’ 

 

MCONGRESSIONAL
RESEARCH
SERVICE

i C

’fl7fl"§i!.?lE'Vi”fl

RRRRRRR OF
CCCCCC SS

  Ittttlrflifmm

   

q]L'uiiiiiiimu::z    

TESTING: REGULATION OF EDUCATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL EXAMS

ISSUE BRIEF NUMBER IB79116

AUTHOR:
Lyke, Robert F.

Education and Public Welfare Division

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE

MAJOR ISSUES SYSTEM

DA1-E OBIGINATED _1_9_4g9_[_Ig
DATE UPDATED 9_14_2_g4§9_

FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION CALL 287-5700

0725

cns- 1 11379115 UPDATE-07/24/80

l§§Q§-2§El!lIlQE

Perhaps no standardized tests are thought more important than educational
and occupational admissions tests. Each year two and one-half million
students in the United States take college entrance exams and several hundred
thousand others take graduate and professitmal. school exams. Occupational
admissions tests are used to establish credentials and confer certification
in hundreds of vocations and professions. While high scores on these tests
do not necessarily ensure entrance to a school or occupation, low scores
almost always result in exclusion.

The 96th Congress is considering two bills that would regulate the way
many of these tests are administered. A common feature of the bills is a
requirement that testing agencies (the companies that sponsor or administer
tests) provide specified information about the test and its uses to test
subjects (people who take the tests) both before and after the tests are
given. Except for some debate over whether testing agencies have the needed
information or could easily obtain it, these provisions have been relatively
uncontroversial. other provisions of the bills, however, have generated much
interest and debate. §;§;_ 3253, introduced by Representative Weiss, is
especially controversial because it would require testing agencies to

isclose questions and answers after they are used if an exam is taken by
more than 5,000 people in any testing year.n The bill would also require
testing agencies to give the U.S. Commissioner of Education all their studies
and reports about the tests. g:3;_ §§§g, introduced by Representative
Gibbons, is controversial because it covers occupational admissions tests,
which the Weiss bill does not, and because it would prohibit testing agencies
from using certain grading procedures. ‘Debate over the bills reflects public
discussion about the growing role of standardized testing in American
society, the accountability of testing agencies, and statutes recently
enacted in California and New York.

§A§E§BQQE2-A§Q-EQLL-X-é!ALX§l§

Thg_§;gging Role o§_§tagdardiged Testing

Standardized testing is a growing industry in the United States. While

the actual extent of testing is unknown -- some estimates say that there are.

more than 2,500 exams on the market and that annual sales exceed $200 million
-- the use of such tests apparently is increasing. In addition to I.Q.
tests, reading and math achievement tests, and college entrance examinations,
all of which have been given for much of the 20th century, many students now
also take handicapped diagnostic tests, vocational aptitude tests, and
competency-based curricula or minimum competency exams. standardized tests

e becoming increasingly common for college placement, for military and
civil service promotion, and for occupational skills credentialing and
professional licensing. Today tests are available to measure such things as
anxiety, faculty morale, musical rhythm, creative thinking, and golfing
skills.

Standardized testing has increased for many reasons. It is claimed that
tests permit objective measurement of complex traits. The way they are

CBS- 2 IB79116 UPDATE-O7/24/80

designed is said to clarify what is, and what is not, being assessed; how
they are administered is said to reduce, if not eliminate, the role of
personal bias. They yield results that can be used to differentiate large
numbers of people quickly and with little cost. To many observers,
standardized tests are indispensable for evaluating people for the country's
specialized educational programs and employment markets.

Not everyone supports the growth of standardized testing. Some people
argue that tests are used too much. They claim that most exams have neither
the validity nor the reliability to justify reliance on them, and they say
that other ways of assessing people are being ignored. It is also said that
standardized tests are biased against racial, ethnic, and cultural
minorities. (In October, 1979, a Federal district court judge ruled that
several widely-used intelligence tests are racially discriminatory and can no
longer be administered in his district to assign black schoolchildren to

  special classes for the retarded.)

A9929222hill-’21-2£-Ie;§’2i.1;9..A9e.1;c;ie§

Testing agencies themselves have become controversial. Some people

contend that the agencies - particularly the Educational Testing Service,

which is the largest -- have too much power and cannot be held accountable
for what they do. It is claimed that they market tests that frequently are
misused and that people who take tests have no way of discovering, let alone
correcting, errors in their scores. many of these criticisms are contained
in a January, 1980 Ralph Nader report written by Allan Nairn.

The agencies and their supporters reject these criticisms. They point out
that tests are designed to meet not only professional guidelines, such as
those adopted by the American Psychological Association, but also legal
standards, such as those found in courtcdecisions and the Federal Uniform
Guidelines on Employment Selection Procedures. They also say that studies
and evaluations are published for many tests, particularly those taken by
large numbers of people, and that advice is given to test score recipients
about how scores should be interpreted and used. Testing agencies claim as
well that they have procedures for double-checking scoring accuracy, and that

errors, when they are discovered, turn out to be both infrequent and minor.

329e2£-§La:e.Le9i§;a:i22

Legislation dealing with some of these issues has recently been enacted ins

two States. In California, a law signed by the Governor on Sept. 26, 1978,
requires testing agencies to inform people applying to take certain
postsecondary education admissions tests in that State (as well as
institutions receiving test scores) about such things as the purpose and
subject matter of the tests (a representative set of sample questions must be
included) and the manner in which scores will be calculated, recorded, and
made available. when scores are reported to test subjects, information mus
be supplied about the way scores are to be interpreted (including an
explanation of the tests‘ standard error of measurement). In addition, the
California law requires testing agencies administering such exams to submit
specified information to the California Postsecondary Education Commission,

.including data on the tests‘ reliability and validity, on the number of

people who take them, and on the revenue and expenses that can be attributed

CBS— 3 IB79116 UPDATE~O1/24/80

0 them. Testing agencies must also submit copies of exams which no longer
are given, or, if these are unavailable, examples of equivalent questions and
answers.

The New York law, which was signed by the Governor on July 14, 1979,
requires testing agencies administering certain postsecondary education
admissions tests in that State to inform test applicants (as well as
institutions receiving test scores) about the purposes and subject matter of
the tests; about how test scores should be interpreted (among other things,
testing agencies must supply lists of available correlations between test
scores and such things as family income, grades, and successful completion of
courses of study); about how test scores will be reported (including
explanations about how the agencies will alter raw scores and will use
scores, with or without other information, to preduct future academic
performance); about promises regarding accuracy of scoring, timely forwarding
of scores, and privacy; and about the property interests, if any, test
subjects have in test results as well as the agencies‘ policies regarding the
storage, disposal, and future use of scores.

The New York law also requires testing agencies to file with the New York
State Commissioner of Education copies of all studies or reports about the
tests which the agencies prepare, have prepared, or for which they provide
data. In addition, within 30 days after test scores are released, they must
file with the Commissioner a copy of all test questions used in calculating
raw scores, the corresponding answers to those questions, and the rules for
transforming raw scores into scores reported to the test subjects (along with

n explanation of those rules). After this latter information is filed, the
agencies are also to give test subjects, at their request, copies of the test
questions, the correct answers as well as the subjects‘ own answer sheets,
and statements of the raw scores used to calculate the scores already sent
the subjects. a

The disclosure provisions of the New York law, like the virtually
identical disclosure provisions of H.R. u9u9, have provoked much controversy.
when the New York law became effective on Jan. 1, 1980, a number of testing
agencies stated that they no longer would, administer exams in the State.

Among the tests withdrawn were exams normally used for admission to schools‘

of medicine, pharmacy, optometry, and nursing. (On Jan. 21, 1980, however, a
Federal District Court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting
enforcement of the law with respect to the Medical College Admissions Test.)

The Scholastic Aptitude Test and the American College Test, the Nation's two.

largest college entrance examinations, continue to be given, but they cost
more and are not offered as many times as in the past. The principal sponsor

of the New York law, State Senator Kenneth Lavalle, has charged that such.

actions by the testing agencies are part of "their national strategy of
diluting the disclosure provision and making it as hard as possible to
implement this law.“ (Ngg_Yggk_gime§, Oct. 10, 1979).

On June 30, 1980, Governor Carey signed two bills amending the New York
law. Among other things, the amendments reduce disclosure provisions for
certain low-volume tests and for low-volume administrations of any test; they

‘so require testing agencies to offer as many Sunday administrations as they
-4 regular Saturday administrations. The amendments also made a number of
technical changes and other clarifications.

iQ2sn.Ts§2i29

CRS- n 1379115 unnnrz-01/24/so

Disclosing the questions and answers of exams after they are given is
known as "open testing," while keeping questions and answers confidential is
known as "secure testing."‘ H.B. u9u9 (introduced by Representative Weiss)
can be described as an open testing bill since it requires disclosure for
those postsecondary education admission exams given to 5,000 or more persons
in a testing year. Proponents of open testing claim that if the bill became
law it would result in more accurate scores since test subjects could check
if their answers were marked correctly and their point totals were calculated
properly. They claim as well that the bill would let test subjects know
precisely what their strengths and weaknesses are and how they could improve
by studying. It is claimed that open testing would make schools and
occupational licensing boards more aware of the strong and weak points of a
particular test; they could see for themselves what questions were asked and
decide how much importance to give differences in scores. Finally, it is
claimed that open testing would result in better tests. Bias and ambiguity
would be revealed; testing agencies would try harder to prepare questions
that withstand public scrutiny.

Opponents of open testing argue that once questions and answers are
disclosed they cannot be used again. Since they say it is difficult to
create new questions, particularly for mivanced achievement and specialized
aptitude exams, testing agencies claim that it would be uneconomical or
otherwise impractical for them to continue giving some exams if H.R. 4949
were to become law (see above for what has happened under New York State's
open testing law). Opponents of open testing also contend that disclosing
questions and answers would not improve accuracy, since they claim that
errors are rare and generally inconsequential, nor would it help test
subjects understand their strengths and weaknesses, since knowing which
answer they got right and which wrong by itself does not tell very much. In
addition, it is claimed that open testing would encourage schools to "teach
to the test," and anxious students to drill.on old exams, neither of which
would be beneficial. Finally, it is claimed that open testing would result
in worse tests. It is said that there are a limited number of good questions
that are free of racial or cultural bias and that when these questions are
used up test quality will decline.

§s22rLin9.9f.§e§earsh

A second provision of H.R. #949 which is controversial is a requirement
that testing agencies file with the 0.5. Commissioner of Education any
studies, evaluations, and statistical reports about the tests that the
agencies prepare, have prepared, or for which they provide data (a virtually
identical provision is in the New York law, described above). Proponents of
this provision claim that testing agencies have studies concerning the
reliability and validity of their tests that should be made public; without
such a requirement, they say that even testing experts would have difficulty
obtaining enough information to know what tests do and to judge how good they
are. Proponents sometimes quote remarks of the late Oscar Buros, editor 0’
the Mental Hea§ggggggt§_1gggbQ9k, about how little information is available.

Opponents of this provision question the value of having agencies file all

‘studies and reports, regardless of their subject matter or quality. By

themselves, the findings of some studies may be confusing or misleading
(particularly, if open testing provisions of the bill would prevent questions
from past exams from being used again); the conclusions of some may even be

CBS‘ 5 IB79116 UPDATE‘07/24/80

erroneous. It is also said that the provisions would be difficult to enforce
since it is not always clear how studies are defined (for example, would
written comments on the work of others constitute separate studies?) or when
they are completed (for example, would studies have to be filed before
testing agencies review them?). Most important, it is claimed that the
provision requiring studies to be filed would have a stultifying effect on
research. People will be reluctant to write reports if they always have to
make them public; they will be expecially cautious about working on
controversial issues. Professional research, it is argued, is an area best
left unregulated.

2r2!idin9.;n£2r222i2n.;b92t_Tssts

Both H.R. 3564 (introduced by Representative Gibbons) and H.R. 4949 would
require testing agencies to give information to test subjects about certain
admissions tests they administer (the California and New York laws described
above have similar requirements). In general, there has been little debate
over these provisions; many testing agencies claim they already provide much
that would be required. However, both of the bills do specify some
information that testing agencies claim they cannot provide. H.R. 356fl, for
example, states that test subjects must be told the score "required to pass
the test for admission to such occupation or the score which is generally

eguired for admission to institutions of higher education." Testing
agencies point out that they do not set such scores, but rather that test
score users do, and they contend that it would be difficult if not impossible
to obtain them. Similarly, H.R. u9u9 would require testing agencies to give
test subjects correlations between scores on postbaccalaureate admissions
tests and success in careers. Testing agencies claim that few studies have

ibeen done of this relationshiop, and they argue that correlations, however

they are calculated, are likely to be misleading since career success cannot
be well defined.

In response, it is argued that testing agencies could obtain information
like that mentioned, though they might have to collect it themselves. It is
also argued that testing agencies shgglg have such information in order to
improve their tests or to prevent misuse of their scores, and that they have
a social responsibility to make it available to test subjects.

Erghibition of Ce.1:2a.tiI;-.<§I;a.t<1;i.I;g-13ra.__ctis.ez§

H.R. 3564 would require that educational.or occupational admissions examsy

that test knowledge or achievement, as opposed to aptitude, are not to be
graded for the purpose of determining who passes on the basis of the relative
distribution of scores of other test subjects. (Under this provision, for
example, it would be possible to require candidates to get 70% of the
questions correct in order to pass, but it would not be possible to have them

» better than 70% of the test subjects.) Proponents of this provision argue
that if such tests are designed to determine whether a person has the
knowledge required for a school or occupation, then it is irrelevant whether
other people also have such knowledge. They claim that relative passing
scores enable schools and occupations to restrict arbitrarily the number of
qualified candidates. Relative passing scores are also said to exclude
otherwise qualified cultural and ethnic minorities who as a group tend to
score lower on tests.

CRS- 6 IB79116 UPDATE-O7/24/80

Opponents of this provision contend that using relative passing scores is
often justified. Schools and occupations want to know who the best
candidates are, not just who has the minimum qualifications. While they
might not always choose candidates with the highest test scores, they do not
want Federal law to prevent them from using scores to rank candidates under
any circumstances. Opponents also point out that tests of knowledge or
achievement are sometimes deliberately constructed to obtain a range of
scores among test subjects, which the prohibition of relative passing scores
would not affect, and that in some cases knowledge or achievement tests
cannot be distinguished from aptitude tests. In addition, opponents say that
passing scores for tests normally are set not by testing agencies but by test
score users, who would not be covered under the legislation.

A22;22ri2:e-£eder2;_§9;e

Both H.B. 356u and H.R. H949 raise questions about what the appropriate
role of the Federal Government should ibe. H.R. 3564 in particular has
aroused controversy because it would include admissions tests for occupations
in or affecting interstate commerce under its provisions. At the present
time, there is little Federal legislation governing entrance to occupations
or professions; historically, occupational certification and licensing have
been controlled by the States and private associations. gggpggggtg of such
legislation argue that it is needed to protect and nurture the free flow of
occupational skills in commerce; specifically, they argue that legislation is
needed to prevent tests from being used. just to limit the number of
practitioners. As they see it, the legislation would not expand Federal
regulation into a totally new area so much as it would simply extend the
long-standing Federal role of preventing economic discrimination and
restraint of trade. Consumers as well as candidates trying to enter
occupations would benefit. .

Opponents of Federal legislation dealing with occupation admissions
testing contend that there is little evflience that testing itself restricts
the development or use of occupational skills. The tests are not designed to
do this: the fact that their results can be used to differentiate qualified
from unqualified candidates is said to demonstrate how professions and
occupations attempt to maintain standards, not how they try to reduce
competition. Even if some tests were unfair, it is said, this would not
justify having Federal legislation that covers all occupations or
professions; barring specific findings of wrongdoing, it is claimed that the
States and private associations should continue to exercise full control.
Opponents also argue that Federal legislation would weaken the power and
authority of occupational licensing boards and make it more difficult for
them to resist political pressures to lower standards.

one of the stated purposes of H.R. u9u9 is "to encourage use of multiple
criteria in the grant or denial of any significant educational benefit."
Opponents of the bill point out that this provision seemingly establishes
Federal position about postsecondary education admissions policies; they
contend that this would be unjustified intrusion into academic affairs.
Proponents of the bill argue that the provision merely states a position
about testing, not admissions, and they argue that the Federal Government has
a responsibility to discourage postsecondary educational institutions from
relying exclusively on test scores in deciding whom they will admit.

CBS— 7 IB79116 UPDATE-O7/24/80

LEGISLATION

H.R. 3564 (Gibbons)

Truth in Testing Act of 1979. Requires that all higher education
admissions testing conducted through interstate commerce, and all
occupational admissions testing affecting interstate commerce, be conducted
only if certain information is made available.

Provides that applicants to take such tests shall be given a written

notice containing (1) a detailed description of the area of knowledge or type~

of aptitude the test attempts to measure; (2) for a test of knowledge, a
detailed description of the subjects to be tested; (3) information about the
margin of error or the extent of reliability; (H) information about how the
test results will be distributed to the applicant and other persons; and (5)
a statement of the applicant's rights to obtain test results and other
information.

Provides that after such tests are scored, individuals who take them shall
at their request be promptly be notified of (1) their specific performance in
each subject or aptitude area tested; (2) how that performance and how their

otal test performance ranked in relation to the performance of others; (3)
-ne score required to pass the test for admission to an occupation, or the
score which is generally required for admission to an institution of higher
education; and (Q) any further information that may be obtained by request.

Provides that no such test which measures knowledge or achievement (as
opposed to aptitude) shall, for purposes of determining a passing score, be
graded on the basis of the relative distribution of the scores of other test
subjects.

Provides that whenever such tests are administered in violation of these
provisions (or when there are reasonable grounds to believe they are about to
be so administered), aggrieved individuals may institute in Federal district
court civil actions for preventive relief, including applications for
temporary or permanent injunctions or restraining orders.

Introduced Apr. 10, 1979; referred to Committee on Education and Labor.
Hearings by Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education
began July 31, 1979, and ended Oct. 11, 1979. Hark-up originally scheduled

for Oct. 2a, 1979, was cancelled. Additional hearings held on June 5 and 11,;

1980.

H.R. H949 (Weiss)

Educational Testing Act of 1979. Includes the following provisions: (1)
to ensure that test subjects and users of test results are fully aware of the

aracteristics, uses, and limitations of standardized postsecondary
education admissions tests; (2) to make information about such tests publicly
available; (3) to promote more knowledge about the appropriate use of the
results of such tests as well as their greater accuracy, validity, and
reliability; and (4) to encourage use of multiple criteria in granting or
denying "any significant educational benefit."

Provides that testing agencies shall give test subjects, institutions

CRS- 8 IB79116 UPDATE—O7/2H/80

receiving test scores, and the U.S. Commissioner of Education certain

0 information about tests required or used for admission to postsecondary

educational institutions or their programs, if such tests affect o are
conducted or distributed through interstate»commerce. The provisions cover
exams used for “preliminary preparation“ for any such tests, but they do not
cover tests designed solely for nonadmission placement or
credit—by—examination, nor do they cover tests developed and administered by
individual institutions for their own purposes.

Provides that testing agencies shall give test subjects and institutions
receiving test scores the following information "in clear and easily
understandable language“: (1) the purpose and intended use of the tests; (2)
the subject matter and the knowledge and skills the tests measure; (3)
statements useful for interpreting test results, including correlations
between test scores and future success in school (and for postbaccalanreate
admissions tests, the standard error of measurement and correlations between
test scores and success in careers); (4) statements on the use of test
scores, including the percent to which scores improve the accuracy of
predicting grade point averages, the percent to which test preparation
courses on the average improve subjects‘ scores; and a comparison of average
score percentiles with test subjects‘ income groups; (5) a description of the
form in which scores will be reported (stating whether raw test scores will
be altered ) and the manner in which testing agencies will use them, with or
without additional information, to predict academic performance; (6) promises
about accuracy of scoring, timely forwarding of scores, and privacy; (7)

property rights, if any, test subjects have~in test results, and policies ,

regarding storage, disposal, and future use of scores; (8) the time period
within which subjects‘ scores will be mailed to them» and to designated
recipients; (9) a description of special services for handicapped test
subjects; and (10) a description of privacy rights, procedures for review or
appeal, and the material to be made available later about test questions,
answers, and raw scores.

Provides that testing agencies shall give test subjects the following at
their request: (1) copies of the test: questions used in determining
subjects‘ raw scores; (2) test subjects‘ individual answer sheets together
with the correct answers for the questions counted; and (3) statements of raw
scores used to calculate the scores already sent subjects (this latter
information must be requested within 90 days after scores have been released
to the subjects). Provides that testing agencies may charge nominal fees for
this information, though such fees cannot exceed the marginal cost of doing
so. Provides as well that none of this information need be released for
tests that will be administered to fewer than 5,000 test subjects in one
testing year. Moreover, none of the information need be released until after
tests have been filed with the 0.5. Commissioner of Education.

Provides that within 30 days after results of tests are released testing;

agencies shall file with the U.S. Commissioner of Education copies of all
questions used for calculating raw scores, the corresponding acceptable
answers to these questions, and all rules for transforming raw scores into
scores reported to subjects and recipient institutions (includinr
explanations of such rules). None of this information need be released foi
tests that will be administered to fewer than 5,000 test subjects in one
testing year. Testing agencies shall also file with the Commissioner any
studies, evaluations, and statistical reports about the tests (though nor
information identifiable with individual test subjects) which the agencies
prepare or have prepared or for which they provide data. In addition, they
shall file copies of contracts between testing agencies if one agency

CRS- 9 IB79116 UPDATE‘O7/2H/80

develops or produces a test and another sponsors or administers it. Finally,
within 120 days after the close of their testing year, the testing agencies
shall file information about test costs and fees, including such things as
the number of test subjects there were and how many times they have taken the
test, the total amount of fees and revenues received from the test, and the
expenses incurred for test development as well as fixed or overhead expenses.
Similar information is to be filed about testing agencies‘ admissions data
assembly services if separate fees are charged test subjects for them.

Provides that testing agencies shall immediately notify test subjects and
designated score recipients if the reporting of scores is delayed 10 days
beyond the time period promised.

Provides that testing agencies shall not release subjects‘ scores to any
person or organization unless specifically authorized by the subjects. This

iprovision is not to be construed to prohibit release of scores and other

information for research purposes in a form which does not identify test
subjects.

Provides that within 1 year of the effective date of the Act, the
Commissioner shall report to Congress concerning the relation between test
scores and the income, race, sex, ethnic, and handicapped status of test
subjects. An evaluation of the available data on the effect of test

reparation courses shall be included in this report.

Provides that the Commissioner shall promulgate regulations to implement
the Act within 120 days after it becomes effective.

Provides that testing agencies violating provisions of the Act shall be
liable for civil penalties not to exceed $2,000 for each violation.

Introduced July 2a, 1979; referred to Committee on Education and Labor.
Hearings by Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education
began July 31, 1979 and ended Oct. 11, 1979. Mark-up originally scheduled
for Oct. 24, 1979, was cancelled. Additional hearings held on June 5 and 11,
1980.

§EB.-§QL.Q§!..91.’-§!§l?12§

06/30/80 -- Governor Carey of New York signed two bills amending the
State testing law enacted in 1979. Among other things,
the amendments reduce the disclosure provisions for
certain low-volume tests and for low-volume
administrations of any test; they also require
testing agencies to offer as many Sunday administrations
as they do regular Saturday administrations.

06/O5/80 - The House Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and

Vocational Education resumed hearings on H.R. 356a and
H.R. #909. At the hearings, it was announced that the
Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education had requested,
and was granted, concurrent jurisdiction over both
bills. The House Subcommittee on Employment y
Opportunities was also granted concurrent jurisdiction
over H.R. 3564.

on/03/80 -- The College Entrance Examination Board, which is

01/21/80

01/18/80

01/14/80

01/01/80

12/30/79

12/10/79

12/06/79

11/09/79

CBS-10 IB79116 UPDATE—01/20/80
responsible for the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the
Nation's largest postsecondary education admissions
test, announced that students taking the SAT will

have an opportunity to verify their scores personally

by receiving their answer sheet, a scoring key, and
scoring information. A small fee will be charged

for this service. In addition, the College Board
announced that each fall an SAT actually used during

the preceding year will be published along with “a
complete statistical analysis of its characteristics for
study by researchers and the public."

A Federal District Court in Syracuse, New York,

issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting enforcement
of the New York State testing law with respect to the
Association of American Medical College's Medical
College Admissions Test. The court held that the law
might cause the AAMC "irreparable harm" and should

not be enforced against it until legal challenges

were considered in court.

The Educational Testing Service revealed that
computer problems are causing delays of as much as
6 weeks in processing transcripts for students who
are applying to law schools.

Ralph Nader released a report on the Educational
Testing Service. The report, written by Allan

Nairn, among other things charged that the major ETS
postsecondary education admissions tests have little
reliability for predicting who will do well in college
or graduate school. The report also argued that use
of the tests unjustly reduces higher education and
career opportunities for many students.

The New York State testing law, signed into law last
July, became effective.

The Educational Testing Service, the College Board,

and three other organizations responsible for some major
national testing programs announced agreement on a

set of principles to guide future test development

and administration.

The New York State Board of Regents unanimously
asked the State legislature to modify the disclosure
provisions of the soon-to-be effective State testing law.

Sponsor of the New York State testing law
announced that he will propose amendments to
exempt part of the dental school admissions
test and low volume exams from the law's
disclosure requirement.

The Association of American Medical Colleges
filed suit to block enforcement of the New
York State testing law. The suit contends
that the law infringes on AAnC's copyright

1o/zu/79

10/11/79

10/09/79

09/30/79

07/31/79

07/17/79

07/1a/79

09/26/78 --

CRS-11 IB79116 UPDATE-O1/24/80
on the hedical College Admissions Test and

deprives the Association of property without

due process of law, in violation of the

Constitution.

Hark-up of H.R. 356u and H.R. u9u9 by the House
Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational
Education, originally scheduled for this date, was
cancelled.

Hearings by the House Subcommittee on Elementary,
secondary, and Vocational Education on H.R. 356a and
H.R. 4949 ended (see entry for 06/05/80).

The College Entrance Examination Board announced that
New York State residents would have fewer opportunities
to take the Scholastic Aptitude Test after Jan. 1, 1980,
when the New York testing law becomes effective, and
that they may have to pay fees that are $5 higher than
candidates elsewhere in the country.

The National Education Association called on the
Government to study test coaching and on the
Educational Testing Service to offer a free coaching
course to students taking the Scholastic Aptitude
Test.

Hearings by the House Subcommittee on Elementary,
Secondary, and Vocational Education on H.B. 356a and
H.R. 4949 began.

The Association of American Medical Colleges announced

that it would cease giving its entrance examinations in
New York state. These exams are normally required for

admission to virtually all of the Nation's 125 medical

schools.

Governor Carey of New York signed into law a bill
requiring testing agencies to provide test subjects
with specified information both before and after

they take certain postsecondary education admissions
exams. The law also requires that testing agencies
disclose questions and answers of those exams after
they are used. In addition, agencies must file with
the New York Commissioner of Education all studies and
reports about the exams. (For details about these and
other provisions of the law, see the summary in the
text above.)

Governor Brown of California.signed into law a bill
requiring testing agencies to provide test subjects
with specified information both before and after

they take certain postsecondary education admissions
exams. The law also requires that testing agencies
file with the California Postsecondary Education
Commission copies of exams that no longer are given or
examples of equivalent questions. Information about
revenues and direct and indirect expenses must be

IB79116 UPDATE-07/2Q/80

CBS-12

filed as~iell. (For details about these and other
’provisions of the law, see the summary in the text

above.)

Denick, Barbara. Evening the score. The new republic.

Aug. 25, 1979: 9-1n.
The tests and the "brightest": how fair are
1980: 37—u8.

Fallows, James.
Atlan tic, Fe bruary,

the college boards?
.Frener,John and Alice Irby. Why should some tests be secure.

Princeton, Educational Testing Service, 1979. 15 p.
Haney, Halt Standards for tests and test use. Cambridge,

The Huron Institute, 1978. H5 p.
how the testing

Kohn, Sherwood Davidson The numbers game:
National elementary principal, July/August,

industry operates.

1975: 11-23.
the corporation that makes up

Nairn, Allan. The reign of ETS:

minds. (The Ralph Nader Report on the Educational Testing
service). Washington; January, 1980.

New York State Education Department. Initial impact report of the
admission testing legislation. Albany, Oct. 16, 1979.. 19 p.

'Truth—in-testing‘ attracts diverse supp
1110-111M.

ort.

saith, R. Jeffrey
Science, v. 205, Sept. 14, 1979:

Strenio, Andrew. The debate over open versus secure testing:
a critical review. Canbridge, The Huron Institute, 1979. 71 p.
Effects of coaching on standardized

U.S. Federal Trade Connission.
adnission examinations. Washington, 1979. 36 p.

'<-\‘ _«t _
"‘4\'.:v -“wk