We need to find a replacement for standardized tests that works

Rosa Rosenfeld feels that opting children out of standardized testing is an example of excessive “coddling” (“The opt-out movement and the coddling epidemic,” The Hill’s Contributors Blog, April 6). We need the tests, she argues, because few New York state students are rated as “proficient” in reading and math, and American academic performance is low compared to other countries. 

Please look at the research: When we control for the effect of poverty, American students rank near the top of the world on international tests. 

{mosads}Our mediocre average performance is due to the fact that we have so many children living in poverty, now about 25 percent, the highest among all industrialized countries. It has also been argued that the score needed to be considered “proficient” is much too high: Most students from high-scoring countries would not reach this level. 

Ms. Rosenfeld also needs to take another look at the tests given now and what is planned for the future. Students in the U.S. are now being tested more than any time in history. There is no evidence that these tests are doing our students any good, and they bleed valuable time and money from our schools. The opt-out movement is a rational reaction to overtesting, and unresearched, unreasonable standards.  

Ms. Rosenfeld also might want to study what our government, in cooperation with testing and computer companies, is planning for the future. Regular instruction will be largely replaced by “competency-based education,” a radical and expensive innovation that replaces regular instruction with computer “modules” that students work through on their own. It is limited to what can be easily taught and tested by computer. There is very little evidence supporting competency-based education; nevertheless, the new education law explicitly provides funding, and the National Governors Association has cheerfully endorsed it. 

Concerns about overprotection are valid, but this does not mean that “anything goes.” 

From Stephen Krashen, Rossier School of Education, University of Southern California; Morna McDermott, College of Education, Towson University; and Peggy Robertson, Adams 50 School District, Westminster, Colo. 

Congress must stabilize Puerto Rico

“Ryan sticks neck out on Puerto Rico debt relief bill” (April 17) highlights the concerns of the House majority to avoid a taxpayer bailout to solve Puerto Rico’s fiscal mess.

According to my calculations, there’s no need to impose haircuts on existing debt nor ask for additional fiscal stimulus, paid by mainland taxpayers, to restore Puerto Rico’s fiscal health. However, Congress needs to help its territory do what it alone cannot do: recover its lost reputation as a responsible borrower. 

Title I of H.R. 4900, creating a federal oversight board, is essential to restoring the territory’s capacity to publish audited financial statements promptly, execute balanced budgets and follow its own Constitution, which prioritizes debt payments.

Title III of H.R. 4900, which would require the board to adjust debts, is not necessary and could jeopardize the willingness of investors to provide long-term funding to Puerto Rico at reasonable rates. If Title III of the bill is necessary to attract Democratic votes, however, it can be limited to voluntary restructurings and subject to sufficient prior fiscal measures that restore Puerto Rico’s debt capacity without a taxpayer’s bailout.

Let’s not forget that mainland taxpayers are already doing their fair share to help the territory, financing 20 percent of its general fund expenditures through the foreign tax credit. This credit can be claimed for the 4 percent excise tax Puerto Rico has imposed on U.S. companies since 2011.

From Jose Oyola, Arlington, Va.