英语论文网

ad at standards-based reformare getting good results,”Education Secretary Richard W.Riley said at a press conference as he announced theresults.He said the results show Congress should“staythe course”in reauthorizing ESEA this year.3But a recent Heritage Foundation study by Nina ShokraiiRees challenged Riley’s interpretation of the results.Therecent improvements cannot be correlated to the 1994ESEA amendments,Rees argued,because most of thereforms mandated by that law have not yet beenimplemented.In fact,most Title-I-eligible school principalssurveyed for a 1998 Education Department study wereunaware of the standards-based reforms required by the1994 law,she wrote.Indeed,the Education Departmentstudy showed that“only 43 percent of principals seemfamiliar with Title I itself,”she said.4Rees also noted that NAEP results have been challengedin some states,including Kentucky,Louisiana and SouthCarolina,where the number of special-education studentsexempted from NAEP testing doubled from 1994 to 1998.The Educational Testing Service is reviewing the 1998NAEP results to see if higher scores in some states resultedfrom fewer special-ed students taking the test.The Heritage Foundation recommends that Congress,when it renews ESEA this year,should give states moreflexibility in how to use Title I funds and allow parentswhose children attend failing schools to receive vouchersworth their children’s share of the funds,redeemable atthe public or private school of their choice.1Sharon Lewis,et al.,“Reform and Results:An Analysis of Title I inthe Great City Schools,1994-95 to 1997-98,”Council of Great CitySchools,March 1999.2“Promising Results,Continuing Challenges:The Final Report of theNational Assessment of Title I,”Department of Education,March 1,1999.3David J.Hoff and Kathleen Kennedy Manzo,“States Committed toStandards Reforms Reap NAEP Gains,”Education Week,March 10,1999.4Nina Shokraii Rees,“A Close Look at Title I,the Federal Programto Aid Poor Children,”The Heritage Foundation,April 13,1999.TheEducation Department study she quoted was“Status of EducationReform in Public Elementary Schools:Principals Perspective,”Officeof Educational Research and Improvement and the National Centerfor Education Statistics,May 1998.ventually signed into law in 1994,itave states until 2000-2001 to adoptigher academic standards and ac-ompanying tests.It also said stateshould supply extra help to low-erforming students to meet thetandards.ESEA drew bipartisan flak.The leftared that the tests would be usedr high-stakes purposes and wouldenalize poor students who had noteen provided the same educationalopportunities as wealthier childrenin the suburbs.They wanted educa-tional improvements first and testslater.The right attacked Goals 2000 asa federal power grab,and latchedonto it as a campaign issue in thehistoric 1994 midterm elections thatushered in the Republican takeoverof Congress.“Conservatives hatedClinton and tried to demonize Goals2000 and national testing to energizepeople to vote,”says Jennings,au-thor of Why National Standards andTests?,a history of the legislativebattles over national standards andtests.“The religious right claimed Goals2000 would do everything from al-low children to be taken away fromtheir parents to allowing officers toconfiscate people’s guns,”remembersJennings.“They used it like they usedabortion—to get people stirred up.”