Educators Can’t Agree On National Standards Either Like President And Congress, Area Officials Split On Plan

Everybody seems to support rigorous standards for the nation’s schools.

But nobody can agree on what those standards should be and who should set them.

That’s one of the main reasons Congress and President Clinton decided last week to postpone a fight over a program to test the nation’s fourth-graders and eighth-graders to see how they compare with each other.

Clinton’s proposal for national standards has split the education establishment.

Coeur d’Alene school Superintendent David Rawls thinks Clinton might be on the right track.

“Maybe at one time local control over the curriculum made sense,” Rawls said.

But today, Idaho students have to compete nationally and internationally for the best jobs, he said.

“That’s a different notion than what we were in a generation ago,” Rawls said.

Some school officials aren’t ready to sacrifice local control for consistency.

“We think national dollars would be better spent if given to states and communities” to develop their own assessment programs, said Terren Roloff, spokeswoman for the Spokane School District 81. The district has not taken an official stand on national testing.

States now set basic education requirements and require at least one standardized test. Those tests are designed to show if students are learning and compare their performance with other students who take the same test across the country.

But the wide variety of standardized tests frustrates direct comparisons. Take, for instance, Spokane and Coeur d’Alene, separated by a state border and the use of different tests.

Last year, students in Spokane’s elementary and middle schools took the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills. In Coeur d’Alene, students took the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.

Officials from both school districts say their students perform above average compared to students taking the same tests in other districts and other states. But comparing Spokane students to Coeur d’Alene students is difficult.

For example, in Spokane, fourth-graders ranked in the 54th percentile, above the state average score of 52. In Coeur d’Alene, fourth-graders scored in the 69th percentile, while the Idaho state average was 54.

Does this mean Coeur d’Alene fourth-graders are smarter?

The answer is tricky. The scores from the two tests can be compared, but only up to a point, said Bob Silverman, who supervises Washington state’s assessment programs.

“Each test measures basic skills,” he said, but one test could be easier than the other.

The only way to assure the tests are equivalent is to give them both to the same students, which hardly ever happens, he says.

A national student test created in the late 1960s, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, is one of the best sources of national education data, Silverman said.

Although NAEP measures proficiency in math, reading and other subjects, the test doesn’t provide scores for individual students.

Clinton proposed a new test based on NAEP for fourth-grade reading and eighth-grade math. Advocates say the exams would provide clear standards for the nation’s students.

But conservative Republicans said the plan would give the federal government too much influence over local curricula. Some members of the black and Hispanic caucuses also worried the tests could stigmatize poorer school districts, which tend to score lower than richer schools.

Neither side prevailed, so last week, they compromised: Field testing of the president’s national exams will wait at least until late next year, and control of the tests was taken away from the U.S. Department of Education. Congress will take up the issue next January, when it reconvenes.

The public seems to support the theory behind national testing. A recent Gallup poll found that 68 percent of respondents favored national testing, while 28 percent opposed it.

But when asked if the tests will improve the quality of education, 44 percent said yes, while 45 percent thought it would make no difference.

Rep. George Nethercutt, R-Wash., strongly opposes national testing. He bases that stance on conversations with teachers, parents and school administrators.

“Testing is a local and state issue,” he said. Many states are developing their own assessment programs, so additional tests would be superfluous, he said.

Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., supports national standards for students, but isn’t sold on the idea of national tests.

Tests may not be the total answer, she said. But if students can’t reach national standards, that would “send a message that parents and the community need to get involved.”

Many states are developing their own standards. Idaho is developing benchmarks for core subjects. Washington state is expected to spend nearly $17 million developing new statewide standards for fourth-, seventh- and 11th-graders. That program will be in full swing by 2000, according to Silverman.

More testing from the federal government would be a “duplication of efforts,” said Roloff.

, DataTimes MEMO: This sidebar appeared with the story: CLINTON PROPOSAL The president has proposed a national test for fourth-grade reading and eighth-grade math. Advocates say the exams would provide clear standards for the nation’s students. Critics say the plan would give the federal government too much influence over local curricula, and could stigmatize poorer school districts, which tend to score lower than richer schools.