I 

109TH CONGRESS 

2D SESSION H. R. 4852 

To curtail the use of high-stakes tests in elementary and secondary schools. 

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MARCH 2, 2006 

Mr. OWENS introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee 

on Education and the Workforce 

A BILL 

To curtail the use of high-stakes tests in elementary and 

secondary schools. 

1 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representa2 tives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, 

3 SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

4 This Act may be cited as the ‘‘Emergency Morato5 rium Testing Act of 2006’’. 

6 SEC. 2. FINDINGS. 

7 The Congress finds the following: 

8 (1) The enactment of the No Child Left Behind 

9 Act of 2001 unleashed forces that threaten students, 

10 teachers, and the basic integrity of the educational 

11 process. The stakes are very high. On the basis of 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
2 

•HR 4852 IH 

1 test scores, students may be held back; teachers, 

2 principals, and superintendents may be fired; schools 

3 may be closed; and some school systems may be re4 structured or abolished. 

5 (2) Elected officials at all levels have become 

6 obsessed with test results. There is a rush to meas7 ure the output of the education community while 

8 minimizing the resources contributed by Federal, 

9 State, and municipal governments. The annual re10 lease of test score results provides a media oppor11 tunity for public officials profitably to ‘‘spin’’ the 

12 education function in a partisan manner. 

13 (3) The amendments to the Elementary and 

14 Secondary Education Act of 1965 made by the No 

15 Child Left Behind Act of 2001 established a dev16 astatingly one-sided environment for education re17 form. They implemented national standards for test18 ing with serious penalties for failure. At the same 

19 time, there is a continuing refusal to recognize na20 tional standards for ‘‘Opportunities to Learn’’. 

21 (4) Provisions of the Elementary and Secondary 

22 Education Act of 1965 pertaining to school con23 struction and the improvement of library, science 

24 laboratory, and technology facilities and equipment 

25 were not strengthened by the 2001 landmark legislaVerDate Aug 31 2005 19:58 Mar 04, 2006 Jkt 049200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6201 E:\BILLS\H4852.IH H4852

sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
3 

•HR 4852 IH 

1 tion. While the testing process gallops forward, stu2 dents will not receive any new resources to improve 

3 their performance. The tests will continue to reign 

4 supreme unless some new initiative is launched to 

5 control them. 

6 (5) Added to the numerous arguments exposing 

7 the danger of overreliance on testing is a newly 

8 emerging crisis, namely incompetence and corruption 

9 in the testing industry. The No Child Left Behind 

10 Act of 2001 provided a great leap forward for the 

11 testing market. The sheer volume of the surge in 

12 new business has overwhelmed the newly expanding 

13 industry. 

14 (6) The scrubbing of test contents to avoid of15 fending right wing zealots is presently under attack 

16 by scholars who protest the alteration of quotes from 

17 Shakespeare and other classical writers. 

18 (7) Recent reports highlight ongoing concerns 

19 regarding the quality of test questions. Recent re20 ports in the New York Times and other national 

21 newspapers raise serious issues regarding the integ22 rity of testing companies. Their failure to recognize 

23 key processing errors highlight the need for more 

24 Federal oversight. 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
4 

•HR 4852 IH 

1 (8) Groups representing the minority commu2 nity have continued to oppose the use of high-stakes 

3 tests as the only criteria to measure achievement. 

4 The overreliance on tests will have a major negative 

5 impact on the African-American community. 

6 SEC. 3. DELAY IN IMPLEMENTATION OF ACADEMIC ASSESS7 MENTS. 

8 Section 1111(b) of the Elementary and Secondary 

9 Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)) is amended— 

10 (1) in paragraph (3)(C)— 

11 (A) in clause (v)(II), by striking ‘‘2007– 

12 2008’’ and inserting ‘‘2008–2009’’; and 

13 (B) in clause (vii), by striking ‘‘2005– 

14 2006’’ and inserting ‘‘2008–2009’’; and 

15 (2) in paragraph (7), by striking ‘‘2002–2003’’ 

16 and inserting ‘‘2008–2009’’. 

17 SEC. 4. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. 

18 (a) ENCOURAGING MORATORIUM.—The Secretary of 

19 Education shall encourage States, during the 3-year pe20 riod beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, 

21 to place a moratorium on the administration of all stand22 ardized tests. 

23 (b) REPORT.—Beginning after such 3-year period, 

24 each State desiring to receive a grant under part A of title 

25 I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS
5 

•HR 4852 IH 

1 (20 U.S.C. 6311 et seq.) annually shall submit to such 

2 Secretary a report on all standardized tests administered 

3 to elementary or secondary students in the State. A State 

4 report submitted under this subsection may be submitted 

5 as part of a consolidated report under section 9303 of 

6 such Act (20 U.S.C. 7843). 

Æ 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with BILLS