I do rise in support of the Goodling amendment. As a member of the Committee on Education and the Workforce and someone who wants all children to achieve the highest standards of learning, I am reluctantly opposing the administration's current national testing proposal in its current format. The goals and intentions behind the proposal are excellent, to enable States, schools, and students on a voluntary basis to see how they are doing relative to other State schools and students. At its best, this can spur reform efforts and help target resources where they are most needed. The tests can also provide one indicator of how successful local reform efforts are. Unfortunately, this proposal has been poorly managed and executed, and consequently has not gained adequate support from families, educators, the States, or Congress. My home State of Delaware recently implemented world class education standards. These standards were not developed at the top level and presented to educators and parents as a done deal. These standards were the product of extensive discussion and feedback from all parties at the local and State level. Consequently, when the standards were complete, there was widespread, although not universal, support for them. I believe this serves as a model for how testing should be developed at the national level.
Editor's note · Context
Addressing concerns about the administration's national testing proposal during a debate on education.
Share
More from Michael Castle
I don't think any of us would question the need to reform predatory lending practices in the mortgage industry.
I think we need to be very careful about how encroaching we are being with respect to dictating in terms of corporate structures and corporate methodologies involving the Federal Government.
Woman, we hope this report can be done relatively soon. The amendment actually allows for 180 days more from this time in order to submit it. We have been in touch with the administration. We know that they're aware of this, and hopefully…
To be clear, we do not want to stifle creativity, and nothing in our bill restricts the ability of originators to continue to securitize less predictable or riskier products.





