No Child Left Behind: Why Congress Should Reauthorize Section 9529 to Prohibit Nationalized Testing

Introduction

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) came before Congress for reauthorization in early 2001 in the form of H.R. 1, The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Congress inserted section 9529 in NCLB to forbid federal funds from being used for any nationalized testing program.

Section 9529 reads in its entirety:

“‘‘SEC. 9529. PROHIBITION ON FEDERALLY SPONSORED TESTING.

‘‘(a) GENERAL PROHIBITION.-Notwithstanding any other provision of Federal law and except as provided in subsection (b), no funds provided under this Act to the Secretary or to the recipient of any award may be used to develop, pilot test, field test, implement, administer, or distribute any federally sponsored national test in reading, mathematics, or any other subject, unless specifically and explicitly authorized by law.

‘‘(b) EXCEPTIONS.-Subsection (a) shall not apply to international comparative assessments developed under the authority of section 404(a)(6) of the National Education Statistics Act of 1994 and administered to only a representative sample of pupils in the United States and in foreign nations.”

We urge Congress to reauthorize this language and to strengthen it by adding language to forbid any federal funds from being used to make the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mandatory for all U.S. students in any grade.

A nationalized test would lead to a nationalized curriculum

The greatest danger of a national test is the federally approved curriculum it will inevitably require. University of Kansas professor John Poggio stated in February of 1997, “What gets tested is what will be taught.” His statement encompasses the common concern among home schools, religious schools and private schools alike. If what Mr. Poggio says is true, then a national curriculum will be a definitive step toward centralized control of education and abrogation of its local governance.

In a leading federal case from Florida, Debra P. v. Turlington, the court ruled that the curriculum must match the test or else the test is invalid and cannot be legally administered. Under this ruling, any national test must mirror the curriculum. With 16,000 different courses of study presently used by both parochial and public schools, it is currently impossible for one standard test to fit each curriculum. The only feasible means of implementing a national test would then be to establish a national curriculum with content defined by unelected policy makers in Washington.

A national test would lead to a national curriculum, along with all of the problems, potential for abuse, and loss of local control that would come along with it. Congress should not allow any funds to be used to develop a national test that would then require a national curriculum to go along with it.

A nationalized test will not lead to higher academic performance

Increased testing does not lead to higher academic performance, it merely shows where a student stands in comparison with other students who have taken the same test. On September 16, 1997, during congressional debate about President Clinton’s proposed national test, Congressman Goodling of Virginia aptly analogized the idea of increased testing to the agriculture industry: “If someone is in the cattle business, they do not fatten cattle by constantly putting them on the scales and weighing them.” In addition, he said that, “President Clinton’s plan for two new federal education tests won’t boost the academic performance of a single American child. Americans should not be misled into thinking that better tests will lead to better students."