Jim Baird: “I rise today to express a number of serious reservations about the testing provisions of HR 1. I commend the committee…”

“I rise today to express a number of serious reservations about the testing provisions of HR 1. I commend the committee chair, the ranking member, and all those who have worked in a truly bipartisan basis to bring this legislation to the floor today, but I am afraid that some provisions of the bill as written have the potential to harm, rather than improve, our educational system. The problem to which I am referring is the mandate for annual testing. I know that many of those who support annual testing do so because they believe we must set high standards in order to motivate our students, faculty, and administrators to achieve. I strongly agree with that goal, but I also disagree with how this legislation seeks to accomplish it. As a licensed clinical psychologist before coming to Congress, I may bring a unique perspective to this debate. In addition to administering, scoring and interpreting hundreds of tests in my own professional career, I also taught graduate level courses dealing with the design, uses, and potential abuses of tests and test results. So I know something about the matter of testing. Based on that experience, and a careful reading of this legislation, let me raise the following concerns: First, this legislation represents an enormous unfunded mandate with absolutely no information provided regarding the cost of implementation or the benefits as compared to other options.”