ED 017 943 co 001 283 A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES BY- JOSELYN… · 2013-12-02 · r e p o r t r e s u m e s. ed 017 943. co 001 283. a study of testing practices. in minnesota public

R E P O R T R E S U M E S

ED 017 943 co 001 283

A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

BY- JOSELYN, EDWIN G.MINNESOTA UNIV., ST. PAUL, STUDENT COUNSELING BUR.

PUB DATE NOV 67

EDRS PRICE MF-51.25 HC-$11.28 280P.

DESCRIPTORS- *STATE SURVEYS, QUESTIONNAIRES, *TESTING

PROGRAMS, *SECONDARY SCHOOLS, TEST INTERPRETATION,

*ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS', TEACHERS, SCHOOL SYSTEMS, INTELLIGENCE

TESTS, APTITUDE TESTS, ACHIEVEMENT TESTS, READING TESTS,

INTEREST TESTS,

THE INTENT OF THIS PROJECT WAS TO ASSEMBLE BASIC DATA

ABOUT CURRENT TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA SCHOOL SYSTEMS.

PREPARED WERE TWO QUESTIONNAIRES, ONE FOR THE ELEMENTARY AND

THE OTHER FOR THE SECONDARY LEVELS. THEY WERE DESIGNED TO BE

AS SIMILAR AS POSSIBLE. THE TABLES CONTAINING THE DATA FROM

THE QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES ARE THE HEART OF THE REPORT. THE

TEXT SUMMARIZES THE INFORMATION FROM THE TABLES AND CALLS

ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS, PATTERNS, AND RELATIONSHIPS.

DESCRIBED ARE--(1) STUDY AND QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS, (2)

GENERAL SCHOOL PRACTICES RELATING TO TESTING, (3) TESTS USED

IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS, (4) THE REPORTING, INTERPRETATION, AND

USE OF TEST RESULTS, (5) HIGH SCHOOL TESTING PROGRAMS, (6)

PLANNING FOR CHANGE, AND (7) POSSIBILITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT.

THE DATA INDICATE THAT ALTHOUGH ELEMENTARY TEACHERS HAVE

CONSIDERABLY GREATER RESPONSIBILITIES FOR INTERPRETING

STANDARDIZED TEST RESULTS TO PARENTS AND PUPILS, THEY HAVE

LESS BACKGROUND, LESS EXPERIENCE, AND LESS ASSISTANCE THAN

SECONDARY TEACHERS IN THE EXECUTION OF THIS DUTY. THE AMOUNT

OF TESTING WAS FOUND PROPORTIONAL TO THE SCHOOL SYSTEM, WITH

THE MOST TESTED STUDENTS IN MINNESOTA THOSE IN SUBURBAN

SYSTEMS. THE EFFECT OF SYSTEM SIZE ON THE QUALITY OF THE

TESTING PROGRAM WAS FOUND TO BE CONSIDERABLE. (IM)

PiitthaoU,Tuf'PlumwA STUDY OF TESTING

PROGRAMSIN MINNESOTA

PUBLIC SCHOOLS

EDWIN GARY JOSELYN

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION & WELFARE

OFFICE OF EDUCATION

Code: XXX11146111

TPHEIRSDNOCOUR

ORGANIZATION

AHNAISZABTmN

IN

BEEN REPRODUCED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED FROM THE

PERSON

OFFICIAL

POINTS OF VIEW OR OPINIONS

I STATED DO NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT ICIAL OFFICE OF EDUCATION

POSITION OR POLICY.

A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICESIN MINNESOTA PUBLIC SCHOOLS

by

Edwin Gary JoselynMinnesota State-Wide Testing Programs

Student Counseling BureauUniversity of Minnesota

The Minnesota Guidance Public- Lions edited by :

Reynold Erickson, Director, Pupil Personnel ServicesJulius H. Kerlan, Guidance ConsultantG. Dean Miller, Guidance Consultant

Conducted in part with funds made available through the provisions of theNational Defense Education Act of 1958, Title V-A and through the

Cooperation of Minnesota State-Wide Testing Programs,Student Counseling Bureau, University of Minnesota

MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONSt. Paul, Minnesota 55101

CG 001 283

1967

°IOW 14

Subcommittee on Testingof

The Minnesota State Advisory Committee on Guidanceand Pupil Personnel Services

Paul Ingwell, Chairman,Professor of Educational Psychology,St. Cloud State College, St. Cloud

Roger M. Adams, Director,Elementary Education,Wayzata Public Schools

Robert J. Casanova, Counselor,De La Salle High School, Minneapolis

Donald Clauson, Directorof Curriculum Development,State Department of Education

Keith Dawson, Counselor,St. Louis Park High School (1965-66)

Gary Jose lyn, Project Director,and School Testing Cousultant,State-Wide Testing Programs,University of Minnesota, Minneapolis

Gerald Thompson, Counselor,St. Louis Park High School (1966-67)

Julius Kerlan, Guidance Consultant,State Department of Education

Special Committee advisors for this project:R. W. Bergstrom, Principal,Hutchinson High School

E. L. Vitalis, Superintendent of Schools,Kasson-Mantorville Public Schools

ii

Preface

The Minnesota Department of Education iscommitted to a continuing examination of thepractices which it encourages in the schools.Testing is one of the practices which is of cur-rent concern nationally as well as in our ownState and this present effort is an attempt togather together a picture of what is happeningin the schools with regard to testing.

It is our plan in the Department to studythe data collected and opinions expressed alongwith other information and make appropriaterecommendations and plans on the use of testsin our schools.

This study is part of a continuous effort toexamine guidance practices in order to searchfor better solutions to the educational task beforeUS.

We trust the findings of this study will alsobe of interest to other groups and especially tothe many individuals who cooperated in fur-nishing the basic information.

Reynold M. Erickson, DirectorPupil Personnel Services

iii

Introduction

Around the nation, Minnesota is known for cold weather,iron ore, lakes, and tests. The University of Minnesota is thecenter of much test activity; tests developed here include theMinnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, the MinnesotaCounseling Inventory, the Minnesota Vocational Interest In-ventory, and the Minnesota Clerical Test. Minnesota schoolsadminister a lot of standardized tests.

Most citizens of Minnesota know this and, indeed, many citi-zens of other states, particularly professional educators, knowthis. Minnesota has a national reputation as being a State which"believes" in tests. With this reputation, unfortunately, oftengoes the implication that Minnesota educators make too manydecisions, and the wrong kinds of decisions, on the basis of testscores alone. In fact, it is not clear that Minnesota students dotake more tests than students in other states, and certainly thereis no evidence to suggest that Minnesota educators are any lessskilled in the use of test results than their colleagues from otherstates. Indeed, because of their experience, they may be moreskilled.

Reputations not withstanding, little is really known of test-ing practices in Minnesota schools. This is surprising whenone considers that Minnesota school systems do use many stand-ardized tests, that the State Department of Education has asmall but active and influential guidance section, and thatMinnesota has one of the nation's most extensive state-widetesting programs. Yet, it is true; there is little basic informationabout testing programs in Minnesota schools ; what tests aregiven at what grades, who interprets the results to students andparents, what do Minnesota educators think of their testingprograms.

The Minnesota State Board of Education, a group of laymen,is dependent upon advisory committees to keep them current andto make recommendations for policy decisions. One such com-mittee is the Minnesota State Advisory Committee on Guidance,and Pupil Personnel Services. As the name suggests, this com-mittee advises the State Board of Education on matters havingto do with guidance, counseling, and testing in Minnesota publicschools. The committee has a subcommittee on testing whichassists the parent committee on matters having to do with test-

iv

ing. This subcommittee is responsible for the research reportedhere.

As the testing subcommittee met during the 1964-65 and1965-66 school years it became more and more aware of thesituation discussed abovewe know very little about the natureof school testing programs in Minnesota schools and the feelings,opinions and needs of those who operate them. As this awarenesscrystallized the subcommittee decided to embark on this studywith funds available through the National Defense EducationAct.

The intent was to assemble basic data about current testingpractices in Minnesota school systems. The committee will usethese data to better serve the parent committee and the StateBoard of Education. Hopefully, these data will also assist otheragencies serving Minnesota schools to find ways to improve thequality and effectiveness of their services.

The heart of the report is, of course, the tables which containthe data from the questionnaire responses. In many instances,these data could have been analyzed in somewhat different waysto show or emphasize different relationships. Numerous arbi-trary decisions have been made in attempting to present the datain forms which the writer belives to be of most use and interestto Minnesota educators. Persons interested in further analysesor different breakdowns on these data are urged to contact theproject director.

The text summarizes the information from the tables andcalls attention to findings, patterns, and relationships which Ibelieve to be of particular interest or significance. In some casesthe interpretations may go beyond the data. I make no apologiesfor these for I believe that is part of the task of the reporter,but the reader should be alert for biases and feel free to imposehis own.

Edwin Gary Joselyn

V

Acknowledgments

This study was conceived by the Testing Subcommittee ofthe State Advisory Committee on Guidance and Pupil PersonnelServices under the leadership of its chairman, Dr. Paul Ingwell.The committee was encouraged to proceed with the study Lythe Pupil Personnel Services Section of the State Departmentof Education and its director, Reynold Erickson. Julius Karlanof the State Department staff cooperated in facilitating the workof the committee and helped keep it focused on its objectives.His assistance with this project has been considerable. Thequestionnaire return of over 95 per cent testifies to the outstand-ing cooperation which the committee and the project directorreceived from Minnesota educators. It is our hope that the resultsof the study will compensate each person who helped to makeit a success.

Most of the ideas and planning, for this study came fromthe testing subcommittee and the project director. However,a good deal of the content was inspired by three other studies,some resembling this effort more than others.

Numerous items and the general format of the questionnairebooklet were taken from the Russell Sage Foundation studies ofthe Social Consequences of Ability Testing (Brim, Neu linger, &Glass, 1965 ; Goslin, Epstein, &; Hallock, 1965 ; Brim, Goslin,Glass, & Goldberg, 1965) .

A second important source of content for the questionnairewas the research on the use of tests results by Hastings andothers at Illinois (Hastings, Itankel, & Damrin, 1961; Runkel,Hastings, & Damrin, 1961; Hastings, Runkel, Damrin, Kane, &Larson, 1960) .

Readers familiar with Womer's two studies of testing pro-grams in Michigan schools will recognize many items and noticethat the general format of the tables are patterned after his(Womer, 1959 ; Womer, 1963) .

Many at the Student Counseling Bureau have contributedmuch to the completion of this study and thanks are due to all.The most deserving include : Dr. Ralph Berdie and his successor,Dr. Arthur Smith, Directors of the Counseling Bureau and theState-Wide Testing Programs, who gave much encouragement

and allowed a good deal of time away from other pressing duties ;Ken Fisher, who edited the questionnaires for punching; Mrs.Veronica Schultz and her fine crew, who by hand and by com-puter spewed out the thousands of numbers ; Diana Suslak, whoefficiently "debugged" the data and tallied the unpunched re-sponses ; Beverly Lilleg, "table-typer," and Kristen Anderson,who typed most of the text and prepared the hundreds of tables ;

and June Stein, who read and reread the manuscript.

Minneapolis, Minnesota

November, 1967

vii

E. G. J.

References

Brim, 0. G., Neulinger, J., and Glass, D. C., Experiences andAttitudes of American Adults Concerning StandardizedIntelligence Tests. New York: Russell Sage Foundation,1965

Brim, 0. G. Jr., Goslin, D. A., Glass, D. C. and Goldberg, I.,The Use of Standardized Ability Tests in American Second-ary Schools and Their Impact on Students, Teachers, andAdministrators. New Yerk: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965

Goslin, D. A., Epstein, Roberta R., and Hallock, Barbara., TheUse of Standardized Tests in Elementary Schools. NewYork: Russell Sage Foundation, 1965

Hastings, J. T., Runkel, P. J., and Damrin, E. E., Effects on Useof Tests by Teachers Trained in a Summer Institute,Urbana: University of Illinois, Bureau of EducationalResearch, 1961

Hastings, J. T., Runkel, P. J., Damrin, Doug E., Kune, R. B.,Larson, G. L., The Use of Test Results. Urbana: Universityof Illinois, Bureau of Educational Research, 1960

Runkel, P. J., Hastings, J. T., and Damrin, D. E., Changes inSchools Which Do and Do Not Send Staff Member$ toTraining Institutes in Counseling. Urbana: University ofIllinois, Bureau of Educational Research, 1961

Womer, F. B., Testing Programs in Michigan Schools. AnnArbor: University of Michigan, 1959

Womer, F. B., Testing Programs in Michigan Schools 1963. AnnArbor: University of Michigan, 1963

viii

TABLE OF CONTENTSPage

Preface III

Introduction IVAcknowledgements VIReferences VIIIList of Tables X

1

9

Chapter 1Chapter 2Chapter 3Chapter 4

Chapter 5Chapter 6Chapter 7Chapter 8Chapter 9

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Appendix

Description of Study and Questionnaire ReturnsGeneral School Practices Relating to TestingTests Used in Minnesota Schools

Practices Relating to the Administration of StandardizedTests

Reporting, Interpretation, and Use of Test ResultsHigh School Testing ProgramsPlanning for ChangePossibilities for ImprovementSummary

I

II

III

IV

V

VI

VIIVIII

IX

X

XIXII

XIII

XIV

XV

XVI

21

43

61

97

113

135

149

School Systems Returning Questionnaire by Size ofSystem 151

School Buildings 157

Professional Staff 159

Kindergartens 167

Effect of PTA on Testing Programs 169

Ability Grouping 173

Information Maintained in Pupil Records 177

Practices in Reporting Pupil Progress to Parents 181

Assignment of the High School Principal to Counsel-ing and Guidance 187

High School Remedial and Developmental ReadingPrograms 189

High School "Guidance" and "Occupational" Units 195

How Users First Heard of Their Tests 199

Requirements for Reimbursement for Guidance,Cvniseling, and Testing Under Title V-A, NDEA,1965-66 203

Minnesota High School State-Wide Testing Program,1965-66 205

Elementary QuestionnaireSecondary Questionnaire

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Chapter 11- 1 Questionnaire Returns 4

1. 2 ELEMENTARYWho Filled Out the Questionnaire 6

1- 3 SECONDARYWho Filled Out the Questionnaire 7

Page

Chapter 22- 1 ELEMENTARYPerson or Group Responsible for Testing

Program 10

2- 2 SECONDARYPerson or Group Responsible for TestingProgram 11

2- 3 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYTesting Committees 12

2- 4 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYSchool District Test-ing Committees 13

2- 5 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYSecondary Involve-ment in the Elementary Testing Program and Vice Versa 14

2- 6 ELEMENTARYVisits by Consultants 15

2- 7 SECONDARYVisits by Consultants 16

:1- 8 ELEMENTARYProviding Teachers with Test Results 18

2- 9 SECONDARYProviding Teachers with Test Results 19

2-10 ELEMENTARYFaculty Meetings Dealing with Test Re-sults 20

2-11 SECONDARYFaculty Meetings Dealing with Test Results 20

Chapter 33- 1 ELEMENTARYGroup Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude

Tests 22

3- 2 SECONDARYGroup Intelligence or Scholastic AptitudeTests 22

3- 3 ELEMENTARYGroup Intelligence or Scholastic AptitudeTests 24

3- 4 SECONDARYGroup Intelligence or Scholastic AptitudeTests 25

3- 5 ELEMENTARYIndividual Intelligence Tests 26

3- 6 SECONDARYIndividual Intelligence Tests 27

3- 7 ELEMENTARYIndividual Intelligence Tests 27

3- 8 SECONDARYIndividual Intelligence Tests 29

3- 9 SECONDARYMulti-Aptitude Batteries 29

3-10 SECONDARYMulti-Aptitude Batteries 30

3-11 ELEMENTARYAchievement Batteries 30

3-12 SECONDARYAchievement Batteries 31

3-13 ELEMENTARYAchievement Batteries 32

Page3-14 SECONDARYAchievement Batteries 88

3-15 ELEMENTARYReading Readiness Tests 84

3-16 ELEMENTARYReading Readiness Tests 34

3-17 ELEMENTARYReading Tests 86

3-18 SECONDARYReading Tests 86

3-19 ELEMENTARYReading Tests 87

3-20 SECONDARYReading Tests 88

3-21 SECONDARYInterest Inventories 89

3-22 SECONDARYInterest Inventories 40

3-23 SECONDARYPersonality Tests 423-24 SECONDARYPersonality Tests 42

Chapter 44- 1 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYProportion of Pupils

Taking Tests4- 2 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYNumber of Times

Tests are Given

4- 3 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYTime of School Yearfor Administration of Tests

4- 4 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Who AdministersStandardized Tests

4- 5 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYWho Scores Stand-ardized Tests

4- 6 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYWho Records Stand-ardized Tests

45

48

50

58

56

59

Chapter 55- 1 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Types of Test

Scores 62

5- 2 ELEMENTARY Al.` D SECONDARYNorm Groups Avail-able 66

5- 3 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Reporting TestScores to Children 69

5- 4 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Reporting of TestScores to Parents 73

5- 5 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYWho Interprets TestRest Its 77

5- 6 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Availability ofScores to Teachers 81

5- 7 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYUse of Test Results 87

5- 8 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYSingle Most Import-ant Use for Test Results 92

5- 9 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYAmount of ReliancePlaced on Test Re:tults 95

xi

Chapter 6 Pat.6- 1 SECONDARYParticipation in the National Defense Edu-

cation Act, Title V-A 986- 2 SECONDARYSubject-Matter Aptitude Tests 99

6- 3 SECONDARYSubject-Matter Aptitude Tests 99

6- 4 SECONDARYSubject-Matter Achievement Tests 100

6- 5 SECONDARYSubject-Matter Achievement Tests 101

6- 6 SECONDARYExternal Testing, 1965-66 101

6- 7 SECONDARYExternal Testing, American College TestingProgram (ACT) 108

6- 8 SECONDARYExternal Testing, College Entrance Exami-nation Boards (CEEB) 104

6- 9 SECONDARYExternal Testing, Minnesota MathematicsTest (MMT) 105

6-10 SECONDARYExternal Testing, National Merit Scholar-ship Qualifying Test (NMSQT) 106

6-11 SECONDARYExternal Testing, Preliminary ScholasticAptitude Test (PSAT), Grade 11 107

6-12 SECONDARYExternal Testing, Preliminary ScholasticAptitude Test (PSAT), Grade 12 108

6-13 SECONDARYExternal Testing, General Aptitude TestBattery (GATB) 109

6-14 SECONDARYExternal Testing, Airman Qualifying Test(AQT) 110

6-15 SECONDARY Testing Costs Paid by Students 111

6-16 SECONDARYTests for Which Students Pay Costs 111

Chapter 77- 1 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYPlanning for Change 1137- 2 ELEMENTARYAnticipated Changes in Testing Program 1157- 3 SECONDARYAnticipated Changes in Testing Program.. 127

Chapter 88- 1 ELEMENTARYReactions to Suggestions for Improve-

ments in Use of Test Results 1368- 2 SECONDARYReactions to Suggestions for Improvements

in Use of Test Results 1408- 3 ELEMENTARYMost and Least Preferred Suggestions 145

8- 4 SECONDARYMost and Least Preferred Suggestions 147

Appendix IIII-1 ELEMENTARYElementary School Buildings 15711-2 SECONDARYPercentages of School Districts Operating

Various Numbers of Junior (Jr.), Senior (Sr.), and Junior-Senior (Jr:Sr.) High School Buildings 158

xii

Appendix IIIIII-1 ELEMENTARY Persons Assigned as Elementary School

Page

Counselors 160

111-2 SECONDARYPersons Assigned as Guidance Counselors 161

111-3 ELEMENTARYPersons Assigned as School Psychologists 162111-4 SECONDARYPersons Assigned as School Psychologists 163

111-5 ELEMENTARYPersons Assigned as Social Workers 164

111-6 SECONDARY Persons Assigned as Social Workers 165

Appendix IVIV-1 ELEMENTARYKindergarten 167

Appendix VV-1 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYActivity of PTA 170

V-2 ELEMENTARYEffect of PTA on Testing Program 171

V-3 SECONDARYEffect of PTA on Testing Program 172

Appendix VIVI-1 ELEMENTARYAbility Grouping in Assignment to Class-

room 173

Vi -2 SECONDARYAbility Grouping in Assignment to Class-room 174

VI-3 ELEMENTARYAbility Grouping Within Classroom 175

VI-4 SECONDARYAbility Grouping Within the Classroom 176

Appendix VIIVII-1 ELEMENTARYInformation in Cumulative Records 178

VII-2 SECONDARYInformation in Cumulative Records 179

Appendix VIIIVIII-1 ELEMENTARYMethod of Reporting to Parents 182

VIII-2 SECONDARYMethod of Reporting to Parents, JuniorHigh 182

VIII-3 SECONDARYMethod of Reporting to Parents, SeniorHigh 183

VIII-4 ELEMENTARYReports to Parents 184

VIII-5 SECONDARYReports to Parents 185

VIII-6 ELEMENTARYParents Told Pupil's Aptitude for Learn-ing 186

VIII-7 SECONDARYParents Told Pupil's Aptitude for Learning 186

Appendix IXIX-1 SECONDARYPrincipal Assigned to Guidance and Coun-

seling 187

Appendix XX-1 SECONDARYPersons Assigned as Remedial Reading

Teachers 190

X-2 SECONDARYDevelopmental Reading Course 191

X-3 SECONDARYGrade Placement of Developmental ReadingUnits 191

X-4 SECONDARYLength of Developmental Reading Units 192

X-5 SECONDARYProportion of Pupils Included in Develop-mental Reading Units 193

X-6 SECONDARYUse of Test Scores in Developmental Read-ing Unit 193

Page

Appendix XIXI-1 SECONDARYGuidance or Occupational Units 195

XI-2 SECONDARYGrade Placement of Guidance Units 196

XI-3 SECONDARYLength of Guidance Units 197

XI-4 SECONDARYUse of Test Scares in Guidance Unit 197

Appendix XIIXII-1 ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARYHow Users First

Heard of Their Tests 200

Chapter 1

Description of theStudy and Questionnaire Returns

This chapter describes the development and distribution ofthe questionnaire, the returns, and the tables in the body of thereport.

The QuestionnaireTwo questionnaires were prepared, one for elementary, grades

K-6, and one for secondary, grades 7-12. They were designed tobe as similar as possible including only the differences necessaryto make them appropriate for use at the separate levels. Roughdrafts of the questionnaires were prepared by the Project Direc-tor using the sources cited in the introduction and suggestionsof the staff of the Minnesota State-Wide Testing Programs, theGuidance Section of the State Department of Education, and theTesting Subcommittee of the State Advisory Committee on Guid-ance, Counseling, and Testing.

After editing by the Subcommittee, the questionnaires weretried out in approximately fifteen elementary and secondaryschools of various sizes from various parts of the State and thesepreliminary tryouts resulted in further changes. The final ques-tionnaires are found in Appendices XV and XVI.

The questionnaires were mailed to schools on March 15, 1966.One elementary and one secondary questionnaire were sent toeach Minnesota public school district which graduates seniors.Private schools and elementary districts not holding schoolthrough the twelfth grade were not included. School districts op-erating more than one elementary or secondary building wereasked to complete the questionnaire for a "typical" building. Anitem in the questionnaire asked these schools to indicate whetheror not the testing program was essentially the same in eachbuilding and virtually every school district indicated it was.

1

A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA

A reminder post card was sent one week after the question-naires were mailed. The initial mailing and the follow-up postcard produced a return of 75 per cent, quite high for initial mail-ings of survey-type materials. Two follow-up letters, one a "per-sonal" letter, were sent some weeks later. Finally, phone callswere made to schools that still had not returned questionnairesby late spring. These efforts resulted in an over-all return of 95per cent of the elementary questionnaires and 96 per cent of thesecondary questionnaires.

Classification of SchoolsFor purposes of analysis, school districts were classified into

five arbitrary categories as follows :

Schools with 0-35 students per grade.Schools with 36-99 students per grade.Schools with 100 or more students per grade.SuburbanUrban

Schools were classified as "Urban" and "Suburban" withoutreference to class size. The urban school districts are Duluth,Minneapolis, and St. Paul. The suburban schools are twenty-sixdistricts surrounding the Twin Cities usually considered part ofthe metropolitan area. Classification of schools as "suburban"was arbitrary and others might be inclined to make additions ordeletions to this list.* The names of the school districts in eachcategory that returned questionnaires are listed in Appendix I.

The data on class size were obtained from records of the Min-nesota College State-Wide Testing Program. Specifically, districtswere placed in one of the first three categories according to thenumber of juniors tested in the Minnesota College State-WideTesting Program in 1963-64. Two difficulties with this procedureshould be mentioned. First, the class sizes are based on the 1963-64 school year whereas the study was conducted during the1965-66 school year. Population changes certainly would havechanged the classification of a few schools had more recent databeen available. Second, the size of the junior class is not alwaysrepresentative of the size of elementary classes, particularly in

*Brooklyn Center, Burnsville, Circle Pines, Inver Grove-Pine Bend, andOrono should have been included in the suburban category.

2

DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

districts which have a large number of students attendingparochial or other private schools. Even so, these data approxi-mate very closely the sizes of the 1965 graduating classes.

A Word About the TablesMost of the tables in this report show questionnaire responses

in terms of per cent of school districts responding in each of thefive categories of school size and for the total group. Numbersare omitted but can be obtained by writing to the author or com-puted using the base numbers contained in Table 1-1. Per centshave been rounded to the nearest whole per cent so occasionallycolumns do not total to 100 because of rounding error.

It is important to remember, then, that the per cents presentedin the Urban Category are based on only three school systems,and in the Suburban Category the per cents are based on a totalof 26 systems.

Questionnaire ReturnsTable 1-1 shows the number and per cent of schools return-

ing questionnaires by category and total group. Larger schoolsystems returned more of their questionnaires and the secondaryschools returned more than the elementary schools. The bottomline in the table shows the per cent of the total Minnesota publicschool population enrolled in schools returning questionnaires.These data, too, are based on the 1963-64 State-Wide CollegeTesting Program.

Who Filled Out the QuestionnaireTables 1-2 and 1-3 show the per cent of people with various

titles completing the questionnaire. The general instructions(Appendix XVII) asked :

The person or persons who have primary responsibilityfor the conduct of the testing program at each level shouldcomplete the two questionnaires. This may be a counseloror a guidance director, or the principal or superintendentin systems having no counselor. It is important that theperson who bears primary responsibility for the ongoingoperation of the testing program at each level be the oneto complete the questionnaire.In the smaller school systems the superintendent or principal

usually completed the questionnaire with more specialized per-

3

TA

BL

E 1

-1

Que

stio

nnai

re R

etur

nsN

UM

BE

R A

ND

PE

R C

EN

T O

F SC

HO

OL

S R

ET

UR

NIN

GQ

UE

STIO

NN

AIR

EB

Y C

AT

EG

OR

Y A

ND

TO

TA

L G

RO

UP,

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

(E)

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

(S)

SIZ

E O

F SC

HO

OL

SY

STE

M

TO

TA

LC

lass

Siz

e1-

35C

lass

Siz

e36

-99

Cla

ss S

ize

100

and

over

Subu

rban

Urb

an

ESE

SE

SE

SE

SE

SN

umbe

r of

Sch

ools

in C

ateg

ory

136

136

195

195

9292

2626

33

452

452

Num

ber

Res

pond

ing

124

128

187

187

9092

2625

33

430

435

Per

Cen

t Res

pond

ing

91.2

94.1

95.9

95.9

97.8

100

100

96.2

100

100

95.1

96.2

Per

Cen

t of

Publ

ic S

choo

l Pup

ilsA

ttend

ing

Res

pond

ing

Scho

ols.

92.1

95.0

96.1

96.2

98.5

100

100

98.4

100

100

98.1

98.5


sonnel taking over in the larger systems. Except in the smallerschools the counselor or director of pupil personnel services com-pleted most of the secondary questionnaires. The 35 per cent of"others" completing elementary questionnaires from suburbanschools is represented by titles such as "Assistant Principal,""Assistant Director of Elementary Education," "Assistant Su-perintendent," "Director of Guidance," and "Director of PupilPersonnel." That there are many more females in counseling andadministrative positions at the elementary level is clearly shownby the data on sex of respondents shown at the bottom of thetables.

5


TABLE 1.2

ELEMENTARY Who Filled Out the Questionnaire

Percentages of persons with eachtitle completing questionnaire.

TITLE Size of School SystemTotal

1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Teacher

Principal.

Curriculum director

4

68

1

83 46 15

8

2

66

1

Director of elementary education. 3 46 31 13

Superintenc ent 24 6 10

Elementary school counselor. .. .. 1 1 1

High school guidance director(counselor) 2 5 1 3

Psychologist 1 12 33 1

Other. 1 3 35 67 3

No Response 1 1 1 1

SEX

Percentages of persons of eachsex completing the questionnaire.

1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban Total

Male

Female

No Response

41

57

2

56

40

4

73

25

2

92

4

4

67

33

57

40

3

DESCRIPTION OP THE STUDY AND QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS

TABLE 1-3

SECONDARY Who Filled Out the Questionnaire

TITLE

Percentages of persons with eachtitle completing questionnaire.

Size of School SystemTotal

1-35 86-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Teacher

Principal

Curriculum director

Director of secondary education

Superintendent

Pupil personnel administrator(Director of Special Services)

Guidance director or counselor

Psychologist

Other

1

80

12

6

1

3

48

I3

I46

1

111110.

10

1

1

1

85

2

4

4

16

64

12

I

I

33

67

1

47

1

5

1

44

2

SEX

Percentages of persons of eachsex completing questionnaire.

1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban Total

Male

Female

No Response

98

2

1

94

4

2

91

9

84

12

4

100 94

5

2

chapter 2

General School PracticesRelating to Testing

From the beginning, the committee intended that this studygo beyond simply finding out what tests are given in Minnesotaschools. This chapter presents data about the development ofschool testing programs, the persons responsible for their de-velopment, and school practices and policies which may be relatedto school testing programs.

Development of the Testing ProgramThe respondents were asked to indicate the one person or

persons having primary responsibility for the development ofthe school testing program. The replies to this question are sum-marized in Tables 2-1 and 2-2. Principals bear heavy responsi-bility for the testing programs in Minnesota schools, particularlyin the smaller schools and at the elementary level. Superintend-ents are more apt to retain control of the testing programs inthe small elementary schools than in the small secondary schools26 per cent of the smallest districts report that the elemen-tary principal has primary responsibility for the testing program,whereas 63 per cent of the secondary principals of schools in thiscategory have similar responsibilities.

The major difference between elementary and secondary onthis item is the presence of guidance counselors in the highschools where 43 per cent have assigned primary responsibilityfor the development of the testing program to the counselor. Thisfigure is as high as 85 per cent in the larger school systems.

Testing CommitteesMost "experts" on school testing, such as consultants, text

book authors, and test publishers, feel that school testing pro-grams should be set up and continuously evaluated by a testingcommittee composed of professional staff persons from various

9


TABLE 2.1ELEMENTARY Person or Group Responsible

for Testing Program

Who is the one person(s) bearingprimary responsibility for thedevelopment of your testing

program as it now exists?

Percentages of school systems reportingvarious persons or groups as having

primary responsibility for thetesting program.

1-35

Testing committee.

Classroom teacher (s)

Principal(s)

Superintendent or assistantsuperintendent

Director of elementary educationor elementary supervisor

Curriculum director

Counselor or other pupilpersonnel specialist.

Consultant(s) from collegesor universities

Consultant(s) from StateDepartment of Education

Consultant(s) from commercialtest publishers

Salesman from commercial testpublisher

Reading specialist

School psychologist

Can't really say who was respon-sible for its development; it hasbeen this way for a long time

Other

No Response

15

26

33

1

2


36-99 100+ Sub. (Urban

5

54

16

3

3

2

11

88

2

42

6

8

8

8

46

3

3

83

33

ox1

7

40

18

13

1

3

1 1

1 1

2 3

21 15

2

1

8

15

8

3

33

1

1

2

1

14

10

GENERAL SCHOOL PRACTICES RELATING TO TESTING

TABLE 2.2

SECONDARY Person or Group Responsiblefor Testing Program

Who is the one person(s) bearingprimary responsibility for thedevelopment of your testing

program as it now exists?

Percentages of school systems reportingvarious persons or groups as having

primary responsibility for thetesting program.

Size of School System

1-35 36-99 1 100 + Sub.

Testing committee

Classroom teacher(s)

Principal(s)

Superintendent or assistantsuperintendent.

Director of secondaryeducation or secondarysupervisor

Curriculum director

Counselor or other pupilpersonnel specialist

Consultants from colleges oruniversities

Consultant(s) from StateDepartment of Education

Consultant(s) from commercialtest publishers

Salesman from commercialtest publisher.

Can't really say who was respon-ible for its development; it hasbeen this way for a long time.

Other

No Response

2

2

63

22

2

38 I 10

9 1 2

4

4

Urban

33

Total

1

1

37

11

1

1

1

41 I 85

1

1

84 I 33 43

1

1

2

3

1

6 1 1

8 33

1

1

4

11


backgrounds. Yet it is obvious from Tables 2-3 and 2-4 that fewMinnesota schools follow the experts on this point. One-fourthof the elementary schools say they have their own testing com-mittee while less than one-fifth of the elementary schools reportsuch a committee. Elementary schools of the larger systemsare more apt to have a testing committee blt this does notseem to be a function of school size at the secondary level.Table 2-4 reports the answers to the question asking if the schooldistrict has a testing committee covering kindergarten throughthe twelfth gradethe situation considered most ideal by theexperts. Twelve per cent of the elementary schools and six percent of the secondary report the existence of such committee.It is interesting that elementary people are more likely to be-lieve their district has a testing committee than are their highschool colleagues. Similar perceptions and clearer communica-tions should have resulted in identical elementary and secondaryresponses on this item.

In another attempt to assess the amount of cooperationbetween the elementary and secondary school levels in thedevelopment of the testing programs, schools were asked toindicate whether or not personnel from the other level were

TABLE4,11144. ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

2.3

Testing Committees

Percentages of school systems withelementary or secondary level

Do you have an elementary (sec-ondary) school testing committeewhich operates independentlyfrom the high school (elementary)?

testing committees.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

ELEMENTARY

Yes 23 20 37 42 33 26

No Response 2 1 2 1

SECONDARY

Yes 15 18 16 16 33 17

No Response 1 1 1 1

12


TABLE 24ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

School District Testing Committees

Percentages of school systems reportingdistrict testing committees.

Does your district (K-12) havean active testing committee? Size of School System

Total

1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

ELEMENTARY

Yes 10 9 19 8 33 12

No Response 1 2 4 1

SECONDARY

Yes 7 4 8 4 67 6

No Response 1 *

*Less than one-half of one per cent.

involved in the development of their own program. Almost athird of the elementary respondents say that secondary levelpersonnel participated in development of the testing programwhile 16 per cent of the secondary respondents say elementarypersonnel worked with them. (Table 2-5) . Apparently the larger,out-state systems do the best job of establishing communicationsbetween levels. The trend for more cooperation as school systemsbecome larger is reversed in the suburban school category whereonly one system reports that elementary level personnel wereinvolved in the development of the secondary level testingprogram. Secondary personnel are less likely to arrange forparticipation of the elementary personnel in their testing pro-gram deliberations than vice versa.

Visits by ConsultantsConsultants and other visitors from outside agencies some-

times provide assistance to schools in the development of theirtesting programs. The four main sources of visitors are the StateDepartment of Education, colleges and the University, theMinnesota State-Wide Testing Programs, and commercial test

13


publishers. The intent of this item was to inquire about visitsfrom persons who could provide help with the testing program.Table 2-6 shows that elementary schools receive few calls frompersons qualified to assist them with the testing program. Thecategory, "other consultants from the State Department ofEducation," is doubtless the elementary consultants, knowledge-able in the field of elementary education, but without particularskills in standardized testing.

There is considerably more outside consultation with highschools where almost one-third remember visits by personnelfrom the Guidance Section of the State Department of Educationand from the Minnesota State-Wide Testing Programs. Bothof these agencies employ personnel who have primary responsi-bilities for consultation with schools, yet the coverage is stillquite inadequate and Table 2-7 shows that two-thirds of theschools remain unvisited in a three-year period.

Visitors to Minnesota schools are more likely to go to thelarger schools. This is particularly true in the case of salesmen

TABLE 2-5ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Secondary Involvement

in the Elementary Testing Program and Vice Versa

Have personnel from the secon-dary (elementary) level (otherthan the superindentent) partic-ipated in the development of theelementary (secondary) schooltesting program?

Percentages of school systems reportingparticipation of personnel from theother level in development of the ele-

mentary or secondary testingprogram.

ELEMENTARY

Yes

No Response

SECONDARY

Yes

No Response


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

19 28 43 35 67 29

2 2 1 2

17 16 19 4 33 16

1 1

14


from commercial test publishers who naturally tend to concen-trate their greatest efforts in situations where the financialreturns may be larger.

These tables must be interpreted with caution since theyprobably underestimate considerably the amount of contact be-tween the schools and these agencies. Certainly a number ofschools received visits in past years which were unknown to theperson completing the questionnaire. The questions cover onlyvisits to the school by persons from the agencies and do not reflectthe hundreds of visits by school personnel to the agencies' offices.Finally, there is considerable contact by telephone and writtencorrespondence which is not shown here.

TABLE 2.6

ELEMENTARY Visits by Consultants

Within this and the past twoyears, has your school been visit-ed by any of the following?(Per cent answering "yes")

Percentages of school systems reportingvisits by outside consultants.


1-35 36-99 100 Sub. Urban

G aidance consultant from theState Department of Educa-tion (Reynold Erickson,Julius Kerlan, Dean Miller) . 10 8 7 19 33 9

Consultant from the State-Wide Testing Programs, Stu-dent Counseling Bureau,University of Minnesota(Gary Joselyn) 10 9 4 8 8

Other consultant 'rom the StateDepartment of Education 13 19 31 35 21

Other guidance or counselingconsultant from any Minnesotacollege or university 2 3 4 4 3

Consultant from commercial testpublisher 7 14 21 62 67 17

Other consultant 2 6 2 4 33 4

No Response 2 6 4 4 3

15


Providing Teachers with Test ResultsMethods of giving teachers test results vary considerably

according to size of school system and from elementary to sec-ondary as shown in Tables 2-8 and 2-9. Test results are apt to bekept in the teacher's room at the elementary level, but secondaryschools seldom send test results directly to teachers. Test resultsare more often kept in the central offices in the smaller systems.

The second choice for this item was an attempt to determinethe availability of other professional staff to work with teachersin the interpretation of test results. Elementary teachers aremore on their own in the interpretation of test results thanteachers at the secondary level where 43 per cent of the second-ary schools say the teacher may look up the test results, "inconsultation with the principal or guidance counselor." Not oneMinnesota school reported that the test results were completely

TABLE 2-7SECONDARY Visits by Consultants

Within this and the past twoyears has your school been visit-ed by any of the following?(Per cent answering "yes")

Percentages of school systems reportingvisits by outside consultants.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Guidance consultant from theState Department of Educa-tion (Reynold Erickson,Julius Kerlan, Dean Miller) . . 20 28 46 56 31

Consultant from the State-Wide Testing Programs, Stu-dent Counseling Bureau,University of Minnesota(Gary Joseiyn) 30 32 55 36 36

Other guidance or counselingconsultant from any Minnesotacollege or university 8 5 11 16 8

Consultant from commercial testpublisher 13 11 38 40 33 19

Other consultant. 5 8 9 12 7

No Response 1 1 1 1

16


confidential and not available to teachers. This will interest manyreaders who will be able to remember not many years ago whensome principals (and even some counselors) kept test resultslocked in their personal files and refused to allow teachers tosee them for fear they would be misused.

One rather common method of teaching teachers about testresults is through general faculty meetings. Tables 2-10 and 2-11show the frequency of general faculty meetings called for thepurpose of discussing and interpreting test results. At the ele-mentary level there are markedly fewer of these faculty meetingsin the smaller school systems while almost all of the largersystems have at least one meeting. Size of school system seemsto have little influence on the frequency of meetings at the second-ary level, however.

While; almost one-half of the suburban high schools do nothold even one faculty meeting a year to discuss test results, allbut one of the suburban elementary schools report at least onesuch meeting each year.


TABLE 2.8

ELEMENTARY Providing Teachers with Test Results

Percentages of school systems reportingvarious methods of informing teach-

ers of test results.In general, how do your teacherslearn of students' test scores oncethey are available in the schoolbuilding?


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Test results are placed in the filesin the central office and anyteacher who wishes may lookthem up 44 16 18 4 23

Test results are placed in the filesin the principal's office or inthe guidance counselor's officeand any teacher who wishesmay learn of them in consul-tation with the principal orguidance counselor 16 22 9 8 16

Test results are sent directly toeach teacher who keeps themin his own files 39 61 71 88 100 69

Test results are completely confi-dential and are not availableto teachers

Other 2 2 2 2

18

GENERAL SCHOOL PRACTICES gELATING TO TESTINCi

TABLE 2-9

SECONDARY Providing Teachers with Test Results

Percentages of school systems reportingvarious methods of informing teach-

ers of test results.In general, how do your teacherslearn of students' test scores oncethey are available in the schoolbuilding?


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Test results are placed in thefiles in the central office andany teacher who wishes maylook them up 45 38 33 24 33 38

Test results are placed in the filesin the j:rincipal's office or inthe guidance counselor's officeand any teacher who wishesmay learn of them in consul-tation with the principal orguidance counselor 48 43 36 40 33 43

Test results are sent directly toeach teacher who keeps themin his file 6 16 29 32 33 17

Test results are completely confi-dential and are not availableto teachers

Other 2 3 2 4 2

19

A STUDY

TABLE

ELEMENTARY Faculty

OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA

240Meetings Dealing with Test Results

Percentages of school systems reportingvarious numbers of faculty meetings

How many general faculty meet-ings would you say are usuallyheld each year for the primarypurpose of discussing and inter-preting test results?

for test interpretation


1-35 86-99 100+ Sub. Urban

None 40 22 7 4 23

One 25 35 40 38 83 33

Two. 23 35 46 27 33 30

Three 10 4 10 19 33 8

Four or more 2 3 6 12 4

No Response 1 2 1 - 1

TABLE 2-11

SECONDARY Faculty Meetings Dealing with Test Results

Percentages of school systems reportingvarious numbers of faculty meetings

How many general faculty meet-ings would you say are usuallyheld each year for the primarypurpose of discussing and inter-preting test results?

for test interpretation.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

None 30 35 35 48 34

One 36 35 46 32 100 38

Two 23 20 12 16 19

Three 7 5 4 4 6

Four or more 3 3 1 2

No Response 1 1 1

20

Chapter 3

Tests Used in Minnesota SchoolsThis chapter tabulates the standardized tests used in Min-

nesota schools by the four major types: Scholastic Aptitude,Achievement, Interest, and Personality. We are here concernedonly with standardized tests which are part of the every-pupilstandardized testing program. Therefore, this chapter does notinclude information on teacher-made tests, tests which are con-sidered part of the instructional materials of various curricula,or specific subject-matter achievement or aptitude tests. Theuse of the latter in high schools is covered in Chapter 6. Testswhich may be administered to only a small number of selectstudent for diagnostic, counseling or similar purposes are like-wise not discussed here.

Scholastic Aptitude (Intelligence) TestsThe proportion of schools using general intelligence or scho-

lastic aptitude tests at the various grade levels is shown in Tables3-1 and 3-2. At the elementary level there is substantially morescholastic aptitude testing in the odd numbered years than inthe even numbered years. An exception is the suburban categorywhere one-half of the districts use a scholastic aptitude test inthe second grade. There is a tendency for the larger school sys-tems to do more scholastic aptitude testing than the smallersystems in the elementary grades.

The emphasis on scholastic aptitude testing in odd numberedyears continues at the secondary level with 76 per cent of theschools administering a scholastic aptitude test at the seventhgrade. If one considers multi-aptitude batteries to be specialcases of scholastic aptitude tests, this pattern continues at ninthgrade with 60 per cent of the schools using multi-aptitude bat-teries at that grade (Table 3-9) in addition to 33 per cent givinga group intelligence test.

These tables do not include the scholastic aptitude test giventhrough the Minnesota State-Wide College Testing Program

21


TABLE 3.1ELEMENTARYGroup Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Tests

Grades in WhichAdministered

Percentages of school systems ad-ministering group intelligence or scho-

lastic aptitude tests invarious grades.


1-85 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Pre-School

Kindergarten 5 8 8 6

1st Grade 52 60 57 42 56

2nd Grade. 23 26 26 50 26

8rd Grade 50 68 62 54 88 58

4th Grade 84 88 88 46 100 85

5th Grade 46 58 68 62 67 54

6th Grade 80 80 28 42 88 80

TABLE 3.2SECONDARY Group Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Tests


Percentages of school systems ad-ministering group intelligence or scho-

lastic aptitude tests invarious grades.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Total

7th Grade

8th Grade.

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

12th Grade.

79

87

36

18

14

7

71

84

32

18

14

8

82

38

81

40

18

10

84

82

28

60

20

12

67

83

11111110

76

84

88

25

15

8

22

TESTS USED IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS

at the eleventh grade level. The test currentAy used in this pro-gram, sponsored by the Association of Minnesota Colleges, isthe Minnesota Scholastic Aptitude Test (MSAT) , a short formof the Ohio Psychological Examination. Virtually every Minne-sota junior takes the MSAT each winter so that pattern of scho-lasic aptitude testing in odd numbered years continues throughall thirteen years.

There is little difference in the frequency of use of tests ofscholastic aptitude in the various sized systems with the excep-tion of the tenth grade where the large out-state and suburbanschools are much more apt to administer a scholastic aptitudetest than the small schools.

Tables 3-3 and 3-4 show the frequency of use of differenttests of scholastic aptitude.* The Lorge-Thorndike IntelligenceTests (LTIT) is by far the most popular test of this kind at bothelementary and secondary levels. The high incidence of use ofLTIT in high school is undoubtedly influenced by its inclusionin the Minnesota High School State-Wide Testing Program. Thereason for the high popularity of the test in the elementary gradesis not so clear, but it is possible that the high use at the sec-ondary level is an influence. The Kuhlmann-Anderson IntelligenceTests, the Kuhlmann-Finch Tests, and the Otis Quick-ScoringMental Ability Tests are still used in a number of Minnesotaelementary schools. At the secondary level the Otis is the onlytest with any appreciable amount of use other than LTIT.

Individual Intelligence TestsIndividual intelligence tests, tests administered in a one-to-

one relationship by a trained clinician, are special cases of stan-dardized tests which are of interest to educators. In fact, theoriginal Stanford-Binet scale was the forerunner of all stan-dardized ability testing, both individual and group.

Tables 3-5 and 3-6 show that between 15 and 20 per cent ofMinnesota school systems administer individual intelligence testsat almost every grade level. These tables show only the per centof schools giving any individual intelligence tests and are not

*The column percentages in these and similar tables following maysometimes total more than 100 because some schools give two or more dif-ferent scholastic aptitude tests during the six elementary or the six highschool years.

28


TABLE 3.3

ELEMENTARYGroup Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different group intelligence

or scholastic aptitude tests.

California Test of MentalMaturity

Cooperative School and CollegeAbility Tests

Henmon-Nelson Tests ofMental Ability

Kuhlmann-Anarson IntelligenceTests

Kuhlmann-Finch Tests

Lorge-Thorndike IntelligenceTests

Otis Quick-Scoring MentalAbility Tests

SRA Tests of EducationalAbility

Other

lze of School SystemTotal

1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

5 6 3 4 ../ 5

4 *

2 5 4 3

16 15 16 12 ../ 15

19 13 11 4 14

43 42 55 77 33 48

7 23 28 15 19

2 3 3 4 3

1 1

* Less than one-half of one per cent.

24


TABLE 3.4

SECONDARY Group Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different group intelligence

or scholastic aptitude tests.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Total

ACE Psychological Examination.

California Test of MentalMaturity

Cooperative School and CollegeAbility Tests

Henmon-Nelson Tests ofMental Ability

Kuhlmann-Anderson IntelligenceTests

Kuhlmann-Finch Tests

Lorge-Thorndike IntelligenceTests

Otis Quick-Scoring MentalAbility Tests .

SRA Tests of EducationalAbility

Other.

5 4 4 4

2 1 4

1 2 4

4 4 7

5 5 2 4

8 9 3 4

89 77 89 92

8 15 34 28

4 4 1

1 4 1

67

4

1

1

4

4

7

84

17

3

2

25


a good indication of the absolute number of Minnesota studentswho take them. It is generally not feasible to administer an in-dividual intelligence test to every pupil and responses to thequestion asking what proportion of students take various tests(Table 4-1) show that individual intelligence tests are usuallygiven only to small numbers of selected students.

There is considerable variation in individual intelligencetesting according to school size. This is undoubtedly a functionof the availability of clinicians with sufficient training to ad-minister these kinds of instruments.

Notice that the larger school systems administer mon.individual intelligence tests at the secondary level than inelementary.

The percentages of schools using each of the particular in-dividual intelligence tests is shown in Tables 3-7 and 3-8. TheStanford-Binet and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Childrenare about equally popular at elementary with a slight tendencyfor the smaller systems to prefer the WISC and the larger sys-tems the Stanford-Binet.

TABLE 3-5ELEMENTARY Individual Intelligence Tests


Percentages of school systemsadministering individual intelligence

tests in various grades.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Pre-School 1 1 10 17 4

Kindergarten 1 2 12 17 5

1st Grade 6 9 16 17 10

2nd Grade 5 11 17 27 11

3rd Grade 5 9 23 31 12

4th Grade 6 9 20 35 12

5th Grade 6 9 20 31 11

6th Grade 7 9 20 31 12

26


TABLE 3.6

SECONDARY Individual Intelligence Tests


Percentages of school systemsadministering individual intelligence



1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Total

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

12th Grade

2

2

2

2

8

7

7

4

4

2

33 44

33 44

29 48

32 40

27 40

24 36

13

13

13

11

10

8

TABLE 3-7

ELEMENTARY Individual Intelligence Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different individual

intelligence tests.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Total

Stanford-Binet Scale.

Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren (WISC)

Other

2

5

2

3

6

3

13

12

8

38

15

4

7

8

4


The Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children is the most-usedindividual intelligence test at the secondary level although boththe Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale and the Stanford-Binetare used in almost as many schools.

Multi-Aptitude BatteriesMost multi-aptitude batteries are designed for use with older

students and adults and very few elementary schools use themalthough five per cent of the elementary schools report usingthe SRA Primary Abilities Battery.

Table 3-9 shows the grades at which Multi-Aptitude Batteriesare used in high schools and we find almost 60 per cent of theschools administer a multi-aptitude battery in ninth grade. One-third of the suburban schools use a battery at the eighth gradelevel and a smaller number of schools use one in tenth grade. TheDifferential Aptitude Tests (DAT) is by far the most popularmulti-aptitude battery as shown in Table 3-10 where we see thatthree-fourths of Minnesota schools administer the DAT to theirstudents sometime during their secondary careers

Achievement BatteriesThe very intensive use of standardized achievement batteries

in Minnesota elementary schools is shown in Table 3-11. Anachievement battery is given in almost every Minnesota systemin grades 4, 5, and 6 with 95 per cent of the Minnesota schoolsadministering achievement batteries at the sixth grade level.As was the case with tests of scholastic aptitude, there is a slighttendency for the larger school system to use more achievementbatteries than the smaller systems. Table 3-12 shows that theusage of achievement batteries in high school is not so high asin elementary. The ninth grade is clearly the most popular yearfor the use of achievement batteries with almost two-thirds of theschools giving one at that grade. The next most popular year isthe eleventh grade where over one-half of the schools administerone.

The particular achievement batteries used in Minnesotaschools are shown in Tables 3-13 and 3-14. The Iowa Tests ofBasic Skills (ITBS) is clearly the most popular at the elementarylevel, being used in two-thirds of Minnesota schools, while the

28


TABLE 3-8

SECONDARY Individual Intelligence Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different individual

intelligence tests


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Stanford-Binet Scale. 1 2 16 16 6

Wechsler Adult IntelligenceScale (WAIS) 2 14 24 5

Wechsler Intelligence Scale forChildren (WISC) 1 6 22 24 9

Other 1 4 *


TABLE 3.9

SECONDARY Multi-Aptitude Batteries


Percentages of school systemsadministering multi-aptitude

batteries in various grades.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

7th Grade 1 2 1

8th Grade. 9 8 15 36 33 11

9th Grade. 47 63 70 56 67 59

10th Grade. 13 3 8 8 7

11th Grade. 2 1 1

12th Grade.. 2 2 2 2

29


TABLE 3.10

SECONDARY Multi-Aptitude Batteries

Percentages of school systemsadministering different multi-aptitude

batteries.

TESTSize of School System

Total

1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Differential Aptitude Tests

Jastak Test of Potential Abilityand Behavior Stability

SRA Primary Mental Abilities..

Academic Promise Tests

64

1

72

2

1

90

1

96 100 75

1

1

*


TABLE 3.11

ELEMENTARY Achievement Batteries

Percentages of school systemsadministering achievement batteries

in various grades.Grades in Which

AdministeredSize of School System

Total

1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Pre School

Kindergarten

1st Grade 28 43 52 46 33 40

2nd Grade 83 51 60 42 67 47

3rd Grade 91 91 94 85 67 91

4th Grade 92 94 98 96 100 94

5th Grade 91 92 98 96 100 94

6th Grade ;3:3 95 97 96 100 95

ye

30


next two most-used batteries, the Metropolitan AchievementTests and the Stanford Achievement Tests are used in one-f aurthand one-fifth of the schools, respectively.

In high school, the ITBS at grades 7 and 8 and the Iowa Testsof Educational Development (ITED) in grades 9-12 accountfor almost all of the achievement testing in Minnesota secondaryschools. The larger systems are more apt to administer the ITBSin grades 7 and 8 than the smaller systems, but this differencedoes not hold with ITED since only 14 per cent of all Minnesotaschools do not administer this particular battery.

Reading Readiness TestsReading readiness tests, tests designed to measure aptitude

for learning to read, are largely limited to the elementary level.Only two per cent of all Minnesota high schools report the useof reading readiness tests anywhere in the six high school years.Table 3-15 presents the use of reading readiness tests at thevarious elementary grade level. Over one-third of the schoolsadminister such a test during the kindergarten year and their usein kindergarten appears at first to be a function of school size.However, reference to Table A-N-1, which shows percentages

TABLE 3.12SECONDARY Achievement Batteries


Percentages of school systemsadministering achievement batteries

in various grades.


1.15 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Total

7th Grade.

8th Grade

9th Grade

10th Grade

11th Grade

12th Grade.

31

33

63

42

49

27

32 48 48 67 36

32 42 40 100 35

58 69 80 67 63

40 41 44 33 41

51 52 56 67 51

14 13 8 17

31

A STUDY OF TIMING Puma* IN MINNEHYVA

of schools operating kindergartens, indicates it is more likelyrelated to whether or not the school has a full-year kindergartensince the smaller systems are less likely to operate a kinder-garten. One-third of the schools administer reading readinesstests in first grade and the frequency of use drops off rapidly inthe higher grades from that point.

As shown in Table 3-16, the Metropolitan Reading ReadinessTests is clearly the most popular test with Minnesota elementaryeducators; almost one-half use this instrument. No other readingreadiness test is used by more than five per cent of the schools.

TABLE 3-13ELEMENTARY Achievement Batteries

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different achievement

batteries.

Sizd of School SystemTotal

1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

California Achievement Teets

Coordinated Scales of Attainment

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

Metropolitan Achievement Tests

SRA Achievement Series

Sequential Tests of EducationalProgress

Stanford Achievement Test....

Other

6

80

15

5

14

1

2

5

78

26

4

18

1

68

37

6

29

4

,Elm

23

4

31

4

111

33

33

ow1

.=11

33

1

4

77

25

4

20

*


TFASTS UMW IN MINNISOTA SCI1001,8

TABLE 3.14

SECONDARY Achievement Batteries

Percentages of school systemsadministering different achievement

batteries.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub.

California Achievement Tests

Coordinated Scales of Attainment

Essential High School ContentBattery

Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

Iowa Tests of EducationalDevelopment

Metropolitan Achievement Tests

National Educational DevelopmentTests

Pupil Record of EducationalProgress.

SRA Achievement Series

SRA High School Placement Test

Sequential Test., of EducationalProgress

Stanford Achievement Test....

Other.

1

1

1

25

88

2

6

1

2

000.11

2

4

3

2

27

83

1

3

2

3

3

2

3

3

11

11

42

87

1

3

1

4

1

7

2

44

100

4

4

8

8

4

4

Urban

Total


33

001111111=1. IMMO

A STUDY Of TOTING PIIACTICDS IN MINNIISOTA

TABLE 345ELEMENTARY Reading Readiness Tests


Percentages of school systemsadministering reading readiness


Pre School

Kindergarten

lit Grade

2nd Grade

8rd Grade

4th Grade

5th Grade.

6th Grade


1-35 86-99 100+0111111.11011MOMMINIINIORIMII

Sub. Urban

2 4 4

20 40 60 42

85 851

81 42

18 17 14 12

1 1 1

1

1

1

67

Total

8

88

85

16

1

1


TABLE 3.16ELEMENTARY Reading Readiness Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different reading

readiness tests.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Gates Reading Readiness Tests 5 5 7 8

Harrison-Stroud ReadingReadiness Profiles 2 3 4 4 33 8

Lee-Clark Reading Readiness Test 2 4 2 OWN.. 33 3

Metropolitan Readiness Tests . . . . 30 49 68 77 67 49

Other. 9 8 4 4 7

84

TWITS USED IN MINNOW% SCHOOLS

Reading TestsReading tests here include only standardized reading tests

and not those which are part of a school's instructional read-ing program materials. It can be seen in Table 3-17 that aboutone-fifth of Minnesota schools are using standardized readingtests from the first grade on. The larger systems seem inclinedto administer more reading tests at the second grade, and nearlyhalf the suburban schools do so. It is not known, of course, whetherthe 20 per cent of schools administering a reading test at eachgrade level are the same schools testing each year or are dif-ferent schools testing less often.

Reading tests are not uncommon at the secondary level, andTable 8 -18 shows that more schools use reading tests in seventhgrade than in any elementary grade except second. Use of areading test at the seventh grade is very much a function ofschool size as only nine per cent of the small schools use sucha test compared with over two-thirds of the suburban schools.The suburban school systems use substantially more readingtests than other schools, especially at the seventh and tenthgrade levels.

The particular reading tests used in Minnesota schools areshown in Tables 3-19 and 3-20. The Gates Tests account for allbut a small portion of the elementary reading tests. The GatesReading Test, used in 17 per cent of the elementary schools, isthe most popular at that level while the Gates Reading Survey,used in 13 per cent of the schools, is the most popular high schoolreading test. Almost two-thirds of the suburban high schoolsadminister this test to their students. The Diagnostic ReadingTests, Nelson-Denny Reading Test, and Iowa Silent ReadingTests are all used in about five per cent of the systems.

Interest InventoriesTables 3-21 and 3-22, report on the use of interest inventories

at the secondary level.* Interest tests are not reported for ele-mentary grades since virtually none are given.

*Different from other tables in this chapter, these tables count a school asamong those using an interest test no matter how many or how few in aclass are tested. Also see Table 4-1, showing that a substantial number ofschools use interest tests with less than entire classes.

35

ELEMENTARY

A STUDY OF TINTING ?MOTION{ IN MINNNIOTA

TABLE 3.17

2nd Grade

3rd Grade

4th Grade

1st Grade

5th Grade

6th Grade

KindergaGrtreandes

in WhichAdministered

3-3

1-35

19

21

21

21

12

19

1

Percentages of school systems


administering reading tests

100+ Sub. Urban

20 26

20 32

22 22

21 26

21 28

18 30

1 1

in various grades.

_

42

12

15

19

12

15

..._.

__

83

33

Total

24

20

21

21

22

18

1

TABLE

SECONDARY Reading Tests


7th Grade..

8th Grade.

9th Grade.

10th Grade

11th Grade.

12th Grade..

1-35

9

10

11

5

4

4

Percentages of school systemsadministering reading tests

in various grades.


36-99 100+ Sub.

23 49 68

12 33 36

10 22 20

5 15 44

4 7 8

3 7 4

Urban

......

1111.

Imm111

Total

27

17

13

9

5

4

36


4,

TABLE 3-19

ELEMENTARY Reading Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different reading

tests.


1 -85 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Basic Reading Test

Diagnostic Reading Tests (Triggs)

Doren Diagnostic Reading Test

Durrell-Sullivan Reading Capacityand Achievement Test

Gates Basic Reading Tests

Gates Reading Survey

Gilmore Oral Reading Test.

Gray's Oral Reading Test

Iowa Silent Reading Tests

Lee-Clark Reading Test

Nelson-Denny Reading Test... ...

Nelson Silent Reading Test.... ...

New Developmental Reading Tests(Bond, Balow, Hoyt)

SRA Reading Record

Stroud-Hieronymus PrimaryReading Profiles

Other

2

2

13

9

1

1

2

3

1

1

4

5

5

2

1

13

11

2

2

2

2

1

1

2

3

2

3

1

11

30

17

.12

1

11

3

2

2

0.1111111

.1111..

ONIPM.10

4

23

12

MEMMED

111

4

12

0111

4

4

0.1111111

.111,

.1111..

=IMMO

111,

33

0..00

33

1

1

1

17

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

3

3

3

4


87


The freshmen and senior years are the two grades at whichmost interest tests are given in Minnesota, with no large numberof students taking such tests at other times. At the ninth gradethere are interesting differences associated with size of schoolsystems in that only 16 per cent of the smallest schools administerinterest inventories to their freshmen while 84 per cent of thesuburban schools do. On the other hand, the use of interestinventories in the senior year stands at about 70 per cent acrossall school sizes. Notice that although 70 per cent of the Minne-sota high schools use interest inventories, none of the three urbanschool districts report their use.

The Kuder Preference Record and the Strong VocationalInterest Blank (SVIB) account for nearly all the interest testingin Minnesota. It would be safe to say that practically all theinterest tests shown in Table 3-21 as given at ninth grade arethe Kuder. Although not shown in the tables, eight per cent

TABLE 3-20

SECONDARY Reading Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different reading tests.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Diagnostic Reading Tests (Triggs) 2 3 12 20 6

Gates Basic Reading Tests 1 2 4 2

Gates Reading Survey 2 10 23 60 13

Iowa Silent Reading Tests 2 3 13 4

Nelson-Denny Reading Test... ... 2 4 7 16 5

New Developmental Reading Tests(Bond, Ba low, Hoyt) 1 *

Reading Comprehension:Cooperative English Tests 1 1 *

SRA Reading Record. 2 3 8 4 3

Other 2 3 12 4 5


38


of the schools use Kuder-Vocational at the twelfth grade andabout 60 per cent administer SVIB. There is a slight tendencyfor the larger school systems to use fewer female SVIB's ascompared with the smaller schools where the use of the men'sand women's Blanks is about equal.

Personality TestsNot many Minnesota high schools administer personality

tests "across the board," although there are some schools usingthem at each secondary grade.* Twelve per cent of Minnesotaschools administer a personality test to their freshmen.

The Minnesota Counseling Inventory (MCI) is the personalityinventory most commonly used in Minnesota; three times asmany schools use it as the Kuder Preference RecordPersonal,the second most popular instrument.

*Unlike the tables reporting the use of interest inventories, Tables 3-23and 3-24 include only schools which administer a personality test to allpupils at a particular grade level. For example, ::,veral schools report usingthe Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) although allthese schools say the inventory is used only with a small number of speciallyselected students.

TABLE 3.21

SECONDARY Interest Inventories


Percentages of school systemsadministering interest inventories

in various grades.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

7th Grade 1 *

8th Grade 1 2 4 1

9th Grade la 47 81 84 47

10th Grade 3 2 4 2

11th Grade 3 3 10 8 5

12th Grade. 70 70 68 68 69


39

A STUDY OF TOYING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA

Study Skills InventoriesOnly three high schools reported that they administered

study skills inventories to their students. The tests used were theBrown-Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes and theCalifornia Study Methods Survey.

A Word About Freshmen TestingThe preceding tables clearly show that freshmen are by far

the most tested class in Minnesota high schools. Sixty per centof the schools administer a multi-aptitude battery to their ninthgraders and one-third administer a general scholastic aptitudetest. (There is, of course, some overlap in that some schools may

TABLE 3.22

SECONDARY Interest Inventories

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different interest

inventories.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Brainerd Occupational PreferenceInventory 4 *

Gordon Occupational Check List 1 4 1

Kuder Preference RecordOccupational 5 16 23 16 14

Kuder Preference RecordVocational 18 42 69 84 43

Minnesota Vocational InterestInventory (Clark).. 2 2 2 4 2

Strong Vocational InterestBlankMen 63 62 58 68 61

Strong Vocational InterestBlankWomen 62 60 54 52 58

Your Educational Plans 2 1 1

Other 2 1 4 1

*Less than one-half of one per cent.40

111


administer both types of tests to their freshmen) . Two-thirdsof the school give an achievement battery at ninth grade. Al-though more seniors than freshmen take interest inventories,almost half of Minnesota schools administer an interest inventoryto their freshmen. Most of the personality inventories administer-ed in Minnesota high schools are given to freshmen.

Although it is not clear what factors contribute most to thisheavy testing at ninth grade these may be significant:

1. Eighty six per cent of Minnesota systems have "occupa-tion units" included in their curricula, most of them at theninth grade. Standardized test results are often integratedinto these units and discussed as part of the "know thyself"emphasis. (See the discussion of Occupations Units inAppendix XI) .

2. Some Minnesota school districts gain a large numberof students from rural and/or parochial schools at the ninthgrade and therefore plan more comprehensive testing at thistime.

3. The freshmen year is a "decision" year in that manyschools ask students to plan a three-year program for thesenior high school years and encourage them to think beyondhigh school. There is often more emphasis on long-range plan-ning at this point in the student's school career than at anyother time with the exception, of course, of the senior year.As these decisions are faced it is natural that the school andthe student want more information than they need at othertimes.

41


TABLE 3.23

SECONDARY Personality Tests


Percentages of school systemsadministering personality tests

in various grades.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

7th Grade. 1 2 1

8th Grade.. 1

9th Grade 9 17 7 12

10th Grade. 4 7 6 6

11th Grade. 3 2 2 4 3

12th Grade.. 5 2 1 3


TABLE 3-24

SECONDARY Personality Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different personality

tests.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Bell Adjustment Inventory 1 *

California Test of Personality.... . *

Kuder Preference RecordPersonal 3 6 4 5

Minnesota Counseling Inventory 16 20 14 4 16

SRA Youth Inventory 1 2 1

Other 1 3 1


42

Chapter 4

Practices Relating to theAdministration of Standardized Tests

The tables .(n this chapter report the responses to question-naire items seeking information relating to the administration ofstandardized tests. There are six tables :

1. Proportion of pupils taking the test.

2. The number of times the test is administered eachschool year.

3. The time during the school year when the test is given.

4. The title of the persons administering the test.

5. The persons or agency scoring the test.

6. The method of recording the test results.

The nature of the questionnaire was such that schools answer-ed each item for every standardized test given at every gradelevel. Thus there is an almost unlimitt-A number of possiblecombinations for grouping the data. Responses could be tabulatedby each test specifically by name, by each type of test, by eachgrade level, and for all combinations. In grouping the data forpresentation here responses were tabulated for different types oftests only, and not for specific tests by name. In many cases theresponses for several grades have been combined. The intentwas to combine grade levels for particular tests where practicesare likely to be the same across the grade levels included. In somecases, where few or no tests of a particular type are given atcertain grade levels, no results are reported. Responses weretabulated for the following tests :*

*Readers interested in analyses more detailed or different from thosepresented here should feel free to contact the Project Director.

43

A STOW OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA

ELEMENTARY SECONDARYTest Grades Test Grades

Reading Readiness KReading Readiness 1Reading K-3Reading 4-6Scholastic Aptitude K -3Scholastic Aptitude 4-6Achievement Batteries . . .K-3Achievement Batteries . . . 4-6

Scholastic Aptitude . . . 7-9Scholastic Aptitude . . . .10-12Achievement Batteries . 7-8Achievement Batteries . 9-12Reading 7-12Multi-Aptitude Batteries 7-12Interest 9Interest 12Personality 7-12

The tables present responses for every test of the particulartype administered in one school year in any or all of the includedgrades. For example, if a school used an achievement batteryonly once in grades 4-6, there is only one response to each questionfrom that school included in the "Achievement Batteries, 4-6"section of the table. On the other hand, if a school used an achieve-ment battery in each grade, 4, 5, and 6, there are three responsesto each question from that school included in the table (one foreach grade) .

Proportion of Pupils Taking the TestTable 4-1 shows that schools using standardized tests generally

administer them to all students of a particular grade. Exceptionsare reading tests, interest tests, personality tests, and to someextent scholastic aptitude batteries at certain grade levels. About25 per cent of the elementary schools administer reading tests toonly small percentages of their student body at some grades.Schools reporting the use of scholastic aptitude tests at the seniorhigh school level report that they are given to only small num-bers of students in about one-fourth of the cases and this isparticularly true in the larger school systems. It is likely thatmost of these cases involve students new to the particular schoolsystem and for whom standardized tests data are not available.

Interest tests at the high school level show considerablevariation in the extent of coverage. Schools using interest tests atthe ninth grade level tend to administer them to the entire studentbody while this is less often the case with seniors. Interest in-ventories are administered to the entire senior class in most ofthe smaller schools, in about half of the larger schools, and inabout a third of the suburban systems.

44

TA

BL

E 4

4.E

LE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YPr

opor

tion

of P

upils

Tak

ing

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

Sch

ool S

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g va

riou

s pr

opor

tions

of

pupi

ls ta

king

par

ticul

ar ty

pes

of te

sts

in s

elec

ted

grad

es.

App

roxi

mat

ely

wha

t pro

port

ion

of th

epu

pils

in th

e gr

ade

take

the

test

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. I

Trb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. I

Trb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. I

Trb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+Su

b. U

rb.

T

Mor

e th

an 9

6%75

-94%

50-7

4%25

-49%

Les

s th

an 2

4%O

nly

a sm

all n

umbe

r of

sel

ecte

d pu

pils

No

Res

pons

e

9297

9591

41

4

1--

-9

---

4 2

----

95 2 1 1

9397

97 1

00 1

003

21

41

961 1 2

8776

9490

100

21

---

31

53

33

110

16

38

3

85 1 1 3 3 3 5

7464

84 5

98

2 29

44

410

1218

513

181

46

71 3 1 5 9 8 2

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, I

t 1Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

S910

0+ S

ub. I

Trb

.T

135

36-9

9100

-I-S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+Su

b. U

rb.

T

Mor

e th

an 9

6%75

-94%

50-7

4%25

-49

%a

Les

s th

an 2

4%O

nly

a sm

all n

umbe

r of

sel

ecte

d pu

pils

No

Res

pons

e

9593

9185

100

12

11 1

15

21

152

12

----

93 2 * 2 2 2

9191

8876

100

23

---

1 11

1 7

54

317

31

12

89 2 * 1 2 4 2

9691

8272

100

11 1

12

7 8

58

211

31

89 1 * * 3 5 2

9173

6060

100

2 ---

---

36

8 8

415

2932

45

72 1 1 5 18 3

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8ch

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 9

-

1-35

364

9100

+ E

a. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub.

Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6491

00+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Mor

e th

an 9

6%75

-94%

50-7

4c7

25-4

9 %

°L

ess

than

24%

Onl

y a

smal

l num

ber

of s

elec

ted

pupi

lsN

o R

es o

rse

9597

95 1

00 1

001

1--

-

32

4 --

96 1 1 2

9695

9698

100

11

---

11

11

21

12

31

--

96 1 * * * * 2

9498

100

83 1

002

28

--4

34

96 1 1 1 1i

1

9196

9398

802

11

---

11

220

13.

21

23

23

94 1 * 1 1 1 2

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

all o

f on

e pe

r ce

nt.

TA

BL

E 4

-1C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Prop

ortio

n of

Pup

ils T

akin

g T

ests

Perc

enta

ge o

f sc

hool

sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vari

ous

prop

ortio

n of

pup

ils ta

king

par

ticul

arty

pes

of te

sts

in s

elec

ted

grad

es.

App

roxi

mat

ely

wha

t pro

port

ion

of th

epu

pils

in th

e gr

ade

take

the

test

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Tes

t, 7-

12M

ulti-

Apt

itude

Bat

teri

es, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. T

Jrb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Mor

e th

an 9

5%75

-94%

50-7

4%25

-49%

Les

s th

an 2

4%O

nly

a sm

all n

umbe

r of

sel

ecte

d pu

pils

No

Res

pons

e

6868 1

141

181 28 2

60 4 3 10 21 1

60_ 4 1 4 17

64 1 2 5 8 19 1

93 1 2 4

94 1 5

95 1 2 1

100

100

94 1

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

TM

ore

than

95%

9592

9391

-93

9476

4734

7388

8137

859

75-9

4%-

51

13

150

-74%

12

11

88

237

25-4

9%1

42

2

1

825

1710

21

Les

s th

an 2

4%3

920

43

15

3O

nly

a sm

all n

umbe

r of

sel

ecte

d pu

pils

51

13

66

328

5392

35N

o R

espo

nse

55

13

12

29

13

PRACTICES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF STANDARD TESTS

Larger and suburban school systems using personality in-ventories tend to give them only to small numbers of selectedstudents. This is particularly true in the suburban systemswhere 92 per cent of the personality tests administered are givenonly to a few selected students. Most of these tests are probablyassigned by a school psychologist.

Number of Times Tests areAdministered Each School Year

Most standardized tests used in Minnesota schools are admin-istered once each school year according to the data presented inTable 4-2. Exceptions include reading readiness tests adminis-tered in first grade and reading tests in elementary which areadministered more than once in about one-fourth of the cases.Scholastic aptitude tests at the senior high school level are givenirregularly in 14 per cent of the systems.

A number of schools still administer achievement batteriestwice each year. This is particularly true in the smaller systemswhere about 15 per cent of the schools administer an achievementbattery more than once each year.

Personality tests are administered irregularly in 37 per centof the schools, reflecting the data in the previous table whichshowed that only small numbers of pupils take these tests inmost schools.

Time of School Year forAdministration of Standardized Tests

Table 4-3 shows the time of year in which tests are admin-istered. Reading readiness tests given at the kindergarten leveltend to be administered in the spring of the year. This timingshifts at first grade, and over half of the reading readiness testsgiven at the first grade level are administered in the fall. Thereis considerable variation in the time of year in which readingtests are given at both the elementary and secondary levels.

Generally speaking, scholastic aptitude tests tend to be ad-ministered in the fall although a substantial number of thesetests are administered in the winter and spring at the elementarylevel. Testing for scholastic aptitude for students transferringlater in high school is, of course, irregular.

47

TA

BL

E 4

-2

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Num

ber

of T

imes

Tes

tsar

e G

iven

Perc

enta

ge o

f sc

hool

sys

tem

s gi

ving

par

ticul

ar ty

pes

of te

sts

in s

elec

ted

grad

es v

ario

us n

umbe

rs o

f tim

es e

ach

scho

olye

ar.

How

oft

en is

the

teat

giv

en?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

.

1-35

36-

991

00 -

f- S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Snb

. Urb

.T

Onc

e ea

ch y

ear

Tw

ice

each

yea

rM

ore

than

two

times

a y

ear

Onc

e ev

ery

othe

r ye

arSo

me

othe

r re

gula

r sc

hedu

leIr

regu

larl

yN

o R

espm

se

8894

96 1

004

52 2

1 894 3 1 1 1

7471

8785

100

915

77

10

41

82

38

433

76 9 7 2 2 3

6967

81 1

0014

1013

41

61

76

100

312

34

73 11 3 * 5 6 2

5462

7194

1913

199

47 4

63

134

56

36

63 15 3 2 4 8 5

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Onc

e ea

ch y

ear

Tw

ice

each

yea

rM

ore

than

two

times

a y

ear

Onc

e ev

ery

othe

r ye

arSo

me

othe

r re

gula

r sc

hedu

leIr

regu

larl

yN

o R

espo

nse

84 9

098

97 1

002

93

22

1 3

22

14

1--

--

90 1 4 2 2 2

7581

9188

801

5

134

520

34

3 5

32

46

33

2

82 2 6 4 2 4

8992

9674

100

13

101 2

15

3 23

11

1

91 * * 4 1 4 1

7086

79

64 1

00

254

26

819

36

3

78 6 2 14 1

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es K

-F.,

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 4

-6A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 7-8

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 9

- A

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

31-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Onc

e ea

ch y

ear

Tw

ice

each

yea

rM

ore

than

two

times

a y

ear

Onc

e ev

ery

othe

r ye

arSo

me

othe

r re

gula

r sc

hedu

leIr

regu

larl

yN

o R

espo

nse

8183

94 1

00 1

0010

154

11

1 1 41

22

1*

86 101 * 2 1

7880

9196

100

1417

7 4

1 2--

21

13

2

83 13 * 2 2

8894

9588

100

54

2 4

22 2 2

42

4

92 4 1 2 1

95 9

898

94 1

001

12

21

21

41 1

1

97 1 * 1 * *

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BL

E 4

.2C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Num

ber

of T

imes

Tes

ts a

re G

iven

Perc

enta

ge o

f sc

hool

sys

tem

s gi

ving

par

ticul

ar ty

pes

of te

sts

in s

elec

ted

grad

es v

ario

us n

umbe

rs o

f tim

es e

ach

scho

ol y

ear.

How

oft

en is

the

test

giv

en?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Tes

t, 7-

12I

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Onc

e ea

ch y

ear

Tw

ice

each

yea

rM

ore

than

two

times

a y

ear

Onc

e ev

ery

othe

r ye

arSo

me

othe

r re

gula

r sc

hedu

leIr

regu

larl

yN

o R

espo

nse

5852

5073

4220

2119

--

94

1--

1-

- 19

23

81

55 24 4 * 16 *

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Onc

e ea

ch y

ear

Tw

ice

each

yea

rM

ore

than

two

times

a y

ear

Onc

e ev

ery

othe

r ye

arSo

me

othe

r re

gula

r sc

hedu

leIr

regu

larl

yN

o R

espo

nse

9597

94

95-

- 1

95 1

1--

14

5 --

11

--1 2 1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

94 2 3 1

98 -- 1 1 1

100

100

100

--

97 1 * 1 1

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

9797

9594

9691

6641

859

3--

-- -

22

13

---

12

33

63

3158

92--

371

11

61

2--

2

TA

BL

E 4

.3E

LE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YT

ime

of S

choo

l Yea

r fo

r A

dmin

istr

atio

n of

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

givi

ng p

artic

ular

type

s of

test

s in

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

at v

ario

us ti

mes

dur

ing

the

year

.

Whe

n is

the

test

giv

en?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

In th

e fa

ll15

94

852

4957

77 1

0055

1712

2667

100

2016

1637

o3

22In

the

win

ter

12

92

73

36

1211

914

88

In th

e sp

ring

7782

9391

8515

1723

1631

4248

3339

1739

3247

32B

oth

fall

and

spri

ng4

42

710

67

57

513

911

10B

oth

win

ter

and

spri

ng6

24

74

34

3B

oth

fall

and

win

ter

43

33

1*

Fall,

win

ter,

and

spr

ing

21

13

11

64

3N

o sp

ecif

ied

time

32

29

1117

2312

2518

816

2420

1319

No

Res

pons

e4

11

41

-- -

-2

84

- --

57

33

--4

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

In th

e fa

ll52

4860

72 1

0053

5054

6779

2057

7581

8467

100

7955

6052

68 1

0058

In th

e w

inte

r25

3330

1529

2429

187

2313

92

825

24

148

20In

the

spri

ng17

149

1314

89

780

116

57

56

98

10 8

9B

oth

fall

and

spri

ng1

11

31

41

Bot

h w

inte

r an

d sp

ring

Bot

h fa

ll an

d w

inte

r1

_ _

_ _

*1

1_

_1

_ _

_ 1

_Fa

ll, w

inte

r, a

nd s

prin

g3

1N

o sp

ecif

ied

time

22

113

r 2

43

5 7

44

45

235

85

2416

12N

o R

espo

nse

32

27

31

--3

21

1 3

13

--1

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 9-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

In th

e fa

ll20

1628

3621

3128

4762

5736

49 4

558

7260

5281

8285

8860

82In

the

win

ter

1910

1013

5013

1916

1219

1614

141

912

112

420

9In

the

spri

ng46

5756

4950

5331

3633

14 4

432

3036

37

1340

336

610

420

7B

oth

fall

and

spri

ng12

133

1015

157

413

55

24

--4

12

21

Bot

h w

inte

r an

d sp

ring

Bot

h fa

ll an

d w

inte

r1

*Fa

ll, w

inte

r, a

nd s

prin

gN

o sp

ecif

ied

time

11

21

11

11

_*

No

Res

pons

e1

21

21

33

1 1

22

13 -

-2

1*

1 2

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

7."!

TA

BL

E 4

-3C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Tim

e of

Sch

ool Y

ear

for

Adm

inis

trat

ion

of T

ests

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s gi

ving

par

ticul

ar ty

pes

of te

sts

in s

elec

ted

grad

es a

t var

ious

tim

es d

urin

g th

e ye

ar.

Whe

n is

the

test

giv

en?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Tes

t, 7-

12M

ulti-

Apt

itude

Bat

teri

es, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. I

Trb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

In th

e fa

llIn

the

win

ter

In th

e sp

ring

Bot

h fa

ll an

d sp

ring

Bot

h w

inte

r an

d sp

ring

Bot

h fa

ll an

d w

inte

rFa

ll, w

inte

r, a

nd s

prin

gN

o sp

ecif

ied

time

No

Res

pons

e

32 9 23 37

29 5 12 22 3 29

24 4 19 12 4 3 4 29

38 6 17 10 4 4 15 6

29 5 17 19 2 3 2 22 1

8490

8880

100

68

83

13

16

87 7 3

5 11

41 1

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

.1:T

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

In th

e fa

llIn

the

win

ter

In th

e sp

ring

Bot

h fa

ll an

d sp

ring

Bot

h w

inte

r an

d sp

ring

Bot

h fa

ll an

d w

inte

rFa

ll, w

inte

r, a

nd s

prin

gN

o sp

ecif

ied

time

No

Res

pons

e

36 2

828

3250

46 4

6 41

919

159

--

1

2978

8383

8046

1710

119

162

23

1

81 122

7650

228

4312

1519

17

166

38

176

- -

11

11

55

185

14

6 23

43

111

14 1

12

--

3149

586

1 33 1


Starting with a tendency for spring administration of achieve-ment batteries in the early elementary grades, there is a shifttoward fall testing as the upper grade levels are approached,and 82 per cent of the achievement batteries in grades 9-12 aregiven in the fall. A third of the achievement batteries at thejunior high school level are administered in the spring, however.

The time of the year for the administration of reading testsat the secondary level is quite varied.

Most ninth grade interest tests are administered in thewinter, probably reflecting the time of the year for the "occupa-tion unit" in many school systems.

Who Administers Standardized TestsThe titles of the persons with responsibility for administer-

ing tests are shown in Table 4-4. Most standardized tests areadministered by classroom teachers at the elementary level withprincipals giving some, help, particularly with scholastic aptitudetests in the larger school systems.

Principals in the smaller Minnesota high schools are mostapt to administer tests to students with the guidance counselortaking over this function in the larger system J. For example,

- two-thirds of the scholastic aptitude 'Wits in the smaller-sizeschool districts are administered by the principal whereas about85 per cent are administered by the counselors in the larger schoolsystems. Almost all elementary-level achievement batteries aregiven by the classroom teacher and an even larger number ofhigh school teachers administer achievement batteries, althoughthe principals and guidance c.,-.tinselors are responsible for agood deal of this work at the secondary level.

Interest tests at the ninth grade level tend to be administeredby the classroom teacher, probably the teacher of the "occupa-tion unit." In contrast, the interest tests given at the twelfthgrade are usually given by the principal in the smaller schoolsand the guidance counselor in the larger systems.

Personality tests, where used, are generally administeredby the counselor although the principals in the smallerschools are responsible for the administration of this type oftest also. The larger systems often use a school psychologist toadminister personality tests.

TA

BL

E 4

-4E

LE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YW

ho A

dmin

iste

rs S

tand

ardi

zed

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g pa

rtic

ular

type

s of

test

sin

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

bei

ng a

dmin

iste

red

by v

ario

us s

taff

mem

bers

.

Who

adm

inis

ters

the

test

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100-

E. S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

r96

9796

100

9791

9993

100

100

9686

8086

90 1

0084

6862

7576

67G

uida

nce

Cou

nsel

or1

*1

16

1Sc

hool

psy

chol

ogis

t1

*--

-4

1C

onsu

lting

psy

chol

ogis

tPr

inci

pal o

r as

sist

ant p

rinc

ipal

43

43

23

14

149

915

188

15Su

peri

nten

dent

Oth

er2

31

74

410

513

1612

1815

No

Res

pons

e4

12

32

23

32

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

r90

74 7

564

100

7887

71

6555

100

7325

1411

1350

1721

1011

1213

Gui

danc

e C

ouns

elor

13

22

34

45

312

4882

8550

468

5187

84 1

0055

Scho

ol p

sych

olog

ist

11

31

35

1C

onsu

lting

psy

chol

ogis

tPr

inci

pal o

r as

sist

ant p

rinc

ipal

521

20 2

617

723

28 3

320

6036

635

..`?.

352

28Su

peri

nten

dent

1*

2 1

11

81

2O

ther

11

51

11

21

23

1'

-- 4

1N

o R

espo

nse

22

31

32

21

1 --

12

31

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

9-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0-E

. Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0-E

. Sub

. Urb

.T

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

r95

9295

93 1

0093

9189

9387

100

9147

4239

5060

4321

1321

2060

18G

uida

nce

Cou

nsel

orSc

hool

psy

chol

ogis

t1

11

12

11

41 *

1034

5842

4034

1751

75 7

640

47

Con

sulti

ng p

sych

olog

ist

1*

1--

*Pr

inci

pal o

r as

sist

ant p

rinc

ipal

26

34

44

84

65

38 2

24

2058

34

2-

-32

Supe

rint

ende

nt2

11

Oth

er1

12

21

21

24

14

11

12

1N

o R

espo

nse

1-.

12

21

5 2

42

11

1 2

1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BLE

4-4

Con

tinue

d

ELE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YW

ho A

dmin

iste

rs S

tand

ardi

zed

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g pa

rtic

ular

type

s of

test

sin

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

bei

ng a

dmin

iste

red

by v

ario

us s

taff

mem

bers

.

Who

adm

inis

ters

the

test

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

,G

RA

DE

S

Rea

ding

Tes

ts, 7

-12

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

en it>

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

rG

uida

nce

Cou

nsel

orSc

hool

psy

chol

ogis

tC

onsu

lting

psy

chol

ogis

tPr

inci

pal o

r as

sist

ant p

rinc

ipal

Supe

rint

ende

ntO

ther

No

Res

pons

e

53 7 - 255 11

34 28 9 8 22

47 6

322

29

-

31S

-

47 22 3 6 122 -

17 17 59 2 4 1

13 2

3 36

33

6274

5667

231

11

8 -

1

18 52 25 1 3 111

.C11

11M

1111

1

Inte

rest

Te.

lts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Cla

usro

oni t

each

erG

uida

nce

Cou

nsel

orSc

hool

psy

chol

ogis

tC

onsu

lting

psy

chol

ogis

tPr

inci

pal o

r as

sist

ant p

rinc

ipal

Supe

rint

ende

ntO

ther

No

Res

pons

eM

M.41 27 27 5

56 3..." 5 1

7095

225

2 5

64 27

6 3

22 14 1 59 3 2 -1--

231.

417

46 8

4

298

1 1--

20 46 1 81 1 1

15 3 76 3 3

15 69 5 9 1 1

17 78 558 42

15 60 6 17 1 1 1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

PRACTICES RELATING TO THE ADMINISTRATION OF STANDARD TESTS

How Tests are ScoredDespite the advent of high-speed electronic scoring machines

and computers, Table 4-5 shows that Minnesota teachers arestill hand-scoring many standardized tests. This is particularlytrue at elementary where we find over 90 per cent of the readingreadiness tests and three-fourths of the achievement batteriesat the lower elementary grades are scored by the classroomteacher. Her more fortunate colleagues at the senior high levelscore only two per cent of the achievement batteries in the upperlevels of high school.

Whether reading tests are scored by machine or teachers,seems to be more a function of the grade level than of the sizeof the system. On the other hand, there is a marked tendency forthe larger systems to arrange for machine scoring of scholasticaptitude and achievement batteries. Two-thirds of the achieve-ment batteries in the upper elementary grades in the suburbanschools are scored by machines as compared with only one-fifthin the small-size school systems.

Notice that school principals hand-score more tests than doschool clerical personnel !

Three-fourths of the interest tests administered at the ninthgrade level are scored by the students which undoubtedly reflectsthe widespread use of the Kuder Preference Record. The StrongVocational Interest Blank, in wide use at the twelfth grade level,is virtually impossible to score by hand and this is reflected inthe table.

Recording of Test ResultsThe extensive use of elementary school teachers as clerks

is again illustrated in Table 4-6 showing that about three-fourthsof tests given at the elementary level are recorded by the class-room teacher. This is in extreme contrast to the situation at thesecondary level where usually less than five per cent of the testshave the results recorded by classroom teachers. Counselors comein for their share of test recording work, particularly in thelarger out-state systems. The suburban systems have apparentlyhired clerks to do most of this kind of work.

55

TA

BLE

4-5

ELE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YW

ho S

core

s S

tand

ardi

zed

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g pa

rtic

ular

type

s of

test

sin

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

bei

ng s

core

d by

var

ious

pers

ons

or a

genc

ies.

Who

sco

res

the

teat

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

0910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Stud

ents

518

32

72

31

1110

43

12 -

-3

Cle

rk4

12

92

21

32

311

44

86

4C

lass

room

teac

her

88 9

5 91

73

9187

96

83 1

00 1

0092

84 7

7 63

81 1

0076

58 5

8 59

53

58C

o u

n s

e l

o r

or o

ther

per

sonn

el w

orke

r3

11

15

23

63

Prin

cipa

l or

othe

r ad

min

istr

ator

41

12

12

126

78

148

10Sc

hool

-ow

ned

scor

ing

mac

hine

Publ

ishe

r's s

cori

ng s

ervi

ce1

11

31

128

18 -

--6

Oth

er s

cori

ng c

ompa

ny*

Oth

er2

12

76

28

105

1114

1118

13N

o R

espo

nse

11

41

22

21

34

3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, IC

-3Sc

holia

:- A

ptitu

de, 4

-6Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 7-9

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 1

0-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Stud

ents

14

31

13

21

31

Cle

rk3

410

106

25

1110

63

410

35

15 2

2 24

15C

lass

room

teac

her

82 6

9 54

46

6874

65

47 3

861

92

18

419

15

Cou

nsel

or o

r ot

her

pers

onne

l wor

ker

13

32

42

55

33

17 2

3 28

156

40 3

8 82

30Pr

inci

pal o

r ot

her

adm

inis

trat

or7

1819

21

155

1821

1915

1214

310

43 2

2 --

18Sc

hool

-ow

ned

scor

ing

mac

hine

1*

220

12

100

12

100

1Pu

blis

her's

sco

ring

ser

vice

53

7 13

100

58

7 10

19

609

28 1

8 23

18

2219

17

25 2

020

Oth

er s

cori

ng c

ompa

ny1

51

21

71

39 4

1 35

41

3911

38

247

Oth

er1

21

11

201

24

23

32

1N

o R

espo

nse

*2

31

32

23

11

23

1*L

em th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BL

E 4

-5C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Who

Sco

res

Stan

dard

ized

Tes

tsP

erce

ntag

es o

f sch

ool s

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g pa

rtic

ular

type

s of

test

sin

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

bei

ng s

core

d by

var

ious

per

sons

or

agen

cies

.

Who

sco

res

the

test

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 9-1

2

1-35

:A-9

9100

+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. trb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Stud

ents

Cle

rkC

lass

room

teac

her

Cou

nsel

or o

r ot

her

pers

onne

l wor

ker

Prin

cipa

l or

othe

r ad

min

istr

ator

Scho

ol-o

wne

d sc

orin

g m

achi

nePu

blis

her's

sco

ring

ser

vice

Cn

Oth

er s

cori

ng c

ompa

nyO

ther

No

Res

pons

e

3 80 13 1 2

4'7

2--

6658

832 3 1

--20

31

171

42

2 173

1 2 17 1, 1 1

13

42

22

56 4

8 20

11

11

33

11

--32

37 6

4 33

25

8 22

11

331

2 1 57 1 2 31 3 1 1

26

30 1

55

1619

10

28 4

112

10 25

1

8 8 4 58 4

08

6013

5 16 9 9 46 11 1 2

1 1 3 1 3 37 531 1

2 2

4065

40

27 2

02 2

1 2 1 1 39 52 2 1

Rea

ding

Tes

ts, 7

-12

Mul

ti A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Stud

ents

Cle

rkC

lass

room

teac

her

Cou

nsel

or o

r ot

her

pers

onne

l wor

ker

Prin

cipa

l or

othe

r ad

min

istr

ator

Scho

ol-o

wne

d sc

orin

g m

achi

nePu

blis

her's

sco

ring

ser

vice

Oth

er s

cori

ng c

ompa

nyO

ther

No

Res

pons

e

13

15

79

2910

11

3 4

235

27

39 2

132

11

18

27

40 1

7 13

224

31

74

--2

21

11

671

351

64

931

1517

1220

43

235

57 7

272

72

3368

519

23

4 16

15

5--

32

26

22

1 4

1*L

ess

than

one

-hal

f of

one

per

cen

t.

TA

BL

E 4

.5C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Who

Sco

res

Stan

dard

ized

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g pa

rtic

ular

type

s of

test

sin

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

bei

ng s

core

d by

var

ious

per

sons

or

agen

cies

.

00

Who

sco

res

the

test

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Stud

ents

Cle

rkC

lass

room

teac

her

Cou

nsel

or o

r ot

her

pers

onne

l wor

ker

Prin

cipa

l or

othe

r ad

min

istr

ator

Scho

ol-o

wne

d sc

orin

g m

achi

nePu

blis

her's

sco

ring

mac

hine

Oth

er s

cori

ng c

ompa

nyO

ther

No

Res

pons

e

50 235 5 14 - 4

71 11 10 1 1 4 1 1

80 5 5 1 2 1 1 4

73 23 - 5

72 11 6 1 1 3 2 1' 2

1 1 1 1 3 30 60 1 2

6 4 1 15 66 4 4

10 -- 1 3 10 75 2

6 6 6 9 74

5 1 1 3 2 18 66 2 2

912

- 1

32 37

3 3910

3932

- 3

62

7 8 7 58 219

-92

8 -

9 3 4 40 1

12 28 2 2

TA

BL

E 4

-6

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Who

Rec

ords

Sta

ndar

dize

d T

ests

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

part

icul

ar ty

pes

of te

sts

in s

elec

ted

grad

es b

eing

rec

orde

d by

var

ious

per

sons

.

Who

rec

ords

the

test

sco

res?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Stud

ents

4--

1C

lerk

815

36 2

722

24

1738

25

95

1430

29

100

165

1935

617

Tea

cher

7777

6073

7287

82

7362

7580

84 7

064

7172

6557

5988

61Pr

inci

pal o

r ot

her

adm

inis

trat

or12

82

62

103

52

105

1511

9C

ouns

elor

or

othe

r pe

rson

nel w

orke

r4

12

31

21

31

61

Oth

er2

12

31

62

33

1010

8N

o R

espo

nse

44

- --

32

42

33

31

2

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

ISc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 7-9

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 1

0-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.1

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Stud

ents

5--

14

--1

12

11

I

11

1C

lerk

614

40

3819

716

4131

2020

1331

5892

5035

2533

7588

49T

each

er76

66 4

5 46

6376

6641

48 2

061

72

1:

36

1Pr

inci

pal o

r ot

her

adm

inis

trat

or9

1712

1514

915

1217

1370

314

3560

332

427

Cou

nsel

or o

r ot

her

pers

onne

l wor

ker

11

12

21

52

932

34

850

238

31 2

28

100

20O

ther

22

100

11

460

22

21

21

No

Res

pons

e1

21

22

22

11

11

2 -

- --

1

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

9-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Stud

ents

1*

1*

41

11

1C

lerk

,5

1234

29

3317

612

3339

22

1726

3367

9660

4519

30

6490

6037

Tea

cher

8679

5871

5075

8477

6061

4474

129

58

22

2--

2Pr

inci

pal o

r ot

her

adm

inis

trat

or4

86

64

94

656

191

2266

331

34C

ouns

elor

or

othe

r pe

rson

nel w

orke

r2

11

11

533

2340

2011

35 2

96

4024

Oth

er1

11

171

21

133

12

13

41

No

Res

pons

e1

11

21

12

21

42

11

1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BL

E 4

-6C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Who

Rec

ords

Sta

ndar

dize

d T

ests

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

part

icul

arty

pes

of te

sts

in s

elec

ted

grad

es b

eing

rec

orde

d by

var

ious

pers

ons.

Who

rec

ords

the

test

sco

res?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

,G

RA

DE

S

Rea

ding

Tes

ts, 7

-12

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Stud

ents

Cle

rkT

each

erPr

inci

pal o

r ot

her

adm

inis

trat

orC

ouns

elor

or

othe

r pe

rson

nel w

orke

rO

ther

ON

o R

espo

nse

- 15

5319

3913

7 39

- 12

23

43 20 -- 27 10

2 -

81 10 2 -

4

* 33 23 10 24 8 1

2 17 1 67 13 -- 1

1 35 1 18 42 2

66 1 1 26 6

100

67 33

1 43 1 25 27 1 1O

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

0910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

TSt

uden

ts5

1614

1414

41

31

1C

lerk

2322

4455

-33

1827

4666

309

1137

4220

Tea

cher

- 10

45

21

6--

2Pr

inci

pal o

r ot

her

adm

inis

trat

or50

81

967

302

3482

1622

Cou

nsel

or o

r ot

her

pers

onne

l wor

ker

1438

255

279

3429

624

6256

5048

Oth

er5

46

237

24

1629

73

25

84

No

Res

pons

e4

36

45

24

33

31

22

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

Chapter 5

Reporting, Interpretation, andUse of Test Results

This chapter presents the school's reports of how resultsare used, to whom test results are reported, who interprets thetest results, and the amount of confidence placed in the testresults. The tables summarizing these data are similar in formatto the tables in the preceding chapter, and the same introductoryobservations and comments apply. The groupings by types oftests and grade levels are identical and the precentages reportedagain show the per cent of response as a function of the timesthe particular type of test was administered in the grade levelin question.

Kinds of Test Scores and Norms AvailableTable 5-1 shows the availability of different kinds of test

scores. There is, of course, great variation in the forms ofscores available depending upon the type of test.*

Percentile ranks are the most common form of readingreadiness scores for kindergarten and first grade although gradeequivalents are almost as common and several other forms ofscores are also used.

Two-thirds of the reading tests administered in the ele-mentary grades result in grade equivalent scores while 57 percent of the reading tests used at the secondary level yield thesescores. Percentile ranks are more commonly available for readingtests at the secondary level than at elementary.

Despite efforts to do away with the IQ score, it is still verymuch with us, particularly in elementary schools. Noticeablymore scholastic aptitude test results are recorded in terms ofpercentile rank scores at the junior high level than the ,:lementary

*The percentages in the columns may total more than 100 since manyschools have more than one type of score for a particular test.

61

TA

BL

E 5

-1E

LE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YT

ypes

of

Tes

t Sco

res

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s ha

ving

var

ious

kin

ds o

f sc

ores

fro

m v

ario

us ty

pes

of te

sts

reco

rded

in s

choo

l rec

ords

at s

elec

ted

grad

es.

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

In w

hat f

orm

are

the

scor

es o

fth

is te

st r

ecor

ded?

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Raw

sco

res

3538

2227

3141

3840

2325

3839

25

1414

100

2724

28

2725

I.Q

. sco

res

46

24

93

34

55

36

54

Stan

ines

44

24

43

755

1*

Stan

dard

sco

res

816

94

1910

812

1012

1210

116

1513

1812

Gra

de e

quiv

alen

ts23

21

169

1935

36 4

015

3449

7176

7165

5970

7359

57A

ge e

quiv

alen

ts15

117

910

178

2015

7515

26 2

019

1021

1825

3624

Perc

entil

e ra

nks

2759

6982

5935

4230

38 1

0039

28 3

7 30

33 1

0033

3337

24

3533

Perc

entil

e ra

nk b

ands

41

22

33

82

4 5

144

33

43

Oth

er8

718

74

43

43

414

32

418

2

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Raw

sco

res

1913

1618

100

1614

1314

1480

1442

3226

28

5034

30 2

330

1225

I.Q

. sco

res

9192

8687

100

9082

8987

7660

8562

5968

7450

6377

8281

80 1

0080

Stan

ines

1*

11

320

1--

21

501

112

100

2St

anda

rd s

core

s1

12

11

12

21

165

2 3

813

53

46

Gra

de e

quiv

alen

ts24

1921

10 1

0021

2320

1610

8020

136

58

1512

610

Age

equ

ival

ents

23 2

927

26

100

2714

30 2

7 24

6025

117

57

1117

1312

Perc

entil

e ra

nks

2926

26

18 1

0026

2830

2517

100

2854

5562

56 1

0056

40 2

844

28

100

36Pe

rcen

tile

rank

ban

ds2

1 5

11

12

102

11

2 3

2-

-- 8

1O

ther

12

43

21

14

52

13

13

24

*

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 9-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100-

F Su

b. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100-

F Su

b. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6- 9

9100

-f-

Sub

. Urb

.T

Raw

sco

res

1622

181

1917

1918

422

1723

1614

25 2

018

3023

168

4023

I.Q

. sco

res

44

2--

-3

45

24

53

14

38

12

3St

anin

es8

2527

95

213

1015

833

96

54

135

11

1St

anda

rd s

core

s6

1510

111

78

95

819

128

1313

4642

4757

45G

rade

equ

ival

ents

8284

8539

684

7986

8590

7884

5860

4054

4060

64

72

405

Age

equ

ival

ents

1815

1214

1613

1313

54

54

21

1Pe

rcen

tile

rank

s45

6357

246

5750

6664

54 1

0060

6977

7767

100

7485

8992

92 1

0089

Perc

entil

e ra

nk b

ands

2 1

11

23

1 5

27

24

35

23

Oth

er2

17

2i

22

112

22

18

22

22

2

Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BL

E 5

-1C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Typ

es o

f T

est S

core

sPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

havi

ng v

ario

us k

inds

of

scor

es f

rom

var

ious

type

sof

test

s re

cord

ed in

sch

ool r

ecor

ds a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

In w

hat f

orm

are

the

scor

es o

fth

is te

st r

ecor

ded?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

,G

RA

DE

S

Rea

ding

Tes

ts, 7

-12

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Raw

sco

res

I.Q

. sor

esSt

ansm

Stan

dar-

i sco

res

Gra

de e

quiv

alen

tsA

ge e

quiv

alen

tsW

Perc

erde

rank

sco

nPe

rcen

tile

rant

nkba

nds

Oth

er

28 2 14 51 14 44 9 11

6 1 5 52 18 55 3

15 1 3 67 21 41 1

31 4 6 44 44 17

16 1 5 57 16 46 1 5

42 6 16 4 1 82 4 1

42 3 1 11 3 88 3 1

39 1 16 1 93 2

4867

4 28 96 1

008 4

42 3 1 15 2 1 89 3 1

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

369

9100

+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Raw

sco

res

2320

1723

2015

1412

1714

4816

750

21I.

Q. s

core

s2

1St

anin

es5

32

1*

21

Stan

dard

sco

res

146

66

2220

1929

2142

2312

2522

Gra

de e

quiv

alen

ts5

*1

42

23

11

Age

equ

ival

ents

Perc

entil

e ra

nks

4555

6945

5816

1817

1417

3924

2826

Perc

entil

e ra

nk b

ands

52

29

33

43

22

2O

ther

917

1027

1536

3141

3135

925

3724

Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.


with an accompanying decline in IQ scores, although these arestill computed almost two-thirds of the time.

Grade equivalents are another type of score in disreputewith testing "experts." Nevertheless, grade equivalent scores areby far the most common form of test score for achievementbatteries at the elementary level. It is not until senior highschool that this score goes out of common use. Over 80 per centof the achievement batteries in grades K-6 yield grade equivalentscores while only five per cent of achievement batteries in grades9-12 do so. Percentile rank scores are very common at theelementary level although it is in senior high school where theyare most prevalent with almost nine-tenths of the achievementbattery scores recorded in terms of percentile rank scores.

Norm GroupsThe responses to the question asking what norms are avail-

able for the use in interpreting test results are summarized inTable 5-2.

Elementary reading readiness and reading test results aremost often compared with national norm groups although someschool districts have prepared local norm for these tests. Thelarger school districts are much more apt to prepare local normsfor reading tests than are the smaller systems.

Minnesota norms have been developed for all aptitude andachievement tests included in the Minnesota State-Wide TestingProgram.* The Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Tests are offeredin this program which accounts for the figure showing that halfthe schools have Minnesota norms for their scholastic aptitudetee` 1 at the junior high level. National norms are also in commonuse for scholastic aptitude tests at the secondary level and almostone-fourth of the high schools also have local norms.

More school systems have prepared local norms for theirachievement batteries than for their scholastic aptitude tests.Fifteen per cent of the elementary schools and almost one-thirdof the secondary schools have local norms for their achievementbatteries. National norms are in most common use through theend of junior high school but 70 per cent of .the senior highschools report Minnesota norms for their achievement batteries

*See Appendix XIV.

64

REPORTING, INTERPRETATION, AND USE OF TEST RESULTS

because the Iowa Tests of Educational Development are includedin the Minnesota State-Wide Testing Program. Almost 80 percent of the schools have Minnesota norms for their multi-aptitudebatteries because the same is true of the Differential AptitudeTests.

Reporting Test Results to StudentsPractices of reporting test results to students are shown in

Table 5-3.* In general there is a tendency to keep test resultsfrom students in the lower elementary grades. This is parti-cularly true for aptitude-type tests where only rarely, do youngerpupils see their exact test results. As students get older there isgreater likelihood that they will have an opportunity to see theirtest results or at least-be given an interpretation of them.

Notice the differences at the kindergarten and first gradelevels for reading readiness tests. Forty-two per cent of the userssay these 'tests are not shown to the kindergarten students yetonly 28 per cent shield them completely from first grade pupils.

Its is not routine to report scholastic aptitude test results Oreven interpretations of these results to pupils at any grade level.Even in high school one-fourth of the users report that scholazticaptitude test results are completely confidential, and only aboutone-third of the schools say scholastic aptitude scores or inter-pretations thk..reof are routinely reported to, all pupils.

The situation is quite different for achievement batteryresults *hich are much more apt to be reported to students.Further, the tendency is to report the actual scores themselvesrather than interpretations. Well over half of Minnesota highschool students see their actual achievement battery scores.

Interest test scores are generally available to students, parti-cularly at the' ninth grade level where 84 per cent of the interesttest results are seen by students.

Although actual profiles are used somewhat less often withseniors, almost three-fourths of the students have access to them.

*The responses for the third and fourth alternatives to this item arecontaminated by an error in the elementary questionnaire which listed "No,but interpretative explanations are given in some cases." for both responses3 and 4. "No, but interpretative explanations are routinely given to all chil-drat," should hoe been the choice for response 3 and was correctly printedin the secondary questionnaire.

;GO

TA

BL

E 5

-2

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Nor

m G

roup

s A

vaila

ble

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s ha

ving

var

ious

kin

ds o

f no

rms

avai

labl

e fo

r va

riou

s ty

pes

of te

sts

at s

elec

ted

grad

es.

Wha

t nor

ms

do y

ou h

ave

avai

labl

e fo

r us

ein

inte

rpre

ting

the

scor

es f

rom

this

test

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, I

IR

eadi

ng R

eadi

nem

s, 1

Rea

ding

, B-1

1R

eadi

ng, 4

-6

1-35

36-

991

00-1

- Su

b. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

911

100}

8s

Urb

.T

1-35

26-

0111

00+

Sei

b. M

b.T

Loc

al12

315

189

1111

17 3

8 25

152

3 33

33

121

4 17

24

6M

inne

sota

-- 2

12

1--

11

32

43

33

Reg

iona

l4

22

28

35

25

23

42

Nat

iona

l54

85

8782

8154

64

67 6

9 10

063

6571

73

86 1

0071

67 7

4 63

76

70O

ther

11

44

34

73

63

3N

one

59

37

63

57

83

337

77

4 18

7

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 1

1-3

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 4

-6Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 7-9

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 1

0-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6- 9

9100

+ S

ub. U

rb.

T14

5 36

4910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T14

5 36

4010

0+ li

ab. U

rb.

T

Loc

al2

7 16

21

91

8 18

29

2010

16 1

6 39

67

5024

15 2

0 20

52

26M

inne

sota

71

13

7*

17

203

62 4

8 44

41

51E

2 17

16

1220

Reg

iona

l3

15

32

12

52

22

21

22

52

Nat

iona

l65

76

7087

100

7266

71

73 8

8 10

072

45 5

167

74

5054

43 6

5 75

88

100

66O

ther

32

32

12

32

1*

62

Non

e6

41

54

75

12

53

91

521

82

8

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, B

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 9-1

2

1-35

36.

0910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

145

3640

1134

+8e

b. U

rb.

T14

6 34

411Y

00+

8 h.

Urb

.T

Loc

al5

10 2

7 51

1715

4 10

28

56 6

715

19 2

7 42

67

2031

17 2

6 58

73

4011

3

Min

neso

ta9

42

49

62

519

22

20 1

320

75 7

5 59

61

2070

Reg

iona

l9

86

7 17

88

12 1

3 11

3 3

118

106

4 40

82

43

3N

atio

nal

69 8

2 85

96

100

8069

81

77 9

3 10

077

79 7

2 82

79

6077

47 4

5 63

65

8051

Oth

er1

12

11

12

11

*N

one

21

12

1--

12

11

11

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BLE

5-2

Con

tinue

dpi

vi

ELE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YN

orm

Gro

ups

Ava

ilabl

ePe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

havi

ng v

ario

us k

inds

of

norm

s av

aila

ble

for

vari

ous

type

sof

test

s at

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.Z P

Wha

t nor

ms

do y

ou h

ave

avai

labl

e fo

r us

ein

inte

rpre

ting

the

scor

es f

rom

this

test

?

TY

PE O

F T

E

Rea

ding

Tes

ts, 7

-12

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.

Loc

alM

inne

sota

Reg

iona

lN

atio

nal

Oth

erN

one

1215

19 2

711

31

13

79 8

380

851

35

56

1810

21

44 7

2 33

379

79

82 7

267

8134

28

3052

100

1 32

31

T 27 79 1 321 2

ST, G

RA

DE

S

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

0910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Loc

alM

inne

sota

Reg

iona

lN

atio

nal

Oth

erN

one

141

418

22

--

22

41 6

5 74

73

11

2312

79

32

21

418

118

62

21

6739

60

6663

11

66

1119

114

2 12 1 55 2 11

69

561

26

128

91

21 4

5 49

42

1421

1212

50

7 27 2 42 4 16

O F es O as

A-1 at

A STUDY OF TOTING PItAVTICO IN MINNESOTA

The most common procedure for handling personality testresults in the high school is to give interpretive explanations ofthe results in some but not all cases.

Reporting Test Results to ParentsSchool practices of reporting pupil test results to parents

are found in Table 5-4. There is greater willingness to report theresults of reading readiness tests to parents than to the pupils.There is also greater willingness to provide parents with theactual scores than is the case with their children, who are moreapt to get interpretations only. Few schools keep reading readi-ness scores completely confidential from parents.

The same pattern holds for reading tests in the lower ele-mentary grades although in the upper elementary grades thereis equal willingness to provide both parents and pupils withactual reading test scores. These tables also show that schoolsmore commonly communicate reading test results to each pupilthan they do to every parent.

The schools seem to be willing to interpret scholastic aptitudetest scores to parents provided the parents ask for information.However, there does not seem to be much attempt to insure thatscholastic aptitude test results become known to all parents.The practices of reporting scholastic aptitude test results toparents are almost identical across all grade levels. Some differ-ences in approach are found in schools of different size wherewe find that the smaller systems are much more apt to keep thescholastic aptitude test results from parents, considering themcompletely confidential.

Practices of reporting achievement battery results to parentsare quite consistent over all grade levels with the exception thatthe elementary schools are more apt to make an effort to com-municate these results to all parents whereas the secondaryschools are again more prone to wait for the parents to takethe initiative in seeking results. There is very little tendency tokeep achievement battery results completely confidential fromparents.

Parents are not nearly so likely to see their children's interestinventory profiles as ara the children themselves. Apparentlythe ninth grade profiles are more commonly provided to parents

.08

TA

BL

E 5

.3

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Rep

ortin

g T

est S

core

to C

hild

ren

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s w

ith v

ario

us p

ract

ices

of

repo

rtin

g va

riou

s ty

pes

of te

st r

esul

ts to

chi

ldre

n at

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.g

Are

sco

res

repo

rted

to c

hild

ren?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K4

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ob. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

9-99

10(H

- B

ab. U

rb.

T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

child

ren

62

4 13

139

198

1410

1320

11

2416

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

in s

ome

case

s4

63

4 11

77

20 1

69

1015

13 2

15

1816

No,

but

inte

rpre

tativ

e ex

plan

atio

ns a

rero

utin

ely

give

n to

all

child

ren

35 2

9 31

36

3143

35

37 5

4 75

4032

33

34 1

932

33 2

7 40

29

21N

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

give

n in

som

e ca

ses

2311

1518

157

1013

917

19

2310

100

1921

21

19 3

521

No,

test

per

form

ance

is c

ompl

etel

yco

nfid

entia

l38

42

45 3

642

33 2

8 27

31

2528

1117

14

5217

1014

7 18

12N

o R

espo

nse

56

95

94

315

62

65

43

55

5

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sab

. Urb

.T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

child

ren

1 20

98

850

82

10 4

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

in s

ome

c a

s e

s2

22

--2

34

12

74

5 8

58

58

46

No,

but

inte

rpre

tativ

e ex

plan

atio

ns a

rero

utin

ely

give

n to

all

child

ren

20 2

4 18

36

100

2319

24

24 4

360

2520

16

31 2

121

23 2

1 13

12

100

12N

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

give

n in

som

e ca

ses

69

1213

95

918

12

2010

27 4

3 38

43

5037

34 3

8 59

52

45N

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

conf

iden

tial

69 6

265

44

6369

60

60 8

358

88 2

7 17

21

2832

33

11 2

025

No

Res

pons

e2

33

84

35

125

11

1--

12

3 8

2

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BL

E 5

-3C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Rep

ortin

g T

est S

core

s to

Chi

ldre

nPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

with

var

ious

pra

ctic

es o

f re

port

ing

vari

ous

type

s of

test

res

ults

to c

hild

ren

at s

elec

ted

grad

es.

Are

sco

res

repo

rted

to c

hild

ren?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 9-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. I

Jrb.

1-35

36-

9910

01-S

ub. U

rb.

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ab. I

Jrb.

1-35

35-

9910

0+ S

ob. U

rb. I

T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

child

ren

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

in s

ome

case

sN

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

rout

inel

y gi

ven

to a

ll ch

ildre

nN

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

give

n in

som

e ca

ses

No,

test

per

form

ance

is c

ompl

etel

yco

nfid

entia

lN

o R

espo

nse

2320

1913

910

119

17

35 3

333

49

83

915

1413

2019

22

113

32

4

20 10 35 13 19 3

26 7 35 11 16 4

31 8 32 17 10 2

40 6 29 15 7 2

14 7 48 20 11

67 11 22

31 7 33 15 11 2

49 4

98

11

21 1

520

18

58 10 20 12

2 4

38 21 25 13

40 20 40

50 11 19 17 1

5563

6959

40

117

88

16 1

715

18

17 1

27

660

11

--1

62 8 16 12 1

Rea

ding

Tes

ta, 7

-12

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. IJr

b.

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

child

ren

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

in s

ome

case

sN

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

rout

inel

y gi

ven

to a

ll ch

ildre

nN

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

give

n in

som

e ca

ses

No,

test

per

form

ance

is c

ompl

etel

yco

nfid

entia

lN

o R

espo

nse

1237 337

36 12 18 28 4 2

4633

1621

1319

2313

16 8

40 14 17 25 3

33 11 19 29 5 2

5357

44

336

812

17 2

5 28

67

1810

16

23

48 8 21 19 3

.-,..

-11.

1,11

.1M

r.11

ig.M

..1,..

.1,4

,-."

...-.

..."-

-..-

----

-.

TA

BL

E 5

-3C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Rep

ortin

g T

est S

core

s to

Chi

ldre

nPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

with

var

ious

pra

ctic

es o

f re

port

ing

vari

ous

type

s of

test

res

ults

to c

hild

ren

at s

elec

ted

grad

es.

Are

sco

res

repo

rted

to c

hild

ren?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

ri.D

ES

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ta, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

01-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sch

. Urb

.T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

child

ren

8289

8177

8477

7675

43

7418

22 2

019

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

in s

ome

case

s2

45

35

42

205

2412

8N

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

rout

inel

y gi

ven

to a

ll ch

ildre

n9

410

188

1112

1817

1327

14 1

214

No,

but

inte

rpre

tativ

e ex

plan

atio

ns a

regi

ven

in s

ome

case

sN

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

conf

iden

tial

5

11

1 1

64

54

21 6

35 4

727

8

67 88

38 18aQ

1-+

No

Res

pons

e5

34

31

420

33

12

A STUDY OF TINTING FRACTION IN MINNNOTA

than are interest profiles of seniors although the table does notreveal any unwillingness to discuss student's interest inventoryprofiles with the parents.

Little attempt is made to communicate personality test resultsto parents although schools are willing to discuss these resultswith parents if Lhe parents so request. Eighteen per cent of theschools say that personality test results are completely confi-dential, however.

Multi-aptitude battery scores or interpretations of them areprovided to about 70 per cent of senior high students, but lessthan one-third of the parents receive this information.

Who Interprets Test Results to Parents and ChildrenTeachers clearly have the primary responsibility for inter-

preting reading readiness and reading test results to parentsand students although principals have this responsibility in somecases (Table 5-5) .

At the elementary level, teachers have primary responsibilityfor interpreting scholastic aptitude tests although, as notedabove, scholastic aptitude tests are less often interpreted tostudents and parents than other kinds of tests. In high school,counselors take over as the persons most apt to interpret scho-lastic aptitude test results to pupil and parents. This, of course, isa function of school size and the interpretation of scholasticaptitude tests is usually done by the principal in the smallersystems which do not have counselors. In marked contrast to theircolleagues at the elementary level, high school teachers seldominterpret scholastic aptitude test results to students or parents.

Teachers also have primary responsibility for interpretationof achievement batteries at the elementary level while guidancecounselors have this responsibility at the secondary level and theprincipal fills in in the small systems without counselors. Achieve-ment batteries are less apt to be kept confidential, however.

Counselors are heavily involved in the interpretation ofinterest test scores to pupils and parents. Ninth grade classroomteachers tend to do more interest test interpretation than otherhigh school teachers. Undoubtedly these are teachers of the"occupational unit" during which most interest tests are admin-istered to freshmen. Notice that teachers or principals do over

72

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Rep

ortin

g of

Tes

t Sco

res

to P

aren

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

with

var

ious

pra

ctic

es o

f re

port

ing

vari

ous

type

s of

test

res

ults

to p

aren

ts a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

Are

sco

res

repo

rted

to p

aren

ts?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

4H-

Sub.

Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

pare

nts

Yes

sle

s ar

e re

port

edrpa

rent

s're

ques

tl/

ors

oofe

edsa

lN

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

rout

inel

y re

port

ed to

all

pare

nts

No,

but

inte

rpre

tativ

e ex

plan

atio

ns a

regi

ven

and/

or if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

leN

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

conf

iden

tial

No

Res

pons

e

814

1518

1917

22

9

1210

936

58 4

755

36

46 5

13 19 12 51 3 2

1119

10 2

375

24 2

4 27

31

1715

17 2

337

36

4315

25

73

3 8

43

17 24 16 36 4 2

98

1214

28 2

7 28

19

68

27 4

352

4831

24

100

32

55

10 27 14 44 2 3

97

11

1727

29

189

1321

18

54 4

7 39

59

34

72

6

8 24 14 48 3 3

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

pare

nts

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

on

pare

nts'

requ

est a

nd/o

r if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

leN

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

rout

inel

y re

port

ed to

all

pare

nts

No,

but

inte

rpre

tativ

e ex

plan

atio

ns a

regi

ven

and/

or if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

leN

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

conf

iden

tial

No

Res

pons

e

11

1

66

45

58

731

100

44 5

759

59

42 2

4 25

52

44

1 6 8 54 28 3

120

78

57

58

531

60

4655

64

52 2

038

25

237

34

42

1 7 9 54 26 3

32

15

0

1816

1213

96

10 3

45 6

267

77

5024

14

108

11

1

2 15 8 57 16 1

2

1312

1612

100

175

3

4755

6764

21 2

613

24

23

1 14 7 57 201

TA

BL

E 5

-4C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Rep

ortin

g of

Tes

t Sco

res

toPa

rent

sPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

with

var

ious

pra

ctic

es o

f re

port

ing

vari

ous

type

sof

test

res

ults

to p

aren

ts a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

Are

sco

res

repo

rted

to p

aren

ts?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es K

-3 A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8 A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

,9-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

pare

nts

Ye;

sco

res

are

repo

rted

on

pare

nts'

requ

est a

nd/o

r if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

leN

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

rout

inel

y re

port

ed to

all

pare

nts

No,

but

inte

rpre

tativ

e ex

plan

atio

ns a

regi

ven

and/

or if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

leN

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

11 :

6co

nfid

entia

lN

o R

espo

nse

2421

26

817

21

2318

15

4040

38

31

12

2967

1333

31 27

2430

3238

3767

159

1317

11

1923

2116

3311

3933

3228

19 2

21

41

12

1

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. l

irb.

T

3342

4033

1740

1319

2327

29

4021

58

517

3033

2836

33

20

22

12

--4

37 23

7

32

1 1

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

26 3

235

37

4033

2424

31

20

88

96

3235

30

27 4

01

--

22

31 27

8 32

Rea

ding

Tes

ts, 7

-12

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

991

00 -

f- S

ub. U

rb.

T I

1-3

5 36

-991

00+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

pare

nts

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

on

pare

nts'

requ

est a

nd/o

r if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

leN

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

rout

inel

y re

port

ed to

all

pare

nts

No,

but

inte

rpre

tativ

e ex

plan

atio

ns a

regi

ven

and/

or if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

leN

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

conf

iden

tial

No

Res

ons

e

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

93

84

613

17 2

7 20

3319

3728

25

3829

2325

1920

3322

113

32

47

1013

1610

4459

6352

5755

45

39 4

433

46

62

4 3

12

11

11

11

1

TA

BL

E 5

-4C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Rep

ortin

g of

Tes

t Sco

res

to P

aren

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

with

var

ious

pra

ctic

es o

f re

port

ing

vari

ous

type

s of

test

res

ults

to p

aren

ts a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

Are

sco

res

repo

rted

to p

aren

ts?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

rou

tinel

y to

all

pare

nts

3624

4418

3222

1421

1118

33

33

Yes

, sco

res

are

repo

rted

on

pare

nts'

requ

est a

nd/o

r if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

le23

2520

3223

4029

2440

3242

1019

18N

o, b

ut in

terp

reta

tive

expl

anat

ions

are

rout

inel

y re

port

ed to

all

pare

nts

2311

79

116

46

56

64

No,

but

inte

rpre

tativ

e ex

plan

atio

ns a

regi

ven

and/

or if

sch

ool f

eels

des

irab

le14

3823

4130

3050

4443

4236

5759

9256

No,

test

per

form

ance

is c

ompl

etel

yco

nfid

entia

l1

12

61

934

198

18N

o R

espo

nse

53

43

22

32

31

1

A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN- MINNESOTA

three-fourths of the interest test interpretation in the smallsystems.

Staffing as a function of school size is also important indetermining who will interpret personality test results to par-ents and pupils. For example, half of the personality tests ad-ministered in the suburban schools are interpreted by a schoolpsychologist. On the other hand, two-thirds of the personalitytests administered in the small school systems are interpreted bythe high school principal.

Availability of Test Scores to TeachersThe list of possible responses to the question, "Are scores

available to teachers ?" attempts to discover where the resultsfor various kinds of tests are kept and, further, whether or notteachers have to consult with a principal or pupil personnelworker in obtaining scores. Table 5-6 tabulates these replies.

Reading readiness and reading test results are typicallykept in teachers' files. An additional one-fifth of the schoolsreport that scores for these tests are kept in a central file. Lessthan five per cent of the reading readiness and reading test scoresare available through consultation with a principal or a pupilpersonnel worker only.

The general practice for the filing of scholastic aptitude testresults is to keep them in teachers' files in the elementary schoolsand in the central office files in the secondary schools. This istrue in about two-thirds of the school systems. Another one-fourth of the scholastic aptitude tests in the elementary schoolsare kept in the central files and a little over 10 per cent of thesetests are kept in the teachers' files in high schools. This tableshows that there is over twice as much opportunity for consulta-tion about test results at the secondary level than is the case atthe elementary level.

The pattern for storage of achievement battery results inelementary schools differs from that for scholastic aptitude testsin that three-fourths of the achievement battery results arekept in teachers' files, whereas only one-third of the scholasticaptitude test results are in the hands of teachers. High schoolteachers are also more apt to have achievement than scholasticaptitude test results in their files, although the central office file

76

O

TA

BL

E 5

-5

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

DSE

CO

ND

AR

YW

ho I

nter

pret

s T

est

Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

sus

ing

vari

ous

staf

fm

embe

rs to

inte

rpre

tth

e re

sults

of

vari

ous

type

sof

test

s to

par

ents

and

/or

pupi

ls a

tsel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

Who

is m

ost l

ikel

y to

inte

rpre

t sco

res

topa

rent

s an

d/or

chi

ldre

n?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

991

00 -

f- S

ub. U

rb.

IL1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Ikb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Erb

.T

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

r81

6364

9167

8579

77

100

2581

7959

7681

100

7068

5065

7159

Gui

danc

e co

unse

lor

112

1

Scho

ol p

sych

olog

ist

11

11

Prin

cipa

l or

assi

stan

t pri

ncip

al8

813

99

--3

7 --

25

86

69

98

8

Tea

cher

s an

d/or

pri

ncip

al8

2015

1513

775

87

25 1

616

8 25

1216

Tea

cher

s an

d/or

cou

nsel

or--

Cou

nsel

or a

nd/o

r pr

inci

pal

Oth

er1

15

11

102

67

1218

8

The

se s

core

s no

t int

erpr

eted

48

56

43

74

23

102

34

33

No

Res

pons

e1

4 --

211

13

--4

43

13

63

--4

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. I

kb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100-

F Su

b. I

Jrb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100-

F Su

b. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. IT

rb.

T

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

r56

5044

67 1

005.

158

49 4

064

8051

53

311

3

Gui

danc

e co

unse

lor

12

1 --

--

11

22

72

9 46

82

8750

448

37 9

080

100

50

Scho

ol p

sych

olog

ist

15

1*

12

1

Prin

cipa

l or

assi

stan

t pri

ncip

al5

1417

1512

515

22

1413

57 3

27

3257

39

228

Tea

cher

s an

d/or

pri

ncip

al2

1118

510

111

145

208

101

49

2

Tea

cher

s an

d/or

cou

nsel

or2

11

*

Cou

nsel

or a

nd/o

r pr

inci

pal

24

2 3

32

11

Oth

er1

*1

3--

13

1--

50

23

203

The

se s

core

s no

t int

erpr

eted

2216

168

1723

1516

717

1112

910

1111

155

10

No

Res

. on

se13

75

I7

135

67

2 1

--1

26

3

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BLE

5-5

Con

tinue

d

ELE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YW

ho In

terp

rets

Tes

t Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s us

ing

vari

ous

staf

f m

embe

rs to

inte

rpre

tth

e re

sults

of

vari

ous

type

s of

test

s to

par

ents

and

/or

pupi

ls a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

Who

is m

ost l

ikel

y to

inte

rpre

t sco

res

topa

rent

s an

d/or

chi

ldre

n?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 9-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35

1

36-9

9100

+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

r79

7171

9650

7481

7473

9267

7721

157

135

21

3G

uida

nce

coun

selo

rSc

hool

psy

chol

ogis

t1

31

21

11 *

737

84

79 1

0045

1652

9588

100

52

Prin

cipa

l or

assi

stan

t pri

ncip

al4

49

25

43

64

450

33

427

6333

234

Tea

cher

s an

d/or

pri

ncip

al10

2116

250

168

1818

4 33

1414

58

69

34

Tea

cher

s an

d/or

cou

nsel

or3

22

28

1C

ouns

elor

and

/or

prin

cipa

l2

51

43

35

23

Oth

er1

11

21

12

12

200

The

se s

core

s no

t int

erpr

eted

32

22

21

4N

o R

espo

nse

31

11

21

11

I2

21

82

11

11

Mul

ti A

ptitu

deR

eadi

ng T

esta

, 7-1

2B

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

r26

1621

1919

11

32

Gui

danc

e co

unse

lor

747

5667

4620

6393

8467

61Sc

hool

psy

chol

ogis

tPr

inci

pal o

r as

sist

ant p

rinc

ipal

2815

19

64 2

31

24T

each

ers

and/

or p

rinc

ipal

122

111

44

Tea

cher

s an

d/or

cou

nsel

or1

3 4

21

41

Cou

nsel

or a

nd/o

r pr

inci

pal

51

1 6

43

Oth

er21

614

1012

21

233

2T

hese

sco

res

not i

nter

pret

ed6

23

11

No

Res

one

13

21

2 4

1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

es)

TA

BLE

5-5

Con

tinue

d

ELE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YW

ho In

terp

rets

Tes

t Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s us

ing

vari

ous

staf

f m

embe

rs to

inte

rpre

tth

e re

sults

of

vari

ous

type

s of

test

s to

pare

nts

and/

or p

upils

at s

elec

ted

grad

es.

Who

is m

ost l

ikel

y to

inte

rpre

t sco

res

topa

rent

s an

d/or

chi

ldre

n?

INLi

TY

PE O

F T

EST

,G

RA

DE

S

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. I

Jrb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. IJr

b.T

1-35

36-

991

00+

Sub

. IJr

b.T

Cla

ssro

om te

ache

r32

1814

1417

33

32

65

54

Gui

danc

e co

unse

lor

2755

7468

6114

5392

9151

653

8025

52Sc

hool

psy

chol

ogis

t7

750

7Pr

inci

pal o

r as

sist

ant p

rinc

ipal

3213

19

7034

337

6414

17T

each

ers

and/

or p

rinc

ipal

52

-1

81

-3

92

Tea

cher

s an

d/or

cou

nsel

or-

86

187-

32

22

1C

ouns

elor

and

/or

prin

cipa

l2

15

33

91

2O

ther

11

21

16

21

325

4T

hese

sco

res

not i

nter

pret

edN

o R

espo

nse

52

43

12

16

1**

10 1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

441.

1111

5,11

111


is by far the most likely location for achievement battery resultsin high school. Again we see that there is much more possibilityfor consultation in the use of achievement test results in highschool than at the elementary level.

Although it seldom happens that interest inventory resultsare kept in high school teachers' files these results are availablein the central file or by talking with the principal or counselor.Very few schools feel that interest test results should be keptconfidential from teachers.

Only rarely are personality test results kept in teachers' filesin high school. Personality test results are available in thecentral file of 40 per cent of the users and they can be obtainedonly in consultation with the principal or personnel worker inanother 40 per cent of the cases. School size and the availabilityof personnel again influence practice, the usual case being thatthe personality results can be obtained in the central office filesof small systems having such scores but are available onlythrough consultation with trained personnel in the large systems.

Use of Test ResultsThe use of test results is of utmost interest and concern for

every educator, particularly those having responsibility for theoperation of a testing program. All agree it is a waste of schooltime and money to administer tests which are not used effectively.Data in Chapter 7 indicate that schools generally feel they wouldlike to make better use of their test results while tables in thischapter show how schools say they now use their results. Thepercentages of systems saying test results are used for one ormore of the seven listed purposes are presented in Table 5-7.*This question cannot always be answered on a purely factualbasis and these tables are bound to reflect the personal opinionsand preceptions of the respondents to a certain extent.

Reading readiness tests in kindergarten and first grade seemto be used most often for grouping pupils and for diagnosis oflearning difficulties. The larger school systems are more apt touse the results for grouping at the first grade level than thesmaller systems and are much more apt to use the reading

*The columns in these tables may total more than 100 per cent sincethe schools were asked to indicate all of the ways in which the test resultsare used.

80

00

TA

BL

E 5

-6

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Ava

ilabi

lity

of S

core

s to

Tea

cher

sP

erce

ntag

e of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g va

rious

pra

ctic

es o

f mak

ing

vario

us ty

pes

of te

st r

esul

ts a

vaila

ble

to te

ache

rs a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

Are

sco

res

avai

labl

e to

teac

hers

?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6- 9

9100

-1-

Sub

. lar

rb.

T

Yee

, tea

cher

s ha

ve s

core

s in

thei

r fi

les

5874

8591

7667

6890

92 1

0075

5669

91 1

00 1

0072

5672

8082

69Y

es, t

each

ers

can

get s

core

s by

cons

ultin

g ce

ntra

l file

s42

2011

920

24 2

210

1837

27

924

29 2

216

1823

Yes

, tea

cher

s ca

n ge

t sco

res

inco

nsul

tatio

n w

ith p

rinc

ipal

or

pupi

lpe

rson

nel w

orke

r6

4 --

---

44

7--

43

1--

19

43

No,

test

per

form

ance

is c

ompl

etel

yco

nfid

entia

lN

o R

espo

nse

43

83

43

--2

72

1--

3

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

364

9100

+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Yes

, tea

cher

s ha

ve s

core

s in

thei

r fi

les

4968

8190

6750

6681

8b 4

066

513

15 2

350

118

616

36

13Y

es, t

each

ers

can

get s

core

s by

cons

ultin

g ce

ntra

l file

s41

2014

824

34 2

114

.7

2263

5966

64 5

062

7264

71

48 1

0066

Yes

, tea

cher

s ca

n ge

t sco

res

inco

nsul

tatio

n w

ith p

rinc

ipal

or

pupi

lpe

rson

nel w

orke

r8

83

712

103

29

29 2

717

1324

19 2

8 13

1620

No,

test

per

form

ance

is c

ompl

etel

yco

nfid

entia

l*

*1

1N

o R

espo

nse

22

23

100

24

32

260

32

21

1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

IMF

TA

BLE

5.6

Con

tinue

d

ELE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YA

vaila

bilit

y of

Sco

res

to T

each

ers

Perc

enta

ge o

f sc

hool

sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vari

ous

prac

tices

of

mak

ing

vari

ous

type

s of

test

res

ults

ava

ilabl

e to

teac

hers

at s

elec

ted

grad

es.

Are

sco

res

avai

labl

e to

teac

hers

?

Yes

, tea

cher

s ha

ve s

core

s in

thei

r fi

les

Yes

, tea

cher

s ca

n ge

t sco

res

byco

nsul

ting

cent

ral f

iles

Yes

, tea

cher

s ca

n ge

t sco

res

inco

nsul

tatio

n w

ith p

rinc

ipal

or

pupi

lpe

rson

nel w

orke

rN

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

conf

iden

tial

No

Res

pons

e

Yes

, tea

cher

s ha

ve s

core

s in

thei

r fi

les

Yes

, tea

cher

s ca

n ge

t sco

res

byco

nsul

ting

cent

ral f

iles

Yes

, tea

cher

s ca

n ge

t sco

res

inco

nsul

tatio

n w

ith p

rinc

ipal

or

pupi

lpe

rson

nel w

orke

rN

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

conf

iden

tial

No

Res

pons

e

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3 A

cnie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

- 4-

6A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 7-8

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 9

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

6374

81

91 1

00

3217

139

76

T 74 19

14:5

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

F873

8594

100

34 1

9 11

6

66

4

T 73 21

5

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

12 2

8 27

46

60

6250

5942

40

21 1

913

8

Rea

ding

Tes

ts, 7

-12

ifM

ulti-

Apt

itude

Bat

teri

es, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

2330

52

49 4

260

33

5132

915

2--

-1

1

16 49 23

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

715

23

3633

5961

6652

67

31 2

111

12

1.

21

T 16 61 21

1

26

T 25 55 17 1

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

1315

30

41 8

065

6559

5320

2118

104

20 63 16 1

1110

101.

1,e,

...

TA

BL

E 5

-6C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Ava

ilabi

lity

of S

core

s to

Tea

cher

sPe

rcen

tage

of

scho

ol s

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g va

riou

s pr

actic

es o

f m

akin

gva

riou

s ty

pes

of te

st r

esul

ts a

vaila

ble

to te

ache

rs a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

Are

sco

res

avai

labl

e to

teac

hers

?

TY

PE O

F

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Mb.

Yes

, tea

cher

s ha

ve s

core

s in

thei

r fi

les

98

614

85

53

11Y

es, t

each

ers

can

get s

core

s by

cons

ultin

g ce

ntra

l file

s64

6874

7771

6262

7263

Yes

, tea

cher

s ca

n ge

t sco

res

inco

nsul

tatio

n w

ith p

rinc

ipal

or

pupi

lpe

rson

nel w

orke

r23

2211

9 -

1630

2924

26N

o, te

st p

erfo

rman

ce is

com

plet

ely

conf

iden

tial

-1

21

1co

No

Res

pons

e5

26

43

42

TE

ST, G

RA

DE

S

T 5 64 28 1 3

Pers

onal

ity T

ests

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. M

b.

35

67 3

7 37

17

24 3

4 51

75 -

- 23

58

92

2


readiness test results for counseling with parents than do thesmaller systems.

Reading tests in the elementary schools are most often usedfor the diagnosis of learning difficulties although one-half ofthe schools report using their reading tests for grouping andone-third use the results for counseling with parents and stu-dents. Almost 90 per cent of the schools use reading tests forthe diagnosis of learning difficulties at the secondary level andtwo-thirds say they use these test scores for counseling withpupils. Slightly less than one-half say reading tests in highschool are used for grouping and for counseling with parents.

Scholastic aptitude test results are used for the diagnosis oflearning difficulties and for counseling with parents by abouthalf the users at all grade levels and for homogeneous groupingby about one-third of the schools.

There are considerable differences between elementary andhigh schools in the uses f scholastic aptitude test results forcounseling students. About one-third of the elementary schoolsreport they use scholastic aptitude test results for counselingstudents in contrast to over 85 per cent of the high schools. Atthe same time slightly more high school users also say they usethese results for diagnosing learning difficulties and counselingparents. The higher incidence of using scholastic aptitude testresults in counseling with students and parents in the largerschool systems likely results from the fact that the larger schoolsare more apt to have counselors. It is not clear, however, why thelarger systems should also be using the results more often forthe diagnosis of learning difficulties.

Achievement batteries are used extensively for the diagnosisof learning difficulties and more elementary schools report thisuse of achievement batteries than do secondary schools. Unlikethe situation in the use of scholastic aptitude tests, the smallerelementary school systems are more likely to use achievementbatteries for the diagnosis of learning difficulties than are thelarger systems. Almost half of the schools report the use ofachievement test results for the evaluation of curriculum withthe larger systems more likely to use achievement batteries forthis purpose than the smaller systems. Obviously one of the mostimportant uses for achievement battery results is counseling

84


students. This seems to be true even at the elementary levelwhere we find that well over one-third of the schools report this

use.*

Counseling students is the most common use of interestinventory results and almost one-half of the schools using interestinventories report that the results are also used for counselingwith parents. The larger systems are much more apt to talk withparents about their children's interest test scores than are theircolleagues in the smaller systems. This is particularly noteworthywhen one considers that the possibility for contact between theschool and the parents in the small towns is, theoretically, much

greater than in the large cities and suburbs.

Personality test results are used for counseling with both stu-dents and parents and at about the same rate as was the case withinterest inventories. Almost one-third of the schools are saying

they use personality tests to help in the diagnosis of learning

difficulties.

Counseling with students is also the use selected most often forthe results of multi-aptitude batteries with diagnosis of learningdifficulties and counseling with parents indicated by over half the

schools.

The total impression of these tables calls to attention a broadgeneralization about differences between the elementary and sec-ondary levels in uses of test resultshigh schools report con-siderably more uses from their test results than elementaryschools. In cases where a particular test type is used across all

grade levels, the high schools report about half again as manydifferent uses for their results. Much of this difference can, nodoubt, again be attributed to the presence of counselors in thehigh schools. Counselors certainly should make good use of test

*The very high number of schools reporting "counseling students" asone use of test results may be influenced by the fact that the MinnesotaState-Wide Testing Programs are operated by the Student CounselingBureau at the University of Minnesota. While other instructional and ad-ministrative uses of tests have not been neglected, these Programs havehistorically emphasized assistance to counselors.

Another comment about the wording of the question itself is appro-priate at this point. It now seems evident that a response or two whichwould have allowed schools to report more instructional uses of test resultswould have greatly improved the quality of this particular item. For ex-ample, an alternative such as "to individualize instruction" would havebroadened the scope of the item and may have softened the heavy emphasison the counseling use of test results.

85


results in their work with students and they should also be in-strumental in helping teachers and administrators make betteruse of test results.

Most Important Use of Test ResultsIn addition to reporting all of the ways in which they use test

results, schools were also asked to report the single most import-ant use of the results from each type of test and these responsesare presented in Table 5-8.

There is an interesting reversal between kindergarten andgrade one in the most important use of reading readiness test re-sults. At kindergarten, homogeneous grouping is the use chosenmost, followed by the diagnosis of learning difficulties. At firstgrade, the diagnosis of learning difficulties becomes the most im-portant single use. Notice that the larger systems are more aptto use reading readiness test results for grouping and less apt touse them for the diagnosis of learning difficulties.

The diagnosis of learning difficulties is clearly the most im-portant use for reading tests at all levels. Only half as manyschools choose grouping, the second most selected choice.

Although the diagnosis of learning difficulties is most oftenreported as the most important use of scholastic aptitude testsat the elementary level, a significant number of schools also be-lieve that homogeneous grouping and counseling with pupils arethe most important ; and at least a few schools choose each of theother possibilities. A substantial change in the schools' choices ofthe most important use for scholastic aptitude tests occurs at thesecondary level where over two-thirds say counseling with thestudents is the most important single use for this type of test.As is true with this particular response for other types of tests,"counseling with students" is a function of the availability ofcounselors and, ultimately, of school size.

The diagnosis of learning difficulties is perceived as the mostimportant use for results of achievement batteries almost twiceas often as is the case with scholastic aptitude tests. Achievementbattery results are less often used for homogeneous grouping andfor counseling with students at the elementary level while at thesecondary level the counseling of students is as important a useof achievement batteries as it is of scholastic aptitude tests.

86

TA

BL

E 5

-7

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Use

of

Tes

t Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vari

ous

uses

for

test

res

ults

fro

m v

ario

us ty

pes

of te

sts

at s

elec

ted

grad

es.

How

are

you

r te

st r

esul

ts u

sed?

Ind

icat

eal

l the

way

s in

whi

ch y

ou u

se e

ach

test

.

TY

PE O

F 'R

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-'3

9100

+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

5853

5655

5561

6557

85 2

563

4858

5876

100

5653

4951

5351

Cou

nsel

ing

stud

ents

1518

2418

1915

1330

23

100

1938

22

4638

100

3432

22

51 2

431

Gra

ding

stu

dent

s4

518

52

10 3

25

67

48

29 1

008

96

1218

9T

o ev

alua

te c

urri

culu

m15

2322

1821

11 2

530

23

100

2424

28

4833

100

3223

2332

24

25T

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

45

23

46

47

3 --

37

23

Dia

gnos

ing

lear

ning

dif

ficu

lties

6263

5855

6070

6357

46

7562

8569

6886

7481

6883

9476

Cou

nsel

ing

pare

nts

3846

5164

4828

35 4

069

100

3826

3646

71 1

0038

34 2

757

7637

Oth

er4

95

62

47

35

57

56

The

se te

st r

esul

ts a

re n

ot u

sed

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

35 4

231

49

3825

40

27 4

0 20

3312

3954

5950

3519

19 4

9 48

31C

ouns

elin

g st

uden

ts29

26

3341

100

2931

32 4

140

100

3577

86

9390

100

8575

8792

96 1

0087

Gra

ding

stu

dent

s4

89

87

48

1014

809

54

1013

68

411

47

To

eval

uate

cur

ricu

lum

87

73

713

116

5 40

1014

1718

1316

412

48

7T

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

23

12

32

12

23

43

44

2D

iagn

osin

g le

arni

ng d

iffi

culti

es51

5452

5453

4652

5048

2050

5663

6954

100

6247

44

6068

100

52C

ouns

elin

g pa

rent

s35

37 4

7 69

100

4135

3845

74 1

0042

4348

6162

100

5026

4870

88 1

0054

Oth

er5

79

107

38

1310

81

21

132

23

22

The

se te

st r

esul

ts a

re n

ot u

sed

2*

21

3*

32

31

12

21

1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

er,

TA

BL

E 5

-7C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Use

of

Tes

t Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vari

ous

uses

for

test

res

ults

fro

m v

ario

us ty

pes

of te

sts

atse

lect

ed g

rade

s.

TY

PE O

P T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

How

are

you

r te

st r

esul

ts u

sed?

Ind

icat

eal

l the

way

s in

whi

ch y

ou u

se e

ach

test

.

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

Cou

nsel

ing

stud

ents

Gra

ding

stu

dent

sT

o ev

alua

te c

urri

culu

mT

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

Dia

gnos

ing

lear

ning

dif

ficu

lties

Cou

nsel

ing

pare

nts

Oth

erT

hese

test

res

ults

are

not

use

d

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, I

C-3

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 4

-6 A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 7-8

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

4 22

6250

34 3

3 21

33

508

106

2037

5428

6050

1112

42

8379

46

67 6

739

43

2471

832

31

950

1

T 41 85 10 50 10 81 45 3

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

3247

44

6356

37 4

050

4267

59

12 1

8 22

3353

5564

5611

146

484

'id85

70

7837

44 5

2 64

67

12

27

331

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.

43 42 9 48 11 81 45 2 *

18 3

260

5460

7685

8992

100

52

13 2

938

6251

54 1

0016

94

469

6673

83 1

0051

5067

54

100

21

6--

--2-

---

T 38 84 8 49 9 70 56 2 1

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 9

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

1015

42 4

360

87 9

092

98 8

02

310

1645

48

5161

100

149

72

6163

6957

6044

56

65 7

6 80

12

1

21 90 5 49 10 63 56 1

Rea

ding

Tes

ta, 7

-12

Mul

ti A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

. T

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

Cou

nsel

ing

stud

ents

Gra

ding

stu

dent

sT

o ev

alua

te c

urri

culu

mT

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

Dia

gnos

ing

lear

ning

dif

ficu

lties

Cou

nsel

ing

pare

nts

Oth

erT

hese

test

res

ults

are

not

use

d

47 4

539

5046

66

60 7

96

7 19

7 18

128

41

7295

90

9033

44 4

860

13

61

448

19 3

352

33

2262

8193

92

92 1

0089

677

12

11 2

06

1324

1219

20

1867

12

35

389

58 6

2 68

64

5946

4156

7268

6757

21

124

2*

11

1

than

nno-

half

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BL

E 5

-7C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Use

of

Tes

t Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vari

ous

uses

for

test

res

ults

fro

m v

ario

us ty

pes

of te

sts

at s

elec

ted

grad

es.

How

are

you

r te

st r

esul

ts u

sed?

Ind

icat

eal

l the

way

s in

whi

ch y

ou u

se e

ach

test

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Ifr

b.T

1-35

36-

9910

01-S

ub. U

rb.

T

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

21

13

13

23

2C

ouns

elin

g st

uden

ts91

9288

9190

9594

9894

9585

8990

9289

Gra

ding

stu

dent

s1

To

eval

uate

cur

ricu

lum

45

14

46

24

--3

31

To

eval

uate

teac

hing

sta

ff1

--2

1D

iagn

osin

g le

arni

ng d

iffi

culti

es23

1211

1413

146

8--

954

3027

75

86C

ouns

elin

g pa

rent

s54

4056

59 -

4986

4162

6645

5247

56 3

349

00th

erO

used

-6

109

-7

13

43

812

37

coT

hese

test

res

ults

are

not

-1

14

12

11

12

1

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.


Eighty per cent of the school systems report that counselingwith students is the most important use they make of the resultsfrom multi-aptitude batteries, and schools obviously feel that themost important use for the results of interest and personalitytests is to counsel with students.

Amount of Reliance Placed on Test ResultsSchools are often accused of placing too much, or too little, re-

liance on test results in working with their pupils. After beingasked to indicate the most important use for test results, schoolswere asked to report the amount of reliance placed on test resultswhen used for that particular purpose.

Table 5-9 shows that slightly more reliance is placed on read-ing readiness test results for first grade pupils than for kinder-garten pupils. Similarly, schools place more reliance on readingtest results at the upper elementary grades than they do in thelower grades. The reliance on reading tests in high school isabout the same as that in the upper elementary grades.

The reliance on scholastic aptitude results is the lowest ofany type test with the exception of interest and personalitytests. Even so, three-fourths of the schools indicate that theyput at least a moderate amount of reliance on scholastic aptitudetest results. At the elementary level there is a tendency for thesmaller school systems to place more reliance on scholastic apti-tude test results than do the larger systems.

School personnel tend to put more faith in achievementbattery scores than scholastic aptitude test scores ; in factalmost 90 per cent of the respondents at every grade level saythey place at least a moderate amount of reliance on achieve-ment battery test results.

Faith in interest test scores is considerably lower than forother types of tests. Over one-third of the schools say they placelittle reliance on interest test results at the ninth grade and overone-fifth of the respondents report the same for the twelfthgrade. Reliance becomes stronger as the students progress fromfreshmen to seniors and almost 20 per cent more respondents in-dicate moderate reliance on interest test results in grade twelvethan was the case for the freshmen.

90


Although, as shown in Chapter 3, the use of personalityinventories in Minnesota schools is not great, those who do usesuch instruments express a fair amount of reliance on the results.Over three-fourths of the respondents say they place a moderateamount of reliance on personality test results.

TA

BL

E 5

.8

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Sing

le M

ost I

mpo

rtan

t Use

for

Tes

t Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vari

ous

uses

of

test

res

ults

from

var

ious

typo

s of

test

s at

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

as

mos

t im

port

ant."

Indi

cate

the

sing

le m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t use

for

the

resu

lts o

f th

is te

st.

TY

PE O

P T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

tline

ss, 1

_

Rea

ding

, K4

.R

eadi

ng, 4

-5

1-35

364

9100

+ S

ub. U

rb.

T14

5 35

-901

004-

Sub

. 116

.T

4

1-35

364

011X

1-1-

Sob

. trh

. , T

1-35

364

1910

0-I

- as

h. M

b.T

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

35 4

0 42

45

4035

39

40 4

638

16 3

1 39

527

24 3

0 34

24

29C

o u

n s

e l

i n g

s t

u d

e n

t sG

r a

d i

ns

t u d

e n

t s

41

26

99

7 14

67

55

87

63

1013

tS

gT

o e

v a

l u a

t e

c u

r r

i c u

l u

mT

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

43

53

28

3 25

21

3 19

114

14 1

001

8 *11

35

Dia

gnos

ing

lear

nin

diff

icul

ties

'46

32

25 3

638

50 1

9 40

38

7543

6350

32

6750

55 4

9 45

71

51C

opa

rent

s4

11 7

83

3 8

22

1 10

1O

t h

e r

The

se te

st r

esul

ts a

re n

ot u

sed

49

56

21

5 1

33

51

3N

o R

e s

p o

n s

e8

39

87

47

85

43

75

14

52

43

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

4Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ob. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sob

. Urb

.T

1-35

31-

N10

0+ S

ub. t

rb.'

T1-

35 3

5411

100+

Sob

. V&

TH

omog

eneo

us a

bilit

y gr

oupi

ng o

fst

uden

ts b

y cl

asse

s or

with

in c

lass

es23

31

23 1

826

16 2

5 18

12

204

13 1

63

1013

$ 13

9C

ouns

elin

g st

uden

ts14

8 19

5 10

012

19 1

3 22

10

6016

64 6

4 61

77

100

66$4

U 7

5 83

100

72G

r a

d i

n g

s t u

d e

n t

s2

22

21

33

52

1 1

*1

1T

o e

v a

l u a

t e

c u

r r

i c u

l u

mT

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

13

32

---

--2 *

37

3 2

02

4 11

11

21

Dia

gnos

ing

1di

ffic

ultie

s40

34

30 4

635

33 3

2 29

43

2033

24 1

89

1018

17 1

81

1214

Co

g p

a r

e n

t s5

79

157

77

8 19

81

21

13

1O

ther

36

98

63

611

76

11

110

11

2--

1T

hese

test

res

ults

are

not

use

d1

*1

12

21

31

11

22

11

No

R e

s p

o n

s e

99

58

813

85

59

21

-.4

22

32

2*L

ess

than

one

-hal

f of

one

per

cen

t.

TA

BL

E 5

-8C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Sing

le M

ost I

mpo

rtan

t Use

for

Tes

t Res

ults

Per

cent

ages

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vario

us u

ses

of te

st r

esul

tsfr

om v

ario

us ty

pes

of te

sts

at s

elec

ted

grad

es a

s "m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t."

Indi

cate

the

sing

le m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t use

for

the

resu

lts o

f th

is te

st.

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

4L

abla

rnau

sit B

atte

ries

,

1-35

364

9100

4- S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6491

001-

Sub.

Urb

.T

1 1

35 3

6-00

100-

1-S

ob. f

lab.

TI4

5 35

4490

04-f

iels

. Urb

.

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

Cou

nsel

ing

stud

ents

Gra

ding

stu

dent

sT

o ev

alua

te c

urri

culu

mT

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

Dia

gnos

ing

lear

ning

dif

ficu

lties

COcc,

Oth

erT

hese

test

res

ults

are

not

use

dN

o R

espo

nse

106 3 9 1 64 3 1

17 8 9 1 56 6 1

20 1

3 83

117

13 2

41 50

22

501

222

9 17

16 8 1 11 1 54 5 2

9 16

15

115

11 1

55

21

99

13 2

52

166

53

49 3

04

53

181

11

7

11 22 33

13 10 1 11 1 54 5 1

2 15

18

13 4

013

53 5

6 66

75

4050

14 1

08

23 1

6 12

8 20

172

11

2 72 8 1 15 1

75 1 6 1 11 1

23

32

3

Rea

ding

Tes

t, 7-

12

28

4 5

8M

ulti-

Apt

itude

Bat

teri

es, 7

-12

32

14

22

1

4 40

92 2

0 40

2 2

9-12

1-35

36.

991

00}

-Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

364

0100

-ES&

Urb

.T

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

Cou

nsel

ing

stud

ents

Gra

ding

stu

dent

sT

o ev

alua

te c

urri

culu

mT

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

Dia

gnos

ing

lear

nin

diff

icul

ties

Co

g pa

rent

sO

ther

The

se te

st r

esul

ts a

re n

ot u

sed

No

Res

pons

e

879

16 1

814

23

21 2

7 --

11

149

65

54 5

6 -

- 1

13

4

3

17 22 1 * 57 * 2 1

76 7

7 82

92

100

2 17 1

07

8 -

- 1

21

11

2121

Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

4 79 1 11 1 1 1 2

TA

BL

E 5

-8C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

Sing

le M

ost I

mpo

rtan

t Use

for

Tes

t Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vari

ous

uses

of

test

res

ults

from

var

ious

type

s of

test

s at

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

as

"mos

t im

port

ant."

Indi

cate

the

sing

le m

ost i

mpo

rtan

t use

for

the

resu

lts o

f th

is te

st.

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

315

-991

00+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0-I-

Sub.

Urb

.T

1-35

354

2100

+ S

ob. U

rb.

T

Hom

ogen

eous

abi

lity

grou

ping

of

stud

ents

by

clas

ses

or w

ithin

cla

sses

11

21

32

Cou

nsel

ing

stud

ents

9187

8491

8794

9396

9494

7981

81 7

580

Gra

ding

-tu

dent

sT

o ev

alua

te c

urri

culu

mT

o ev

alua

te te

achi

ng s

taff

Dia

gnos

ing

lear

ning

dif

ficu

lties

Cou

nsel

ing

pare

nts

52

1 12 1

1 11 1

31

725

5 aO

ther

56

55

23

23

123

--7

The

se te

st r

esul

ts a

re n

ot u

sed

11

51

11

11

11

No

Res

pons

e5

39

52

26

23

14

2

CR

TA

BLE

5-9

ELE

ME

NT

AR

Y A

ND

SE

CO

ND

AR

YA

mou

nt o

f Rel

ianc

e P

lace

d on

Tes

t Res

ults

Perc

enta

ges

of s

choo

l sys

tem

s re

port

ing

vari

ous

amou

nts

of r

eli-

ance

on

resu

lts o

f va

riou

s ty

pes

of te

sts

at s

elec

ted

grad

e le

vels

.

How

muc

h re

lianc

e is

pla

ced

on th

ete

st r

esul

ts w

hen

used

for

the

mos

tim

port

ant s

ingl

e pu

rpos

e?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

AL

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sab

. Mb.

T

A g

reat

dea

l4

17 2

218

1711

24 3

0 23

2113

32

1420

20 4

0 23

29A

mod

erat

e am

ount

81 6

771

5570

7268

6062

7567

7764

69

9570

70 5

364

7661

Rel

ativ

ely

little

94

186

4 4

8 25

44

1 2

100

23

2 18

3A

lmos

t non

e1

1N

one

Not

app

licab

le--

1--

---

-1

1--

-1

No

Res

pons

e15

64

97

134

10 8

87

313

56

74

13 6

7

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. M

b.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T

A g

reat

dea

l2

68

35

18

102

67

53

85

24

512

5A

mod

erat

e am

ount

75 6

671

67

7073

6969

67 2

070

80 8

1 86

85

5082

91 7

387

76 1

0082

Rel

ativ

ely

little

812

513

107

103

14 2

08

7 10

78

508

213

512

8A

lmos

t non

e2

21

52

1*

21

12

12

*N

one

21

11

2*

Not

app

licab

le3

*1

11

12

11

11

No

Res

pons

e10

14

15 1

3 10

013

1612

1614

6015

42

12

4 10

25

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 9-1

2

1-35

36-

5910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. M

b.T

1-35

36-

9910

4H-S

eb. M

b.T

A g

reat

dea

l11

12 2

17

1713

12 1

5 25

10

3316

15 1

0 13

17

4018

12 1

4 13

20

14A

mod

erat

e am

ount

77 7

672

84 8

376

7874

68

79 3

374

78 8

7 78

75 6

081

79 7

9 80

76

4079

Rel

ativ

ely

little

28

2 7

53

62

7 33

55

25

44

44

4 40

4A

lmos

t non

e1

1--

1N

one

11

*1

_*

Not

app

licab

le_

1 _

_*

_ _.

1 _

_*

_ _

2 _

_*

No

Res

pons

e8

45

25

54

55

52

24

24

11

4 20

2

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TA

BL

E 5

-9C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AM

) SE

CO

ND

AR

YA

mou

nt o

f R

elia

nce

Plac

ed o

n T

est R

esul

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

sch

ool s

yste

ms

repo

rtin

g va

riou

s am

ount

s of

rel

i-an

ce o

n re

sults

of

vari

ous

type

s of

test

s at

sel

ecte

d gr

ade

leve

ls.

How

muc

h re

lianc

e is

pla

ced

on th

ete

st r

esul

ts w

hen

used

for

the

mos

tim

port

ant s

ingl

e pu

rpos

e?

A g

reat

dea

lA

mod

erat

e am

ount

Rel

ativ

ely

little

Alm

ost n

one

Non

eN

ot a

pplic

able

toN

o R

espo

nse

A g

reat

dea

lA

mod

erat

e am

ount

Rel

ativ

ely

little

Alm

ost n

one

Non

eN

ot a

pplic

able

No

Res

ons

e

Rea

ding

Tes

t, 7-

12

1-35

36-

991

00-f

-Su

b.

4618

30

3154

75 6

4 67

--

21

2

2 35

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

573

5253

6414

35

379

--

22

181

22

514

85

T 29 66 1 1 3 T 1 5566

81 4 1 6

*Lea

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

1010

15 2

477

8182

7667

85

1

11

43

133

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2

T 12 80 4 3

4

Pers

onal

ity T

ests

, 7-1

2

1-35

36-

9910

0-I-

Sub.

Urb

.T

1-35

38-

9910

04-S

ub. U

rb.

T

51

2 6-

76 6

8 80

1818

23

112

24 2

22

71

2 71 18 2 1 2 3

91

276

72

71 1

009

10 2

4-

- 6

2

3 74 14 3

84

- -

Chapter 6

High School Testing ProgramsMany of the ways in which secondary schools are different

from elementary schools result in different practices, emphases,and problems in the conduct of their standardized testing pro-grams. This chapter deals with aspects of standardized testingwhich are unique to the secondary level.

Participation in the National DefenseEducation Act (NDEA), Title V-A

Title V-A of the National Defense Education Act has as itsprimary purpose the improvement of guidance, counseling, andtesting programs. Under the Minnesota State Plan in effect in1965-66, school districts could receive reimbursement under twoprograms.* The first, called "Guidance and Counseling," en-couraged schools to make improvements in their entire guidance,counseling, and testing program.

The second program was specifically aimed at the improve-ment of testing and was referred to as "Approved Tests Only."

In 1965-66, reimbursement for schools qualifying under the"Guidance and Counseling" program amounted to 6.5 per centof the total salaries for counselors and clerical personnel. Thatparticipation in this phase of NDEA was a function of schoolsize is clearly shown in Table 6-1. All of the urban schools andthree-fourths of the suburban schools qualified whereas only 14per cent of the small school districts participated. One of themost important reasons for the low level of participation in the"Guidance and Counseling" program by the smaller schools wasundoubtedly because few of themqualified under the provisions re-quiring a qualified counselor. Additionally, there may have beensome school districts that would have qualified but simply did notapply because the small amount of reimbursement did not seemworth the necessary administrative efforts.

*Appendix XIII contains the requirements for reimbursement for. the1965-66 school year.

97


About one-half of Minnesota school districts were approvedfor reimbursement for approved tests only, and this does notappear to be related to school size.

TABLE 6.1

SECONDARY Participation in theNational Defense Education Act, Title V-A

Is your school district participatingin Title V-A National Defense

Education Act for 1965-66?

Percentages of school systemsparticipating in Title V-A, National

Defense Education Act during 1965-66.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Total

Reimbursement for guidance andcounseling program?

Yes

No or no response

14

86

28

72

59

41

76

24

100 34

66

Reimbursement for approvedtests only?

Yes

No or no response

46

54

52

48

57

43

40

60

33

67

53

47

Subject-Matter Aptitude TestsTests having rather limited and specified objectives are an

important part of the standardized testing program of manyschools. One group of such tests are those which attempt to de-termine students' aptitude for particular courses of study. Schoolswere asked whether or not they use aptitude tests for specificsubjects and the replies are summarized in Table 6-2, wherewe find over half of all Minnesota high schools say they do. Thesetests are more popular in the larger out-state schools and in theurban and suburban districts.

Schools using subject-matter aptitude tests were asked towrite in the names of the tests and, in all, twenty-two differentaptitude tests were mentioned. Table 6-3 lists all those usedin three or more Minnesota schools.

98

HIGH SCHOOL TESTING PROGRAMS

TABLE 6.2

SECONDARY Subject-Matter Aptitude Tests

Does your school use anyaptitude tests for specific

subject-mgtter areas?

Percentages of school systemsusing aptitude tests for specific

subject-matter areas.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Yes

No or no response

35

65

60

40

72

28

52

48

33

67

55

45

TABLE 6.3

SECONDARY Subject-Matter Aptitude Tests

Percentages of school systemsadministering different subject-matter

aptitude tests.


Total

1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

California Algebra Aptitude Test. . 28 47 28 20 33 36

Orleans Algebra Prognosis Test 2 3 7 8 4

Iowa Algebra Aptitude Test. 2 6 24 16 9

Lee Test of Algebraic Ability 1 2 1

Orleans Geometry Prognosis Test 2 4 8 3

Iowa Plane Geometry AptitudeTest 1 4 1

Lee Test of Geometric Ability . 2 1 1

Turse Shorthand Aptitude Test 2 10 26 4 11

ERC Stenographic Aptitude Test . 1 2 2 4 1

Modern Language Aptitude Test 1 2 1

Seashore Measures of MusicalTalents 1 1 8 1

99


Whether a freshman should take Algebra or General Math isclearly the decision for which Minnesota high schools are mostapt to turn to aptitude tests for assistanceone-half report theuse of an Algebra Aptitude Test.

Subject-Matter Achievement TestsThere are hundreds of achievement tests in print which at-

tempt to measure achievement in specific subject areas. Table 6-4shows that 45 per cent of Minnesota high schools use at leastone such test. Although thirty-six different tests were reportedonly the three shown in Table 6-5 were mentioned by three ormore schools.

The Minnesota High School Achievement Examinations, pub-lished by American Guidance Service, Inc., are used in one-thirdof the high schools. These data do not show how many or whichof the twenty-seven different achievement tests available inthis battery are used in each school, but only say that a schooluses at least one of the tests. These examinations are more popu-lar out-state as we find only two suburban and no urban schoolsreporting their use.

TABLE 6-4

SECONDARY Subject-Matter Achievement Tests

Percentages of school systemsusing standardized, subject-matter

achievement tests.Does your school use anystandardized, subject-matter

achievement tests? Size of School SystemTotal

1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Yes

No or no response

39

61

49

51

49

51

32

68

33

67

45

55

External TestingSenior high schools were asked to indicate the nature and

extent of external tests administered to their students. Externaltests are defined as tests not usually included as part of a school'severy-pupil testing program and, in fact, the question was struc-

100


TABLE 6.5

SECONDARY Subject-Matter Achievement Tests

TEST

Percentages of school systemsadministering different subject-matter

achievement tests.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Minnesota High SchoolAchievement Examinations 34 38 30 8 33

Cooperative Achievement Tests.. . 2 7 8 33 3

Nelson Biology Test. 1 3 1

TABLE 6-6

SECONDARY External Testing, 1965.66*

TEST

Number of pupils taking eachexternal test.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

ACT 1,382 4,405 7,921 5,610 3,600 22,918

CEEB 152 841 2,270 2,593 1,320 7,176

NMSQT 906 3,014 4,281 2,223 840 11,264

PSAT: Gr. 11 291 1,191 2,565 1,621 485 6,153

Gr. 12 126 431 709 315 1,581

MMT 196 767 1,537 802 1,088 4,390

GATB. 591 2,315 3,030 269 370 6,575

AQT 1,235 2,698 1,512 151 62 5,658

*Important, see discussion in text before attempting to interpret these figures.

101

4110Mr11. i.Arkallk0000164t

A STUDY OP TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA

Lured in the questionnaire to the extent that "external" testswere listed by name.

Schools were asked to report the proportion of class takingthe test and the approximate number of students tested. Theselatter data are summarized in Table 6-6. It is important to em-phasize that the figures in the table do not represent the totalnumber of Minnesota students taking the various tests. First,there were a few schools that did not return questionnaires anda few others that did not answer this particular item. Second,this survey reports information from Minnesota public highschools only and there is a sizeable number of students who takethese tests in private high schools.

College Admissions TestingAll Minnesota colleges require that students applying for

admission present scores from one of the national college admis-sions testing programs. As a general rule the public colleges(University of Minnesota, state colleges, junior colleges) requirethe American College Testing P .ogram (ACT), and the privatecolleges require the College Entrance Examination Board(CEEB) . Tables 6-7 and 6-8 show the percentages of schoolsystems administering ACT and CEEB to various portions oftheir senior class. Almost every school had at least a few studentstaking ACT, one-third had over a third of their students part-icipating, and another one-third had over half of their studentsincluded.

Far fewer pupils took CEEB and over half of the smallesthigh schools had no students taking CEEB.

These tables reflect the greater press for college attendancein the suburban schools where almost half of the schools hadthe majority of their seniors taking ACT. One suburban highschool had 60 to 70 per cent of its seniors taking CEEB !

The Minnesota Mathematics Test (MMT) is a test developedat the Institute of Technology of the University of Minnesotaand is required of all applicants for that college. In recent yearsother colleges outside the University of Minnesota have startedrequiring it for applicants to particular programs such aspre-engineering and mathematics. The test is made availablefor schools to administer to interested seniors in the local high

102

HIGH SCHOOL TIRING PROGRAMS

schools if they wish. Table 6-9 shows that the proportion ofseniors taking MMT is also a function of school size.

TABLE 6-7

SECONDARY External TestingAmerican College Testing Program (ACT)

Per cent of seniors

Percentages of school systemsadministering ACT to variousnumbers of seniors, 1965-66.


1-85 86-99 100+ Sub. Urban

None 5 2 1 Imrms r. 3

1-10 1 1

11-20 4 I 2 33 3

21-30 11 15 13 8 13

31-40 27 23 26 16 33 25

41-50 13 28 31 28 33 24

51-60 24 20 13 32 21

61-70 10 6 9 4 8

71 and over 5 4 1 12 4

Scholarship TestingThe National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (NMSQT) is

perhaps the best known scholarship test in wide use in Minne-sota high schools and Table 6-10 shows that a large number ofMinnesota students take NMSQT each year. Although studieshave shown it is almost mandatory that students be in the topten per cent of their group on most other tests and achievementmeasures if they are to stand any chance of winning a NationalMerit Scholarship, the test is taken by a much greater propor-tion of students in most schools. Only 20 per cent of the schoolsadminister NMSQT to ten per cent or fewer of their pupils.

103


TABLE 6.8

SECONDARY External TestingCollege Entrance Examination Boards (CEEB)

Per cent of seniors

Percentages of school systemsadministering CEEB to various

numbers of seniors, 1965-66,


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

None 54 13 3 23

1-10 84 65 54 24 67 51

11-12 11 18 88 40 83 20

21-80 1 3 8 20 4

31-40 1 1 2 4 1

41-50 12 1

51-60 1 I11

61-70 - .. 4 awn.. 1

71 and over

Other Testing for After High SchoolThe Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT) is distri-

buted by the College Entrance Examination Board and the Boardconsiders it a guidance instrument, not an admission or scholar-ship tool. As its name implies its primary purpose is to give anindication of how a student can expect to score on the ScholasticAptitude Test (SAT) portion of CEEB. It is intended for useprimarily by juniors and Table 6-11 shows the extent of thatuse. While a large number of the smaller schools did not have anystudents taking PSAT, there are a number of schools which usedthe test with most or all of their students.

The use of PSAT in the senior year is shown in Table 6-12.The primary reason (and perhaps the only reason) for a Minne-sota senior to take PSAT is to attempt to qualify for the NationalHonor Society Scholarship.

104

HIGH SCHOOL TINTING PI1Outalle

The use of The General Aptitude Tee Battery (GATB) iscontrolled by the Minnesota Department of Employment Se-curity. Many Minnesota high schools cooperate with districtoffices of the Department by arranging for GATB to be admin-istered to some of their seniors. Although there is variation,the usual practice is for the district office to come to the schoolto administer GATB to seniors selected by the school. Thesepersonnel then return to the school to interpret the GATB resultsto the students. (A plan has recently been developed whichshould permit high school counselors to acinitnfiister or interpretGATB in the future.)

Use of this service is a function of school size as can be seenin Table 6-13. The large out-state systems make the most use ofthese services while only about ime-fourth of the smallest-sizedschools have seniors taking GATB, and less than half of thesuburban schools do.

TABLE 6.9

SECONDARY External TestingMinnesota Mathematics Test (MMT)

Percentages of school systemsadministering MMT to various

numbers of seniors, 1965-66.

Per cent of seniorsSize of School System

Total

1-85 86-99 100+ Sub. Urban

None 71 85 11 16 39

1-10 16 41 67 60 67 41

11-20 8 15 10 20 33 12

21-30 1 6 9 4 5

81-40 2 2 2 1

41-50 2 1 - - 1

51-60

61-70

71 and over 2 011111 1 ,11 1

105

A STUDY OF TIMING PRACTICTS IN MINNIMOTA

For the past five years recruiting officers of the UnitedStates Air Force have been visiting Minnesota high schools tourge that they administer The Airman Qualifying Test (AQT)to the entire senior class, boys and girls. The AQT is the screen-ing and placement test used for men enlisting in the USAF, andstudies have shown it to serve this purpose reasonably well.When a school permits the USAF to administer AQT to theirseniors, the recruiting sergeant administers and scores theexamination and returns results to the schools. Interpretivematerials are provided but these and the norms are based onthe Air Force's experience with new enlistees. There is no re-search relating AQT scores to post-high school experiencesother than in the Air Force. It is interesting that almost one-half of Minnesota schools do cooperate with the Air Force to theextent of administering AQT to at least some of their seniors

TABLE 6-10

SECONDARY External TestingNational Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test (NMSQT)

Percentages of school systemsadministering NMSQT to various


Per cent of seniorsSize of School System

Total

1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

None

1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over .

27

3

16

18

17

11

4

2

3

8

10

21

26

17

13

2

1

2

2

13

31

30

12

11

1

4

52

40

4

33

67

12

8

24

25

15

11

2

1

2

106


and about one-fifth of Minnesota schools oblige the Air Forceto the extent of administering the test to their entire class (Table6-14) . This is more likely to happen in smaller school systems;the recruiters have been least successful in the suburban andurban districts.

Testing Costs Paid by StudentsSome schools ask the students to pay the costs for some tests.

The results of the question intended to discover the extent of thispractice are given in Table 6-15, where we see that seven percent of Minnesota high schools ask students to pay the costs ofat least one test. (Students almost universally pay for "external"tests such as CEEB, ACT, NMSQT, and PSAT.) Schools answer-ing yes to the question were asked to write in the name of the testfor which the students pay. Analysis of these write-ins showsthat this practice is limited to two tests, the Strong Vocational

TABLE 6-11

SECONDARY External TestingPreliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), Grade 11

Per cent of juniors

Percentages of school systemsadministering PSAT to various

numbers of juniors, 1965-66.


1-35 36-99 100 -1- Sub. Urban

None

1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

82

1

1

5

4

1

2

5

69

5

5

5

8

3

2

1

2

37

16

21

15

3

5

1

20

16

32

16

8

4

4

33

67

63

7

8

8

6

3

2

1

3

107

4.


Interest Blank (SVIB) and the National Educational Develop-ment Test (NEDT), the percentages for which are recorded inTable 6-16. Usually schools collecting the cost of the SVIB fromstudents administer it only to those who take it on a voluntarybasis. The publishers of NEDT, in their advertising materials,suggest that schools have the students pay for the battery andsix Minnesota high schools follow their suggestion. It is worthyof note that the larger urban and suburban systems, where sup-posedly both the schools and the students have more money, aremore likely to ask students to pay for tests.

TABLE 6-12

SECONDARY External TestingPreliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test (PSAT), Grade 12

Per cent of seniors

Percentages of school systemsadministering PSAT to various



1-35 36-99 Sub. 100+ Urban

None

1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

85

6

4

1

2

1

1

2

74

13

4

1

1

1

1

52

34

11

3

36

52

12

67

33

70

18

2

1

1

1

1

1

108


TABLE 6-13

SECONDARY External TestingGeneraV Aptitude Test Battery (GATB)

Per cent of seniors

Percentages of school systemsadministering GATB to various



1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

None

1-10

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

73

7

2

2

3

1

1

11

52

5

5

8

8

10

4

1

9

37

15

13

13

3

8

4

1

4

56

24

20

67

33

55

7

8

7

5

7

8

1

8

109


TABLE 6.14

SECONDARY External TestingAirman Qualifying Test (AQT)

Per cent of seniors

Percentages of school systemsadministering AQT to variousnumbers of seniors, 1965-66.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

None

1-10..

11-20

21-30

31-40

41-50

51-60

61-70

71 and over

58

3

3

3

1

33

48

8

9

4

5

7

1

1

17

57

21

8

4

1

1

8

76

20

4

33

67

54

9

6

3

3

4

1

1

20


TABLE 6.15

SECONDARY Testing Costs Paid by Students

Does your school administer anytests to students for which thestudents pay the costs? (Otherthan "external" tests such as ACT,CEEB, PSAT, etc.)

Percentages of school systemsreporting the administration of

tests to students for whichthe students pay the costs.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Total

Yes

No or no response

2 3 15 20

98 97 85 80

67

33 93

TABLE 6-16

SECONDARY Tests for Which Students Pay Costs

TEST

Percentage of school systemsin which students are required

to pay costs.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Total

Strong Vocational Interest Blank

National Educational DevelopmentTests 2

1

1

9

2

16

4

67 5

2

111

Chapter 7

Planning for ChangeOne of the important reasons for this study was to seek

ways in which outside agencies can assist schools to make im-provements in their school testing programs. Therefore, an at-tempt was made to find out what changes the schools themselvesare planning to make or would like to make. This was done byasking for reactions to a number of specific suggestions.

The first question asked whether the school was planning tomake any significant changes in its testing program within thenext year. Responses to this inquiry are recorded in Table 7-1.One-fourth of the elementary schools and 28 per cent of thesecondary respondents answered in the affirmative. The questionis susceptible to variations in what the respondents believe is"significant change." It does seem, however, that with the excep-tion of suburban elementary schools, most schools are not plan-ning significant changes in their testing program.

TABLEELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY

7-1

Planning for Change

Percentages of school systemsplanning testing program changes.

Is your school planning to makeany significant changes in its test-ing program within the next year?


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

ELEMENTARY

Yes 28 25 28 42 28

No or no response. 72 75 72 58 100 72

SECONDARY

Yes 23 27 24 12 24

No or no Asponse. 77 73 76 88 100 76

113


Next, respondents were asked to react to a list of suggestionsfor change by choosing one of four statements :

1) this change is not needed or planned.2) this change is needed but not planned.3) this change is planned but is not needed.4) this change is both needed and planned.

Many of the suggestions have to do with the possibility ofadding or deleting tests from the testing program while othersask for reactions to possibilities for changes in scoring, record-ing, processing, and interpreting test results. Table 7-2 reportsthe reactions of the elementary level respondents to the sug-gestions while Table 7-3 gives the same information for sec-ondary respondents.

First, a word of caution. This item has a rather high portionof "no responses" which are not distributed randomly acrossschool size, but rather are concentrated in the smaller-sizedschool categories. Although there were fewer no responses inthe secondary questionnaires, care must be exercised in studyingboth these tables and particularly in making comparisons acrossschool size on the elementary level.

Anticipated Changes in Elementary Testing ProgramsReading Readiness Tests. According to the data contained in

Table 3-15, over half of Minnesota elementary schools are nowusing a reading readiness test. Here in Table 7-2 we see that al-most one-fourth say they are planning to do more reading readi-ness testing, and another fifth report they are planning to changeto a different reading readiness test. Only one per cent are plan-ning to use fewer reading readiness tests and 16 per cent saythey would like to add a reading readiness test but are not plan-ning to do so.

Reading Tests. Plans for standardized reading tests in Minne-sota elementary schools are almost identical to those of readingreadiness tests. Almost one-fourth of the elementary schoolsare planning to add standardized reading tests to their testingprograms even though almost half already use such tests.

Individual Intelligence Tests. Two-thirds of the elementaryschools either are planning to do more individual intelligence

114

at

TA

BL

E 7

-2E

LE

ME

NT

AR

YA

ntic

ipat

ed C

hang

es in

Tes

ting

Prog

ram

PERCENTAGES OF SCHOOL SYSTEMS REPORTING VARIOUS

NEEDS AND PLANS FOR TESTING PROGRAM CHANGES

Som

e sc

hool

s ar

e co

nsid

erin

g on

e or

mor

e of

the

liste

d ch

ange

s fo

r th

eir

test

ing

prog

ram

s. I

ndic

ate

your

reac

tion

to e

ach

chan

ge s

ugge

sted

for

you

r te

stin

g pr

ogra

m.

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

2

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

36-9

9

100+

2.7

48 58

25 17 4

26 27 27

20 18 10T

o in

trod

uce

or u

se m

ore

read

ing

read

ines

s te

sts

Subu

rban

884

8

Urb

an67

33

Tot

al47

161

2611

0-35

594

12

35

36-9

973

31

124

100+

8416

To

use

few

er o

r no

rea

ding

rea

dine

sste

sts

Subu

rban

924

4

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al72

21

124

TA

BL

E 7

-2 (

Ele

men

tary

)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eedo

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

479

114

30

36-9

953

818

21

100+

544

424

13

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

a d

iffe

rent

rea

ding

Subu

rban

read

ines

s te

st th

an w

e ar

e no

w u

sing

734

23

Urb

an67

33

Tot

al52

81

1820

0-35

3323

2619

36-9

940

222

2412

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

mor

e st

anda

rdiz

ed10

0+re

adin

g te

sts

(oth

er th

an te

sts

whi

char

e pa

rt o

f th

e in

stru

ctio

nal r

eadi

ngSu

burb

anpr

ogra

m m

ater

ials

)

51 77

8 8

26 15

16

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al43

181

2414

0-35

622

12

34

36-9

974

11

124

100+

811

18

To

use

few

er o

r no

rea

ding

test

sSu

burb

an96

4

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al73

11

124

TA

BL

E 7

-2 (

Ele

men

tary

)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

derl

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

yid

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

3915

113

33

36-9

948

131

1819

100+

576

221

13T

o in

trod

uce

or u

se a

dif

fere

nt r

eadi

ngte

st th

an w

e ar

e no

w u

sing

Subu

rban

7723

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al49

111

1820

0-35

3530

1520

36-9

937

301

1914

100+

3525

127

12T

o in

trod

uce

or u

se m

ore

indi

vidu

alin

telli

genc

e te

sts

Subu

rban

468

442

Urb

an33

3333

Tot

al36

271

2214

0-35

612

12

34

36-9

973

21

125

100+

822

16T

o us

e fe

wer

or

no in

divi

dual

inte

llige

nce

test

sSu

burb

an10

0

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al73

11

124

TA

BL

E 7

-2 (

Ele

men

tary

)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

5019

724

36-9

963

99

18

100+

742

915

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

mor

e gr

oup

inte

llige

nce

or s

chol

astic

apt

itude

test

sSu

burb

an96

4

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al64

101

918

0-35

623

134

36-9

976

123

100+

821

17T

o us

e fe

wer

or

grou

p in

telli

genc

eor

sch

olas

tic a

ptitu

de te

sts

Subu

rban

100

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al75

11

123

0-35

538

19

29

36-9

960

62

1022

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

a d

iffe

rent

gro

up10

0+in

telli

genc

e or

sch

olas

tic a

ptitu

dete

st th

an w

e ar

e no

w u

sing

Subu

rban

69 81

6 8

3 12

815

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al.

617

39

21

TA

BL

E 7

-2 (

Ele

men

tary

)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

568

114

21

36-9

966

99

16

100+

742

419

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

mor

e st

anda

rdiz

edac

hiev

emen

t tes

t bat

teri

esSu

burb

an92

8

IT-1

,9in

6733

Tot

al66

71

917

0-35

642

134

36-9

974

11

124

1004

-80

119

To

use

few

er o

r no

sta

ndar

dize

dac

hiev

emen

t tes

t bat

teri

esSu

burb

an92

44

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al74

11

124

0-35

5311

630

36 -

9955

182

1520

100+

584

417

16T

o in

trod

uce

or u

se a

dif

fere

ntst

anda

rdiz

ed a

chie

vem

ent t

est

Subu

rban

batte

ry th

an w

e ar

e no

w u

sing

6912

19

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al57

82

1321

T. I

LE

7-2

(E

lem

enta

ry)

Con

tinue

d

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

3538

324

3699

4824

919

100+

4527

919

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

mor

e pe

rson

ality

or c

hara

cter

test

sSu

burb

an65

2312

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al45

2813

19

0-35

593

137

36-9

972

21

125

100+

732

321

To

use

few

er o

r no

per

sona

lity

char

acte

r te

sts

Subu

rban

924

4

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al70

21

126

0-35

3624

633

36-9

935

2618

21

100+

2626

3316

To

deve

lop

mor

e lo

cal (

scho

ol d

istr

ict)

norm

sSu

burb

an54

1235

Urb

an67

33

Tot

al35

2519

22

TA

BL

E 7

-2 (

Ele

men

tary

)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

4222

729

36-9

945

191

1620

100+

4517

2018

To

impr

ove

the

scor

ing

of te

sts

Subu

rban

5412

35

Urb

an33

3333

Tot

al44

191

1621

0-35

4817

16

28

36-9

950

1416

20

100+

4819

1518

To

impr

ove

the

met

hods

of

reco

rdin

g te

st r

esul

tsSu

burb

an58

1923

Urb

an33

67

Tot

al49

161

1321

0-35

3923

1027

36-9

938

1922

20

100+

3721

2418

To

impr

ove

the

proc

essi

ng a

nd r

epor

ting

or te

st r

esul

ts to

teac

hers

,Su

burb

anco

unse

lors

, and

adm

inis

trat

ors

5015

35

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al39

2021

20

TA

BL

E 7

-2 (

Ele

men

tary

)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

2731

1823

36-9

929

291

2615

100+

3021

3415

To

impr

ove

the

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

test

resu

lts to

pup

ils a

nd th

eir

pare

nts

Subu

rban

3527

38

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al29

281

2716

0-35

3327

1725

36-9

931

2327

19

100+

2721

3616

To

impr

ove

the

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

test

resu

lts to

teac

hers

, cou

nsel

ors,

Subu

rban

and

adm

inis

trat

ors

3119

464

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al31

2328

19

PLANNING FOR CHANGE

testing or wish they could. Very few schools are planning to cutback on the amount of individual intelligence testing.

Group Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Tests. The part ofthe table dealing with group scholastic aptitude tests indicatesgeneral satisfaction with the amount of this kind of testing nowb&ng done. Little change is anticipated or wished for in this area.

Achievement Test Batteries. As with the scholastic aptitudetests, there seems little disposition on the part of Minne-sota elementary schools to do either more or less testing withstandardized achievement batteries. There is more desire tochange to a different battery than was the case with the scholasticaptitude tests, however.

Personality or Character Tests. Elementary schools use veryfew personality tests but it is interesting that 28 per cent saythey would like to use more tests of this nature, and another13 per cent are definitely planning to do so.

Local Norms. Only one-third of the Minnesota elementaryschools have no plans or desires to add to local norms they nowhave available, if any. One-fifth are planning to develop morelocal norms during the following year and another one-fourthwish they could.

Improvement in Scoring of Tests. Responses to this sugges-tion are difficult to interpret because different individuals willnaturally have different ideas as to what constitutes "improve-ment." Many would consider it an improvement if tests weresent to a test scoring agency, relieving the teacher of this burden ;while a principal might consider it an improvement if he couldget the teachers to score them instead of having to do it himself.Many of the larger systems say they are planning improvementsin scoring and one-fifth of all elementary schools say improve-ments are needed but not planned.

Improvement in Recording of Test Results. Only about one-half the schools are satisfied with their present method of re-cording results.

Improvement in Reporting of Test Results Within the SchoolSystem. One-fifth of Minnesota elementary schools are planningto make improvements in the internal processing and reportingof test results to teachers, counselors, and administrators.

123

A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTIOES IN MINNESOTA

Another one-fifth would like to make this change but are notplanning to do so.

Improvement of Interpretation of Test Results to Pupils andParents. Only 29 per cent of the Minnesota elementary schoolsare satisfied with their current practices of interpreting test re-sults to pupils and parents. Need for improvement is reportedby half of the schools.

Improvement of Interpretation of Test Results to the SchoolStaff. The responses to this suggestion are very similar to thosefor the improvement of test interpretation to parents and pupils.Almost half of the elementary suburban schools are planning tomake improvements in this area next year.

Anticipated Changes in Secondary Testing ProgramsReading Tests. Almost one-third of Minnesota high schools

say they are planning to introduce or use more reading tests,while another one-third say they would like to make this changebut are not planning to do so at this time. Smaller schools aresomewhat more anxious to make this change than are the largersystems. Hardly any schools are planning to use fewer readingtests than is now the case. Twice as many secondary respondentssay that more use of reading tests is needed but not plannedthan was the case at the elementary level.

Individual Intelligence Tests. As was the case at the ele-mentary level, about one-fifth of the Minnesota high schools areplanning to use more individual intelligence tests in the comingyear. Another one-fourth say that this change is needed but notplanned. No one seems very anxious to cut back on the amountof individual intelligence testing.

Group Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Tests. Reaction tosuggestion for changes in group scholastic aptitude testing areagain almost identical to the responses at the elementary level,namely, very little change is planned or desired in this phase ofthe testing program.

Multi-Aptitude Batteries. Here, too, there seems to be littleperceived need or planned action, although one-fourth of thesmallest-sized school districts would like to add a multi-aptitudebattery to their program but are not planning to do so at this time.

124

PLANNING FOR CHANGE

Achievement Test Batteries. As at the elementary level, verylittle change in the amount of achievement testing is anticipatedor desired. However, more elementary systems were planningto change to a different achievement battery than is the casein high school.

Interest Tests. Fifteen per cent of all Minnesota high schoolsare planning to do more interest testing and almost one-fourthof the largest and suburban districts are so planning. Anotherone-fifth of Minnesota high schools say that more interest testingis needed but not planned. Almost no schools say they are plan-ning to do less interest testing. These plans can be consideredwith Table 3-21 which shows that half the high schools nowuse an interest test with their freshmen and almost 70 per centuse one with seniors.

Personality or Character Tests. It will be remembered fromTable 3-23 that about one-fifth of Minnesota high schools cur-rently include a personality test in their standardized testingprogram. The data here would indicate that there will be littlechange in this percentage in the years just ahead. Notice,however, that 28 per cent of the high schools say they wouldlike to introduce or use more personality tests but are not plan-ning to do so. This is the exact percentage of this response at theelementary level.

Improvement in Scoring of Tests. Seventy per cent of thehigh schools are not planning or wishing any changes in testscoring procedures. The data in Chapter 4 shows that moststandardized tests given in high schools, are machine scored.Even so, one-fifth of the suburban schools are planning to makeimprovements in test scoring procedures and one-fifth of thesmall school districts would like to make these changes but arenot planning to.

Improvement in the Recording of Test Results. This itemshows the same trend as the previous one with the larger schoolsplanning to make improvements and the smaller schools feelingthe need for improvement but planning none.

Improvement in Reporting of Test Results Within the SchoolSystem. As was the case at the elementary level quite a fewschools are planning to make improvements in the processingand reporting of test results to counselors, teachers, and ad-

125


ministrators. The fact that more secondary than elementaryschools are feeling the need and planning improvements in thisarea may be partly because there are greater difficulties withthese kinds of communications at the secondary level.

Local Norms. More high schools would like and are planningfor local norms than is the case at the elementary level, althougha substantial number of schools at both levels are thinking alongthese lines. Data in Chapter 5 show that secondary schools al-ready have more local norms available than do elementaryschools.

Improvement in the Interpretation of Test Results to Pupilsand Parents. Only one-fourth of Minnesota high schools are satis-fied with their present methods of interpreting test results topupils and parents, and 41 per cent are planning to make im-provements in this area.

Improvement in the Interpretation of Test Results to SchoolStaff. Forty-four per cent of all Minnesota high schools areplanning improvements here and another one-third feels theneed to do so. This compares with about half as many elementaryschools who say they are planning these improvements.

126

TA

BL

E 7

-3SE

CO

ND

AR

YA

ntic

ipat

ed C

hang

es in

Tes

ting

Prog

ram

PER

CE

NT

AG

ES

OF

SCH

OO

L S

YST

EM

S R

EPO

RT

ING

VA

RIO

US

NE

ED

S A

ND

PL

AN

S FO

R T

EST

ING

PR

OG

RA

M C

HA

NG

ES

Som

e sc

hool

s ar

e co

nsid

erin

g on

e or

mor

e of

the

liste

d ch

ange

s fo

r th

eir

test

ing

prog

ram

s. I

ndic

ate

your

rea

ctio

n to

eac

h ch

ange

sug

gest

ed f

or y

our

test

ing

prog

ram

.

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dI

But

Not

Plan

ned

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-85

86-9

9

100+

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

mor

e re

adin

g te

sts

(oth

er th

an te

sts

whi

ch a

re p

art o

f th

eSu

burb

anto

inst

ruct

iona

l rea

ding

pro

gram

mat

eria

ls)

Urb

an

26 27 47 56 67

39 37 21 24

31 33 29 20 33

4 2 3 .T

otal

3334

313

0-35

36-9

9

100+

To

use

few

er o

r no

rea

ding

test

sSu

burb

an

Urb

an

78 85 88 100

100

4 3 2

4.11

10

2 2

16 11 10

Tot

al62

31

11

TA

BL

E 7

-3 (

Seco

ndar

y)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e0-

3546

322

910

36-9

948

2722

310

0+48

1631

4T

o in

trod

uce

or u

se m

ore

indi

vidu

alin

telli

genc

e te

sts

Subu

rban

5224

420

Urb

an33

3333

Tot

al47

261

205

0-35

801

119

36-9

985

41

910

0+89

110

To

use

few

eror

no

indi

vidu

alin

telli

genc

e te

sts

Subu

rban

964

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al85

21

111

0-35

6715

29

36-9

974

714

510

0 -I

-84

45

I7

To

intr

oduc

eor

use

mor

e gr

oup

inte

llige

nce

or s

chol

astic

aptit

ude

test

sSu

burb

an92

44

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al75

81

106

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

771

14

18

36-9

990

11

9

100+

873

19

To

use

few

er o

r no

gro

up in

telli

genc

eor

sch

olas

tic a

ptitu

de te

sts

Subu

rban

100

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al86

11

211

0-35

738

24

14

36-9

978

51

88

100+

861

85

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

a d

iffe

rent

gro

upin

telli

genc

e or

sch

olas

tic a

ptitu

deSu

burb

ante

st th

an w

e ar

e no

w u

sing

924

4

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al79

51

69

0-35

5926

18

11

36-9

969

171

85

100+

818

55

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

mor

em

ulti-

aptit

ude

batte

ries

Subu

rban

8812

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al70

171

6I

7

TA

BL

E 7

-3 (

Seco

ndar

y)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e0-

3580

11

18

36-9

989

11

9

100+

901

9T

o us

e fe

wer

or

nom

ulti-

aptit

ude

batte

ries

Subu

rban

928

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al80

71

210

0-35

6814

22

15

36-9

982

41

39

100+

885

7T

o in

trod

uce

or u

se a

dif

fere

ntm

ulti-

aptit

ude

batte

rySu

burb

anth

an w

e ar

e no

wus

ing

964

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al80

71

210

0-35

6617

26

9

36-9

968

1116

fi

100+

754

114

5T

o in

trod

uce

or u

se m

ore

stan

dard

ized

achi

evem

ent t

est b

atte

ries

Subu

rban

848

8

Urb

an67

33

Tot

al70

111

126

TA

BL

E 7

-3 (

Seco

ndar

y)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

811

18

36-9

988

11

10

100

+85

31

11

To

use

few

er o

r no

sta

ndar

dize

dac

hiev

emen

t tes

t bat

teri

esSu

burb

an96

4

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al86

11

12

0-35

747

12

16

36-9

979

65

10

100+

803

89

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

a d

iffe

rent

stan

dard

ized

ach

ieve

men

t bat

tery

Subu

rban

than

we

are

now

usi

ng88

84

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al79

61

511

0-35

4529

213

11

36-9

961

202

125

100+

5715

234

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

mor

e in

tere

st te

sts

Subu

rban

6412

24

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al56

211

156

TA

BL

E 7

-3 (

Seco

ndar

y)C

ontin

ued

SUG

GE

STIO

NSi

ze o

fSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

791

219

36-9

985

22

11

100+

863

110

To

use

few

er o

r no

inte

rest

test

sSu

burb

an96

4

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al84

21

112

0-35

5230

810

36-9

958

291

75

100+

6322

97

To

intr

oduc

e or

use

mor

epe

rson

ality

or

char

acte

r te

sts

Subu

rban

6436

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al58

281

77

0-35

802

19

36-9

985

21

310

100+

843

12

10T

o -s

e fe

wer

or

no p

erso

nalit

yor

cha

ract

er te

sts

Subu

rban

100

--U

rban

100

Tot

al84

21

212

J111

1,-.

-

TA

BL

E 7

-3 (

Seco

ndar

y)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e

0-35

3636

214

13

36-9

925

401

313

100+

2726

142

3T

o de

velo

p m

ore

loca

l(s

choo

l dis

tric

t) n

orm

sSu

burb

an60

1624

Urb

an67

33

Tot

al31

351

286

0-35

6219

713

36-9

977

51

116

100+

659

198

To

impr

ove

the

scor

ing

of te

sts

Subu

rban

764

20

Urb

an33

3333

Tot

al70

101

128

0-35

5922

16

12

36-9

967

1118

4

100+

5720

158

To

impr

ove

the

met

hods

of

reco

rdin

g te

st r

esul

tsSu

burb

an60

1624

Urb

an33

3333

Tot

al62

161

87

TA

BL

E 7

-3 (

Seco

ndar

y)C

ontin

ued

Size

of

SUG

GE

STIO

NSc

hool

Syst

em

Is N

otN

eede

d or

Plan

ned

Is N

eede

dB

ut N

otPl

anne

d

Is P

lann

edB

ut is

Not

Nee

ded

Is B

oth

Nee

ded

and

Plan

ned

No

Res

pons

e0-

3524

3332

11

36-9

927

281

394

100

+33

2438

4T

o im

prov

e th

e pr

oces

sing

and

repo

rtin

g of

test

res

ults

to te

ache

rs,

Subu

rban

coun

selo

rs, o

r ad

min

istr

ator

s32

2048

Urb

an33

67

Tot

al31

351

286

0-35

2338

231

36-9

924

271

444

100+

3215

475

To

impr

ove

the

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

test

resu

lts to

pup

ils a

nd th

eir

pare

nts

Subu

rban

2832

40

Urb

an10

0

Tot

al25

281

41

0-35

2130

41

36-9

921

2947

3

100+

2427

435

To

impr

ove

the

inte

rpre

tatio

n of

test

res

ults

to te

ache

rs,

Subu

rban

coun

selo

rs, a

nd a

dmin

istr

ator

s20

444

32

Urb

an10

0

Tot

alI

2230

144

Chapter 8

Possibilities for ImprovementThe data reported in this chapter were gathered as a further

attempt to discover ways in which outside agencies can assistschools to improve their use of standardized test results. Theprevious chapter reported the reactions of questionnaire res-pondents to a list of possible changes and improvements in theirown testing programs. This chapter tabulates their opinionsof a list of suggested services or activities which outside agenciesmight develop to help school systems improve their testingprograms. It would be better if the lists of possibilities weremore inclusive but hopefully they will give some idea of the fla-vor of the thinking of school personnel.

Respondents were asked to give one of three reactions toeach suggestion :

1) this would be extremely beneficial.2) this would be nice, but we can live without it.3) this idea holds little or no attraction for me.

Tables 8-1 and 8-2 summarize reactions to the varioussuggestions.

Reactions to Suggestions for Improved Aids and Servicesat the Elementary Level

Local Norms. Over one-half of the elementary school respon-dents say that local norms for their standardized tests would beextremely beneficial. Responses to this suggestion are influencedby size of school system since we find that only one-third ofthe smallest of schools are interested in having local normswhile over 80 per cent of the suburban districts would like them.About one-fifth of the respondents are not interested in localnorms.

Minnesota Norms. Many more elementary schools are in-terested in having Minnesota norms for their standardized tests

135

NN

W

TA

BL

E 8

.1E

LE

ME

NT

AR

YR

eact

ions

to S

ugge

stio

ns f

orIm

prov

emen

ts in

Use

of

Tes

t Res

ults

PER

CE

NT

AG

ES

OF

SCH

OO

L S

YST

EM

S W

ITH

EA

CH

RE

AC

TIO

NT

OSU

GG

EST

ION

S FO

R I

MPR

OV

EM

EN

T I

N U

SE O

F T

EST

RE

SUL

TS

Lis

ted

belo

w a

re s

ome

aids

or

activ

ities

whi

ch h

ave

been

sugg

este

d as

thin

gs w

hich

mig

ht h

elp

scho

ol p

erso

nnel

get

incr

ease

d an

d m

ore

effe

ctiv

e us

e of

sta

ndar

dize

d te

st r

esul

ts. M

ark

the

stat

emen

t whi

ch b

est i

ndic

ates

you

r re

actio

n to

each

of

the

sugg

estio

ns.

SUG

GE

STIO

NS

RE

AC

TIO

NS

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

1-35

36 -

9910

0+Su

b.U

rban

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

3652

6381

6752

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

Loc

al (

scho

ol d

istr

ict)

Nor

ms

for

your

stan

dard

ized

test

s.w

ithou

t it

2323

2115

3322

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e28

189

418

No

resp

onse

137

78

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

7074

7150

3371

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s fo

r yo

urst

anda

rdiz

ed te

sts.

with

out i

t18

1724

3567

20

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e2

23

153

No

resp

onse

116

27

TA

BL

E 8

-1 (

Ele

men

tary

)C

ontin

ued

SUG

GE

STIO

NS

RE

AC

TIO

NS

Size

of

Scho

ol s

yste

mT

otal

1-35

36-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

.

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

....

4648

4735

46

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

Reg

iona

l Nor

ms

for

your

stan

dard

ized

test

s.w

ithou

t it

2630

3542

100

31

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e15

1313

2314

No

resp

onse

1310

49

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

..66

6464

8564

Con

sulta

nts

to w

ork

with

you

r st

aff

onT

his

wou

ld b

e ni

ce, b

ut w

e ca

n liv

eth

e us

e of

test

res

ults

, tes

t sel

ectio

n,in

terp

reta

tion,

etc

. (A

t lea

st o

ne v

isit

per

year

).

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

n

2023

2035

6722

for

me

79

128

9

No

resp

onse

75

333

0r.

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

6867

6558

3366

Reg

iona

l wor

ksho

ps o

n th

e in

terp

reta

tion

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

and

use

of te

st r

esul

ts c

ondu

cted

by

the

with

out i

t13

2118

2767

19St

ate

Dep

artm

ento

fE

duca

tion

or a

colle

ge o

r un

iver

sity

.T

his

idea

hol

ds li

ttle

or n

o at

trac

tion

for

me

129

1515

11

No

resp

onse

73

24

TA

BL

E 8

-1 (

Ele

men

tary

)C

ontin

ued

SUG

GE

STIO

NS

RE

AC

TIO

NS

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

1-35

26-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

5462

6365

100

61

Subs

tant

ially

mor

e em

phas

is o

n th

e us

eT

his

wou

ld b

e ni

ce, b

ut w

e ca

n liv

eof

sta

ndar

dize

d te

st r

esul

ts in

the

colle

ge p

repa

ratio

n of

ele

men

tary

scho

ol te

ache

rs.

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

n

1916

1616

17

for

me

1415

1819

15

No

resp

onse

146

3--

7T

his

wou

ld b

e ex

trem

ely

bene

fici

al76

7878

8110

077

A p

erio

dica

l pub

licat

ion

cont

aini

ng it

ems

spec

ific

ally

for

Min

neso

ta E

lem

enta

ryT

his

wou

ld b

e ni

ce, b

ut w

e ca

n liv

eSc

hool

test

-use

rs s

uch

as n

ew te

sts

and

deve

lopm

ents

, tes

t rev

iew

s, r

epor

ts o

fsu

cces

sful

pra

ctic

es in

oth

er s

choo

ls,

rese

arch

res

ults

of

gene

ral i

nter

est,

etc.

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e

17 2

12 5

12 8

1914 4

NA

res

pons

e6

52

4T

his

wou

ld b

e ex

trem

ely

bene

fici

al...

5347

5154

6750

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

An

elem

enta

ry s

choo

l cou

nsel

or (

asdi

ffer

ent f

rom

a s

choo

l psy

chol

ogis

t or

soci

al w

orke

r).

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

n

2333

2128

3327

for

me

1511

2028

15

No

resp

onse

109

7--

--8

than are interested in local normsover 70 per cent react inthe most positive way to this possibility while only three percent indicate little interest. This suggestion produced some in-teresting variations according to size of school district in thatthree-fourths of the out-state schools, regardless of size, are anx-ious to have Minnesota norms but only half of the suburbanschools feel they would be "extremely beneficial."

Regional Norms. "Regional norms" were not defined so reac-tions to this suggestion may include some variations becauserespondents had different perceptions of what this means.Although there is much positive reaction to this suggestion it isnot as great as to the suggestions for local and Minnesota norms.

Test Consultants. Over two-thirds of the respondents feel thatconsultants on testing to work directly with elementary schoolstaffs on the use of test results would be extremely beneficial andonly seven per cent express little interest.

Regional Workshops. About two-thirds of the respondentsgive the most positive reaction to the suggestion for regionalworkshops on the interpretation and use of test results. Over 10per cent say that this idea holds no attraction for them.

More Emphasis on Standardized Tests in Teacher Prepara-tion. Sixty per cent say that this would be a good idea, but thisparticular suggestion also has one of the higher negative re-sponses, 15 per cent.

A Periodical on Testing. Almost four-fifths of the respondentssay a periodical containing items specifically for Minnesotaelementary school test users would be extremely beneficial.

Elementary School Counselor. Appendix III shows there arevery few persons holding assignments as elementary school coun-selors in Minnesota. Reactions to this suggestion show that abouthalf the schools feel it would be extremely beneficial to have sucha person on their staff. This suggestion also has one of the higherpercentages of negative responses.

Reactions to Suggestions for Improved Aids and Servicesat the Secondary Level

Local Norms. The percentage of secondary respondents givingthe most positive response to this suggestion is identical to the

189

TA

BL

E 8

-2SE

CO

ND

AR

YR

eact

ions

to S

ugge

stio

ns f

or I

mpr

ovem

ents

in U

se o

f T

est R

esul

tsPE

RC

EN

TA

GE

S O

F SC

HO

OL

SY

STE

MS

WIT

H E

AC

H R

EA

CT

ION

TO

SUG

GE

STIO

NS

FOR

IM

PRO

VE

ME

NT

IN

USE

OF

TE

ST R

ESU

LT

SL

iste

d be

low

are

som

e ai

ds o

r ac

tiviti

es w

hich

hav

e be

en s

ugge

sted

as th

in' g

s w

hich

mig

ht k

elp

scho

ol p

erso

nnel

get

incr

ease

d an

d m

ore

effe

ctiv

e us

e of

sta

ndar

dize

d te

st r

esul

ts. M

ark

the

stat

emen

t whi

ch b

eat i

ndic

ates

you

rto

each

of

the

sugg

estio

ns.

SUG

GE

STIO

NS

RE

AC

TIO

NS

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

1-35

36-9

9110

0+Su

b.U

rban

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

...40

5362

7633

52

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

Loc

al (

scho

ol d

istr

ict)

Nor

ms

for

your

stan

dard

ized

test

s (w

here

none

now

exi

st).

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

n

3534

228

6731

for

me

1810

34

10

No

resp

onse

74

1312

7

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

...73

7369

6833

72

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s fo

r yo

ur s

tand

ardi

zed

test

s (w

here

non

e no

w e

xist

).w

ithou

t it

2019

2028

6720

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e2

31

2

No

resp

onse

5Ii

i,10

6

TA

BL

E 8

-2 (

Seco

ndar

y)C

ontin

ued

SUG

GE

STIO

NS

RE

AC

TIO

NS

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

1-35

36-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

3628

2724

3330

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

Reg

iona

l Nor

ms

for

your

stan

dard

ized

test

s.w

ithou

t it

4048

4460

6746

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

eor

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e17

2123

1620

No

resp

onse

73

'54

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

7169

5264

3365

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

Mor

e co

nsul

tant

s to

wor

k w

ithyo

urst

aff

on th

e us

e of

test

res

ults

, tes

tse

lect

ion,

inte

rpre

tatio

n, e

tc.

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no a

ttrac

tion

1821

3636

6725

for

me

59

97

No

resp

one

52

33

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

.69

7354

6033

67R

egio

nal w

orks

hops

on

the

inte

rpre

tatio

nT

his

wou

ld b

e ni

ce, b

ut w

eca

n liv

ean

d us

e of

test

res

ults

con

duct

ed b

y th

ew

ithou

t it .

2118

3220

67St

ate

Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion

or a

colle

ge o

r un

iver

sity

on

a re

gula

r ba

sis.

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no a

ttrac

tion

for

me

78

1220

9

No

resp

onse

42

23

TA

BL

E 8

-2 (

Seco

ndar

y)C

ontin

ued

SUG

GE

STIO

NS

RE

AC

TIO

NS

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

1-35

36-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

Subs

tant

ially

mor

e em

phas

is o

n th

e us

eof

sta

ndar

dize

d te

st r

esul

ts in

the

colle

gepr

epar

atio

n of

sec

onda

ry s

choo

l tea

cher

s.

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

...

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e

No

resp

onse

54 25 15 6

67 19 13 2

66 16 13 4

72 20

100

63 20 13 4

A p

erio

dica

l pub

licat

ion

cont

aini

ng it

ems

spec

ific

ally

for

Min

neso

ta h

igh

scho

olte

st-u

sers

suc

h as

new

test

s an

dde

velo

pmen

ts, t

est r

evie

ws,

rep

orts

of

succ

essf

ul p

ract

ices

in o

ther

sch

ools

,re

sear

ch r

esul

ts o

f ge

nera

l int

eres

t, et

c.

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

...

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e

No

resp

onse

55 37 3 5

78 16 5 2

82 12 3 2

92 8

100

73 20 4 3

Subs

tant

ially

mor

e in

terp

reta

tive

mat

eria

ls a

nd d

ata

for

spec

ific

test

sth

an is

now

ava

ilabl

e in

Man

uals

or

from

oth

er s

ourc

es.

Thi

s w

ould

be

extr

emel

y be

nefi

cial

Thi

s w

ould

be

nice

, but

we

can

live

with

out i

t

Thi

s id

ea h

olds

littl

e or

no

attr

actio

nfo

r m

e

No

resp

onse

48 34 11 7

48 41 10 2

53 35 7 5

64 28 4 4

67 3337 9 4

4111

2600

010.

...

POSSIBILITIES FOR IMPROVEMENT

percentage found at the elementary level, although there are morenegative responses at elementary. Also, the high school reac-tions do not show as wide a variation in response due to schoolsize as elementary. More of the suburban high schools and fewerof the smaller high schools want local norms.

Minnesota Norms. Again there was an almost identical re-sponse of 70 per cent on this suggestion at both the elementaryand secondary levels. Notice that the idea of Minnesota normsseems more desirable to the suburban high schools than it doesto the suburban elementary schools.

Regional Norms. The feeling for regional norms among thehigh school respondents is, at best, lukewarm and is certainlyless than that expressed by their colleagues at the elementarylevel.

Consultants. About two-thirds of the respondents would likemore consultants to work with their staffs. Although the per-centages giving the most positive response to this suggestionare almost identical at the two levels, more of the high schoolpersonnel in the smaller schools want consultants and more ofthe elementary personnel in the larger and suburban schoolswant more consultants.

Regional Workshops. Two-thirds of the respondents feel re-gional workshops would be extremely beneficial, with almostidentical reactions at the elementary and secondary levels.

More Emphasis on Standardized Tests in Teacher Prepara-tion. Like their colleagues at the elementary level, the secondaryrespondents would like teachers to receive more instruction onthe use and interpretation of standardized tests while in college.

A Periodical Publication. Although secondary schools receiveconsiderably more information on standardized tests and theirinterpretation than do elementary, they seem no less anxious toreceive even more published materials about tests and their uses.

More Interpretive Materials. Although half of the high schoolswould appreciate substantially more interpretive material forstandardized tests than is now available, the responses to thissuggestion are not as enthusiastic as for some of the others.

143


Forced Choice among SuggestionsAfter the respondents had rated each of the suggestions,

they were asked to choose the one suggestion which, "you wouldprefer to all the others," and the one which, "appeals least toyou." The results of these forced choices, tabulated in Tables 8-3and 8-4, not show any clear preference.

The preference for local norms is equal at the elementaryand secondary levels and it is clearly a function of the schooldistrict size. The smaller systems are much less anxious forlocal norms than the larger systems.

Slightly over 10 per cent of the elementary schools chooseMinnesota norms as the most preferred suggestion, and half asmany high schools make that choice. This and the data on thissuggestion in Table 8-2 may be partially influenced by the factthat Minnesota norms already exist for a number of standardizedtests commonly used in Minnesota high schools, while there areno Minnesota norms for any elementary level tests. Regionalnorms are pretty clearly the least attractive of the list of eightsuggestions at both levels.

Thirteen per cent of the elementary schools and 25 per centof the secondary schools believe regional workshops on the inter-pretation and use of test results to be the most helpful of thesuggestions. Ten per cent of the elementary respondents choosethis alternative as the least desirable. Responses are a functionof school location with the out-state schools more desirous ofworkshops than those near the Twin Cities.

The possibility of having more consultants to work with thestaff on the problems of tests was the most appealing suggestionto about one-fifth of the respondents. Here too the smaller schoolsare more apt to ask for this form of assistance than the largersystems.

The idea of having substantially more emphasis on the use ofstandardized test results in the college preparation of teachersis markedly related to size of school system at both the secondaryand elementary levels. More of the respondents from suburbansecondary schools choose this alternative than any of the othersuggestions, and this choice was selected as most important byall three of the urban respondents.

144

TA

BL

E 8

-3

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

Mos

t and

Lea

st P

refe

rred

Sug

gest

ions

PER

CE

NT

AG

ES

OF

SCH

OO

L S

YST

EM

S PR

EFE

RR

ING

EA

CH

SUG

GE

STIO

N T

OA

LL

OT

HE

RS

AN

D P

ER

CE

NT

AG

ES

IND

ICA

TIN

G L

EA

STPR

EFE

RE

NC

EA

mon

g th

e ei

ght s

ugge

stio

ns, w

hich

wou

ldyo

u pr

efer

to a

ll ot

hers

and

whi

ch a

ppea

ls le

ast t

o yo

u?

MO

STL

EA

STSU

GG

EST

ION

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

1-35

36-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

1-35

86-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

Loc

al (

scho

ol d

istr

ict)

Nor

ms

for

your

sta

ndar

dize

d te

sts

64

1323

339

2516

816

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s fo

r yo

ur s

tand

ardi

zed

test

s15

1010

811

14

192

Reg

iona

l Nor

ms

for

your

sta

ndar

dize

d te

sts

23

24

--2

1813

1727

3316

Reg

iona

l wor

ksho

ps o

n th

e in

terp

reta

tion

and

use

of te

st r

esul

tsco

nduc

ted

by th

e St

ate

Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion

or a

col

lege

or u

nive

rsity

1718

313

69

1312

3310

Con

sulta

nts

to w

ork

with

you

r st

aff

on th

eus

e of

test

res

ults

,te

st s

elec

tion,

inte

rpre

tatio

n, e

tc. (

At l

east

one

visi

t per

yea

r)24

1617

1218

58

104

7Su

bsta

ntia

lly m

ore

emph

asis

on

the

use

of s

tand

ardi

zefi

test

res

ults

in th

e co

llege

pre

para

tion

of e

lem

enta

ry s

choo

l tea

cher

s5

612

674

1116

1512

14A

per

iodi

cal p

ublic

atio

n co

ntai

ning

item

s sp

ecif

ical

ly f

orM

inne

sota

Ele

men

tary

Sch

ool t

est-

user

s su

chas

new

test

s an

dde

velo

pmen

ts, t

est r

evie

ws,

rep

orts

of

succ

essf

ul p

ract

ices

inot

her

scho

ols,

res

earc

h re

sults

of

gene

ral i

nter

est,

etc.

1419

1915

177

67

46

An

elem

enta

ry s

choo

l cou

nsel

or (

as d

iffe

rent

fro

ma

scho

olps

ycho

logi

st o

r so

cial

wor

ker)

1519

2527

1913

1818

1916

No

resp

onse

96

46

1513

84

3312


A periodical publication for Minnesota test users was themost attractive choice for 17 per cent of the respondents at boththe elementary and secondary level. Interestingly, the smallersystems are slightly less apt to choose this suggestion than thelarger systems.

Data in the two tables are not directly comparable betweenelementary and secondary levels because each contains a uniquesuggestion. The possibility of having an elementary school coun-selor is posed on the list of elementary school suggestions andalmost 'me -fifth of Minnesota elementary schools choose this asthe most desirable suggestion. There is a slight tendency forthe larger systems to choose this alternative more often althoughtwo other suggestions tie with it. This suggestion is also themost often chosen as the least desirable.

The suggestion unique to the secondary list, "Substantiallymore interpretive materials . . . ," had very few respondents,four per cent, preferring it to the other suggestions on the list.

146

TA

BL

E 8

4

SEC

ON

DA

RY

Mos

t and

Lea

st P

refe

rred

Sug

gest

ions

PER

CE

NT

AG

ES

OF

SCH

OO

L S

YST

EM

S PR

EFE

RR

ING

EA

CH

SU

GG

EST

ION

TO

AL

L O

TH

ER

S A

ND

PE

RC

EN

TA

GE

S IN

DIC

AT

ING

LE

AST

PR

EFE

RE

NC

E

Am

ong

the

eigh

t sug

gest

ions

, whi

ch w

ould

you

pre

fer

to a

ll ot

hers

and

whi

ch a

ppea

ls le

ast t

o yo

u?

SUG

GE

STIO

N

Loc

al (

scho

ol d

istr

ict)

Nor

ms

for

your

sta

ndar

dize

d te

sts

(whe

re n

one

now

exi

st)

Min

neso

ta N

orm

s fo

r yo

ur s

tand

ardi

zed

test

s (w

here

non

eno

w e

xist

)

Reg

iona

l Nor

ms

for

your

sta

ndar

dize

d te

sts

Mor

e co

nsul

tant

s to

wor

k w

ith y

our

staf

f on

the

use

of te

stre

sults

, tes

t sel

ectio

n, in

terp

reta

tion,

etc

. (A

t lea

st o

ne v

isit

each

yea

r)

Reg

iona

l wor

ksho

ps o

n th

e in

terp

reta

tion

and

use

of te

st r

esul

tsco

nduc

ted

by th

e St

ate

Dep

artm

ent o

f E

duca

tion

or a

col

lege

or u

nive

rsity

on

a re

gula

r ba

sis

Subs

tant

ially

mor

e em

phas

is o

n th

e us

e of

sta

ndar

dize

d te

stre

sults

in th

e co

llege

pre

para

tion

of s

econ

dary

sch

ool t

each

ers

A p

erio

dica

l pub

licat

ion

cont

aini

ng it

ems

spec

ific

ally

for

Min

neso

taH

igh

Scho

ol te

st-u

sers

suc

h as

new

test

s an

d de

velo

pmen

ts,

test

rev

iew

s, r

epor

ts o

f su

cces

sful

pra

ctic

es in

oth

er s

choo

ls,

rese

arch

res

ults

of

gene

ral i

nter

est,

etc.

Subs

tant

ially

mor

e in

terp

reta

tive

mat

eria

ls a

nd d

ata

for

spec

ific

test

s th

an is

now

ava

ilabl

e in

Man

uals

or

from

oth

er s

ourc

es

No

resp

onse

MO

STL

EA

ST

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

1-35

36-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

1-35

36-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

68

1512

2014

12

25

21

11

23

42

1837

2944

3330

3119

1516

223

48

335

2333

1516

256

318

2433

8

1015

2410

011

1612

154

14

1218

2020

178

35

22

816

1916

1618

93

810

64

Chapter 9

SummaryElementary-Secondary Comparisons

The contrast between elementary and secondary levels inthe nature of testing programs, amount of testing, and use oftest results is striking. As compared with her colleague at thehigh school level, the elementary school teacher administersmore tests, scores more tests, and records more test results. Sheis more apt to have test scores in her possession. Only rarelywill she be able to get assistance from a staff member in herbuilding who is qualified by training and background to assistin the interpretation and use of test results while in high schools

there are often col tnselors with specific training in the ad-ministration and interpretation of standardized tests. There areno visiting consultants or other "experts" with specific trainingand expertise in testing coming to visit elementary schools as isthe case at the high school level. The existence of the Minne-sota State-Wide Testing Programs causes interpretive materialto be available for high schools which is nonexistent for elemen-tary schools. For example, Minnesota norms have been developedfor many tests used in Minnesota high schools but there are noMinnesota norms for any elementary level tests. Many more highschools have developed local norms for their tests than have ele-mentary schools.&v,

Despite the fact that elementary teachers have much lesshelp with the interpretation of test results and have fewer inter-pretive materials available, they are much more apt to be as-signed to interpret test results to parents and students. The

great bulk of the test interpretation in Minnesota elementaryschools is done by teachers while high school teachers do verylittle. So we have elementary teachers with considerably greaterresponsibilities for interpreting standardized test results toparents, and pupils and yet these teachers have less background,less experience, and less assistance in the execution of this duty.

149


Standardized Testing Programs inSmaller Systems as Compared with Larger Systems

The findings contrasting the amount of testing in the smallerand larger school systems are particularly interesting. One com-mon stereotype is that of the small school with no counselorand with a principal with no formal training in testing trying tooperate a guidance program along with many other importantand pressing duties. This stereotype has the principal or super-intendent ordering many different tests according to which pub-lisher has the most attractive catalog or persuasive salesman. Onthe other hand, the larger, sophisticated, school systems are pic-tured as having testing committees carefully screening andselecting only a minimal number of tests. Additionally, it seemsthat complaints about "too much testing" are most apt to comefrom larger school systems. Yet, the data in this survey showthis stereotype to be in error. In fact, the amount of testing isproportional to the size of the school system, with the possibleexception of the large urban systems. The most tester' students inMinnesota are those in suburban systems !

Effect of Size on Quality of ProgramThe effect of system size on the quality of the testing program

shows up in this survey as in so many other studies of Minnesotaeducation. The smaller schools have fewer counselors, less con-sultative help, and are more limited in the assistance they cangive pupils.

The smaller systems have much less flexibility and freedomof operation than the larger systems. In Chapter 7, "Planning forChange," the smaller systems selected the response, "this changeis needed but not planned," much more frequently than the largersystems.

Appendix I

School Systems ReturningQuestionnaire by Size of School SystemGroup L (Class Size 0-36)Ake ley Cleveland GonvickAlberta Clinton Good Thunder**Alvarado Cosmos GranadaAmboy Cromwell Grand MeadowArgyle** Cyrus Grey EagleAshby Grove CityDeer CreekAskov Delavan HalstadAudubon

Eagle Bend HancockBackus Echo HanskaBadger Edgerton HendersonBalaton Elkton HendrumBarrett Hill CityEllsworthBeardsley

Elmore Hills-Beaver CreekBecker HitterdalBellingham Emmons HoffmanErskineBelview Er HuntleyBig Lake Evansville

JeffersBorup FeltonBoyd Finlayson KarlstadBrewster Fisher KelliherBricelyn Floodwood KennedyBrownton Franklin KensingtonButterfield Freeborn Kiester

FrostCampbell Fr Lake BentonCanton Garden City Lake BronsonCeylon Gary Lake WilsonChokio Glenville LancasterClaremont Glyndon La Porte*Elementary Questionnaire only.

**Secondary Questionnaire only.

151

Lester PrairieLyleLynd

McGrathMagnoliaMariettaMentorMilroyMinnesota LakeMorristownMortonMurdock

Nevis

OdessaOgilvieOkabenaOslo


PetersonPillagerPlummer

RandolphRapidanRemerRockfordRose CreekRound LakeRussellRuthton

Sacred HeartSanbornSioux ValleySouth Koochiching

County and RainyRiver

Group IL (Class Size 36.99)AdaAdamsAdrianAlbanyAldenAnnandaleAppletonArlingtonAtwater

BabbittBagleyBarnesvilleBarnumBattle LakeBaudetteBelgradeBelle PlaineBertha-HewittBird IslandBiwabik

BlackduckBlooming PrairieBrahamBrandonBrootenBrowervilleBuffalo LakeBuhlByron

CaledoniaCannon FallsCarltonCass LakeChaskaChisago CityClara CityClarissaClarkfieldClearbrookClimax


152

StephenStordenStrandquist

Taylor FallsTintahTrimont

Ulen

VerdiVerndaleVillard

WelcomeWilliamsWood LakeWykoff **

CokatoComfreyCottonwood

DanubeDassel**DawsonDelanoDilworthDodgeDover-Eyota

Eden ValleyElbow LakeElginEllendale

Fairfax**FarmingtonFertileFosstonFrazee


FuldaGaylordGibbonGilbertGoodhueGoodridgeGracevilleGrand MaraisGranite FallsGreenbushHal lockHarmonyHawleyHectorHenningHermanHermantownHeron LakeHinckleyHoldingfordHoustonHoward LakeInver Grove-Pine

BendIsleIvanhoeJanesvilleJasperJordanKasson-MantorvilleKenyonKerkhovenKimball

Lake CrystalLakefieldLake Park*LambertonLanesboro

Le CenterLe RoyLe SueurLewistonLindstrom-Center

CityLittle Fork-Big FallsLong Prairie

McGregorMcIntoshMabelMadeliaMadison**MahnomenMaple LakeMapletonMazeppaMedfordMenahgaMiddle RiverMilanMinneotaMontgomeryMonticelloMoose LakeMoraMorganMotleyMountain IronMountain Lake

Nashwauk-KeewatinNew FoldenNew LondonNew RichlandNew York MillsNicolletNorth BranchNorwood-Young

America

*Elementary Questionnaire only.**Secondary Questionanire only.

153

OkleeOliviaOnamiaOrtonville*OsakisParkers PrairiePelican RapidsPequot LakesPine IslandPine RiverPlainviewPrestonPrior LakeProctorRaymondRed LakeRed Lake FallsRenvilleRoyaltonRush CityRushford

St. CharlesSt. ClairSandstoneSebekaSherburnSilver LakeSleepy EyeSpring GroveSpring ValleyStarbuck*StewartStewartvilleThomson TownshipTower-SoudanTracyTrumanTwin ValleyTyler

UnderwoodUpsala

WabashaWabassoWaldorf-PembertonWalker

A STUDY OF TESTING

WanamingoWarrenWarroadWatertownWestbrookWest Concord

Group III. (Class Size 100 or more)AitkinAlbert LeaAlexandriaAurora-Hoyt LakesAustin

BemidjiBensonBlue EarthBrainerdBreckenridgeBrooklyn CenterBuffaloBurnsville

CambridgeCanbyChatfieldChisholmCircle PinesCloquetColeraineCrookstonCrosby-Ironton

Deer RiverDetroit Lakes

East Grand ForksElk River**ElyEveleth

Fairmont

FaribaultFergus FallsFoley

GlencoeGlenwoodGrand Rapids

HastingsHayfieldHibbingHutchinson

International Falls

Jackson

La CrescentLake City**Lake CountyLakevilleLitchfieldLittle FallsLuverne

MahtomediMankatoMarshallMelroseMilacaMontevideoMoorheadMorris

New Prague


154

PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA

WheatonWillow RiverWinnebagoWinthropWrenshall

Zumbrota

New UlmNorthfield

OronoOwatonna

Park RapidsPaynesvillePerhamPine CityPipestonePrinceton

Red WingRedwood FallsRochesterRoseau

St. CloudSt. FrancisSt. JamesSt. Louis CountySt. PeterSauk CentreSauk RapidsShakopeeSlaytonStaplesStillwater

Thief River Falls

Virginia

Waconia

II


WadenaWasecaWells

WillmarWindom

Group IV. (Suburban)Anoka

Bloomington

Columbia Heights

Eden PrairieEdina-Morningside

Forest Lake*Fridley

Golden Valley

Group V. (Urban)Duluth

Hopkins

MinnetonkaMoundMounds View

North St. Paul

Osseo

RichfieldRobbinsdaleRosemount

Minneapolis

*Elementary Questionnaire only.

156

WinonaWorthington

Roseville

St. Anthony VillageSt. Louis ParkSt. Paul ParkSouth St. PaulSpring Lake Park

WayzataWest St. PaulWhite Bear Lake

St. Paul

Appendix II

School BuildingsTable A-II-1 shows the number of elementary buildings oper-

ated by the various sized school districts. These range from onebuilding in the smallest district to seventy-four elementaryschools in the Minneapolis system. Table A-II-2 shows the num-ber of buildings operated at the secondary level. None of thesmall school districts operate separate junior high schools al-though many of the larger systems do have "Junior-Senior" highschools.

TABLE A-H-1

ELEMENTARY Elementary School Buildings

How many separate elementaryschools does your school districtoperate?

Percentages of school systemsoperating various numbers of

elementary buildings.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

1 90 75 27 64

2 6 17 19 12 14

3 1 4 17 8 6

4-5 2 2 18 24 5

6-7 9 15 3

8-9 6 12 2

10-15 1 4 19 2

16-20 12 1

21 or more 1 1 100 1

No response 2 1 1

157

TA

BL

E A

-II-

2SE

CO

ND

AR

YPe

rcen

tage

s of

Sch

ool D

istr

icts

Ope

ratin

g V

ario

usN

umbe

rs o

f Ju

nior

(Jr

.),

Seni

or (

Sr.)

, and

Jun

ior-

Seni

or(J

r.-S

r.)

Hig

h Sc

hool

Bui

ldin

gs

Wri

te in

the

num

ber

of s

choo

l bui

ldin

gsyo

ur s

choo

l dis

tric

top

erat

es.

SIZ

E O

F SC

HO

OL

SY

STE

M.. ra Pi

Tot

al0 0

145

36-9

910

0+Su

burb

anU

rban

Jr.

Sr.

Jr.-

Sr.

Jr.

Sr.

Jr.-

Sr.

Jr.

Sr.

Jr.-

Sr.

Jr.

Sr.

r.-S

Sr.

Jr. -

Sr.

Jr.

Sr.

r. -

Sr.

1 2-3

4-5

6-7

8-9

10 o

r m

ore

am...

.

494 1

2 1

397

36 9

37 2

38 1

28 60

72I

16

12

33 33 33

33 67

11 5 1 1 1

14 2 1 1

op

e2iq til U

22

:1 z 0...

.., 1S ?I

Itg ID g ig g 1

Appendix III

Professional StaffPerhaps the most important factor affecting the use of test

results in a school system is the professional staff. The trainingand the attitude of the classroom teachers and the number andtype of "specialized" support personnel are both important vari-ables. Many specialized personnel receive specific training in theuse of standardized tests and the presence or absence of thesepersonnel in a school system can be expected to make a differencein the use of tests.

The guidance counselor generally has more formal trainingin standardized tests than other school personnel. There hasrecently been considerable discussion of the possibility of utiliz-ing counselors at the elementary level. Table A-III-1 shows thatthere are only a handful of persons in Minnesota who have suchassignments and it is clear that elementary school counselorscannot have much impact on the use of standardized tests in Min-nesota elementary schools at this point of time.

Table A-III-2 shows quite a different story for the second-ary schools where all Minnesota high schools with class sizesof 100 or more have at least one full-time guidance counselor.Although none of the schools with class sizes under 35 have afull-time guidance counselor, over two-thirds have at least oneperson assigned to that function part time. It is important tonote, however, that almost 60 per cent of all Minnesota highschools do not have a full-time guidance counselor.

Tables A-III-3 and A-III-4 give an indication of the avail-ability of school psychologists assigned. As can be seen from thetables, the total number of school psychologists in Minnesotais not great.*

*The data in Tables A-111-4 and A-111-6 are contaminated because of aflaw in this question in the secondary school questionnaire which asked for,"the number of persons your school district has assigned . . .", whereas thesame question in the elementary school questionnaire limits the response tothe elementary level saying, "the number of persons your school districthas at the elementary level . ..".

159


Tables A-III-5 and A-III-6 show the percentages of schoolshaving full and part-time social workers. It is apparent thatsocial workers are in even shorter supply than school psycholo-gists in Minnesota school systems.

TABLE 4111-1

ELEMENTARY Persons Assigned asElementary School Counselors

Write in the number of personsyour school district has assignedat the elementary level as schoolcounselor (s).

NUMBER OFCOUNSELORS

Full-Time:

0

1.

2..

3

Part-Time:

0.

1.

2.

3

Percentages of school systemsreporting persons in their schooldistrict assigned as elementary

school counselors.


1-35 36-99 100 -I- Sub. Urban

100 99 100 100 67 99

1 33

0

94 94 94 96 67 94

6 5 4 4 33 5

1 2


160

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

TABLE

SECONDARY Persons Assigned as Guidance Counselors

Write in the number of personsyour school district has assignedas guidance counselor(s).

NUMBER OFGUIDANCE COUNSELORS

Percentages of school systemsreporting persons in their school

district assigned as guidance counselors.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Full-Time:

0

1

2-3

4-5

6-7

8-9

10 or more

100 67

32 43

2 36

10

4

1

1

8

16

20

8

12

36

59

23

9

4

1

*

100 3

Part - Time.:

_ 0.

1.

2-8

4-5

6-7

8-9

10 or more

27

66

6

44

50

6

67

22

8

1

76

12

12

83 47

46

33 7

33

1


161


TABLE A-111-3

ELEMENTARY Persons Assigned as School Psychologists

Write in the number of personsyour school district iias assignedat the elementary level as schoolpsychologist (s).

NUMBER OFPSYCHOLOGISTS

Percentages of school systemsreporting persons in theirschool district assigned

as elementary school psychologists.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. UrbanTotal

Full-Time:

0

1

2-3

4-5

100 100 100 42

36

16

4 100

96

2

1

1

Part-Time:

0

I..... .... ....... . .

2-3

91 82

18

71

29"

38

54

8

33

33

33

80

20

1

162

P111071115510141AL STAFF

TABLE A.M4

SECONDARY Persons Assigned as School Psychologists

Write in the number of personsyour schoo district hasas school pslychologist(s).

assigned

NUMBER OFSCHOOL PSYCHOLOGISTS

Percentages of school systemsreporting persons in their school district

assigned as school psychologists.


1 -85 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Full-Time:

0

1.

2-8

4-5

100 100

..1

96

4

36

48

16

.11111

67

33

Total

95

4

1

Part-Time:

0.

1 .

2-8

4-9

10 or more

91

9

87 78 68

13 22 24

8

88

83

88

86.

14

1,4

*Leas than one-half of one per cent.

168

PROFESSIONAL STAFF

TABLE

SECONDARY Persons Assigned as Social Workers

Write in the number of personsyour school district has assignedas social worker(s) (visitingteacher).

NUMBER OFSOCIAL WORKERS

Percentages of school systemsreporting persons in their school

district assigned as nodal workers.


1-35 36-99 100+

Full.Time:

0

1

2-3

4-9

10 or more

100 99

1

1111111

98

2

110.1.11

80

12

8

111, 01111111016 lims 111

Part-Time:

0

1

2-3

4-9

10 or more

96

4

98

2

96

4

92

8

11

01111111016

=1

OM*


165

Appendix IV

KindergartensThe percentages of systems operating full-time kindergartens

are shown in Table A-IV-1. In general, the larger school systemsare more likly to operate a full-time kindergarten, although itis interesting that almost one-fourth of the suburban districtsdo not have full-time kindergartens.

TABLE A.TV4

ELEMENTARY Kindergarten

Does your school operate afull-year kindergarten?

Percentages of school systemsoperating a lull-year kindergarten.


1-85 86-99 100+ Sub.10111111.114.1001.1111/1.

UrbanINNINNIMIONNII

Ye'

No or no response

11

89

46

54

85

15

7?

23

100

11110.11.0

46

54

167

Appendix V

Effect of PTA on Testing ProgramsIn some parts of the United States the Congress of Parents

and Teachers (PTA) is often concerned with the developmentand conduct of school testing programs. The perceptions of thesituation in Minnesota are shown in Tables A-V-1, A-V-2, andA-V-3. Although these responses reflect only the opinions of thepersons completing the questionnaire, it seems clear that PTA'sare more active at the elementary than at the secondary level,and, for whatever activity they do have, they do not affect testingprograms in any significant way. Nine-tenths of Minnesotaschool systems either have no PTA's or report that their PTA'shave no effect on the testing program.

169


TABLE AN-1ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY Activity of PTA

How active (proportion of parentsinvolved and //or frequency ofmeetings) is the Parent-TeacherAssociation?

Percentages of school systemsreporting various levels of

activity for their PTA.


1 -36 3,--99 100 + Sub. Urban

ELEMENTARY

Very active 9 9 13 35 11

Moderately active 52 48 51 54 100 51

Only slightly active 27 30 24 12 26

There is no PTA 9 13 12 11

No response 3 1 1

SECONDARY

Very active. 6 8 2 4 83 4

Moderately active. 57 43 29 66 67 45

Only slightly active 28 89 42 40 86

There is no PTA 9 15 27 16

No response SWIM. 1 1

470

EFFECT OF PTA TESTING PROGRAMS

TABLE

ELEMENTARY Effect

A-V-2

of PTA on Testing Program

In which one of the following wayshas the Parent-Teacher Associa-tion had the greatest effect on yourschool's testing program duringthe last five years?

Percentages of school systemsreporting various effects ofPTA on testing program.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

It has had no effect at all

It has caused an increase in theprogram

It has caused a decrease in theprogram

It has changed the program insome other way

There is no PTA

No response

83

4

1

10

2

84

1

13

78

6

1

11

4

88

8

4

100

1

M0

1

83

3

1

11

2

171


TABLE AN-3

SECONDARY Effect of PTA on Testing Program

Percentages of school systemsreporting various effects of

In which one of the following wayshas the Parent-Teacher Associa-tion had the greatest effect on yourschool's testing program duringthe last five years?

PTA on testing program.


Total1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

It has had no effect at all . 79 81 73 100 100 80

It has caused an increase in theprogram 8 2 3 4

It has caused a decrease in theprogram 1 1

It has changed the program insome other way 2 2 2

There is no PTA. 8 13 22 12

No response 2 2 2 2

Appendix VI

Ability GroupingThe nature and extent of ability grouping in Minnesota school

systems could be expected to have an effect on the nature oftesting programs and on the uses of test scores. Tables A-VI-1and A-VI-2 show the extent of ability grouping in the placementof students into classrooms. Although there is much discussionof ability grouping among professional educators and by the laypublic, it is obvious that Minnesota schools do very little abilitygrouping in the placement of students into particular classrooms.Four-fifths of Minnesota elementary systems report that theyeither do no grouping of this kind or they make a conscious effort

TABLE A-VI-1ELEMENTARY Ability Grouping in Assignment to Classroom

Are children in your school as-signei to class rooms according totheir abilities or aptitudes?

Percentages of school systemsreporting grouping practice as indicated.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban1Yes, this is done in order to keep

classes as heterogeneous aspossible. 5 18 28 38 18

Yes, gifted students only. 1 1 2 1

Yes, slow learners only 5 4 3 12 33 5

Yes, gifted and slow learners 2 6 8 33 5

Yes, some are assigned for somespecific aptitude or programsuch as music, foreignlanguage, etc. 2 9 2 8 5

No 80 59 55 42 33 62

No res onse 6 3 3

173


to keep the classes as heterogeneous as possible. A small numberof school systems do have classrooms for slow and gifted learnersat the elementary level.

At the secondary level there is a tendency for larger schoolsystems, and particularly the suburban systems, to use abilitygrouping in placement of pupils into particular classes. Noticethat most of the suburban schools group students by ability forassignment to classrooms at the secondary level, yet at the ele-mentary level none of them reported grouping gifted childrenand only 12 per cent said they grouped slow learners.

Once students are placed into classrooms, the great majorityof elementary schools report that they practice ability grouping

TABLE ANI-2

SECONDARY Ability Grouping in Assignment to Classroom

In general,, are students in yourschool assigned to sections orclasses according to their abilitiesor aptitudes?

Percentages of school systemsreporting grouping practice as indicated.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Yes, most or all students in mostor all sections 5 12 14 4 11 10

Yes, most or all students in somesections 9 23 33 20 33 21

Yes, gifted students only. 2 1 1

Yes, slow learners only. 2 4 2 4 3

Yes, gifted and slow learners 2 9 36 5

Yes, some are assigned for somespecific aptitude or programsuch as music, foreignlanguage, etc. 16 24 14 12 33 19

No 63 27 12 8 33

Some combination of aboveresponses. 2 9 14 12 33 8

No response - - - 4 11 1

174

ABILITY GROUPING

within the classroom. As illustrated by Table A-VI-3, over four-fifths of the schools group children for reading within the class-room and over one-third group in arithmetic.

Because of the nature of the question, information aboutability grouping within the classroom at the secondary level asshown in Table A-VI-4 is not as clear. Only the suburban schoolsreport any appreciable amount of within-classroom groupingand only one-fifth of these are doing so.

TABLE AATI-3

ELEMENTARY Ability Grouping Within Classroom

Percentages of school systemsAre chillren grouped for instruc-tional purposes according to theirabilities or aptitudes?

reporting grouping for instruction.


(Per cent answering "yes")1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Reading 76 85 88 85 67 .83

Arithmetic 27 40 38 46 33 36

Spelling 10 17 17 8 14

Social Studies 5 7 9 8 7

Science 5 7 9 4 7

Art 2 3 1 4 3

Other. 2 4 8 1111110 4

175


TABLE ANI4

SECONDARY Ability Grouping Within the Classroom

Are students grouped within classes(or sections) according to theirabilities or aptitudes for instruc-tional purposes?

Percentages of school systemsreporting grouping practices as indicated.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Yes, most or all students in allclasses (or sections) 2 4 8 4

Yes, most or all students in someclasses 7 17 7 20 12

Yes, gifted students only. 1 3 1

Yes, slow learners only 2 2 4 2

Yes, gifted and slow learners 3 1 4 4 3

Yes, but only for specific projects 5 11 13 20 33 10

No 80 62 59 48 33 66

Some combination of aboveresponses 1 2 1 8 33 2

176

Appendix VII

Information Maintained inPupil Records

Most educators share the opinion that students benefit indirect proportion to the amount of accurate and relevant informa-tion known about them by their counselors and teachers. For thisreason schools maintain student records which typically containmuch information in addition to the usual record of coursestaken and marks achieved. Most Minnesota schools have adual record system consisting of a "permanent" record whichis usually maintained in the central administrative office, anda "cumulative" folder which is generally kept in the guidanceoffice or in the principal's office in the smaller systems.

Tables A-VII-1 and A-VII-2 show that schools universallyrecord information about school performance, aptitude for learn-ing, and, usually, health. Beyond this there are significant dif-ferences between the elementary and secondary level in the kindsof information kept. Secondary schools are more apt to recordpersonality and related information oriented toward the future,such as ambitions and interests. Almost without exception, sec-ondary schools maintain records of participation in school-spon-sored, non-academic activities although by contrast less thanone-half of he elementary schools say that they keep this in-formation. Larger schools tend to keep more information thanthe smaller systems, even though they have to keep track ofmany more students. This could be related to availability ofcounselors and clerical help, although certainly another factoris that personnel in the smaller systems are more personallyfamiliar with their pupils and their families and do not feel theneed to have as much of this information in writing.

177


TABLE A-VII-1

ELEMENTARY Information in Cumulative Records

Do the individual pupil records("Cumulative" or "Permanent"records) at your school contain in-formation for 4- ach pupil in theseareas? (Do not include informationcontained in psychologist or coun-selor notes)

(Per cent answering "yes")

Percentages of school systemsrecording various kinds of

information in cumulative records.


1-35 86-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Performance in school subjects... 98 98 97 96 100 98

Family and home life. 50 63 72 65 II11 61

Non-academic skills and abilities. 40 89 48 62 100 43

Intelligence and academic skillsand aptitudes 93 95 96 88 100 94

Fears and worries 19 24 35 19 67 24

Aesthetic and artistic abilities . . . 31 31 48 31 100 35

Aspirations and ambitions 10 13 21 15 100 14

Interests 31 33 42 31 100 35

Personality and character 63 73 71 77 67 69

Health 89 89 89 81 100 89

Participation in school-sponsored,non-classroom activities,(athletics, band, etc.) 56 40 5, 42 100 47

Participation in activities notsponsored by the school, (4-H,Boy Scouts, etc.) . 13 8 10 19 67 11

Other 6 7 15 15 9

178

INFORMATION MAINTAINED IN PUPIL RECORDS

TABLE ANII-2

SECONDARY Information in Cumulative Records

Do the individual pupil records("Cumulative" or "Permanent"records) at your school contain in-formation for most of your pupilsin these areas? (Do not include in-formation contained in counselor'scase notes)

(Per cent answering "yes")

Performance in school subjects...

Family and home life.

Non-academic skills and abilities

Intelligence and academicaptitudes

Aesthetic and artistic abilities

Aspirations and ambitions.

Interests

Personality and character

Health

Participation in school-sponsored,non-academic activities(athletics, band, dramatics, etc.)

Participation in activiti ;totsponsored by the school (4-H,Boy Scouts, etc.)

Other

Percentages of school system.)recording various kinds of

information in cumulative records.


1-35 36-99 100 -I- Sub. Urban

99 99 100 100 100 99

37 48 77 72 ..1011 51

59 60 68 80 67 63

97 99 100 100 100 99

27 23 34 60 67 29

34 55 78 92 67 56

59 76 96 96 67 76

75 78 88 92 67 80

91 84 79 84 100 85 q.

95 96 98 100 100 97

20 26 52 68 67 34

8 4 14 z4 8

179

Appendix VIII

Practices in Reporting PupilProgress to Parents

Schools were asked to indicate the primary method of re-porting to parents. Expecting that practices at the junior-highlevel might differ from elementary and senior-high schools, in-formation was sought separately for all three levels. As shownin Tables A-VIII -1, and A-VIII-3, the report card isclearly the most common method of reporting to parents, withover 85 per cent of the schools using this method in high schooland about two-thirds in elementary. Another 10 per cent of thehigh schools give out report cards at Parent-Teacher confer-ences while this is done in one-fourth of the elementary districts.Parent-Teacher conferences are more commonly held in thesmaller schools. In about ninety-five per cent of the schools inthe three categories of largest schools, the report card is the pri-mary method of reporting to parents at the junior and senior-high school levels, but few parents of high school students everreceive more than a report card report from their school.

Since all reports of student progress have to be stated interms of some reference standard or group, an attempt was madeto get at the marking practices in Minnesota schools with thequestions reported in Tables A-VIII-4 and A-VIII-5. Althoughthese data should reflect the marking philosophy of the school tosome extent they must be interpreted with caution since they re-port only the opinions of the person filling out the questionnaire.Even so, it is evident that standards set by the classroom teachersare the most common reference against which students' achieve-ment is compared. An exception is suburban elementary systemswhere the pupil himself and his classmates are more often usedfor comparison. Almost half of the elementary schools reportachievement relative to the student's own level of mental abilityalthough this is done in only about one-fifth of the secondaryschools. System-wide standards for comparison are less commonin the larger systems although over one-half of the schools saythey report achievement in these terms.

181

A STUDY of TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA

TABLE A-VillaELEMENTARY Method of Reporting to Parents

What is the primary method ofreporting to your parents?

Percentages of school systemsusing various methods of reporting

to parents.III.wIK 1.1.


Report cards

Written report or letter fromteacher

Parent-Teacher conferences.. .....Parent-Teacher conferences RI

which report card is given out .

Other

No response

1-35 36-99

70 68

.MINO OW MOO

1 2

26 22

2 8

1

100+ Sub. Urban

Total

63 62

GIMIIMM.

83

1 12 83

26 19 38

8

1

67

2

28

5

1

TABLE ANIII-2SECONDARY Method of Reporting to Parents, Junior High

What is the primary method ofreporting to your parents of

students in Grades 7-9?

Percentages of school systemsusing various methods of reporting to

parents of Junior High students.


Report cards


Parent-Teacher conferences....

Parent-Teac:ier conferences atwhich report card is given out . .

Other.

No response

79

19

2

87

1

10

2

96

MINN1111111

1

3

96

4

100 87

1

10

1

1

182a

PRACTICES IN REPORTING PUPIL PROGRESS TO PARENTS

Practices of providing parents with information about theirchildren's aptitude for learning are quite different at the ele-mentary and secondary levels. Tables A-VIII-6 and A-VIII-7show that almost 70 per cent of the elementary schools routine-ly provide parents with this information, whereas slightly overone-fourth of the secondary schools do so regularly. Generally,high school personnel are willing to provide parents with theinformation, but only if the parent or a member of the schoolstaff takes the initiative. Very few schools say they never provideparents with information about their children's aptitude forlearning.

TABLE ANI11-3

SECONDARY Method of Reporting to Parents, Senior High

What is the primary method ofreporting to your parents ofstudents in Grades 10-12?

Percentages of school systemsusing various methods of reporting to

parents of Senior High students.


Report cards


Parent-Teacher conferences....

Parent-Teacher conferences atwhich report card is given out .

Other

No response

1-35 36-99

79 87

1

1

19 I 10

2

2

100+ Sub. Urban

Total

96

1

3

92

4

4

67

33

86

1

1

10

1

2

183

ot

TA

BL

E A

NB

I4

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

Rep

orts

to P

aren

ts

Are

the

follo

win

g ty

pes

of r

epor

t car

dm

arks

or

verb

al r

epor

ts r

egul

arly

giv

ento

par

ents

of

your

pup

ils?

Perc

enta

ges

of S

choo

l Sys

tem

s G

ivin

g V

ario

us T

ypes

of

Rep

orts

to P

aren

ts.

RE

POR

T C

AR

D M

AR

KS

OT

HE

R R

EPO

RT

S

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

Go g"

. Mar

ks o

r re

port

s th

at s

how

the

leve

lof

a s

tude

nt's

ach

ieve

men

t rel

ativ

e to

:1-

3536

-99

100+

Sub.

Urb

an1-

3536

-99

100+

Sub.

Urb

an

Stan

dard

s se

t by

his

teac

her

5965

6735

6761

2737

4662

3338

Stan

dard

s se

t by

the

scho

ol s

yste

m68

5455

5058

2627

3735

3329

The

ave

rage

ach

ieve

men

t in

his

clas

s gr

oup

5050

5558

6752

3336

4365

6739

His

ow

n le

vel o

f m

enta

l abi

lity

3545

4954

100

4433

4454

7333

44H

is o

wn

leve

l of

effo

rt32

5866

4667

5540

4955

5867

48

TA

BL

E A

AT

III-

5

SEC

ON

DA

RY

Rep

orts

to P

aren

ts

Perc

enta

ges

of S

choo

l Sys

tem

s G

ivin

g V

ario

us T

ypes

of

Rep

orts

to P

aren

ts.

Are

the

follo

win

g ty

pes

of r

epor

t car

dm

arks

or

verb

al r

epor

ts r

egul

arly

giv

ento

par

ents

of

your

pup

ils?

RE

POR

T C

AR

D M

AR

KS

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

m

oo cn M

arks

or

repo

rts

that

sho

w th

e le

vel

of a

stu

dent

's a

chie

vem

ent r

elat

ive

to:

1-35

36-9

910

0+Su

b.U

rban

1-35

Stan

dard

s se

t by

his

teac

her

6374

7764

6771

23

Stan

dard

s se

t by

the

scho

ol s

yste

m60

5148

4853

30

The

ave

rage

ach

ieve

men

t in

his

clas

s gr

oup

4439

3528

3339

15

His

ow

n le

vel o

f m

enta

l abi

lity

2319

1812

6720

25

His

ow

n le

vel o

f ef

fort

5452

4924

3350

28

OT

HE

R R

EPO

RT

S

Size

of

Scho

ol S

yste

mT

otal

36-9

911

00+

26 20 18 24 32

34 24 23 25 36

Sub.

Urb

an

20

33

2067

3233

3633

27 24 19 25 32

F ro a ran


TABLE A-V111-6ELEMENTARY Parente Told Pupil's Aptitude for Learning

To what extent are the parents ofpupils in your school provided withinformation about their children'saptitudes for learning school sub-jects?

Percentages of school systemsproviding parents with information

about their children's aptitude.

1) This is never done

2) This is done only if theparents specially request it . .

3) This is done only if a teacher,counselor, or principal takesthe initiative.

4) Both 2) and 3)

5) This is done routinely on allreport cards and/or in parent-teacher conferences

6) No response


6

4

17

69

1

TABLESECONDARY Parents Told

A- VIII -7

Pupil's Aptitude for Learning

Percentages of school systemsproviding parents with information

To what extent are the parents ofpupils in your school provided withinformation about their children'saptitudes for learning school sub-jects?

about their children's aptitude.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban1) This is never done 1

2) This is done if the parentsspecially request it 12 9 13 4 10

3) This is done if a teacher,counselor, or principal takesthe initiative in doing it forindividual pupils . 7 4 4 4 5

4) Both 2) and 3) 40 59 63 60 67 54

5) This is done routinely on allreport cards and/or in theparent-teacher conferences 39 28 19 24 33 27

6) No response . 2 1 8 1

186

Appendix IX

Assignment of the High SchoolPrincipal to Counseling and Guidance

Not one of the 128 smallest schools has a full-time guidancecounselor, and two-thirds of those with class sizes 36-99 donot (Table A-III-2) . Since most small schools do not employa full-time guidance counselor and since most do not have anyoneon the staff with formal training in guidance and counseling, itis common practice to specifically assign these duties to the highschool principal. The extent to which school districts have highschool principals with time specifically assigned to guidancecounseling is shown in Table A-IX-1. Two-thirds of the smallestsystems report the secondary principal so engaged, but the useof principals in this capacity drops off rapidly as school sizeincreases.

A second question asked whether principals with specificassignments to guidance had completed at least one graduatecourse in testing or test interpretation. Virtually all schoolssaid this was the case.

TABLE A-IX-1

SECONDARY Principal Assigned to Guidance and Counseling

Does the principal have any timespecifically assigned to counselingand guidance?

Percentages of school systemsreporting time specifically assigned to

the principal for counseling and guidance.


1-35 36-99 100 -I- Sub. Urban

Yes

No or no response.

63

37

38

62

9

91 100 100

36

I 64

187

Appendix X

High School Remedial andDevelopmental Reading Programs

Because of their possible implications for high school testing,several questions about the high school remedial and develop-mental reading programs were included.

An indication of the availability of remedial reading teachersin Minnesota high schools can be found in Table A-X-1. Almost60 per cent of Minnesota high schools have no remedial readingteacher even part time and only one-fifth have one full time.

The percentages shown in Table A-X-2 show that only one-third of Minnesota high schools have a formal unit or coursedevoted specifically to developmental reading. Whether or nota school has a developmental reading program is clearly a func-tion of school sizeonly 16 per cent of the smallest she schoolsinclude such a unit compared with 68 per cent of the suburbanand urban systems.

The grade levels at which developmental reading units areplaced are shown in Table A-X-3.*

The seventh grade is the most usual level for high schooldevelopmental reading units. The eighth grade is the next mostpopular grade, with over 10 per cent of the schools having onein the senior year.

Table A-X-4 shows the length of developmental reading units.The percentages are based upon the total number of units, notschools. Lengths tend to follow the normal six and nine-week

*Table A-X-3 tabulates percentages based on schools reporting at leastone developmental reading unit in their curriculum. Thus, for example, wefind that 83 per cent of schools which have any developmental reading unithave one at the seventh grade; the table should not be interpreted as sayingthat 83 per cent of all Minnesota high schools have a developmental readingunit in seventh grade.

Since many schools have more than one unit, the percentages in somecolumns may total more than 100.

189


TABLE A-X-1

SECONDARYPersons Assigned as Remedial Reading Teachers

How many persons does your sys-tem have assigned to work withindividual pupils in remedial read-ing?

NUMBER OF REMEDIALREADING TEACHERS

Percentages of school systemsreporting persons in their school districtassigned as remedial reading teachers.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Total

Full-Time:

0

1 .

2.

3-5

6-8

9 or more

84 84 65

11 14 22

1 10

1 1

1

60

20

8

8

33

33

78

15

3

2

*

*

Part-Time:

0

1..

2

3-5

6-8

9 or more

68 49 63 80

24 40 23 8

4 8 12

2 3 1 4

1

33

59

30

8

2

*

*Less than one-half V one per cent.

190

HIGH SCHOOL REMEDIAL AND DEVELOPMENT READING PROGRAMS

TABLE A-X-2SECONDARY Developmental Reading Course

Does your curriculum include aformal unit or course devotedspecifically to developmental read-ing instruction? (Not remedialreading)

Percentages of school systemsreporting a course devoted to

developmental reading instruction.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Total

Yes

No or no response

16

84

23 55

77 45

68

32

67

33

30

70

TABLE A-X-3

SECONDARY Grade Placement ofDevelopmental Reading Units

If your curriculum includes a spe-cific Developmental Reading unit,at what grade(s)?

Percentages of school systemshaving one or more developmental

reading units which operate a unit avarious grade levels.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

Total

7th Grade

8th Grade

9th Grade.

10th Grade.

11th Grade..

12th Grade..

71

48

19

5

33

88

60

7

2

5

84

40

8

16

10

88

65

6

12

50

50

100

83

50

9

9

1

12

A91


marking periods. Most of the developmental reading units areof nine weeks or greater duration.

Some schools include only a part of the student body in thedevelopmental reading program. Table A-X-5 shows that 59 percent of all reading units enroll 71 per cent or more of the class.A fair number of school systems also have developmental readingunits which enroll only a small portion of the class.

The use of standardized test scores with developmental read-ing units is shown in Table A-X-6, where we see that test scoresare used to select or place pupils in 58 per cent of the units.

TABLE A-X-4

SECONDARY Length of Developmental Reading Units

Percentages of developmental readingunits of various lengths.

If your curriculum includes a spe-cific developmental reading unit,what is its length in weeks?


1-35 36-99 100 -I- Sub. Urban

One-Two 4 7 2

Three-Four 11 10 7

Five-Six 14 5 18 3 100 12

Seven-Eight 7 5 3

Nine and longer.... 75 90 71 79 78

192

HIGH SCHOOL REMEDIAL AND DEVELOPMENT READING PROGRMS

TABLE A-X-5

SECONDARY Proportion of Pupils Included inDevelopmental Reading Units

If your curriculum includes a spe-cific developmental reading unit,what per cent of pupils are includ-ed?

Percentages of developmental readingunits which include various

percentages of pupils.


1-10%

11-20%

21-30%

31-40%

41-50%

51-60%

61-70%

71-80% or more

1-35 36-99

15 8

15 17

21 8

6 8

9 5

2

35 54

100 + Sub. Urban

Total

8

9

1

9

3

71

4

7

19

7

63

8

11

25 7

4

_ 9

1

1

75 59

TABLE A-X-6

SECONDARY Use of Test Scores inDevelopmental Reading Unit

If your curriculum includes a spe-cific developmental reading unit,are standardized reading tests usedto select or place pupils in this unit?

Percentages of developmental readingunits in which test scores are used

to select or place students.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Total

Yes 76 48 57 61 100 58

193

Appendix XI

High School "Guidance" or"Occupational" Units*

Many schools have occupations or guidance units, typicallyas part of the Social Studies curriculum. That such units arecommon in Minnesota high schools is demonstrated in TableA-X14, which shows that 86 per cent of the high schools havethem. The larger systems are more apt to have a guidance unitand all of the suburban and urban schools have one.

Table A -XI -2 shows that most schools have their guidanceunits at the ninth grade level, although almost half of the schoolswhich have at least one unit have one in the senior year also.**The effect of school size on the grade placement of occupational

*Another Minnesota study by John L. Sanstead dealt with this topic ingreater detail. Unpublished M. A. Paper, University of Minnesota, 1966.

**Table A-XI-2 tabulates percentages based on schools reporting at leastone guidance unit in their curriculum. Thus, for example, we find that 89per cent of schools which have any guidance unit have one at the ninthgrade. The table should not be interpreted as saying that 89 per cent of allMinnesota high schools have a guidance unit in ninth grade.

Since many schools have more than one unit the percentages in somecolumns may total more than 100.

TABLE A-XI-1

SECONDARY Guidance or Occupational Units

Does your curriculum (Grades7-12) include any specific "Guid-ance" or "Occupations" units?

Percentages of school systemshaving specific "Guidance"

or "Occupations" units.


1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban

Yes

No or no response

71

29

89

11

98

2

100 100 86

14

195


units is interesting. The larger systems are more likely to have aunit at ninth grade than the smaller systems, whereas the smallerschools have an occupational unit included at the twelfth gradelevel much more often than the larger ones.

TABLE A-XI-2

SECONDARY Grade Placement of Guidance Unite

If your curriculum includes a spe-cific "Guidance" or "Occupations"unit, at what grade(s)?

Percentages of school systemsunits which operate a unit at

the various grade levels.


1-35 36-99 100+ Sub. Urban

7th Grade. 2 4 4 3

8th Grade 2 4 4 2

9th Grade 76 89 96 92 89

10th Grade 1 2 1 67 2

11th Grade. 3 3 8 4 33 4

12th Grade 61 51 33 31 33 49

The distribution of the lengths of guidance units is shownin Table A-XI-3. The modal length is six weeks, undoubtedlyreflecting the length of the marking periods in many schools.There is considerable variation in the length of guidance units,particularly within the range from one to nine weeks.

One would expect that test scores would play a significantpart in most guidance units. Table A-XI-4 shows this is truealthough the large number of guidance units which do not includea look at test scores as part of the unit is somewhat surprising.The guidance units in the larger system are much more apt touse test results.

196

HIGH SCHOOL "GUIDANCE" OR "OCCUPATIOrAL" UNITS

TABLE A -XI.3

SECONDARY Length of Guidance Units

If your curriculum includes a spe-"Guidance" or "Occupations" unit,what is its length in weeks?

Percentages of "Guidance" unitsoperating for various numbers of weeks.


1-35 36-99 100 -I- Sub. Urban Total

One 5 5 7 6 5

Two 16 16 12 15 15

Three 20 20 16 9 50 18

Four 15 15 11 12 25 14

Five. 5 5 6 12 4

Six 27 27 26 26 26

Seven-Nine 13 13 18 12 25 13

Ten and longer 6 5 9 5

TABLE A-XL4

SECONDARY Use of Test Scores in Guidance Unit

If your curriculum includes a spe-cific "Guidance" or "Occupations"unit, are test scores reported topupils and/or parents as part ofthe unit?

Percentages of "Guidance" units inwhich test scores are reported.

Yes


1-35 36-99 100 -I- Sub. Urban

43 59 65 88 25 58

197

Appendix XH

How Users First Heard of Their TestsRespondents were asked to indicate, for each test used, how

they, the respondent, first heard of the particular test. TableA-XII-1 tabulates their replies. The table groups tests andgrades in the same manner as the data in Chapters 4 and 5.

There are rather substantial differences in how respondentsfirst came in contact with their Reading Readiness tests betweenkindergarten and first grade. Professional meetings and catalogsaro the two most important sources of information for kinder-garten while college courses and a new school system are mostimportant at the first grade.

The rather substantial differences between elementary andsecondary in their reports of how scholastic aptitude tests firstcame to their attention could possibly be attributed to the factthat most of the elementary questionnaires were filled in byprincipals while counselors completed most of the secondaryquestionnaires. Counselors were more apt to first hear of scholas-tic aptitude tests at professional meetings or from a catalog whileelementary principals more usually learned of these tests incollege courses or first ran into them when they entered a newschool system. These differences between elementary and second-ary do not show up with achievement batteries where the re-sponses at the two levels are nearly the same.

The responses for all of the other tests, mostly those usedat the high school level, are nearly the same with professionalmeetings and catalogs being the primary source of first contactwith the tests.

199

O

TA

BL

E A

a114

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

How

Use

rs F

irst

Hea

rd o

f T

heir

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

res

pond

ents

rep

ortin

g va

riou

s w

ays

in w

hich

they

fir

st h

eard

of

vari

ous

test

s us

ed a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

How

did

you

hea

r of

the

test

the

firs

t tim

e?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, K

Rea

ding

Rea

dine

ss, 1

Rea

ding

, K-3

Rea

ding

, 4-6

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T14

5 36

-991

00+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

Was

in s

yste

m w

hen

I ca

me

62

335

21

3023

2527

21 2

4 26

29

2411

2216

5919

Prof

essi

onal

mee

ting

or c

onve

ntio

n35

34

33 2

733

46

17 1

58

48

1310

84

9 25

610

A c

olle

ague

told

me

abou

t it

49

98

23

3 8

35

54

55

64

818

6A

rtic

le, r

evie

w, o

r ad

v. in

pro

f'l p

ub.

(inc

l. B

uros

' MM

Y)

129

518

94

33

84

77

41

71

4C

olle

ge c

ours

e4

136

2433

2031

2736

39

3148

100

3747

47

3212

43Pu

blis

her's

cat

alog

or

bulle

tin27

26

25 3

627

211

38

75 -

87

66

56

23

2D

ept.

of E

duc.

con

sulta

nt4

67

61

11

*St

ate-

Wid

e T

estin

g co

nsul

tant

11

11

21

Publ

ishe

r's s

ales

man

24

74

13

63

32

42

Oth

er2

91

27

108

66

47

57

24

4N

o R

espo

nse

195

4 9

724

117

1321

31

48

184

96

9

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, K

-3Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 4-6

Scho

last

ic A

ptitu

de, 7

-9Sc

hola

stic

Apt

itude

, 10-

12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100-

F Su

b. U

rb.

TW

as in

sys

tem

whe

n I

cam

e33

3826

3133

31 4

0 25

40

343

11

32

24

2Pr

ofes

sion

al m

eetin

g or

con

vent

ion

25

1813

81

514

106

46 3

9 39

33

4143

32

3056

37A

col

leag

ue to

ld m

e ab

out i

t5

44

85

44

410

41

34

33

44, 4

4A

rtic

le, r

evie

w, o

r ad

v. in

pro

rl p

ub.

(inc

l. B

uros

' MM

Y)

13

4 5

31

42

202

24

3 5

34

82

45

Col

lege

cou

rse

3933

2638

3340

3033

3133

25

550

24

18

44

Publ

ishe

r's c

atal

og o

r bu

lletin

53

64

53

520

426

34 3

7 36

3226

35

3828

33D

ept.

of E

duc.

con

sulta

nt4

12

13

12

33

1 5

28

1 4

3St

ate-

Wid

e T

estin

g co

nsul

tant

12

11

31

62

13

34

1Pu

blis

her's

sal

esm

an2

4 3

2i

1*

41

711

8 3

82

65

4O

ther

No

Res

. on

se4

1t 3

1-0

0I

1'1

22

-60.

4I-

'2P

2 5

502

111-

002

*Les

s th

an o

ne-h

alf

of o

ne p

er c

ent.

O

7.4.

4.11

1".1

414

TA

BL

E A

-XII

-1C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

R1

How

Use

rs F

irst

Hea

rd o

f T

heir

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

res

pond

ents

rep

ortin

g va

riou

s w

ays

in w

hich

they

fir

st h

eard

of

'var

ious

test

s us

ed a

t sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

How

did

you

hea

r of

the

test

the

firs

t tim

e?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, K

-3 A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 4-6

Ach

ieve

men

t Bat

teri

es, 7

-8A

chie

vem

ent B

atte

ries

, 9-

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. IT

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

Was

in s

yste

m w

hen

I ca

me

Prof

essi

onal

mee

ting

or c

onve

ntio

nA

col

leag

ue to

ld m

e ab

out i

tA

rtic

le, r

evie

w, o

r ad

v. in

pro

f'l p

ub.

(inc

l. B

uros

' MM

Y)

Col

lege

cou

rse

Publ

ishe

r's c

atal

og o

r bu

lletin

Dep

t. of

Edu

c. c

onsu

ltant

Stat

e-W

ide

Tes

ting

cons

ulta

ntPu

blis

her's

sal

esm

anO

ther

No

Res

pons

e

74

116

429

30

2613

279

1013

2211

36

7 7

54

83

36 3

6 24

31

3333

42

933

43

11

11

12

64

39

36

7 33

6

Rea

ding

Tes

ts, 7

-12

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

Was

in s

yste

m w

hen

I ca

me

Prof

essi

onal

mee

ting

or c

onve

ntio

nA

col

leag

ue to

ld m

e ab

out i

tA

rtic

le, r

evie

w, o

r ad

v. in

pro

f'l p

ub.

(inc

l. B

uros

' MM

Y)

Col

lege

cou

rse

Publ

ishe

r's c

atal

og o

r bu

lletin

Dep

t. of

Edu

c. c

onsu

ltant

Stat

e-W

ide

Tes

ting

cons

ulta

ntPu

blis

her's

sal

esm

anO

ther

No

Res

ons

e

5 4 18 32 16 9 16 1

3 34 2 312 2' 4 2 5 8

2 26 6 12 9 34 5 1 5

8 17 10 134 42

6 28 8 4 1 33 3 1 2 14

2 33 10 2 4 36 1 4 2 5

2 34 12 5 3 25 6 1 6 5

4 27 12 6 48 4

22 11 56 11

39

34

21

2 --

231

4440

42

2140

39 3

9 32

29

3710

32

- 1

4 2

53

414

4

45

66

52

22

23

68

25 4

07

12

24

602

3317

3327

25

2628

37

39 4

135

37

37

' 320

63

22

22

31

63

13

13

24

29

88

68

25

12

42

21

11

86

26

840

53

26

6 40

3

Mul

ti-A

ptitu

deB

atte

ries

, 7-1

2

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.

4 24 7 12 8 30 5 1 2 3 5

T

11

41

4334

2720

3334

73

316

5

12

11

12

54

333

2441

4340

37

51

24

311

1214

812

--7

33

433

4

TA

BL

E A

-XII

-1C

ontin

ued

EL

EM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D S

EC

ON

DA

RY

How

Use

rs F

irst

Hea

rd o

f T

heir

Tes

tsPe

rcen

tage

s of

res

pond

ents

rep

ortin

g va

riou

sw

ays

in w

hich

they

fir

st h

eard

of

vari

ous

test

s us

edat

sel

ecte

d gr

ades

.

bt Co tO

How

did

you

hea

r of

the

test

the

firs

t tim

e?

TY

PE O

F T

EST

, GR

AD

ES

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 9

Inte

rest

Tes

ts, 1

2Pe

rson

ality

Tes

ts, 7

-12

B.a

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

T1-

35 3

6-99

100+

Sub

. Urb

.T

1-35

36-

9910

0+ S

ub. U

rb.

TW

as in

sys

tem

whe

n I

cam

ePr

ofes

sion

al m

eetin

g or

con

vent

ion

A c

olle

ague

told

me

abou

t it

Art

icle

, rev

iew

, or

adv.

in p

rof'l

pub

.(i

ncl.

Bur

os' M

MY

)C

olle

ge c

ours

ePu

blis

her's

cat

alog

or

bulle

tinD

ept.

of E

duc.

con

sulta

ntSt

ate-

Wid

e T

estin

g co

nsul

tant

Publ

ishe

r's s

ales

man

Oth

erN

o R

espo

nse

41 9 32 5 5 9

1 33 1 3 3 44 3 4 1 6

40 2 1

46 2 1 7

41 9 5 36 5 5

1 37 3 2 2 43 3 2 1 1 6

1 41 6 4 21 1 2 16 8

1 34 6 1 2 42 5 7 3

2 1617 11

16

6146

1 - -

89

23

109

1 31 5 2 1 40 1 310 1 6

42 3 3

21 3 9

18

32 4___ 7 1 40 2 10 3

14 3 14 50 2 2 14

75 8 17

3 30 2 8 1 38 1 2 6 10

ro .4

Appendix XIII

Requirements for Reimbursement forGuidance, Counseling, and TestingUnder Title V-A, NDEA, 1965-66

In order to qualify for reimbursement for "Counseling andGuidance" during the 1965-66 school year, school districts hadto meet the following requirements :*

1. A person employed as a counselor in a Minnesota publicsecondary school must have a counselor's certificate.

2. A student-counselor ratio of not over 460 to 1 for allqualified counselors must be maintained.

3. At least 50 % of assigned guidance time must be utilizedfor actual student and parent counseling.

4. Adult paid clerical assistance shall be provided for aminimum of one day per counselor per week.

5. 'Counselor's office must provide a reasonable degree ofprivacy and should be equipped with appropriate fur-nishings such as desks, chairs, files, telephone, etc.

6. Schools must maintain cumulative records on eachstudent containing information on the students'abilities, activities, and information concerning thestudents' family and community background, his healthand aspirations. Interview notes should also be in-cluded. This cumulative record should proceed with thestudent from kindergarten through graduation.

7. Schools participating in the counseling and guidanceprogram under NDEA, Title V-A, must administerthree basic tests: two approved aptitude tests ; and oneapproved achievement test battery .

8. A library of current occupational and educational ma-terial must be maintained. It is recommended thattwo units on vocational educational planning be taught,one in junior high and one in senior high.

*"Guide for completing the application for reimbursement of guidance,counseling and testing programs under the National Defense Education Actof 1958, Title V-A, Code: F XXXIII-C-1." Minnesota Department of Educa-tion, Guidance Unit, Revised 5/1963.

203


School districts could receive reimbursement for the cost ofoperating their testing program as follows : * *

Reimbursement of 50% will be made on the cost of pur-chases, rental and/or machine scoring of any or all of fourtests: aptitude tests (scholastic or multifactor) in twogrades not below grade 7, and achievement batteries intwo grades not below grade 7. Tests must be selected fromthe approved list. It is not necessary to administer all fourtests to be eligible for reimbursement. Reimbursementmay be made on one, two, three, or four of the testsoutlined above.

**Ibid.

Appendix XIV

Minnesota High School State-WideTesting Program, 1965-66*t

The Minnesota High School State-Wide Testing Programis a testing program provided by the Student Counseling Bureauof the University of Minnesota with the advice of the Committeeon High School-College Relations, a joint committee of theMinnesota Association of Secondary School Principals and theAssociation of Minnesota Colleges.

At moderate costs it provides the services of a central testingagency.

It :Furnishes test supplies.Provides scoring services.Reports test results.

Develops Minnesota norms for the tests used.Conducts research on the meaning of test scores.Provides interpretive aids and consultative services to

the schools.

Any Minnesota high school, public or private, may use theseservices.

*Significant changes have been made in this program since 1965-66. Forcurrent information contact: Director, Student Counseling Bureau, Office ofDean of Students, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455.

'See Page 21 for a discussion of the Minnesota Scholastic AptitudeTest (MSAT), the aptitude test in the Minnesota College State-WideTesting Program.


These tests were included in the High School Program duringthe 1965-66 school year :

GRADES AVAILABLETEST

1. Lorge-Thorndike IntelligenceTests (LTIT) Multi-Level Ed . . .

2. Differential Aptitude TestBattery (DAT), Form A

3. Iowa Tests of EducationalDevelopment (ITED), Form 4

4. Minnesota Counseling Inventory(MCI)

5. Strong Vocational InterestBlank (SVIB)

7 8 9 10 11 12

X X X

X X X

X X X X

XX X X

X

MINNESOTA TESTING SURVEY

March, 1966

ELEMENTARY LEVEL, GRADES I G

The Testing Subcommittee of the Minnesota State Board of Education's AdvisoryCommittee on Guidance, Counseling, and Testing, with support from funds madeavailable through the National Defense Education Act, has recently undertakena study of the use of standardized tests in Minnesota schools. This study shoulddo much to improve the quality and scope of future guidance and testing decisionsin Minnesota schools and help them and agencies working with them to improveservices provided to Minnesota students.

Minnesota educators have long felt the need for a comprehensive survey of testingpractices in Minnesota schools. Despite the widespread use of tests, we stillhave distressingly little knowledge of the actual testing practices in our schools.Such information is practically nonexistent for Minnesota elementary schools.Agencies furnishing services to schools, such as the State Department of Educationand the various colleges and universities, are constantly seeking ways to improvethe quality and effectiveness of their services. Good information concerningactual testing practices can help to improve these services.

Realizing the importance of and the widespread interest in a project of thisnature, we have sought counsel of the following organizations whose suggestionshave been incorporated into the survey. This project has the interest and co-operation of these organizations:

Minnesota Association of School AdministratorsMinnesota Elementary Principals AssociationMinnesota Association of Secondary School PrincipalsMinnesota Counselors Association

Of course, all replies will be strictly confidential and no school, counselor,or administrator will be identified in the final report.

A copy of the final report will be sent to each participating school. A secondcopy of the questionnaire is enclosed for your files.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this study. We hope and believethat this survey will result in noticeable benefits for each Minnesota highschool.

Do not hesitate to contact the project director if you have any further questionsor comments about this study.

Dr. Paul Ingwell, ChairmanSt. Cloud State College

Gary GMs yn, Project DirectorStudent ounseling BureauUniversity of Minnesota

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455Phone: 612-373-5151

-2-

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what standardized testsare used in your school and how they are used. We are interested only inpublished tests, such as those sold by commercial test publishers, not in testsmade up and given by individual teachers in the normal course of inaTuction.In addition to a description of your school's standardized testing program, youare asked for some background information

about your school and the pupils inyour school.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERSONS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLEFOR MORE THAN ONE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL

The questions below are designed to gain information about testingpractices for your entire school district. If your district operatesmore than one elementary building and if there are differences inpractices between buildings, please answer the questions for onespecific, "typical", building and attach an additional sheet indicatingthe differences in testing programs between this building and the others.

DIRECTIONS

Please place a check or fill in the information in all blanks which apply.Check more than one response if necessary in order to give full information.

1-5

School District

Name Number

Name of schoolPhone

Name of person completing questionnaire

6. Title of person completing questionnaire:

1) Teacher2) Principal

43

Elementary school counselor

Curriculum directorDirector of elementary education

5 Superintendent6

80

High school guidance director (counselor)PsychologistOther (Specify:

7. Sex: 1) Male 2) Female

8. How many separate elementary schools does your school district operate?1) 1 6) 6-7

2 8-93 8 10-15

9 16-205 5 0 21 or more

-3-

9. Does your school operate a full year kindergarten?

1) Yes 2) No

10. If there is more than one elementary school in your district is the testingprogram essentially the same in each building?

Not applicable (have only one building)2) Yes

3) No (Please attach a separate sheet of paper describing the differences)

11-20. Write in the number of persons your school district has assigned at theelementary level as:

11. Elementary school counselor(1, full-time12. Elementary school counselor(s , part-time

13-14.15-16.

School psychologist(1, full-timeSchool psychologists , part-time

19-20.Social worker(:1 Irisiting teacher), full-time17-18.Social worker(s (visiting teacher), part-time

21-22. How many of those listed above as engaged in counseling, psychologicalwork, or social work have had formal training (at least one graduatecourse in testing and test interpretation)?

23. If you have no persons as assigned in items 11-20, has the principal trainingas described above?

1) Yes 2) No

24. Are children in your school assigned to class rooms according to theirabilities or aptitudes?

1) Yes, this is done in order to keep classes as heterogeneous as possible2) Yes, gifted students only3) Yes, slow learners only4) Yes, gifted and slow learners5) Yes, some are assigned for some specific aptitude or program such

as music, foreign language, etc. (Specify:_

6) No

25-31. Are children grouped for instructional purposes according to theirabilitie or aptitudes?

(1) (2)

Yes No

25. Reading26. Arithmetic27. Spelling28. ._ Social Studiesl_ ID29. Science30. Art31.

0111Other (Specify:.

if yes, at what grade levels?

-4-

32. How active (proportion of parents involved and/or frequency of meetings) isthe parent-teacher association?

1) Very active Only slightly active2) Moderately active 1.3i3 There is no parent-teacher

association

33. In which one of the following ways has the Parent-Teacher Association had thegreatest effect on your school's testing program during the last five years?

1) It has had no effect at allIt has caused an increase in the program

3) It has caused a decrease in the programIt has changed the program in some other way (Specify:

5) There is no PTA

34-35. Indicate by as many check marks (ye) as needed who is or was involved inthe development of your testing program as it now exists.

01 Testing Committee02 Classroom Teacher(s)03 Principal(s)04 Superintendent or assistant superintendent05 Director of elementary education or elementary supervisor06) Curriculum director07 Counselor or other pupil personnel specialist08 Consultant(s from colleges or universities09 Consultant(s from state department of education10 Consultant(s from commercial test publishers11 Salesman from commercial test publisher12 Reading Specialist13) School Psychologist14) Can't really say who was responsible for its development; it

has been this way for a long time.15) Other (Specify:

)

36-37. Write in the number opposite the one person(s) checked abovebearing primary responsibility.

38. Do you have an elementary school testing committee which operates independentlyfrom the high school?

1) Yes 2) No

If yes, list membership by title (ie., teacher, principal, psychologist, etc.)

-5-

39. Does your district (K-12) have an active testing committee?

1) Yes 2) No

If yes, list membership by title (ie., principal, teacher, etc.)

40. Have personnel from the secondary level (other than the superintendent)participated in the development of the elementary school testing program?

1) Yes 2) No

41-45. Within this and the past two years has your school been visited by anyof the following:

(1) (2)

Yes No41. Consultant from the State-Wide Testing Programs, Student

Counseling Bureau, University of Minnesota (Gary Joselyn)42. Guidance consultant from the State Department of Education

Reynold Erickson, Julius Kerlan, Dean Miller)43. Other consultant from the State Department of Education

(Specify: )

44. Other guidance or counseling consultant from any Minnesotacollege or university (Specify: )

45. Consultant from commercial test publisher (Specify:

)

46. Other consultant (Specify:

)

47. In general, how do your teachers learn of students' test scores once theyare available in the school building?

1) Test results are placed in the files in the central office and anyteacher who wishes may look them up.

2) Test results are placed in the files in the principal's office or inthe guidance counselor's office and any teacher who wishes may learnof them in consultation with the principal or guidance counselor.

3) Test results are sent directly to each teacher who keeps them in hisown files

4) Test results are completely confidential and are not available toteachers.

5) Other (Describe:

)

48. How many general faculty meetings could you say are usually held each yearfor the primary purpose of discussing and interpreting test results?

1) None 4) Three2) One 5) Four or more

3) Two

-6..

49. Is your school planning to make any significant changes in its testingprogram within the next year?

1) Yea 2) No

50-71. Please use the following scale for answering questions 50-69.

This change: 1

2

34

is not needed or plannedis needed but not plannedis planned but is not neededis both needed and planned

Same schools are considering one or more of the changes listed below fortheir testing programs. For questions 50-71 write the number of the state-ment in the scale above that best indicates your reaction to each changesuggested for aur testing program.

50. To introduce or51. To use fewer or52. To introduce or

now using.

53. To introduce ortests which are

54. To use fewer or55. To introduce or

use more reading readiness tests.

no reading readiness tests.

use a different reading readiness test than we are

use more standardized reading tests (other thanpart of the instructional reading program materials.)no reading tests.

use a different reading test than we are now using.

56. To introduce or use more individual intelligence tests.

57. To use fewer or no individual intelligence tests.

58. To introduce or use more group intelligence or scholastic aptitudetests.

59. To use fewer or no group intelligence or scholastic aptitude tests.60. To introduce or use a different group intelligence or scholastic

aptitude test than we are now using.

61. To introduce or use more standardized achievement test batteries.62. To use fewer or no standardized achievement test batteries.63. To introduce or use a different standardized achievement test

battery than we are now using.

64. To introduce or use more personality or character tests.65. To use fewer or no personality or character tests.

66. To develop more local (school district) norms.67. To improve the scoring of tests.68. To improve the methods of recording test results

69. To improve the processing and reporting of test results toteachers, counselors, and administrators.

70. To improve the interpretation of test results to pupils and their parents.

71. To improve the interpretation of test results to teachers, counselors,

and administrators.

-7-

72-81. Are the following types of report card marks or verbal reports regularlygiven to parents of your pupils?

Report OtherCaidMiiks

7777) (1) (2)Yes No Yes No

72. 77.

73. 78.

74. 79. --..

80.75.

76. 81.

Marks or reports that show the level ofa student's achievement relative to:

standards set by his teacher.

standards set by the school system.

the average achievement in his class group.

his own level of mental ability.

his own level of effort.

82. To what extent are the parents of pupils in your school provided with in-formation about their children's aptitudes for learning school subjects?

1) This is never done.2) This is done only if the parents specially request it.

This is done only if a teacher, counselor, or principal takes theinitiative.

4) Both 2) and 3)5) This is done routinely on all report cards and/or in parent-teacher

conferences.

83. What is the primary method of reporting to your parents?

1) Report cards2) -----Written report or letter from teacher3) Parent-teacher conferences4) Parent-teacher conference at which report card is given out.5) Other (Specify:

84-96, Do the individual pupil records ("Cumulative" or "Permanent" records) atyour school contain information for each pupil in these areas? (Do notinclude information contained in psychologist or counselor notes)(1) (2)

Yes No84. Performance in school subjects85. Family and home life86. Non-academic skills and abilities87. Intelligence and academic skills and aptitudes88. Fears and worries89. Aesthetic and artistic abilities90. Aspirations and ambitions91. Interests92. Personality and character93. Health94. Other (Specify:95. Participation in school-sponsored, non-classroom activities,

(athletics, band, etc.)96. Participation in activities not sponsored by the school (4-H,

Boy Scouts, etc.)

1. What standardized tests are routinely given, in grades K-6, in your school?

INSTRUCTIONS: Answer by writing on the appropriate line the test name and code numberfrom the "List of Tests and Code Numbers".found in the back of this booklet. If nostandardized tests are given in a grade, write "None"

EXAMPLE:

3rdgrade

38 Otis

54 Iowa Tests of Basic Skills

No.

Pre-school 1

Kinder-garten

2 (Do not write in this space)

1stgrade

2ndgrade

3rdgrade

4thgrade

5thgrade 7

6thgrade

1

2. Approximately what proportion of thepupils in the grade take the test?

1) More than 95%2) 75-94% NOTE: Be sure to answer3) 50-74% for each test listed on4) 25-49% the opposite page.5) Less than 24%6) Only a small number of selected

pupils

3. How often is the test given?

1 Once each year2 Twice each year3 More than two times a year4 Once every other year5 Some other regular schedule (Specify

below)6) irregularly

----,

4. When is the test given?

12

3

567

In the fallIn the winterIn the springBoth fall and springBoth winter and springBoth fall and winterNo specified time

5. Who administers the test?

12

34

567

Classroom teacherOuidanoe CounselorSchool psychologistConsulting psychologistPrincipal or assistant j'incipalSuperintendentOther (Specify below)

6. Who scores the test?

l Students 7) Test publisher's

/

Clerk scoring service3 Mumma teacher 8) Test soorinj4 Counselor or other Moment* other

pupil personnel worker :777'Princpal or other than test

5)administrator publisher

6) Schoolbe

-owned scoring 9) Other,(Opocifymachine low)

.41111111MIO

7. Who records the test scores?

1 Students2 Clerk3 Teacher4 Principal or other administrator5 Counselor or other pupil personnel

worker6) Other (Specify below)

AIMM1111

f8.Are scores reported to children?

1) Yes, scores are reported routinely toall children

2) Yes, scores are reported in some cases3 No, but interpretative explanations are

given in some cases4) No, but interpretative explanations

are given in some cases5) No, test performance is completely

confidential

a

9. Are soores reported to parents?

1) Yes, scores are reported routinely to allweal:-2) Yes, scores are reported on parents'

require-ME/or if school feels desirable3) No, but into _tatty, e nations are

routine4) No, but nterpretative exp nations are

desireven

ablea

erecidest ana/or it 'wool feels

5) No, test performance is completelyconfidential

W. Are scores available to teachers?

1) Yes, teachers have scores in their files2) Yes, teachers can get scores by

consulting central files3) Yes, teachers can get scores in

consultation with principal or pupilpersonnel worker


11. WV are the test results used? After in-dicating all the ways in which ybu use eacltest, circle the single most important use,

1) Homogeneous ability grouping of student:.by classes or within classes

2 Counseling students 3) Grading student:4 To evaluate curriculum5 To evaluate teaching 6) Diagnosing learr

staff ing d4fficultle:7) Counseling parents 8) Other (specify)9) These teat results are not used

,

. How much reliance is placed on the testresults when used for the circled purposeshown in question 11?

1 A great deal2 A moderate amount3 Relatively little4 Almost none5 None6 Not applicable

13. Who is most likely to interpret scores tparents and/or children?

1) Classroom teacher2 Guidance counselor3 School psychologist4 Principal or assistant principal5 Other (Specify below)6) These scores are not interpreted

to parents or children

DIRECTIONS FOR QUESTIONS 2-16: Please answer for EACH of the tests listed in your answer,o Question 1. Write the numbers designating your answers on the lines corresponding to theInes on which the tests were listed by you. (Indicate more than one answer if appropriate.)

In what form are the scoresof this test recorded inthe school records?

Raw scoreI.Q. scoreStanineStandard scoreGrade Equivalentse Equivalents

Percentile ranksPercentile rank bandsOther (Specify below)

15. What norms do you haveavailable for use ininterpreting the scoresfrom this test?1 Local2 Minnesota3) Regional4) National5) Other (Specify

below)6) None

16.

12

34

56

9

Row did hear of the test thefirst titEETIT-fra in this system when I cameA professional meeting or conventionA colleague told me about itArticle review or advertisement in

:professional publication (includingBuros' MMY)College course 10) Other (Specify)Publisher's catalog or bulletinDepartment of Education consultantState-Wide Testing Program consultantPublisher's salesman

1,111.

-10-

97.104. Listed below are some aids or activities which have been suggested asthings which might Yelp school personnel get increased and more effectiveuse of standardized test results.

Please use the following scale for answering questions 97-104.

1) This would be extremely beneficial.This would be nice, but we can live without it.

3 This idea holds little or no attraction for me.

For questions 97.104 write the number of the statement in the scale abovewhich best indicate your reaction to each of the suggestions.

97. Local (school district) norms for your standardized tests.98. Minnesota Norms for your standardized tests.99. Regional Norms for your standardized tests.

100. Regional workshops on the interpretation and use of test resultsconducted by the State Department of Education or a college oruniversity.

101. Consultant', to work with your staff on the use of test resultstest selection, interpretation, etc. (At least one visit per year.)

102. Substantially more emphasis on the use of standardized testresults in the college preparation of elementary school teachers.

103. A periodical publication containing items specifically forMinnesota Elementary School test-users such as new tests anddevelopments, test reviews, reports of successful practices inother schools, research results of general interest, etc.

104. An elementary school counselor (as different from a schoolpsychologist or social worker)

105-10b. Write the number of the above item (97-104) which:

a) you would prefer to all others . (105)

b) appeals least to you . (106)

In the following space please write any comments or suggestions you have aboutstandardized testing in Minnesota. Both positive and negative comments aresolicited. What in good, and what is tot? How might things be made better?Specific suggestions for improvements are particularly desired. Do not be inhibitedby considerations of feasibility or cost--let yourself go. Feel free to includecomments which may seem pertinent to only your school or to all of Minnesota.Use the back pages if you need more space.

Free Response Section. Please complete the following sentences.

Tests are OK, but

I wish test publishers would

When I was in school, tests

When it comes to standardized tests our teachers

If you have printed, mimeographed, or dittoed copies of your testingprogram, interpretative or other material relating to testing in yourschool system, please include copies with this questionnaire.

-12-

REMARKS

Please add any additional comments below. You may want to explain, expand, orqualify some information dyen in the body of the questionnaire. Your reactionsto the study and/or the questionnaire would be welcome.

-13-

LIST OF TESTS AND CODE NUMBERS

Reading Readiness:

01. Gates Reading Readiness Tests

02. Harrison-Stroud Reading Readiness Profiles

03. Lee-Clark Reading Readiness Test

04. Metropolitan Reading Tests

00. Other Reading Readiness Test (Specify)

Reading Test (other than tests which are part of this instructionalreading program materials):

11. New Developmental Reading Tests (Bond, Below, Hoyt)

12. Diagnostic Reading Teats (Triggs)

13. Gates Basic Reading Tests

14. Gates Reading Survey

15. Iowa Silent Reading Tests

16. Lee-Clark Reading Test

17. Nelson-Denny Reading Test

18. Reading Comprehension: Cooperative English Tests

19. SRA Reading Record

10. Other Reading Test (Specify)

Individual I.Q. Teat:

21. Revised Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

22. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS)

23. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC)

20. Other individual I.Q. Test (Specify)

Group Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Test:

31. ACE Psychological Examination (ACE)

32. California Test of Mental Maturity (CTMM)

33. Cooperative School and College Ability Tests (SCAT)

34. Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability

35. Kuhlmann-Anderson Intelligence Tests

36. Kuhlmann-Finch Tests

37. Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Tests (LTIT)

38. Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Tests

39. SRA Teats of Educational Ability

40. Other Group Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Test (Specify)

Multi-Aptitude Batteries

41. Differential Aptitude Teats (DAT)

42. Flanagan Aptitude Classification Tests (FACT)

43. The Guilford-Zimmerman Aptitude Survey

44. Holzinger-Crowder Uni-Factor Tests

45. Jastak Test of Potential Ability and Behavior Stability

46. Multiple Aptitude Tests (California Test Bureau)

47. SRA Primary Mental Abilities

40. Other Multi-Aptitude Battery (Specify)

Achievement Batteries (not including subject-matter achievement testsfor specific subjects):

51. California Achievement Tests

52. Coordinated Scales of Attainment

53. Essential High School Content Battery

54. Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS)

55. Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED)

56. Metropolitan Achievement Tests

57. National Educational Development Tests (NEDT)

58. Pupil Record of Educational Progress (PREP)

59. SRA Achievement Series

61. SRA High School Placement Test

62. Sequential Tests of Educational Progress (STEP)

63. Stanford Achievement Test

60. Other Achievement Battery (Specify)

Interest Tests and Inventories:

71. Brainerd Occupational Preference Inventory

72. Gordon Occupational Check List

-15-

73. Kuder Preference Record--Occupational

74. Kuder Preference Record--Vocational

75. Minnesota Vocational Interest Inventory (Clark)

76. Strong Vocational Interest Blank--Men

77. Strong Vocational Interest Blank - -Women

78. Your Educational Plana (SRA)

70. Other Interest Test or Inventory (Specify)

Personality or Character Tests and Check-Lists:

81. Bell Adjustment Inventory

82. California Psychological Inventory

83. California Test of Personality

84. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

85. Kuder Preference Record -- Personal

86. Minnesota Counseling Inventory (MCI)

87. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI)

88. Mooney Problem Check-List

89. SRA Junior Inventory

91. SRA Youth Inventory

92. Study of Values (Allport, Vernon, Lindzey)

80. Other Character or Personality Test or Check-List (Specify)

Study Skills:

05. Brown-Holtzman Survey of Study Habits and Attitudes

06. California Study Methods Survey

07. Spitzer Study Skills Test

08. Study Habits Inventory (Wrenn)

09. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

90. Other Study Skills Test (Specify)

MINNESOTA

March, 1966

TESTING SURVEY

SECONDARY LEVEL., GRADES 7 12

The Testing Subcommittee of the Minnesota State Board of Education's AdvisoryCommittee on Guidance, Counseling, and Testing, with support from funds madeavailable through the National Defense Education Act, has recently undertakena study of the use of standardized tests in Minnesota schools. This study

should do much to improve the quality and scope of future guidance and testingdecisions in Minnesota schools and help them and agencies working with them to

improve services provided to Minnesota students.

Minnesota educators have long felt the need for a comprehensive survey of testing

practices in Minnesota schools. Despite the widespread use of tests, we stillhave distressingly little knowledge of the actual testing practices in our schools.

Agencies furnishing services to schools, such as the State Department of Education

and the various colleges and universities, are constantly seeking ways to improve

the quality and effectiveness of their services. Good information concerningactual testing practices can help to improve these services.

Realizing the importance of and the widespread interest in a project of thisnature, we have sought counsel of the following organizations whose suggestionshave been incorporated into the survey. This project has the interest and co-

operation of these organizations:

Minnesota Association of School AdministratorsMinnesota Elementary Principals AssociationMinnesota Association of Secondary School PrincipalsMinnesota Counselors Association

Of course, all replies will be strictly confidential and no school, counselor,or administrator will be identified in the final report.

A copy of the final report will be sent to each participating school. A second

copy of the questionnaire is enclosed for your files.

We thank you in advance for your cooperation in this study. We hope and believe

that this survey will result in noticable benefits for each Minnesota high school.

Do not hesitate to contact the project director if you have any further questions

or comments about this study.

Dr. Paul Ingwel , Chairman Gary J , Proje DirectorStudent Counseling BureauUniversity of Minnesota

St. Cloud State College

Minneapolis, Minnesota 55455

Phone: 612-373-5151

SECONDARY SCHOOL QUESTIONNAIRE

The purpose of this questionnaire is to find out what standardized tests areused in your school and how they are used. We are interested only in publishedtests, such as those sold by commercial teat publishers or those developed byand used in quantity throughout an entire state or city school system, not testsmade up and given by individual teachers in the normal course of instruction. Inaddition to a description of your school's standardized testing program, you areasked for some background information about your school and the pupils in yourschool.

SPECIAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR PERSONS WHO ARE RESPONSIBLEFOR MORE THAN ONE SECONDARY SCHOOL

The questions below are designed to gain information about testingpractices for your entire school district. If your district operatesmore than one secondary building and if there are differences in practicesbetween buildings, please answer the questions for one specific, "typical",building and attach an additional sheet indicating the differences intesting programs between this building and the others.

DIRECTIONS

Please place a check or fill in the information in all blanks which apply.Check more than one response if necessary in order to give full information.

1-5

School District

Name Number

Name of School Phone

Name of person completing questionnaire

6. Title of person completing questionnaire:

1) Superintendent2) Principal

Curriculum DirectorDirector of Secondary EducationTeacher

Pupil Personnel Administrator (Director of Special Services)

43Guidance Director or CounselorPsychologist

0) Other (Specify:

7. Sex: 1) Male 2) Female

-3-

8-11. Write in the number of school buildings your school district operates.

8-9. Junior High School Buildings.10. Senior High School Buildings.11. Junior-Senior High School Buildings.

12. If there is more than one secondary school in your district for students ofthe same grade level, is the testing program essentially the same in eachbuilding?

Not applicable (have only one building)Yes

3)__ No (Please attach a separate sheet of paper describing the differences.)

13-24. Write in the number of persons your school district has assigned as:

13-14. Guidance counselor(s), full-time.15-16. Guidance counselor(s), part-time.17-18. School psychologist(s), full-time.19-20. School psychol ist(s), part-time.21-22. Social worker(s (visiting teachel, full-time.23-24. Social workers (visiting teacher), part-time.

25-26. How many of those listed above as engaged in counseling* psychologicalwork, or social work have had formal training (at least one graduatecourse) in testing and test interpmetation?

27. Does the principal have any time specifically assigned to counseling andguidance?

1) Yes 2) No

28. If yes, does he have training as described in items 25-26?

1) Yes 2) No

29. In general, are students in your school assigned to sections or classesaccording to their abilities or aptitudes?

1) Yes, most or all students in most or all sections.2) Yes, most or all students in some sections (Specify:

3) Yes, gifted students only4) Yes, slow learners only5) Yes, gifted and slow learners6) Yes, some are assigned for some specific aptitude or program such

as music, foreign language, etc. (Specify:

)7) No

-4-

30. Are students grouped within classes (or sections) according to their abilitiesor aptitudes for instructional purposes?

1) Yes, most or all students in all classes (or sections)2) Yes, most or all students in some classes (Specify:

3)4)

5)6)

Yes, gifted students onlyYes, slow learners onlyYes, gifted and slow learnersYes, but only for specific projects (Specify:

7) No

31. How active (Proportion of parents involved and/or frequency of meetings) isthe Parent-Teacher Association?

1) Very active2) Moderately active

Only slightly activeThere is no Parent-TeacherAssociation

32. In which one of the following ways has the Parent-Teacher Association hadthe greatest effect on your school's testing program during the last fiveyears?

1) It has had no effect at all2) It has caused an increase in the program

3) It has caused a decrease in the program4) It has changed the program in some other way (Specify:

5) There is no Parent-Teacher Association.

33-34. Indicate by as many check marks (1) as needed who is or was involvedthe development of your testing program as it now exists.

01) Testing committee02) Classroom teacher(s)

in

03) Principal(s)04) Superintendent or assistant superintendent05) Director of secondary education or secondary supervisor06) Curriculum director07) Counselor or other pupil personnel specialist08) Consultants from colleges or universities09) Consultants from State Department of Education10) Consultants from commercial test publishers11) Salesman from commercial test publisher12) Can't really say who was responsible for its development; it

has been this way for a long time.13) Other (Specify: )

)

35-36. Next write in the number opposite the one person(s) above bearing primary,responsibility for the development of the testing program.

-5-

37. Do you have a secondary school testing committee which operates independentlyof the elementary schools(s)?

1) Yes 2) No

If yes, list membership by title (i.e. teacher, principal, psychologist, etc.)

38. Does your school district, (K-12) have an active testing committee?

1) Yes 2) No

If yes, list membership by title (i.e. teacher, principal, etc.)

39. Have personnel from the elementary level (other than the superintendent)participated in the development of the secondary school testing program?

1) Yes 2) No

40-44. Within this and the past two years has your school been visited by anyof the following?

(1) (2)

Yes No

40. Guidance consultant from the State Department ofEducation (Reynold Erickson, Julius Kerlan, Dean Miller)

41. Consults It from the State-Wide Testing Programs,Student ,,ounseling Bureau, University of Minnesota(Gary Jostlyn)

42. Other guidance or counseling consultant from anyMinnesota college or university (Specify:

43. Consultant from commercial test publisher (Specify:

44. Other consultant (Specify:

)

-6-

45. In general, how do your teachers learn of students' test scores once they areavailable in the school building?

1) Teat results are placed in the files in the central office and anyteacher who wishes may look them up.

2) Test results are placed in the files in the principal's office or inthe guidance counselor's office and any teacher who wishes may learnof them in consultation with the principal or guidance counselor.

3) Test results are sent directly to each teacher who keeps them in hisown file.

4) Teat results are completely confidential and are not available toteachers.

5) Other (Describe:

46. How many general faculty meetings would you say are usually held each yearfor the primary purpose of discussing and interpreting test results?

1) None

2) One

3) Two

4) Three

5) Four or more

47. Does your curriculum (Grades 7-12) include any specific "Guidence" or"Occupations" units?

1) Yes 2) No

48-53. If yes,

Length of unitIn what grade(s)? in weeks:

Are test scoresreported to pupilsand/or parents aspart of unit?

48. 49. 50.Yes (1) No (2)

51. 52. 53.Yes (1) No (2)

54. Is your school planning to make any significant changes in its testingprogram within the next year?

1) Yes 2) No

-7-

55-77. Please use the following scale for answering questions 55-77:

This changes 1 is not needed or planned2 is needed but not planned3 is planned but is not needed4 is both needed and planned

Some schools may be considering one or more of the changes listed below fortheir testing programs. For questions 55-77 write in the number of thestatement in the scale above that best indicates your reaction to eachchange suggested for atur testing program.

55) To introduce or use more reading tests (other than tests whichare part of the instructional reading program materials)

56) To use fewer or no reading tests

57) To introduce or use more individual intelligence tests

58) To use fewer or no individual intelligence tests

59) To introduce or use more group intelligence or scholastic aptitudetests

60) To use fewer or no group intelligence or scholastic aptitude tests

61) To introduce or use a different group intelligence or scholasticaptitude test than we are now using

62) To introduce or use more multi-aptitude batteries

63) To use fewer or no multi-aptitude batteries

64) To introduce or use a different multi-aptitude battery than we arenow using

65) To introduce or use more standardized achievement test batteries

66) To use fewer or no standardized achievement test batteries

67) To introduce or use a different standardized achievement batterythan we are now using

68) To introduce or use more interest tests

69) To use fewer or no interest tests

70) To introduce or use more personality or character tests

71) To use fewer or no personality or character tests

72) To improve the scoring of tests

73) To improve the methods of recording test results

74) To improve the processing and reporting of test results to teachers,counselors, or administrators

75) To develop more local (school district), norms

76) To improve the interpretation of test results to pupils and theirparents

77) To improve the interpretation of test results to teachers, counselors,or administrators.

ilFSMINNSIO

JUNIOR HIGH SCHOOL

1. What standardized tests are routinely given, in grad 7-9, in your school?

INSTRUCTIONS Answer by writing on the appropriate line the teat name and code numberfrom the "List of Tests and Code Numbers" from the center of this booklet. Please putonly one test and code number on a line. If no standardized tests are given in a grade,write "None".

9thgrade

37

11

Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Test

55 Tows Tests of Educational Devil.

V QMO.

7thgrade

(Do Not Write inThis Space)

1

8thgrade

2

9th

grade 3

2. Approximately whet proportion of thepupils in the grade take the testi

1 More than 95%2 75-94% NOM Be sure to answer3 50-74% for each test listed on4 25-49% the opposite page.

5 Less than 24%6 Only a smell number of selected

its

3. How often is the test given'

1 co. each year2 Twioe each year3 More than two times a yeark OR every other year

5 Some other regular schedule (Specifybelow)

6) Irregularly


12

34

567

In the fallIn the winterIn the springBoth fall and springBoth winter and springBoth fall and winterNO specified time


1

23

567

Classroom teacherGuidance counselorSchool psychologistConsulting psychologistPrincipal or assistant principalSuperintendentOther (Specify below)

6 Who scores the test?

1 Students 7) Test publisher's2 Clerk scoring service3 Classroom teacher 8) Test scoring4 Counselor or other company other/

pupil personnel worker than test5) Principal or other

publisher

6)administrator 9) Other (Specify

6) School-owned scoring below)machine

7. Who records the teat scores?

1) Students

3

IClerkTeacher

19 Principal or other administrator5) Counselor or other pupil personnel


;. Are scores reported to children?

1) Yes, scores are reported routinely toall children

31Yes, scores are reported in some casesNo, but interpretative explanations are

routinely given to all children4) No, but interpretative explanations are

given in some cases5) NO; test performance is completely

confidentialMI=

9. Are scores reported to parents?

1)paYea, scores are reported routihely to alren

2) Yes, scores are reported on parents'request ands /or if school feels desirable

3) No, but interpretative explanations areroutinely reported to all parents

4) No, but interpretative explanations aregiven on request and/or if school feelsdesirable

5) No, test performance is completelyconfidentiala

10. Are scores available to teachers?

Yes, teachers have scores in their filesYes, teachers can get scores by

( consulting central files3) Yes, teachers can get scores in

consultation with principal or pupilpersonnel worker


11. How are the test results used? After in-dicating all the ways in which you use eattest, circle the single most important use

1) Homogeneaus ability grouping of studentby classes or within classes

2 Counseling students 3) Grading student4 To evaluate curriculum5 To evaluate teaching staff6 Diagnosing learning difficulties7 Counseling parents 8) Other (Specify:9 These test results are not used

12. How much reliance is placed on the testresults when used for the circled purposeshown in question 11?

1 A great deal2 A moderate amount3 Relatively little4 Almost none5 lone6 Not applicable_

1

41011

13, Who is most likely to interpret scores toparents and/or children?

i)

2) Guidance counselorClassroom teacher

3 School psychologist4 Principal or assistant principal5 Other (Specify below)6 These scores are not interpreted


IMININ11.=0

,,111.

m...

DIRECT/INS FOR QUESTIONS 2 -16: Please answer for EACH of the tests listed in your answerto question 1. Write the numbers designating your answers on the lines corresponding to the

on which the tests were listed by you. (Indicate more than one anixwer if appropriate.)

!

.. In what form are the scoresof this test recorded inthe school records?

1 Raw score2 I.Q. score3 Stsnine4 Standard score5 Grade Equivalents6 Age Equivalents7 Percentile ranks0 Percentile rank band9 Other (Specify belay)

I

15. What norms do you haveavailable for use ininterpreting the scorefrom this test?

1 Local2 Minnesota3 Regional4 National5 Other (Specify

below)6) None

16. How did ma hear of the test thefirst tiiif

in this system when I came1 frilii2 A professional meeting or convention3 A colleague to me about it4 Article review or advertisement in

professions]. publication (includingBuros' MY)

g igintePs Ntalog or bulletin-7 Department of Education consultant6 State-Wide Testing Program consultant9 Panther's saleiman.10 Other (Specify below)

I

-10-

Reading Readiness:

01. Gates Reading Readiness Tests

02. Harrison-Stroud Reading Readiness Profiles

03. Lee-Clark Reading Readiness Teat

04. Metropolitan Reading Tests

00. Other Reading Readiness Test (Specify)

Reading Test (other than teats which are part of thisinstructional reading program materials):

11. New Developmental Reading Tests (Bond, Below, Hoyt)

12. Diagnostic Reading Teats (Triggs)

13. Gates Basic Reading Tests

14. Gates Reading Survey

15. Iowa Silent Reading Tests

16. Lee-Clark Reading Teat

17. Nelson-Denny Reading Test

18. Reading Comprehension: Cooperative English Tests

19. SRA Reading Record

10. Other Reading Test (Specify)

Individual I.Q. Test:

21. Revised Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale

22. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAM)

23. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC)

20. Other individual I.Q. Test (Specify)

Group Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Test:

31. ACE Psychological Examination (ACE)

32. California Test of Mental Maturity (CTMM)

33. Cooperative School and College Ability Tests (SCAT)

34. Henmon-Nelson Tests of Mental Ability

35. Kuhlmann-Anderson Intelligence Tests

36. Kuhlmann-Finch Tests

37. Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Tests (LTIT)

38. Otis Quick-Scoring Mental Ability Tests

LIST OF TEST'S

39. SRA Tests of Educat

30. Other Group IntelliTeat (Specify)

Multi-Aptitude Batteries

la. Differential Aptitu

42. Flanagan Aptitude C

43. The Guilford-Zimmer

44. Holzinger-Crowder U

45. Jastak Test of PoteiStability

46. Multiple Aptitude T.

47. SRA Primary Mental A

40. Other Multi-Aptitud

Achievement Batteries (notachievement tests for sp

51. California Achievem

52. Coordinated Scales

53. Essential High Scho

54. Iowa Tests of Basic

55. Iowa Tests of Educ&

56. Metropolitan Achie

57. National Educationi.

58. Pupil Record of Ed%

59. SRA Achievement Ser

61. SRA High School Pla

62. Sequential Tests of,

63. Stanford Achievemen

60. Other Achievement B.

Interest Tests and Inventori

71. Brainerd Occupations

72. Gordon Occupational

I CODE NUMBERS

Ability

or Scholastic Aptitude

Sts (DAT)

!ication Testa (FACT)

'titude Survey

for Tests

Ability and Behavior

California Test Bureau)

ies

cry (Specify)

ing subject-mattersubjects):

sts

ainment

tent Battery

s (ITBS)

Development (ITED)

Tests

lopment Tests (NEDT)

al Progress (PREP)

Test

tional Progress (STEP)

f (Specify)

iference Inventory

List

73. Kuder Preference Record--Occupational

74. Kuder Preference Record--Vocational

75. Minnesota Vocational Interest Inventory (Clark)

76. Strong Vocational Interest Blank--Men

77. Strong Vocational Interest Blank--Women

78. Your Educational Plans (SRA)

70. Other Interest Test or Inventory (Specify)

Personality or Character Tests and Check-Lists:

81. Bell Adjustment Inventory

82. California Psychological Inventory

83. California Test of Personality

84. Edwards Personal Preference Schedule

85. Kuder Preference Record--Personal

86. Minnesota Counseling Inventory (MCI)

87. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (NMPI)

88. Mooney Problem Check-List

89. SRA Junior Inventory

91. SRA Youth Inventory

92. Study of Values (Allport, Vernon, Lindzey)

80. Other Character or Personality Test orCheck-List (Specify)

Study Skills:

05. Brown-Holtzman Survey of Study Habits andAttitudes

06. California Study Methods Survey

07. Spitzer Study Skills Test

08. Soldy Habits Inventory (Wrenn)

09. Watson-Glaser Critical Thinking Appraisal

90. Other Study Skills Test (Specify)

SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL

1. What standardized tests are routinely given, in grades 10-12, in your school?

INSTRUCTIONS: Answer by writing on the appropriate line the test name and code numberfrom the "List of Tests and Code Numbers" from the center of this booklet. Please putonly one test and code number on a line. If no standardized tests are given in a grade,write "None".

EXAMPLE:

10th 37 Lorge-Thorndike Intelligence Testgraft

55 Iowa Tests of Educational Development

uuucNo,

16thgrade

(Do not write in this space)

XX

11thgrade

Minnesota College State-

NOTE: Do not record participation in4_yadsestiTNLlta(1oamMSATexternal testing programs (such as ACT,PSAT, CEEB) in this portion of thequestionnaire. This is covered elsewhere.

12th

grade

2. Approximately what proportion of thepupils in the grade take the test?

1

2

3

5

6

More than 95%75-94% NOTE: Be sure to answer50-74% for each test listed on25-49t the opposite page.Less than 2'4Only a small number of selectedpupils

3. Now often is the teat given?

/

1 Once each year2 Twice each year

4 Once eve3 More than two times year

every other year5 Some other regular schedule (Specify

below)6) Irregularly


1 In the fall2 In the winter3 In the spring

5

IBoth fall and springBoth winter and spring

6) Both fall and winter7) No specified time


1) Classroom teacher2) Guidance counselor3) School psychologist4) Consulting psychologist

i

5 Principal or assistant principal6 Superintendent7. Other (Specify below)

6 Who sco:es the test?

l Students 7) Teat publisher's2 Clerk scoring service3 Classroom teacher 8) Test scoring4 Counselor or other company other1

pupil personnel worker than teat5) Principal or other publisher

6)administrator 9) Other (Specify

6) School-owned scoring below)machine

7. Who records the teat scores?

1) Students2) Clerk3) Teacher4) Principal or other administrator5) Counselor or other pupil personnel


0. Are scores reported to children?

1) Yea, scores are reported routinely toall children

31Yes, scores are reported in some casesNo, but interpretative explanations areroutinely given to all children

4) No, but interpretative explanations aregiven in some cases

5) No teat performance is completelyconfidential

9. Are scores reported to parents?

2) Yes, scores are reported on parents*73) No, but interpretative explanations are

1) Yes, scores are reported routinely to all

5) No, test performance is completelydesirable

pareritT7---

given on request and/or if school feels

reque-13/or if school feels desirable

routinely repo: led to all parents4) No, but interpretative explanations are

confidential

MU. Are scores available to teachers?

21Yes, teachers have scores in their filesYea, teachers can get scores byconsulting central files

3) Yes, teachers can get scores inconsultation with principal or pupilpersonnel worker


11. How are the test results used? After in-dicating all the ways in which you use eattest, circle the single most important us,

1) Homogeneous ability grouping of studenby classes or within classes

2 Counseling students 3) Grading studen4 To evaluate curriculum5 To evaluate teaching staff6 Diagnosing learning difficulties7 Counseling parents 8) Other (Specify9 These test results are not used

12. How much reliance is placed on the teatresults when used for the circled purposeshown in question 11?

1 A great deal2 A moderate amount3 Relatively little4 Almost none5, None6) Not applicable

13. Who is nost likely to interpret scores toparents and/or children?

29 Guidance counselorClassroom teacher

3 School psychologist4 Principal or assistant principal5 Other (Specify below)6, These scores are not interpreted


DIRECTIONS VOR QUESTIONS 2-16: Please answer for EACH of the tests listed In your answero Question 1. Write the numbers designating your answero on the lines corresponding to theInes on which the tests were listed by you. (Indicate more than one answer if appropriate.)

In what form are the scores)f this '.est recorded inthe school records?

3. Raw score2 I.Q. score

StanineStandard score

5 Grade EquivalentsAge EquivalentsPercentile ranksPercentile rank bands

9 Other (Specify below)

15. What norms do you haveavailable for use ininterpreting the scoresfrom this test?

1) Local2) Minnesota3) Regional4) National5) Other (Specify

below)6) None

16. How did Lou hear of the test thefirst time?

1 friN1 in this system when I came2 A professional meeting or convention

A colleague told me about itArticle, review or advertisement inprofessional publication (includingBuros' MMY)College coursePublisher's catalog or bulletinDepartment of Education consultantState-Wide Testing Program consultantPublisher's salesman

10 Other (Specify below)

78-87. Are the following types of report card marks or verbal reports regularly,given to parents of your pupils?

78.79.80.

81.82.

Report OtherCard Marks Reports

-77----7) (I)---ToYes No Yes No

83.

84.85.--86.87.

IMM.11

Marks or reports that show the level ofa student's achievement relative to:

standards set by his teacher.standards set by the school system.117-01:7740 achievement in his class group.his own level of mental ability.his own level of effort.

88. To what extent are the parents of pupils in your school provided with informationabout their children's aptitudes for learning school subjects?

1) This is never done

2) This is done if the parents especially request it

3) This is done if a teacher, counselor, or principal takes theinitiative in doing it for individual pupils.

4) Both 2) and 3)

5) This is done routinely on all report cards and/or in the parent-teacher conferences.

89-90. What is the rrimary method of reporting to your parents in Junior andSenior High School?

89. Grades 7-9. 90. Grades 10-12.

1) 1)

2) 2)

3) 3)

4) 4)

5) 5)

Report cards.

Written report or letter from teacher.

Parent-Teacher conferences.

Parent-Teacher conferences at whichreport card is given out.

Other (Specify:

91-92. Is your school district participating in Title V-A , National Defense EducationAct for 1965-66?

91. Reimbursement for guidance and counseling program?1) Yes 2) No

92. Reimbursement for approved tests only?1) Yes 2) No

-15-

93-104. Do the individual pupil records ("Cumulative" or "Permanent" records)

at your school contain information for most of your pupils in these areas?

(Do not include information contained in counselor's case notes)

(1)

Yes(2)

No

93. Performance in school subjects

94. Family and home life

95. Non-academic skills and abilitiesMINI

96. Intelligence and academic aptitudes

97. Aesthetic and artistic abilities

98. Aspirations and ambitions

99. Interests

100. Personality and character

101. Health

102. Participation in school-sponsored, non-academic activities(athletics, band, dramatics, etc.)

103. Participation in activities not sponsored by the school

(4-H, Boy Scouts, etc.)

104. Other (Specify: )IMIN

105. How many persons does your system have assigned to work with individual pupils

in remedial reading?

106.

1) Part time 2) Full time

Does your curriculum include a formal unit or course devoted specifically to

developmental reading instruction? (Not remedial reading)

1) Yes 2) No

107-116. If yes,

At whatgrade levels?

What percent ofthe pupils in thisgrade are included?

Length clJunitin weeks:

Are standardizedreading tests usedto select or placepupils in this unit?

107. 108. 109,110. 111.Yes (1) No (2)

112. 113. 114-115. 116.Yes (1) No (2)

117. Does your school use any aptitude tests for specific(Examples of the kinds of tests we have in mind are:

1) Yes 2) No

If yes, write in the name of the test, the course orintended to measure aptitude, and the grade level in

Test Name Course for Which Used

subject-matter areas?Turse Shorthand Aptitude TestOrleans Geometry Prognosis TestCalifornia Algebra Aptitude)

courses for which it iswhich it is administered.

Grade

-16-

118. Does your school use any standardized, subject matter achievement tests?(Examples of the kinds of tests which we have in mind are:

Minnesota High School Achievement ExaminationsCooperative Physics TestNelson Biology TestTurse-Durost Shorthand Achievement Test)

1) Yes 2) No

If yes, write in the name of the test, the course for which it isused, and the grade in which it is used.

Test Name

..ML

Course in Which Used Grade

119-126. External Testing. Please indicate the approximate number and percentageof your students taking the following tests this year.

PERCENT OFTEST NUMBER CLASS

American College Testing Program (ACT)iMMEM

(119)

College Entrance Examination Boards (CEEB) (120)

National Merit Scholarship Qualifying Test(NMSQT) (121)

Preliminary Scholastic Aptitude Test(PSAT) Grade 11 (122)

Grade 12 (123)

Minnesota Mathematics Test (MMT) (124)

General Aptitude Test Battery (GATB) (125)

Airman Qualifying Test (AQT) (126)

-17-

127. Other than testa used in the programs listed in the previous item, does your

school administer any tests to students for which the students pay the costs?

1) Yes 2) No

If yes, write in the name of the test and the grade in Which it is used.

TEST GRADE

128-134. Listed below are some suggested aids or activities which might help

school personnel get increased and more effective use of their

standardized test results.

For items 128-134 write tue number of the statement in the scale below

which best indicates your reaction to each of the suggestions.

1) This would be extremely beneficial.

31This would be nice, but we can live without it.

This idea holds little or no attraction for me.

128. Local (school district) norms for your standardized tests (where none

now exist).

129. Minnesota Norms 'Tor your standardized testa (where none now exist)

13C. Regional Norms for your standardized tests.

131. More consultants to work with your staff on the use of test results,

test selection, interpretation, etc. (At least one visit each year)

132. Regional workshops on the interpretation and Ilse of test results

conducted by the State Department of Education or a college or

university on a regular basis.

133. Substantially more emphasis on the use of standardized test results in

the college preparation of secondary school teachers.

134. A periodical publication containing items specifically for Minnesota

High School Test-Users such as new tests and developments, test reviews,

reports of successful practices in other schools, research results of

general interest, etc.

135. Substantially more interpretative materials and data for specific tests

than is now available in Manuals or from other sources.

136-137. Write in the number of the above item (128-134) which:

a) you would prefer to all the others , (136)

b) appeals least to you . (137)

-18-

In the following space please write any comments or suggestions you have aboutstandardised testing in Minnesota. Both positive and negative comments aresolicited. What is good, and what is not? How might things be made better?Specific suggestions for improvements are particularly desired. Do not be inhibitetby considerations of feasibility or cost -- let yourself go. Feel free to includecomments which may seem pertinent to only your school or to all of Minnesota.Use the next pages if necessary.

Free Response Section. Please complete the following sentences.

Tests are OK, but

I wish test publishers would

When I was in school, tests

gh-lienitmwrirlrliVaraga5;pnrarGiaTirs

If you have printed, mimeographed, or dittoed copies of your testingprogram, interpretative or other material relating to testing in yourschool system, please include copies with this questionnaire.

-19-

REMARKS

Please add any additional comments below. You may want to explain, expand, or

qualify some information given in the body of the questionnaire. Your reactions

to the study and/or the questionnaire would be welcome.

Documents

ED 017 943 co 001 283 A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES BY- JOSELYN… · 2013-12-02 · r e p o r t r e s u m e s. ed 017 943. co 001 283. a study of testing practices. in minnesota public