The Debate Over National Testing

Most teachers are comfortable with developing and using tests for classroom purposes, whether to see how much students have learned, to provide a basis for grades, or to gain an understanding of individual students' strengths and weaknesses. As state departments of education move forward with their testing programs, teachers are becoming increasingly familiar with tests used as measures of accountability. A third layer of testing arises on the national level and includes the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and President Bush's plan to require states to test third- through eighth-grade students in Title I schools annually in reading and mathematics, with state results verified against NAEP or a commercial test such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.

This Digest presents various views of the federal role in testing and offers a brief examination of NAEP, "the nation's report card," in both its national sample format and its state administration, which critics fear has the potential to become a de facto national test if it is selected as the basis for comparing state tests. It also suggests action steps and resources to enable teachers to take part in the ongoing debate about testing.

The United States, unlike many other countries, has no national test that every student in every state takes to demonstrate mastery of some agreed-upon body of knowledge and skills. Commercial test publishers have long offered achievement tests (e.g., the Iowa Test of Basic Skills, the California Achievement Test, the Terra Nova) that are administered to schools across the country and normalized on national samples, but these are not in themselves national tests because individual schools, districts, or states decide for themselves whether to use them and which to select. The SAT is probably the most common test administered in the country, but it is intended to measure college-bound students' aptitude for college work, not academic achievement across a wide range of subjects for all students. And it has the ACT as competition.

The question of the appropriate role for the federal government to play in testing is a complicated one, and like many policy matters, it has strong political overtones. Over the past two decades, many policymakers have moved from an initial position of strong support for some sort of a national test used as an accountability tool to opposition on the grounds that a national test would usher in a national curriculum and lead to further federal involvement in what has historically been a state and local matter. These policymakers want states to establish administer their own standards and assessments without interference from Washington; they see federal involvement in testing as a sometimes unwelcome effort to dictate what is important for their students to learn.

On the other hand, some policymakers seem to be less troubled by an expanded federal role in testing, but more suspicious about whether nationwide testing would lead to genuine school improvement and higher student achievement or just sort out and penalize low-performing schools and the students in them, who are disproportionately low income and minority. They argue that until there is truly equal opportunity to learn for all students (with equal access to technology, highly qualified teachers, good facilities, and other learning inputs), testing is an empty exercise. Some policymakers also fear that poor test scores might fuel discontent with the public school system and lead to more support for controversial initiatives such as vouchers for private school aid.