THE EDUCATIONAL TESTING ACT OF 1981 WEDNESDAY, JULY 22, 1981 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMEN- Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Carl D. Perkins presiding. Members present: Representatives Perkins, Weiss, Simon, Erdahl, Bailey, and Erlenborn. Staff members present: John F. Jennings, counsel; William A. Blakey, counsel; Betsy Brand, minority legislative associate; Richard DiEugenio, minority legislative associate. Chairman PERKINS. The subcommittee will be in order. The Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education and the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education will continue its hearings that we started yesterday on H.R. 1662, a bill introduced by Mr. Weiss and other Members of the Congress, a bill to require certain information to be provided to individuals who take standardized educational admissions tests and for other purposes. Chairman PERKINS. We are glad to welcome here this morning a panel of experienced test-takers and testing experts, Carolyn Bennett, a student from Johns Hopkins University; Michael Galligan, graduate, Clarkstown South High School, New City, N.Y.; Dr. Banesh Hoffman, professor emeritus, Math and Physics Department, Brooklyn College; and Dr. Michael D. Priddy. All of you come around and get around the table. Yes, Congressman Weiss? Mr. WEISS. We have a very outstanding group of panelists today, and I especially want to take note of the fact that Michael Galligan, who is sitting at the table, got up at 4 o'clock this morning in order to get to New York City and catch the shuttle and get to Washington on time. Chairman PERKINS. Very energetic. Mr. ERDAHL. I would be quite concerned because anybody with that ambition is a potential opponent down the road. That is what you have to do oftentimes. Chairman. PERKINS. Go ahead, Carolyn. 91-170 0-82--12 STATEMENT OF CAROLYN BENNETT, STUDENT, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY Ms. BENNETT. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Thank you for allowing me to speak very briefly this morning. My name is Carolyn Bennett. I grew up as the dependent daughter of an Air Force pathologist. I recently graduated from Johns Hopkins University with a bachelor's degree in natural sciences and will be attending Johns Hopkins Medical School in the fall. Several summers ago I worked as a summer staff member at Educational Testing Service in Princeton, N.J. My duties included reviewing items for the SAT to insure that any racially or sexually sensitive words or phrases were removed before the items were printed. I also worked on several task forces to provide a college student's perspective on testing issues. I have also served on an informal advisory group whose function is to exchange information between ETS and some of the groups it affects. Since then I have worked a variety of summer jobs as a medical secretary. I am here this morning to talk about my experiences with standardized testing. My first encounter with a nationally administered standardized test was in 1976 when I took the PSAT. At that time I was a junior at a Department of Defense high school in Wiesbaden, West Germany. The school was average academically. Accelerated classes such as AP English and AP biology were not offered. Though not certain of medicine as a career choice at that time, I was certain that I wanted to attend a 4-year college. Taking the PSAT helped me out in a number of ways: It introduced me to standardized test format. It started me thinking seriously about what colleges and degree programs were most suited for me. It served to identify me as a candidate for a national merit scholarship for outstanding Negro students which helped pay for my first year of college. And, most importantly, it let me know where I stood in comparison to other college-bound high school students. This was particularly important as I was tackling college decisions from overseas. There was a small percentage of college-bound students in my graduating class and very little academic interaction with students from other schools. I took the PSAT and knew that I could compete for a spot in a selective college. It was a positive, motivating experience with standardized testing, and not an unusual one. I took the SAT the following year, in 1977. I did not take a coaching course. I went into the exam armed only with my 4 years of public high school course work, and I walked away thinking that the answer sheet I turned in was a fair representation of my mathemetical and verbal skills. In all honesty, I am not a test-taking wizard. I struggled with a lot of items and found others simple. The scores I received a few weeks later made me feel good about myself and my academic abilities. I did not receive 700's, but I thought that my scores would give me a crack at a good premedical program, and they did. The SAT did not hinder me academically. As I took the test, I did not feel as though I was falling into a test trap or that I was being manipulated in some way. I did not find items that offended me as a black woman. The items were fair game to evaluate me as a high school student. I benefitted from taking the SAT. It, too, was a postive test-taking experience. In my third year as an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, I began making plans to apply to medical school. I worked hard in college and received good grades but was not at the very top of my class. Knowing too well how competitive medical school admissions procedures are, I relied very heavily on the MCAT to show me and to show the schools considering me for admission just how my academic strengths stacked up against those of other students. True, I dreaded taking it and sweated through it, but it was worthwhile. Without it I would not have made the same decisions about what schools to apply to, and I would not have received the same favorable consideration I received from Johns Hopkins Medical School. The experiences I have just described are not newsmakers. Up to now, there has not been much interest in a string of stories about students who do not despise standardized and use test data objectively. I owe the fact that I am going to the medical school of my choice because standardized tests identified me to the school I am headed for as being capable of doing the work; this was the biggest benefit of all. The single point I would like to leave with you this morning is that I am not alone. I am not the only college student to have benefitted from standardized testing. My personal circumstances are not too unusual to be shared in some part by thousands of other students, from both public and private high schools, attending · public and private colleges and universities and working toward all kinds of professional degrees. They would agree with me that standardized testing is the means to broader, not narrower, educational opportunities and that standardized tests are critical, fair and accurate tools to use in academic decisionmaking and that they open, not shut, doors. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Mr. SIMON. Thank you. Mr. Galligan? STATEMENT OF MICHAEL GALLIGAN, GRADUATE, CLARKSTOWN SOUTH HIGH SCHOOL, NEW CITY, N.Y. Mr. GALLIGAN. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee. I would first like to thank Congressman Weiss for inviting me here this morning. It is an honor for me to be here. In the past couple of months, I have been called upon to examine my feelings about standardized testing very closely. I have also had the opportunity to hear the opinions of other students whose futures will be affected by the scores they will receive on these tests. I, therefore, hope to speak for a large population of students, that their opinions and feelings may be considered in the important issues which are decided here. In October 1980, as I was taking the College Board SAT examination, I noticed that to question No. 16 of section 2, two correct answers were listed as choices. This was in contradiction with the directions which indicated that there was one and only one correct answer for each question. As the truth-in-testing law is in effect in New York State, I was able to receive a copy of the SAT exam, the answer key, and my graded test paper. Upon reviewing the question, I confirmed that there were two correct answers listed and only one was being counted as correct. I then wrote to the College Board and informed them of the apparent mistake. In March 1981, I was notified by the Educational Testing Service that I was correct and that both answers would be counted as being correct. As a result, the grades of almost 20,000 students who had chosen the alternative answer were raised 10 to 20 points. Also, an additional 50 students were awarded Regents scholarships as a result of their raised scores. Unfortunately, students outside of New York, where the truth-in-testing law is not in effect, have not had their scores adjusted. Are not the students in those other States just as correct as the students in New York? I support the proposal to extend the concept of the truth-in-testing law nationwide. Any test should be based on a mutual agreement between tester and test-taker that there exists a body of knowledge which mankind agrees upon as being true. It is perfectly possible for a young person to recognize truth by way of insight, even without the formalized education to know it. It is also conceivable that a person with more education but less insight would not see what the student was able to recognize. Twice this has been proven. Truth is what men live by. To protect, praise, and preserve it is a most holy endeavor. To compromise it is to insult the way we live and degrade the very thing students are told to search for. I know the reason that I wrote away was because I love mathematics. When I saw the mistake, I felt that a terrible injustice had been done. I had nothing to gain from challenging the question but peace of mind. I feel that if we deny a student the right to see his test, we are breaking a trust with students and ourselves. This country has never been one to deny a person of rights. I think a right that all people have and which is one no person would want to live without is the right to know the truth. I think I speak for all students in America when I say the truthin-testing law is a step in the right direction. The promotion of such a concept, as this bill would do, is a positively righteous action. Furthermore, the Educational Testing Act would assist the student in educating himself by allowing him to recognize his mistakes and, in so doing, learn more about himself and how he functions in testing situations. While the bill proposes some necessary rights for test-takers, I have to express my feeling that it misses some of the major faults of the Standardized Testing System as it is now. I think the Educational Testing Service should feel a sense of obligation to inform the students of what they will be tested on. Students as well as universities should be aware of how this test should be interpreted and how accurate or inaccurate it may be. This should be followed up by studies of how the tests are being used and how much weight is given to them. Are they a primary criterion or are they used to highlight other information about a student? The testing organizations themselves must take responsibility for how the tests are used. If they don't, no one else will. No test is able to perfectly measure that which it is designed to measure. There is always a margin for error. This is true of all tests and other indicators by which students are evaluated. Looking at all the indicators and other personality characteristics is the only way to get an accurate picture of a person's accomplishments and potential. I have seen a person's dream ruined because he scored 20 points too low on the SAT exam. I think when an exam is given more consideration than factors such as motivation, insight, virtue, and determination, there is something wrong with our system of evaluation. To provide equal opportunity for the individual and for the strength and growth of our country, our testing system must be improved. It should be consistent with the values of our society. If standardized tests are to be used as widely as they are now, they should be available to everyone regardless of geographic and economic status. The users of such tests, namely the educational institutions which require them, should also share in the responsibility of making the tests available. It may involve financial contributions to cover additional expenses. Also, they should be keenly aware of the limitations of such a test. By limiting our interpretation of others to a number on a piece of paper, we are losing those qualities about a person which truly serve the needs of our country; qualities such as honesty, integrity, charity, compassion, and wisdom, all of which have marked the great men of our country. There is no way to test for this type of gift; there is no way to measure one's ability to perform, to contribute, or to care. There is no way to see if a person will succeed or fail at something except to give him a chance. There are those who have little chance, who have to strive to overcome barriers of culture, poverty, and location to try to educate themselves. It is not possible to provide everyone with a very fine education, but it is possible to give everyone the facts about what they should learn for a particular test so that those who do have the motivation can educate themselves and also seek it at their schools where it should be taught. Our fine government should be an example for the efficiency and integrity of a system of checks and balances. |