PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Apr 4, 2000
Establishes certain requirements relating to the use of standardized tests by State and local educational agencies (SEAs and LEAs) that receive funds under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).Prohibits standardized test performance from being the sole determinant of any decision about an individual student's retention, graduation, tracking, or within-class ability grouping. Allows test performance to be considered in making such decision only if specified criteria are met. Requires such tests to: (1) meet professional standards of validity and reliability for the purpose for which its results are being used; (2) allow users to make score interpretations related to a functional performance level, and be based on State or local content or performance standards, and be aligned with curriculum and classroom instruction; (3) be administered in accordance with written guidance from the test developer or publisher; and (4) not be used to decide promotion or placement in special education for a child below age eight or grade three. Requires that: (1) multiple measures of student achievement be used, including grades and evaluations by teachers, so that scores from large-scale assessments are never the only source of information used nor assigned determinative weight in making a high-stakes decision about an individual student; and (2) multiple opportunities to demonstrate proficiency in the subject matter covered by the test be provided to students tested. Requires SEAs and LEAs to: (1) have evidence that the test is of adequate technical quality for each purpose for which it is used; (2) provide appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments for students with disabilities that provide such students with a valid opportunity to show what they know and can do; and (3) provide appropriate accommodations for students with limited English proficiency, including specified arrangements.Requires evaluations of the impact of standardized tests use in high stakes decisions on students' education and educational outcomes, particularly on individuals and subgroups disaggregated by socioeconomic status, race, ethnicity, limited English proficiency, disability, and gender, to be carried out by: (1) SEAs receiving ESEA funds; (2) LEAs receiving ESEA funds located in States that do not do such evaluations; and (3) the Secretary of Education.
People & committees
Sen. Wellstone, Paul D. [D-MN] · D–MN
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S2112-2114)
Introduced in Senate
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Apr 21, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze S.2348 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine S.2348 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine S.2348 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine S.2348 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.