By Rene Sanchez
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, August 19, 1997; Page A11

President Clinton's struggling campaign to create new national tests for students in reading and math is about to hit its next obstacle: House Republicans.

As soon as Congress returns from its summer recess, one of the first priorities of some Republican lawmakers will be to try to derail, even abolish, the groundbreaking testing plan by prohibiting the Education Department from spending any money on it.

The department, which is moving swiftly to develop the tests, has paid little heed so far to congressional skepticism about the idea. But now it has to contend with Rep. William F. Goodling (R-Pa.), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, who is rallying support for legislative proposals designed to stop the tests.

"We already have plenty of testing," Goodling said recently. "Nearly all of the states have their own testing programs. Why another measurement instrument to tell us what we already know?"

Last month, Goodling sent his House colleagues a letter detailing how the federal government is already spending more than $500 million this year to help states develop their own achievement exams. Creating the national performance tests that Clinton envisions would cost roughly another $22 million.

Battles over student testing are hardly new in American education, but Clinton's idea has ignited vehement debate because it would represent the first time the federal government set academic benchmarks by which all of the nation's schools could judge their performance. Beginning in 1999, the president wants all fourth-graders to take a new national exam in reading and all eighth-graders to do the same in math.

Clinton and many education and business leaders say the tests would help create a better national picture of what schools are doing right and wrong. Currently, states give students proficiency exams, but what they expect them to know varies so much that drawing national conclusions about the quality of schools is often difficult.

Clinton's testing plan is voluntary and so far only six states, including Maryland but not Virginia, are on board. Also, 15 of the nation's largest urban school districts – including New York City, Chicago and Los Angeles – have agreed to use the tests. The District's public schools have not.

Some of the reluctance is practical: State leaders say they want to see the tests before committing to use them. But others have serious philosophical reservations about Clinton's plan, calling it another potentially costly example of unnecessary federal intrusion into local classrooms.

For all of those reasons, Goodling contends that the testing plan should be halted until congressional hearings are held, or until lawmakers explicitly vote to authorize it. That view is winning support from an array of politically conservative groups, such as the Christian Coalition and Family Research Council.

Also, some Democrats are worried that poor students in schools with limited resources could be at a disadvantage taking the tests.

Goodling has introduced a resolution and an amendment to a House appropriations bill to try to stop or delay the testing program.

But the administration's framework for the tests is already taking shape, six months after the president introduced the idea during his State of the Union address.

At this point, each test is to last 90 minutes and be based partly on an exam known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which is highly regarded by many educators for its rigor. Samples of students across the country have been taking versions of that test every few years since 1969. The Education Department is also on the verge of awarding contracts to write the new tests.

Clinton, meanwhile, has not shown any interest in delaying the tests, which have long been a fixture in the schools of most other industrialized nations. He pleaded with the nation's governors at their annual meeting last month to embrace the idea, arguing that it will give American schools a powerful incentive to be more consistent and rigorous in what they demand of students in such vital subjects as reading and math. Many top business executives also are campaigning for the president's testing plan.

"We think having a sense of urgency is important," said acting Deputy Education Secretary Marshall S. Smith. "We've been sitting back on this issue too long, tolerating curricula that do not adequately prepare many of our students."

Education Secretary Richard W. Riley has testified before congressional panels several times this year about the tests, and the department has held briefings with governors.

Administration officials also say Clinton has tried to be sensitive to Republican concerns about federal meddling in schools by making the tests voluntary, relatively short, and focused only on two core subjects in two pivotal grades.

And today, Education Department officials will meet with state leaders to discuss the tests.

"We are addressing basic skills in the grades where there are generally agreed-on goals for students," Smith said. "There's substantial public support for that."

To date, the Education Department has fared well in most of its political wrestling matches with the Republican-led Congress. Republican talk of abolishing the department has vanished, and Clinton's most prominent education initiatives – a new lending program for college students and Goals 2000 grants for school reform – are largely intact.

But the emerging debate over the national tests may be the most sensitive yet, because they would expand the federal government's role in education.

Republican alarm about that change, particularly if it comes without congressional approval, is growing. One lawmaker, Rep. Robert W. Schaffer (R-Colo.), recently sent a letter to his House colleagues that denounced Clinton's plan as "the first step to a top-down, national curriculum" – exactly the image the White House does not want of the new tests.