I

MEASURING SUCCESS: USING 

ASSESSMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO 

RAISE STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT 

HEARING

BEFORE THE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

OF THE 

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND 

THE WORKFORCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

HEARING HELD IN WASHINGTON, DC, MARCH 8, 2001 

Serial No. 107-6 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Education 

and the Workforce
ii

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE 

JOHN A. BOEHNER, Ohio, Chairman 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin GEORGE MILLER, California 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

HOWARD P. “BUCK” McKEON, California PATSY MINK, Hawaii 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware ROBERT E. ANDREWS, New Jersey 

SAM JOHNSON, Texas TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana LYNN N. RIVERS, Michigan 

CHARLIE W. NORWOOD, JR., Georgia RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee RON KIND, Wisconsin 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado HAROLD E. FORD, JR., Tennessee 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky DENNIS KUCINICH, Ohio 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DAVID WU, Oregon 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia RUSH D. HOLT, New Jersey 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia HILDA A. SOLIS, California 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois SUSAN DAVIS, California 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota 

 PATRICK J. TIBERI, Ohio 

 RIC KELLER, Florida 

 TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

 JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 

Paula Nowakowski, Chief of Staff 

John Lawrence, Minority Staff Director

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM 

MICHAEL N. CASTLE, Delaware, Chairman

BOB SCHAFFER, Colorado, Vice Chairman DALE E. KILDEE, Michigan 

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin ROBERT C. “BOBBY” SCOTT, Virginia 

MARGE ROUKEMA, New Jersey LYNN C. WOOLSEY, California 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania RUBEN HINOJOSA, Texas 

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana CAROLYN McCARTHY, New York 

FRED UPTON, Michigan LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

VAN HILLEARY, Tennessee HAROLD E. FORD, Jr., Tennessee 

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan HILDA A. SOLIS, California 

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado SUSAN DAVIS, California 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky MAJOR R. OWENS, New York 

JIM DeMINT, South Carolina DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey 

JUDY BIGGERT, Illinois TIM ROEMER, Indiana 

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania RON KIND, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio 

TOM OSBORNE, Nebraska 

JOHN ABNEY CULBERSON, Texas 
iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................. I

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MAJOR OWENS, 11TH DISTRICT OF NEW 

YORK, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASINGTON, D.C. ...................... 2

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RUBEN HINOJOSA, 15TH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C................... 3

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE 

WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C....... 5

STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. RUST, JR., CHAIRMAN, EDUCATION TASK 

FORCE, CO-CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS COALITION FOR EXCELLENCE IN 

EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C............................................................................ 7

STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 

OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, N.J. ..................... 9

STATEMENT OF MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT 

GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C. ......................................................... 11

STATEMENT OF REID LYON, CHIEF OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND 

BEHAVIOR BRANCH, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, BETHESDA, 

M.D. .............................................................................................................................. 13

STATEMENT OF ROSALIE PEDALINO PORTER, MEMBER, BOARD OF 

DIRECTORS, EDITOR, READ PERSPECTIVES, INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN 

ENGLISH ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (READ), WASHINGTON, D.C.

....................................................................................................................................... 15

APPENDIX A - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MAJOR OWENS, 

11TH DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASINGTON, D.C...................................................................................................... 31

APPENDIX B - STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RUBEN HINOJOSA, 15TH

DISTRICT OF TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C................................................................................................................................ 35

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL 

CASTLE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C................................................................................................... 39
iv

APPENDIX D - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. RUST, JR., 

CHAIRMAN, EDUCATION TASK FORCE, CO-CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS 

COALITION FOR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C.......... 45

APPENDIX E - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KURT LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT, 

EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, N.J....................................... 65

APPENDIX F - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, 

NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C.......... 93

APPENDIX G - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REID LYON, CHIEF OF CHILD 

DEVELOPMENT AND BEHAVIOR BRANCH, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF 

HEALTH, BETHESDA, M.D. ................................................................................... 121

APPENDIX H - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ROSALIE PEDALINO PORTER, 

MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, EDITOR, READ PERSPECTIVES, 

INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ENGLISH ACQUISITION AND 

DEVELOPMENT (READ), WASHINGTON, D.C................................................... 143

APPENDIX I – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF THE 

LEARNING DISABILITIES ASSOCIATION.......................................................... 175

APPENDIX J – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF MICHAEL 

H. KEAN, VICE PRESIDENT, PUBLIC AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

CTB/McGRAW-HILL, MONTEREY, C.A............................................................... 179

APPENDIX K – SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, STATEMENT OF RICHARD 

L. FERGUSON, PRESIDENT, ACT INC.................................................................. 187

TABLE OF INDEXES ............................................................................................... 193
1

HEARING ON “MEASURING SUCCESS: 

USING ASSESSMENTS AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO RAISE 

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT” 

___________________

Thursday, March 8, 2001 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Subcommittee on Education Reform 

Committee on Education and the Workforce 

Washington, D.C. 

 The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in Room 2175, Rayburn 

House Office Building, Hon. Michael N. Castle presiding. 

Present: Representatives Castle, Hilleary, Ehlers, Biggert, Osborne, Owens, and 

Hinojosa.

Staff present: Christy Wolfe, Professional Staff Member; Lynn Selmser, Professional 

Staff Member; Whitney Rhoades, Staff Assistant; Patrick Lyden, Professional Staff 

Member; Deborah L. Samantar, Committee Clerk; Becky Campoverde, Deputy Staff 

Director; Jo-Marie St. Martin, General Counsel. 

Chairman Castle. The Subcommittee on Education Reform will come to order. We are 

meeting today to hear testimony on using assessments and accountability to raise student 

achievement. 

 Under Committee rule 12B, opening statements are limited to the Chairman and 

the ranking minority member of the subcommittee. Therefore, if other members have 

statements, they may be included in the hearing record. With that, I ask unanimous 
2

consent for the hearing record remain open 14 days to allow member statements and 

other extraneous material references during the hearing to be submitted in the official 

hearing record without objection so ordered. 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman Castle. Yes, Mr. Owens? 

Mr. Owens. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to make a statement and have it 

entered for the record. 

Chairman Castle. Let me explain to everybody here that we have an unusual 

circumstance with respect to the Committee and the subcommittee. Actually, it doesn't 

relate to this subcommittee in particular, but the minority party has not named their 

Committee members. Therefore, certain members have no standing with respect to 

speaking today. Only Mr. Miller could actually speak. 

 It would be my call here, Mr. Owens, to allow you to go ahead and make your 

statement with the understanding that process-wise we may have to terminate this at 

some point, but please go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MAJOR OWENS, 11TH

DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Owens. Yes, I appreciate your generosity, Mr. Chairman. I regret to say that no 

Democratic members of the Committee will be participating in this subcommittee hearing 

today as a protest against the unfair way the majority has created our subcommittees. 

 When the Education and Workforce Committee adopted these organizational 

rules last month, the Republican majority voted unanimously to remove programs for 

historically black colleges and universities, Hispanic serving institutions and tribally 

controlled colleges from the subcommittee that handles higher education issues. 

 Every single Democrat on the Committee opposed this ill-conceived idea. Every 

Democratic member of the Committee, black, Hispanic, Asian, Pacific and Native 

American has spoken out against this separation. 

 The message should be clear, and it should not be ignored. We have received an 

overwhelming number of letters and communications from presidents of minority serving 

institutions expressing their strenuous objection to the Committee's action. 

 The Committee should include all colleges in the new 21st century 

competitiveness subcommittee, which was designed to expand higher educational 

opportunities and emphasize lifelong learning. 
3

 No colleges should be relegated to a subcommittee that deals predominantly with 

issues like juvenile justice, child abuse and the arts. We find nothing wrong with juvenile 

justice, child abuse and the arts, but we don't think historically black colleges and 

universities, Hispanic serving institutions or tribally controlled colleges belong in that 

category. 

 We pledge to continue our efforts to reach a fair compromise with our Republican 

colleagues on this issue, a compromise that ensures that all colleges and all universities 

have the opportunity to grow and prosper in the 21st century. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN MAJOR OWENS, 11TH DISTRICT 

OF NEW YORK, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX A 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Owens. And as a matter of comment, if Mr. 

Hinojosa, the distinguished gentleman from Texas, wishes to make a statement, I would 

certainly yield to him as well. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RUBEN HINOJOSA, 15TH

DISTRICT OF TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Castle. I want to say that I appreciate your 

consideration under these unusual circumstances. I, too, wish to ask unanimous consent 

to make a statement and enter it into the record. 

 I am here on behalf of the Hispanic higher education community to echo the 

sentiments of my colleague, Congressman Owens, and encourage the majority to 

continue to work with us on resolving this issue expeditiously. 

 As of today, Democratic members of the House Education and the Workforce 

Committee are still boycotting any subcommittee assignments. We are receiving letters 

opposing the jurisdictional split from Hispanic serving institutions, presidents, and the 

overwhelming majority of them have agreed with us that this situation must be 

immediately remedied at a time when the recent census numbers indicate a 60 percent 

increase in the Hispanic population in the United States. We can no longer afford to 

dismiss nor downplay Hispanic education concerns. 

 On Wednesday, February 28th, 2001, the Democratic Caucus unanimously 

adopted a resolution that urges the House leadership to consider stepping in to help us 

reach a compromise in this situation. 

 The Education Committee minority staff, the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, and 

the Congressional Black Caucus are jointly drafting legislation that will be introduced in 
4

the very near future. 

 In closing, I want to say that this legislation addresses five or six primary issues 

impacting minority education, minority higher education, such as increased funding for 

HSI programs and a comprehensive drop-out prevention program to allow our students to 

finish high school and move on to college. 

 We will continue our efforts until all institutions are included in the 21st Century 

Competitive Subcommittee. 

 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN RUBEN HINOJOSA, 15TH DISTRICT OF 

TEXAS, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE 

APPENDIX B 

Chairman Castle. Thank you Mr. Owens, and thank you Mr. Hinojosa. 

 I appreciate your statements here today. I have no further comment on that at this 

time. As I indicated earlier, as you know, it doesn't pertain to this subcommittee, but let 

me just say something that does. 

 We have a distinguished group of witnesses here, and we are going to be 

discussing a subject entitled ``Measuring Success: Using Assessments and 

Accountability to Raise Student Achievement.'' 

 I realize the boycott, and I realize you are absolute right to do that. I would love 

to have you stay, though, because I think the witnesses are very good and have a lot to 

offer perhaps as part of what you're doing. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you for the invitation. Thank you for the invitation, and that's why 

we respect you so much. And we hope to be able to work with you very soon as this issue 

comes to a conclusion and is reconsidered. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, because I think we all agree on one thing with respect to 

what you're saying, because you want to educate kids as well as possible, and so do I and 

so do they. I happen to believe this is the one time in probably our political lifetimes that 

we can really fundamentally change and improve what we are doing in education. 

 So while I understand what you are doing today, and I have respect for that, 

please make sure that substantively we are following all this because pretty soon we are 

going to be marking all this if we get all these problems resolved. But thank you for your 

presence and your statements. We appreciate it. 

Mr. Hinojosa. Thank you, Chairman Castle. 

Chairman Castle. I will return to my opening statement now, and then we will go 

directly to the witnesses. 
5

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON 

EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF 

REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, D.C.

 I am pleased to welcome everybody in the room here today to the Education 

Reform Subcommittee's hearing, as I said, on Measuring Success: Using Assessments 

and Accountability to Raise Student Achievement. 

 As Secretary Paige testified yesterday, holding schools, districts and states 

responsible for successfully educating their students is a centerpiece of President Bush's 

``No Child Left Behind'' education proposal, and we are here today to better understand 

these issues as we work to re-authorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. 

 Although this Committee has worked to improve accountability for student 

achievement, many of our federal education programs still narrow their focus on process 

and paperwork instead of taking a broader view of program performance and its impact 

on learning gaps between or advantaged students and others who, because of geography, 

income or language skills, continue to lag behind. 

 Even now as students graduate from grade to grade, we spend billions of dollars a 

year, not because we know that our investment is improving academic achievement, but 

because we always have. 

 It is clear to me that states, school districts and teachers need better tools to 

identify weaknesses and address problems before the student falls behind his or her peers. 

 As part of this effort, President Bush asked states to test all children in grades 3 

through 8 in reading and math each year. This will provide parents and teachers with 

timely information on how well or how poorly a student or a class is performing in these 

important subjects, and it will focus attention on students when they first begin to falter, 

not after three years of failure. 

 The President also asks all states to participate in the National Assessment of 

Education Process, NAEP, to validate state assessments and ensure that achievement 

gaps are closing. 

 I strongly believe that this concept is critical if we are serious about holding all 

students to high standards and ensuring that states do not dumb down tests to produce 

good data points. 

 This is especially important for those students who are not performing at grade 

level, because without a reliable scientifically based assessment, these students, not their 
6

affluent peers, will be left behind on the road to opportunity. 

 Overall, the President's proposal seeks to strengthen accountability in a number of 

ways such as state sanctions and rewards based on student achievement, school choice for 

children of failing schools, and resources for states and districts to identify and improve 

low performing schools. 

 In addition, President Bush seeks to hold states accountable for moving limitedEnglish proficient students to English fluency and using research-based instruction to 

ensure that all children read by third grade. 

 Over the last few years, the pendulum of education reform has begun to swing 

away from the focus on imports that made up the status quo. The ``No Child Left 

Behind'' proposal brings us even closer to our goal of putting student performance first in 

federal education investments. It is my hope that we will be able to use this momentum 

to improve the education achievement of all children. 

 This morning we are fortunate to have experts on reading instruction and limitedEnglish proficiency students as well as experts in testing. I am looking forward to 

hearing their views and the views of our business representative on the President's 

proposal and how we can best implement these ideas. 

 Again, welcome, and thank you for taking the time to be with us. In just a few 

moments we will proceed with the introductions, and I am going to do that today perhaps 

a little differently. I am going to do them just before you speak so everybody will know 

who you are just before you speak, and we are ready for that moment now. 

 Let me just repeat for any subcommittee members that came in later that if you 

have opening statements, they may be submitted for the record, and we will return 

directly to our witnesses. 

 The normal course of procedure will be followed. You will each have five 

minutes. You will have a yellow light go on at the four-minute mark. You know then 

you have a minute, and then the red light goes on. At that point, about a half minute after 

that, the big guard comes along and removes you from the chair. It is not quite like that, 

but if you can start to really summarize as you get to the end of that yellow light and the 

red light. And then after you have all testified we will go in order of seniority of the 

subcommittee members who are here for their questions and answers, also confined 

generally to a five-minute period. 

 So that will be the order of business here today. I should also tell you that may be 

interrupted for votes at some point before the hearing is over. That normally is a twentyminute interruption. We may try to roll through it and have one person vote and come 

back, but I don't know if we will or not. If not, it will be about a twenty-minute delay 

process that we run in to. 

 We'll start with Mr. Edward B. Rust, Jr., who is the co-chair of the Business 

Coalition for Excellence in Education, a coalition of leading United States companies and 

business organizations dedicated to educational excellence. He also represents the 

Business Roundtable and is co-chair of the Committee for Economic Development 
7

Subcommittee on Education Policy and a chair of the Illinois Business Roundtable. 

Mr. Rust, is also the Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Office of State Farm 

Mutual Automobile Insurance Company in Bloomington, Illinois. So if you have any 

auto claims while you're here, you can get those resolved as well as hearing about 

education. We're delighted to have Mr. Rust here. 

Mr. Rust. 

WRITTEN OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN MICHAEL CASTLE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EDUCATION REFORM, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION 

AND THE WORKFORCE, U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, WASHINGTON, 

D.C. – SEE APPENDIX C 

 STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. RUST, JR., CHAIRMAN, 

EDUCATION TASK FORCE, CO-CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS 

COALITION FOR EXCELLENCE IN EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, 

D.C.

Mr. Rust. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It may be dangerous for me to deviate from my 

prepared remarks here, but looking at the time, I would like to touch on maybe just three 

key points. 

 First of all, from a business standpoint, let me say that the business community 

and the group that I am here representing, The Business Coalition for Excellence in 

Education, which is a very broad-based group of businesses as well as business-lead 

organizations. But let me comment as we talk about testing and about the position of our 

coalition.

 The coalition supports annual testing of students. I say that with great strains. We 

support annual testing of students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 with 

assessment tools that are aligned to rigorous academic standards and that are of very high 

quality.

 States will need time to align their tests to standards and to reach the goal of 

quality and coverage for all students. We feel strongly that the testing process not only 

measures student progress so that teachers, parents and principals know where each and 

every student is in relationship to the standards in their state but also target additional 

individual help, additional educational assistance to those students that have been 

assessed to need more help and assistance in meeting the standards. 

 A second point I would like to make, and I know there has been a good deal of 

discussion about what we are talking about here in terms of accountability and testing 

coming from Washington in the issue of local control. 
8

 I would say in many respects I am very supportive of local control and 

development in terms of testing and assessments, but that has to be put in context. 

Basically, what are the expectations? If I am a school board member, what is the goal? 

What is the end point? What am I looking at out there in terms of where I need to be 

moving our students in our school district towards achieving? What are the standards 

that we put in place in our state? Are they truly nationally benchmarked, world class 

expectations of what our students will be faced with when they enter the employment 

market or just seek to be productive citizens? 

 It is so critical that we set those standards high, those expectations where they 

need to be. Locally, let's determine how we can get there, but if locally we say we will 

make our own determination as to what our kids are expected to know, that is very shortsighted, because I can tell you that from a business standpoint, the level of expectation 

does not change whether you live in central Illinois, Washington, D.C., New York or 

anyplace else in the country. 

 When we look at an applicant seeking to be an employee, every applicant to be 

considered employee has to get across a basic hurdle in terms of aptitude, just ability to 

communicate, to read, to write, to be able to understand math, some degree of science is 

critical, and that doesn't make any difference where you are in the country. That's why I 

say local control is fine in figuring how do I get to this end point, to this level of 

excellence. But that level of excellence doesn't change strictly by where I happen to live. 

 Another point I would like to make is that you can almost look at this issue in 

terms of a consumer issue. School performance is indeed a consumer issue in my mind 

from the standpoint that most parents today really are uninformed and do not have the 

tools available to make a determination of how well their public schools are performing 

let alone the kinds of questions they should be asking. By this time of the school year, 

we know whether or not we have a good football team, basketball team, and cross 

country team. Is the chess team doing well? Is the debate team doing well? 

 But when it comes down to how well is our reading program performing, our 

algebra, our biology or physics, this is foreign information, unknown information to 

parents, to communities. And that's why it is so critical that we develop and implement 

good, solid metrics that help parents become better consumers of our public school 

system. That really drives activity, positive activity in the direction that is necessary to 

make sure that no child is left behind, that indeed students, as they move through the 

school system, are achieving at high levels of academic proficiency. 

 We know it from a business standpoint that you have got to measure progress or 

you will never know whether or not you are getting close to your goal. You have to reevaluate your goals and directions and make sure they are in the right directions, they are 

high enough, they are tough enough and the expectations are there. 

 Measurement is essential as we try to move down this path of improving the 

academic achievement of all of our students. Those are the three things I wanted to stress 

this morning. And after my colleagues speak on the panel, I'd be glad to respond to any 

questions.
9

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF EDWARD B. RUST, JR., CHAIRMAN, EDUCATION 

TASK FORCE, CO-CHAIRMAN, BUSINESS COALITION FOR EXCELLENCE IN 

EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX D 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Rust. We appreciate it. Our next witness is Mr. Kurt 

Landgraf who is President and Chief Executive Officer of Educational Testing Service in 

Princeton, New Jersey. ETS is the world's largest private educational testing and 

measurement organization, a leader in educational research. A non-profit company, ETS 

develops and annually administers over 11 million tests worldwide. 

Mr. Landgraf is also the Chairman of the Chauncey Group International, ETS 

Technologies and K-12 Works. It doesn't say it here, but he also is a high-ranking 

official of the Dupont Company and a good friend when we were all back in Delaware 

together.

Mr. Landgraf, it is a pleasure to have you here. 

 STATEMENT OF KURT M. LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT AND CHIEF 

EXECUTIVE OFFICER, EDUCATIONAL TESTING SERVICE, 

PRINCETON, N.J. 

Mr. Landgraf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. As you pointed out, I come 

from business like the President. I am a strong believer in high standards, use of data for 

product improvement, holding people responsible, and results in all environments. 

 ETS is the largest educational measurement institution in the world. We 

administer 11 million tests a year in over 180 countries. We are the prime contractor for 

NAEP since 1983. Our subsidiary, K-12 Works, offers testing in measurement services 

to elementary and secondary schools. We are the general contractor for the National 

Board of Professional Teaching Standards. We are also known for the SAT, the GRE, 

GMAT and the TOEFL tests. 

 I fully support the President's proposals, ``No Child Left Behind.'' I believe it is 

doable. It will help lead this country to significant educational reform. 

 As requested, I will address three main issues requested by this subcommittee. 

First, increasing accountability and closing the achievement gap. The plan calls for high 

standards, strong accountability and annual standards-based assessments. 

 Tests have a critical role to play in this education reform. Good testing done right 

is a good thing. By this we mean well-designed technically rigorous tests tied to 

standards and curriculum. Tests help us focus on what is most important, student 

achievement. Without tests, we don't know how much students have learned relative to 

standards, relative to other students and relative to other countries. Tests give useful 

information to guide instruction, help students learn and to make sound policy decisions. 
10

Such data will help us close the persistent achievement gap. 

 But testing is not enough. The issue before us is not simply producing more tests. 

We must muster the political, moral and professional will to improve student 

achievement. Testing is just one, albeit, key step in education reform. We must ensure 

that action is taken to improve achievement so the results improve the next time we test. 

 Second, annual testing in reading and math. The benefits of annual testing in 

grades 3 through 8 as children develop foundational learning skills are enormous. If we 

do not measure critical results accurately and often, we do not know where we are going 

or how we will get there. Scores must be published quickly. Users must understand 

them. And a plan of action must help students to meet the standards. 

 Quality and fairness in testing is essential. We must ensure that quality and 

fairness of all tests are a paramount concern. In my written testimony, I described several 

aspects, including assurances against biased test questions, the importance of test 

reliability, validity and the appropriate use of scores. 

 Third, the use of NAEP in the President's plan. NAEP, the nation's report card, is 

the most widely respected, nationally representative, continuous assessment of what 

American students know and can do in various subject areas. It is reasonably that the 

President has proposed verifying state test scores by confirming them with NAEP scores. 

 How best to use NAEP in a confirmatory role should be seriously considered by 

groups of experts in the coming months. How can we do this right? The President's 

testing plan should go forward. To do it right, I have stated in my testimony ten essential 

ingredients a state must provide. These range from unambiguous standards to curricula 

link to standards, to professional development for teachers, the opportunity for students' 

assessments aligned with standards and remedial programs for who do not meet them. 

 Congress also has an important role to provide the resources needed, not just for 

state assessments in NAEP but to help states implement the entire reform plan. 

Recommendations I would submit to you: I urge this Committee to balance the needed 

pressure for change with time needed to do this right. 

 I recommend that the subcommittee include in its bill proper safeguards for scores 

used in high-stakes situations. I recommend that NAEP be used as an instrument for 

confirming state assessment results after additional study. 

 I urge the subcommittee to remember that testing is not enough, and to provide 

the very significant resources needed, as promised by the President, to implement the 

entire reform effort. 

 I recommend that Congress create a challenge grant program to improve and 

expand the use of technology and test administration and in the management of 

assessment data. 

 I urge the Committee to authorize an ongoing research program to document the 

progress and outcomes of the President's plan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
11

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF KURT LANDGRAF, PRESIDENT, EDUCATIONAL 

TESTING SERVICE, PRINCETON, N.J. – SEE APPENDIX E 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Landgraf. We appreciate your testimony. We will 

next go to Mr. Mark Musick. Mr. Musick is the Chairman of the National Assessment 

Governing Board in Washington, D.C. NAGB, as it is referred to as its acronym, is an 

independent bipartisan board whose membership consists of governors, state legislators, 

state and local school officials, educators, business representatives and members of the 

general public. NAGB sets policy for the National Assessments of Educational progress, 

the NAEP tests that we have been referring to here. 

 Additionally, Mr. Musick is President of the Southern Regional Education Board 

in Atlanta, Georgia. I've had the pleasure of working with Mark for a number of years on 

various subjects. I know of his interest and devoted interest to kids and education. We 

appreciate that. 

Mr. Musick. 

 STATEMENT OF MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Mr. Musick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Members of the Committee, I am here today to 

speak on basically two issues. First, as requested to say a few things about the national 

assessment, and then to get to the question about using NAEP in a role of confirming 

state results. 

 First of all, the National Assessment, NAEP, is not exactly a household word, but 

it is the only continuing nationally representative source of information about student 

achievement in America. It has been in business more than 30 years providing this 

information, for the last ten years providing comparable state results, for the last ten years 

providing performance standards information, that is, showing whether achievement is at 

the basic, proficient or advanced level across America. 

 Now, there is no other feasible way to get this nationally representative and state 

comparable information. You cannot take the SAT, ACT, Florida FCAT, North Carolina 

ABC, Maryland MSPAP, Kentucky CATS, Texas TAAS. You can't add all of those up 

and get a nationally representative picture of America, nor can you compare all of those 

and make sense out of them. All of those tests have their purpose. Their purpose is not 

to provide a nationally representative picture of America or comparable state results, and 

I believe that is why the President has proposed using NAEP in the role, Mr. Chairman, 

that you have made reference to. 

 Using NAEP alongside state results in a role as Mr. Landgraf has described as 

confirming evidence. Can this be done? Yes, it is doable. There are details to be worked 

out. I believe those can be worked out, but it's important going into this to make sure you 

are clear on two or three things, a little like when President Kennedy said we were going 

to the moon by the end of the decade and come back. We could have gotten to the moon 
12

much earlier in the decade; we just couldn't get back alive. And so you need to make 

sure you are clear about three or four things. 

 First of all, this is about confirming direction. This is about seeing if achievement 

in America is moving in the same direction. This is about confirming that gaps are 

closing, particularly the ethnic and the socioeconomic student achievement gaps. This is 

not about prescription, and it's not about NASA-type precision. It will be a reasonably 

precise comparison about the direction of change. And if you're not comfortable with 

that, you better get comfortable with it in my view. 

 More than 40 states are already using NAEP in a way to unofficially confirm their 

state results to get an additional snapshot, to have more indifferent information about 

achievement, to give them an external lens to look at their results. 

 Now everyone claims to want high standards. I work with 16 states. I've yet to 

meet the first governor, the first elected official, or the first educator that's for low 

standards. The question is how can states internally agree on setting standards that are 

high enough. And this is where having the NAEP information, along with other 

information, is helpful. 

 Now, President Bush has asked NAEP to do more than it is currently doing. It 

already provides reading, writing, math, science, civics, history, geography, arts and soon 

foreign language information at 4, 8 and 12. The President wants us to provide annually 

this reading and math information. Again, I say it can be done. 

 The reason I believe the President is asking for NAEP to move from this 

unofficial role to official role has to do with the fact that it is providing information 

external to the state, it has credibility, and it is comparable across states. 

 Now, there are a number of issues to work out in this process. We simply don't 

want this testing to crowd out the important testing in other areas, but I would say to you 

that we can do this. We will need to provide this testing on a turnkey operation so that 

schools will not be burdened to have to do the testing under some other condition. 

 So, Mr. Chairman, my view is that we need this information. We need it because 

states in state accountability systems have found that just having the information is not 

enough, you have to have the accountability program. 

Mr. Isakson I think will tell you that in Georgia where we had a voluntary program, the 

low performing schools don't volunteer for help. You need the information plus the 

accountability program at the state level to make sure these children are being served.

Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL 

ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, D.C. – SEE APPENDIX F

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Musick. Next we will hear from Dr. Reid Lyon. Dr. 

Lyon is the Chief of the Child Development and Behavior Branch of the National 
13

Institutes of Health in Bethesda, Maryland. A research psychologist, Dr. Lyon directs the 

development and management research programs in reading development and disorders, 

cognitive, social and effective development in cognitive neuroscience. He has served on 

the faculties of Northwestern University and the University of Vermont, has taught third 

grade and special education, and has served as a school and educational psychologist. 

 I would also add there is a great deal of respect for Dr. Lyon's research 

background here on this Committee, and when we are through with this bill, which is 

going to be a while, we are going to be turning to OERI, education and research, and you 

will probably be back for a few sessions on that as well. We are pleased to have Dr. 

Lyon here. 

 STATEMENT OF REID LYON, CHIEF OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT 

AND BEHAVIOR BRANCH, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, 

BETHESDA, M.D. 

Dr. Lyon. Let me just start out by applauding your convening this Committee that brings 

together experts in assessment as well as experts in what the assessment will actually 

evaluate. That is, when we are talking about accountability and standards, we have got to 

make sure that kids can meet those standards, and they meet those standards by being 

taught in the most effective ways by the most well prepared individuals. 

 You have asked me today to discuss the President's particular initiatives Reading 

First and Early Reading First, how those initiatives are based upon good scientific 

evidence and, in fact, if they are production, and how the results from these programs can 

interact with special education programs by actually reducing the number of kids who are 

identified as in need of special education. 

 Let me say at the outset that these initiatives, the President's initiatives and the 

Secretary of Education's initiatives are critical, number one, and they are also not 

business as usual. I think your comment earlier that for the first time there are factors 

coalescing that can make an astounding difference in education are upon us. 

 Why are these initiatives critical? At the present time, 38 percent of our school 

children, our fourth graders, cannot read well enough to understand a basic paragraph.

Not only that, if you disaggregate those data, over 60 percent of youngsters from poverty, 

primarily youngsters who are African-American and Hispanic, cannot read well enough 

at the fourth grade to understand what they have read, and that is unconscionable. It's 

unconscionable particularly when we have the evidence that say we know how to do 

better than that. 

 As you all know on this Committee, as we have testified many times, the NICHD 

research has taught us that we can identify with good accuracy youngsters at about five 

years of age who are at risk for reading failure. We can bring to bear scientifically based 

instructional modalities. And because of that, what is 38 percent of children's failure rates 

now decreases to 5 percent if we do that well. 
14

 The Reading First initiative stands on this research very strongly. Briefly, the 

Reading First initiative that has been proposed by the President asks that states apply for 

money via a formula-based mechanism but, in contrast to previous times, once those 

states have that application in, it must be reviewed by the most rigorous peer-reviewed 

scientific standards we can bring to bear such that as money flows in the Reading First 

initiative, only about 50 percent, given our experience of the states, will be able to 

acquire that money initially. 

 What is critically important is that peer review, that analysis of how well the 

states have incorporated the scientific in their assessment programs and in their teaching 

programs, they will be provided with extensive information that allows them to improve 

what they are trying to do. Not only that, local school districts and states that show that 

they are raising reading rates above grade level in the third grade can then compete for 

additional money to be able to ensure that all children are going to be reading above 

grade level. 

 So in contrast to the past, educational funding is now tied to strong research 

accountability, the use of scientific evidence in determining how to assess kids and how 

to apply programs, and also rewarding states in local districts on the basis of actually 

improving achievement in reading. This is the first time we have seen this happen, the 

first time we have seen these kinds of mechanisms based upon scientific research. And 

we feel that if the Department of Education has the necessary talent and infrastructure to 

move this, that we will see a tremendous difference in the number of youngsters who do 

not learn to read, and that will be a downward spiral, that is, many fewer kids will have 

that kind of difficulty. 

 That is still not good enough. Early Reading First is a program designed to help 

three to five-year-olds, also from poverty, to acquire those basic skills via scientificallybased early interventions, and that in fact is going to be critical for the kids most at risk 

from poverty in order to even enter kindergarten with a leg up so that they can succeed in 

school.

 I would be glad to answer questions that you have after these discussions. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF REID LYON, CHIEF OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT 

AND BEHAVIOR BRANCH, NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF HEALTH, BETHESDA, 

M.D. – SEE APPENDIX G

Chairman Castle. Thank you very much, Dr. Lyon. We appreciate that. 

 Our final witness, our clean-up hitter today, is Dr. Rosalie Pedalino Porter. Dr. 

Porter is a member of the Board of Directors of the Institute for Research in English 

Acquisition and Development (READ) and the editor of READ perspectives in 

Washington, D.C. 

Dr. Porter has experienced the various aspects of bilingual education. She has served as a 

Spanish-English bilingual teacher at the Armory Street School in Springfield, 

Massachusetts and was Director of Bilingual English As a Second Language programs at 
15

Newton Public Schools in Newton, Massachusetts, and we're delighted to have Dr. Porter 

here as well. Dr. Porter. 

 STATEMENT OF ROSALIE PEDALINO PORTER, MEMBER, 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS, EDITOR, READ PERSPECTIVES, 

INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH IN ENGLISH ACQUISITION AND 

DEVELOPMENT (READ), WASHINGTON, D.C. 

Ms. Porter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very much in support of the parts of 

President Bush's education policy initiative that deal with limited-English proficient 

students.

 We have given thirty years of special programs for this population of about 3.5 

million children who enter our public school classrooms without a sufficient command of 

English to do regular classroom work. However, the research that has been done has 

been of a poor quality, and the great lack has been in accountability for bilingual 

children. 

 President Bush's initiative emphasizes that performance standards will be applied, 

that local districts will have flexibility in the kind of education they provide for these 

children but will be held accountable for results. 

 Why is testing LEP students so important? Primarily, it has been neglected. We 

have not charted the progress of these students either in their learning of the English 

language or in their learning of school subjects. 

 I would like to address three particular states in which I have done a great deal of 

work in the past ten years where they are using different approaches but they are heading 

in what I believe is the right direction. The trend they are following is to take account of 

LEP students, to assess their progress, to provide new money to fund the kinds of 

interventions that are needed to help them. 

 Without the testing, we cannot identify the students, the grade level, the particular 

school, the subject area in which more help is needed. I will start with Texas because 

Texas has done a great deal since 1985 in defining the standards of what children should 

learn, and in designing tests to assess that this is actually being accomplished. 

 Testing occurs every year. New resources have been put into the schools where 

students are having the least success. And the proof of the wisdom of this policy is in the 

results that Texas has demonstrated. 

 The Rand Corporation published a study just within the past year in which they 

showed minority student achievement in Texas has made the greatest strides in closing 

the gap with white students. This is an admiral accomplishment, and it compares 

favorably with many other states. 

 The Texas accountability system was challenged in court on the claim that 

minority students could not achieve the standards of the 10th grade test for high school 
16

graduation. I was an expert witness in that case on behalf of the State of Texas, and the 

State of Texas was ruled to be doing what it should be doing. We won the case on the 

grounds that year after year, minority student achievement was improving and that 

resources were being applied to help this to happen. 

 The next state I would like to describe is my own state of Massachusetts where 

we wrote the first law on bilingual education, but we have been incredibly negligent in 

collecting data on student performance until 1993, when Massachusetts funded a 10-year 

program to design frameworks for what students are responsible for learning and related 

assessments to see that these kinds of learning are taking place. 

 Starting in 1998, we began statewide testing that included LEP students. The 

results are not very encouraging, but at the beginning we will not always see very good 

results. We have to have the patience to persist to continue these efforts. 

 I would like to mention California, although I see that I am up to my summing up 

time, because I do believe that in California, the coming together of the passage of 

Proposition 227, which mandates that immigrant children are to be taught English as 

quickly and efficiently as possible, and the new state accountability system have come 

together, and the first two years' results are very encouraging. Thank you. 

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF ROSALIE PEDALINO PORTER, MEMBER, BOARD 

OF DIRECTORS, EDITOR, READ PERSPECTIVES, INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH 

IN ENGLISH ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT (READ), WASHINGTON, D.C. 

- SEE APPENDIX H 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Porter. Thank you all very much. Let me explain the 

circumstances here. We are liable to run into some votes here in 15 minutes to half an 

hour. When we do, it is going to be six votes in a row. When it is votes in a row, we 

have to suspend the hearing because we have to be over there in the chambers, which 

would cost us about an hour. 

 So what I am going to try to do is to get in as many questions and answers as we 

can. So I am going to impose what we call the five-minute rule strictly. I need your help.

If somebody asks you, as the red light goes on, if all of you would answer a question, I 

am not going to allow that to happen. And I am going to ask a question right now that 

three or four of you may answer. If you could each answer it in 30 seconds or less, that 

would be very helpful to as far as that is concerned. 

 So I'll start by yielding, I am trying to get everybody in if I can, and you can see 

the interest in the subject matter at this subcommittee meeting. 

Mr. Rust, I am not going to ask you a question, but I am going to say something, and then 

I am going to ask you not to say anything back, and maybe we can talk about it later. 

 I am very interested in dealing with the business community to try to get the 

business community to cooperate with each other, and I understand business communities 

are private and we cannot tell you what do and we do not want to. That is not our goal at 

all. But I have visited many, many programs and have seen literally billions of dollars 
17

being put into education directly, not just commenting on what you need, by the business 

community. I am sure State Farm does, others do as well. And yet, I do not see a lot of 

coordination of all that in terms of talking to each other and understanding what works or 

does not work. 

 I would hope that in the Business Roundtable, and it is usually the larger 

companies that can afford to do this, we can get more discussion and coordination of that.

I would love to talk to you about it at some point. If you can say something in 15 

seconds, and then I have got to move on to my next question. 

Mr. Rust. I would agree wholeheartedly with you on that point. In fact, the Business 

Coalition for Excellence in Education is just that, in bringing for the first time, many of 

the business-led organizations within Washington with one voice, and it is something that 

we are working hard on. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Rust. It is something we need to work hard on. 

 I am going to ask the other four, this is going to be a broad question, I will need 

brief answers. I think I heard you say this. I heard, I think Dr. Porter say it and the 

others. But I am very concerned that the program that we are working on, and we are 

clearly working on the President's program, ``No Child Left Behind,'' that is the starting 

point, and we are marking it up as we go along. We could have a mark-up here at this 

full Committee level within a couple of weeks, three weeks, something of that nature. It's 

going that quickly. 

 My concern is to make sure that we are helping those students who I consider to 

be disadvantaged. Disadvantaged can be a student, obviously, who is bilingual or 

perhaps not bilingual but lingual in a subject other than the one they are being taught in.

Obviously, it usually includes poor children that do not have the same opportunities. It 

includes poor, more disadvantaged school districts that do not have the same ability to 

fund to do things or a variety of other reasons, maybe exempting those who are truly so 

learning disabled that we have to have special programs for them. 

 I am very interested in that. I think that Dr. Lyon addressed this somewhat when 

he talked about Reading First and Early Reading First, but as a whole, it is my judgment 

that this program has made a very special effort to reach out and making sure that we are 

raising the bar, particularly for those lower income students. 

 So I am very interested if you can make brief comments about that, and if you 

would do that starting perhaps with Mr. Landgraf and run right through the four of you, 

and maybe I'll have time for one more question, maybe I will not. 

Mr. Landgraf. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that you are exactly correct. We are 

fully supportive of testing based upon local standards in a curriculum. The President's 

proposal is very intensely aware of the fact that we have varying degrees of ability in 

school systems, that we have to tie this to local standards. I believe it is very important to 

recognize that the testing can be fair and equitable and taken to a broad heterogeneous 

group of students. 
18

 We must look at the total picture, not testing, and provide resources to local 

school systems to ensure that no student is left behind. 

Chairman Castle. Mr. Musick? 

Mr. Musick. Yes. We have seen it in Texas, North Carolina and Kentucky especially.

States are now ready, I think, to deal with this issue. We have known in NAEP for 10 

years that on average, an 8th grade white student reads at the average level of a 12th 

grade African-American student, but I think the country is now ready to do something 

about this. 

 We will have to boost the NAEP sample a bit I think in order to get the precision 

needed for those scores for African-American and Hispanic students, but it is the right 

thing to do, and NAEP can be helpful in this way. 

Chairman Castle. I have a lot of NAEP questions we may never get to. 

Dr. Lyon? 

Dr. Lyon. The President's initiatives go directly to those kids in the third grade who are 

reading below grade level in addition to those youngsters who live in empowerment 

zones or enterprise communities and go to schools that are designated for school 

improvement. Clearly, this is targeted towards those youngsters most at risk, children 

from poverty, and children from a variety of different ethnic groups that, by no fault of 

their own, are mostly at risk. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Dr. Lyon. And Dr. Porter? 

Ms. Porter. Very recently there have been some very good studies charting the excellent 

results in schools with mostly children coming from families of poverty. 

 A successful school study published last year looked at eight schools across the 

country. So it can be done. But lowering the standards is not the way to do it. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you all. I do have other questions. We may have a second 

round, I do not know, but I want to give everyone a chance, so I am going to go to Mr. 

Schaffer of Colorado next. 

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Of course the centerpiece of the Bush plan is 

school choice, and that is the ultimate value of testing. Mr. Rust, you mentioned that 

parents really hunger for information about the performance of their students, and they 

seem to know how the basketball team is doing but they do not know where they stand in 

relation to reading or physics and all the rest. 

 And I do think parents do want to know that, do want that information. And the 

ultimate expression of the value of that for parents is the ability to use that to select the 

appropriate school that earns the confidence of their child, and the Bush plan makes that 

really the central feature and the defining feature of our education reform efforts. 

 But I am curious as to when it comes to some other value for testing, finances, for 

example. I would like you to speak to the notion of having cash flowed to districts or 
19

states that seem to perform well on criterion reference tests and perhaps a norm reference 

test versus funds flowing away from or a smaller amount of cash, I guess, the sanction 

being imposed on states that may not respond with positive trends on perhaps a different 

set of tests. What impact does the cash have, this cash flow issue? That is an important 

question I think many of us have on the impact of the cash being tied to the test. 

Mr. Rust. Let me first say that it would be from a business perspective, our opinion is we 

want to get all schools performing at higher levels. The testing assessment is a way of 

giving us diagnostic tools that we can point and tell what schools, what students, what 

classes need more work. 

 Frankly, the cash flowing with one direction or another is long-term. You would 

not have that as a need if all schools were performing well, but we have got to find ways, 

incentives out there to really get the attention within the education establishment, within 

communities to drive necessary change. If we do not have something out there, there is 

not a consequence for continued low expectations and rewarding low expectations. We 

will never make the kind of movement up in terms of achievement that all of our kids 

must have. 

Mr. Schaffer. Well, school choice would be the best consequence I think. The notion 

that the customer can choose, just as in your business. I am a State Farm customer. I 

picked you because I like the way the ratings look, and I my return on it. 

Mr. Rust. I appreciate that. 

Mr. Schaffer. But if those measurements prove to suggest that there was a better way to 

do business, I assure you, I would walk way and go there, and I think that same kind of 

pressure needs to be available to the institutions involved in education that responded. 

Customers and the cash flow come from the bottom up rather than the top down.

Mr. Rust. Well, along the point you make, we try to look at the same kind of metrics in 

terms of customer satisfaction. And if we see something turning in a negative trend, then 

we want to take immediate steps to address that. 

 The same thing in an academic setting as I look at my school. If I have some 

performance problems, if I have a problem with my professional development with some 

of my teachers or particular subject areas, I need to be addressing that right away. 

 You look at some of the experiences in Chicago that have given a number of 

schools an opportunity to change. And unless after a couple of years they did not change, 

then there were some rather severe consequences, but it is a matter of driving in the 

direction that we feel we need to go in terms of achieving high academic levels for our 

students.

Mr. Schaffer. I do not know whom the right person is to ask the question, but probably 

whoever knows the most about NAEP. In terms of measuring student growth on a yearto- year basis, how suitable is NAEP for measuring that? It is my understanding it is more 

of a cross-sectional snapshot of student progress in a state, or general progress in a state 

rather than measuring actual student growth from year to year. 
20

Mr. Musick. At the present time, NAEP provides only national and state level 

information. So to that extent, you are correct. And it also is a sample. The information 

that you are getting has a bit of a measurement error in it of course. So but when you do 

it over time, and if you did it annually, is it precise enough to give you meaningful results 

year to year for the students in your state? I would say yes. 

Mr. Landgraf. Also keep in mind that the President's reading initiatives carry with it a 

strong performance-monitoring component here at the federal level. And in order for a 

state and its local districts to indicate that what they are using is in fact effective year by 

year, those data have to be collected. And again, the technical assistance and how you do 

that should be part and parcel of this initiative, and it will be. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Bob. 

 We will now go to the distinguished gentleman from the Commonwealth of 

Pennsylvania. Mr. Greenwood. 

Mr. Greenwood. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have two questions, one that goes to 

issues concerning the schools at the top of the performance and one at the bottom, and 

they come from two meetings that I had last week, one with superintendents in my school 

districts. And their question is, since the fundamental point of requiring the annual 

testing of these schools is to identify the schools that need the most work, need the most 

resources and may need ultimately to have some other options available, since that is a 

fundamental purpose, would it make sense for us to allow those schools that do the very 

best, consistently report that in each grade the kids are doing the best, to essentially test 

out from the federal requirement, to do the tests one year or two years or three years if 

they have across-the-board excellence results? Does it make sense for us to say okay, 

you can test if you want, but it is no longer a federal requirement? And I'd like any of 

you to respond to that. 

 Secondly, at the bottom, for those who consistently do the poorest, it seems to me 

that ultimately the tool that is going to be the most useful to bring those kids up is to have 

more hands on deck. If you can have more people in the classroom, reducing the ratio of 

student to teacher, you are going to probably be the most effective. 

 Someone talked about a new focus on teacher quality and support a new model of 

teacher preparation and professional development. Mr. Rust said that. 

 The second meeting I had last week was with teachers. And I said for those 

schools that are doing the worst, and of course they are not fond of vouchers of any kind, 

what would you recommend? Their recommendation was there are a lot of kids, a lot of 

really smart kids in teacher colleges that, according to the teachers, spend a lot of time 

that is not very productive in relatively obscure, abstract academic processes on campus. 

If you could get those kids, particularly the best of the kids, in the teaching colleges into 

classrooms of the worst schools sooner, it would be a 2 for 1. The kids would probably 

learn to teach a lot faster there, frankly, with very challenging on-hand situation than they 

would reading textbooks in the library back on campus. 

 Two, you would have more hands on deck, energetic, eager, young people that 

could take some of these kids and help bring them along. I would be interested in the 
21

response to either of those questions, at the top of the scale and bottom. 

Mr. Landgraf. Mr. Greenwood, I'd like to answer the first question quickly. I think that 

for both schools that perform at the top of the scale and those schools that perform at the 

bottom of the scale, one of the greatest benefits in the President's proposal is incremental 

examination of improvement. So I would argue that looking at testing in conjunction 

with other input and output factors in the school systems is very important to do on a 

year-to-year basis and would help the education system in the United States improve. 

Dr. Lyon. Even the highest performing schools have students who can learn more, and 

there are a variety of assessments, obviously, that can be carried out. But teachers, in the 

context of your second question, have to know how, in fact, their kids are learning and 

what specifically they have not learned no matter how bright they are. So ongoing 

assessment is critical from a learning perspective. 

 With respect to low performing schools, we have got to do a number of things to 

provide teachers with the power to be able to make those changes, and you put your 

finger clearly on it, and that is providing teachers with the content that lets them know 

how kids learn to read, what goes wrong when they do not, and what you do about it, the 

opportunity to watch masters at work and the opportunity to be given guided feedback as 

they themselves try to carry out those complex interactions. 

 But those low performing schools will remain low performing unless we get to 

those children very, very early with the right stuff, with strong teachers and strong 

research-based programs. 

Mr. Rust. Let me make two quick observations. One is you look at even the high 

performing or low performing in testing. To individually break that out by individual 

students who you can diagnostically tell if I have got one or two students even in the best 

performing schools that need help and I can rifle in and target and take care of that 

individual's needs. 

 The other is, you look at high performing or low performing schools and the 

quality of teaching in that classroom and the investing and teacher papers that you 

reference, what we were looking at there was really re-thinking the whole teaching 

profession continuum from schools of education to early entry into teaching. 

Mr. Greenwood. The yellow light is on. Does anybody like the idea of having the 

students get in the classrooms to add value to that experience? 

Mr. Rust. I would be selective in the classroom because some of your newer students 

may indeed have trouble and some of them most challenging. You may want to find 

ways to put incentives for your true master teachers to help them get in the more difficult 

areas and have them monitor or mentor the newer teachers. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you very much, Mr. Greenwood. 

 The gentleman from Indiana, Mr. Souder. 

Mr. Souder. Thank you. I apologize for being here late. I have two other hearings going 

on simultaneously, and I tried to go through your testimony. I did not get a chance to 
22

make a opening statement. I want to address a couple of comments off of your written 

testimony that I just went through. One is, and this is just in general, I find it somewhat 

insulting in a lot of our debates that there is an implication that those of us who have 

concern about the national standards on tests do not understand the importance of 

accountability. I have an MBA. I am very much into accountability. I favor local and 

state testing. I do not favor national testing. 

 Now let me get into a couple of questions. I am particularly concerned about Mr. 

Rust's testimony where he says, and I presume you are here on behalf of the Business 

Roundtable, that you would favor NAEP being a benchmark. And I wonder if in the 

insurance industry, which often works by commission and makes individual decisions, 

whether you would like to have a national benchmark on commission standards coming 

out of the Federal Government. 

 I wonder if, for example, the average consumer in the United States finds the 

trade-offs in health insurance, car insurance, and house insurance very difficult? Would 

you like to have a national standard that is one size fits all on insurance? And that the 

business community, because you are concerned legitimately about what is being 

produced in our schools and the ability of our workforce to compete in an international 

market may be looking at a principle by having a second guess on the state's 

accountability that is going to spill into our health insurance debate and all of our other 

business debates, because the medicine that is being proposed here has consequences far 

beyond just an education debate. It's a question of should Washington be the ultimate 

arbitrator? 

 Now, I want to follow up because in the testimony of Mr. Landgraf, he 

specifically says that state curricula ought to be linked to state standards. And I 

understand that in NAEP, it rotates with schools. It is a test that is not given to 

everybody, but is available on the home page and everybody can figure out what the 

questions are. I mean it is many, many pages. It is a very comprehensive test and 

different standards, and it is naive to think that if NAEP becomes the ultimate standard 

for state tests, and if it is generally believed that what is being tested ought to be what is 

studied, and that ought to be what is in the curriculum, it is inevitable that if there is a 

NAEP check on state standards, that what questions you are asking on the NAEP test, if 

that becomes a federal mandate, it is inevitable that that will lead eventually to schools 

responding and trying to address those questions. 

 For example, you also had in your written testimony you are looking for a 

benchmark, but the benchmark will become the standard. That is what many of our 

concerns are. And that by not having competition in how the states are going to be 

benchmarked, one of the other concerns is that so we can measure this, it would be very 

interesting to hear which state standards are in the view of those who favor a national 

benchmark are failing, not general allegations, but the names of the states. 

 Now we can look at the home page and see which states in fact are not doing as 

well compared to NAEP. One of those states is Texas. We heard the last witness say that 

Texas, for example, had great achievement under Governor Bush in reaching minority 

students. But on the NAEP home page, according to comparing Texas to when Governor 

Richards was Governor of Texas, the fact is, that in one category it is up one point, and in 

the other category it is down two points. That is the danger of using any one standard, 
23

rather than a Rand study or others. 

Chairman Castle. Mr. Souder, we are enforcing the five-minute rule, so if you want to 

respond, maybe you should ask a question. 

Mr. Souder. I've got one minute left. 

Chairman Castle. The five-minute rule includes their answers. 

Mr. Souder. I said in effect I was going to make a statement because I read that. 

 I want to point out also that in the NAEP, in Mr. Musick's statement that you 

express concern that just by taking math and science in NAEP standards, we might 

undermine some of the others. And some of us are very concerned that, for example, on 

the NAEP home page, for example, in the history standards, there are questions that are 

unacceptable to some people because you get into more ideological decisions than you 

do, for example, in math and English. And so some of us find that particular argument to 

be even more disturbing that NAEP, for example, foresees the expansion of the standards 

beyond where the President even has the proposal. 

 So I do not oppose testing. I think testing is extremely important, but I have 

concern with the national component to double-check the states. I think they are doing a 

reasonable job. 

Chairman Castle. Mr. Souder, In think in fairness we should let Mr. Musick have one 

minute to respond and then move on from there. Thank you, sir. Mr. Musick. 

Mr. Musick. The term NAEP as a benchmark, and I do not want to get into some 

semantic gymnastics here, but my view as Chair of this Board, and I think the Board's 

discussion of this is that NAEP provides important additional information. It is not about 

using NAEP to say this is the standard or this is the benchmark, it is about is the 

information we are getting from NAEP telling us that we are moving in the same 

direction that our state tests are telling us. If not, what does that mean? And there is 

some important historical evidence. 

 If you look at the Texas information, for example, if in fact African-Americans 

across this nation were reading as well as African-Americans in Texas, we would cut by 

one-half the gap in reading between white Americans and black African-Americans. So 

there is some dramatic evidence even in states where the NAEP scores look 

comparatively low because the NAEP standards are comparatively high. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you very much. The gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Hilleary. 

Mr. Hilleary. Mr. Chairman, thank you for this hearing. I am sick that I was so late 

getting here. This is what I have been looking forward to for a while now, and now 

everything just kind of exploded on me this morning, but I am sure it was a great hearing 

and I am going to read with relish the comments that were printed. 

 I guess to pick up a little bit on Mr. Souder's comments, I do not know we can 

actually have a national standard unless we have some kind of standard test around the 

country. Conservatives, we have always had some concerns about a national test, 
24

especially if it is driving dollars one way or another because then people really start 

paying attention to that test. 

 You all probably saw the color-coded county-by-county map of where the votes 

came from and who won which counties, Mr. Gore or Bush, and it was a stark map. I 

mean, it showed the coastlines were for Mr. Gore and the inner cities were for Mr. Gore. 

Everything else was for Mr. Bush. It seemed to me that the whole thing came down to 

almost a values thing. It was not about the economy, it was not about anything. I may be 

right or wrong about that, but that is what I thought. And it shows that there is a distinct 

difference in how people think about what the values ought to be between the coastline 

and the inner cities and in the heartland and in the rural areas. 

 Those of us who happen to be from the heartland and the rural areas sometimes 

get a little concerned that those from the coastlines and inner cities sometimes would like 

to have a different set of values, and we are concerned that those values would be thrust 

upon us possibly potentially through a national test if rewards are driving from how one 

does on that test. 

 I do not know how likely that is, but it is sometimes the sun and the moon and the 

stars all line up in a certain way. It may not happen very often, but in 1993 we had a 

Democratic president, I am not really slamming on them, I am just stating a fact here, a 

Democrat majority in the Senate and the House and we got the biggest tax increase in 

history. Maybe it was, maybe it was not, that is what we called it all the time. It would 

not have happened if that confluence of events had not taken place, all branches being in 

the same party. 

 Well, by the same token, some of us have a concern at a future date when 

something similar like that might happen, those people being elected from the coastlines 

and the inner cities, they might drive a national standard that has values seeping into that 

national test that we do not agree with. Now some people kind of roll their eyes and say 

well, gosh, that is silly, that is stupid, they are Neanderthal, 50’s people, what are you 

thinking? I do not know how likely it is, but we think there is potential there. But I keep 

thinking we have to have some national standard, so I open up the question to anybody, 

how can we get local accountability? 

 Now, I know on NAEP you have folks who are elected officials on your board 

and all those kinds of things, but how do we get local accountability and also have a 

national standard that relieves our fears, whether we should have those fears or not, but 

relieves those fears, yet, we have the national standard. Anybody? 

Mr. Rust. Let me maybe take a first cut at that. I think you could probably come to the 

conclusion that there are certain subject areas, math, science, to a degree reading, writing, 

some of these that regardless of where you are in the country, be it in the heartland, be it 

in the inner city, be it on either coast, that everybody ought to be achieving or performing 

at a very high level. You know, I think that would be readily agreed to even by local 

school boards in saying that is what we need to be shooting for. 

 And in my earlier verbal comments, that is, as a school board member, that is the 

goal. That is where we want our students to be exiting our public schools with the skill 

level. So that when they go into the job market, they can compete with people from 

elsewhere around the state or around the country. I think that is very important 
25

particularly at that cut. 

Mr. Landgraf. Mr. Hilleary, let me just add to that. I think two things. First, the NAEP 

exam has been offered for 30 years. As I said previously, a great value comes to 

policymakers like you in having an incremental look over a period of time at how states 

do perform. 

 The President's proposal is to link NAEP with local state assessments tied to local 

curricula and standards. 

 Second point I would make to you is that prior to this job I was the Chief 

Operating Officer and Chairman of Dupont Europe. As a policymaker, I would urge this 

Committee to be cognizant of the fact that on a global basis, unless we measure education 

in the United States, vis-à-vis other countries, we stand the risk of falling behind 

economically in the global worldwide economy. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you. We are going to go to the distinguished gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Ehlers. We are still racing the clock a little bit here. 

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I certainly second that last comment made 

because much of my effort the past few years have been improving our educational 

system so we do not fall further behind other countries, which we are doing. 

 Also, Mr. Rust, you have received some comments about State Farm Insurance, I 

believe. I should just say that State Farm Insurance is a fine company. I used to use it 

until you canceled my policy. I think that is what you call accountability. 

I remember my family had a few fender-benders. In any event, I appreciate your 

accountability methods work. 

 My real questions, however, are for Dr. Lyon. I have read your entire testimony 

and, as usual, I appreciate it perhaps because of my background as a research scientist. I 

am just intrigued with the ideas you are presenting there. I understand we are talking 

here more about accountability, but what is striking in your research is what we can 

actually accomplish. Maybe we should put a little less emphasis on what we are 

measuring and more emphasis on getting results out of this and however we measure 

those results. 

 Am I to understand from your evidence, your experimental evidence, that unless 

there is a learning disability, virtually ever child in this country should be able to be 

taught how to read and write without any great difficulty? 

Dr. Lyon. Precisely. Yes, sir. Before I answer in more detail, Dr. Langenberg sends his 

regards and would like you to come teach physics in his system here in Maryland. 

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. 

Dr. Lyon. The data clearly showed that if we can, number one, identify children who are 

at risk for reading failure at five to six, even seven years of age and bring to those 

youngsters interventions or instructional programs that are scientifically driven, that is, 

we have done trials on those and found those effective, that 90 percent or more, actually 
26

about 96 percent of children with reading difficulties no longer will have those 

difficulties. We can cut the prevalence rates of youngster who require compensatory 

education and some youngsters requiring special education dramatically. There's no 

doubt about it. 

 That is contingent upon making sure that teachers, as was eluded to earlier, have 

the proper training and that school systems, in fact, are assessed from an accountability 

perspective to make sure that that proper training is administered or taught appropriately, 

and that those children are monitored on a very frequent basis. But there is no doubt 

about it that all of this discussion about measurement and accountability and state testing 

and so forth actually becomes secondary if, in fact, we have done our homework and 

minded our Ps and Qs on the preparation side and the implementation side. 

 And sometimes it seems assessment is driving the horse, and it should not be.

Mr. Ehlers. That is precisely the point I was trying to bring out. We do know how to do 

it, but it involves a great deal of teacher training. I think personally it is going to require 

a considerable change in our schools of education and the way they interact with the 

other departments and the universities. 

 Even though assessment is very important, and particularly in terms of the 

programs we are developing, we have to keep in mind the goal. Everyone knows I am a 

strong advocate of improving math and science education here, and I continually preach 

that. I do not say much about reading, but I feel as passionately if not more passionately 

about reading, but I do not have to argue that here, 434 other Congressmen will do that. I 

am the only one advocating the math and science education to any great extent. 

 I really think that is a crucial point that this country has to be aware of, that we 

can do it. It is just a matter of appropriate programs, appropriate training of teachers and 

we can do it. 

Chairman Castle. Mr. Ehlers, can I ask you to yield back. We have two other 

individuals who would like to get four minutes each, and the vote is going to start, and it 

is going to take an hour to go through all the votes if you do not mind. 

Mr. Ehlers. Just one quick question. 

Chairman Castle. Can you do it very quickly, sir? 

Mr. Ehlers. Dr. Lyon, can the same be said about those with learning difficulties, such as 

dyslexia? Do we know how to do that? Can we do it? 

Dr. Lyon. At the present time, we still have 2 to 4 to 5 percent of youngsters not 

responding to the most effective interventions we have at this time. You will have to 

give us another five years and we will figure that out I think. 

Mr. Ehlers. Thank you. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Ehlers. I am going to call on the distinguished 

gentlewoman from Illinois, Ms. Biggert, who has agreed to go four minutes so we can 
27

give Mr. Osborne four minutes. 

Ms. Biggert. Thank you. Mr. Rust, it is nice to see a fellow Illinoisan in this. I traveled 

to the Illinois General Assembly. I drove through Bloomington, and that was always a 

stop-off point for everybody that went from the Chicago area down to Springfield. 

 My concern, and it might tie in a little bit to Congressman Ehlers', the purpose I 

think of in what we want to do and what we want as far as accountability is to really 

ensure that our kids are able to read. They are able to read at a certain level proficiently. 

 Now when I have asked teachers, and I am a former school board member too, so 

I have some concerns what we want to do on the local level and believe strictly in the 

local level as far as control. When I would ask the teachers, do you ever take a test and 

do you go back and do you look at it to see how a child performed on that test, and it is 

all in various categories, to see if a child missed division, and they go back and they 

always respond no, I do not have time to do that. To me, that is the whole purpose of the 

test, really to see exactly what has been learned and what has not been learned and to go 

back and do that. 

 Now, the accountability that we seem to be talking about with the NAEP test is 

accountability of the schools to show how they rate with other schools throughout the 

nation and they have been able to accomplish that. So we are really talking about two 

different kinds of tests, are we not? Am I wrong? 

Mr. Landgraf. Well, if I might answer that. I think one of the things to be greatly 

concerned about is that this whole initiative of the President is not about testing, it is 

about putting in place a measurement tool that will allow public policymakers to provide 

appropriate resources to improve schools at the local level. That means giving teachers 

better salaries, giving school systems better resources to do a better job. I would urge 

you not to get bogged down in the logical mindset that this proposal is about more 

testing. It is about measuring the outcomes of a better school system. 

Ms. Biggert. All right. 

Dr. Lyon. Not only that, Congresswoman, when we are talking about assessing kids, we 

have got to figure out which kids need something and which ones do not. That hones the 

instruction. That is a part of testing, but it is a very functional part of making sure the 

kids know what they do not know to begin with, and the teachers know what they do not 

know.

Ms. Biggert. So really when we say ``No child left behind,'' it really has to be both of 

them. 

Ms. Porter. May I address this also? One of the great things about reporting test results 

to teachers is that, and I am a former teacher, year after year teachers are able to see 

which particular types of questions, which content areas their students are not measuring 

up to. The reporting of test results is so important. And with time, it becomes more 

valuable also in modifying tests from year to year to make them better. Without this kind 

of reporting, we would not be able to improve the tests. So there are all of those elements 

that are essential. 
28

Ms. Biggert. Thank you. I yield back. 

Chairman Castle. I thank the gentlewoman from Illinois very, very much and 

particularly Mr. Osborne thanks you for giving him the opportunity before we have to run 

and vote. The problem is we are down about eight minutes on a vote and want to give 

Mr. Osborne the full opportunity. And about the gentleman from Nebraska, probably 

nobody here exceeds his ability in working with young people, whom we have seen over 

the years, so we are delighted he is on our subcommittee. Mr. Osborne. 

Mr. Osborne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will try to be very brief. I am going to have 

to be brief or awfully fast running over there. 

 First of all, I have a little concern with NAEP in that I do know that when you 

throw rewards and punishments in there, there is going to be a real temptation to teach 

the test. And as the President has said, well, what is so bad if kids know how to read and 

they know how to do basic matters, that is great. But we do have nuances in the 

curriculum, and there are certainly geographical differences in what needs to be 

emphasized. Can you give me any indication as to what might be done to make sure that 

some of the strengths in our present system, and there are some, do not begin to be 

diminished by a focus on a specific test. 

Dr. Lyon. Mr. Osborne, about four years ago the state superintendent of schools in your 

fine state visited NIH to try to understand how best teachers in Nebraska could learn how 

to teach reading. And they went home and put in place in Nebraska a reading initiative 

that, in fact, no matter how you might measure it is starting to show that if you teach kids 

extremely well, they are going to learn to read. They are not teaching to any test, they are 

teaching those kinds of components that the youngsters have to be able to bring together 

to do their job just as you did extraordinarily well on the football field. 

 People have to bring together, children have to bring together enormous numbers 

of complex skills in an integrated fashion, apply them and learn. And it goes to those 

core issues, if you teach children, and I understand the concern about narrowing a 

curriculum to get after a test result so you have the reward, but if our teachers are 

prepared strongly enough, they know what they are doing, that becomes somewhat of a 

secondary issue. 

Mr. Osborne. One last thing very quickly. Sometimes I hear reference made to AfricanAmerican scores and Caucasian and so on, and I guess my experience is more there are 

differences in socioeconomics more than racial issues. So it may be that a specific ethnic 

group does not score as well, but I think it has more to do with their socioeconomic class 

than that. So one thing I am really concerned about is the cultural fairness of the test, 

because I frequently saw people in certain socioeconomic groups testing poorly. But we 

would find when we got them in a college, they could perform much higher than what 

their test would indicate. So I know some of you are testing experts, and I am really 

interested in the cultural fairness of the test. 

Mr. Musick. I would like to say something. 

Chairman Castle. Quickly respond. 
29

Mr. Musick. In the two areas, first in the NAEP, if there are rewards and sanctions, I 

agree that does change it somewhat, but these 40 states are already seeing the value of 

this. This is the NAEP framework for mathematics. Here is a state framework for 

mathematics. I do not believe that this is going to absolutely sink the ship. I suspect it is 

a little like if your opponents knew some of your play calling styles, but they did not have 

your play book, and the NAEP playbook is not going to be something that is going to be 

out there that folks can teach to all of those. 

 Finally, your point about race ethnicity is right. It is a green thing, not a black and 

white thing. And what NAEP has been trying to do, we now use the free and reduced 

lunch measure to try to get at that. 

Mr. Landgraf. And finally, Dr. Osborne, I would just add to this it is not the test that is 

not fair and equitable. The test merely measures a school system that does not provide 

fair and equitable access to education. 

Mr. Osborne. Thank you. 

Chairman Castle. Thank you, Mr. Osborne. And let me thank all the witnesses a great 

deal. We were hustling to get all this in so you would not have to wait another hour 

while we were voting. We are quite late to the vote. We are down to about three 

minutes, so this is going to be a very fast goodbye. 

 We do thank you. We also made some written questions to you. Obviously, there 

are a lot of issues around testing that we all have to answer, so that may be as a followup.

 You have been an excellent panel. We appreciate your attendance today. And 

with that, we stand adjourned. Thank you. 

 Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193

TABLE OF INDEXES 

Chairman Castle, 1, 2, 3, 4, 9, 11, 12, 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23, 25, 26, 28, 29 

Dr. Lyon, 13, 18, 21, 25, 26, 27, 28 

Mr. Ehlers, 25, 26 

Mr. Greenwood, 20, 21 

Mr. Hilleary, 23 

Mr. Hinojosa, 3, 4 

Mr. Landgraf, 9, 17, 20, 21, 25, 27, 29 

Mr. Musick, 11, 18, 20, 23, 28, 29 

Mr. Osborne, 28, 29 

Mr. Owens, 2 

Mr. Rust, 7, 16, 17, 19, 21, 24 

Mr. Schaffer, 18, 19 

Mr. Souder, 21, 23 

Ms. Biggert, 27, 28 

Ms. Porter, 15, 18, 27