Go Nats!

So, today's Post features an op-ed by former Ed. Secretaries Bill Bennett and Rod Paige arguing for--wait for it--voluntary national testing. Funny how I seem to have heard that idea somewhere before... Of course, there's no mention of Clinton or Dick Riley, who advocated voluntary national tests long before these two and when he actually was Education Secretary. Instead, Bennett and Paige reference the Fordhamites, who've been pushing the issue hard lately on on whose board Paige serves. They might also want to acknowledge AEI's Michael Greve. Here's Bennett and Paige's core policy recommendation:

Washington should set sound national academic standards and administer a high-quality national test. Publicize everybody's results, right down to the school level. Then Washington should butt out.

Greve said basically the exact same thing at Ed Sector's National Standards debate last spring, which also featured Fordham's Mike Petrilli along with Lauren Resnick, a very feisty Deb Meier, New America's Michael Dannenberg, and our own trendsetter Kevin Carey.

On the substance here: There are a lot of decent arguments for national testing. The huge variation in rigor of state standards (and often utter lack thereof) is the big attention-getter, but equally troublesome, IMHO, is that it's terribly inefficient to have 50 different state systems of standards and testing, and this inefficiency, combined with the high costs of remotely decent tests, leads to a lot of state using really crappy tests that don't actually assess their standards and contribute to the kind of "teaching to the test" accountability foes and parents complain about. It's also just dopey to think that how kids learn to read or calculate or do algebra and what they need to know when in these areas varies much from state to state--particularly in an increasingly global economy. Plus, having national tests would dramatically enhance our ability to do good research on all kinds of questions linked to student achievement, particularly if they were properly aligned grade-to-grade and accompanied by longitudinal student-linked data systems.

Regardless of increasingly rosy thinking about national standards from some small corners of both the left and the right (some of which, IMHO, is more PR than real), however, the politics of the issue are still nearly as killer as they were when Clinton came to grief over them in the 1990s, and the memory of that still makes a lot of folks incredibly wary. Even if National tests could be legislated politically, negotiating the content and standards for the tests would be a massive political nightmare people don't seem to be taking into account. Even such ostensibly straightforward things as reading and math are fraught with ideological baggage--remember the reading wars, or the controversy over the Clinton administration's proposed voluntary national math standards? And that's likely to come out in efforts to create such assessements. (And don't get me started on what happens when you try to do test-based accountability in history or science....)