LETTERS TO THE EDITOR

BENTON TRACK IS A MAJOR FACILITY

To the editor:

I am writing this letter regarding the Missouri International Race Park at Benton. First of all, the citizens of Southeast Missouri don't know how fortunate we are to have a dirt track racing facility of this stature located this close to home. I have been involved in dirt track racing since 1964 and have been to virtually every dirt track in the country. I personally have never been to a nicer facility than Missouri International.

I am trying to understand why the track cannot get more support from our local people. The average racing fan has no idea what track officials, promoters and car owners go through to put on a race. As far as the race car owners are concerned, I can tell you during racing season I am away from my wife and children usually three to four nights a week just to prepare for the weekend of racing, not to mention the amount of money we spend to put on a show for the fans.

Why do we do it? We do it because we love racing. Period. The promoter purchased this beautiful racing facility because he loves sprint car racing and wanted to be more involved in the sport, not because he wanted to gain wealth in another business.

The promoter and I do not see eye to eye on all issues. As a matter of fact, we totally disagree on some issues. But I do feel that he is trying, and next year you will see some bigger shows and more improvements to this facility.

But without your help, local racers will not have a place to showcase their talents, and you will be driving 100 miles or better to see good dirt tract racing. If you would like to voice your concerns, please send your ideas to Missouri International Race Park, P.O. Box 528, Benton, Mo. 63736.

JEFF POOLE

Cape Girardeau

LOCAL CONTROL, NOT FEDERAL TESTS

To the editor:

In a recent radio address promoting national tests, President Clinton said, "We must strengthen our schools, raise our standards, insist that our children master the basics and demand excellence at every level." Those are commendable goals that we all support, especially parents and teachers. Unfortunately, the president's plan to reach those goals includes a flawed idea: national tests.

We already have a multitude of national tests in use today. If what is being proposed is simply another national test, we don't need to spend $100 million to get it. We already have plenty of those available. The proponents must mean something else.

If we substitute the word federal -- relating to the central government -- for the word national, we get a more accurate picture of what this testing proposal is all about. We don't have any of those tests, and we don't need them either.

Substitute "federal" for "national" and see how the public reacts to the idea. Parents in Missouri may well support the use of a nationally standardized test in their children's classrooms (such as the Stanford Achievement Test) but oppose the administration of a federally developed test.

Federal testing. Now exactly where in the Constitution is that power granted? Nowhere. In fact, our Constitution, the foundation of our democracy, doesn't say anything at all about education, and that makes it a state responsibility. State and local control of schools is a cherished American principle. That control would eventually be jeopardized by federal testing.

Why? Because tests are really a two-for-one deal. Their contents set standards and drive curriculum. The mere presence of a federal test would create a de facto federal curriculum as teachers and schools adjust their curriculum to ensure that their students perform well on the tests. You can't have federal standards and still maintain local control.

In fact, Joseph Califano, former secretary of health, education and welfare under President Carter, warned that "any set of test questions that the federal government prescribed should surely be suspect as a first step toward a national curriculum. In its most extreme form, national control of curriculum is a form of national control of ideas."

Proponents of the new federal tests have attempted to deflect criticism by pointing out that the proposed tests are voluntary and, therefore, pose no threat to state and local control. However, experience in dealing with federal programs has taught us to be wary. For example, the 55 mph speed limit was voluntary too -- on paper, at any rate. In practice, the speed limit was universally adopted because federal highway funds were contingent upon states' voluntary cooperation. The point is that what is voluntary often becomes mandatory when you have federal programs and funds involved.

The irony is that although federal funding only pays for about 6 percent of the cost of educating our students (with most of that going to special programs), a federal test could conceivably determine 100 percent of the nation's curriculum.

The president characterized those who disagree with the federal testing plan as being "against better schools and for a status quo that is failing too many children." Such appeals to emotion rather than reason are neither accurate nor helpful to this important debate.

Do we need to strengthen schools, raise standards and insist that our children master the basics? Of course we do. Does being against the president's federal testing proposal mean we oppose those ideals? Of course not. Educators care deeply about the goals outlined by the president. However, we firmly believe that federal testing, voluntary or not, is at best a costly redundancy and at worst will set us on the road to federal control of our curriculum.

The constitutional responsibility to strengthen schools, raise standards and insist on mastery of the basics belongs to parents, teachers, school board members and state legislators in Missouri and every other state, not to the bureaucrats and politicians in Washington.

KENT KING, Executive Director

Missouri State Teachers Association

Columbia