,Clinton has further proposed lllobilizini an army of 1 million vohmteers to
belp all ohlldrento be able to read'on their own by the end of 3td grade. He has challenged
every s~ate~o give parents the ability to chose the public school their child attends, and to
pass lesisla.tionalI9\Vinsttachersand parentS to' establish iMovative, pubJk charter schools,
. which are free ftom Jriostregulations~ accountable to the public, and sUJ'Vive only if they
produce re$wts; . . . '
.
Today, President ClintoDwillbuUd on· this foundation with tbree specifie, new
dlallena·l : .
II
•
.
P-xesident Clinton will gbaJ1tmse 9gllt:~ies smd JW.i~niJielnQ look 'aHhlir~'"
admission requirements and mike SUft they Illi demanding exceU(!nc§•• lie will also
~lengQ anw1oY'if§ to examine students' bisb ~chQQI ttEUlsCtipts. so !h.Q'£ OM tell if
Students are takina and succeeging in chrul;u_oouuts; have lOod ~nm.dance. ;\!'u;l
. ggme toschoolQU lime,. These steps will send a clear message to all students that
how hard they .work in school, and how much they lea.ro., will matter;
Ibe :e~liQmt will challenge eveay state and cgmmunitr to llubliah a f!:?.n20 card fut
each public agbi2g1, 50 that parents can ,have the information they need to make well
informed choices and to help improve their own school These report cards shoUld be
made Widely avana'ole. lnClucung pl1tm:>nm~ Ult1JU Ul LlIC lU;;Wltp4pf;orCl o:w,q un 'Ih...
Internat.
"
<t
Tn! President will ohaI1mAi; sates aug local communitie/i to step i1) and fiX schools
that are pwsiltently iailin&YriJb. resp'£! to academic p~ooan". As Qne iI/:Qfoach to
dQinS this. he Win sPecifically kblllienp them to dose down failiqg.,sghoQls. and let
mache!'S &Wi principgls reoR~U them aa Qharter iQhctQls -- innoyatiya Wh,poll,that au;
frille gUureaucrapy. accountable J.Q the publiSl for results. and whiRh tmQiin QplW..,AU1X
if thex ,prDdu'l J$§ui.t%. 5ecause funding for the Prosident's Charter Sob,oois Initiative
. has almost tripled. from S18 mHliQu to SS1 million. the federal government will be
able to lWiiststates that 31':Cept this challenge.
r
, -30.30-30
PRESERVATION
PHOTOCOPY
�Parents will want to send their children to good schools,
and these schools should be rewarded.
And when a school is
failing, I challenge states and school districts to work to turn
them around, or to close them down and reopen them as a charter
school
in~teadD
bringing educators with vision, dedication and
passion to schools that need them the most.
At my urging, Congress has more than tripled funding for
charter schools for· thi,s year . With these resources, any state
that is willing to give teachers and parents this new freedom and
opportunity -- ih exchange for real public accountbility
get help in starting ,up these new schools.
-~
can
�I
I' I
I
.1
jl
NOTE TO BRUCE REED .
,Secretary Riley,. Mike Sinith and I 'just completed a conference
call. on the President's challenge to make standards count for
kids, based on a lengthy, previous. conversation and on the
attached options paper.
Bottom line: the .Secretary strongly favors having the President
reiter~te his challenge. f~om the summit, without link~ng it to
federal programs or funds.' As he put it, " ... there's no getting
away from the fact that this isa federal mandate, and on this
issue the President's'role is to lead, not to mandate."
We talked about having the President' challenge' state,s a'nd
communities to put in place policies requiring kids to meet
academic standard'beforetransitions from one school level to the
next, and about his directing' Secretary Riley to report each year
on which states and. districts have responded to' this challenge,
so that parents and taxpayers could know whether their leaders
were getting serious about high,st.andards.
.
.We also talked through'what we'would expect ~chools to do with
kids who were not meeting standards, 'so ,that if :the President
went ahead with this challenge we cou'ld answer questions that may
come up. Let me know if you think we need to put anything
together on' this,.'
.' "
,
',.
.,
My recommendation is to.go with the Secretary's preference.
While I continue to, like the idea of pushing states harder to
make 'kids meet standards, making that acondition f'or receiving
federal funds 'may just push to hard, as'both a political matter
and a matter of policy design.
Let me know if this settles the issue for the speech, or if there
wilrbe further discussion. Please also let me know if T can be
of any fur.ther help'. Finally--call me anyway,. so I can fill you'
in on a phone call from AFT regarding the speech.
Mike Cohen,
�, OPTIONS 'FOR MAKING STANDARDS, COUNT' FOR STUDENTS
e N Y E P E A T PRESIDENT'S CHALLENGE FROM SUMMIT
•
...
if~
r
President challenges states and communities to set challenging
academic standards, dev~lop assessments that reflect them, and
.
require students to pass tne test~nd meet the standards in order t
move from elementary to middle school, middle to high school, and
graduate' from high schooL
I
Pro's:
.
'
.
,
.
.
.
• The, evidence from the minimu~orripetency testing movement is that
_.,~-::.:_-_--_- . 'students can respo~d t.o high-stakes requirements ,if there is ample
_
time and opportunity for them to do so.
• , There is strong support in' the public and among opinion leaders for
tough, high stakes testing for kids, in order 'to motivate students to
work hard.
'.
'
• Use of the bully pulpit to advance this policy avoids the political
charge of "federal intrusion", and the complications, of designing a,
workable federal policy in this area.,
Cons:
• The .President has already done this; it doesn't break new ground' or
make news.
• A Presidential challenge 'without teeth to back it up may not move
state and !ocal policy very rapidly.
Option 2: REQUIRE STATES TO SHOW HOW THEY WILL HOLD,
STUDENTS ACCOUNTABLE FOR PERFORMANCE AS A CONDITION FOR
PARTICIPATING IN FEDERAL EDUCATION PROGRAMS.
• States/districts
are' required to· incorporate into plans for federal
education programssuPPQrting instructional services in academic '
~0~
,.,.
\e.~ ~,
'
\<2/
~r~'
1
.
\
G'-"
�"4'
•
subjects' at least one '.transition point in the schooling career at '
which students must demonstrate that they have met state/local
·academicstandards. 2 '
•
states/districts would be free to design their own approach to
determining if students, meet the standards. The state/district sets
the standards and determines the assessment instruments. It'
. determines the performance standards and the indicators and evfdence
to determine if the student meets them. States could use a single
test (though shouldn't), a series of tests (such, as Maryland's end-of
, course tests to be required for high 'school graduation), a series of
tests and major, projects (e.g., theequiva,lentof an honors thesis) or
'other approaches.
_~
•
States would be required to adopt a policy by a fixed point in time
(e.g., '999 or 2000), but could have an even longer implementation
timeline so that there is ample time to prepare students' before they
face consequences.
• The Secretary would, have the authority to waive this requirement for
'states which show high levels of. student achievement even without
high stakes testing .
. Pro's:
• This approach demonstrates that the President and the federal
, government are serious about raising standards and making them,
count.
'.
"... . ,
• This approach will have a powerful affect' on state and local policy -
if the objective is to get states/districts to make standards count for
kids, this approach should do it on a large scale. '
.'
There is enough flexibility built into the ,design to mute charges of
federal intrusion or micromanagent, of state, ~nd local education
1 Title 1, Perkins Voc.- Ed, Bilinlgual Ed; but not Eisenhower Professional Development or Drug Fee, Schools. Goals
2000 could be argued either way:'
2 We could also require states to show how they will help kids meet the standards and provide extra support for those
who are at risk of not meeting them, or who fail to, This would strengthen the policy, but if not framed well would
rekindle the OTL debate,
2
�",
"
.
.
, policy, and to accomodate a
approaches.
wide
'
range of'variations in state and local
• This approach is patterned after Title 1 requirements for schoolaccountability already in place.
'
Cons:
• This approach will be unpopular among many, but not all, in the civil
rights community -- since they have historically oposed high stakes
testing under most circumstances.
•
A federal requirement for high..-stakes, t~sting may reignite the
'.. controversy 'over opportunity-to-Iearn standards, since many
advocates of otl standards see them as a precondition of high stakes
testing. This may be a good and important debate to have, but it will
be even more difficult to have intelligent debate, during the campaign,
than it has been in toe legislative, process.
• This will be opposed as "federal intrusion" by at least some of the
opposition on the right; they will argue that it confirms their long
held suspicion that there are always federal strings that come with
federal funds. This will be especially true if this requirement is
added on to Goals 2000. And the lesson from Goals 2000 is that a
truly 'flexible program design is not necessarily a good defense
against charges of federal, intrustion.
•
Some will mistakenly' argue', that this is a Clinton, "flip flop",
reversing ,positions previously taken in Goals 2000. they will also
'argue that the Administration is being hypocritical, because the
Education Department's OCR investigated Ohio's use of high stakes
testing due to evidence, of dispara'te, impact.
(
• This requirement will engender strong opposition in very strong local
control states (e.g, New Hampshire, Iowa, Wyoming, and perhaps
Colorado and other Rocky Mountain states.) where the state would
, have a difficult time imposing a shtlilar requirement on local
districts.
.
-....
�"
.,'
',1
-Without 'some requirement on 'states for meaningful'-";' and funded -'
extra help for kids who don't meet the standards; some states are .,'.
likely to fail to provide adequate opportunities, or to set th~
standards to' low.
.
.
OPTION 3: REQUIRE StATES, AS A"CONDITION OF RECEIVING
FEDERAL EDUCATION FUNDING, TO PROVIDE ASSVRANCES TO
PARENTS, STUDENTS, TAXPAYERS AND EMPLOYERS, THAT ANY
STUDENT WHO, RECEIVES A HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA HAS MET
RIGOROUS STATE ACADEMIC STANDARDS.
-
States would provide an assurance to the Secretary, as part, of their
application for Title 1 'or otheclu'nds, that it has guaranteed parents,
._.-students,' employers' and taxpayers' that every student, who receives a
high school diploma will have demonstrated that he or she has met
state academic standards. This public guarantee must include a
statement/description of the evidence/indicators the state will use
to determin~ that the student has reached the standards..'
-
As with option 1, the state 'would have the flexibility to .design its.
own system of standards and assessment. There would be a fixed·
point by which stat~s would have to adopt a . policy, but would then.
have additional years in order to implement it. The' secretary· would
continue to have the authority to waive the requirement for high
performing states.
Pro's:
-
In addition to 'those for Option' 1, this option has the advantage of .
providing a very clear message:' . The high school diploma will finally
'
,.
.
. mean something.
- . This option places greater emphasis on accountability' to the public, .
and less on accountability to federal officials. It therefore' reduces
our exposure on charges of federal micromanagment. All 'the state
needs to' do to ~ontinue to quality for federal funding is provide a
. written assurance that they are carrying out the policy. HoWever,
they have to explain the particulars of how this would work to
parents, educators and voters' in. the state.
4
..
�I·'.... ·.,·",,;.
..
'"
,
'.',
"t"
"":"j
'<'
<"
Con's:
•
-.-.
Even with public accountability within the' state, it may be. too easy
for a state to essentially evade the intent of this policy, by·
. repackging existing practices, relying on ·Iow level tests, teacher .
judgment or:. class grades (without much additional training for
teachers). Consequently, in at least a handful of states, this policy
may have no effect or a· negative impact;
5
�"
NOTE TO BRUCE REED
I've been working on the idea of requiring states/school
districts to require students to pass tests before moving on ·tQ
the .next level. While I continue to think this is the right
.
app'roach, I've run into two potential
.and potentially serious
problems:'
Recent polling data .(supplied by 'Terry Peterson, and
attached) indicating that public support fo+, "high stakes"
testing, policies declines considerably when they are
p'roposed as coming from the federal goverenment, ei.ther in'
the form of requirements, or even ,encouragement from the
federal government.
"
.
'The fact that no more than a handful of states come close to,
meeting the 'President's challenge now (about half a dozen or
,sq 1f you don't count states with old, minimum competency
requir~ments for high school graduation)~'
Such a large gap
between current state policy and a new federal requirement
may be seen as (1)· bold Presidential leadership; (2)
unwarranted federal intrusion; (3) an unrealistic and
unachievable goal, if we will require all states.and
districts to get there within the next 3,1/2 years;, or (4)
all of the above.
'1 don't think these are disqualifying problems, but they are real
ones. 'I'm continuing'to think about this, and to think of other
options in the "get serious 'about standards ", mode of the Summit
speech.
I will try to discuss this with Riley this,evening or
tomorrow morning.
In the meantime, attached are,some additional
details and food for thought.
I'll get you some more stuff on Tuesday.
Mike Cohen
�)8.
,
1)0
'
, ' , '
you 8t~0IIQ'~Y .uppast. aClillli'lllaaC riBoftl .~c oppo••• Oz:.~lY opPose
1:l:I.1. :.t.d.ea?
l)s'CroJ:ISJly auppoJ'e
35
~)8oma-hae .v,ppO~c
20
l).~t appo••
t).tl'ongly oppo.e
11
12
5
9)daI\"t. Jc:Dew
".
ShcrtGi:a.g'
, !1r84.'
tile __.e
of,
't:Uili ...U~ , . . beaZ'~DI. hafOft
,
i:8.aclsen can
,','
l1C
'..--J
l).c~ly '~po~t
2) IICRl'UIwhat JIUPPOZ'C
31.~vb&t
II
appo••
4)atronwly
,,,
'
0,pp08,
18
.a '
s
S)don't Iu\cJv
, ~OO.
Limiti.q Usa legal
ripe. 0' c_li.Clael". to
appe-.lf1~_
1).t~g11 .~O~
2.~
'~Ol't
:a4
2)aomevb&t
3)8C'111avtaat oppo••
4) .stz'Ctli'ly oppe••,
20
:u
.)4oQ.'t lamw
6'
, 101. 'Giving Bcbaalpr1Dc1pal. IIIOR Jow:' to .tire t •• cl:utrA_,
1) s't.ftmgly .'WppCln:
28
27
22
2).omewhat auppo~
3)Bamewbac. a,ppoa.
20
4)atrangly oppo••
. 8)d.m1· t me",
lC2.
1
BDcouragiDg c..acd:wr. 1lA4 p:r:i~c1paU.. CO .pest ta,&cl:ul:rl' wbo lU'a ~ed' out U4
"'i;:b. tl:U!Im 'Co' try to
tlIatremtl:luLa....
nrr,t.".
.,
VOI'1c.ing'
' . '
"
1) a'C~-+y
r,
evppOR '
10
1.
2) IIQnleWMt, IlUpport:
lJ.omatmat. "O»po••
'J.tl"oaely op,po••
'
" dOA' t. kneW
"
2
'
l)atrGftglysuppolt
59
2) ec:ne"hae Bur-POlt
21
31aCllN.':What appa••
13003
3/11/••
26
.-=-.
.,
+ SCl.b.Oen
. Aa8oe1&c.•• # :Ella'
~.
�n8-16~96
12:22 PM
1.
~~~:...I~!.!!_~ ~oa \izU:£Oft\ ut.1cmv.i.ci&!l a~891IaIIII!:I.U't· " ••t:.
'~r--.-
l).~rong~y
haton ,pl:aJll,ae1oa. or g'%'a&Nati,.....-.---..
support
aOfl\AwlIat IJUPPorc.
:z)
,3) .o......c,GppIi)Se
4).troA.ly GPPD••
.
J) clem #~
klDo'"
3
/~-:;"""7. ~J:a1 enaau.r~ state
lXcbJ.ayaMQC· u.S..
1) ••
M4locJll govemment:. to, devalgp their own
-'-
.
c_~y euopo., . C s g S .0
..,pport
2).amewAac
l' 8OM.bar. 0llPo..
U
.) aU'DllEJ1y oppo.e! J . 2
J
~. ~ anco\\~.
0NIlt:
&cbieVelll8fte'.~ ••t..v!U.cb
1)
.t:r~ly.•\\p~OR.
2) 8om.wat
'e,1.IJIPOR
2)8MaWUI: oppoaa
at.te
chi1clr81'l 1'IIWit
~ local sov.~ta
paaa .,.fen
'.
~.
to devel.op tJ:usj.. z:' 01iI'A
anprt.lllliDca4
.•
or
~acluat.cI.
~
.
~
.
.
10
.'at.rongly o,ppoae
13
• , dI:m' C. bow
10..
Te.~iDa
te&cbe,. to
.1
~
.uze
~y'.ra
GomPeteDt before
~.y
are hired.
as
#3003
3/18lSC
27
PtiIIA
+
lobeD..
:tDo
Aa.oo1a~••,
�::
".!18-J~'-]p, J2: 2.2..EM
...... :
,. ....
.
".
«,,,J$~~ti;i:&~~,\;t~~~prpJ" ,,~i~
,
.,:
"
li2D 1/29
"
'2'1~;':'3j~1:J:2/ii':3''/2~3I'i'lJi4
,'."
3/18
.
2) aOlluiwtaac .~
J ) aOlftewtaac oPJilua.
1
•
C).aollgly oppo••
a
9) doa' 1: Ic:amI
l).,..Oagly
1
auppo~
62
:I) 80meVDaC avppa'Z't
17
11
J
2.
J'.~t, ~oa.
4)atran,ly op,pos.
J) Clem' t
lcI:aDw
'111. J"edol:aJ. avppoR to .Caee .m4 ,lOCal gQY.~c, &0, iclGDCifY I'ood. t . . . .n
:Z'ava1'd. t:.bIm ,d,t:la hOllWtea, P~1:'''' azul e.Xt::. Pay 1:0 ~&fa tl:&i!ria.
- Ga
, ....--. ", ... lhatrorlfJ1y aupporc. .
2J aOlll.'llfbae .",pOft.,
appo.. '
4J .c.rClZlQ'~y appo••
I) 40D # 1:. JQ::I.oV
l)
21
80"."_1:.
112. ~.dar&l .ne~.g• ..a1:.
t.eatl.
-.t.l4
7
7
o
.tate aa4 loaai
201'
~¥DmaDt.. &0
u•• tba1r a.n teacher
1)1C.1'ongly auppare
3).omewhat 8~zt
l) 8ama"liat appal.
4)ICCongly oppo••
9)doa.'t
11l.
Imo"
Tea=htftg vaiu•• &Di ethics
~ ~
aebools.
1.) aerang1y 1I\lP,OI'I.
2) aamaw1:Lat .'W0"
".tIOIDevhat appo..
4)at~gly
'U
30
2
oppo..
2
J)&:m'c bow
1,1.4 •
l
F.d.~~'l onoou.r.~t ~or
CAChing ..~ua. and
ethio, Sou tbe aol:lDol.,
" I i . ot lOCa~y dAJ,a1ped. curric::u1a.'
,
1 ).tZ'ODgly",~uppo:r:t
011. t:l1e
'
2) 80llUlWbat
;a) .om• .,ba t.
...,
.uppo:r:t.
apIlo..
33
•
41at1'GDllyQ.PPO..
111.
8
')~,~ ~
I
A
.f.d.eral nlZ'litallDllt to'tea•
at looally aeaigae.
t3003
'3/11/9'
...,.lu'" emS, aClaic.
~ t.J!a6
sc:=bOola,
cD the !:a••i .
OU.~1~&.
28
P. . . . . Ballot=.
A.lloaiat••, IDe
�. 3/5
1) 1IIt:.r=8'ly
2).omewba~
support
auppOrt
3).omevha~
:a/14. :S/11
OPPOIO
60
33
13
.).t~ly oppaa~
,) doC' c.
. : 11'.
1.2 .
..
aov
Put COlIIJImtv. ill evQ:cycl•• a~ _
~ 3000.
.upp~t
l)ICzoagly
3)
tlIa
"
someVhaC a\UJPOrc.
18
8
3).aaavhat oppoae
41atraogly o,ppo••
,)d.on·t kaaw
:n":. .Lat. ·pa~_t:.
S.
1
piek their pultc _di.QOl
...__..-:.~J!ltrongly euppOft
2) aOlllewbat:. ~D~
3)aaeevb&c appo••
4)at¥Oftllyappo••
9) 4011" c lcfto•.
U.8.;- . SU114111Dr• • chool Wilc:U.D.sa .
. 1) at%'QDgly 8uppaft .
4.1
2JSoMaWbaC .uppo~
:1 , 801ftawl:a&r. op,oee
4)acroaaly oppo••
I ) cSciI:I.' tkl::lDw
2'
1&
.11.
2,
11' .%ftYpoe. strict cliacipl.i.Aary. et:.uadatcla .
1) .~l.y e"'PPon. .
6')
2).aaawh&~ S~Qrt.
21
l).o.evb&C oppoaa
4)straQlly gppoee
don" t Jmov
1
S
2.
9'
.20.
Kir~
more polic. aud . . .1gB tbam co aCbooll to -.ke schools safor
''''-' .
3.
'-.
1.) atroagly 8\aWOft.
'2
2).Clmewb:a~ .~Q:rt
.
"
::1) .aavbac'"pppoae
13
4) .c.Z'oor1y
10
dppaae
')doD'c JeDov'
1..1.
3
t&Cll:l.fiJtAaD. tho· ec1sool. yeai' )y 20 da.ya.
l)atrongly
.~t
2. , .omewat:
8\fpJ1O~
3)ao"wAac Oppal.
#3003
3/18/96
28
PaJul + 8cm.oGA
.....oc:i.at::••• %DG.
�~:BS
.l/a.o 1/2t2/' 2/11,a721 ,3/28 'S/5
31.14
3/18
./
4)8~~oDgly
.. ,:
o.ppoae
S) daa! t. lc:a.ov
iiou...
!122. 'N'.bat. woul4 you .ay 1s eM ,.aat _aXtat.
far ~aJ..izIs ac.u:uSa:l:'cS5 iz1.
.Amer:1c:an IIc:hool. caday . : . it t.~ cri.lJ' )d.da an fall.1zl; l'*'d»4 kida .i.D ocl:wr
'eouI11~,~1.a •. t:.ba.t; 0\1.1' Jd"- al'. aat pftpiir•• fen- today'" CGIIIPec1clve job 1I&z:ket., t:ha1:.
.ld.d.a "ill bavs to IIOrJc ba.z'dar and
·a.az.e n"OAII~l. c:1t:i.e.,.. ~'cl1&t aiS'baz:'
:.t.as:u:sIlZ'd8 will ~ci...e..Jd.cb to laU1l _ n ' ·
,
be=-
1.) ow: kida anfalliBg behi.J:I4
2) lci4. aot pl!'8pand. CO GOII,pfIt.
l' kids wiU. IIQl.'k. hari8%"1_ lllDi:a l"_aplS:i::Urtbl.
4) lIGt.l".,;e .Jd,d.8 t:o lea:ra.llAft
I) OtbaJ:' '.'ECI")
9)
ckJa.'t. lcDo.
.
:
.
121.WD.t ;i.1 tlw •• GOAd 'tftOst ·i1llPorcut-n.,iOilfoZ' raiDiDg· .t:A:q"pr 4a 1:1.
scbllol.
M.rice
·~oday?
~) our kiu an fa11.izasr beldd.
2t. k1da =t p~.p.nd to CCft'Ipet.
.
1) kid. v£.11 wol"kha-ur/l:»e;w, n~.u:.le
4) 1IIOtivat. lUcia to lUZ'll mre ,
21.
21
2J
2)
•
.I) od:ae.r
(IReXFY)
')
dDD't, mow
7
1.24 • Ie "ad.ra1.. 40 you. tbick "t,ha IoIIIO\1ZS.t of mcmey. loaal ac=ol _a~ 'p1A'14 en.
adm:1n.iatntiva aa4 cctl.'&1izaci C'Mt. :i.atoo lov, too A:Lrb or jut about r1S-bt1
as
1) coo low
coo. higl:l
34
3D
11
a)
. 3) ,uat &bcN~ 1'1gbt
"
Ekm't kaow
.
.
.
. .
.
·1.21. s~ people ..... proposed that· soma federal et!u.oatiI;a:L aict 1'01' loaal. ec:ll'sool"
abouid Ae liDJced to a Ioeal aabDol board" .~ae••a ~ ~~t~ .dm~.iraciv. coat. to'
fr" up IIIQre 1IIQD.ey for Qe al".nCII. schoO•• tlIat ~.4 to C\i~ adm1ni.af:rat.1v. a.zu3.
ce.n'CZ'al coee.. voulci 10•• IC'IIIII tada'al a:1.d UDCIezo t.h1. »lan. l'a yo1a etJ:'CIDSly s~pott .
thi. prcpoaa1. somavhat .uppo~e ic~ .~~ oppO•• it or .C~ODQ1Y oppoa. ~t?
,
.
"'-
suppo~t
1)
atraa,ly
3)
.ame~hat,opPQ"
,
.
2f
2) .000~t 8Upport
.
"
.
lJ
11
") .tl'cmsrlY~••.
9)
.
.11
!
.
.
.
.la, • s . . c:0I'ftIINAiC.1.. are uQ1q· 'CuiI' aoJ:!OO1. ap.a. from V4lI'Y, aarl.y is:L the 1IIDz.u.ina
to late .t: lU8'ha" ••• IIftU,.l~" NlcSAt ~h. lUoo~ • " i..~~ oae.eZ"vbu. pa.:reta
and. chllcS.J:11S'1 cu. pc a rang. of PZ'OSP'a1'lbiaa.4 ••".i.e•• tlMy A••cl,ULG1~£Q' c,",co:r.iDg
and supervi.••4 r.cl'ttaticn for e'hUbaa a~c;~ acbool, ~14 caZ'. for' worJc.1!l.; . paZ"«mta
and .oeial .ervic•• , web. •• cO\Ul,.ll.ai' Lor .fUl:1.l.t•• Claatuo••.clLem•. Would. yay
.3003
i/18/'6
.30
PeD'+ .alla. . .
A.eoalat••, xaa.
�... . ... P020
.. Jn8~16-~6 12:·22 PM
'i1FlR-19 96 17:08
;.
.
.
,
'
.
1/2£1 1/ll· 2/.
2/11 ·2/21 2121
1/5. 3/1'
.
auppozt c:meatizlg mare o~ thea• •Qoo~.,
it. or aCrozIgly oppe.. it.?
·.u-oagly
3J18
.
.""i::aat .1iIpISOrc £.~,
1fCJau:51tMt cp,po••
~).t.raagly 8UP.PO~
.:1) 'OII'Q~t
PAtiE:B6
TO~ 20241!1.121a98
FROM:
53
2.
.uppeR
,)aomavbat.·apJoae
7
.) ..tra::IQ'ly o~po.a .
9)dcm't kaav
S
1
aDDS.
3/18/t6
31
pazm + SahoeG
a.a 8QQ1..1;••
#
%D.c
�Draft
Draft
-Summit challenge 1:
Draft
Standards for students:
Option 1: Require VVhigh stakes VV testing
,
Require states or districts to require'kids to pass school
promotion/graduatiqn test as a condition of f~deral
education funding.
If states or districts don't have some
kind of serious system of' standards and assessments in place
that provide some real consequences to students for their
academic performance, they should not count on the federal
government to continue to underwrite their school systems.
The intent would be for kids to have to pass a test
,t~ed to high standarqs in order to enter ,middle' and
high school, and to graduate from highschool.
The
requirement would be that states/districts would need
to have at least one point at which kids,were required
to demonstrate that they met the standards'in order
move on'to the next level or graduate from high school.
States/distri~ts would be free to design their own
approach to determining if kids meet standards.
It
could be a single test (such as a minimum competency
test); a series of tests (such as Maryland's end-of
course tests ju~t required for high school graduation),
a series Of tests and major projects (e.g.; the
equivalent of an honors thesis~), or some approaches
that rel'y heavily 011 teacher judgment.
'
Pro's:
There is Strong publi6 support for tough, high stakes
testing for kids" and support among opinion ,leaders as well.
,There is plausible evidence that ,if the standards are high,
if they count, and if kids are given enough time and the
ri~ht opportunities, they can meet the standa,rds.
"
Demonstrates that the President and the 'federal government
are serious about raising standards and making them count.
This ap~roach provides considerable design flexibility at
state and l'ocal level, so that it can accomodate variations
in ,state and local approaches to improving education.
Con's:
This approach will be,unpopular among'many, but not all, in
the civil rights community .,..- since,they have historically
opposed high stakes testing under most circumstances.
A federal requirement for high stakes testing ~il~
immediately reignite the controversy over,' "opportunity to
learn" standards-~the educational practice and resource
,,':
�standards that are seen by some as defining the precondtions
for high sta~es testing to be fair. '
This will be painted as "federal intrusion" by at least some
of the opposition (not because they oppose high stakes
testing) on the right, and they will argue that it confirms
their long held suspicion that there are always federal
strings that come with federal funds.,
Some will argue mistakenly that this is a Clinton "flip
flop", reversing positions ,previously take,n in Goals 2000.
They will also argue that we are being hypocritical, because
ED Office of Civil Rights investigated Ohio's use of high
stakes testing becuase there was evidence of "disparate
impact" .
There are some states and district's (e.g., New Hamspire,
Iowa, Wyoming) with very strong and deep traditions of local,
control, in which there would be great difficulty in, and
unwillingness ,to , meet these requirements.,
, The more flexible the requirement and the more numerous the
ways in which states/districts can demonstrate compliance,
the less meaningfully it will be imposed in different
jurisdictions.
Option 2: Provide Incentives to states and localities ,to require
high stakes testing
Provide additional federal funding to states or d~stricts
that do require promotion/graduation testing for kids.
This
might be something like a 5% increase in Title 1 funding.
Pro's and Con's in brief:
•
~any of the same arguements above still hold, except that
this option pretty much,takes away arguments about federal
intrusion, and gives states/districts in which this approach
just won't work a,way out.
Along with:this escape hatch, this approach will probably.
have less impact,'and will have a less sharp message.
Require kids to me~t some state standard in order to receive
student financial aid.
Summit Challenge 2: Standards for schools:
Provide help, for after-school and summer-school tutoring for
kids in low performing schools, if the state/district (1)
gives kids choice of which other public school to attend;
(2) dismantles failing school and replaces it with a cha~ter
school
Create Presidential incentive program for high performing
�schools, which'provides funds for schools in each state that
make most progress toward helping kids reach academic
standards.
'
�(<.
07: 23
03/19/96
1:1'202 632 1032
' "
_-t?
~
"
NEGP
'"
,',,'~
NATIONAL EDuCAnON GOALS
C.oc , "
~002/018
PA~Et~~
...
){,~
MEMORANDUM '
DATE:
March 18, 1996
TO:
Panel Members
Working Group Members
FROM:
Ken Nelson
Executive Director
RE:
AI Shanker's Article
i41.
Governor Engler wants this AI Shanker article to be distributed as soon as
possible, especially to Summit attendees. It was just delivered to the Panel
office in response to Governor Engler's request at our February 3 Panel
meeting, ,and builds upon Shanker's presentation at that time. You will note
that Shanker expands on the academic standards and assessment proposals
which the Panel has been considering. And he suggests a role for the Panel.
1155 - 22nd SD'eet, N.W., Suit! 502
(202) 63Z009SZ
WiIIShIncmn, D.C. 20037
FAX (202) 632.0951
�·
OJ/19/96
07:23
'5'202 632 1032
Il!lr.AMERICAN
.~ FEDERATION OF
NEGP
~003/018 _
AU3~R'1 SHANKEI~
5!'!; NEW IERS(Y IW~Nl.J(. N.W.
WASHINGl (IN, ()C ~()001':107q
102·1)7~f 44Ui)
P~I-~lIl1KI
- F.f)WAlm
_- T~\l:i!:=~~ .
March 15; 1996
Ken Nelson, Executive Director
National Education Goals Panel
1255 Twenty.,second Street, NW
Suite 502
Washington, DC 20037
,Dear Ken:
On behalf of'Albert Shanker, I want to thank you once again for inviting him to
speak about education standards at the Goals Panel meeting last month. As you recall,
Governor-Engler requested.that Mr. Shanker put together a more thorough proposal for
creating a mechanism that states and districts can use to benchmark their standards to
world class levels. Our understandiilg is tbat he wanted this in time for the March 26
-27 Education Summit. .
Enclosed is a paper by Mr. Shanker that we hope will serve the Goals Panel's
, needs and help shape conversa[ions that will be taking place at the Summit and in the
months to come. Please let me know if there is anything more we can do to help,
including providing you with any additional AFT materials related to standards.
Sincerely,
Matthew Gandal
Senior Associate
Educational Issues Department
'Enclosure
MGllge/aftsuJopeiU#2 .
J. McEL/.:O)'
_ S(O:1 f,\I'\' "'~I;,'~II«U~
�,
UJ/19/96
07:24
'5"202 632 1032
NEGP·
ijJ 004/018
.'~
Am~~
ation
tute
sta·
,: Teachers
�UJ/ll:l!96
07:24
.U202 632 10j2
~ 005/018
Later this month, the nation's govemors busines's, and education leaders will
eOlne together for an Education Summit sure to make national headlines. As an invitee, I
look fOIWard to an agenda centered on what is certainly one of the most imponant
challenges facing the public sehools in Ameriea: raising academie standards.
j
Six years ago in Charlottesville, Virginia, a similar gathering produced the
national education goals, two of which speak directly to the need for higher aeademic
standards in the schools. Those goals may have been l1nrealistic-"American students
will be first in the world in math and science achievement by the year 2000"-but they
have helped to shape our national conversation about education. Before 1989, very few
states could hand you a document and say "these are the academic standards we expect
our students to meet." Today. all but one. or two states are developing such standards,
and support for higher standards among parents and the public is as strong as ever.
Despite this overwhelming desire for standards, many articles we read these days
about education reform seem. to focus more on who should run schools than what
students should learn. Vouchers for parents to send their children to private schools,
"charters" that encourage anyone to open a school, and private contracts for companies to
run public schools all have a certain free-market appeal, but none ofthese things has been
provento work anywhere in the world, let alone in this country. What does work in high·
achieving foreign countries is an insistence on high academic standards, a rigorous core
cuqiculum, assessments linked to the standards, and incentives for. students to work hard.
This year's summit is· an opponunity to reco~it ourselves as a nation to these
universally accepted ideas. It is a chance for the business community to speak in a clear
voice about how it is affected by low standards in the schools and to make a long-tenn
commitment to helping put higher standards in place.Jt is a chance for the governors-'
most of whom were not at the' 89 summit-to show that helping American youngsters
achieve world class academic standards is as much of a national priority as it was six
years ago. and a more sensible, responsible solution thaIl these other proposals for reform.
And it is a time for educators to own up to our share of the respollsibiiity for lo:w
standards and to commit our own resources and expertise to doing something about it.
What Are World Class Standards?
When I appeared before the National Education Goals Panel last month, I spoke
not only about the need for standarci.o; in our schools, but the need for high-quality,
internaJionally competitive standards. I also talked about some of the features of
successful school systems overseas that contribute to their higher levels of achievement: a
common core cUlTiculum. tests linked to the standards. and rewards and consequences for
student achievement.
.
, 1
�03/19/96
07:25
5'202 632 1032
NEGP
~006/018
To illustrate· what I meant by "world class standards," I referred to a recent trip I
took with other AFT leaders to visit the Saturn auto plant in Tennessee. Nqt only is
Saturn a model of how union~management relationships can transfonn a company,. it is .
also a model of what it means to pursue a world class product
In a special wing ofthe plant dedicated to research, development, and training, .
Saturn employees spend their days tearing apart the more popular and reliable cars made
by other companies to learn what makes them work. Every piece of the car, from the'
engine to the tiniest screw or hinge, is inspected for clues. They also tear down Saturn
and other GM cars, but the emphasis is on learning from the best cars in the class. If
Toyota is producing the best-selling sedan. then that model is tom down and thoroughly
examined. If Volvo's producing the safest, then they take a look at that car. The
intention isn't necessarily to copy everything they see, but to detennine what makes each
car so successful and figure out how to get the new Satqm to measure up .
.
.
.
. This is good busnless. You fmd out what the competition is doing better than
you, and you try to learn from them. In the world of education, we don't always operate
that way. Even though it is. clear from the data that oth.er countries are having more
success educating larger proponions of students to higher levels of achievement than we
are, our tem;lency is to look inward for the answers.'
.
"
The AFT published a repo.rt last summer that analyzed states' efforts to develop
standards (Making Standards Marter, June. 1995) . Among other things, we asked which
states had looked at what students in other countries are expected to learn and used that
information to guide their standards-setting work. While a number of states initially
claimed to have done so, it tumed out, upon further questioning, that only a few had
actually laid eyes <m'any foreign documents. Most had Inerely taken their present
expectations and raised them up a !lotch or two. Some hadn't even done that.
Why does this matter so much? One important reason to benchmark
internationally, and the reason most often discussed, has to do with American
competitiveness. In a global economy where productivity depends heavily on the
knowledge and abilities of the workforce, we can't afford to provide our children \.vith an
education inferior to what other nations provide.
.'
But there's another reason why we should be seriously studying toreign education
standards, and it's a reason that has far.greater resonance with teachers and others who
have devoted their careers to education. If we don't look at intemationallycompetitive
standards, there is a danger that those of tis who have been involved so long in the
struggle to raise student achievell1ent will become prisoners of the status quo, unable to
imagine youngsters achieving at higher levels than we are accustomed. In other words,
by looking at what students in other nations are capable of accomplishing, we may aim.
higher when judging the potential of our own youngsters;
2
�OJ/19/96
07:25
'6"202 632 1032
NEGP
I.raised this benchmarking issue with the Goal,s Panel. and I spoke about some of
the work we've been engaged Ul at the AFT to contribute to the discussion ofwhat high~
quality standards and high.achieving school systems look like: , ,',.
.
.
,
• First, we developed criteria for strong standards based on what other successful
education systems do and on what we think is needed to guide the development of
good curricula and good teaching.
• Second, we compared the standards being developed )n the states using our criteria.
• Thirg, we looked at the exams students take in other countries and published them Jar
others to see.
• FQurth, we developed standards· setting kits in each of the core academic subjects,
, which include some of the best materials we can find from the U.S. and around the
world .
. CREATING A NATIONAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE ON
EDUCATIONAL STANDARDS
The materials we've developed at the AFT have been very well received. But the
need for this kind of infonnation is far too great to be satisfied by one or two
organizations.' Those of us who care so deeply about helping children reach world class '
academic standards need to work together to create an infrastructure that will support
states and districts and lend credence and clarity to the standards movement. We need to
launch a mechanism and policy process focused on quality; something that can withstand
the political winds of change that so often threaten good ideas in education.
I recommend that the governors, business. and education leaders establish a
national research institute dedicated to promoting world class education standards and
to providing the type of information 1 just mentioned. I am not proposing a new branch
of the federal Department of Education, nor am I trying to resurrect the National
Education Standards and Improvement Council (NESIC). The type of institute I envision
would be independent and fullyresearch ..based: Its focus wou1d be on the quality of
academic standards and the systems that support th.e standardS-it would not allow itself
to be sidetracked by any other issues. It would be designed to provide infonnation,
feedback, and technical assistance to states, school districts, and possibly other entities
. who request help-it would not be in the business of "certifying" or "approving" what
states or districts are doing.
Ii1J 007/018
�UJ/19/96
07:26
'5'202 632 1032
NEGP
Igj 0081018
r am thinking of the kind of place where states could go to look at the standards of .
other states, or the cwricula and exams of other countries. I am thinking of a place where·
states could send the,if standards and receive an in-depth report as to how those standards
compare to the expectations for students in other high-achieving COWltries. I am thinking
of a place that could issue reports that go beyond simply showing that U.S. students are
behind their foreign counterparts in tenns of achievement but also help us understand
what makes some foreign education systems so successful. Let me elaborate on each of
these functions.
. '
.
.
Collecting" translating, and disseminating materials from
around the world
If! am developing standards in New Jersey, I should have access to the standards
being developed in Colorado t Illinois, and Maryland t and I should be able to get a copy of
the French national curriculum, the brevel exams, and the baccalaureat exams. Right
'
now, this is impossible for me to do. I would have to contact each state individually to
get copies of their materials and to learn how they are progressing. I may be able to find
a few organizations that have translated materials from overseas, but the infonnation v..iU
be sparse-it won't be enough to help with every subject and every grade leveL This is
the first function a standards institute could serve: the collection, translation. and
dissemination of materials and information relevant to setting standards.
State and District Materials
Collecting the materials from every state is the easier piece of this puzzle.
Standards and curriculum frameworks exist in all but a few states and could be pulled
together rather easily. There is also a need to pull together academic standards and
related materials from school districts. The new Title I law holds districts and schools
accountable for helping eligible students reach high academic standards, and we are
seeing increased local interest arid activity in standards as a result. States are fanher
along than most districts: but some districts, particularly some of the larger ones, are
developing their own standards. As both states and districts work to develop standards, it
will be important to get a good picture of how wen the two are linked. In other words,
are a particular district's standards well aligned with the state standards? .
\
Some smtes, districts. and industries are developing "career" or "skills" standards
separate from the academic subjects. These should be collected by the Institute. Only
then can we begin to detennine whether the skills.standards sufficiently reinforce
academic knowledge.
It is also important for the Institute to have a broader knowledge of state and local
refonn strategies that will allow it to answer such questions as: Will there be cuniculum
frameworks to flesh out what's in the standards? Will there be state assess~ents tied to
these standards, or will this be a district responsibility? Will there be consequences
'
,
4'
�03/19/96
07:26
NEGP
attached to student achievement of tIle standards (e.g., exit exams)? How \ViII the
standards, assessments, and consequences be phased in?
This last point is important If states and districts do set internationally .
competitive standards, we shouldn't expect students to magically achieve them as soon as
they are put in place. Other substantial changes will need to occur around those
, standards. including changes in the curriculum and in the training and professional
development of teachers and other school staff. and these things take time.'
International Materials
The international perspective will be harder to pro~ide, but it is absolutely
essential that we do so. We need to sec manymore documents and get much more
information from other countries if we are ever going to understand what it means to have
world class standards. The firstste:p is to collecpheraw materials:
• We need to collect and translate standards, curriculum frameworks, and other
curriculum documents fromFrailce, England, Gennany; Japan. the Netherlands,
. New Zealand, Taiwan, Australia, and other countries across the globe where student
achievement is high. '
• We need to collect the exams students take at various stages oftheir schooling. This
means the "gateway" exams that students in many countries take at the end of lower
secondary school before moving on to more challenging courses ofstudy; the
entrance exams that most countries require of collegeaboUlld students; the more
technical exams that are required to enter training programs, apprenticeships, and
jobs; and any tests that students take in the elementary grades. It also means
collecting scoring guides and answers to test questions that help illustrate how good is
good enough and. determining how many srudents in each country take and pass each
of these exams.
• We need to collect and translate textbooks and other instructional materials used,in
foreigc Classrooms. The University of Chicago Math and Science project has done
some of this already, and most teachers ""ho look at the texts are struck by how.
advanced both the Russian elementary math curriculum and the Japanese middle
school math curriculum are in comparison to ours.
• We need to develop a collection of student work that more directly illustrates how
well students abroad are actually doing compared to ours. Tounder~tand how well .
students write, for example. we need to look at a collection of essays, poems, and
other 'Writings, and we need to see a scale ofwhat'g considered unsatisfactory.
satisfactory, and advanced work at,various grade levels. As mentioned earlier, exam
questions alone aren't sufficient. We need to see how good the answers need to be for
a student to pass a particular test.
.
s
�OJ/19/96
07:26
'6'202 632 10J2
NEGP
. All of these materials exist in other countries, and they are notthat difficult to
obtain. The AFT has already established a small library of international standards•
.-exams, and curricuhun documents, and we would be happy to contribute to the Institute.
The Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS) has done this on a grander
scale, translating curricula, textbooks, and exams from close to one hundred countries.
All of these materials should be made accessible through this Standards Institute.
The exception here is student work. We have found it very difficult to obtain
actual examples of student work, whether it be answers to test questions or assignments
from classroom teachers. There are privacy and access issues to deal with, and making
these kinds of things available will probably require collaboration between national
governments, perhaps through international agencies such as the Organization for
Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD). I can't emphasize enough how
important it is to have access to student work in other countries. Until we do, we can't
really understand how high their standards are.
Other Information Relevant to Standards
Along with these "raw materials," the Standards Institute should compile statistics
and other data that can help us understand what proportion of students in each coUntry
meets the standards reflected in the curriculum documel1ts and exams. For example, in
looking at the brevet exams in France, it is important t~ know that 60 percent of 15;.year
oIds pass these tests. The next logical question is: "What standards do the other 40
percent reach?" By answering questions like this, the Institute should get a real handle on
howlarge a gap exists between the highest- and lowest-perfonning students in each
country, and it should explore the factors that contribute to that performance gap.
There is another type of infonnation that the Standards Institute should make
available that I think would be very instructive to states, districts. and everyone involved·
in raising educational standards. I am thinking here about some of the behind-the-sceries
educational variables that contribute to such high standards in other countries but aren't
ne~essarily reflected in the.cumculum frameworks or textbooks. For example, I think
people deserve to know:
• the extent to which the curricula and exams in other countries are centralized and how
local autonomy is or is 110t reconciled with this central authority;
• .. what kinds of rewards and consequences there are for student achievement;
,. the kinds of intervention and remedial programs other countries use to prevent
students from falling behind' and to help them catch up if they do fall behind;
• the extent to which social promotion is a problem; ,
• the degree to which diplomas 'and transcriptsare respected and used by employers and
universities;
• how great the need is for remedial eourses in universities;
6
@010/018
�.
07: 27
03/19/96
1t202 632 1032
.
NEGP
I(ljOl11018
.
.
(
,
• what the success rate is for students ,who enter higher educatipn (Le., do most of them .
get their degree?);
• how teachers and students spend their time each day and week-for example, how
much of students' time in school is spent on core academic subjects? (This was
revealed in the Prisoners of Time report, and it deserves greater attention from states'
and districts as they create higher standards); .
.
• the ways in which school agendas and time are organized around standards and a core .
curriculum;
.
• the ways parents are engaged to keep students performing at the appropriate level; and
• how teacher training and professional development art connected to the standards and
curriculum.
Using Technology
. One of the keys to making all of these materials accessible to a broad range of
people is to use technology. If the Standards InstitUte had all ofthe~e materials online,
just imagine the possibilities!
o I'm on the committee in Maine charged with developing science stand,ards.
I log
onto the Internet, connect with the Standards Institute web page. and begin to
browse through the other state science standards. If I have a particular question
. let's say, "which states require students to learn chemistry in high. school? "-I
could Use "chemistry" as a key word and have access to all the chemistry
standards. To begin benchmarking my standards internationally, I could.1ook to
see when in the curriculum other countries expect their students to learn chemIStry
and at what level 0/ depth and hreadth. I could also look dt the exam questions 10
determine how rigorous the expectations are.
o I'm an English teacher in a Los Angeles middle school interested in finding out
what kind oflilerature students in other countries are reading at this age and how
well they are expected to writ~. I go to the school library and tap into the
Standards Institute web page. There I have a 'choice ofcountries to look at with
Iheir scores on the most recent International Assessment ofEducational Progress
reading test displayed. I choose the top three countries, I click on eighth-grade
literature, and up comes a list ofbooks, short stories, and poems along with some
sample passages. Also there jor my perusal are a. variety ofessays showing
differenllevels ofstudent writing and information on the proportion ofstudents
reaching those levels.
<>
I'm a state legislator in Indiana doing research for an upcoming vote on whether
the state should institute a series ofhigh school exit exams for students. I go to the
Standard.. Insfitute web page, enter "high stakes exams, '.' and a .list ofcountries
and grade levels appears. I click on the French baccalaureat and read a few
7
�03/19/96
07:27
tr202 632 1032
NEGP
~012/018
paragraphs on w.hat these exams are for, who takes'them, how many students pass
them, and much more. I can even look at the exams in various subjects if I want to.
The possibilities here are endless. I have no doubt that states, districts, and
everyone With a stake in our education system would greatly benefit from having access
to so much information from around the world.
Benchmarking state and local standards to the
best in the world
In addition. to the raw materials, m8.ny states and districts will also want to know
how their s~dards measure up to the standards in other states, districts, and countries,
and they won't have the time, expertise, or objectivity to make that determination on their
. own. Many states are at this point right now.-:..they want feedback on the quality of their .
We have had a number of states ask us to
. standards but they're not sure where to
review their standards, and I know other organizations have had these requests as wen.
But each of oUr analyses carries with it a certain ideology, depending on who we are and
what we believe in. This isn't necessarily a bad thing; in fact, it's very important that a
variety of groups with diverse opinions and interests weigh in. But I believe that an
independent Standards Institute could issue revievvs that avoid any political label by
rnakhlg use of the state and international materials that get collected.
tum:
I can imagine a number of criteria being developed and used by the Institute when
analyzing standards. We have our own standards criteria at the AFT, and so do some
other groups, but Institute, criteria would have to be straightforward, widely accepted, and·
fmnly rooted in international research. When someone asks why a particular criterion is
important, the answer should be: "Because we know it works in other high-achieving
countries."
.
.
.
What are some examples of criteria the Institute should develop and use? The
most obvious criterion has to do with .rigor: How challenging is a particular set of
academic standards compared with the expectations in other high-achieving countries?
could imagine a report that would read something like this:·
r
In France and the Netherlandr;, .students are expected to have mastered addition
and subtraction oftwo- and Ihree-digit numbers by the end offirst grade; in
Germany, students learn this in second grade-your standards don't require il
until third grade. Your standards expect fourth graders to master long division
whereas thai doesn 't enter the curriculum in France or Germany until fifth grade
and.the Nether/a:ntis in sixth grade. In France i:md the Netherlands, students
begin learning basic algebra in the third grade and they are dDing the equivalent
ofyour tenth grade algebra in the seventh grade. French studenls are expected to
solve advanced geometric problems by the ninth grade that aren 'I reflected
anywhere in your standards. Two-thirds ofGerman students are expected to
8
�03/19/96
07:28
'ft202 632 1032
@013/018
learn advanced trigonometry by the end ofeleventh grade andone-third pass ci
series ofexams in which they must apply advanced trigonometric principles to
actual job-related tasks or problems (examples could be provided). Trigonometry
:is touched 'Upon in your high school standards. but the language isn't clear or .
specific enough to allow us to compare it in terms ofrigor with the content ofthe
.
German e~ams.
There should also be criteria other than rigor. One that comes to mind has to do
with the extent to which standards are clear and specific enough to help ease the student
mobility problem. One out of every five students switches schools or moves to another
school district every year. Iri urban areas, one in three students switches schools or
districts. The more clear and specific standards are about what students should learn each
year, the better the chances that a student who moves from school to school or district to
district will enter his new classroom havingsntdiedthe same material as the rest of the .
students. The more general or vague the standards are, the less·continuity we'll see, and
the harqer it will be on mobile students.
J could envision the Standards Institute developing a lO-point "mobility inde~"
that could communicate to states· and districts how effective their standards will be in this
area. A state or district with standards that are very clear and specific about what sntdents
should learn in each grade might earn a "9" on the scale, whereas a set of standards that
are arranged by grade clusters (e.g., k-4, 5-8, 9-12) might earn a "5," and standards
without any grade level indications at all might eam a "1." So.me states or distTicts might
decide not to act on the mobility index on the grounds that it conflicts with local
autonomy. That would be their right. but at least the information would be available to
.,
enable them to sufficiently weigh the tradeoffs.
I could also imagine something like a "performance index," which would meas~re
the extent to which a set of standards answers the question "how good is good enough?"
Most of what we've seen states develop so far are content ,standards that describe what
students should learn. For standards to ultimately be useful to teachers, parents, and·
others, they need to also illustrate how well sntdents need to perform a particular task or
skill in order to show that they've mastered the content.,· Simply stating that "third·
graders should be able to write awell-constructed paragraph, using challenging
vocabulary and proper spelling, punctuation, and grammar" doesn't tell me how good.is
good enough. But showing examples of paragraphs that meet and don't meet the
standard does. A performance index could determiDe how far .standards go in answering
this important question. .
9
�UJ/19/96
07:28
'5'202 6J2 10J2
NEGP
Benchmarking state and local assessments and textbooks to
the best in the world
To keep pace with states' needs, the Standards Institute could pbase in the
benchmarking of state assessments, and possibly textbooks as well. In were a governor
or superintende~t, I would want to kriow if my state exit exams are as rigorous as the '.
exams students in other countries take at the same age, and r d want to compare the
statistics ofliow many take and pass these exams. I would also want to know how the
textbooks used in my state compare with those in other countries. This is something the
Institute should be able to tell me, but benchmarking standards needs to be the priority in '
the beginning.
I'll say it again: To be useful and credible, tht;: indexes and benchmarking reports
need not have any particular political spin to them. nor do they have to render any value
.judgments. The point is to provide useful information to states and districts and to let.
. them decide for themselves how they want to act on it.
This would not, however, preclude other organizations from using the information
supplied by the Institute to issue their own reports 'and render their 0'WO judgments. In
fact, I think this should be encouraged. At the AFT~ we would like to be able to draw on
the resources of the Institute to. keep pushing for the issues we think are important: .
standards that are rigorous, specific, and grounded in the core academic disciplines.
Other organizations should have the same opportunity. But we should all be working
from the same rich and thorough base ofinfonnation. We should all be enlightened by it.
I'm convinced that creating a free flow of information like,this would substantially
improve the quality of the discussions and'debates that are going on in every state and
every district developing standards.
.
Monitoring Progress
In addition to detennining the quality oftheireducational-standards•. assessments,
and other materials, states and distriCts also need to be able to monitor the progress of
their overall reforms. They need extcrnallndicators and;,beilchmarks that they can use to
infornl and guide their work. Some of this information is included in the annual National
Education Goals reports that have been issued by the Goals Panel every year since the
last sUmmit: But the good student achievement information that's in these reports gets
b1.lIied among too much other infonllation. It needs much more prominent attention.
NAEP and IAEP Data
- Right now, one of the most useful series of indicators we have available to us is
the data from the National Assessment ofEducational Progress'(NAEP) and its
international counterpart (lAEP). It is important to make the public aware of both
national achievement trends and state-by-state data. There are even ways to compare
state achievement on th.ese tests with that of other countries, although these kinds of
10
f4J 014/018
�UJ/19/96
07:28
'5'202 632 1032'
NEGP
comparisons typically tell us only what the average student in Utah can do when
compared to the average, Gennan student. 1'0 get a more complete picture, we need to
l.mderstand the distribution of achievement in states and other countries. What standards
are being met by the top third of students, the middle third, and the bottom third?
Proportion of Students Taking Advanced Courses
Another indicator that deserves much more attention-and it begins to get at the '
distribution of achievement issue I just raised-,'is the proportion of students taking
advanced courses and exams in high school. 'In a study the AFT conducted mth the
National Center for Improving Science Education, the Advanced Placement CAP) exams
in science were found to be comparable in rigor to exams taken by college-bound
students in Ellgland, France, 'Germany, and Japan. Yet, whereas 2S to 36 percent of
students in these foreign countries pass exams ofthis caliber in multiple subjects, only 5
, percent of American 18-year-olds pass even a single AP exam.' If one-quarter to one
third of l8-year-olds in other countries are passing the equivalent of four or five AP
exams, at least that many American students should be able to pass four ortive AP exams
before graduating from high schooL
This is a benchmarked standard that states can begin working toward
immediately. Unlike the standards and assessments under development in 1110St stateS,
AP courses and exanis exist now, and they can be made more widely available. Only half
the high schools in the U.S. offer AP courses to students, and within most of those
schools, only a handful of students take the courses. The International Baccalaureate is
another example of a high school program that reflects world class academic standards.
Less than 1 percent of American high schools offer the IS program.
There are a variety of factors that contribute to such low numbers of American
students reaching the AP and IB standards, including the cost of the programs,
availability of qualified teachers to teach the material, ,and the lack of external incentives
f~r students-while sO,me colleges give credit for students with IB diplomas and high
scores on the AP exams, few if any require that applicants have gone through these
programs. But these should not be excus'es. There is no reason why these courses can't , ,
be made a"ailable in every high school in the, country. If states and districts truly set
world class standards for their students, they will need AP and IS courses to help students
reach them.
Some states have passed laws requiring AP courses be offered in every high
school, and that has had a significant effect ,on the number of students taking these
courses and exams. In South Carolina, for example. a law passed in 1983 required
districts and schools to make AP courses available to all students who wanted to take
them. Since that law went into effect, there has been an 87 percent increase in the
number of schools offering AP courses, and the number of students taking AP exams has '
nearly quadrupled, Other states have made funds av&lable to students who could not.
otherwise afford these programs or to teachers so they could be trained to teach the
11
~015/018
�03/19/96
07.: 29
'6'202 632 1032
NEGP
courses. These kinds of effons will have significant payoffs, but they are only under way
in a handful of states.
Other Indicators
The Advanced Placement is one idea for an indicator, but I would hope that
.through its research, the Institute could come up with more. There is a particular need for
indicators at the elementary level, since thafs when so much of a child's development.
takes place. But even in the high school years, the picture is incomplete. AP courses are
typically taken by college·bound students. We also need indicators that will give us rich
infonnation about those students who aren't going on to collelSe.
Ultimately. I think there should also be an indicator or a set of indicators built
around the kind of elements that we know work in foreign education systems: a core
curriculum, exams'linked to the curriculum, and rewards and consequences for studen.t
achievement. In my view; these three factors, more than most other school-related issues,
account tor the perfonnance gap between their students and ours. The public deserves to
know this, and people should be able to find out how their state or district compares.
For example, the Institute could report which states and districts have standards
clear and specific enough to form the basis of a common core curriculum for all students.
This is important for a few reasons. As mentioned earlier, student mobility is a problem
that dear standards can help alleviate. But specificity is also important if states and
districts want to ensure that no school can arrive at an interpretation of the standards
that's too low; that the curriculum, assessments, and textbooks vvill be well aligned; and
that teachers and parents can understand what the standards mean for their students and
their children, whatever grade they may be in.
The Institute could also detennine whether the assessments being used in states
and districts are actually linked to the standards that have been circulated to educators and
the public. And it could report the extent to which student performance on the
assess.ments will count for something (i.e., vvill promotion, graduation. college
. scholarships or something else be dependent on achievement?).
These systemic indicators w~uldn't necessarily be harder to apply than the others,
but they may cast the Institute in more of an advocacy role than some may be comfortable .
with. Perhaps reports on these issues would be best left to outside organi7..ations to do on
their own, using infonnation from the institute. This is something that the governors and
others who would be using the Institute would have to work out
Funding and Oversight
Who should be in charge of this Educational Standards Institute, and how should
it be funded? To some, the Goals Panel would be the logical choice to oversee such an
operation because of its political credibility and its bipartisan configuration. Others see
12
@016/018
�VJ/19/96
07:29
'6'202 632 1032
NEGP
the Panel as too closely associated with Congress and the federal government, or tIK:Y
question the lack ofeducation and business representation.
One thing is clear. As it is presently funded and staffed. the Goals Panel could
,
not perform. any of the functions I've described here. But that doesn't mean that it
couldn't set up this Educational Standards Institute and a credible governance board to
oversee it. The Institute andlor its board could then report to the Goals Panel on a regular
basis, but its work would be independent ofthe Goals Panel.
,
If the work of this Institute was kept to pure research, it is possible that' it could be
housed within the U.S. Department of Education. After all, ministries of education ill
most other countries routinely perfonn these functions, and staff at the Department. of
Education would have better access than anyone else to many of the international
materials I've described here. '
Another possibility would be to set this up as a fully independent Institute. funded
by private sources and accountable to its funders. This might be preferable if the goal is
to avoid any possible link to the U.S. government or elected officials. On the oth~r hand,
private sources are less reliable and could be discontinued or diminished based on the
mood of the funders.
However the Institute is put together, it is important that prominent education and
business leaders are involved, people who have expertise in the area of educational
standards but who also have real credibility. with educators and the public. The gllal of
creating this Institute is to not only provide people with good information but aIs(1 to
energize the standardsmovernent, give it sonie visibility, and make sureitis here LO stay.
We can't afford to let raising acad'emic standards become the latest in a series or railed
educational fads.·
As to where the money would come from. I think there are mUltiple sourl:CS. The
business community is an obvious one. It is clear from their interest in this year's
swnmit and from the work of the National.Business Roundtable and the National
Alliance of Business, that business is serious about educational standards. After the '89
summit, the New American Schools Development Corporation (NASDC) ,vas formed
with. substantial business support, and it has continued to fund innovative school reionn
efforts since then. NASDC is due to go out of business later this year. Why cI."mJdn't all
.
of its supporters put their contributions into an Educational Standards Institute?
I think that states should also contribute since'they will be the prime beneficiaries.
They could pay a per-pupil expenditure or an equal lump sum. The federal government
also has a vested interest-a national interest-in supporting these efforts. If jldoesn't
make sense'for the federal government to invest money, it could certainly provide the
Institute access to a lot ofinformation. Many of the private foundations that h.we shown
real interest in educational standards may want to contribute to a Standards Instilute, as
will education o'rgaruzations. like the AfT, which support the standards movement.
13.
Ial 017/018
�UJ/19/96
07:30
"6'202 632 1032 .
NEGP
~ 01.8/018
Some tim.e down the road I could envision the Instirute also working on a fee-for
. service basis. States and districts could pay for the infonnation and technical assistance
they need ..Businesses; education groups, schools, and others should also be able to take
advantage of the Institute's services. In the beginning, though, it will take a more
substantial an~ consistent amount of support to make this work. .
___ . .C!+.. ,.. ._".. . .
~·
II.'
As I look to the future of public education I want to see headlines like "Colorado
Raises Academic Standards, Students Respond" or "Thirty Percent of Florida's Students
Take APCourses and Exams-Up from 5 percent a Decade Ago" or "Since Maryland's
New Standards Went into Effect, State Colleges Report Big Decrease in Remedial
Courses Needed.'~ I want to see headlines like this in every state and every city. But I am
deeply concerned that states and districts need help to get there.
Establishing an Educational Standards Institute of the nature I describe in this
paper will take time, money. expertise, and a 'coIl1Iliitment.Jrom a lot of organizations and
people. But it is one concrete way we can help public education move forward. I can't
think of a more important endeavor for the governors, business, and education leaders·to
support.
14
�'j
@
@e
I
I'
I
s head of a 'Texas school commis~ Perot declared "a n~w worla cha!Dpion,"
sion -in' the. 1980s, 'Ross Perot ,a stude'nt who had missed:-<42 days of
railed against public schools' lax 'school showing a sheep. ,
-,
His fQlksy barbs were part of a nation
'standards and misplaced, priorities. His
, favorite story was about a vocational stU" 'al drive to rede(ine the inissionof p~blic
dent whowasper{llitted to miss 35 days ,education. Traditionally, public schools
of school to enfer a pet chicken in, live have primarily taught themajority of stu
stock shows. Finally, a newspaper sent a dents vocational 'and "life" skills rather
reporter to the HoustonFa~ Stock Show, than rigorous academics, on the grounds
to check 'Perot's dairil- and found what that they could earl) a middle-class wage ,
-in factories with diplomas that repr~~,
sented an eighth-grade academic educa
tion. Some _
high-standard -schools have '
always existed, but the "excellence' >
movemenC! of the 1980s argued that the
increasing complexity of ",,"ork demand
ed that schools ratchet up standards dra
• mati<;!\lIy and give _ ~students a shot at
all
the"sort of education traditiqnally re
served for the gifted and the pri~i1eged,
�.,
.Governors and corporatelead~rs
launch a new drive to demand'
morefrom students. History's' '
lesson: Enemies are'everywhere
~-
e
1-, .
I~
.It
;-
.I..,
..
Asa result,public sc.hools are doing a Only a third of twelfth graders mastered
better job pf eQucating kids than ever . rigorous reading. passages in a 1994 test.
before. Graduation rates are up.' The by the respected National Assessment of
share of high school students taking a Educational Progress, Only.·11 percent
core of academic subj~ctsincreased from showed a strong.graspof history. NAEP
,13 percent to 4.7 percent in the past dec reports that the average reading level of
ade. The'gap between whites' and minor black 17-year-olds is about the same as
ities~ test sCores has narrowed ..
that of white 13-year-olds. And the gen
But the. vast majoritYipf Ainericanstu . eral standards of U.S, scho<;>ls pale; in
dents are still educatedattoo low 11 level. comparison ~ith those of other industri
.
\
; . ,
.alized nations.' Savs Albert· Shanker,
president of the AJr{erican Federa~ionof
Teachers: "Very few American pupils
are. performing anywhere near where
. they could be performing.",
This week,A5 governors ~nd the chief
executives ofdozens of the nation's larg
est 9Prporations are gathering in Pali-'
'sades, N.Y., to explore ways to bring
"world. class" staridard~ to' American'
�"
,
"Ii CULTURE & IDEAS,
;,
education. "Standards are the
j~Jarting point, the sine qua
,non of school reform," says
~I,.ouis Gerstner, chairm'an~f "
}lpM and cohost of the summit
J~ith<!ov. ~ommy Thompson
,~of
~ading liberal:school re(orm
, er Theodore Sizer rejects state
and national' standards be~
yond basic skills because par- ,
'ents should 'have "rights over
tfieir children's minds."
:'~~Whlle Ihore than half the
regpondents to'the u.s. News
said they' w~nted' stand- '
a(g§ set at the national or state,
le~?J, the federal Department
of'\~ducation has been pum
meled by conservatives in the
past tWo years for encouraging,
states to set "world, class"
I stahdardsas' part of the' Clin~ ,
ton administration's Goals
2000 initiative. The program is
·voluntary, no regulations were
written for it; and states are'
given' wide latitude on how
they can use the $370 miilion
, , authorized by Congress. for:
the effort. But conservatives
. Ifaveattacked it as a "federal
'power grab" and "an attempt
to';!10ave, governmentdeter-'
mi9~ ,official knowledge."
G®P presidential candidates,
,inc,itding' Lamar Alexander,
blasted the effort. Alexander,
W:til as education secretary
un'Cler Bush promoted nation'~
ahS'tandards as a "revolution
a&;Midea, charged that Goals'
, 2000 assumed"Americans are,
to~lstupid to make decisions
foy;themselves, and that ex
perts and sp,lf&ial~interest groups in the,
, nation's capital know more about what
should happ~fl in schools than families, :
commuilitiesJjr states."
,
The contrdi~rsy oyer G.oals 2000 g~ar- ,
an tees that tlie~'ldea of natIOnal sta'ndards'
and tests, in,iR~ short term, is dead. Fed
eral.standar~~~re widelydisli~ed, so the I
notion of nat!<~>nal standards mdepend
, ent of the fe'dhal government was dis
credited, t<?'~f{"We might get nati?,nal
standards, ey§ntually," says Governor
Thompson. ~~~]Jt the only way it's'going
.
to happen Isd:iottom up, through coah
'tions of st~~~,~." The question now is
pql1
Wlsconsm and Gov; Bob '
,~illerofNevada. And Ameri
:;~ll~S seem anxious to f~spond:
:)F.hree'quarters of the respon
~¢nts,tb a po~I for U.S. News,
:say, academic standards
.:sliould, be raised. "Parents
',Want to make sLire in these
~nxious times that no matter
~here they live, the standards
will be high," explains Celinda
Lake of Lake Research, who \
conducted the survey with Ed
Goeas of the Tarrance Group.
But at present - and in
shar'p contrast to other indus~
't'rialized nations - America
has 'a patchwork systein of
;~dely varying standards set
J2r~ely by some 15,000 local,'
'~~hool systems. "We have had,
.)iD effect, nO,standards," says
, ';Marc Tucker, president of the
"tN~~tional Centeron Education
~I4d the Economy. The Pali
),~i:I~s summit will attempt to
',f~press the proble'm by g~t
-0tmg' governors to pledge to
\ro?bte high standards in their
'
,
'~'~'~tes within two years. A ' '
,;'up of governor's and business leaders will have to overcome ~hese 'barriers:
,l~then expected to spend the next year
,
,~£~~ating a clearinghouse to help ~tates set, A LEGACY OF LOCAL CONTROL
There's a huge conflict at the center of,
"sHmdards and recognize model stand
'~tds"Yith "se'als of approvaL"\ ' _
the standards movement: School reform
~Yet, this new 'drive comes six years ers'are skeptical that thqusands'of inde
';aft'er a summit between President Bush pendent local school boards can produce
~~ild the nation's governors (inchiding the higher academic standards that the
nation as a whole needs, butAmericans
{(~iJI Clinton) spurred a movement to
- :;~pld a national system of 'stand~rds , have a long tradition of allowing 'comm,u~
,;~~,?d tests. The effort has, been plagued , nities to set their own policies. "We're
·tljy., opposition from both liberals and' not going to give up local control just_
7~nservatives, and its, many troubles because some CEO says we need 'state
';;:s?,ggest that if, the Palisades partici
wide standards," insists Iowa Gov. Terry'
';'~Jrts are to meet their lofty aims,lthey Branstad, a conservative Republican.
J;, ,'".
. • 'p~ ~l
~<~l
resid~ntsare,
.IAMERICANS' VIEWS ON
iiEDU~ATlONISSUES' , '
"~. ,;~~;,:./'>'".', )':':,::, '
~hodls,don:tco~tmore
Blacks and rural
'
mon>, '
':
ey. That'~ good for c<;>nserva·
iamo(lg th~' most pleased.
• Most serious pr!)blems. Thir- tives, bad for liberals.
•:ff!'. National. Sixty-two percent
ty·four percent !?elY parental un: ',. settingstandafds. Thirty-nine
" of respondents in the U.S.'
,involvement; 22%, lack 'of disci-' percent say the job should be left
News poll think the education
pline; 13%, inadequate funding; to local education authqrities
24%, combination offactors.
'.. kids receive around the nation'
(esPecially those in South
C ;;j~,iS fair, poor or very pOor.
Pollster Celinda Lake notes
tral imdMountain 'states); 27%
say State authorities.should set'
Local. Forty-four percent think that most people ,thinklhe
them; 24% say national,authori·
their local schools do a good job. things that need fixing in
Cen
, i
I
r:
;"f.
,
54
'
U.S. News poll of 1.000 American adults Conducted by Cehnda lake of lake Research and Ed Goeas of the Tarrance
. Group MarCh 16-18. 1996. Margm of error: plus or minus 3.1 percent. Percentages may not add up to 100 because
some respondents ansWered "Don~t know::'
ties'(~speciallyyoungei women;,
subUfoan parents; Hispanics).
• G~$d stu~,ents. Forty-six per
cenliSay talented kids should be
tau~hti~ separate classrooms, ,
while:~~4% ttiink they should be
1';. , •
taugI'Jt in classrooms with other
chil&en. Whites favor separa
, tiori"pf'ttie gifted; blacks favor in
tegration.
~
U.S.NEWS & WORLD REPORT.
.
. -'
APRlLI. 1996
,
�u~," an!ues Thomas Corco- '
ran; a researcher at the UiIi· ,
versity of 'Pennsylvania who
has'studied the. standards
, 'movement~ "It comes down to .
,
.
'
.
'.
pnor,ltles.
,
'
The US. News poll suggests'
,where priorities lie: Nearly 60.,
SKEPTICAL TEACHERs
Surprisingly, many, teachers,
percent say' that sports and
'and principals are "tepid"
music and other extracuriicu·
'about "the value of advanced
',Iar'programs diserve, the em-'
phasis and resources they now
learning and study," accord·
ing to a: report prepared, for
receive; only' 35 percenfsay
the Palisades summit I?y the, \
some of the money devoted
Public Agenda organization,
,to extracurricular programs,
which has done, studies on
,should be. divertedjnto aca~
'teacher-attitudes. "Far from'
, ,demic p,rograms. In sharp con-,
, being ;strong: advocates for, '
trast. schools in other industri
high:leveb learning in their
, aliZed nations clearly focus. on
academiCs:'"
,own fields, fthey] seem to
. "
downplay the importance' of
the very subjects they teach."
, WHOSE STANDARDS?
, ' This, prevailing ,anti-intel, Convincing people that there,
lectualism is reinforced,' says
should' be tough standards is
, Tucker, by '~a very strong beonly half the battle, The sec· '
lief that ,academic' achieve·
,"ondhalf is forging,a consensus,
mends mostly l!I~tter ()fnat~
, on what the standards should'
ural ability," Indeed, in a poll,
be in a vast and diverse nadon.
by U,S researchers, 93 percent '
The release of inodel national
of Japanese teachers but onll
history, standards a year ago
;26 percent of U.S. teachers
' provoked a huge public out·
said studyi~g hard' was' the
' ,cry, particularly from conser
,most important factor in math
,yatives, for'downplaying the'
nation's greatness 'and failing,
performance. Many U8. edu·
cators and a number of civil '
to mention by name historical (
figure~ such a~ Paul Revere,
rights advocates also argue
that higher !>tandardswill hurt
,
Thomas Edison' and Albert
disadvantaged students by in· ,
' Einstein~ Even tho'ugh the
standards, were revolutionary in' their
cre,asing dropout rates:J a notion s<;hool content" toa .focus ,on "sign
re(ormers reje~t.
"
challenges and opportunities.
. high expectatibnsfor students 'and their
, Many educators are >yary ofthe stand~ sparked a huge conservative
attention to the djversity of the American
, ' ards movement as yet another ,indiCt~ , William Bt:nnett callsit."a Trojan
experience, the attack on themhas made
, ment of public s~hools, and they get ,de- for social engineering~" "
)"
it very unlikely any future history stanae
fensive. They have new' ammunition,
The conservative attack on' aBE ards will ,be widely adopted.
'
from authors of recent bqoks defending ,helped the standards movement ;;b'y " 'The,difficulty in getting a consensus on
pqblic schools. Hundreds 9f attendee's at prompting a number of states to dlPP standards:has produced a number of
a school administrators' convention in, their o(ten vagueproriouncements~'ioh 'massive, everything~buHhe·kitchenr,
, -San Diego earlier this'month cheered as' nonacademic matters and focus on .rais··' sink documents thi,lt are simply unwieldy ..
David Berliner, co·author of The Manu~ 'ing academic performance. But in;,~~s The history standards ran to 314 pages
factitred Crisis: Myths, Fraud and the At-· many instances, the attack .undercui:re: ' ,and -still couldn't make anyone happy ..
tack on- America's Public, SchOols, pro- formers' attempts to .infroducetougrl'er Other groups have sought to dodge con
clairred the criticism of public education ,academic standards, "It took the, g86d' troversy by keeping standards short, and
a right~wirig conspiracy aided by tne me-. idea of setting stand~rdsandpl!t a l:!ii!.1's vague. The organizations representing
'dia. In part, educators.fee! they are being 'eye on it,'! says Andy Plattner ofthe'New . the nation's English and reading teach
held responsible for factors influencing Standards Project, ~ foundation~fun~~,d . ers, polarized by debates over how to
student Jearning,such as poverty and effort to draft national standards'and teach reading and what stud<;nts should
crime, that they can'tcontroL
.
tests, by tar,ring all stanqards' drives)~s read, recently .released national ~'Ian-
Their ambivalence about academiC . syponymous,with OBE.'
,
:'~;"
guage arts" standards that· fit on,a single
' "
. /
',
" . i""
page. to be meaningful, reformers say,
subjects is partly areflectippofthe strong. ,
belief in the public educ.ation circles 'of COMMUNITIES AREN'T CONVINCED
st~,ndards have to set an expectat,ionand
, .the importance- of students' ,emotional Many districts are, a,mbivalent al:i6~t ihen be clear' about what students and
,well being, In some states, that has led tougher academic standards. They Ilke' teachersneed to dotomeet it
standards setters to focus on fuzzy, feel·' theirextracurriculars - a lot. "The same
good goals"A m,overnent in pubJiceduca. people who· say with straight faces that TESTS AND MONEY.
'tion known as "outcome-based ,educa- they cannot ~fford X o~ Y have no trau- 'tough standards require tough, tests, ':
tion," or OBE, urg'esschools to shift from ble outfitting a 150-meml?er marching "Standards without con.s!?:quences are,
a "focus on' curriculum traditions and band or building ~new, football stadi- just more paper;" says Christopher
whether tough statewide
, standards will fIy. IBM',s
Gerstner is 'hopeful: "If the,
states set standards, we go
, , from 15,000 standards to 50,
let's do it.", '
cern
~.."
, j
i
, I
i
a
I
U.S.NEWS &'wORLD REPORT,
I
01
I
•
,
,
�,
I
I
, ,;
I'
I,
',,',
\
•
III CULTURE &,IDEAS
'
Cr~ss, pr~sident of iheMaryland State
, BoardofEducation~ Manv industrialized
nations have rigordus subject-matter ex
ams that. both colleges' and, employers
expect stude~ts to pass; the tests drive
" the nations' entire educational systems,
But tests geared ,to high standards don't
exist in the United States except at the
, Advanced Placi!mem level. Widely used
basic-skills tests,drivedown the level of
instruction in manv classrooms. The col·
lege'-aqmissiopspiocess doesn't promote
high standards either:' Many ,colleges reo
quire onlY,a highs<;hool dipl~ma, "Amer
icanhigh school students are among the,
only students in the world wh? have' no ,
'incentives to take, tough courses, in
,
school."savs Tllcker.
\ ,,'
Afe~ states are introducing tough new
tests to spur higher standards. Maryland,
for example, is designing 12 ne~ end-of
course exams' in academic subjects; the'
\ ,class of 2004 will have to pass 10 togradu
, ate:.ln: Kentucky; schools are eligible for,
state-funded bonuses of up' to $2,600, per
teacher iLtheir ,students meet expecta
tions on new 'statewide' exams. ~md the
in~entives ,are spurring: improve l11ents.
But the expense of puttIng'the tests too'
gether and opposition from key voicesiri',
'the education establishment don:t· bode
well. A resolution passed last year by, the
National Education Association, the
powerful teachers' union"proclaims the
NENs opposition to testing ':mandated
by local, state or national authority."
'Moreover, translating higher.
standards into' higher student,
achievementis going to cost a lot of
money to improve textbooks and the
skills of a teaching force that has tra
, di~iorially only hadt'o edl!cate a rela-,'
tivelv small number of students to
high'levels. One measure of the task:
'" Only'63 percent of high school teac,h~
ers now have a college ,degree 'm the
academic subject they teach most fre
quently;' Gerstner ofIJ?M contends that
"we should be able to do it out of money
'we spend today,"hyinaking tough
'choices. But others argue there are huge
discrepancies in spending that will make,
national standards unfair unless the
funding pt'aying field is leveled. .
, So, for the governors at the Pahsades
confe,rence; bringing world~c1ass stand
ards to American schools is an endeav
or fraught with fiscahind politicall?er
'ils. The question is whether they are
serious about the taskor'merely want to
be ~een talking about a popular issue in
an election year.~ ,
' •
By THO;VL~S
WITH ROBIN M.
BE~'fF[ELD ,-i.;'lD A;vlYBERNSTEIN
56
:.
"
.
.
.
,
'.
."
';
,"
ENGLISH ,L~SON~
.
, '"
, "~):
"
The',',s.truggI.e n¢vet;,cea~es,
~
~}·S'·~.
;.o'
Education;"<','" "
",~,...".~n' o(pupil~ 'are ';, :
'r~~ "~"""<"".c culturalrevoh.i
t ,
very
, A much higher
~"'~,"'.,,~'" and truancy were ' 'propor:tioh o(th~ m?sl' t~lef1ted ~,t~",
It;,.lJ'''',U/l''IT'''' than anything ,dents *re passlrgUnlVersltxentra~ce,
. ' exams;::bunhegovernment doe~n t,
believe'thitis attributable to higher
standar,dsian9'isihvestigating the .,
cause, On:¢;theory:More students are
, takingaff~p~~sing easier cOllr~es. T~e
h"'\'rIn~,..itpr last April. He "touglJ~r~g~~:g~~g. ~asmeant lo~er' ~ ,:
name Phoe'-' scores,overall;il;ut the proportion of ,
an'd: strict' thosegetting'iligh'e'r grades f- presuin~
st¢t, pupils ;ably)risP1~~9}~t.h,igher standards~. "
Teachers ,
,has riseIl:slgiuflcantiy. Among the" ,
Closely, monitored,"
, lo~est~a~liiey:ers; '~he numberc leaving
.
third ,of them depart ,schbohvlthout bel£)g ab!e to pa~s
. behavior is improv. graduatio.ri'tests is rising. Experts sug .
ual[l~'"arld
' . " are down, gestthese,r~sti\tS:mean that schools
, il,lson hopes ,have stoppe~'get~ih~ worse. Bunhey
UC;"'VVllV pass,n;:itional exams
know tha!?s not~aymg much after , "
, fromS percent of eightyea~s.~f;co.ncerted effort.
to.20 percent.
' At Pho~nlX'f{lgh School,. the rot
Halttin.gprog:resi$. Still, that would
hasbeen'checked.aut AtkInson ac
knowledges;"iWe'reimproving froin
oithe students un
an almost subterranean level." To
exams and therein
, ' with its '.
,day, the,housingctevelopment oppo~
"1988, the Conservative site his office has 80 percent male,
,
tried:to toughen,
unemployment and"his job ,is' to con·
,standard~ with a corecur'riculum, na~ vince those, families that education '
tional testing?'teacher training, rigor-,' is t~e children's ticket ?ut;?f pover
, ous inspectio_ns and more autonomy, ty., "If we, ever stop.trymg: he says,
'for schools. .B\it the drive has shown
"a school like this will qUickly revert
" only halting,p~ogress and is quite
, toa desert~:'
"fragile," argues Chris Woodhead,
-~----''--'-'-'':'''-----:-7-~-'--" director of tne government-run . ,
Of
By ROBIN K!'JIGHT ,
"'"
,
.
..
-------~~-----:~~~------:---------:~~--~---~~~,~U~.S~,N~·E~W~S~&~W~O=~~D~R=Ero==~~,~A:Pru:L~I..:1~= ,
, I
'
' .
1
"
�.\
• CULTURE &IDEAS
Whatkitis·will.have.to know
.
~
See ifyou'regood,
,",',"'IJ'r,,,
'
tQ compete with stu4ents .pt a world-elas's. level
.
.
'.
,
W
hat should students
know an'd be able to
.
do? Drafting a fitting
response has turn'ed into a
mammoth endeavor, with hun
dreds o(experts producing
thousands of pages ofsugges
tions. Some are so vague it is
hard to know how they translate
to the classroom. 'Others are
, detailed that only a superhero
could wade through the mated·
ai, let alone teach it. Some crite- ,
, . ria are so tough even Ph.D.'s
complain.they can't meet the·m.
In !he midst of'this muddle,
the NationalEducatjon Goals.,
Panel c~eateda working set of
standards in a few s.ubjectareas
I
and tested students against
'
them. Their, findings guide
much of the materiaI'below,
While governors and corporate'
,executives d'ebate in Palisades.
N.Y., about what to do, U.-S..
News has waded through dozens .'
· of propqsals to highlight a few'
of the best Ideas about the .
s.tandardsexperts think children
. ' should in~et by the end of 4tli,
8ih and 12th grades-when na
· tional perfon'iiance tests a~e
usually given. Take a close look
at the qllestions.·Yoll may be
stunipedby more than one:
,
so
\'
I
arithmetic and inore·advanced
concepts'invoived ,in geometry,
algebra and probability con·
cepts. Be able to apply them to
all SOl;ts of real-life situations.
EXAMPLES
\
I
WRI~I'NG. Thr~e in4
students can't meet suggested,
standards. Only 7, percent can'
write a p,ersuasive essay about a
topiC like this: Why shouldcHil
dren be allowed to '.\latch TV?
'GEOGRAPHY.
I,
Seventy~eight·
percen.t can't meet suggested '
standa'rds. Thirty perd:nt are
·unable.to answer a question
like this:'
,
Which landforms were most
, : likely created by: the eruption
. of volcanoes?
.
'
a.plains
" U.S,NEWS & WORLD REPORT,
,
MATHEMATIC'S. Master basic
THE REALITY
· RE~DIN(i &
~
Princess Furi?a.l! •
,
The Wind in the Willows
The Lion/the Witch and'
the Wardrobe . \
Keep a reading log wirh~
actions to the texts ":'comparing
and contrasting characters with
people the student. knows. in rear
life, analyzing.the author's
choice of words and $Ymbols,
critiquing the story,
.
. ; 2 . Produce a verse-by-verse para
phrase ofa poem and an original
poem that fol~ows con'ventions of
rhyme dnd.meter, '
:...'
3•. Craft two different tYpes of
writing about the same subject,
such as a personal narrative
about trying out for asports
team; then ali inforriuitive re
port' on hOivto try out for that
sports team.
.
,
.
,
READING & WRITING. Advance
beyond basic comprehension to
know the difference between
Four in 5 can't . fact and~pinion, between well·
",,,,,,,,"~'V"''', standards,' and developed characters arid· .
lInableto an
stereotypes. Empldy more than
such.as: What
,basic grammar and punctuation
'skills in writing, Have the abilitv
by.9?
to,analyzeand ~dit one's own'
work to. make it more precise '
"'I~:T"'DV . Fiv!! in 6 can't meet ~ . and convincing.
'
sug:ge5i.~ed standards, and 36 '
. . consistently an- EXA M P'LES .
quest ionssuch 1. Read at least 25 book; duro.
state lastbecame part ing the year. intluding'sllch ..
works as:·
.
nited States?
1, 1996
Answer:.Hawaii .
THe Liule Prince "
1~ Design the floor plan for a
dream hoUse in which,regular
r,ooms cost $75 per square foot
a'1d special rooms (indoor
pools; science labs, etc.) cost ..
$150, spending no more than
$100,000. The hoUse must in
clude a kitchen,' bathroom, liv
ing room and bedroom.
'
.2. Set'up a system for discovering
and recording all thipossible
combinations from rolling two
dice and show what fraction of
, total pos,sible outcomes each
combi'1alio(l sum amounts to. '
(Hint: You'(:an roll 'TsiX.differ
e~t ways; and six is one sixth oj " .
the 36 possible combinations of
,the two dice.)
"
.I ,
SCiENCE. Master the basics of
how to formulate hypotheses
and test them in valid experi~
m<:nts. Understand physical
properties like light, heat,' ,
sound andmagm:tism, Start ap
ILUJSTRATIONS BY ,MArsu FOR USN&\\'R'
{
57.
�.
"
,
).
MATHEMATlCS~ Three in'4
can;t meet,suggested stand-'
;ards, andJ7 percent cannot
answer a ,basic ,ques~ibn like:
How long 'does it take
earn
$45 ,if one earns $2 ti dav on '
Mondays, Tuesdays imd
, Wednesdays, ~nd $fl~.day on
Thursdays, Fndays 'and Satur
days (nothing,is earried on '
Sundays)?
',.~{,
, Answer: 3 weeks' ''I;: '
:~'
HISTORY. Eighty-siXj~.ercent of
students can't meeHiistory
,
standards. ,Four olit:'15f 10 cari
. ' 'J."~
•
not answer a baSIC q?e,stlon
like: Who wrote "We hold
these truths to be self-evident:
that all men 'are created equal;
that they are ~ndowe:d, by ,their
Creator with certain:lmalien- '
abJ,erights; that amo~g these'
'are life, liberty, andWie pur
suit of h,appiness'~? ;"i~
preciating how living things in
teract with the 'enviromrient. .
EXA'MPLES
i. Desig~ and b~ijd a musical .
insinimerit and snow howdif- '.
ferent fonns affe~t':ih.e sound. .
2. Expltiin rhe 'ns why each
·ofthefollowing
keep aquar-'
ium fish alive: a
thennomet,er, rock, snail a , lant.' 1'.
;;
'j
'!
how to use
evelop a
a whQle
between,
peoples.
GEOGRAPHY.
. maps and 'grap
sense of the wo
and the'relatio
'different region'
EXAMPLES
,
..;
.
to
:' ~ ,
,
.
. 1. Poi'!t oUlon ~;wap feqtures
. such as Lake. Okeechobee and• ,
, .....11
>
the Ozark Platea~i~he Com
. Belt and New England.· '
2. Expl,ain hpw t~~~ocal physi'cal environment shapes how
.
people live: such J~.the building
materials they userand the types
ofplants theY gro~',
'
,
r
Answer: Thomas Jefferson
.:;l\
;,
THE IDEAL
......u...................
;':,!tl\!
.
~:~l'
1
.
.,'
HISTORY. Learn 'more than just
the. names and d~it's of histori
cal events:' Discd'tllf how deci~
sion'sshape hist~~~<1eigh the
merits of differe~~i counts of a
ni~torical event.
hie to place
oneself in the 5
f someone
'living during th
riod.
events desc,ribed
. fictio,n with pri '
infonnation
and make a
accuracy of
2. Analyze h
, be different t
volved in k
(the Rev,oluti
War, etc.) ha
course of actio,n.
FOREIGN LANGU
begin reading,
speaking at a b
, eign language,
. country's cultur
compares with
EXAMPLES
1.. Bec,ome penp~{s (via letter
or E-mail)withli.st.udent in a
foreign country, a.~~i[lg and an
swering questio,:s4.Q0ut family,
, school events and,celebrations.
,
, ·... 'i'
2. 'After lis(ening to folk tales
and songs in the foreign lan-'
.
.
\
58
'
. /'
,~
;'
~~)
:
READING & WRITING;;Become
'well-versed in many<iiierary'
:'
,1::1
forms - e~says, poet~; plays,
short stones, nove!s..f~and be
able to compare th ... Ie
and merits of two
s of
•
"'m"
.
literature. Know hQy,l.~o· "
create complex fictional char
acters and how to~~!fd'essay
arguments.
. '.~f
.
I~"
'
E X AMP LE S
.~~ .
, ,
..
1. Read 25, works, :sue'!] as:
.' '.
EXAMPLES
,i ..Compare cha.
'!j
guage, describe how they are
similar to or different from
those in 'this ,country.
meet suggested standards. Just
1 in 3 can write a well-devel
oped review or'a school per
Inherit the, Wind
formance, and only 8 percent
Ryan White: My , '" Story
are able to write a persuasive '
THE ARTS. Master the i~en
essay on a subject like:, Why .
tials of dance, theater; music
The Princess Bri4e;r~
,
A Midsummer Nigh't's Dream'
random drugseardies should,
and visual arts - then learn to
Treashre Island
(or should. not)'be,allowed in
improvise and create simple
. works in all ;four arts. Recog
The Outsiders
.School.
2. Readin dept~four"booksfrom
nize how !lft is affected by cul-'
,
'
ture' and vice versa, and see ' GEOGRAPHY. Seven in 10 can't a single genre (hislOr£~~1 novels),
meet suggested standards, and by a single writer (li~f!:~~ck Lon
connec.tions between different
art forms.'
30 percent carinot' answer a '
don), or on a single sl/bJect (ado~
basic question like: ,
lescent life); make cQjinections
EXAM PHS
In .ancient Greece, most towns between-the works. '~.
1. Paint representation, of a
3. Write a persuasive ~ssay, such
were built on tops of hillspri
rnari/y because: ., ,
favorite song.
'
asi:m editorial on' a s2hool issue,
that antiCipates and kddresses .
a. it was easier to find, water
2. Script a play for class that
'counter(irguments, ,i,
'
on 'hilltops' than lowlands
includes original music and a.
dlOreographed dance.
b.. temperatures were warmer
"
')
at :higher elevations
MATHEMATICS. Move £i'om '
c.. defending hill town was
simply '!lemorizing math rules
to having a good sense for
easier than defending a
lowland town.
.
~hich of different strategies
THE REALITY
d. people in early Greece did
would be the wisest· to solve a
.no~ rely-on farming for .
given problem. Make; sense of "
READING & WRITING., Seyenty:': .
-fooq.',
complicated patterns and. un
iAnswer: c
two. percent. of students can't
derstand how math plays a
,:
'?
:
a
a
!
~.
US,NEWS & WORLD REPORT, ApRIL I, 1996
I,
�-
, ,I
..
6'
,
part in endeavors ranging
,from music to space travel.
EXAMPLES
:;' 1;1j; in.a school of 1,000 lock
", ers, one slUdent .opens every
{: locker, a second siudent closes
every Olhe;'lo~ker (second,.
c'
'~!;fourth, Sixlh, etc.), a third stu
,dent changes every third locker
:J.J:(opens closed lockers and '
,:iclosesopen lockers} and so on
.,;:~,untilthe 1,000th student
AA changes the 1,000th locker,
'
.
. ;'rliwhich lockers are open?,
~~2. Show iwo ,different ,methods '
~lof answering the question: How
:;. many ha,nds/lOkes will occur at· .
. a party if every one 'of the 15 .
. guests sha,kes hands' with each .
, of the others?
'
11
~
··:·r·..'··..·..,·",..·,..··....·
READING & WRtnNG. Two in 3
'studentscan't meet suggested,
~iandards: Fqrty-five percent .
e~nnot craft a well-developed
essay on' an object and what it
would reveal 'about current'
tlmes if placed in a time, capsule.
J u'st 12 per~ent can write well on
a.subject like: Why students
should be required to do com
, :il1unity service,
,., SCIENCE. Develop an aware· '.
:"?I
!;'teract in large, complex, evolv
i;ting systems by studying such
': things as heredity and genes, the
i solar svstem and ocean life ..
GEOGRAPHY. Seventy-three
percent can't meet suggeste'(j
standards. Three of 10 cannot
:a,,'bswer a question like: What do
Rome, Jerusalem, Mecca.and
B'enares have in common? ' .
~ ..capitals of highly industrial
,t ized nations,
' .
·b.theworld's four most dense
: Iy populated cities
.'c.areasof highest elevation
(i,. religious c~nters.
'Ans;er: d
~".
~1'EXA
,jf}
M P L E S .'
.
.
.
.
..'
• ~1. Explam the lllles of eVlde!1ce
~
f~~howing that dogs and cats are reo
.
~ 't:4auid 'by.common ancestors,
ft:~. Explam what happens to the"
::~reading on a 'b~thro?m ~caleif .
'f/f;ne stands on If wht!~ rldmg ,an.
.
>,e.levato~.
.:tr~.
"
..
" :HISTORY. See the cause-and-ef
'j'
,.
tHE REALITY
'I~' .ness of the many things that in
~i
.
ofart, then compare and con
trast them and explain whal ,
makes these art works i:i:cellenl.
2. Accuratelv evaluate one's own'
~nd classmdtes' cre~tions or per
:}onnances, offering suggestions
for improvement:
:\' . . .
a
~~{fect relationship between the. . GEOGRAPHY. Gain more so- .
~attitupes and actions in all sorts . phisticated appreciation fo'r
scribing tangjble things to ex
pressing opinions and expeti
ences and understanding more
subtle ways of communicating.
MATHEMATICS. Eighty-four
percent can't meet suggested
standards. bver athird can't an
s~er a basic question like: If x
be replaced by any number,
ll'ow many different· values can
fhe expression x + 6'have?
Answer: infinitely many
.J:;of historical endeavors-social, how human and physical ele- .
. ,::~technological, economic, politi ,ments interact, for better or,
.' ~.;:c~l, philosophical and' reli~
worse, an9 begin to formulate
us-and the: mark they have solutions to curren~ problems '. EX AMP L E S
. '(like pollution and acid rain):
1. Keep a journal (in the foreign
ft on th,e present.
language) with four entries per
,l",
,'::~Ej< AMP L E S "
,I .
E X A M.P,.l E S
week. Include reaclions to litera-.
. "HISTORY. Eighty-nine 'percent
,;-'(1. Imagiile yoilrself as thedirec-: L Write a set of instructiorl~on lUre ,and newspaper articles.
,I;tor who built Stonehenge:. Pre
what your family should do in
.2. Write an essay.(in the foreign . can't meet suggested standards, ,
case of a natural disaster such as language) on 'the differenceS be-" arid 57 percent can't answer ba
:;pare a plan to makei~ ,happen':
a hunicarie, earthquake, fire, tor tween nonverbal gestlires in an
sic questions like: Many Ameri
\:How will the. stones be ob '
•. ,Wined? How are the laborers to nado, blizzard or flood:' .
other culture and American ges-can colonies believed the Stamp
\;be recruited,provisioned for.
2. From mem<?rY, draw' a map , tures and how the differences,
~ct (1765) was a form of:
:
.1~nd supervised? How will the
of the world on a single sheet of might have come to exist,
a. taxation without
),
, ',r~nterprise be finimced? How
paper. Outline imd label m a j o r "
representation
,tWill the structure be lIsed?
physiail featwe~ (including
THE ARTS. Hone a unique,
b, colonial self-government
t·~2. Draw evidence from literalllre, contii/enlS: oceans, mountain
personal.style in' artistiC crec. compromise ;'it~ the British
:hiographies and olherhistorical\ ranges, la;ge ri~ers qnd deserts)
ations; Grow, better at dis:
.' Parliament .
"
.
sources to evaluate lhe influence and important human·devised
criminating between good imd d. limitation on international ..
.ofthe H~ratioAlgerstorieson lhe. features (indllding. major cities,
great works of art and be able "trade.
notion of the "American
' .
to learn from art works about
,:4nswer: a
the eqllalor and the prime
Dream." What'do "rags to dch meridian),'
.
other times .and·cultures.
'es" stories telrabout American
T Ii E IDE A L
values? To what extent is thai
. FOREIGN LANGUAGE. Advance E X AMP l E S
...........................
qream alive today in TV or mod - to a
level of thinking in. 1. Recognize the historical peri· . READING & WRI11NG. Read with
enough i~sight to.surmise the,
em novels?'
,the
Move-from de ',od and genre offamous works
..tan
C
US,NE\o\'S & WORLD REPORT. APRIL 1. 1996
59
,
\
�WI
the many reasons people form
themselves 'into regions'and
why those regions i~evitably
, change over time.
, political and social influences'
on a' piec~ of literatur~; and to,
, detect the biases present in non
, fiction: Know how to 'marshiil
persuasive e~idence to support
controversial conclusions.
EXAMP'LES
1. Name three places in the 10- ,
cal area that have been affected,
by pollution. Identify the
sources and types of pollution
an'd explain how each type af
feCts,the people living there ..
Suggest so(utions.
2. Write an essay about the geo- ,
graphic differences between de- ,
veloping arid developed regions
of the world and how those dIf
ferences alter the way of life. '
EXAM.PLES
1. Read 25 book.~. including
works sllch' as:
'
For Whom t';e:Bell Tolls
'Julius Caesar
I Know Why the Caged
Bird Sings
A Brief History of Time
" Co'mpare two 'works o'n the same
theme from differentperifJds.
2. Produce all il1l:estigative piece
.rhe/l could nlllin a newspaper, us:
ing a .variety of sources.
'
3. Write a reflective essay-such
as a fl mia lysis oj' a pi'oi:erb '.I
sig/if/ica nce. ,
FOREIGN LANGUAGE. Reach a
high fluency leveL Compre
hend subtle nuances and liter,
ature and understand how the
language itself shapes ideas.
Become well-versed in the his
tory, traditions and current
, events of the country.,
MATHEMATIcs. Have a full
c'ommand of advanced theo- ,
ries and form'ula's like quadrat
icequations and, the Pythago
rean theorem. use knowiedge
from geonletrv: trigonometrY.
algeb;a. statisii~s a-nd calcul~~
to-solv~. rea I-world problems.
EXAMP~ES
1. Write an essay in the lan
guage about idioms and phrases
that have no, dirixt translation
to Engli$h. Fonn a hypothesis
about t~eir origin and what they
s.ay about the ,culture:
2. View a film in the language
and write an essay (in that lan
guage) .summarizing personal
re,actions'to the film's theme's.
'EXAMP'LES
I
,
I
,
1,.' Explain which is a beller fit,
a rouna peg ii1 a sqllarehole or
.a square peg in a ro/l/1dhole.
(Hint: .Think in tenns of ratios.)
2. Ann tells vou that under her
old method ~f shooting free '
plore' their possible origins; dis- ,
HISTORY. Be able to identify
cuss the impact each technology THE A~TS. Specialize in at '
throws in basketball, her average the influences of multiple, '
least one of these four arts
'competing 'voices throughout'
had on the social organization
was 60 percent., Using a new
dance, music, theater,'or visual
methoddf shooting, she hit on 9 history and take account of . , and political power of the time.
arts - creating complex works.
out of her,Jirst /0 throws. Should the many unforeseen conse
2. Draw upon ideas ,of religious
Begi~ to 'conveymore abstract
she conclude that Ihe,new meth
,quences, for better and worse, groups such as Virginia Bap
themes in 'artisti\= works.
od really is better tha,n the 'old . generated by historic events.
tists, mid-Atlan~ic Presbyterians
, method? (Hifu: Advanced statis
and millennialists to assess how
EXAMPLES,
. tical fonnuld must be used.)' : E'XAMPLES'
religiQfI became a factor, in ihe
1. Create a work of an' that
1. Create chan of imponant , American Revolution.
,deals with a cu"ent social
SCIENCE_ Delve into current)
/echnological advances through
theme.' Revise it,several times,
history'stlch as ,the bow and ar
scientific mysteries using the
GEOGRAP.HY. Graspth~:reaJity
explaining the reasons for each
same approach as a career sci
row. the wheel, weaving, the sqi/; , and .consequences of global in
anistic decision and saying
entist: Design useful experi-,
,bronze casting, the plow, etc. Ex- terdependence, and expiain
what was lost and gained by'
ments and' analvze the results.
.
"
each decision.
'
EXAMPLES
2. Identify genres (in musk
FOR MORE INFORMATION from • NatL Geographic'Society
dance, etc.) that show the influ
"i. Design modificatiol1s to in-line
'
,key'groups about the standards (202) 857-7000
ence of two or more cultunil . ,
skates. skateboards or bicvcles
they think are appropria~e:, !
• American Council on the
" which make them sG}'er. fJster 0(
t~aditions and irace the histon
• Natl. Center on Education arid Teaching,of Foreign Languages
the Economy (202) 783-3668
(914) 963-8830
cal conditions that'led to their
, less expensive.
• Council for Basic Education
'.National Standards for Arts
coming together.
•
2. Explain how DNA testing
(202) 347-4171
Education' (703) 860-4000
works. Take a position about in
.• Natl. Council ofTeachers of' • Natl. Academy of Sciences
By JciANNl~ M. SCHROF
cluding it as evidence in a trial.
Mathematics (703)'620-9840
(202) 334-2000
3. Write, about both the positive,
.• Nail. Center for History',in the 'f • Natl. Council of Teachers of
and negative ,conseqllences. of a:
For moreinformalion. see U.S.
Schools at UCLA (310) 825~4 7Oi, English (217) 328-3870
, techilOlogicai innol'lltion that .',
News' Online at hup)/www.u!news.
com on the'lmenzel.
has occll/Ted dllri/lgrollr lifetime.
a
, I
.u
60
U.S.NEWS &
~ORLD REPORT. ,~PRIL 1. 1996
�•
•
rn
• ONiSOCIETY,;
By JOHN LEO
'Vs. Spidermari
.
/
··Shakes
.
I
visited, the B.arclay School in Baltimore. the
'that the. new national "Standards for the
.
guage. Arts" arrived on my desk in'
. produced what the authors of the 'new
,call ."dissonant .cognitive process diversity," or
English-speaki!1g person would, call' jumbled
. Barclay is a rigorous, back-to-basics public
. combines confidence building with high, exr)ectatllo
'gets results that elite private schools would,
· it gets them from inner-city students, 85 pe
black, 60 to 65 percent from single-parent IJVIIJ<O".·...,
While Barclay insists on plain English, the'n
'are writtenin,mind-bendingjargon. They talk
identification strategies" (reading) and the use' of
"different writing process elements" (writ-,
ing), but nothing,directs teachers to .
.
teach rules of phonics, spelling,
grammar and punctuation (though', '
the text says students "may wjsh~'
to explore ways of using punetua
tionmore effectively).
At Barclay, these' things are ..
pushed hard and early.' All
consonant sounds are mas
tered' before first grade. Iri
the kindergarten I visited,. a
girl,was sO,unding out words,
from a written.·list.- In the
first grade; I flipped through'
· the assignment. booklets
hanging on the wall. All had
'well-written, grammatical
· one,page essays in clear, at
· tractive handwriting. '.
.
Even ·in,.a special~education
class of older .children, the written'
work was of good quality. I wouldf\'t have .
'. guessed the writers had to be in a .separate class.
The standards, on t~e other hand, feature a
20 '
third grader's rather crude ,one-paragraphes·say. I' '
mistakes of' grammar, spelling and punctuation. dlv cur~
. '.
.
.
..... "'i
rent educational theory, these aren't errors, just alternate.
· expressions and personal speliings. But. Barclay;~rfns at
perfection, so they' are errors. Any found in hofit~work
are corrected immediately the next day. .
." "~!1l~'
~~t they learn. The standar~s ar~ dismissive of~'pre
scnbedsequences," but J?arclay IS buIlt aroundthern.r Par:
ents are ~old exactly what their children will learri~each
week and how they must 'help their ,children progt~$~. At .
the ehd of the school year, parents and children ~i$it the
next grade,'where they learn what will "happen neii:.fJerm.
Barclay's approach is 'a rebuke to the reigning 't~eories
at our education, schools. Barclay ignores whole-Iq~guage
theory.I.t believes in "direct instruction" (a disnj'issive
edu~ational . term for: actual teaching). It' doesn'!:;Jbuild
self-est~em by excusing or praising f~ilure. It' ;iiibores
'.'Iearning'strategies" and multicultural claptrap: AI\' it
does is churn out br'ight, achievil'\g kids.
'
'.
- '0
:;
·s
y
.11
a
~
J
US,NEWs & WORLD Rm)R'LAPRlL I.
19%'
.
, Unlike the notorious national history standards; which
were overly long arid grandly contemptuous of the: West,
the English standards are short (one page with 69 pages of
tortured explanation) arid have been attacked on alrsides
as unreadable, even by the New York Times. They are the
. dubious work of the International Reading Association
and tlle, Nationa,1 Council of Teachers of Erglish: These
people are teachi!1g our children ho~ to'. write English? .
.' Irs sign ofthe times at the NcrE that every key word in
its title except "Councir' is under attack from its member~
.ship: Nationa! (too nationalistic), "Teachers" (should be
facilitators or guides) and "English" (honiI;1tIusiveof other
languages): After reading the 'report, I'd take the word
.
,,"English" out, too, as deceptive advertising. ". .,'
.
'But thOe :p'roblem goes well beyond I
, , .' ' 'prose style. As is so .ofteri the
. "
case, bad prose hides bad think
ing. Buried in all the gobbledy
gook is a, theory, of education,
derived' from literary theory
and the deconstruction 'move
, m~ntoncollegecarripuses. It·
goes' like this:. Schools treat ,
literature and histoty'as'texts, " .
but ~very form of expression
is an equally important text
I
worthy of study-CDs, TV.
'shows" movies, comic books;
ad'slogans', graffiti, ,conver
sation. Children mustex-'
!:
. plore·ali these texts in per
sonal 'searches for meaning ..
,This meaning is not' inherent I
in any te!'t -:-it, is persohally'
created in the .. mind of each
child.'
"
. S'o, books have no inherent meaning;
and nobody can say that Shakespeare is ~ore
worthy of study than a baseball card. or a 'cola jingle.
There are no hierarchies of value and nobody is right or .
wrong about anything. In this meltdown of; tniditional
lea'rning. the teacherofcourse can't teach. He or, she acts
asamarginal, but friendly, guide to "critical thinking,"
which turns out to mean not the developm~nt of'sharp
,and' logical critical skills .but the easy accu'mulation of-','di
· vergent" views on all matters.' In effect, lea,rning become's
just another matter of "choice;" a marketpl<,lce view cif
thought,without thinkers.
.
,..'"
'
\ With,our ,SAT 'scores so low and our public-schools in '
deep trouble, this~ isnota very good time to convince
· students that r~ading comic books is'just as good as tradi~:
tional schoolwork. The good news is that the publication
of the English standards is exposing this'awful stuff to a
broad public for the first time. It has hummed along in
the background withQut much opposition, mostly because
few of us noticed it and fewer still were inclined to de
· mand an English-language version. Now it's out in' the .
, ,•.
open, and we' all can throw mudpies. . '
a
,.'
,I
"
'
.
\
•
61 .
�.-
-
By David Henry
, and Tom Lowry
USA TODAY .
At
83% back
Morgan. Stanley and Dean
Witter/Discover are merging
to create Wall Street's biggest
firni, a boJd move to tap indi
I
.~
~~~~~~
!M~~~
viduals' huge appetite for
,
~ !i~a~~ _8 SS8
stocks and mutual funds.
I ~ :is, ,,~ ~ -,~ ~ g ~~~
- 8,g'O-;:, '0 gj'Sl
The $10.6 billion deal an·
I
'I.
~ 02-~(tj'O'":E~.8""~~ .
~
8 ,- c
~,~ ~ =:w
8 o.
nounced Wednesday is expect
By Dennis Kelly
is .. ', ::e - >. ~ CbS 0 in ~
ed to fuel a consolidation wave .and Mimi Hall· "
_<J!~ 0,Q~ ~i!';'- ..... Sl~.
,...~
c;.; Q,) 8 ..... :: - lil,_t" ,!!l ,il '9, ~ -d
USA TODAY
.
, •among financial services firms
...., , 6- = :61 ..... j ~ ~ ,2.:::::: '6b~ .... '0= ~ 'ij
~ ~,- e.... "S'O (!) OJ)
facing increasing competition
r 6\
Cfl .~
'\#...l.. ~ ~ &~ ~ gj:W,~;:- =~- ~ ~:E ~
President Ointon's plan to
from batiks; insurance ·compa
•..";. ~ 'd ~.~ ~'B ~ ~ If 's:! =~ .....5
nies and Plutual fund firms.' , test" every fourth- and eighthreading
' ,... ~,
~ ,fil 0 Kl
~
The; marriage teams Dean . grader in support, aand math ',..." '~ i!'; 'S: 8;'= S- 6. -ci ~ ~'c 8 =,- OJ)
has huge
USA TO-i
~
Witter~ which, has catered to
S
DAY/CNN/Gallup Poll shows. :/
~ Q .: ~ 8 § ~ ~ ~ Cfl 0§:E g 0
~ ~:':::'
middle AmeriCa; with Mo
In the poll of 400 people,·'
,
..... ~.,.o ~ 0
· Stanley, ayenerable .
I!.
< '0 ' d. '0 • ~ • II) ~ 0 ~
.' Street investnlentbank serving Wednesday, 83% said. they/a-c,e
.s ..c en ~ ~ a> '> il'Oj =-s '0 :is
·. 'corPorations and governments , vored the idea and just 13%"
were opposed. .
'.
- ~ ;:J ~ ~.g ~ ~ S ~.5 i!'; ~ 'm
. around the world.
Ointon, iIi .hls State of· the '.. T 6\ .6\ ~ ~ '!j ~ .... 0.!1 ~ '0 &.
i'The combined~ companies
S .~ t: ern a:B ~ tJ e >.
create a ,financial power .Union speech Tuesday, asked' \#...l.
school districts to adopt nation- . '"
. If oS ~ ~ IS ~ ~ iij B:@ ~
~
house," says Steve Eisman ana
al testing in 1999.Tbe first ~ ~ kl ;:J ~ 1IS;:g ~ >. g 5: ~ ~ ~
lyst at Oppenheimer & Co.
,... '\
i!';
'il ~~ ~
i!'; C1)
So much.' of a pOwerhouse year's cost would .be paid by .' ....,:~~.g ~ &:s -g. f}l ,5 c 0:S '5 S ~
~
-< 0
0
·that the new company will un· ' the federal government.,
,Cli~ton, meanwhile, trav-' ,. ~ !!P= ~ rn § ~'i: ~ :; e;;! ~ '0 ~ S :qf
seat Merrill Lynch as the
eled to Georgia WedneSday to, .. '
1i
~ S == ~ ~ e~ ~ ~ ~ ij 53
USA's largest brokerage.
.
OJ)
C1) ..... ~ .e ... 'il !1 g ... ~ - , Q
ep
~ kl ~ § !5 OJ) ~ li 0' ~ kl·<;:! ~.g
Individual investorS have ask for hi'm persuad'Ing Con
'iii 8
i-< 8.5 ~u .g ~ ~ ~ '0 5 a
·proved a .powerful source be .gresS to aPl?rove $51.bilIion in .•.'
'."
· hind the bull market of the new education spending. •
'~I'm committed to doing my .~.
Iv to!. ..: ~ '0 ~ !1 ~ 0 ~ ~
rn
,19905 and a lucrative. source of
pa,rt. .You must- do yours,~' he .. '-.,. ~ .~
g.~ il:S ,i'~'~ ~
profits for Wall Street firms.
The Federal ~eserve says said m a speech at Augusta '.iftiitIj' ,Q 80. ~ zj -;i c:E ~ ~ ~ ..... If il
' .... ..... ~". ~~. '3 ~ < ~ ~ =.g 'S il >.:E
'about 40% of U.s. household as- ' State University.
~e also said ~athe 'is not,... ,~. t:: ~
~ 0« '0 (U ~ ~ ~.f!f~ =ai,~
sets now are in stocks or stock
trymg to undermine state coil- ..~'..." Q) i S' '0 ~ ~ S 5 ~~ c: il-5 '0 ..... ,
munial funds.
. . 13 '0 §' ~ '~S ~ S ~ =:g:§ il .::
'DeaJi,Witter's sales force of trol of education with nation,al .,...,.g &l- ~ ,5 ~ = s il Cii ~ ~ g: §
9,000 brokers now 'can help , .tests. Algebra is the same ii1.
Georgia as it is in Utah:~
. , . g is ~ '2 ~ ~ E 8 ~ ~ CCl ~ kl;g E
marke~ securitieS Morgan Stan·
Ralph Reed of the Christian', "
::t: ~ 'g kl E jg ~ § i!';! ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
ley underwrites. That should
~ >. ~ l§ 'iii ~ ~ 0 ~ § ~ 1:: ,g S ~
help Morgan Stanley's bankers Coalition, said Wednesday a ' ' .
mandatory national ,standard t. .
&l': ~ ~ ~ i!'; ef ~:.( 8. ~r
compete with giant Merrill
s,,:= is i!'; ~ ~ ~ 'C ~ ~ ~
Lynch for business, inclUding', "unde~~ local control of"
handling sales of state-owned education. .
.'
'~.~~.~
~. ~ ~ i!' .
industries around the world. I' . Some educators favored the . .~ ,
The new company also will plan. Frank Newman of the
' ; : ; : : ' ~~ 08 '0 . 8. ~ .g ~
::I ..... Cfl ~.§~
~
_ kl ,Q
have more clout in the mutual Education Conunisi:;ion of the: ~
,. _ • ,-. , Q S
~.5
S ..s '6'.o,Q 0 Il:.
!!l . rn ~ > ~
fund business and manage States, said tests now "are too
infrequent and the results are ' ,.:~
~.8 ~ "iii 0 ·c :
more than $270 billion in as
not .available quickly enough
t!WiJt
*:'03 ii ~j S '~.e.s
sets. more than any securities
firm, but' about 'half that of
. ' .. to truly assess educational ....... ' '0
~ ~:E Y.l.!! ~ ~ '0 '2 =
effectiveness,"
-..-' il >, 0 '0 > E ~ 1: .!!l ,g. ='l!l .... ,
fund giant Fidelity.
But key Republicans looked' .~" ;r;. ~ .0 Q ~ ~ S<~~o>l::I~
~ ~ 0. a ~;.
__ o.cd~
For Dean Witter'S 3.2 million
'.' .80 S .~ S ~5~- So "iii l.tl ~
·brokeragecqstOmers, the deal at Clinton's $51 b,illlon Price. tag.
'd
~ . ~ 8:§ = tq = E 0
means more choices on the and sru, t h ' money at
roWing
.. t:::
i-< 0. 'E E =8'~ '0 '0 0 -a,C1) ~
(U
>.~ ....lo ~ ... < ro:I: _:.cI ~
m'utual-fund menu. In addition problems is not the answer,
"Don't we have to look at
. ' 1%1::>
~ ..!::.c; 8 'a ~ .g 8.~
to Deari Witter's' existing stock
tUnds, customers will be able to what has already worked and
buy funds from the Van Kam· what hasn't" before trying new
pen/American Capital group, programs? asked Chairman
Morgan Stanley also may offer William Goodling, R-Pa., of the
House education committee,
some ~f its top-performing in
The poll's margin of error
~tuti6,nal funds to individual
was 5 percentage points.
Investdrs,
education
testing' .
A.,
'.=
=
rI>
=
=
=
l
".sri:;!
a
=
=
s
e
E8
=
i Ea
=
*.
8:s
II
!;'.'
'0, =::
I ' '.
.
=
<
a
I
e im
~
TI-J'
'D ('
USA TODAY
r'\ A \ /
,.... r- ~ ......... _.
=
-=
e
=
2
.
~ ~.
.;),
-,,".
'.
�or -
......--- --~:-:---...,..--....;..--.;.:..'.,;..'~,ca~use~,~man::':':'=y-:":;,t=ea:":Cfir'e=rs:=-iia=:'ck:r.-ihe ~g
In some cases, the main problem'iS fuldiIlg-- ,
.. ~' ~,.
. Second oftwo arlicles
textbOOks to'teaCh the new lessons, some'. ·the teacbingmaterials to meet the state'sob
~-, " J ' ,:~r By Vietona 13ennirtg
students will be'tested,on'matepal they' je~es. instru1ctors say~ Seconcf..gradd::}each
iIIIiIII
I~ wllhiliaum Post Staff Writer
haven't covered, Schooliidministrators say. ' ers, lor.examp e, say it's hard to fin. ""orma· .
. \:
\
\
Teachers and school officials also D¥rintain tion oil econon,ics or ,an~nt Egypt that is'
,5S iEachdJanldrumuary, athsa firbreakrfraOdmersthm,e :that some of th~ standards for' younger stu-, ' atimched atha7~yeahar-od ItdS'cuU'lri Loudoun, Cfro°untr:,
g
'
~"
ter, 0 ,s.. e st,dents aren'tappx:opriil te . Second-graders" ea ers ve· '0.
resources .m 11".
.•
~, ~ ,Pozda s class at Leesb~g s ,for example, are required to learn about an.'. briuies, parents and the WorldWide Web: .
....;: ~toctln Elem~ntary School have,,' tient Egyptand China at an age when tht;y' ·'fhird..gra~erS now are suppOsed to know,
,e'.lbar~ed .on a,lighthearted stu.dy o~ still are trying to grasp the concept .of their, a:t>out ancient Greece and, Rorqe. But Arlirig- '.
'pengwns. They always seem t~ en own conununitieSand how they fit mto the tOn officials have warned: p3retits that,their .
',~' ,~ jb~ learning, a~out, MacarOnI ~nd'United States, cntig; say:,
."
children won't. have a clue when they,are test
~
Chinstrap,pengums'andother vanet·lnaddition local educators say the sheer ed on thoSe subjects in the spring, because
":.I) , ~, ies of th~. creatures.',
.,
' . volume ofn~requirements~~uple~ With there,ha~'t IJ:een timeAto d~gnthe lessons.
~ '. But this year, Pozda s l~n plan the state's testing schedule-may/force '. Tom Vischi, parent of athird-graderat Ar
C' ~' 'was much more substantive, ,Her teachers to be less innovative ,in the cIass~ : hngton's Jamestown 'Elementary School;
.-:7; '. S ; ~~udents st!ldied the dif(ere~t places . room.
,
worries that it 'Nil! be a blow to his daugh- .
~
.ttiat penguins live: Antarctica, Aus
"There isa lot of information to Cover," t~r's confidence to .sit down. to a test hill of , '.
~ ttalia. New 'Zealand and South .said Kathleen Grove asSistantsuperinten-. urifaniiliar things, everithough this year's
~ J\.merica; They examined ~ps of .dent for.instructio~ in Arlington. "THati <sco~:..!Qn't count. "You know :that,l}ight~, _
.=S .'~., ~ose ,lands; then, used mlntature meaIlS lessdiscre~onaI}" ~e fo~ teac~ersto,I"'mare we've all ,had when'you go in to,take .
Q..). .....
a
InStruction will have your
and
wake up SCTeatrl
". ~'Q;; ~ngums. to mark the .spots on '.' introduce' pet projects. paced.", ..' ,I. ing?" final exam ...wantyouavoid that."
'.
~~ the~ made.
.
to be quite focused and
Vischi Said. "I
to
\.
~ 'I. <;.) {\Pozcia made the ~g~ because '. "I think we're allwomed abotitthe6umFor older students, the program may mean·
'~'. '~.~ . ,qJl new state ed,,:catlon stand~rds . bet' ft ~tsand that they will take awa~.time feWer electives as middle and high schools add
r;:s . ~td took ~ffect m thel~':rr:t . fro~ c~~necting, with kids," said Qathy , ~ to meet f:he new requirementS. <
"
gra ers now are suppose 0 a e
,.
f 'urth 'd
ch' ~ ; Arlirigton .officials for example haVe pro
.' ~-,
~. to locate not only their own conunu- McMurtrey, a 0
-gra e tea er m . ce
,
ddin ....
."h· d
' 'd'
f
..... 'SO'niti~~i1~ also Ri~ond, the.state,W.illiamCounty ~bo,~s ~g t?'tea, h~:, ~hlstoJ~~fatb:ad~~~t~, .~'. ~, .df Vrrgm18, the Vruted States, sevens~udents todohis~oncal analySis £I:om d~ dents for the state's 11th-grade ,test. That
d. ','~, continents and fouroc~s on'a mapnes,.lettersand, artifacts: another S~).;~17 would reduce the 'number, ofelectives that
~ .. and a globe.
'.
. .,.' fled:m.the litates r~gulations:"It co~~,get t~ . lOth:.graders oouldtake--;cOurse5 such as mu~
~. . C
.' Teacher~, studen~sa~d p~rents ._the.P.OmLwh~~ all 'Ye~vt; ~e for· !tests..' "sit or a second foreign language-from three
~
throughoutN;orth~rn Virginia are .,' Allenadmmlstratlon ,offlclals,who h~ve ; 'to tWo. School officials 'say their hands are tied
,......
.. ,...,. ~
scrambling to adjus~; to the state's wame,drepeat~ thattl:e local~ed~cation and, have told :parents who don't like the pro
. . .J.
;.c
,Standards 'of ~g, ~ lOhpage estab~ent" IS d~te~ed to. ~t the pOsaI to contactthe state Board of Education.
'~.
document tha~ sets subject-by-su~, governor ~pro~! re~ the cntiC1SIJl that .'. For all the doubts about ,the newi'ules and
~ , ject expectations for students In the state 15 movmg too qwcklr and say school . ,tbetimetable for implementing them,sever- "
t3' ea?h' ~ade. It is the centerpi,ece of dis~cts have ~d p!e~ty of ,time to prepar~. .,allocal scnool board members say the rUles.' ,
":.)" ~', R,e~l1blican Gov: George All~n s~u- Cumculurn ~eslist h~cfreds ?fap~ropn- 'are,a step in the right direction.
,'.,'
, .~' :, cation; program, and state officials ate teXtJx.lOkS and materials, satd Michelle , "The old standards and our old curriculUm,
_~." this week wi!! pr?pOse how teachers.,', Ea~ton: ~~ent of tl}estateBoard of Edu- ,we~ not stringent enough for ~e'students, •
. and school distrtc~, ¥e .to ~,held cation, ~ 'lSSuect the n~ stan~ds. ,.' ,: and $ey've paid a price for that," saidPrince
.~'
~ accountable .f~r therr students per. , "Every t;ime you ~e somethin,g, you. re 'William School BoardChilirman Lucy, S;
. . " . . ,. g~g to get the cri.ti~ that y~u re d~mg ,Beauchamp (At Large). ~"W~owe it, to the,
"~ '~ .' f0I'Jl'!1lI1ce.. ".. .
The standards are ambitious. ~·things .too..fast,~ ,satd Ri~d:T. ~()mte, kids in this, cOunty to' have, these standar$ ,
dergartners are supposed to be m state supermtendent ofpublic mstruc:tion. . and to make sure that they're followed."
troduced to the concepts of algebra"
The old'state standards, adopted m. 1983
....
'
, . '. . ,
' probability. and statistics. Second- and re~ ~ghtly, in 1992, ",ere "diffi~t Staffwriter Dan Beyerscontributed to thlS
and ,third-graders are to learn princi to jniplement, unclear;, mushy. and" f!iost IID- ·report.'
pIes of 'economiqs. ·In Science, stu':' portantly,"not rigorous,~ ~(jmte :wd.' . .'
., . '
,'
,(feilts at various .grade levels' will .' For exanlple;· they :required· highschool, FOR MOREINFORMAnON ~
.
. spend more tUne in laboratories.
students t? ~e ~ YeB:r5 of-math tograd~ To read the full text of Y.irginia's Standards
" ,Maryland, meanwhile; has had uate butdidn t specify, which ~, so st~- ofLearning for English, histojy, math and .'.
. ,s,tlmCiards in place for third-, flfth·den~ could ~duate after taking only baSiC, . scienu, click on the above symbol dn the front,
, ' and eighth-graders for several years math, he:satd.1he new standards say that, pageo!,ThePost,'ssiteon,the World'W~
. tQ help measure how well schools s~dents,must master algebf<l,anf algebra, ' Webathttp://www.Washangtonpost.com
' are doing. State officials are devel- will beq~ t1!e 11th-grade test they llevent~- ",
',,"
.:
,'
'
~ing high sq.ool req!lirements that ally,be requirf:d ~,pass t~ gra~uate. . ' .
.' .
.'
~tillfonn',the basis'oftestsstudentS, No~~myupuaoffi~note thatmany
" : •.',.,~,,:, ,
Will have to pass to graduate. They oft!telr,~trictsstandards'jmIl!~andother
, c.1
.
,
,~t·"
,
• ,1,""""'\:""':":""'"
,~!.e scheduled'testing will this week mgthe states new tules,.they say, still,~ be ,
to decide
~ubje<:ts; ex~ed~e states.,ButlIDple~ent' ~.)hat fonnthe
take. Dis..
.~';~
.. ','I,
.. triet school officials are' developing 'a lon~.andarduous ~r~"one that req~es
.~.'
an academic plan that would include rewn~mticbof tl}e, cun:'culum.and~g ,
:~
standards.
:
many teachen,especiallym the ~ .pies,
. : a~'l
Virginia's initiative has drawn in su~jects,th~J have never ~ught " '.
i ,,,.: .:;
praise from many educator. and
Fairlax COunty, the ~aS!in1(!On area s.laig- .
.t
'
J
l= '
ao
=,
,=
IS
'. e..
•
,;~~s:~e::~fSas~~t:tio~e;i:t~ _.~~~S:~~I~~~:a~~'of;;_ ."
.. • .".,..",t-' P_",,.;ri,.,_,,,
'wiJI need to be taught to students at a
'~ '"
,
.
.i.a."",,,,,.,)
,..,11
t.h~t
,1,'"''"'''''''"''''.... I"I;".~..'" ~,
"'-AoioIi.... """",, ~
"11',tougher academic standards and
sting in public schools. The Ameri~
..
..
younger a~e: "Betw~the. chang~ m,SCl
. ~nce; .the differ~nt S9Cia1 studi~. req~ents
, ,-' Federation of Teachers rated and the expanded math, there IS gomgtobe
. , .e guideliries uexemp~,," andsev~ 'tremendous sU:ess on our pri~ary-grade, '.
,~:> SeeSTANDARDS,All,CoLl ,- ". t~chers who have to pr~pare kidsfo! t1!e
': ;TANDARDS,
't:·". 4
.'
j
~'.'.
H
"
'.' ~"'.: ",. : :"'~",'.
r~ {~
' ,~f.
' L~.!.
·aItn
.t!:i'" ,
From ,;a~:~::e~~~:~~~~1~/fu~ "
Al
'.
.
.
'.', ,mstructional semcesm Fairfax. "It sgomg to
. ~"
!: '.era! stat~, are borrowing,from Virginia for, 'reqwre,majQrltaff.,development.~,"'. '. '
, '
their' own standards, I
..: .
' "
In:Priilce William, substitute teachers will
"
But although local,school officials; teach·, work,2,800 more'days this school year than
ern 'and parent groups are applauding the: . the previous year so that regular teacht;rs
'. . ';-;;.'., '
.',
'goal of ciising academic standards, they say can be trafued in the ne~ standards! The dis.,
7'''F. Ii RES ",
"
.:"
they haveproblems'with the way the Allentriet alsO ml,lst ad~/labs and eqUipment at
,"' . ", IDEIIT. HAS SEEN
admiiristration is pursuing it " ' m a n y schools because of changes to its math ;.
.
, . ; t , - d ~ - (.1.1,
',
.. Many complaih that the pace of the chaItg .and science cUrriculums. ,
. .~.
.. , '.
",'
es is too rapid. Students in the third, fifth;
"
e~ghth and 11th grades will undergo a prac
tice round ottesting in the spring, and when
_
' , -;.. / ' \
'.
I
,
I
.'
I
·~ts~~~~f.i,:"~"~th':;·
students are meeting the standards. But be
• . . •
~~.
_.:.
. . . . . ~:' '.'
-
.'
�
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
Bruce Reed - Education Series
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Bruce Reed
Education Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
<a href="http://clinton.presidentiallibraries.us/items/show/36312" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/description/647429" target="_blank">National Archives Catalog Description</a>
Description
An account of the resource
Bruce Reed's Education Series include material pertaining to national standards and testing; the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and the 1999 efforts to reauthorize the Act; 100,000 teachers and class size; charter schools and vouchers; education events and forums; social promotion; Goals 2000; HOPE Scholarships; Pell Grants; the Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 (Ed-flex); education funding and budgets; and various school and teacher issues. The files contain correspondence, reports and articles, memos, polls, handwritten notes, hard copies of emails, schedules, printed material, and memos to the President.
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.
133 folders in 9 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
Standards [2]
Creator
An entity primarily responsible for making the resource
Domestic Policy Council
Bruce Reed
Education Series
Is Part Of
A related resource in which the described resource is physically or logically included.
Box 95
<a href="http://clintonlibrary.gov/assets/Documents/Finding-Aids/Systematic/Reed-Education-finding-aid.pdf" target="_blank">Collection Finding Aid</a>
<a href="http://catalog.archives.gov/description/647429" 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.
3/7/2011
Source
A related resource from which the described resource is derived
647429-standards-2
647429