Copyright 2000 Federal News Service, Inc.
Federal News Service
May 11, 2000, Thursday
SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 1152 words
HEADLINE:
PREPARED TESTIMONY OF DR. MICHAEL E. WARD NORTH CAROLINA STATE SUPERINTENDENT OF
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
BEFORE THE HOUSE EDUCATION
AND THE WORKFORCE COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON EARLY CHILDHOOD, YOUTH, AND FAMILIES
SUBJECT - REAUTHORIZATION OF THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF
EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS AND THE NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD
BODY:
Chairman Castle and Members of the
Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony on the
reauthorization of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), National
Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), and the National Assessment Governing
Board (NAGB). It is an honor to be asked to be here with you today.
NAEP
has long been a valuable tool in North Carolina's efforts to improve schools and
student performance. It is the only continuous and reliable nationwide measure
available for us to provide our citizens a barometer to gauge the success of the
state's improvement efforts. NAEP assessments also show us how well our students
perform compared to other students across the nation. Results are reported to
the citizens of our state, to our legislature, and to local school systems. Our
agency provides analyses of the state's performance to local testing
coordinators and curriculum personnel. School systems in North Carolina
willingly participate in NAEP because they see it as a mechanism to view North
Carolina's performance both regionally and nationally. We look forward to the
time when we can expand our use of NAEP to include international comparisons.
During the past few years, North Carolina's schools have made
significant progress. In 1996, it was reported that North Carolina's fourth
graders had tied Texas for the nation's largest gains since 1992 on the NAEP
mathematics assessment. Our eighth graders had the second highest gains in the
nation since 1992, and the highest since 1990.
In 1998, the NAEP reading
results in fourth and eighth grades showed North Carolina students performing
above the national average. Education Week's annual Quality Counts report
described North Carolina as one of the only two states in the nation to develop
a comprehensive school accountability system. The National Education Goals Panel
has cited North Carolina, along with Texas, as the nation's leader in education
improvement.
In my testimony today, I will highlight key federal
functions that must be maintained and enhanced through reauthorization and
reinforce them on the basis of the value North Carolina has received from NAEP
and the work of NAGB and NCES. North Carolina has benefited tremendously from
having the independent measure of state performance through NAEP and having
trend lines of performance in subjects such as mathematics and reading. NAEP at
the national and the state levels must be maintained; it must be well financed;
and it must have a good, consistent schedule so that, as we plan our assessments
for the state, we can be certain they are being well coordinated with the NAEP
testing.
As we continue to implement and refine our state's
accountability system, the importance of the federal role becomes more critical,
making it important for key functions to be maintained and enhanced. I'd like to
recommend action on a few key functions and reflect on how some of these
functions directly affect us in North Carolina. Increase the investment in and
strength of federal collection, evaluation, and dissemination of data on a broad
range of educational issues.
- Increasing the timeliness of NAEP
reporting and establishing a ten- year schedule for NAEP assessments would be
very helpful to us in North Carolina for planning and reporting results on a
regular basis. I do, however, have concerns about the disconnect of the NAEP
achievement levels, in particular, "proficient" with what the general public
perceives as "grade level" work. They are not one and the same, and
clarification of this issue in the larger community is needed.
-
Continue NAGB as an independent, bipartisan body with authority for NAEP policy
decisions, while maintaining authority for implementation with NCES. It is
critical that NAEP results be reported in an unbiased fashion and designed and
managed by an independent body. Maintain NAEP participation as voluntary and
ensure it is not required for participation in any other federal programs. In no
way should NAEP participation be tied to other federal programs. If anything,
the schools participating in NAEP assessments should be given financial
incentives for doing so. It is extremely difficult for some states to get
schools to participate due to the other assessments that are conducted at the
state and local levels and the amount of instructional time that it eliminates.
Explain the purpose of NAEP to the public, and ensure that NAEP is not used for
program evaluation or high stakes decisions that could jeopardize its
credibility and precision. NAEP results should not be used for "high stakes"
decisions. Utilizing NAEP results for this purpose can have unintended
consequences. Other assessments may be more appropriate for use in high stakes
determinations. It is critical that we preserve and maintain the existing use
for NAEP results, in relation to short and long-term trend lines. Continue NCES
and NAGB efforts to establish valid links between NAEP and other assessments
such as the Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), combine
national and state NAEP samples, provide states easier access to unreleased NAEP
items, and take advantage of incorporating innovative state assessment items.
The key here is validity of the linkages.- Encourage efforts by NCES and NAGB to
expand NAEP below the state level, without sacrificing its reliability,
validity, and precision. Continue the federal initiative to develop voluntary
national individual student tests in reading at grade four and in mathematics at
grade eight, which are related to the content of NAEP tests and used at the
discretion of states and localities. The option of using a voluntary national
test that provides individual student scores, linked to NAEP, is something that
many individuals, especially parents in North Carolina, would find helpful. I
understand that there are major issues to be resolved, but the initiative should
be continued. Expand NAEP's efforts to be more inclusive of all students. It is
inappropriate for the federal government to mandate the inclusion of students
with disabilities and limited English proficient students in
assessments at the state and local levels through ESEA and IDEA
legislation, without also requiring such inclusion in NAEP samples. NCES and
NAGB need to assist states in finding ways to accommodate all students in all
assessments. There also needs to be agreement on which accommodations and
modifications are valid.
Once again, I appreciate the opportunity to
testify. NCES, NAGB and NAEP are all extremely important to our nation and our
states. We stand ready to assist you to ensure that they continue to provide key
trend lines for national and state performance and are expanded to meet new
challenges for international and individual student results. I would be pleased
now to respond to any questions.
Thank you.
END
LOAD-DATE: May 12, 2000 
