OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETE HOEKSTRA, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE *

OPENING STATEMENT OF RANKING MEMBER TIM ROEMER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE *

STATEMENT OF PASCAL D. FORGIONE, JR, Ph.D., US COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION STATISTICS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT, US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC *

STATEMENT OF MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX A - OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETE HOEKSTRA, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE *

APPENDIX B - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PASCAL D. FORGIONE, JR, Ph.D., US COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION STATISTICS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT, US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX C - WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, DC *

APPENDIX D - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, POLICY STATEMENT ON REPORTING AND DISSEMINATION OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, ATLANTA, GA, NOVEMBER 17, 1990 *

APPENDIX E - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER FROM MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, DC TO DR. PASCAL D. FORGIONE, JR, COMISSIONER OF EDUCATION STATISTICS, WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 18, 1999 *

APPENDIX F - SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER FROM RICHARD A. BOYD, CHAIRMAN TO MR. EMERSON J. ELLIOTT, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, WASHINGTON, DC, JUNE 3, 1992 *

The Subcommittee met pursuant to call at 9:30 a.m. in Room 2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Pete Hoekstra, Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.

Present: Representatives Hoekstra, Schaffer, Tancredo, Fletcher, Castle, Goodling, Roemer, Scott, Kind and Ford.

Staff Present: Robert Borden, Professional Staff Member; Becky Campoverde, Communications Director; Victor Klatt, Education Policy Coordinator; Patrick Lyden, Legislative Assistant; Michael Reynard, Media Assistant; Deborah Samantar, Office Manager; Rich Strombres, Professional Staff Member; Kent Talbert, Professional Staff Member; Christie Wolfe, Professional Staff Member; Cheryl Johnson, Minority Legislative Associate; Gail Weiss, Minority Staff Director; Mark Zuckerman, Minority General Counsel; Alex Nock, Minority Legislative Associate; Cedric Hendricks, Minority Deputy Counsel; and Roxana Folescu,Minority Staff Assistant, Education.

Chairman Hoekstra. The Subcommittee will come to order.

Pursuant to normal Subcommittee operations, opening statements will be limited to the Chairman and the Ranking Member. All other statements will be submitted for the record without objection.

We are doing pretty well. The last hearing started early. This one started about three minutes late. So, on average, that is about two in a row. Let me give you my opening statement.

We are here today to address the potential politicization of the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and the trustworthiness of the scores that the states received during the last reading assessment.

As the nation's report card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, is an ongoing, congressionally authorized program that collects data through surveys of the educational performance of students in America's elementary and secondary schools. The national assessment is carried out by the Commissioner of Education Statistics under the policy guidance of the National Assessment Governing Board, or NAGB. The Board was created in 1988 upon the recommendation of the Alexander James Commission, which urged that policy making for the national assessment be buffered from manipulation by any individual, level of government or special interest within the field of Education.

In 1990 NAGB adopted its policy statement reporting and disseminating national assessment results. This policy statement was and in my opinion still is, straightforward and unambiguous. Specifically, it states that "Reporting and dissemination of national assessment results shall be insulated from partisan political considerations and processes." In addition, "The public reporting and release procedures for NAEP shall be apolitical, similar to those of other congressionally mandated data gathering programs. This policy is necessary to ensure that the results and indeed the entire testing process is based on independent judgments that are free from inappropriate influences and special interests.

On November 6, 1998 the National Center for Education Statistics submitted its release plan for the 1998 NAEP reading test. The release plan stated that the press conference would take place in early February, 1999 and would begin with introductions and data presented by Commissioner Forgione, followed by comments from Secretary Riley and a member of NAGB. This release plan was consistent with board policy that stipulates that "Reports of NAEP results shall be issued by the Commissioner of Education Statistics." It was approved unanimously by NAGB on November 21, 1998.

On February 10, 1999 Vice President Gore was the featured speaker for the release of the 1998 NAEP reading results, the first time any official higher than the Secretary of Education had ever participated in a NAEP release. The Vice President commented on several administration initiatives during the release including increased funding for Even Start and Head Start, connecting every classroom to the Internet, funds for schools construction bonds, 100,000 new teachers, and even AmeriCorps.

The point is not whether I am for or against the programs the Vice President was talking about. It is whether or not his speech was "insulated from partisan political considerations," as the NAGB policy stipulates it must be. In addition, it seems as if the Vice President was not telling the whole story about the test scores. He noted that, "for the very first time, reading scores have improved for each of the three grades measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress, and this is great progress, and we are proud to report it." What the Vice President did not mention was that the fourth grade achievement level showed no statistically significant changes. Fourth grade scale scores were constant, and analysis from 1992 to 1998 in the 12th grade shows no net gain over the period.

During the press conference, the Vice President made quotes about a down payment on hiring 100,000 new teachers to reduce class size. He noted the administration had worked very hard to help states and communities marshal the efforts of thousands of young people through the AmeriCorp program. He even encouraged Congress to enact the President's agenda to improve education.

The Vice President's participation was not an apolitical release of educational data, but rather it seems it was an orchestrated media event to promote a political agenda. E-mails from the Office of the Vice President described the event as "a VP education event" that was "good for the VP, for the Department and for education."

The Secretary's office made suggestions about the program's dimension stating, for example "it is a reading day, why not push for reading dollars?" with regard to the Reading Excellence Act. According to Mr. Musick, a witness before the Subcommittee today, "The format, tone and substance of that event was not consistent with the principle of an independent, nonpartisan release of national assessment data."

Indeed, Education Week reported last March that Vice President Gore jeopardized the integrity of the test when he announced the 1998 reading results to a campaign-style rally. The Vice President's appearance as the featured speaker before the Commissioner differed considerably from the NCES release plan that was adopted by NAGB.

Chairman Goodling expressed his disappointment because of the politicization of the announcement in a letter sent to Secretary Riley on March 17, 1999. In his response, the Secretary claimed that Chairman Goodling's "concerns about the release of this data are unwarranted."

With all due respect to the Secretary, I must disagree with that assessment. I share Chairman Goodling's concerns and felt that the events surrounding the release warranted further review by the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. The Committee has received materials from NAGB and NCES that reveal a blatant disregard for the policy statement on reporting and dissemination of national assessment results. According to information submitted to the Committee, Commissioner Forgione participated in a conference call on February 8 with representatives from the Office of the Vice President, the Office of the Secretary of Education and the Department's Office of Public Affairs. It is our understanding that at that meeting Commissioner Forgione supported an agenda in which he would open the press conference and then release the results at 10 a.m., followed by the Chairman of NAGB. Finally, the Vice President, the Secretary of Education and a teacher would be given an opportunity to comment on the results.

Subsequent to that meeting on February 8 and before the public release of the results on February 10, the Department informed NCES that the agenda had been changed. There was to be a shift in the order of the presenters and a delay until 11 a.m., at which time the Secretary and Vice President would open the press conference. At a minimum, the approved NCES release plan was disregarded. Subsequent to the press conference on February 10, NAGB had adopted the new language for their policy on the dissemination of results in an effort to clarify the necessity for the credible release of national assessment data.

As I mentioned before, I believe that the original policy adopted by NAGB in 1990 was explicit and unequivocal. When it comes to making important decisions about the NAEP test itself, NAGB should be completely isolated from politics. When it comes to measuring the progress of our nation's children, we need to ensure that scores are as accurate as possible and we must not let politics influence our ability to measure student achievement.

In addition to questions about the release of the scores, I have questions about how well the new NAEP inclusion policies are working. Why did the exclusion of students with disabilities and limited English proficiency increase since the 1994 test? Was NAGB acting independently and in the interests of getting valid test data when it decided to adopt a new inclusion policy for the 1998 reading test? Was NAGB pressured into making decisions that have brought us to where we are today, questioning the way in which the results were released and the possibility that the scores themselves might have been clouded by politics?

These are questions that must be answered to understand what we need to do to protect the NAEP tests from political manipulation. Specifically, we should review the process in which the Vice President became the featured speaker, discuss whether or not the Vice President's comments were thorough and consistent with board policy, and revisit the issue of whether or not it is possible for NCES and NAGB to remain independent as currently configured.

I would like to thank our witnesses for appearing before the Subcommittee this morning.

OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETE HOEKSTRA, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGATIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE – SEE APPENDIX A

Chairman Hoekstra. With that, I would yield to Mr. Roemer for any statement he may have.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend.

Chairman Hoekstra. Without objection, so ordered.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I couldn't agree more with you from what you have said at one point in your statement that politics should not influence this process. We should not have politics influence the process, whether it be a President or a Vice President. We want to know how our kids are doing on these scores and why they are not doing better.

I am a little disappointed, quite frankly, that today's focus of the Hearing is on how this thing was released rather than what we can do to help our children in this country do better only their scores. That is the purpose of this Committee, that is the purpose of the education oversight, and I think that is what the American people want us to do in this Committee.

I was talking to a constituent last night who is a farmer, and her farm_her family's farm is going out of business after 100 years in the hog farming business. She said, you know, you guys got a lot on your plate today. You guys in Congress have a war going on, you have got depressionary prices for our farmers, and you have got school shootings. You have got a lot of important things to deal with.

I think we should be dealing with school safety. I think we should be dealing with how to improve in revolutionary and bold ways how our schools do better to help our children, and not politicize this process.

I think that if we are not careful, GOP is going to stand for Gore: Obsessive Paranoia if we are not careful here.

Now, let's get to the facts on all this. The Vice President may have made a social faux pas. Maybe he should have let Mr. Forgione speak first. But this information was released an hour before on the web. This information was out there for the general public. This is important information for the country to understand.

And I am told from my staff, who does great research and always hits the mark, that back in June of 1992, there was a letter from the Commissioner, I guess, Mr. Musick, your predecessor, Mr. Boyd, who wrote the following, "in accord with that policy," he is referencing something that happened, "the Board approved a plan for the release of the 1990 NAEP reading report at a press conference in Washington. I was surprised and disturbed therefore to learn that on the day before the scheduled press conference of the main results in the report were released prematurely by President Bush." By President Bush.

Now, we can have a Hearing on how President Bush released these prematurely and speak about that. Quite frankly, I am not interested in that. I am not interested in President Bush talking about these NAEP scores at a private fund-raiser or school the day before.

I think with Vice President Gore being part of the conference, maybe he should have said, Mr. Forgione, you go first. According to the statute, technically, you should be the first one to talk, and then I want to talk about these scores as well. Maybe that is the social faux pas.

But I don't think our next step in this Committee should be to have Tipper Gore come up here and start asking Tipper Gore, you know, do you raise your hand before you talk at a PTA meeting?

I mean, let's not be obsessed with politics here. Let's get to what this Committee is supposed to do. How do we look at and assess these scores and their impact on our children and our teachers and our schools and how do we boldly improve our schools for all of our children in this country? That is, I think, what we should be concentrating on.

Now, we can talk, I guess, all morning about what President Bush did or what technically Vice President Gore did. I am not interested too much in that. I am interested in, was this report accurate in what it assessed with some of the physically challenged and disabled kids? Was it accurate with respect to 14 States or two States reporting on those physically challenged kids?

But I also want to talk, Mr. Forgione and Mr. Musick, about how do we get to some test scores in the next 10 years that we can look back on and say, our Nation's children are doing better every single year. Our schools are getting better because of things we did in 1999 in education. That is what I am interested in. Not politicizing this process, not going back in history and talking about President Bush or Vice President Gore and how they may have made a social faux pas in releasing this data.

So, I would hope that we would get to what you and I, Mr. Chairman, have worked on in bipartisan ways, in cooperative ways, in genuine ways, on a Hearing on school safety, on some Hearings on bold and creative reforms in public education, some Hearings on what Paducah and Pearl and Jonesboro and Springfield have done to make their schools safer in light of the tragedies they have gone through. Let's get open to some of these very important programs for our Nation's children and for our Nation's schools.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Hoekstra. I thank the gentleman for his statements. I think you are right on. I am disappointed you are not all that interested in the integrity of the process. We have an agency out there that has rules and regulations, and they really need to be independent so that they can drive the debate. They provide us with the statistics so we can have the debate rather than becoming perceived as a mythical organization where we are arguing about the results which happens when we might cease that kind of activity. That is not what we want to have happen. So I am very interested in maintaining the integrity and the support that these organizations have achieved and that these individuals strive for. I think if we lose that, a lot of the other things that we have just doesn't make much of a difference and we can't have a good debate any more.

Let's get on to the panel. Mr. Castle, thank you for joining us this morning. I understand you would like to introduce Dr. Forgione.

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I share the thoughts of both you and the Ranking Member in many ways. The process should be above any question whatsoever. If you are going to test, and believe me as somebody who was a Governor if your state is going to be compared, you want to make sure the test is fair and not politicized. Of course, we are addressing all the other issues as well.

I guess I have a choice of who I could introduce here, because I also know Mark Musick well and I can vouch that he is one of the fine people involved in education in this country. I had the pleasure of serving on the National Assessment Governing Board with Mark, and there is nobody finer or more caring about education than he is.

But Dr. Forgione and I actually worked together in the State of Delaware so it falls as my lot today to introduce him. Prior to the last four years during which he has been Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, Pat served as the State Superintendent of Public Instruction for the State of Delaware from 1991 to 1995. That means he essentially ran education in the State of Delaware. In 1991, he served as Executive Director of the National Education Goals Panel so he had experience in that. And before that for four years he was a Division Director for Research in the State of Connecticut's Department of Education.

He has, as you would imagine, won many awards and appointments including the Leadership Recognition award from the National Center for Education Statistics. He received his B.A. of Sacred Theology from St. Mary's Seminary and University, his Masters in Educational Administration from Loyola College, and his M.A. in Urban History and Ph.D. in Administration and Policy Analysis from Stanford University. He has more education than anybody could ever need.

But the bottom line is he is this. He is extraordinarily energetic, he is obviously extraordinarily intelligent, he is extraordinarily apolitical, he is an individual who is devoted to what he does which is essentially trying to help children in education, and he has in my judgment, probably committed his life to that as much as anybody in the public arena in this country today. He is, I understand, not to be appointed again which I think is a tremendous loss for the country based on the personal experiences which I have had with him.

I am also concerned about the integrity of the process. This actually started when questions were raised about some of the students who have learning disabilities not being properly included in the test statistics. Secondly, is a political question which I think is perfectly legitimate to raise before the panel and these questions do need to be raised. I can't imagine two better people to answer them. I am happy to introduce Dr. Forgione.

Chairman Hoekstra. Not a bad beginning and introduction to Mr. Musick, the Chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board here in Washington and President of the Southern Regional Education Board in Atlanta. He has served as Chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board since October of 1996, as a member of the Executive Committee and Achievement Levels of that Committee. As Mr. Castle has indicated, he is also very well respected in the educational community.

Welcome to both of you this morning. We will begin with you, Dr. Forgione.

Mr. Forgione. Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members. I am Pat Forgione, the U.S. Commissioner of Education Statistics in the National Center for Education Statistics with the Department of Education.

I was originally going to summarize my answers to the 11 questions specified in the April 21^st Memorandum that are contained in my testimony. But given the recent events I believe it most important that I offer some personal comments to set an appropriate context for this morning's discussion.

In light of the issues that have brought us here today I wish to clearly emphasize that over my 3-year tenure as U.S. Commissioner of Education Statistics, the integrity of NCES statistical processes have not been violated with respect to the identification of studies to be conducted, the design and implementation of those studies, and the analysis and content of our statistical reports. However, there is one area that I believe needs attention and that is the release of the Agency's statistical findings. This is one issue that has brought us here today.

Over the last three years, I have become sensitized to and more acutely aware of the issue of safeguarding the independence of a federal statistical agency. My primary goal has been to protect the Nation's data agenda. Critical to this is the release of results that are, and are perceived to be, objective and nonpartisan. There will be much discussion this morning on a variety of issues, but please do not be distracted from the heart of the matter, the integrity and independence of the statistical function in education.

The landmark Report, Principles And Practices Of A Federal Statistical Agency produced by the National Academy of Sciences National Research Council, identified two essential prerequisites for the effective operation of a federal statistical agency. First, a clearly defined and well-accepted mission. Second, a strong measure of independence.

The Report states, "To be credible, a statistical agency must clearly be impartial. It must avoid even the appearances that its collection and recording of data might be manipulated by political purposes."

Thus, it is in everyone's interest to have clear boundaries. The situation of ambiguity in releasing reports invariably leads to awkward situations that do not serve the Nation well. With the appetite for sound and unassailable education data at an all-time high, I believe it is all the more vital at this moment to give the National Center for Educational Statistics the institutional protection it needs to fulfill its statutory mission.

I have already submitted my to you statement in response to your series of questions regarding the 1998 NAEP reading results. I am prepared to answer any questions following Mr. Musick's comments.

Thank you very much.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF PASCAL D. FORGIONE, JR, Ph.D., US COMMISSIONER OF EDUCATION STATISTICS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, OFFICE OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND IMPROVEMENT, US DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WASHINGTON, DC

SEE APPENDIX B

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you very much. Mr. Musick

Mr. Musick. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Chairman of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policies for the National Assessment, and as you noted President of the Southern Regional Education Board. As you know, the National Assessment was created in 1988 by Congress. It is an independent, bipartisan,

26-member group composed of state and local officials and yes, Congressman Castle was a valued member of that group.

The National Assessment sets policy and is the only program that provides sound comparable data, we would argue, on what American students know and can do. We have been doing this since 1969.

In many respects the National Assessment, as Al Shanker called it, a treasure, has become the Nation's most valuable and reliable report card on student achievement in our elementary and secondary schools. It is because of NAEP's role as an independent external measure that I believe the administration and the reporting of the National Assessment must be scrupulously honest, consistent and fair.

The blue ribbon commission which recommended the National Assessment Governing Board's creation envisioned the Board as Congressman Hoekstra said to buffer the National Assessment from what it called manipulation by any individual, level of government or special interest within the field of education. Now the blue ribbon commission referred to earlier was appointed by Secretary of Education Bennett,

co-chaired by Governor Alexander, including Commissioner Forgione and the then First Lady of Arkansas. They recommended a structure that would supply needed checks and balances and separations of power for this important and sensitive enterprise.

I would note that I have been appointed to the Board by Secretary Bennett, Secretary Alexander and Secretary Riley, and the current Vice Chair was appointed by Secretary Alexander and Secretary Riley. I say that only to emphasize the nonpartisan and nonpolitical. Congressman Mike Castle once said in 1994-95 during the reauthorization discussion and debate, "This may be the most nonpolitical group I have ever been involved with. Maybe you should be more political. We have tried to be nonpolitical, even without Congressman Castle's advice. His advice then was we needed to make what we were doing better known to Congress.

The Board adopted its first policies about issuing results in 1990. Since that time, we have issued more than two dozen reports. There have only been two occasions in which we felt that our policies were not followed. Both of them have been described this morning, the first being in 1992 with President Bush, and the latest being in February with Vice President Gore.

In both cases, the Chairman of this Board registered publicly, and we hope clearly, our concern that these actions were contrary to the Board's policy and could in the long term harm the credibility of the National Assessment. You have copies of those letters. The Board met two weeks ago and we reviewed its policies after discussing the February release at its March meeting. We also had a release in March of the state reading results, and that followed completely as has nearly another two dozen releases the Board's approved plan.

The Governing Board sets policy for NAEP under the law, but the Commissioner carries out that policy. This goes back to the 1988 legislation where it set up this structure of checks and balances. The Commissioner implements the Board policies, but as you know, he is an Officer of the Department of Education and falls under the Department's operational scheme.

Now, you have my statement about the release. I think the important thing from the Board's standpoint is that two weeks ago we revised our policy slightly and stated that the initial release of NAEP data shall be independent and apolitical, and separated clearly from other programs and policies. We have added that the official press statement or release announcing NAEP results shall be issued by the National Center for Education Statistics, rather than by any other Department, any other part of the Department of Education.

With regard to the issue of exclusion of NAEP students, the Commissioner has had a preliminary report which he presented to the National Assessment Governing Board two weeks ago, and he is prepared as I am, to comment on that issue as well this morning. But I will stop with my initial comments on the release of NAEP results.

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, DC – SEE APPENDIX C

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you both very much for your testimony.

My colleague has described what happened as just a social faux pas by the Vice President, but throughout both of your statements I sense a real commitment and a real urgency to maintaining the integrity and the independence of the process. Is that correct?

Mr. Forgione. Yes.

Mr. Musick. Yes.

Chairman Hoekstra. For what reason is that?

Mr. Forgione. As I tried to state it is very important. I think the fact that we are here today with the interest of so many actors that perception becomes reality and therefore how we proceed is very much at stake in the belief in the data. I do believe this was inadvertent, but I think it points out the need to have more clear boundaries so that this will not be an issue in the future.

Chairman Hoekstra. And you strive for this in all aspects of your work? So it not only the release of the data, it is also independence as you structure the tests and those types of things. Is that correct?

Mr. Musick. I would certainly agree with that. We, the Board and I think the Commissioner would probably agree, can be accused of being purists when it comes to NAEP data. We do believe that ultimately the integrity of this data when you get to the core of it is what you have.

We know the data will be interpreted. We expect that. However, we also believe the data will drive the debate. We know there will be debates about this data. Our concern is that the facts be presented and released in a nonpartisan, nonpolitical way, and then let the debate and the interpretations begin.

Chairman Hoekstra. I am trying to think. Who was it, Joe Friday, "Nothing but the facts." That is kind of your job.

Mr. Forgione. The Board can have more in expression. It is the Commissioner who is really Jack Friday in the sense of facts only.

Chairman Hoekstra. Joe Friday.

Mr. Forgione. The Board can make comments about what this means, and they do it in a balanced way. The Commissioner certainly has no interest or perspective on what the data means.

Chairman Hoekstra. I think this is why this issue is important to me and why I think it should be important to Mr. Roemer. As you described it, this process in the work that you do begins the debate, it does not end the debate. Is that correct?

Mr. Musick. Yes. Yes, sir, I believe that is right.

Mr. Forgione. Yes.

Chairman Hoekstra. If part of the debate is whether it was used for political reasons or it is driven by political motivations or these types of things, it really doesn't help the process at all. That is why you so jealously guard your independence from political interests, correct?

Mr. Forgione. Yes.

Mr. Musick. Yes.

Chairman Hoekstra. Mr. Musick, regarding your restatement of how the results are supposed to be released in the future, does it say that these will now be released only by the Commissioner of Education Statistics, or does it just say independent from other agencies within the Department of Education?

Mr. Musick. The policy reads that the official press statement or release announcing the NAEP results shall be issued by the National Center for Education Statistics rather than by any other part of the Department of Education.

As you know, all of the Secretaries since the National Assessment Governing Board has been formed, have participated in the releases of data periodically. But what we are saying is the Commissioner speaks first, the Commissioner puts the data on the table first, and the Commissioner presents the facts first. Then any interpretation by the National Assessment Governing Board, the Secretary or anyone else follows either that presentation the next day, in coming months, or in coming years in fact.

Chairman Hoekstra. Mr. Forgione, for the release we are talking about that is the agenda that you propose, correct?

Mr. Forgione. That the Governing Board had approved and that I brought to the Department, yes.

Chairman Hoekstra Did you have discussions with the Secretary and the Vice President about that?

Mr. Forgione. Yes. Towards the end of this process interest was shown which often happens, and at that point we had a conversation to try to allow for that after the Commission and Governing Board would present the data. Really, there is much flexibility. It can take place in 5 minutes or that afternoon, and that was the intention that I believe was communicated and that we held to.

Chairman Hoekstra. My time has expired. We are going to break. We have got a vote on the journal on the floor. We should be back in about 10 or 12 minutes. At that point in time we will move to Mr. Roemer.

[Recess.]

Chairman Hoekstra. The Subcommittee will reconvene. Mr. Roemer.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Forgione, let me ask you a couple of very simple, easy questions. I am also concerned about the independence and the nonpartisanship and the honesty and consistency and fairness of this process, so let's get right to it. Is there anything that has politicized the collection in this process?

Mr. Forgione. No.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you. Is there anything that has politicized the contributions to this process?

Mr. Forgione. No.

Mr. Roemer. Is there anything that has politicized the analysis in this process?

Mr. Forgione. No.

Mr. Roemer. So the whole question comes to the release. There is no question of the integrity of the process, the compilation of data, the analysis of data. Everything is by the book. It all comes to the release that we are talking about here today.

Mr. Forgione. Yes.

Mr. Roemer. Okay, that is helpful. Now, on page 4 of your testimony you say the release, according to your guidelines, "This can take the form of a publication, a data file and/or an electronic release."

Now, this was released an hour before the press conference, electronically. Is that correct?

Mr. Forgione. Yes, it is.

Mr. Roemer. So according to your guidelines, even the release of this material was by the book?

Mr. Forgione. There is a subtle but important difference here. When I was asked the question I answered it honestly, that in my view it does affect the perception of objectivity in this case. But I do believe it was probably inadvertent and that is an important perception. I think a lot of the consternation we are facing, and as you said the distractions from looking at the data, are because of that distraction.

Mr. Roemer. Go to page 5 of your testimony and get right to that. You say on page 5, "The Commissioner electronically released the national NAEP data on the NCES web site at 10 a.m. that morning." Then you go on to say basically what you just said to me. "However, the fact that someone other than the Commissioner was the first one to announce these findings publicly at the press conference created a perception."

What we are here to clarify and spent all week with staff time and Member time and so forth is what you have now announced in your new guidelines, with an addendum, that now nobody in politics can release this data in the future. How long ago did you clear this up? When did you add that?

Mr. Forgione. Two weeks ago, I believe.

Mr. Roemer. Two weeks ago. Before we had this Hearing, you had clarified your rules to say whether it is President Bush, Vice President Gore or whether it is President Gore or President Bush in the future. We now have clarification on exactly who can release this data, is that correct?

Mr. Forgione. Yes.

Mr. Roemer. So we think we have solved the problem, is that correct?

Mr. Forgione. Yes.

Mr. Roemer. So why are we here?

Mr. Forgione. When one is asked to come and answer questions about an important issue, one does that.

Mr. Roemer. I am glad you showed up. You would probably have been in trouble Mr. Forgione, I am being facetious, if you said no. I think you have answered all my questions very clearly about the integrity and the honesty and the fairness and the independence of the process. We have attempted to clear that up. We have attempted to make sure that in the future there is not even an iota of perception problem here with who releases this data in the future, whether it is electronically an hour ahead of time.

Now we have clarified the rules as of 2 weeks ago. You did it independently. Somebody in politics cannot release this in the future.

You do say, or at least it has been said by your predecessor, Mr. Musick

Mr. Boyd said in his letter where he is complaining and surprised and disturbed about President Bush releasing this prematurely, a day early you say, "Of course, we are pleased by the President's interest in NAEP and realize his attention adds greatly to public awareness of NAEP results."

My final question would be now that we have clarified this and seem to be moving in a direction where there wouldn't be a perception problem in the future, how do we balance the line between making sure that this whole process is independent, fair, nonpartisan with showing that there should be after it is released some political interest in this? Mr. Musick?

Mr. Musick. Yes. We and others have often cited some examples, the Bureau of Labor Statistics gets cited quite often, of releasing important economic statistics. Then those statistics are commented on elsewhere or commented on later following that official release. Without stretching the analogy, I think that is at least in the general direction that we see the National Assessment operating.

Obviously others had said at the time that reading is so important in America, how can it be a problem when lots of people want to talk about reading? And that is a persuasive argument. We, and again I don't apologize for being purists in this, believe Joe Friday should put the facts on the table. There should be, as you pointed out, no question about the integrity of those facts. The discussion and interpretation should take place all across America, not just in press rooms in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Musick.

Mr. Forgione. If I could add one comment, the Governing Board assists the Commissioner in the release of the National Assessment data. We have a much wider portfolio of education data. I would ask you and the Chairman to consider as you are looking at the reauthorization of my agency presently, to think about putting protections that would institutionalize this relationship so that the boundaries are very clear and it will not lead to these awkward solutions.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman Hoekstra. Thanks, Mr. Forgione, for those comments. I think that one of the things we are looking at here in the Subcommittee as we consider reauthorization is how do we build those protections into the process to ensure that this is a fully independent agency. It may require legislative changes rather than just some internal rewriting of the rules and those types of things. Mr. Castle.

Mr. Castle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I came here and was interested in this Hearing because of the problems with the test itself. Now I am concerned about the independence of the agencies and also about the Vice President's role and 5 minutes isn't going to do it.

I would like to get to the bottom of all of this. Maybe I should ask Dr. Forgione. What is your judgment with regard to the National Center for Education Statistics on institutional protection? As I understand it, it is strictly under the guidance and control of the Department of Education. I don't mean in a political sense, it is just they control who works there and who doesn't work there. They control most of the activities of the organization.

Should it be, and you are not to be reappointed as I understand it, more independent? If I have time I am going to ask Mr. Musick should NAGB and NAEP be totally independent? What about the agency you work for? Should it be more independent from the Department of Education? Would that help with some of the depoliticizing of it?

Mr. Forgione. To provide the Commissioner with the authority in the area of personnel, budget and the release of reports would be a substantial enhancement to that integrity. Obviously you can work it out and I have had a terrific relationship with the Department. But it does take energy and roadblocks come up and priorities can bump your priorities.

Other statistical agencies do have this protection. Look at the legislation for the Energy Statistics Organization and Bureau of Labor Statistics. I don't think anyone would fault that especially at this moment with the prominence of education data. You know, during the eighties no one was listening to the data. It didn't have the same capital. These are so important now I think you need to think about this new context.

Mr. Castle. You may not have done this Dr. Forgione in your statement but I have a whole notebook filled with questions. I would love to have in writing your thoughts about how the Agency that you are heading now should be handled.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER FROM PASCAL D. FORGIONE, JR, Ph.D. TO PETE HOEKSTRA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND INVESTIGTIONS, COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND THE WORKFORCE, JUNE 14, 1999, PAGE 3, ITEM #13 – SEE APPENDIX G

Mr. Castle. Mark, could we ask you the question on NAGB and NAEP? I have often thought that maybe they should be completely independent, and also your relationship with the National Center for Education Statistics. That was always a little bit of a troubled area when I was on the NAGB board. What are your thoughts about the independence and relationships of these organizations, as rapidly as you can?

Mr. Musick. I will make three points. When the Alexander James group considered this for more than a year in 1987 and came up with the proposal that Congress adopted in 1988, it envisioned a structure with shared power, a board, a contractor in the Federal Government.

A year ago That Congress gave the Governing Board the exclusive authority for something called the Voluntary National Test Proposal. Now we have exclusive authority for something that does not yet exist and we have shared ambiguity for the National Assessment program. So this sharing arrangement I would argue has worked but it does create ambiguity. The Board is trying to deal with the difference between exclusive authority and shared ambiguity, Mr. Castle, and I would have to think more about that.

Finally, today the relationship with the National Center of Statistics and the Governing Board, I would argue, has never been stronger. Commissioner Forgione's relationship with the Board, his openness, the way that we worked through the redesign for the National Assessment showed that he did not try to play things real close to the vest.

Mr. Castle. That may be institutional, may it not? Maybe I am referring to a different time when I said it was a little more fragmented. Should we institutionally change it to make sure it is always like that or the proper distance is there?

Mr. Musick. I think you can argue that the reason it is more personal today than institutional is that it reflects a leadership style.

Mr. Castle. I would appreciate hearing any thoughts you have on that. Let me ask you, and I am going to run out of time sooner than I would like to, on this particular round of tests there were some serious questions raised, at least in certain states, about certain students who might have achieved at lower levels. Learning disabled programs for lack of a more inclusive expression, were not given the test in the same percentage as they might have been in other states or other years. That really bothered me. That bothered me as much as anything.

I would like your comments on that. I have spoken to Dr. Forgione about this, and I don't consider it to be de minimis. I consider it to be significant. If you are going to give these tests, it is absolutely imperative they be fairly given and depoliticized. If there was a problem, we need to get to that and make sure that that is being eradicated.

Mr. Forgione. I can say to you unequivocally, the administration of the National Assessment at the national level and in the 43 states that took grade 4 and the 40 that took grade 8 had no incidence of any abrogation of administration.

What is happening is in the state contexts they are serving more kids in Special Ed, and those individual plans are identifying and maybe not yet perhaps giving the instructions when you can take the test and not take it. That is leading to variation. But I can also say to you the Study we just completed says this had modest impact on the results. I know the numbers look big.

Mr. Castle. But a little bit of that, with all due respect, is educational or understandable language. I was going to say gobbledygook The real bottom line is there are some differences in some of the people taking the test. You may argue it is not significant, but because of what you just went through there are some differences in who is taking the test and who isn't. Maybe we are not comparing the same oranges to the same oranges every year to year, or 2 years to 2 years.

Mr. Forgione. All you can do is go into a state and say all children should be tested. Give me your fourth grade list. We pick the 30 kids. Then the principal can only say Pat and Mark can't take the test because his IAP says so. We are driven by that. There is not uniformity throughout the country as to where those things happen. That is the only difference.

So I think we have uniformity as best we can. We are going to tighten up with the Board's help. If there is variation in the future, we may not produce your result because we may believe they lead to an unfairness.

But you are absolutely correct, the Governing Board is committed to a perception and reality of fairness. At this moment I can tell you, the 1996 mathematics test was not consequential in this matter, and I can say to you it is only modest here as you can read in my statement.

Chairman Hoekstra. Mr. Scott.

Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all a very brief question in terms of which is worse. Is it worse to participate in an announcement after the data is on the Internet, after the results are on the Internet, or is it worse to make announcements at political fund-raisers the night before the report is released? Is there any question that announcing at a political fund-raiser the night before is worse?

Mr. Musick. Both of those were…

Mr. Scott. There is no question that announcing it at a political fund-raiser the night before the report is issued is worse. Is that a fair statement?

Mr. Forgione. I would agree they are both inappropriate.

Mr. Scott. You would agree that a political fund-raiser is worse, if anybody can get the information off the Internet after it is already on there? You have problems saying that it is worse to make the announcement at a political fund-raiser in terms of which more politicizes the report? If you have a problem saying it is worse, just say you have a problem saying it is worse. It is a simple question.

Mr. Musick. Congressman Scott, the two occasions I would argue were both in violation of the policy. The things that were said at the two occasions differed quite dramatically in terms of the breadth and depth of the comments.

Mr. Scott. So you have problems saying that announcing before the results have been made public at a political fund-raiser is worse than making, participating, in an announcement after the report has been put on the Internet. You have a problem saying it is worse?

Mr. Forgione. I don't think we addressed the fundamental question, which is the perception of integrity and the belief in the data, and one must address that. The degree of difference I don't think is really at issue. What is at issue is the public's confidence that the results are correct.

Mr. Scott. I thought it was a simple question. Obviously it wasn't. You have a problem saying that politicizing it, bringing it up at a political fund-raiser before it is announced, isn't worse than commenting on it after it has already been made public. I just say that because the other comments have to be taken in the context of the way you have answered that question.

Let me ask about the results themselves. Have the results been validated in terms of being meaningful? Do students who do well on the tests get better jobs, get better grades, are more likely to get into or perform well in college?

Mr. Forgione. At this point, there are not validity studies that are associated with the performance levels of the Governing Board. In other words, if you are basic, proficient, advanced, what are the consequences in the future for that? The Governing Board is using a judgmental process that is equal to what the states do, that says have you met the standard or not. They haven't gotten into what we call the "consequential validity" of it. It is more the base validity and that the test represents the constructs that the public has said are important, and the tests measure those.

Mr. Scott. The concern obviously is that some of these standardized tests have a racial bias, and if they are not validated then that would obviously cause concern. Is there any attempt to try to get validation?

Mr. Forgione. Well, we do bias analysis. I wouldn't call that validation but I can see in a common sense that you can use that. There is strict bias analysis done on every item to ensure that it doesn't have a difference impact on different categories of students because we want to use an item that would be fair and reliable. Therefore, that is strictly done. The National Assessment is probably the premier assessment in this country, if not the world, given the investment we make in it.

Mr. Musick. The kind of validity question I think you are asking, Mr. Scott, for the National Assessment, gets, as Congressman Castle would testify, a little complicated, because individual students don't actually take a National Assessment of course. They take a slice of the National Assessment. It is a survey examination.

Mr. Scott. My time is about to run out now. I want to get in one other question. Do you see certain variables in terms of good results? Do you see better results with smaller class sizes, better teachers, higher paid teachers? Can we learn anything through the assessment in terms of what we ought to be focusing on to improve education?

Mr. Forgione. The nature of the National Assessment is a survey assessment, not a testing program. We can tell you how the Nation is doing over time or a fourth grade class in 1992, 1994 and 1998. It doesn't have the ability to look at evaluative effects. It is not designed as a longitudinal study, it is cross-sectional. So you can't make those kinds of conclusions.

Every now and then we can see a correlation and we try to do secondary analysis. But the design is not meant to ask if Title I is working or is this working. We can tell you if poor kids are learning, but we don't know what program those treatments come from. It is an indicator, not a program evaluation tool.

Mr. Scott. Mr. Chairman, I don't have time to follow through on this, but it seems to me that if you are doing a survey, you ought to have enough statistical data to draw certain conclusions, and if we are going to be giving the tests we ought to be able to cull out some of this information. I would like to follow through on that at a later date.

Chairman Hoekstra. Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Fletcher. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate you conducting this Hearing and I appreciate both of your testimonies. Let me start with making a statement.

You know, the object of this was really to depoliticize the educational assessment, for us to be able to really tell how are we doing, and how the programs we are implementing are doing. It is not for individual students to predict if they are going to be doing well. So we need to keep focused on that.

I want to look at how it has been politicized. When I look at the comments that Vice President Gore made, he said, "I am pleased today to be able to release the results." Clearly this was a premeditated, intentional effort to do something that was against the regulations and the intent of what we have established here.

He says, "Well, today I am very proud to be able to report to you new evidence that our efforts are beginning to pay off. For the very first time, reading scores have improved for each of the three grades measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress: 4th grade, 8th grade and 12th grade. This is great progress and we are proud to report it."

I looked at the results, and the fourth grade achievement levels showed no statistical significant change. Fourth grade scale score net gain is constant, 8th grade scores do represent progress in short and long term and 12th grade scores overall showed no change from 1992 to 1998.

It looks to me as if not only did he go out of his way to report something that he really shouldn't have done and to use it for political gain, but he exaggerated extremely the results of the test for political gain. There is certainly apples and oranges when you look at a side remark that was made by someone who is not in public office anymore and is not going to be there in the future.

Let me ask a few questions, especially that relate to Kentucky. First off, I want to say I understand there are about four states that registered large increases in the exclusion rates from 1994 to 1998, and Kentucky was one of those. Also the adjusted scores appeared smaller for all four states, but the results remained statistically significant for all but Kentucky. I just want to ask a question about that. As I understand, Mr. Musick, would you please explain why the NAEP exclusion policy changed in 1996?

Mr. Musick. In part because there are lots of things changing across America. I think this gets to a question of Congressman Scott. We are seeing a time of state efforts to expand services for disabled students and to test them in Kentucky. The KATS program tests them under nonstandard conditions with what is called accommodations, giving students more time and helping them take the test.

So the states all across America are trying to include more students in their testing programs. NAEP has had a longstanding tradition of trying to include more students. So the reason we changed that in 1996 was to try to take into account what is going on across America while, and this is a big "while", maintaining our trends and our ties to what went on 2 years and 4 years and 6 years before.

Mr. Fletcher. Do you think that could have resulted in any way in some elevated scores or looked like there was progress because of changes in the sampling?

Mr. Musick. Well, the Commissioner is better prepared than I to comment on that. I will simply say we will be releasing written results in a few months, a few weeks really. We will be looking at the kinds of questions you are asking, Congressman Fletcher, the kinds of questions our analysis has done. Before we changed the exclusion-inclusion rules, we did a year of pilot testing. We looked at it both ways. We used tests with no accommodations and tests with accommodations.

Mr. Fletcher. Let me interrupt. I have one more question. How do you know that states interpret inclusion rules in the same way? Kentucky has been used as an example of how the interpretation of this policy can really change scores. How do you ensure uniformity?

Mr. Forgione. We administer these tests at the national level. We go out and do it in 400 schools. In the states, we train independent individuals who go into the schools and oversee it. So the states are not controlling this, they are using the common criteria and applying it. So we have the stability.

We have also looked over time if the old criteria and the new criteria has changed the national measure? There is an old maxim: Don't change the measure if you want to measure change. So that was the tension we were in. We did a study saying that the new criteria and the old in mathematics gave us the same distribution, so statistically we could use the new criteria, and that is why the Board went to that.

Mr. Fletcher. My time is up. I appreciate your answering the questions. I would say in closing I really think some of the politicization of this shows the dangers of manipulation and the political abuse that would take place if we really established national testing.

Thank you.

Chairman Hoekstra. Mr. Ford.

Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased in some ways that I am hearing a lot of concern from my colleagues on that side of the aisle. I know there is genuine concern for how we can improve the quality of education in America. I am a little dumbfounded as to how we could be remotely upset that anyone could announce the fact that we are seeing some progress and movement in the right direction as relates to kids' reading.

I am from the state of Tennessee not far from Kentucky and my friend Mr. Fletcher and the others on that side. It amazes me that we would really call a hearing to criticize the Vice President for announcing the fact that we are moving forward particularly after our witnesses, Mr. Scott and I are a little offended, whom we are glad are here, couldn't answer the obvious. These findings that the Vice President announced

were already released or were already electronically released.

President Bush, who I had great respect for and I hope his son remains Governor of Texas, Mr. Fletcher, made the comments at a fund-raiser prior to the release of these findings. The Vice President, it is my understanding, made this announcement after the release at what could be considered a political event, and we are all politicians so anything we do is for political gains in many ways. So let us not be that naive and certainly ignore political realities. We are not going to all try to make gains.

But it just amazes me that we would actually hold a hearing on something so unimportant, when we have had to fight and fight and fight to convince my colleagues on the other side of the aisle that we ought to maybe explore what happened in Paducah, Pearl, Littleton and Conyers. We pray for those families and communities as they try to heal.

I would just have a few questions for the Commissioner. Commissioner Forgione forgive me, I am from Memphis and we have problems pronouncing those last names. I hope I am pronouncing your last name correctly. During your tenure at NCES has anyone ever abridged your ability to design or implement any study or any NAEP studies?

Mr. Forgione. No.

Mr. Ford. Did the electronic release of the NAEP results at 10 a.m. on February 10th fulfill your responsibility as Commissioner to release the data?

Mr. Forgione. It fulfilled it in one sense, but normally when we have a press event, the press event is seen as the more visible and therefore can set a context that one has to take into account. Electronically, typically, is done when we don't have a press event and get it out to America. Sometimes I always electronically release it, because I want the world to see our information.

Mr. Ford. So you wouldn't be surprised if you released something for the world to see and a little elementary school in my District which had access to the Internet saw it and decided to call the media and said hey, we see that reading scores are improving for students at our public schools throughout this District. You wouldn't necessarily be offended at that fact, would you?

Mr. Forgione. No, we would compliment them.

Mr. Ford. I have only been here a term and a half, but it sounds like to me we have folks crying over sour grapes. Maybe if somebody down in Texas had had an opportunity to announce these results a little sooner, we might not be as upset as we are now and might not have been provoked to call a Hearing.

The Vice President didn't invent the Internet, I think he did. Some folks don't believe he invented the Internet, but I think he did. He just happened to find this information a little quicker than other folks and happened to have a speech a little later that day announcing the fact that the President and he are committed to redoubling their effort to educate kids. I am trying not to be partisan here. He just happened to announce the fact after it had been released across the Internet that we are seeing some improvements.

I know my friend Mr. Hoekstra would have to be pleased, as he turns on my light, that we are making progress on these fronts.

I hated to have dominated my time and not allowed Mr. Musick to have a long period of time to respond. I know the question has been asked before, but I just want it in the record one more time. I know Mr. Scott tried to get at this, but would you characterize President Bush's action of announcing the 1992 results at a fund-raiser.

I think I am quoting you sir, and if I am not correct me, as an event that was not consistent with the principle of an independent, nonpartisan release of National Assessment data? I think you might have made that comment sir, if I am correct, as related to Mr. Gore.

Mr. Bush's comment, and I think he had every right to make the announcement

even if he decided to try to use it for political gain, which it is kind of hard to believe.

We are shocked that some of us up here would make statements for political gain.

Mr. Musick, did you make that comment regarding Mr. Gore? Would you say that that probably would apply to the distinguished President?

Mr. Musick. Mr. Boyd, my predecessor said he was surprised and disturbed by Mr. Bush's actions. I would say that my words would apply equally to both occasions, yes sir.

Mr. Ford. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the time, but again I think what it boils down to is that the Vice President found out this information a little quicker than other folks and made the announcement, and now we are going to accuse him of politicizing the fact that our kids are reading a little better. I will be continuing to politicize those things and hope that our kids will continue to read better and add and subtract and multiply and divide a little bit better, too.

I thank you for letting me go over my time, Mr. Chairman. I thank the witnesses for coming.

Chairman Hoekstra. I thank Mr. Ford for his questions. I just add that I can now understand if you believe the Vice President created the Internet, why you also believe his characterization of the test results. Mr. Schaffer

Mr. Ford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Schaffer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am not sure which panelist is the most appropriate to comment, but NAEP used a time frame in assessing the overall improvement of students from 1992 to 1998. Am I correct in that?

Mr. Musick. Correct.

Mr. Schaffer. I think the bigger issue is not so much whether some politician decided to exploit the results of the data for whatever political advantage may be secured, but how that data was released and under what pretense as well. The time frame used by the Vice President was not the same as yours. Am I correct?

Mr. Musick. The figures were for 1992, 1994 and 1998. I think the Vice President may have focused on 1994 and 1998.

Mr. Schaffer. As opposed to 1992 and 1998. When focusing on the 1994 to 1998, and let me just quote what the President said, he said, "Well, today I am very proud to be able to report to you new evidence that our efforts are beginning to pay off. For the very first time, reading scores have improved for each of the three grades measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress: 4th grade, 8th grade and 12th grade." And then with emphasis, "This is great progress and we are proud to report it."

In your presentation of the data, however, did you come to the same conclusion?

Mr. Forgione. When I presented the data as I do in each and every case, I go back to the base year and talk first about the base year, 1992 versus 1998, in which there was no change at grade 4 and no change at grade 12 and grade 8 did have change. Then I will take an intermediate period, because in this case there was only one, in which there were gains over the short-term.

We have a quadratic where we lost ground, came back, and that is why it is equal at 4 and 12, but 8th grade was our success. So the Commissioner and the Board presented the full spectrum. The Vice President did focus on that intermediate period.

Mr. Schaffer. Just from the perspective of the value of the NAEP scores and what they tell the American people about the performance of their children, is there some difference just in the intellectually honest application of the findings when considering these time frames? In other words, what would be more honest in your opinion, the 1992 to 1998 comparison, or just the selective portion of 1994 to 1998?

Mr. Forgione. They both have validity, and one would have to put them in context. NAEP is the goal standard. It is done independently and it is done with integrity. That is why it is so important to release them in a way that people can interpret for themselves. That is why the Commissioner, I believe the Chairman said, is Jack Webb. We know the facts only, and let you decide what they mean.

But I don't want to underestimate that, because that is so important. Let's not just get distracted into who struck John, but what is at the heart of this. It is the integrity and the independence of a statistical agency and the perception that that may be a bridge, and no one wants that. So I hope you will address that as you go forward.

Mr. Schaffer. Mr. Chairman, do you need any of my time?

Chairman Hoekstra. I don't need your time, but I will take it.

Mr. Schaffer. I yield my time to the Chairman.

Chairman Hoekstra. I would like to insert for the record the National Assessment Governing Board Policy Statement. I believe this is from 1990. Without objection?

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, POLICY STATEMENT ON REPORTING AND DISSEMINATION OF NATIONAL ASSESSMENT RESULTS, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT OF EDUCATIONAL PROGRESS, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, ATLANTA, GA, NOVEMBER 17, 1990

SEE APPENDIX D

Chairman Hoekstra. I think your intent at the press conference as you talked about the data and your agenda differed. Your proposed agenda differed from the actual agenda in what way? What did you propose and what actually happened?

Mr. Forgione. The order of the presenters, in accordance with the NAGB policy, is that the Commissioner should release all the data and put the full spectrum out, then allow commentary at some point afterwards, immediately or later. In this case the Governing Board, the Secretary and the teacher would have joined us.

Chairman Hoekstra. So the National Assessment Governing Board policy is the data is presented first, after which there may be time for questions on the data or somebody may offer a policy statement. That is how you jealously guard it. What actually happened at the presentation?

Mr. Musick. At the presentation as has been established, the data was technically released on the Internet at 10 a.m. At 11 a.m. a press conference began with the Secretary introducing an outstanding teacher from Fairfax, Virginia. She introduced the Vice President. The Vice President released, his term, "released" the results. The Vice President left and Commissioner Forgione presented the results, and then I was on the program commenting on those results. Then there was a question and answer period with the press and persons in the audience.

Chairman Hoekstra. So the Vice President gave a rather sterile presentation of these are the numbers. Nothing but the facts? Is that what happened?

Mr. Musick. I think you have heard some of the testimony or some of the results.

Chairman Hoekstra. All right. I will get my 5 minutes again in 5 minutes. Mr. Kind.

Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the witnesses for coming even under the environment in which you are being asked to testify. I for one just want to echo what our Ranking Member said in regards to this hearing and what the purpose really should be about. That should be figuring out ways that this Committee can work together in a bipartisan fashion to try to improve the state of education in this country.

Quite frankly, I think it is an incredible waste of time to hold a hearing of this nature with this kind of content and to waste staff time for a few days talking about the release of information which to my understanding was published over the Internet for public consumption one hour after it was published, and then try to make some political hay about it.

If the next year and half in this Congress, Mr. Chairman, is going to be nitpicking and criticizing the Vice President of the United States for political purposes, we are in for a very long time, and I fear that we are not going to get much accomplished if anything.

I would think that when it comes to concerns about our children and the education that we are supposed to be providing in this country, that we can rise above this on occasion and keep our eye on the ball rather than wasting a whole lot of people's time.

I mean it is my understanding that after an hour of this information being publicized, the Vice President made some obscure comments in regards to the test results. This is a very fine line between political use and a policy discussion. There is no question about that. But this certainly cannot compare with a sitting President announcing the results of NAEP test scores a day before they are even published at a private school, and then shortly thereafter at a fund-raising event with the Vice President of the United States in attendance. So, let's be realistic about what this is all about.

What concerns me more is the fact that we have got what appears to be at least some manipulation of NAEP test results going on right now. I would like to hear your comments in that regard, because in all honesty, a lot of school districts are making some policy changes in order to accommodate and to include students with disabilities. I would like to know what is being done from your point of view in order to deal with these policy changes so that we don't have a state-by-state potential manipulation of future test scores and we can get some accurate and quantifiable data that are reliable in the future. If anyone would like to comment.

Mr. Forgione. Please, in my statement we do address that issue. I was concerned after the initial release of the state data. People raised the question. The number of identified Special Ed kids has gone up. We can understand that. America is funding more, so you would expect more children to be identified. But is exclusion happening?

We did a study, Mr. Kind, to make sure that we could identify the impact on it. I am pleased to say that despite the look of a large number, we can say to you it is only a modest impact. Only 14 of 36 states that were studied in 1992, 1994, and 1998 had a significant increase in the number of Special Ed kids. Therefore, this problem is a modest one at this point. We do recognize that we have got to be vigilant about it and make sure we put in place procedures that will not allow results to be reported that are not fair.

The answer to the question is there was no manipulation. We administered the tests independently. We picked the schools in every state. We picked the roster of fourth graders and we drew 30. Only at that point could the principal or administrator say Mark and Pat should not be tested because their IEP says so. So that is a fixed document that continues to be manipulated. It is there.

Now, why do different numbers pop up in different states? That is a contextual issue relating to the services and the funding and their priorities. We tried to have a level playing field. Certainly the state over time hopefully would be level.

We are vigilant about this. I can say to you with confidence, these results hold. It did not apply to the Math results released in 1996, but it certainly is an issue that the NAEP and the state governments with their state testing programs need to be vigilant about.

Mr. Kind. In those states where you feel there may have been some exclusion rates affecting test scores, were there any other factors that may have attributed to some of the different test scores in those states?

Mr. Forgione. We only had time to look at this one factor: What impact did the increase in exclusion between 1994 and 1998 that went from 4 percent to 8 percent have on your performance? If you had growth? Would raising the score up impact? We were very harsh. We took out the bottom kids and raised the 1994 scores, and then asked is there still a statistically significant increase or are you still statistically the same? No one went backwards, and 33 of the 36 states showed that they maintained their growth.

So in fact I can say to you with confidence that even this rigorous model didn't have the impact. We are doing some reasonable models, because Special Ed kids are not all at the bottom. Some ADD kids are terrific performers. We will have those studies. Two of the 3 States that did not show significance at this point, may in fact with the reasonable model be able to be certified. But the results will not change. This is a hypothetical study, "what if."

The results are what they are. You could ask the same question if you had more migration or you had more poverty. We take the data in NAEP and report it. The Governing Board does not allow any type of massaging of the data, because people don't view that as the proper approach.

Mr. Kind. Thank you.

Chairman Hoekstra. Thank you. Without objection, I would like to submit for the record a February 18 letter, February 18, 1999, from Chairman Mark Musick to Mr. Forgione, just quoting, "I am writing to express the Board's concern about the recent press conference for release of the 1988 NAEP reading report card. We believe the format, tone and substance of that event was not consistent with the principle of an independent, nonpartisan release of the National Assessment data, an important and longstanding Board policy." That letter was written at the direction of the Executive Committee of the National Assessment Governing Board I and my colleagues here on the panel believe.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER FROM MARK D. MUSICK, CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ASSESSMENT GOVERNING BOARD, WASHINGTON, DC TO DR. PASCAL D. FORGIONE, JR, COMISSIONER OF EDUCATION STATISTICS, WASHINGTON, DC, FEBRUARY 18, 1999 – SEE APPENDIX E

Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I will not object to your request to enter that into the record, but I would make a request at this time to have unanimous consent to enter into the record right after that letter Mr. Boyd's letter about President Bush's problems in 1992.

Chairman Hoekstra. Absolutely. Without objection.

SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD, LETTER FROM RICHARD A. BOYD, CHAIRMAN TO MR. EMERSON J. ELLIOTT, ACTING COMMISSIONER, NATIONAL CENTER FOR EDUCATION STATISTICS, WASHINGTON, DC,

JUNE 3, 1992 – SEE APPENDIX F

Chairman Hoekstra. What we are trying to establish here is that there is a principle of independent nonpartisan release of National Assessment data, an important and longstanding Board policy.

My colleagues on the other side of the aisle tend to belittle that point and say this is no big deal, but actually in reality it is a big deal and the Board has consistently driven home that point. I am concerned by the inferences that are being made by the other side of the aisle that this is something that isn't very important and we ought to just blow it off because this is a partisan event. You are refusing to characterize this.

Mr. Roemer. Mr. Chairman, I think you are characterizing the witness' testimony today in an inaccurate fashion. I think Mr. Forgione has said that this was not a violation in fact, but it was a perception problem. That is what he says in his testimony.

Chairman Hoekstra. The format, tone, and substance of that event was not consistent with the principles of an independent nonpartisan release of the National Assessment data. Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. Tancredo. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Forgione, on March 23rd, the L.A. Times quoted you as saying that Gore's presentation of the results "can cloud the confidence people might have in the independence of the data."

Education Week quoted you as saying the following about the Administration. "We have had contentiousness over how to proceed, but I never felt anything that would be out of line. It has only been over the presentation of the research, not the design."

Based on usual testimony and these quotes, it appears you feel strongly the Vice President should not have released the reading results. Can you explain for us a little more about what you mean by contentiousness?

Mr. Forgione. Well, first I will say there is a subtle but important difference here. When I was asked the question, I do believe that the way this was released in a press conference did have the perception of politicizing this event. Therefore, as I said in my opening statement, we have got to have a strong measure of independence, and therefore the Commissioner should have released the data at that event. It doesn't mean because we electronically released it, we do those things simultaneously.

So I felt that this was not an appropriate approach. I believe it was inadvertent, but it is something that we do not wish to have continued. I am pleased the Governing Board has taken action with regard to NAEP that will not allow this in the future. I ask you in your reauthorization to ensure that this independence happens.

At this moment, my Agency is suspect and people in the education community are raising major concerns. If you are going to attract a new Commissioner to this position, you want someone who is going to come in and not be afraid to do what is right. Therefore, the perception is at this moment that this thing didn't go well. I have no evidence, but I just don't like those perceptions. The only way to deal with it is get the boundaries clear and get away from these awkward situations, and that is what I meant to say. I didn't mean to offend anyone. I meant to say what is honestly, as the Chairman has said, is the policy.

Mr. Tancredo. Mr.Chairman, the reason why I am concerned about this, and I do believe that it is appropriate for us to be looking into this today. During the time I spent at the U.S. Department of Education, a little over 11-1/2 years as the Regional Director in Region 8, there was one place that we could go and one organization that we could look to for solid and good answers to questions. There was a general feeling that when you saw NAEP results, there was a reliability factor there perhaps greater than any other. Everything else we dealt with, ITBS all the way down, was fraught, frankly, with problems that did make you question whether or not you could use the information reliably.

NAEP, however, was different. I was always encouraging those states in my region who are not participants in NAEP to become participants because of what I believed to be, as I say, a very good program you can rely upon. So it is extremely disconcerting that anything could happen in this particular program that would cast a shadow of doubt, even the slightest shadow of doubt, on the credibility of the activity of NAEP and of the results. It really is about the only thing we have to rely on in this environment; this arcane and sometimes ethereal world of measurement and assessment.

So I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman Hoekstra. Mr. Roemer.

Mr. Roemer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I just want to get on the record that I have some concerns what has been conveyed in the last couple of statements regarding what Mr. Forgione has said in his testimony. He has said the Commissioner must release all education data for the agency. This is a quote from his testimony on page 4. This can take the form of publication, a data file or an electronic release. The fact of the matter is it was electronically released an hour before the press conference.

Then Mr. Forgione goes on to say on page 5, that the Commissioner electronically released the national NAEP data on the NCES web site at 10 a.m. that morning. However, there may be a subtle perception problem, which now Mr. Musick and Mr. Forgione have clarified internally.

Mr. Musick, could you read for me your new rule that you published 2 weeks ago to make sure this doesn't happen again?

Mr. Musick. I think I can, sir. I think reading the relevant parts of it are really what you want to hear. One second please.

In revising the NAEP release policy earlier this month, the Board added new language which underlines our previous position. It reads: The initial release of NAEP data shall be independent and apolitical, separated clearly from other programs and policies of the Department of Education.

It also adds that the official press statement or release announcing NAEP results shall be issued by the National Center for Education Statistics rather than by any other department in the Department of Education.

Mr. Roemer. This is a result, Mr. Musick, of the perception problem that the Vice President inadvertently, and that is a quote from Mr. Forgione, inadvertently created

even though the data was out on the web an hour ahead of time. Now a political person according to the guidelines can no longer be part of an announcement, and that is a result of this social faux pas by the Vice President and former President Bush's violation. Is that correct?

Mr. Musick. This is the Board's effort to make sure that…

Mr. Roemer. …to clarify…