UC Secretary of Education talks SAT, affirmative action
The following are excerpts from a January 17th interview with US Secretary of Education Rod Paige. Paige was a central figure in last year’s passage of the No Child Left Behind Act. The act, among other things, is meant to increase accountability for failing schools by requiring all public schools to gradually meet strict academic standards set by each state.

Interview by Ben Barron
4:11 PM, 1/31/2003

California Patriot: UC is looking into switching from aptitude-based standardized tests to knowledge tests based on the curricula of California high schools. Do you believe that the SAT as it is now does test the actual aptitude of a student, and should changes be made to it?

Secretary Paige: Well I’ve followed with a real interest on (UC) President (Richard) Atkinson’s work at UC Berkeley, and my thoughts are with complete concert with what he’s trying to achieve. He is expressing a preference to achievement tests, tests that demonstrate what has been accomplished and also with the added benefit of giving guidance to high school curricula and giving more attention there, which for me is a good thing.

I agree with (Atkinson) in deciding to move away from the test for the reason that he’s articulated and for the reason particularly that the tests should be used to predict the performance of the students at the university. Evidence is mounting that achievement tests are useful in making that prediction even though they’re not designed to do that.

CP: Do you believe that the test is itself racially biased, as some critics have charged?

SP: I’ve never taken a position that the test is racially biased. This is not to say that it is not, but this is not a position that I’m focused on or taken that position.

CP: Will your office push for the implementation of school vouchers this year?

SP: The No Child Left Behind Act does contain a lot of choice in it--public school choice. If a school fails to improve, students are eligible to transfer to a better performing public school or charter school. There’s a good deal of choice in the bill that we’re going to try to make work right, and once we do that choice is going to be a fundamental part of schools across America.

(Choice) is an irreversible phenomenon. We know that monopolies don’t work, and wide choice in public schools is a necessary condition for authentic and effective school reform. Vouchers is an effective way to achieve choice, but it is just one way. I don’t want people to think it is the silver bullet for our school system.

CP: Where do you stand on affirmative action?

SP: Affirmative action is a great goal and one that we should strive for. America is a diverse society and our universities should be places that reflect our society, and minorities should have access and representation in these universities. But the way that should be achieved should be by non-racial means.

We know that there are ways to achieve that. We are aware of what’s going on in California with the four percent plan, and in Texas with the 10 percent plan (whereby the top percent of every high school class is admitted to a state university), so what we want to have clear is that this administration, the President, is a firm advocate for diversity.

We must achieve diversity. This may mean the universities will have to be more aggressive and creative in their outreach, but more importantly we need to all get behind the No Child Left Behind Act to make sure children get a good education in high school, middle school and elementary school. Then this need for a handout at university level will be diminished severely.