麻豆精品

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter

Dear Madam Secretary,

Congratulations and welcome to a place we once knew well. You face any number of tough challenges on behalf of American students, parents, educators and taxpayers, as well as the administration you serve, but your 鈥淒epartment鈥檚 Final Mission鈥� shows that you鈥檙e well prepared to meet them. We particularly admire your commitment to making American education 鈥渢he greatest in the world.鈥�

But how will we 鈥� and you, and our fellow Americans 鈥� know how rapidly we鈥檙e getting there? By now, you鈥檙e probably aware that the single most important activity of the department you lead is the National Assessment of Educational Progress, known to some as NAEP and to many as the Nation鈥檚 Report Card.

That鈥檚 the primary gauge by which we know how American education is doing, both nationally and in the states to which you rightly seek to restore its control.

Almost four decades ago 鈥� during Ronald Reagan鈥檚 second term 鈥� it was our job to modernize that key barometer of student achievement. Five years after A Nation at Risk told Americans that their education system was far from the world鈥檚 greatest, state leaders 鈥� governors especially 鈥� craved better data on the performance of their students and schools. And they were right. At the time, they had no sure way of monitoring that performance.

That was one of our challenges, back in the day. Advised by a blue-ribbon study group led by outgoing Tennessee governor (and future U.S. senator) Lamar Alexander, and with congressional cooperation spearheaded by the late Ted Kennedy, in 1988 we proposed what became a bipartisan transformation of an occasional government-sponsored test into a regular and systematic appraisal of student achievement in core academic subjects, administered by the National Center for Education Statistics (part of your Institute for Education Sciences) and overseen by an independent group of state and local leaders, plus educators and the general public. (One of your responsibilities is appointing several terrific people each year to terms on the 26-member National Assessment Governing Board.) 

That 1988 overhaul made three big changes:

• Creation of that independent board to ensure the data鈥檚 integrity, accuracy and utility;
  
• Inauguration of state-level reporting of student achievement in grades 4, 8 and 12, i.e. at  the ends of elementary, middle and high school; and
  
• Authorization for the board to set standards 鈥� known as achievement levels 鈥� by which to know whether that achievement is satisfactory.

Much else was happening in U.S. education at the time: School choice was gaining traction. States were setting their own academic standards and administering their own assessments. Graduation requirements were rising as the economy modernized and its human capital needs increased. 

As these and other reforms gathered speed, NAEP became the country鈥檚 most trusted barometer of what was (and wasn鈥檛) working. You alluded to NAEP data during your confirmation hearing. President Donald Trump deploys it when referencing the shortcomings of U.S. schools. For example, his Jan. 29 executive order on school choice began this way: 鈥淎ccording to this year鈥檚 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), 70% of 8th graders were below proficient in reading, and 72% were below proficient in math.鈥�

Everybody relies on NAEP data, and its governing board鈥檚 standards have become the criteria by which states gauge whether their own standards are rigorous enough. Just the other day, Gov. Glenn Youngkin鈥檚 board of education used them to benchmark Virginia鈥檚 tougher expectations for students and .

Reading and math were, and remain, at the heart of NAEP, but today it also tests civics, U.S. history, science and other core subjects 鈥� exactly as listed in your speech.

But NAEP is not perfect. It needs another careful modernization. It should make far better use of technology, including artificial intelligence. It should be nimbler and more efficient. The procedures by which its contractors are engaged need overhauling. (The Education Department鈥檚 whole procurement process needs that, too 鈥� faster, more competitive, more efficient, less expensive!)

Yet NAEP also needs to do more. Today, for instance, it gives state leaders their results only in grades 4 and 8, not at the end of high school. It doesn鈥檛 test civics and history nearly often enough, and never in 12^th grade, even though most systematic study of those subjects occurs in high school. (It probably tests fourth- and eighth-grade reading and math too often 鈥� the result of a different federal law.) 

Doing more shouldn鈥檛 cost any more. Within NAEP鈥檚 current budget 鈥� approaching $200 million, a drop in the department鈥檚 murky fiscal ocean 鈥� much more data should be gettable by making new contracts tighter and technology smarter, squeezing more analysis from NAEP鈥檚 vast trove and having staffers put shoulders to the wheel. (Former IES director Mark Schneider has the .)  But making this happen will take strong executive leadership, an agile, hardworking governing board and your own oversight. You may decide it鈥檚 time for another blue-ribbon group to take a close look at NAEP and recommend how to modernize it again without losing its vital ability to monitor changes over time in student achievement.

Yes, this is all sort of wonky. NAEP results get used all the time, but it鈥檚 far down in the bureaucracy and doesn鈥檛 make much noise. Nobody in Congress (as far as we know) pays it much attention. Yet it remains 鈥� we believe 鈥� the single most important activity of your department. Which, frankly, is why it needs your watchful attention! 

We wish you well in your new role. Please let us know if we can help in any way.

Sincerely, 

William J. Bennett, U.S. Secretary of Education (1985-88)

Chester E. Finn Jr., Assistant Secretary for Research & Improvement and Counselor to the Secretary (1985-88) 

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 麻豆精品 Newsletter