Testing the Test

DOUBTS about the accuracy and fairness of standardized tests have been voiced for years: Are minorities taking the test at a disadvantage? Are the questions badly worded or ambiguous? Do colleges give the test results too much weight?

A new attempt to open the tests to public scrutiny and to begin answering some of these questions is currently meeting stiff and unwarranted opposition. New York state this year enacted the nation's first "truth in testing" law requiring Education Testing Services (ETS) and other, smaller testing services to mail a student his corrected exam on request.

At first, ETS hinted it would boycott New York, forcing students to travel to Connecticutt or New Jersey for the exams. But after considering the economic effects of such a move, ETS decided to stay in the state, with the proviso that prices may increase and service be cut.

ETS representatives say they fear the law, and similar proposals in other states, because it may increase the costs of administering the tests. After all, if the tests are public, the service won't be able to recycle questions, forcing someone to sit down every year to write new analogies. Considering the amount of money "non-profit" ETS clears each year, though, the added costs of questions, mailings and even Xerox copies shouldn't force them out of business. ETS's real fear may be that scrutiny will be to standardized tests as hurricanes are to the Dominican Republic. Public availability of the tests may well wreak havoc on their reputation for accuracy, exposing biases and inadequacies.

The law should go even further and require ETS to make available any ETS data that would allow outside individuals to evaluate the tests. But as it stands, the law is a big step forward, which ETS and the various College Boards should not hinder with limited testing, higher prices or boycotts.