of the examinations. The American Dental Association therefore believes that, through its current policy of releasing National Board examinations, it fully responds to the extent of the disclosure clause. Our concern relates to having undue restrictions placed on its examination program that would jeopardize the quality of examinations. Publishing all test items after their use would seriously deplete the test item files and cause examinations to become less reliable and less valid. THE EDUCATIONAL TESTING ACT OF 1981 THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 5, 1981 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON ELEMEN- Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 9:30 a.m., in room 2175, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Simon (chairman of the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education) presiding. Members present: Representatives Perkins, Simon, Miller, Weiss, Kildee, Erdahl, Petri, and DeNardis. Staff present: John F. Jennings, counsel; Nancy L. Kober, legislative specialist; and William Blakey, counsel. Mr. SIMON. The Subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education and the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education will resume its joint hearings on H.R. 1662, the Educational Testing Act of 1981. I will enter this statement in the record which touches on what happened yesterday. Let me just say that our colleague from New York, Mr. Weiss, who has introduced the legislation has, I think, through the oversight of the subcommittee and through the action that's been taken by various organizations, caused considerable progress to be made in this area and those of us who are on the subcommittees and on the full committee appreciate that. [The opening statement of Congressman Simon follows:] OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL SIMon, a Representative in Congress FroM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS, NOVEMBER 5, 1981 The subcommittee on Elementary, Secondary, and Vocational Education and the Subcommittee on Postsecondary Education will resume its joint hearings on H.R. 1662, the Educational Testing Act of 1981. Yesterday's witnesses presented testimony on: One, why H.R. 1662 should or should not be enacted; two, the new policies enacted by the testing industry in response to New York State's test disclosure legislation; and three, the areas that have been amended in New York State's test disclosure legislation. A number of yesterday's witnesses also talked about the area of coaching, an area on which many of the witnesses here today will present testimony. A number of the witnesses on yeaterday's panel indicated that they were not opposed to coaching. Dr. Cooper of the Association of American Medical Colleges testified that the Association found that through coaching the "higher gains were for content specific sections" of the MCAT (areas such as biology, chemistry, etc.) as opposed to the skills analysis section (reading and quantitative tests). Mr. Anrig from the ETS indicated that they do not tell students not to attend coaching schools or programs, but that he does question how much a student can improve in the short run in skill areas that should have been developed in the 4 years of high school study. The role and impact of coaching is an area in which this committee seeks more information and therefore, we are happy to have before us today a group of people who are involved in the areas of testing and coaching. We have David A. Goslin who is the executive director, assembly of behavioral and social sciences at the National Academy of Science and his colleague at the Academy, Mrs. Alexandra Wigdor, study director, Committee on Ability Testing. We also have present Mrs. Lois Pines, former regional director of the Federal Trade Commission Boston regional office. The FTC's Boston office was responsible for release of a study entitled, "Coaching for Standardized Admission Tests." Our fourth witness will be Mr. Stanly Kaplan, founder of the Stanley Kaplan Educational Center. Commissioner James Miller of the Federal Trade Commission was unable to be with us today, but will submit written testimony for the record. The witness I'm going to take first is Mrs. Lois Pines, the former regional director for the Federal Trade Commission from the Boston regional office. The Boston office was responsible for the release of the study entitled "Coaching for Standardized Admission Tests" and we're very pleased to have Mrs. Pines here. I might add that we have a caucus right now of the Democratic members of the Budget Committee. We're putting together the second budget resolution and I'm going to have to excuse myself to Mrs. Pines and the other witnesses, at least temporarily. I'm going to turn the gavel over to Mr. Erdahl at this point. If you can come on over here. We thank you for being here and my apologies. Mrs. PINES. Thank you, Congressman Simon. Mr. ERDAHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We're delighted to have you with us, Mrs. Pines. You may proceed in any way that you wish. Your statement will be entered in its entirety into the record and you can give it or summarize it, whichever way that you might feel more comfortable. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF LOIS PINES, FORMER BOSTON REGIONAL Mrs. PINES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Lois Pines and I'm delighted to have the opportunity to be here this morning to testify on H.R. 1662, the Educational Testing Act of 1981. I firmly believe that the disclosures required by this legislation are essential to insure that the individuals who take standardized admission tests, as well as the institutions which utilize them, fully understand the benefits and the limitations of those particular tests. In my view, the issue really is a matter of marketplace fair ness. The 21⁄2 years during which I served as the regional director of the New England office of the Federal Trade Commission made clear to me that without full and fair disclosure, consumers of any product or service cannot make a reasonable decision with regard to their purchasing, nor can they fully exercise their rights in the marketplace. In this particular case, where the service purchased can and very often does permanently affect the purchaser's educational and professional life, full disclosure is all the more important. Surely if consumers have the right to be protected by laws requiring disclosures in such areas as credit and product labeling, they have a right to full disclosure regarding the testing services that shape their futures. Disclosure legislation in the education sphere is not new and as a State legislator from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, I sponsored and wrote legislation that provided for the disclosure of students' cumulative educational record in the public schools, not only to students but also to their parents. That legislation became effective in Massachusetts in 1973. Experts in the testing field who have previously testified before your committee, have cataloged the many dangers that are inherent in the widespread use of standardized admission tests. The predictive validity of the tests has been questioned. Concerns about racial, economic and cultural bias have been raised. Other critics have stressed that these multiple-choice tests cannot identify the truly creative or independent thinker; that such individuals may, in fact, be penalized by the tests. Personal qualities of importance, such as motivation, judgment, creativity can simply not be measured by these tests. My testimony today will focus on still another area of concern—the degree to which these tests are subject to special preparation or what is commonly referred to as coaching. During my tenure at the Federal Trade Commission, my staff at the Boston regional office conducted an investigation regarding coaching for standardized admission tests. The investigation was spawned by concern that commercial testing schools were making unfair and deceptive claims of effectiveness. The focus shifted, however, after the Federal Trade Commission staff conducted a statistical analysis which found that coaching at one commerical school was effective, raising its students' scholastic aptitude test scores an average of approximately 25 points in both the mathematical and verbal sections of the test. Staff reviewed other studies on coaching for the SAT and learned that other researchers had also found coaching to be effective. Our staff then undertook a review of the materials on the SAT distributed by the Educational Testing Service and College Board. The question became ETS and College Board fully and fairly disclosed the benefits of coaching for the SAT? Our investigation culminated with the Commission's release of the Boston regional office's staff report on the Federal Trade Commission Investigation of Coaching for Standardized Admission Tests, copies of which you have. I believe that the staff report makes the need for H.R. 1662 absolutely clear. One only needs to read the report's comparison of what the studies on coaching showed and what ETS and College Board were saying to conclude that students and educators have been misled. The report documents that the information sent to students and educators regarding coaching has been repeatedly in conflict with the research on that particular issue. For example, in 1968 when the College Board trustees were telling students and educators that coaching would not work, that such endeavors corrupted education, researchers had already conducted studies showing coaching gains of 29 on math and 60 points on the verbal section of the test. After yet more research attesting to the effectiveness of coaching, research at times sponsored by Col lege Board, students were still being told in the fall of 1979 that cramming does not raise scores. Now ETS and College Board try to play a semantic game in their defense. They explain that all they meant by saying that cramming would not help was that a few hours of drill on sample questions would not help. I fear that the students and educators reading the ETS and College Board materials may not have been able to grasp such a fine distinction. When you have no other source of information, it's difficult to read between the lines. Coaching for the SAT can help. Coaching can mean significant score improvements, yet students and educators were led to believe that it would not help. Full and fair disclosure has clearly not been the standard by which ETS and College Board have judged their material on the SAT. It is true that very recently, in the face of much public discussion and pressure, students have been given a more comprehensive statement on the coaching issue. However, absent a legislative mandate of H.R. 1662 insisting on full and fair disclosure as the norm, there will be no assurance that even these modest recent improvements will continue. In fact, there is no reason to believe that misleading statements will continue to appear. ETS's reponse to the Boston regional office report is a case in point. A senior vice president for research at ETS was said to have argued that the FTC's findings were flawed, that ETS studies have indicated much lower gains, 10 points or so. Yet ETS continues to rely on studies which its own researchers have criticized as being irrelevant to today's test takers or to an assessment of the effectiveness of a substantive and well constructed coaching program. Moreover, a quote from one of ETS's public relations officials is even more astounding to me. On May 18, 1981, that official is quoted as saying, "We don't believe that short-term cramming can make a difference. These are aptitude tests designed to measure potential ability and can't really be studied for." Mandating disclosure about the effectiveness of coaching would result in both practical and psychological benefits in the SAT context. On the practical side, students would fully understand the potential of coaching and be better able to decide whether such preparation is right for them. Also, schools would be better able to counsel their students on the question of preparation and decide whether to offer such preparation themselves. On the psychological side, students would be encouraged not to view their three-digit SAT scores as the final work of their mental capabilities. For if scores can be improved by coaching, the test is not measuring some unchanging and innate capacity to learn. It is not measuring aptitude. The Boston regional office's staff report documents yet another reason why H.R. 1662 is essential. The report highlights the fact that a number of serious educational policy questions are raised by the finding that coaching for a standardized admission test, such as the SAT, can be effective. For example, the implications of coaching for test validity must be examined. Questions are raised about the meaning of an examination designed to measure verbal and mathematical abilities said to be developed over a lifetime of learning if scores can be meaningfully changed in a few weeks or months of coaching. Validity |