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
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
GENERAL SCHOOL PRACTICES RELATING TO TESTING
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
Size of School SystemTotal
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
GENERAL SCHOOL PRACTICES RELATING TO TESTING
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
GENERAL SCHOOL PRACTICES RELATING TO TESTING
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.
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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?
Size of School SystemTotal
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?
Size of School SystemTotal
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
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
Grades in WhichAdministered
Percentages of school systems ad-ministering group intelligence or scho-
lastic aptitude tests invarious grades.
Size of School System
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
TESTS USED IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS
TABLE 3.4
SECONDARY Group Intelligence or Scholastic Aptitude Tests
TEST
Percentages of school systemsadministering different group intelligence
or scholastic aptitude tests.
Size of School System
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 STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
Grades in WhichAdministered
Percentages of school systemsadministering individual intelligence
tests in various grades.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
TESTS USED IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS
TABLE 3.6
SECONDARY Individual Intelligence Tests
Grades in WhichAdministered
Percentages of school systemsadministering individual intelligence
tests in various grades.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School System
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
TESTS USED IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS
TABLE 3-8
SECONDARY Individual Intelligence Tests
TEST
Percentages of school systemsadministering different individual
intelligence tests
Size of School SystemTotal
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 *
* Less than one-half of one per cent.
TABLE 3.9
SECONDARY Multi-Aptitude Batteries
Grades in WhichAdministered
Percentages of school systemsadministering multi-aptitude
batteries in various grades.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
*
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
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
TESTS USED IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS
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
Grades in WhichAdministered
Percentages of school systemsadministering achievement batteries
in various grades.
Size of School System
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
*
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
TFASTS UMW IN MINNISOTA SCI1001,8
TABLE 3.14
SECONDARY Achievement Batteries
Percentages of school systemsadministering different achievement
batteries.
TESTSize of School System
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
* Less than one-half of one per cent.
33
001111111=1. IMMO
A STUDY Of TOTING PIIACTICDS IN MINNIISOTA
TABLE 345ELEMENTARY Reading Readiness Tests
Grades in WhichAdministered
Percentages of school systemsadministering reading readiness
tests in various grades.
Pre School
Kindergarten
lit Grade
2nd Grade
8rd Grade
4th Grade
5th Grade.
6th Grade
Size of School System
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
* Less than one-half of one per cent.
TABLE 3.16ELEMENTARY Reading Readiness Tests
TEST
Percentages of school systemsadministering different reading
readiness tests.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
Size of School System
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
Grades in WhichAdministered
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.
Size of School System
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
TESTS USED IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS
4,
TABLE 3-19
ELEMENTARY Reading Tests
TEST
Percentages of school systemsadministering different reading
tests.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
87
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
38
TESTS USED IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS
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
Grades in WhichAdministered
Percentages of school systemsadministering interest inventories
in various grades.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
TESTS USED IN MINNESOTA SCHOOLS
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
TABLE 3.23
SECONDARY Personality Tests
Grades in WhichAdministered
Percentages of school systemsadministering personality tests
in various grades.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
TABLE 3-24
SECONDARY Personality Tests
TEST
Percentages of school systemsadministering different personality
tests.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
REPORTING, INTERPRETATION, AND USE OF TEST RESULTS
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
REPORTING, INTERPRETATION, AND USE OF TEST RESULTS
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
TESTSize of School System
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
HIGH SCHOOL TESTING PROGRAMS
TABLE 6.5
SECONDARY Subject-Matter Achievement Tests
TEST
Percentages of school systemsadministering different subject-matter
achievement tests.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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,
Size of School SystemTotal
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
numbers of seniors, 1965-66.
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
HIGH SCHOOL TESTING PROGRAMS
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
numbers of seniors, 1965-66.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
HIGH SCHOOL TESTING PROGRAMS
TABLE 6-13
SECONDARY External TestingGeneraV Aptitude Test Battery (GATB)
Per cent of seniors
Percentages of school systemsadministering GATB to various
numbers of seniors, 1965-66.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
TABLE 6.14
SECONDARY External TestingAirman Qualifying Test (AQT)
Per cent of seniors
Percentages of school systemsadministering AQT to variousnumbers of seniors, 1965-66.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
HIGH SCHOOL TESTING PROGRAMS
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School System
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?
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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 STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
**Secondary Questionnaire only.
152
StephenStordenStrandquist
Taylor FallsTintahTrimont
Ulen
VerdiVerndaleVillard
WelcomeWilliamsWood LakeWykoff **
CokatoComfreyCottonwood
DanubeDassel**DawsonDelanoDilworthDodgeDover-Eyota
Eden ValleyElbow LakeElginEllendale
Fairfax**FarmingtonFertileFosstonFrazee
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS
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
**Secondary Questionnaire only.
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
DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AND QUESTIONNAIRE RETURNS
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
161
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School System
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*
*Less than one-half of one per cent.
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.
Size of School System
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
(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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
Report cards
Written report or letter fromteacher
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.
Size of School System
Report cards
Written report or letter fromteacher
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School System
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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?
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School System
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
1-35 36-99 100 + Sub. Urban
Yes
No or no response
71
29
89
11
98
2
100 100 86
14
195
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
Size of School SystemTotal
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.
Size of School System
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
Size of School SystemTotal
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
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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.
A STUDY OF TESTING PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA
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
4) No, test performance is completelyconfidential
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
4. When is the test given?
12
34
567
In the fallIn the winterIn the springBoth fall and springBoth winter and springBoth fall and winterNO specified time
5. Who administers the test?
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
worker6) Other (Specify below)
;. 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
4) No, test performance is completelyconfidential
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
to parents or children
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
4. When is the test given?
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
5. Who administers the test?
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
worker6) Other (Specify below)
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
4) No, test performance is completelyconfidential
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
to parents or children
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.