The present verbal and mathematical abilities of an individual-regardless of what may account for them-offer the best prediction of his future academic achievement.

Since such achievement depends on previous learnings, we must grant that different cultural backgrounds inevitably affect test performance. However, the same cultural factors which influence test scores also appear to influence the academic achievement which we want to predict by means of those test scores. Therefore, tests of developed ability actually gain in predictive effectiveness by tapping some basic verbal and mathematical learnings of the sort that all of our schools emphasize for all pupils.

Some may ask, "Why use a test at all? Why not depend entirely on previous school performance for prediction?" In brief, because we know that test scores and school marks together predict more accurately than either one separately. In general, we have greatest expectancy of future academic success for those pupils who rank high on both predictors. Our expectancy of success is somewhat lower for those who rank high on one predictor but not on the other, and least for those who rank low on both. Also, each predictor identifies some potentially high achievers not identified by the other.

Test scores have certain advantages. They furnish-at any grade level-a standardized, comparable set of observations of pupils who may have had different teachers and come from different schools with different marking systems. They are unaffected by any disciplinary element such as may affect course grades. However, for purposes of identification and prediction, both marks and test scores, as well as such other data as may be accessible and relevant, can make significant contributions.

Tests, of course, have their limitations. We have no particular evidence that they measure potential creativity, original thinking, inventiveness. They certainly will not single out for us the individual who will discover new intellectual territory as distinct from the other individuals who will settle and cultivate that territory.

In short, we cannot feed results of a secondary-school standardized testing program into an electronic computer and expect a guaranteed roster of future Einsteins and Pasteurs to emerge. No matter how refined our techniques become, it is safe to say, with William James, that "individual * * * biographies will never be written in advance."

What tests can do for us is identify the larger number of students who are in the score ranges from which creative scientists, engineers, philosophers, historians, economists, psychologists, jurists, educators are most likely to emerge. Thus, if we are fishing for sizable intellectual talent, standardized testing will not single out the species or net the catch for us. But it will tell us which pools are most promising for the "big ones."

Hundreds of carefully conducted studies have produced convincing evidence of a substantial relationship between test scores and such criteria of intellectual achievement as high-school marks, college marks, college graduation, graduate degrees, and occupational "levels."

The specific amount of relationship has, of course, varied according to specific tests, criteria, populations, and other experimental characteristics. We cannot say categorically that a certain amount of statistical relationship is universally true and applicable to every situation. On the contrary,local research is required in order to derive the maximum benefit from testing for any given purpose, such as admission to X college, or prediction of success in first-year algebra at Z high school.

Even in less specific settings, however, predictions can be safely and helpfully expressed in terms of probabilities or expectancies. For example, the report of the Commission on Human Resources and Advanced Training was able to give the educational expectancies for 14-year-olds at various test-score levels, representing not a single "college, city, year, graduating class, or other * limited sample" but "estimates for the United States as a whole in the middle of the twentieth century."

Thus, 14-year-olds with a test score equivalent to 80 on the Army general classification test scale have about 60 chances out of 100 of entering high school and 23 chances out of 100 of graduating, about 5 chances out of 100 of entering college, and 1 chance (or less) out of 100 of graduating.

For 14-year-olds with a test score of 100 ("average" in respect to the total population of 14-year-olds) the expectancies are higher: 85 chances out of 100 of entering high school, 60 chances of graduating, 18 of entering college, and 8 of graduating. For a higher score (AGCT-120) the respective chances would

rise to 98 out of 100 for entering high school, 90 for graduating, 37 for entering college, and 25 for graduating.

Clearly, scores from tests given at age 14 can predict, with some degree of effectiveness, the educational level likely to be attained. Other studies have shown that scores on tests given at age 14 correlate very highly with scores on similar tests 4 years later.

How effective are typical scholastic-aptitude tests in the prediction of college success?

While the results of specific studies vary, we can say with confidence what is usually found. Typically, of the students in the top 20 percent on the test, about 45 percent will do honor work, 52 percent will do satisfactory work, and only about 3 percent will fail. Of the students in the bottom 20 percent on the test, only about 3 percent will do honor work, 52 percent more will pass, 45 percent will fail. When we take the middle 60 percent, we find that on the average 17 percent will do honor work; 66 percent, satisfactory work; and 17 percent will fail.

Not a perfect record, obviously, but as actuarial forecasts go, reasonably good; especially when we consider that predictions are based only on aptitude-test scores and do not take into account such factors as interest and motivation.

The junior high school years are an especially timely period for administering a standardized testing program. Prediction at this point is practical and appropriate in terms of both the psychological development of individuals and the organization of our schools.

The growth of intellectural abilities, as reflected by standardized test scores, has stabilized by this age period to the extent that an 8th-grade test is likely to be nearly as effective as a 12th-grade test in predicting, let us say, college freshman marks.

Our educational system generally requires of pupils differential curriculum choices at the end of the eighth (or sometimes ninth) grade. Decisions made at this point are of vital importance for the educational and career choices of students. These decisions tend to close some doors or hold them open. School administrators also must often make, around this period, particularly significant decisions about the ability grouping of pupils in such subjects as English and mathematics.

Although the junior high school years offer both an excellent opportunity and a pressing need to marshal efforts at identification of intellectual ability, I do not mean to imply that such efforts should be confined to these grades. On the contrary, identification should be a continuous process. The formal program directed at such critical choice points as 8th and 12th grades should, ideally, build upon previous activities and lead into future ones.

Test-score results not only correlate with future academic success, but appear to have a definite bearing on posteducational achievement as well.

An investigation was made several years ago of some 281 men in Who's Who and American Men of Science who had taken the scholastic aptitude test of the college entrance examination board when they applied to go to college. The individuals had achieved prominence in a variety of fields: government, writing, education, business, law, banking, engineering, the sciences, and a number of other vocations.

By relating the scores of these 281 men to known score distributions of those who had taken the test, it was found that a person with a score on the scholastic aptitude test equivalent to 120 to 130 on the Army general classification test had 21⁄2 times as great a chance of being in Who's Who or American Men of Science as a person in the score range of 110 to 120. A person with a score equivalent to between 130 and 140 had 4 times as great a chance as a person scoring between 110 and 120; a person with a score between 140 and 150 had 7 times as great a chance; a person with a score of over 150 had 14 times as great a chance.

These findings seem to me rather impressive, particularly in view of the fact that the scholastic aptitude test in the early days contained only verbal questions-no quantitative material.

This, then, is the general picture of testing and its effectiveness at the present time. To me the results means that tests are by no means infallible but that they provide a highly serviceable degree of accuracy. Properly understood and properly used, tests offer a potent aid in the selection, guidance, or placement of students.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Thank you so much, Dr. Chauncey.

Mr. CHAUNCEY. Thank you.

Mr. ELLIOTT. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.

(Whereupon, at 3:07 p. m., Wednesday, March 26, 1958, the subcommittees recessed, to reconvene at 10 a. m. on Thursday, March 27, 1958.)

SCHOLARSHIP AND LOAN PROGRAM

THURSDAY, MARCH 27, 1958

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION AND LABOR,

Washington, D. C.

The committee met, pursuant to recess, in room 429, House Office Building, Hon. Graham A. Barden, chairman, presiding.

Present: Representatives Barden, Perkins, Wier, Elliott, Landrum, Metcalf, Green, Thompson, Udall, Kearns, Frelinghuysen, Nicholson, Ayres, Haskell, and Lafore.

Staff members present: Fred G. Hussey, chief clerk; Charles M. Ryan, general counsel; Kennedy W. Ward, assistant general counsel; Bob McCard, professional staff member; Russell C. Derrickson, chief investigator; and Mary Allen, clerk (Subcommittee on Special Education).

Chairman BARDEN. The committee will come to order. I know someone is due an apology for our situation this morning. While I am in no way to blame, I guess I will express the apology. The House meets this morning at 11 o'clock. Of course, the committee did not know anything about it until last night or this morning. I do apologize for the system because I don't like it and I do not think it is fair for people to come from all over the country to committee meetings and then meet a door closed in their face.

I am deeply grateful to Mr. Maurice B. Mitchell, president of Encyclopaedia Britannica Films, who is with us. He brings with him Mr. Minnow and Mr. Cohen.

We also have in the audience Commissioner Derthick, United States Commissioner of Education; Dr. McGrath, who was at one time United States Commissioner of Education; and Mr. Purks, who is executive director of the North Carolina board of higher education, and many others who are interested in the same thing that we are interested in.

I shall not overlook one of my fellow townsmen, Mr. William F. Ward, who happens to be the father of this young, embryonic Supreme Court Justice we have here. We are glad to have you with us.

This schedule was set up by Mr. Elliott's subcommittee, the Subcommittee on Education, and he has been working on this program. Of course, today is the regular meeting day of the full committee, and we had planned to turn this whole program over to him. What I plan to do is to just keep right on sitting as long as the bells will let us, and then if there is some way to complete what may not be completed at that time, we will arrange that.

Mr. Elliott, since you are the chairman of the committee that set this up, I would like you to be closer to the gavel because you may need it.

I will conclude by saying this, That, unless there is objection, we will just dispense with any other business that comes before the committee today and proceed with the program.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Chairman Barden, our witness today is Mr. Maurice B. Mitchell, president of Encyclopaedia Britannica Films, Inc., of Wilmette, Ill.

Mr. Mitchell was born in New York and worked for the New York Times and was editor of several publications. In addition, he has served with the CBS and NBC, and the National Association of Broadcasters. He served as a delegate to the United States Conference on International Copyright in Films and Television. Currently, Mr. Mitchell, as was pointed out by the chairman of our committee, is president of Encyclopaedia Britannica Films, Inc., of Wilmette, Ill. We have invited him here to get some testimony on two aspects of the education bill pending before the committee.

Namely, the proposal that provides for science teaching facilities and for research and development in educational use in the new com

munication media.

May I say to Mr. Mitchell that we are happy to have you and thank you for being here.

You may proceed in any manner you see fit.

STATEMENT OF MAURICE B. MITCHELL, PRESIDENT, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA FILMS, INC., WILMETTE, ILL

Mr. MITCHELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and with your permission I will testify from this corner to avoid demonstrating the fact that I am not transparent when the projector turns on.

Mr. Chairman, I have a prepared statement I would like to have included in the record.

Chairman BARDEN. It will be so included at this point. (The material referred to follows:)

STATEMENT OF MAURICE B. MITCHELL, PRESIDENT, ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA FILMS, INC.

Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I am here today to talk about new tools for learning. When the sound motion picture was first introduced to our Nation's classrooms a little over 25 years ago, this was the term applied to it-a new tool for learning-a 20th-century tool, to help solve the rapidly emerging educational problems of our century.

It is, unfortunately, still known as a new tool for learning by the majority of the Nation's educators. Although it would be hard to find a teacher or school administrator who did not feel that this was a vital contribution to more effective teaching, it would be almost as difficult to find one who could say that this resource was available today in adequate quantity.

I hope to illustrate for you today why the sound motion picture has won a place in the hearts and minds of this country's teachers and their students. I will show you some of the films they use, and try to tell you how and why they use them.

You need no explanation, I am sure, for the failure of our schools to adequately equip and supply themselves with these films and other new instructional materials. We know that they have simply not had the funds. They have struggled energetically to build the buildings and find and pay the teachers needed to man the new classrooms. With less than they needed for this task, it is not surprising that they have not been able to meet their needs in the instructional materials field.

Now, the teachers' instructional materials are, very simply, the tools with which he or she works-and I suggest to you that a failure to give due attention to the instructional tools of the educator is in every respect similar to an indus