By Bill Goodling
Wednesday, August 13, 1997; Page A21

If testing is the answer to our education problems, it would have solved them a long time ago. American students are tested, tested, tested, and the Clinton administration is proposing to test our children again.

Contrary to The Post's Aug. 7 editorial, "Get On With Student Testing," regarding President Clinton's national test initiative, the proposal is not "bogged down in politics and process." The proposal is bogged down because Americans don't want and don't need a new national reading test for fourth-graders and a new national mathematics test for eighth-graders.

Though the president and Secretary of Education Richard Riley are convinced that more testing is the way to boost the academic achievement of American students, I disagree – and so do many of the nation's governors, educators, legislators and members of Congress (both Republican and Democratic). To date, only six governors have indicated interest in the president's proposal.

The Post is correct in saying that I intend to block funding for the initiative, but my effort is not political. It's common sensical. As a former teacher, principal and school superintendent, I know the value and purpose of testing. I also know that we don't need new national tests. The president's proposal comes at a time when we already have plenty of testing. Nearly all the states and many local school districts have their own testing programs. We already have two federally funded tests. The first and oldest is NAEP (the National Assessment of Educational Progress), which is a sampling of students in various subjects. The second test is provided under TIMSS (the Third International Mathematics and Science Study). All of this testing occurs above and beyond the classroom tests that teachers create.

As a result of all this testing, we know that nearly half our students are not performing as well as they should be. We should help these students – not test them again. The Post editorial maintains that new national tests are needed in order to "identify a child's academic weaknesses and plan improvements." This is already accomplished through the panoply of tests already in use. Moreover, test developers and publishers maintain they are creating uniform tests that are comparable state to state and school to school. I have other concerns with the administration's proposal:

The administration is sending mixed signals. Since 1993 President Clinton and Secretary Riley have actively pushed their Goals 2000 program, which encourages, and provides funds for, states to create their own standards and tests. In essence, the administration has backed decentralized reform. Now, with this new test proposal, it appears to be backing centralized reform. Why the switch?

The development of national tests is too controversial for the administration to act without congressional review or authorization. The administration has no bill, nor has it indicated any intention of seeking legislation for this initiative. For instance, federal legislation allows for NAEP. But the U.S. Department of Education has quickly planned these new tests without wide public input. In addition, valid tests take years to construct. The fast-track nature of this initiative alarms many educators and policymakers.

New national tests could lead to inappropriate and unfair comparisons of schools and students. For instance, we already know that suburban students in Upper St. Claire, Pa., will, in all likelihood, outperform students from center city Pittsburgh. Why? Students from Upper St. Claire have more educational advantages. No reason exists to develop another test to show us the deficiencies of disadvantaged students.

Tests don't generate higher academic performance. The administration and the U.S. Department of Education have talked as if a new national test will create better students. It won't. Standardized tests assess performance; they don't generate it. And with any testing proposal we should be wary of the tendency of teachers to teach to the test.

New national tests could lead to a national curriculum. In developing new assessments, the tendency is to create a new curriculum to match those assessments. But like new national tests, a national curriculum is something Americans don't want and don't need. Local control is a hallmark of American education. Given what happened with the federally funded U.S. history standards project (a dismal initiative that generated political correctness rather than history), we don't need to engage in any effort that could lead to a national curriculum. Unlike the NAEP tests, which are governed by an independent board, these new tests will come from the U.S. Department of Education. That puts the department in an extremely powerful position in our local schools.

Instead of developing new national tests, I would rather send dollars to the classroom, bolster basic academics and increase parental involvement. I want to direct federal resources to family literacy and preschool readiness. I also want to take steps to improve teacher preparation and the teaching and learning conditions in our schools. Those should be our priorities – not more testing.

The writer, a Republican representative from Pennsylvania, is chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.