Talking Points
• National standards and testing are unlikely to overcome the deficiencies of American elementary and secondary schooling, which are rooted in the public education system's power and incentive structure.
• National standards would strengthen federal power over education while weakening schools' direct accountability to parents and taxpayers.
• Centralized standard-setting will likely result in the standardization of mediocrity rather than establishing standards of excellence.
• While proponents of national standards point to the variation in state standards, the rigor and content of national standards will face pressure to scale down toward the mean among states, undercutting states with high quality standards.
• Federal policymakers should provide states with increased flexibility and freedom from red tape to make state leaders more accountable to parents and taxpayers. States should also strengthen standards, increase transparency about school performance, and allow parents to act on that information by choosing their children's schools

ABSTRACT - Work force growth will slow dramatically in the 1990s. To ensure a more prosperous future, productivity and competitive position must be improved. New high performance forms of work organization operate very differently from the system of mass manufacturing. These work organizations require large investments in training. The approach to work and education must fundamentally change. Recommendations include the following: (1) a new educational performance standard should be set for all students, to be met by age 16, with the standard established nationally and benchmarked to the highest in the world; (2) states should take the responsibility for assuring that virtually all students achieve the Certificate of Initial Mastery (CIM), with new local Employment and Training Boards creating and funding alternative learning environments for those who cannot attain the CIM in regular schools; (3) a comprehensive system of Technical and Professional Certificates and associate's degrees should be created for the majority of students and adult workers who do not pursue a baccalaureate degree; (4) all employers should be given incentives and assistance to invest in the further education and training of their workers and to pursue high productivity forms of work organization; and (5) a system of Employment and Training Boards should be established by federal and state governments, together with local leadership, to organize and oversee the new school-to-work transition programs and training systems. (CML)

"The core problem is that our education and training systems were built for another era. We can't get where we must go only by changing the systems itself."

"What would the education policies and practices of the United States be if they were based on the policies and practices of the countries that now lead the world in student performance?"

Mr. HYDE: Mr. Speaker, no one doubts that education is a vital importance to our country. The question that must be answered is what role should the Federal Government play in supporting education? We have seen more and more legislative efforts to increase the Federal, as opposed to the local role, and this trend concerns many Americans, including myself. As we engage in debate, it is useful to understand the context, the historical background, of some efforts to increase the central government's intrusion into what has been a largely local responsibility. Dr. D.L. Cuddy , a former senior associate with the U.S. Department of Education, has written an interesting historical commentary on the school to work concept which I believe warrants the attention of Members.

excerpts:
• `regionalism' strategy (e.g., NAFTA, later) against nationalism
• slogan `workers of the world unite'

Adopting the CCSS takes control of educational content and standards away from parents, taxpayers, local school districts, and states.