March of this year, although the emphasis on college entrance examinations is declining in colleges across the Nation, they still play an important role in the futures of more than 1 million students a year. College admissions may become better for this change. Most important, the students who take the tests will feel they're fairer. I am here today to state that test disclosure is working well in New York and that enactment of a Federal law, that is H.R. 1662, would at least finalize the issue of disclosure which now appears to have few real enemies. It is important that there be a single standard throughout the country to which the test agencies must adhere. It is important to pass this bill to put an end to the lobbying that is otherwise forced to go on in every State that considers similar legislation. Such lobbying, of course, is paid for with student fees and that-and the fact that better use could be made of this money is indeed obvious. I said that there were few real enemies to the issue of disclosure. Now I say this in light of the industry changes that have occurred since the enactment of our bill in 1979. Within the first few months, the boards which administer the law school admissions test, the graduate management admissions test, and the graduate record exam decided to apply New York's disclosure requirements nationally. They believed that students deserved this service regardless of their address, and they realized that spreading the cost among all the students would reduce the price increase they felt was necessary to impose. Therefore, this change has been in effect. for two years now. College Board, who administers the PSAT and SAT, made a similar decision about six months ago. Coincidentally, their action came very shortly after the discovery by a few high school students of errors on the PSAT and SAT, errors I might add that when corrected made new students eligible for scholarships ranging from totals of $1,000 to $8,000. The importance of that discovery to those students is also obvious. These tests, the SAT, GRE, GMAT, and LSAT comprise the vast majority of this market and they have all moved to disclosure nationally. It has now become an accepted practice and it should be codified with this legislation. If all people and industries were permitted to act voluntarily, as the test agencies appear to be asking you now to allow them to do, then there would be no laws. Preserve this practice of disclosure. I ask that you enact H.R. 1662. I would now like to focus my specific remarks on 1661 to bill section 7, entitled testing costs and fees to students. Most importantly, this section requires the test agencies to annually disclose information regarding the volume of tests given and the fees collected for those tests as well as the expenses incurred for the development of these tests. An analysis of this information is vital to determining what students are actually paying for when they register to take these exams. That is, we believe that the fees exceed the cost of the service. Test agencies do not appear to be concerned with the price of their product. After all, most students are compelled to take these exams for admissions to programs in higher education, and in most cases, there is only one test available. Without competition where is the incentive to economize? We have never received data to refute our contention, for example, that only 5 percent of the students' test fees used to develop the SAT question. Now, this morning we were told that it was 9 percent. Even 9 percent is something that does not bear out their responses as was being brought out by the chairman. We are, therefore, distressed by the excessive fee increases as a result of disclosure legislation. Disclosure of the information required in H.R. 1662 would explain all of this. I would also like to add at this point that we are delighted to learn that only inflation is causing the increase in these costs and these fees since up to now we've been blamed by passing this legislation for these increases, and this morning we were told that by virtue of the inflation rate they should be higher than they are now. This is the first that I've heard of this, and as I say, we're delighted to learn of it. I would like to add that when they were including-when they were stating the different factors that go into the 9 percent that was used for test development when they were trying to analyze those pieces or those activities of the test agencies that are relevant to disclosure legislation, I don't believe they included their lobbying costs which in New York exceeded $20,000. I think that's another piece of information that ought to be included when they give you the list of activities relevant to the disclosure legislation. As legislators, your constituents will ask you why these fees are increasing. Before you accept the industry's explanation, you have a right to see the facts. In closing, let me again state that Federal legislation is necessary for the continuation of test disclosure. Voluntary disclosure for the Nation was done only after disclosure was required in New York State, and furthermore, as you all know, what is given voluntarily can easily be taken away. Thank you for the opportunity to appear today, and again let me extend Senator Lavalle's apologies for his unavoidable absence. [Prepared statement of Mary Ann Austen follows:] PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARY ANN M. AUSTEN COUNSEL TO NEW YORK STATE SENATOR KENNETH P. LAVALLE MR. CHAIRMAN, MY NAME IS MARY ANN AUSTEN AND I SERVE AS COUNSEL TO SENATOR KENNETH P. LAVALLE, THE SPONSOR OF NEW YORK'S TRUTH-IN-TESTING LAW. LET ME FXTIND HIS APOLOGIES FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE, HOWEVER, HE HAD PREVIOUSLY SCHEDULED MEETINGS WHICH HE COULD NOT REARRANGE. I APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HERE IN HIS PLACE AND I HOPE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION WHICH SHOULD ASSIST IN YOUR DECISION TO REPORT H.R.1662 FAVORABLY OUT OF COMMITTEE. IT HAS BEEN ALMOST TWO AND A HALF YEARS SINCE TROM-IN-TESTING LEGISLATION WAS SIGNED INTO LAW IN NEW YORK. THE DIRE PREDICTIONS OF THE OPPOSITION HAVE NOT BECOME A REALITY; THE TESTS ARE STILL OFFERED, THE STUDENTS STILL TAKE THEM AND THE COLLEGES STILL USE THEM. ALL THE PLAYERS, THAT IS TE TEST AGENCIES, THE COLLEGES AND MOST IMPORTANTLY THE STUDENTS HAVE ACCOMODATED THE CHANGES AND HAVE GONE ON ABOUT THEIR BUSINESS. BY ALL REPORTS, THE ATMOSPHERE IS QUITE CALM. IT IS IMPORTANT TO EMPHASIZE THIS FACT TO YOU, ESPECIALLY TO THOSE OF YOU WHO REMEMBER THE EARLY HEARINGS IN THE SUMMER OF 79 WHEN THE TESTIMONY THREATENED CERTAIN CHAOS FROM THE DEMISE OF A TIME HONORED SYSTEM. YOU MIGHT SAY THAT WE WHO HAVE ALWAYS SUPPORTED TEST DISCLOSURE HAD MORE FAITH IN THE RESILIENCE OF THE TESTING SYSTEM THAN THOSE WHO RAN IT. WE BELIEVED THE PROCESS COULD SUSTAIN THE NECESSARY CHANGES AND WE, AS YOU NOW KNOW, WERE RIGHT. OUR FIRST CONSIDERATION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THE STUDENTS AND WE WOULD NOT HAVE PERSISTED ALONG A COURSE THAT WOULD HAMPER THEIR ABILITY TO PURSUE HIGHER EDUCATION. IF THE TESTS WERE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ADMISSIONS PROCESS THEN THEY WOULD ADAPT-AND THEY DID. OUR GOAL HAS ALWAYS BEEN TO IMPROVE THE PRODUCT AND THE PROCESS BY WHICH CRUCIAL DETERMINATIONS OF SELECTION ARE MADE. WE BALIZVED BOTH ASPECTS OF OUR GOAL IMPROVED PRODUCT AND PROCESS WOULD BE ACHIEVED "THROUGH SIMPLE DISCLOSURE. WE HAVE NEVER STATED NOR EVEN IMPLIED THAT GOVERNMENT SHOULD PLAY A ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OR ANALYSIS OF THE CONTENT OF ANY OF THESE TESTS. RATHER THROUGH DISCLOSURE WE WOULD PERMIT THE EXPERTS TO DEBATE THIS ISSUE AMONG THEMSELVES AND ALLOW THE INDUSTRY TO IMPROVE ITSELF. 91-170 0-82--49 WE WERE TOLD ORIGINALLY THAT THERE WAS A FINITE NUMBER OF QUALITY QUESTIONS FOR THESE TESTS. THEN WE WERE TOLD THAT ALTHOUGH THERE WERE MANY POSSIBLE QUESTIONS POSITION HOWEVER WAS THAT SCRUTINY PRODUCES THE BEST PRODUCT. LET ME SIMPLY QUOTE AGAIN OUR ONLY CONCERN IS FOR THE PRIMARY CONSUMER OF THIS PRODUCT, THAT IS THE STUDENTS. AS STATED IN A NEW YORK TIMES EDITORIAL IN MARCH, 1981: Although the emphasis on college entrance examinations is I AM HERE TODAY TO STATE THAT TEST DISCLOSURE IS WORKING WELL IN NEW YORK AND THAT ENACTMENT OF A FEDERAL LAW, HR. 1662 WOULD AT LAST FINALIZE THE ISSUE OF DISCLOSURE WHICH NOW APPEARS TO HAVE FEW REAL ENEMIES. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE A SINGLE STANDARD THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY TO WHICH THE TEST AGENCIES MUST ADHERE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO PASS THIS BILL TO PUT AN END TO THE LOBBYING THAT IS OTHERWISE FORCED TO GO ON IN EVERY STATE THAT CONSIDERS SIMILAR LEGISLATION. SUCH LOBBYING IS OF COURSE PAID FOR WITH STUDENT FEES AND THAT BETTER USE COULD BE MADE OF THIS MONEY IS INDEED OBVIOUS. I SAID THAT THERE ARE FEW REAL ENEMIES TO THE ISSUE OF DISCLOSURE. I SAY THIS IN LIGHT OF THE INDUSTRY CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURED SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF OUR BILL IN 1979. WITHIN THE FIRST FEW MONTHS, THE BOARDS WHICH ADMINISTER THE LSAT, GMAT STUDENTS DESERVED THIS SERVICE REGARDLESS OF THEIR ADDRESS AND THEY REALIZED THAT SPREADING THE COST AMONG ALL THE STUDENTS WOULD REDUCE THE PRICE INCREASE THEY FELT WAS NECESSARY TO IMPOSE. THEREFORE, THIS CHANGE HAS BEEN IN EFFECT FOR TWO YEARS NOW. COLLEGE BOARD, WHO ADMINISTERS THE PSAT AND SAT, MADE A SIMILAR DECISION. THEIR ACTION CAME VERY SHORTLY AFTER THE DISCOVERY BY A FEW HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS OF ERRORS ON THE PSAT AND SAT. ERRORS I MIGHT ADD, THAT WHEN CORRECTED MADE NEW STUDENTS ELIGIBLE FOR SCHOLARSHIPS RANGING FROM TOTALS OF $1000 to $8000. THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT DISCOVERY TO THOSE STUDENTS IS OBVIOUS. THESE TESTS, THE SAT, GRE, GMAT AND LSAT COMPRISE THE VAST MAJORITY THIS MARKET AND THEY HAVE ALL MOVED TO DISCLOSURE NATIONALLY. IT HAS NOW BECOME AN ACCEPTED PRACTICE AND IT SHOULD BE CODIFIED WITH THIS LEGISLATION. AND INDUSTRIES WERE PERMITTED TO ACT VOLUNTARILY - IF ALL PEOPLE AS THEY APPEAR TO BE ASKING YOU TO THEN THERE WOULD BE NO LAWS. PRESERVE THIS PRACTICE OF DISCLOSURE; I ASK THAT YOU ENACT H.R. 1662. I WOULD NOW LIKE TO FOCUS MY SPECIFIC COMMENTS ON H.R. 1662 TO BILL SECTION SEVEN ENTITLED, "TESTING COSTS AND FEES TO STUDENTS." |