In Defense of Standardized Testing

Despite all the hubbub and hand-wringing over the economy and the banking crisis, education reform has been getting a surprising amount of publicity. Supposedly our new Secretary of Education, Arne Duncan, (formerly of the Chicago Public School District) is serious about moving the national education picture in a different direction. And US public schools definitely need some change we can believe in.

Acquiring a high school diploma is widely acknowledged to be the first, minimum step on the road to a middle-class lifestyle in this country. Logically then, one of our schools biggest indicators of success or failure would be the graduation rate. But according to Melinda Gates, whose foundation has done some substantial research in its drive to improve America's schools "Only 71 percent of kids graduate from high school within four years, and for minorities the numbers are even worse -- 58 percent for Hispanics and 55 percent for African Americans." That means that nearly 1/2 of all black students are probably consigned to the bottom rungs of the economic ladder and nearly 1/3 of all students will share the same fate. This in a country that spends more money on education (290 billion dollars) per student and as a percentage of GDP than any other nation in the world.

The first step in the assuredly byzantine march towards better schools would be to create a federal standardized testing regime, one that would replace our current state-by-state system. While the No Child Left Behind Act mandated educational testing for all children as a way to ensure that no single group was 'left behind' and to provide accountability in the form of quantitative statistics, each state was allowed to devise its own series of tests. This loophole in the law created a patchwork of different tests with different standards. Because under NCLB federal funds are allocated based on the test scores and schools scoring well receive additional funding, there is a tremendous incentive to make the tests as easy as possible. A standardized federal system of examination would eliminate this problem and provide policymakers with unbiased statistics with which to make adjustments.

Teachers often argue that an emphasis on standardized testing stifles creativity and forces them to "teach the test", leading to a daily classroom experience that is unsatisfying for both the educational professional and the students involved. While this can occur, it is generally the result of a poorly designed test. One need only look at the Advanced Placement program to see the effectiveness of a properly designed test. AP is one of the most successful educational initiatives in this country today, with rigorous standards and an ever increasing number of students choosing to take advantage of AP's accelerated learning environment. At the same time, AP's curriculum is also formulated by groups of college professors, centered entirely around one major, lengthy examination that occurs at the end of the year in May. A test that sets out clear goals with an emphasis on knowledge acquisition will almost always have a positive impact.

The good thing about this issue is that this country already has a test like this in place. The National Assessment for Educational Progress serves many of these functions, but its application is far from universal and its sobering stats are often brushed aside by state educators. Consider this: 24% of students are considered "proficient" in Civics education. 39% percent are considered "proficient" in math. 33% are considered "proficient" in reading. Haven't heard or read anything like this in your local paper? State test scores are generally 2-3 times higher (percentage wise) than these numbers, and the high scores are the ones that local political leaders and educators want you to see. Expanding the NAEP to a nationwide basis and eliminating misleading state tests would go a long way towards producing a nationwide conversation on reform that might actually lead somewhere.

Here's a suggestion for our leadership: stop talking about vouchers and privatization, and work towards improving our PUBLIC schools. No one in America wants to see the end of public education, and it's time to start offering solutions in an area that has traditionally been a Democratic stronghold but ranks as one of the most important issues year after year in polling data. Even after passing NCLB, with all its flaws, Bush's approval ratings were sky-high. Imagine what we can do if Republicans achieve a truly effective educational reform policy.

Obama's Major Stumble

In the United States, treaties, once passed by the Senate, become the supreme law of the land. NAFTA has been law since 1994, and it is generally agreed that the agreement has been beneficial for all three signatories. Now, it is jeopardy because of an Obama administration policy prohibiting Mexican trucks on US highways that was put into place at the behest of the Teamsters' Union. Mexican semis were supposed to be permitted onto US highways as of 1996, but legitimate safety concerns combined with union lobbying prevented this from occurring. In 2001, after the US lost a NAFTA arbitration, the Bush administration initiated a pilot program that was intended to be a stepping stone for full treaty compliance, but the new budget nixed its funding.

The Mexican government, always sensitive where its massive northern neighbor is concerned, has increased tariffs on 90 US products worth 2.4 billion dollars a year in response. Iowa State University Economist Dermot Hayes has predicted, using a draft list of retaliations, that the tariffs would lead to the loss of 40,909 US jobs in 40 states.

Democratic defenders cite our 453 billion dollar trade with Mexico as a legitimizing factor for this policy. This argument is specious at best. Of course we have a trade deficit! Their country is too poor to purchase en masse the kinds of products Americans specialize in producing, like cars, servers, telecommunications equipment etc. That 400 billion dollars a year doesn't just evaporate. It goes into the hand of Mexican producers, which in turn use it to pay workers and invest in equipment. Eventually, the Mexicans will be able to buy goods from us that will go a long way towards equalizing our balance of payments. The same is true with China and just about every other developing country with which we have a trade deficit.

Another argument put forward is that Mexican trucks are somehow unsafe or dangerous, when in fact, the opposite is true.

Earlier this year, the DOT analyzed the safety record of Mexican carriers in the U.S. from 2003-2006. It looked at the rate in which trucks received an “out-of-service” designation by DOT inspectors targeting companies with the worst records. The out-of-service rate for U.S. trucks was 23.5%, compared to a rate for trucks from Mexico of 21.29%. Mexican short-haul trucks operating in the border zone also had a better record than the U.S. trucks, with an out-of-service rate of 22.5%.

The endless tirades about safety seem very flat without any valid statistics to support them. Here is Sen. Byron Dorgan D-SD, fulminating against Mexican safety regulation or lack thereof.

In addition, the cross-border pilot trucking project was supposed to require that Mexican drivers be fluent in English. The inspector general's office has testified that the way the U.S. government determined whether Mexican drivers understood American road signs, as part of the English fluency test, was to show Mexican truck drivers a highway sign and allow them identify it in Spanish. Administering an English fluency test in Spanish makes no sense whatsoever.

Seems to me, that if a Mexican truck driver can identify an American "stop sign" as instructions to stop his vehicle in his native language, then the safety requirement is fufilled completely, and that all this talk about English fluency in relation to cross-border trucking smacks of labor union nativism. This country is enduring one of the most severe recessions of our time, and an international game of 'beggar thy neighbor' protectionist policies is a real possibility. President Obama should act swiftly to remedy this dispute with our third-largest trading partner before it spirals into a true trade war.

Why aren't we Republicans out in front on this issue? I know Americans usually have little interest in what transpires outside our borders, but this issue is going to have concrete numbers of job losses. We aren't encumbered by an enormous union lobby, and the party can take a strong stand against protectionism relatively freely. If the Republican party intends to offer solutions instead of nay-saying at foregone presidential policies, this is an excellent place to start.