we would encourage the educational people to consider this issue carefully.

Mr. MILLER. Well, I wish they would and I think to some extent the committee may be misled in that we have had testimony from certain law schools and medical schools and certain universities suggesting that what they really do is to look at the whole person and make these individualized determinations.

I suspect that for the vast majority of students who apply to colleges and universities that is not the case. And that in fact there is a formula worked out and you can engage in special pleading if you don't get in and try to present your case.

I think we're being misled when universities and law schools tell us that that's in fact what they really do, I just don't believe that's true for the overwhelming number. It sounds good and it kind of makes the issue go away because nobody is really being harmed. But I don't think that's so in your evidence that you presented out of the University of California undergraduate application packet of 1981-82 or the others suggest that that is not the case.

Mrs. PINES. That's is why we felt that it was important.

Mr. MILLER. I don't know how many thousands of students apply to the University of California system each year as freshman, but I'd be very surprised if each one of them got a little interview here to determine whether they really had inner qualities that would get them 2.79 to 3.01. I just don't believe that that happens and therefore, I think you have what appears as a discriminatory test. Where the discrimination can possibly be overcome by the expenditure of money, at that point I think we've got a policy problem that we've got to cope with.

I don't know if our testing bill is the right answer or the wrong answer, but I think we've got a problem here that suggests that the students are being excluded or potentially being excluded for that

reason.

Mr. WEISS. Will the gentleman yield on that?

Mr. MILLER. Yes, I'd be delighted to yield, I just want to thank you very much for your testimony and your statements.

Mrs. PINES. Congressman Miller, I appreciate your comments very much. I too have a youngster who is now a senior in high school and waiting for the decision from the colleges to which he has submitted an application. And I share your concern as a parent who had gone through this process and you'll have another year to cogitate on it.

I'd also say that I had the opportunity to appear before you several years ago with regard to the asbestos issue and very much appreciated the leadership that you and Congressman Perkins provided in that area.

Mr. MILLER. Thank you for your nice comments, but you'd love to see what EPA has done to that one. Don't go into those old schools right at the moment.

Mrs. PINES. Well, I'm happy to say in Masachusetts where I was a State legislator at the time and the chairman on the Commission on Asbestos that we have done a great deal and we've analyzed all of our schools and we've made those changes where needed and we continue to monitor those schools that have potential problems for the future.

Mr. MILLER. God bless you.

Mr. WEISS. Yes, I thank you for yielding. Just on the question of coaching and what the benefits of this legislation is to those who otherwise would not be able to afford, even if they were aware of the fact that coaching was available or that it could be helpful.

We had testimony at our hearings in July from a young man who is the executive director of a college and career counseling program in East Harlem, New York City and what he pointed out was that because of the disclosure provisions of the New York State law, he is now able to compete very effectively with Mr. Kaplan for example, that-without having the kids subjected to the fees, which they could not otherwise afford; even though Mr. Kaplan's program provides scholarships, he can't cover everybody. And so indeed the disclosure provision provide an opportunity for kids who otherwise would not have had the opportunity for coaching and could not compete on an equal level.

Mr. MILLER. Well that's very helpful. I guess many of us in politics draw on our own experiences. I remember when I was graduating from college and took the LSAT. My scores really stunk so I took them a second time on the theory that you could improve them. They went down and my father begged me, don't take it anymore, he said, or I won't be able to help you. So he helped me and I got a special interview with the dean of the law school. My father was chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, they needed a building and I got into law school. I did very well in law school, but I would have been excluded based upon that test. I didn't know there was coaching, I don't know if coaching would have helped, but there was a lot of suggesting that coaching wouldn't even have helped.

Later when I graduated from law school, there came the State bar exam. I signed up with one of these bar review courses with a fellow who nobody had ever heard of but gave guaranteed results and it worked. I passed the bar on the first time. And I suspect that the manner in which this fellow approached it for the bar would be considered outrageous by those people that gave the bar, by those people who now practice law.

I'm very concerned that people still could be precluded because I still have friends that have taken the bar 14 times and still trying to, jump the hurdle that is precluding them from practice, from professonal life, from entering professional school and now even being precluded from entering college and universities. And I'm very disturbed about that system.

I'm not suggesting that we're going to develop a system that treats everyone as equals because clearly that's not going to be the case. But I think we've got to ask ourselves when a single event in a person's life can change the course of that individual's like, you'd like to know at least that you give him the best shot you could. Whether that's providing Federal scholarships to Mr. Kaplan's school, I don't know. But you'd like to believe that they all started out with the same shot.

Thank you.

Mr. WEISS. Thank you, Mr. Miller. Mr. Petri.

Mrs. PINES. Could I-excuse me-could I just respond to the intitial question.

91-170 0-82--53

Mr. WEISS. You still remember it?

Mr. MILLER. This is a test.

Mrs. PINES. I'd like to underline what you've indicated, Mr. Chairman, with regard to the importance of the legislation as it relates to coaching because the legislation in section 4 specifically requires that the statistical data be made available and the analysis be made available and thus there'd be an opportunity to better understand or at least have our educators better understand, statisticians better able to make judgments with regard to what kind of coaching does help. And that information is not presently available.

So I believe the bill is important in that it provides that disclosure and independent researchers would have that and analysis would be able to be made which presently cannot be made because the information is not available from the Educational Testing Service.

Mr. WEISS. Mr. Petri.

Mr. PETRI. Thank you, I'd like to thank you for taking the time to come and offer testimony here today. I'm sitting here listening to all this trying to figure out whether there is a clear line between coaching and education? I mean we know that seniors do better than first graders and you could say that they've been coached for 12 years and then take the test. Kids go to summer schools that are oriented more towards the exams-is that something that should be a concern?

I went to school in the Midwest where only three of us in my class even heard of or even took the educational tests and then there are kids going to extra schools and such who seem to go year after year through educational courses oriented toward that. Somehow I suppose you could say that those of us from other parts of the country are at a disadvantage if we're not oriented in that way, but is that really true?

Is there some clear idea of what coaching is and what education is and how you separate one from the other?

Mrs. PINES. Well, I think that's really a major issue that we're dealing with. Coaching at the present time is available to very few youngsters nationwide, and it appears that those youngsters that have had access to coaching have benefited from it or many of them have benefited from it.

And it appears that some kind of coaching or drill may not be of help and in fact, in the analysis done originally by the FTC, there were two coaching programs that were studied. One which was helpful and one which was not helpful. So the issues really become what kind of coaching is helpful and to whom is it available. And are you precluded from access to that coaching because of your income or your rates, the way you live, geographic location.

And those are the issues that I personally believe need to be raised and that's the reason the report was published and the reason that I felt that it was important to come here to discuss it.

Mr. PETRI. And so what we're trying to do is to address ourselves to someone who attempts to help a student get a better score apart and aside from whatever school or whatever other thing they happened to be engaged in and the person does that for money, is that the idea?

Mrs. PINES. Well, the issue is really what kind of coaching or education is available to students generally. Some public schools as well as private schools provide a coaching program as part of their academic curriculum in some parts of the country.

But again, on a limited basis.

Mr. PETRI. But should we regulate that? What are we trying to get at here?

Mrs. PINES. What I'm trying to do is――

Mr. WEISS. Gentleman, if you will yield. Perhaps I can place into context what we're doing here today. We've had a series of hearings starting in I think July of 1979, on the issue of the truth-so called truth in testing legislation. And we touched on various aspects of the field and various aspects of the legislation.

One of the issues that has cropped up and which is in fact touched on the legislation as far as disclosure is concerned is on the effect of coaching on the taking of various tests, disclosing that information.

We have not had a session that was devoted specifically to the coaching issue although from time to time in some of the panels we've had some expiration of the issue and so what we did for today is to put together a forum for exploring that issue and that's what we're doing today. We're trying to cover various aspects and indeed we'll have some experts testifying in addition to Mrs. Pines, who will be touching on different aspects of the issue.

Thank you, Mr. Petri, Mr. Kildee.

Mr. KILDEE. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WEISS. Mr. Erdahl.

Mr. ERDAHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, maybe I should plead a bit guilty, because we got off on to-maybe they're not tangents but a little different area about the report itself. I think, Mr. Chairman, you properly zeroed in on the focus of today's hearing which is the consideration of the impact of this coaching on the testing and I would share that concern. I'm not sure if your bill addresses it, but it seems to me that we have to be concerned that if specific coaching is available to students that might have the money to pay for it or might live in an area where it's available, then we have questions. How do we address that? Should that be part of the high school curriculum, should it be something mandated by the Congress, which we've kind of shied away from doing? Should it be subsidized in some way? I think it raises some very serious question.

Mr. Chairman, I'm not sure-

Mr. WEISS. If you'll yield just on that one point.

Mr. ERDAHL. Of course I yield.

Mr. WEISS. Again, at page 4 of the legislation under section 3, sub 4, sub C, the requirement is for statement-disclosure on the registration form of statements concerning the effects on and uses of test scores including C, the extent to which test preparation courses improve test subject scores on average expressed as a percentage.

And again, all that this legislation does is to seek disclosure, we are not regulating anything.

Mr. ERDAHL. Thank you very much. I understand that but it does raise a broader question if we find that in fact your bill if it's

passed would come up with that conclusion. As Mr. Miller said, maybe as members of the Congress we can afford to send our sons and daughters to a coaching school maybe other people can't. I think that your

Mr. WEISS. Next bill.

Mr. ERDAHL. Next bill. OK.

Mr. WEISS. Not this one.

Mr. ERDAHL. OK.

But then, Mr. Chairman, I would ask this as a request that I received from our colleague, Bill Goodling, who couldn't be here today that came through staff just a few minutes ago, We have had what could be described as some rather strong charges against ETS for maybe their failure to disclose and so forth. I understand we have a person in the audience who I have not met, Dr. Mesic I believe it's pronounced. I think that he is regarded as ETS's coaching expert and I was wondering if it would be proper at this time or something during the course of this hearing to see if he has any response to any questions.

I see from the witness list that this individual is not included on your formal list, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WEISS. I think that ETS will probably tell you that if it wasn't for the honor, they'd just as soon walk. They have been given perhaps more of an opportunity to participate in the series of hearings than they would have liked if they had the chance to make the determination.

Obviously if the time permits and we've gone through the witnesses whom we specifically invited, we'd be pleased to put them on. We had, as you know, the president of ETS testifying yesterday. Mr. ERDAHL. Yes, I was here.

Mr. WEISS. On some of those issues, but I do have people from the National Academy of Sciences who have been invited to come down and I want to put them on next. I'd like to put Mr. Kaplan on and then if after that we still have time and the members want to hear additional witnesses, I would be pleased to be as accommodating as you want.

Mr. ERDAHL. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, I think that's most reasonable and again, ma'am, thank you very much for being with us today.

Mr. WEISS. Mr. DeNardis.

Mr. DENARDIS. Following up on your review of section 3A, subsection 4, and subsection C, which deals with the provision on coaching. I guess I want to clarify with you first, that this has to do with the test agency. The test agency shall provide this information and make statements concerning the use of test scores, but wouldn't that, Mr. Chairman, be dependent upon the private coaching agency providing that information to the test agency?

Mr. WEISS. Again; if the gentleman would yield. Part of the problem that we've had and I think that we've developed it so that we've almost come to a meeting of the minds is that there had been information gathered by various researchers including ETS and its researchers as to what the impact of various kinds of preparatory courses would be.

However, in submitting the information to the registrant, eventual test taker, the impression until we started in this whole proc