This is a critical moment in education history. House Republicans are attempting to kill a plan that would allow parents and teachers, for the first time, to see how their students measure up to students all over the world.

Earlier this year, President Clinton proposed the creation of an important new tool for school reform: a set of voluntary national tests in fourth grade reading and eighth grade math that will enable parents and teachers to compare the achievement of individual students to students in their district, state, and around the world.

Last week, the House passed an amendment sponsored by Education Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Goodling (R-PA) to block funding for this critical endeavor. Only three House Republicans backed the tests. Seventy-five Democrats, concerned about the potential effects of such tests on poor and minority students, joined with them.

Earlier, however, the Senate overwhelmingly (87-13) accepted a compromise approving the tests but placing them under the control of the National Assessment Governing Board (NAGB) rather than the U.S. Department of Education (DOEd), as the White House had proposed earlier. This bipartisan board of education experts oversees the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NEAP), on which the new tests will be based. The fate of the tests now lies with House and Senate conferees who will reconcile differences in the two appropriations bills.

The House-Senate conference committee should take this opportunity to finalize the testing plan in the right way. The committee should ensure the plan's validity and stability by accepting the Senate's sensible compromise in the final appropriations bill.

Why Do We Need National Tests?

Designed for an industrial economy, our current education system is not geared toward providing the high levels of cognitive skills all workers need to succeed in the Information Age. As the National Commission on Teaching and America's Future warned last year: "There has been no previous time in history when the success, indeed the survival, of nations and people has been so tightly tied to their ability to learn. Today's society has little room for those who cannot read, write, and compute proficiently; find and use resources; frame and solve problems; and continually learn new technologies, skills, and occupations."

Establishing national standards is the cornerstone of education reform. With common standards and accountability mechanisms in place, we can then give our schools more leeway in experimenting with methods of attaining them. Rather than regulating the means of education--how schools are organized, how teachers teach, class size, and so forth--the government should instead define its ends: high student achievement. President Clinton's plan for national math and reading tests is an important first step toward reversing the old education equation.

The plan represents a bold conceptual leap beyond the President's Goals 2000 initiative, which Congress passed in 1994. Goals 2000 offered financial inducements for states to develop their own education standards. However, the standards have proved largely meaningless since states have not been willing to tie grade promotion or graduation to them. Moreover, state standards and assessments often set the bar too low, lulling parents, students, teachers, and schools into a false sense of security. The proposed national tests will create a common benchmark for all students, regardless of the state in which they happen to live. Tests will thus give parents a more accurate assessment of their child's performance and enable schools, districts, and states to evaluate themselves honestly.

Today's state assessments typically rate students in comparison with the average score on the test, not an absolute standard. Each state has different standards and different criteria for passing these tests, making cross-state and cross-country comparisons impossible. The NAEP, which measures aggregate student achievement over time, is the closest thing we have to a truly national test. But it is given to a representative sample of fourth and eight graders nationwide: no student takes the entire 18-hour test, and no student receives an individual score.

There are great discrepancies between state results and NAEP results. For example, 88 percent of Louisiana's fourth graders reach the state standard for reading, yet only 15 percent of them achieve proficiency on the NAEP. In contrast, Delaware's tests appear to be more rigorous than the NAEP: only 11 percent of Delaware's fourth graders pass that state's test, while 23 percent achieve proficiency on the NAEP.

What Are the Proposed National Tests?

The idea is simple. The President proposes testing fourth graders in reading and eighth graders in math, both critical points in a child's education. The new test will be a much shorter version of the NAEP test administered to every student in the nation. The math test will also be based on the Third International Math and Science Study (TIMSS). Each student will receive an individual score, providing parents and teachers for the first time with information about how their students are progressing compared to those in other states, the nation, and other countries.

The DOE will fund the development of these examinations; however, it will not administer, score, or report individual test results. Instead, DOEd awarded a contract to a highly regarded consortium of educational publishers and test developers. Under the Senate plan, NAGB will have three months to review the specifications and will ultimately have oversight over the tests. The tests will be available for student assessment each spring, beginning in 1999. By linking test scores to the NAEP and TIMSS scales, U.S. students will be able to see how they measure up against students in other countries. Each year, NAGB will release the entire test, along with answers, scoring guides, and other materials, to the public.

Why the Controversy?

The idea of introducing common tests in our schools has drawn fire from both ideological poles: from liberals who fear that disadvantaged minorities stuck in bad urban schools won't pass the tests, and from conservatives who warn darkly of a federal takeover of public education.

Some civil rights groups fear that a disproportionate number of poor and minority children trapped in abysmal school systems will fail the tests. They also argue that an English test is unfair to students who speak other languages. Both the Hispanic Caucus and the Black Caucus in the U.S. House of Representatives have come out against the test plan for these reasons.

It is true that rigorous tests will expose the massive failure of big urban school systems to provide quality education for their students. But uncovering this failure-- and ending rampant "social promotion," or the practice of advancing students to the next level based on their age rather than their achievement--is of course why we need high, common standards. To oppose tests that accurately measure student performance is merely to shoot the messenger. It does nothing to close the yawning gaps in educational attainment that contribute powerfully to poverty and inequality in America.

Opponents of the tests are on stronger ground when they point to past research that shows that students who are held back in school are more likely to drop out. These students find themselves spinning their wheels, taking classes with younger children, and being taught with the same methods and curriculum that failed them before.

Serious measurement of student performance, then, is not enough. Progressives should couple support for common standards and tests with a new determination to help all students perform at higher levels. Those who fail at first must receive extra help and new methods of instruction. Moreover, every aspect of the system must be held accountable for student achievement. If large numbers of students are failing, those responsible for their education must face consequences also.

The controversy over the language of the reading test reflects a larger disagreement over bilingual education. Some ethnic advocacy groups worry that English immersion will strip students of their native language and culture. As a result, many bilingual students spend years in school and never learn English. The goal of bilingual education should be first and foremost to teach students English, with literacy in the native language as a secondary goal. The Clinton Administration has made clear that the fourth grade test is an English test, not a test of general reading ability. Of course students who don't speak English would fail the test: that's why students who have been in the United States for less than three years are exempt. It is not unreasonable to expect students who have spent at least second, third, and fourth grade in the United States to be able to read in English. A national test would help identify which teaching methods best prepare immigrant students for English literacy.

Conservative groups see national tests as an attempt by Washington to impose liberal elites' educational theories on the public schools. In Congress, Rep. Goodling, himself a former teacher and superintendent, is leading the Republican assault on national tests. He argues not only that national testing is an unwarranted federal intrusion, but that we already test students, even to excess.

The proposed tests, however, are voluntary and hardly constitute an attempt to impose a national curriculum. They simply allow us to measure individual student performance on tests that have already won broad acceptance. Nor does the President's proposal in any way dictate how local schools teach their students. In fact, having a common yardstick for measuring student competency enables schools to experiment with different curricula and teaching methods, to see which produces the best results. Instead of being accountable for inputs (i.e., how much they spend per student, which textbooks or teaching methods they use, and how big their classes are), schools would be held accountable only for outputs (i.e., how well their students master agreed-upon standards). Once we can agree what children should know and be able to do at different stages, we can stop micro-managing how educators teach.

Underlying both liberal and conservative arguments is the assumption that poor and minority students will always perform poorly and that suburban students will always perform well. As Goodling put it in a recent speech, "We don't need another test to tell us what we already know... What purpose does it serve to compare students from wealthy districts, such as Upper Saint Claire, to poor inner city districts like Pittsburgh? It won't change anything." This argument, however, may be both too pessimistic and too optimistic. The experience of inner-city Catholic schools offers powerful evidence that disadvantaged kids can do well when held to high standards. And NAEP results show that only a small percentage of students nationwide achieve proficiency in reading--suggesting that many suburban schools are mired in mediocrity.

Conservatives deceive themselves if they believe they can have high standards without accountability. If we want world-class schools, we must have some way of measuring student performance and comparing how U.S. students stack up against those in other advanced countries. School vouchers, the conservative cure-all for our educational woes, are no substitute for high standards and real consequences for those who fail to meet them. Without common benchmarks for evaluating school performance, parents have no way of making informed choices among competing schools.

How High Expectations Can Raise Achievement

Although there is no national assessment yet, many states require students to pass certain tests to graduate from high school. These standards are often shamelessly low, and too late for many students. Only 13 states require students to pass assessments linked to at least a tenth-grade standard.

Recently, Milwaukee instituted a requirement that high school seniors had to pass a tough math exam in order to graduate. Students and parents didn't give it a second thought. The community was shocked when 79 percent of students failed.

Widespread failure prompted everyone to take action. The city pumped more money into the math program; schools offered special math classes; community groups tutored students; and students studied harder and longer. The result? By the third round of the test, 98 percent of the students passed.

Rather than waiting until the end of a child's education to give a high-stakes exam, Chicago has instituted promotion requirements at third, sixth, and eighth grades. The results have been overwhelming. This year, students had to be no more than two years behind in reading and math on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills in order to be promoted. As a result, one-third of the students in these grades had to attend summer school after the 1996-97 school year. The district put one-fifth of the city's schools with large numbers of failing students on probation, and required teachers and other staff to reapply for their jobs. The Illinois School Report Card is now on-line so citizens can find out statistical information and test scores for any school in the state (http://www.chicago.tribune.com/news/skuls/skul.htm).

Probation status and publicized school information prompted many schools to take action. They responded by setting up extended school days and requiring more homework. Most elementary schools on probation improved their reading and math scores after just one year; almost one-third are no longer on probation. Among students who attended summer school, about one-half passed the test in August and were promoted to the next grade; the other half will repeat the grade. Stunned that so many students were so behind as early as third grade, school officials are now considering a first-grade promotion requirement.

Some advocates argue that it's unfair to hold students accountable when the schools they attend are so poor. However, although many students failed, the majority did not. Furthermore, what's the greater injustice to a third grader; summer school or illiteracy?

Brave districts are experimenting with high-stakes exams without the advantage of national tests, but it is easy to see how such tests would help their efforts. Once parents and community members become aware of their students' inadequacies, they will come up with innovative solutions for academic mediocrity.

In addition, national tests will provide a benchmark for where students should be in different grades all across the country. We can no longer afford low expectations for students, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds. Rather than making excuses for failure, we need to create standards for success. The House-Senate conferees should accept the Senate compromise on national tests and allow them to go forward under the governance of NAGB.

Conclusion: Testing is Only the First Step

Supporters of the national test plan know that testing alone will not create a better education system by itself. The test is only a tool to measure students, teachers, schools, districts, and states. When they don't perform, there should be consequences for everyone.