Archival unit 176
NOTES
IJA 3707
Correspondence Regarding Standardized Exams, Shamash Secondary School
View interactive document pageDescription
These are archival documents from the Baghdadi Jewish schools. They contain correspondence regarding payments for the SAT and Achievement Tests between the president of the Jewish community, the Educational Testing Service in Princeton, N.J., the Bank of Iraq, and the principal of the Shamash Secondary School. There are also several brochure publications regarding administration of standardized tests, advertisements for supplemental test preparation, generic correspondence from the Educational Testing Services, forms assessing English language competency, and copies of the Test of English as a Foreign Language (TOEFL) exam for 1964.
AI English Translation, Pages 176-200
Archival unit 177
⟦illegible⟧ has returned the ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ has ⟦illegible⟧ a settlement ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ When you move from the ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ the ⟦illegible⟧ take the ⟦illegible⟧ you will see ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧
Archival unit 178
2 | 7 | Sleeman 2 | 6 | al Hakim 1 | 6 | Rabee 3 | 5 | Sion 6 | 8 | Musaffi 3 | 6 | Loya 3 | 5 | Shaoul 1 | 4 | Dangoor 1 | 6 | Kareen 0 | 4 | Obadiah 0 | 3 | Yahia 5 | 5 | Dallal 4 | 8 | Muallem 2 | 6 | Solomon 1 | 5 | Shashona 1 | 4 | Minassian 1 | 10 | Mashaal * 1 | 8 | Talwar Jake These are the Frank Iny students scores.
Archival unit 179
ORAL RATING FORM for Rating Language Proficiency in Speaking and Understanding English Name of applicant: Date: Name of interviewer: Place: I. COMPREHENSION ⟦line⟧ 5. Understands everything; no adjustments in speed or vocabulary are needed. ⟦line⟧ 4. Understands nearly everything at normal speed, though occasional repetition may be necessary. ⟦line⟧ 3. Understands fairly well at slower-than-normal speed with some repetition. ⟦line⟧ 2. Obviously has trouble understanding; frequent adjustments in speed and vocabulary are necessary. ⟦line⟧ 1. Understands only very general conversational subjects at slow speed with frequent repetitions. ⟦line⟧ 0. Cannot be said to understand even simple conversational English. II. PRONUNCIATION (including word accent and sentence pitch) ⟦line⟧ 5. Speaks with few (if any) traces of "foreign accent." ⟦line⟧ 4. Pronunciation understandable, but one is always conscious of a definite "accent." ⟦line⟧ 3. "Foreign accent" necessitates concentrated listening and leads to occasional misunderstanding. Words and sentences must sometimes be repeated. ⟦line⟧ 2. Many serious errors in pronunciation (e.g., still sounds like steel, laws sounds like loss), word accent (words are frequently accented on the wrong syllable), and sentence pitch (statements have the "melody" of questions, etc.). Frequent repetitions are required. ⟦line⟧ 1. Very hard to understand because of sound, accent, pitch difficulties. ⟦line⟧ 0. Pronunciation would be virtually unintelligible to "the man in the street." III. GRAMMAR AND WORD-ORDER ⟦line⟧ 5. Uses English with few (if any) noticeable errors of grammar or word-order. ⟦line⟧ 4. In general uses "good English," but with occasional grammatical or word-order errors which do not, however, obscure meaning (e.g., "I am needing more English," "He gave to me the letter"). ⟦line⟧ 3. Meaning occasionally obscured by grammatical and/or word-order errors. ⟦line⟧ 2. Grammatical usage and word-order definitely unsatisfactory; frequently needs to rephrase constructions and/or restricts himself to basic structural patterns (e.g., uses the simple present tense where he should use past or future). ⟦line⟧ 1. Errors of grammar and word-order make comprehension quite difficult. ⟦line⟧ 0. Speech so full of grammatical and word-order errors as to be virtually unintelligible to "the man in the street." (OVER)
Archival unit 180
IV. VOCABULARY ⟦line⟧ 5. Use of vocabulary and "idioms" is virtually that of a native speaker of English. ⟦line⟧ 4. Rarely has trouble expressing himself with appropriate vocabulary and "idioms." ⟦line⟧ 3. Sometimes uses inappropriate terms and/or round-about language because of inadequate vocabu- lary. ⟦line⟧ 2. Frequently uses the wrong words; speech limited to simple vocabulary. ⟦line⟧ 1. Misuse of words and very limited vocabulary make comprehension quite difficult. ⟦line⟧ 0. Vocabulary is inadequate for even the simplest conversation. V. GENERAL SPEED OF SPEECH AND SENTENCE LENGTH ⟦line⟧ 5. Speech speed and sentence length are those of a native speaker. ⟦line⟧ 4. Speed of speech seems to be slightly affected by language problems. ⟦line⟧ 3. Both speed of speech and length of utterance are apparently affected by language difficulties and limitations or by native language habits. ⟦line⟧ 2. Speed of speech and length of utterance seem strongly affected by language difficulties and limi- tations or by native language habits. ⟦line⟧ 1. Speed of speech and length of utterance are so far from normal as to make conversation quite difficult. ⟦line⟧ 0. Speech is so halting and fragmentary, or affected by native language habits, as to make conver- sation with "the man in the street" almost impossible. COMMENTS: TOTAL RATING ⟦line⟧ (25 possible points) x 4 ⟦line⟧ (multiply by 4 to convert score to percents) THE AMERICAN LANGUAGE INSTITUTE, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY Washington, D. C. 1962
Archival unit 181
COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 May 1964 MEMORANDUM FOR: College Admissions Officers/Secondary School Guidance Directors SUBJECT: Additional Information on the new College Board Mathematics Achievement Tests REFERENCE: Basic Changes in College Board Mathematics Tests, December 1963 It has become apparent from reactions to the December 1963 memorandum "Basic Changes in College Board Mathematics Achievement Tests" that there is need for further clarification of the nature of the new tests and for a frame of reference for ⟦comparing⟧ them with those offered up to this time. This memorandum will attempt to answer the questions that have been raised by the December memorandum and to make clearer the preparation necessary for the Level II test and the composition of the candidate group who should take it. Please forward one copy of this memo- randum to the chairman of your mathematics department. How do the tests compare? A visual presentation of the content range and the emphasis in each test may be helpful. In the following diagrams, the horizontal dimension indicates the content covered from the most elementary secondary school mathematics at the left to more advanced topics at the right. The vertical dimension in each case is an indication of the emphasis in terms of number of questions in the test which would deal with subject matter at the various stages of development of mathematical knowledge. A third dimension, which could not be shown, might be called depth of understanding. While all the tests stress understanding of concepts and the application of ideas in new situations rather than rote recall, Level II will require more insight in solving problems and greater understanding of the concepts tested than the other tests. Intermediate Test Previous Tests Advanced Test Level I (Standard) New Tests Level II (Intensive) To summarize the meaning of these diagrams verbally: the present Intermediate and Advanced Tests are both broad-range tests with a wide area of overlap. The Ad- vanced test tends to put its major emphasis at about the middle of its range, and includes some questions on what would traditionally be considered fourth year subject matter. Level I, ⟦which is⟧ designed to be the College Board's principal ⟦achievement⟧ test for admissions purposes, will be a very broad-⟦range⟧, cumulative test sampling practically all the content of both the previous tests. It will contain less very elementary material and have less concentration at any one level. The Level II test will not go much beyond the present Advanced Test in topics included, but its concentration will be toward the upper end of the Ad- vanced Test spectrum and it will require greater depth of understanding of the concepts tested. What preparation is expected for the two new tests? It is important to reemphasize that the introduction of the new tests is not ushering in a revolutionary change in the kind of mathematics being tested, nor does it imply a sudden sharp shift toward "modern mathematics" at either level. Over a period of years, the College Board Mathe- matics Tests have been undergoing a gradual shift toward the program of the College Board Commission on Mathe- matics, particularly in those areas where this program is in fundamental agreement with the various newer curriculum groups and texts and with the Report of the Secondary School Curriculum Committee of the Na- tional Council of Teachers of Mathematics. This gradual evolution will continue in the new tests.* The introduction of the two new tests is intended, rather, to provide fairer and more comprehensive meas- urement for all students in a period when differences in mathematics courses offered by schools are unusually great and when curriculums are changing rapidly. While the Level I test will be a very adequate test for admission purposes for a large majority of schools and colleges, the offering of the Level II test is a frank recognition of the fact that a growing number of secondary schools are now *A discussion of the nature and philosophy of these shifts can be found in an article entitled Mathematical Reform and The College Board Mathematics Examinations by Sheldon S. Myers and Marion G. Epstein. American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 70, No. 6, June- July 1963, pp. 665-667.
Archival unit 182
offering courses which go deeper and extend further than has been customary in the traditional program. Neither the Level I test nor the previous Advanced Test would provide an opportunity for high ability students who have taken such courses to demonstrate their knowledge and ability. It is for these students that the Level II test is designed. Many students who would have been prepared for the Advanced Test will not have the preparation necessary for the Level II test. While it is not expected that everyone who takes either mathematics test will be familiar with every topic tested, a student can be expected to do well on the Level II test only if his courses have included most of the following: a) substantial exposure to functions and the relations between functions and their graphs, including poly- nomial, exponential, and logarithmic functions (about 20% of the test) b) enough trigonometry to be ⟦hole⟧ to deal with radian measure, graphs, inverse ⟦hole⟧igonometric func- tions, trigonometric equations, polar coordinates (trig- onometry about 20% of the test) c) coordinate geometry through the conics d) the complex number system e) some familiarity with such topics as sequences, limits, probability. This is not in any way a complete list of topics—rather it is an indication of the material included that may be beyond what has been taught customarily in a 3½-4 year traditional course sequence. The test will not include any calculus questions. Both tests will continue to assume an understanding of such things as inequalities, absolute value, the structure of the number system. Set notation may be introduced in one or two questions. Both tests will also continue to test for understanding of concepts and for the applica- tion of knowledge, rather than for rote recall. While there will be some overlap in the topics covered in the tests, the Level II test will concentrate on more advanced topics and will demand greater depth of understanding. At the end of this memorandum are the sets of sample questions which will appear in the 1964 edition of A Description of the College Board Achievement Tests. A study of these questions by your mathematics department may clarify further the nature of the two tests and verify that the tests will not constitute a revolutionary change. Who should take the Level II test? If a college to which a student is applying requires a specific one of the tests, there is, of course, no question. If there is no specific requirement, a candidate should take Level II if he is a very able student in mathematics and if he has completed 3½-4 years of a college prepara- tory mathematics program which includes most of the material listed in the section above. (Typical of such programs would be any sequence of courses which ap- proximate the recommendations of the College Board Commission on Mathematics for 3½ years of high school mathematics. The series of texts published by the School Mathematics Study Group and by the University of Illinois Committee on School Mathematics, as well as many commercial texts published in recent years, include the depth and breadth of material expected.) A student certainly need not be in an advanced place- ment course in calculus to be prepared for the test since no calculus is included, but any student in such a course at the time he takes the College Board Achievement Tests should probably be advised to take the Level II test. The Level II test is being offered in January and in May. It is expected that it will be taken in May principally by high school juniors who, either by taking algebra in eighth grade or by taking accelerated courses in high school, have complete⟦hole⟧e equivalent of four years of the kind of program des⟦hole⟧bed. The minimum expected score of 690 on the old Ad- vanced Test mentioned in the December memorandum should not be taken too literally. It was intended only as an indication of the caliber and preparation of the candidates for whom the Level II test is designed, to assist guidance counselors who had had experience with Advanced Test scores. What advice can be given to colleges with respect to mathematics test requirements? Colleges, in their admissions decisions, are faced with the same problems that faced the Committee of Mathematics Examiners—applicants have a wider diversity of prepara- tion in mathematics than ever before and the same test may not be appropriate for all. Since the two tests will be scaled so that scores can be compared, the wisest course for most colleges which require a mathematics test would be to accept either Level I or Level II—at least until they have built up some experience with the new tests. To require Level I would prevent the capable student who has the preparation for Level II from demonstrating his full ability; to require Level II might eliminate some able students who had not had the opportunity for the more intensive preparation necessary, but who might still be able to perform well in college and could demonstrate this by a satisfactory score on the Level I test. Only a college which requires very high mathematical ability of all the applicants it accepts and in which the first mathematics course re- quired for all freshmen is an intensive course in calculus for which full preparation for the Level II test would be necessary, should consider requiring the Level II test. In 1964-65, the ceiling of 800 on scaled scores reported will be retained for the new tests, but consideration is being given to reporting raw scores for candidates who score 800 or above on the Level II test.
Archival unit 183
MATHEMATICS, LEVEL I (STANDARD) The first fifteen questions illustrate the kinds of questions which are used in Mathematics, Level I. 1. ( (x² - 5x + 4) / (x + 3) ) ( (x² + 2x - 3) / (x - 4) ) = (A) x² - 1 (B) (x - 1)² (C) x - 1 (D) 1 (E) (x + 1)² 2. If √5² + 4² = ∛81, then x = (A) 1 (B) 2 (C) 3 (D) 4 (E) 5 3. Two rectangular solids have the dimensions 4, 6, h, and 8, 2, (2h - 1), respectively. Their volumes are equal when h = (A) 1/8 (B) 4/5 (C) ⟦illegible⟧ (D) 2 (E) 4 4. If f(x) = 5x + 6, for what value(s) of x is f(x) < 16? (A) x < 2 (B) x > 2 (C) x = 2 (D) -2 < x < 2 (E) All values of x 5. If x is the measure of an acute angle such that tan x = k/3, then sin x = (A) k / (3 + k) (B) 3 / √(9 - k²) (C) k / √(9 - k²) (D) 3 / √(9 + k²) (E) k / √(9 + k²) ⟦line⟧ Figure 1 6. The circle in Figure 1 has center at O. If PQ and QR are secants and if x = 40, what is y? (A) 10 (B) 20 (C) 30 (D) 40 (E) It cannot be determined from the information given. 7. On the curve shown in Figure 2, determine the y-coordinate(s) of the point(s) at which y = 2x. (A) There is no such point. (B) -1 only (C) -2 only (D) -5 only (E) -2 and -10 Figure 2 8. If 0 < x < 90, what is the least x for which sin(2x + 45)° = cos(30 - x)°? (A) 5 (B) 15 (C) 25 (D) 30 (E) 45 9. If f(x) = 2x + 1 and g(x) = 3x - 1, then f(g(x)) = (A) 6x - 1 (B) 6x + 2 (C) x - 2 (D) 5x (E) 6x² + x - 1 10. The distance between two parallel planes is d. The locus of points equidistant from these two planes and at distance d/2 from a line which lies in one of the planes is (A) no point (B) one point (C) one line (D) two lines (E) a circle 11. A circle is inscribed in ΔXYZ, touching XY at P, as shown in Figure 3. If the length of YZ is 7, of YZ is 6, and XZ is 8, what is the length of XP? (A) 3 1/2 (B) 4 (C) 4 1/2 (D) 4 2/3 (E) 5 Figure 3 12. If h, k, m, and n are positive numbers, k is greater than m, and n is greater than h, which of the following is (are) true? I. n + h may equal k + m. II. k + h may equal n + m. III. k + n may equal m + h. (A) None (B) I only (C) I and II only (D) I and III only (E) I, II, and III 13. If, in ΔXYZ, the degree measure of ∠Y is 60 and the degree measure of ∠X is p, and if XY is longer than XZ, then (A) 0 < p < 30 (B) 0 < p < 60 (C) 30 < p < 60 (D) 60 < p < 90 (E) 60 < p < 120 14. What is the least positive integer k such that the sum (x + 1) + (x + 2) + ... + (x + k) is even for every integer x? (A) 1 (B) 2 (C) 3 (D) 4 (E) 5 15. log₂ 25 is between what pair of consecutive integers? (A) 1 and 2 (B) 2 and 3 (C) 4 and 5 (D) 5 and 6 (E) 12 and 13 (Continued on next page)
Archival unit 184
MATHEMATICS, LEVEL II (INTENSIVE)
The following 15 questions are typical of those which occur in
Mathematics, Level II; although a few of these questions might
also be suitable for Level I, most of them differ from the pre-
vious examples either conceptually or in degree of difficulty, and
frequently in both of these aspects.
16. (1 - i) / (1 + i) - (1 + i) / (1 - i) =
(A) -2i (B) -1 (C) 0 (D) 1 (E) 2i
17. If x + 2 = y, what is the value of |x - y| + |y - x| ?
(A) -4 (B) 0 (C) 2 (D) 4
(E) It cannot be determined from the information given.
18. What are all x such that (x + 1) / x ≤ 1 ?
(A) -1 ≤ x < 0 (B) -1 < x < 0
(C) x < 0 (D) x > 0 (E) ⟦hole⟧ ≥ 0
19. How many numbers in the set {-5, -3, 0, 3} satisfy
the conditions |n - 3| ≤ 6 and |n + 2| < 5.
(A) None (B) One (C) Two (D) Three
(E) Four
20. For which real number x will 1/x + 1/(x - 1) - 1/(x(x - 1)) = 0?
(A) For no real number (B) -1 (C) 0
(D) 1 (E) 2
21. If (-x)^(2k-1) > 0, where x is a real number and k is a
positive integer, then
(A) x < 0 (B) x ≤ 0 (C) x > 0
(D) x ≥ 0 (E) x is any real number
22. If x₁ = 1/2 and if xₙ₊₁ = xₙ² for n = 1, 2, 3, ..., what is
the smallest n for which xₙ < 0.001?
(A) 2 (B) 5 (C) 8 (D) 10 (E) 12
23. If the straight lines whose equations are { 2x + ky = 3
{ 3x + 6y = 4
are parallel, then k =
(A) 1 (B) 3 (C) 4 (D) 5 (E) 6
Figure 4
⟦line⟧
P(12, 4, 3)
24. In Figure 4, point P has coordinates (12, 4, 3). What is
the distance OP?
(A) 10 (B) 13 (C) 19 (D) 22 (E) 169
25. The vertical asymptotes of y = x / (x² - 4) are
(A) y = 0, x = 2 (B) y = -2, y = 2 (C) x = -2, x = 2
(D) x = 0, y = 0 (E) x = -1, x = 1
26. The graph of { x = 4t - 2 in the XY-plane is
{ y = 4t²
(A) a circle
(B) a parabola
(C) an ellipse
(D) a hyperbola
(E) a straight line
27. What is the smallest positive value of x for which
sin (5x)° = -1/2 ?
(A) 6 (B) 30 (C) 42 (D) 48 (E) 66
Figure 5
⟦line⟧
28. Which of the following equations has the graph shown
in Figure 5?
(A) y = sin(x/2) + 1 (B) y = sin 2x
(C) y = 2 sin(x/2) (D) y = 2 sin x
(E) y = 2 sin 2x
29. If f and g are functions such that f(x) = 2x - 3 and
f(g(x)) = x, then g(x) =
(A) 2x + 3 (B) 3x + 2 (C) 3x - 2
(D) (x + 3) / 2 (E) (3x - 1) / 2
30. Figure 6 shows a chord of length c in a circle of radius
r. Determine the central angle θ in terms of c and r.
(arc sin x means the same as sin⁻¹ x.)
(A) θ = arc tan (c/r)
(B) θ = arc sin (c/r)
(C) θ = arc sin (c/2r)
(D) θ = 2 arc sin (c/r)
(E) θ = 2 arc sin (c/2r)
Figure 6
DS4P60 201601
Archival unit 185
PRINCETON JUN 27 P.M. 1964 N.J. College Entrance Examination Board Box 592 Princeton, New Jersey 08540 RETURN REQUESTED Important Our students should take Level I Exam in Math + not Level II. FIRST CLASS MAIL PRINCETON MAY 26 '64 N.J. U.S. POSTAGE 11 P.B. METER 349042 Shamash Secondary School New Alwiyah, Baghdad 990210 Baghdad, Iraq ATTENTION: GUIDANCE DIRECTOR
Archival unit 186
SHAMASH SECONDARY SCHOOL Shamash Preparatory School New Alwiyah - Baghdad Baghdad Tel. No. 91693 Alwiyah Al-Jadeeda Telephone 91693 No. ⟦line⟧ Number Date 17th April, 1964 Date Our Code No. with ETS: 990210 To: College Entrance Examination Board, Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A. Dear Sirs, I have received the enclosed invoice in duplicate about two weeks ago. The sum of 164.50 dollars covering examination fees and extra score reports, has been remitted by air mail one month ago by the Credit Bank of Iraq through their New York correspondent, the First National City Bank of New York, New York, for payment to you through their Princeton correspondent. Kindly acknowledge receipt. As I informed you previously, the only way we can arrange for payment in dollars is by Air Transfer, as all transactions in dollars have got to pass through the Foreign Exchange Control Department in Baghdad and are settled in this way. Yours faithfully, ⟦A.S. Obadiah⟧ A.S. Obadiah, Principal.
Archival unit 187
SHAMASH SECONDARY SCHOOL New Alwiyah - Baghdad Tel. No. 91693 Shamash Preparatory School Baghdad New Alwiyah Telephone 91693 No.: ⟦illegible⟧ Date: 17th April, 1964 Number: Date: Our Code No. with ETS: 990210 To: College Entrance Examination Board, Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey, U.S.A. Dear Sirs, I have received the enclosed invoice in duplicate about two weeks ago. The sum of 164.50 dollars covering examination fees and extra score reports, has been remitted by air mail one month ago by the Credit Bank of Iraq through their New York correspondent, the First National City Bank of New York, New York, for payment to you through their Princeton correspondent. Kindly acknowledge receipt. As I informed you previously, the only way we can arrange for payment in dollars is by Air Transfer, as all transactions in dollars have got to pass through the Foreign Exchange Control Department in Baghdad and are settled in this way. Yours faithfully, ⟦A.S. Obadiah⟧ A.S. Obadiah, Principal.
Archival unit 188
Frank Iny School Shamash Secondary School Baghdad Alwiyah Al-Jadida Telephone 91693 Number: Sh / 11 / 64 Date: 27 / 2 / 1964 To the Credit Bank of Iraq - Baghdad Subject / Request to transfer the amount of (164.50) dollars Greetings, Due to the participation of thirteen students from this school in the current academic year by applying for special examinations (Scholastic Aptitude Test & Achievement Tests) conducted by the College Entrance Examination Board in Baghdad, and due to the required registration fees for these examinations which must be paid in advance. Therefore, please mediate with the Directorate of Foreign Exchange to obtain the amount of (164.50) dollars, which is the amount required to be paid for this purpose, noting that the entity to which the amount should be transferred is:- College Entrance Examination Board, Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey, And that is similar to last year, as we previously requested in our letter No. Sh/25/63 dated 24 / 2 / 1963 to transfer the amount of (125) dollars for examination fees for nine students who had participated in the same examinations last year, and the Directorate of Foreign Exchange approved that at the time. Furthermore, upon the approval of the Directorate of Foreign Exchange to transfer the amount of (164.50) dollars, please debit its equivalent in Iraqi Dinars from the account of Frank Iny School with you, No. 2088, and inform us. Please accept our highest respect.. Abdullah Obadia For the Director Attachments A memorandum requesting the payment of (164.50) dollars issued by the competent committee for the examinations to process the request. A copy to / Directorate of Foreign Exchange - please facilitate the transfer transaction described above - Noting that these examinations are held in Baghdad on 7 / 3 / 1964.
Archival unit 189
SHAMASH SECONDARY SCHOOL New Alwiyah - Baghdad Tel. No. 91693 Shamash Preparatory School Baghdad New Alwiyah Telephone 91693 Date: 20th December, 1963 No: ⟦line⟧ Date: ⟦line⟧ Our Code No. with ETS: 990210 To: College Entrance Examination Board, Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey, ( U.S.A. ) Dear Sirs, I am enclosing with this letter 13 application cards properly filled up by students from this school who are to sit the SAT and Achievement Tests on March 7, 1964, in Baghdad. The total fees amount to 162.50 Dollars as detailed below: | Dollars 13 SAT & Achievement Tests @ $ 12.50 | 162.50 2 Additional score reports to Colleges @ $ 1.00 | 2.00 Total fees: | 164.50 According to the regulations enforced in this country, we have to present an invoice from your Board for this amount, to the foreign exchange control Department in Baghdad, before we are permitted to transfer the money in dollars to you. I shall therefore be much obliged if you will send me at your earliest convenience the necessary invoice (in duplicate if possible) to be presented to the foreign exchange control department in Baghdad, to enable me to transfer the sum of 164.50 dollars to you in due course. Thanking you, I remain, Yours faithfully, ⟦A. S. Obadiah⟧ A. S. OBADIAH, Principal. Copy to: Educational Testing Service, 20 Nassau Street, Princeton, New Jersey, (U.S.A.) ⟦illegible⟧
Archival unit 190
COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 December 1963 MEMORANDUM FOR: College Admissions Officers / Secondary School Guidance Directors SUBJECT: Basic Changes in College Board Mathematics Achievement Tests The purpose of this memorandum is to alert you, a year in advance, to basic changes that will take place in the Mathe- matics Achievement Tests offered in the Admissions Testing Program of the College Entrance Examination Board. After three years of careful study, these changes were recom- mended by the College Board's Committee of Examiners in Mathematics* and approved by the Board's Committee on Examinations to take effect beginning with the December 1964 administration. Two copies of the memorandum are enclosed, one for you and one to forward to the chairman of your mathematics department. The present battery of Intermediate and Advanced Achievement Tests in Mathematics will be discontinued after the July 1964 administration. Starting with the 1964-65 academic year, two different tests will be offered. The Com- mittee of Examiners believes these new tests will provide a better and fairer measure of candidate ability and training in today's educational picture, characterized as it is by varying degrees of ferment and change in mathematics curriculums. The new tests will be: Level I (Standard)—This test is designed to be an adequate and reliable test in mathematics for admissions purposes at all but a few colleges. It is expected that at least 80 per cent of all candidates who elect to take a mathematics test will take this test, regardless of years of preparation. It will be a broad-range, cumulative test, combining much of the con- tent coverage of the present two tests. This test will be offered at all administrations. Level II (Intensive)—This is a test designed especially for candidates with high ability in mathematics who have had the opportunity to take enriched or accelerated courses in mathematics. It will be narrower in scope than the present Advanced Test and will include more advanced material, stressing those aspects of pre-calculus mathematics which are important to full preparation for a good course in cal- culus and analytic geometry. It can be taken by high ability students either in the fourth year, or after completion of four years, of such a secondary school mathematics pro- gram. In the first year, this test will be offered only in January 1965 and May 1965. More detailed information about the content of the two tests is given below in the section entitled Description of the New Tests. Reasons for the Change Over a long period of time, the Committee of Examiners in Mathematics has found it increasingly difficult to set fair examinations based on years of training. Among the prob- lems with which the Committee has been concerned are: • the blurring of course content distinctions by grade level and the concomitant gradual blurring of the lines of de- marcation between content specifications for the two present tests; • the difficulty that candidates encounter in selecting the test that is appropriate for them; • the overlapping, with respect to years of preparation, of the candidate groups taking the present two levels of tests, with many fourth year students taking the Intermediate Test; • rapidly changing curriculum in many schools, including shifts in grade placement of subject matter and the upgrad- ing of some courses; • the trend toward earlier testing dates for many candidates. The Committee concluded that a single test for most candidates would solve many of these problems and be a fairer measure in the complex situation arising from the growth of integrated courses and shifts in grade placement *Cletus O. Oakley, chairman of the department of mathematics at Haverford College, chairman; W. Eugene Ferguson, head of the department of mathematics at Newton High School, Newtonville, Mass.; George E. Forsythe, director of the computation center at Stanford University; Ransom VanB. Lynch, instructor in mathe- matics at Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N.H.; and Henry Van Engen, professor of education and mathematics at the University of Wisconsin. to be taken for it
Archival unit 191
ceeb and sequence of subject matter. Also, such a test would clarify and simplify for the colleges the problem of interpre- tation and comparability of scores. An extensive study was made to test this hypothesis, com- paring the results on a specially constructed single test of the kind the committee proposed with those on a special form of the Intermediate and on a special form of the Advanced Test administered in January 1962 to a large group of candidates who had taken either of the regular mathematics tests in the December or January administra- tions. Information was obtained from the candidates about their preparation in mathematics and questionnaires were sent to the participating schools to ascertain the nature of their curriculums in mathematics. The results of this study showed that the single test was entirely feasible from the viewpoint of good measurement and that it would serve admirably for college entrance screening for the candidate group as a whole at a variety of examination dates. The new Level I (Standard) exami- nation will be a test of this type. However, the Committee recognized that there is a small, but growing, group of students of high mathematical ability for whom neither the new Level I nor even the present Advanced Test would provide an adequate opportunity to demonstrate their training and achievement. At the same time, there are a few colleges which require for admission intensive preparation in mathematics and a very high level of ability. It is for these students and these colleges that the Level II test has been developed. Scores and Score Interpretation Scores on the new tests will be reported on the regular Col- lege Board scale, although it is probable that the present score ceiling of 800 will be lifted for the Level II test. As the change to the new tests occurs, continuity with previous mathematics scales and the comparability of scores between the two tests will be maintained. On the Level I test, students with the same preparation can expect to receive scaled scores that are approximately the same as they would receive on the appropriate one of the current tests. Since the two tests will be scaled to reflect the greater difficulty of the Level II test and the greater mathematical sophistication required for it, it will be pos- sible for colleges to accept and use scores on either test. A candidate making a certain score on the Level II test can be presumed to be able to make at least as high a score on the Level I test. However, a particular score on the Level I test cannot be presumed to imply an equivalent score on the Level II test since the candidate probably would not have had the necessary training. Scores on both tests must, as always, be interpreted in terms of the student's secondary school record. While a stu- dent who has had training appropriate for the Level II test would not be able to demonstrate the full extent of his knowledge if he takes the Level I test, a student who takes the Level II test without adequate preparation for it would not have the opportunity, which would be provided by the Level I test, to demonstrate his grasp of the material he has studied. Consideration is being given to providing separate norms on the Level I test for candidates with different numbers of years of training. The desirability of providing such distri- butions is complicated by the difficulty in getting reliable information about years of training and by the fact that differences in ability, in curriculum, and in teaching, as well as in the number of years of preparation, lead to differences in results on any test. More specific information will be provided before you face the need to deal with scores on the new tests. Implications for the Colleges Those colleges which require a Mathematics Achievement Test for admission will need to make a change next year in their catalogues and other publications dealing with admis- sions requirements. Most colleges will find Level I (Stand- ard) as satisfactory a test for admissions purposes as either the present Intermediate or Advanced Test. They may wish either to state that they prefer Level I but will accept Level II
Archival unit 192
⟦illegible⟧ scores or that they will accept either test without preference. A college would gain nothing by requiring the Level I test, since Level I and Level II scores for candidates with the appropriate preparation will be comparable and such a re- quirement would create an unnecessary hardship for ⟦a⟧ can- didate who is applying also to a college which requires the Level II test. A college may, of course, require the Level II test but such a requirement should be made with full recognition that this test is designed for the exceptional student with extensive preparation and should be required only by those colleges which demand outstanding mathematical ability and training of all their incoming students. Such colleges would typically require all freshmen to take a mathematics course which is as advanced as a thorough course in cal- culus with analytic geometry. Colleges which do not require such a course of all freshmen should give careful considera- tion to the possibility that the requirement of the Level II test might eliminate in advance some applicants whom the college might wish to admit. Those colleges which require Achievement Tests without specifying mathematics need make no change in their re- quirements and can accept scores on either test on the ⟦same⟧ basis as they now do for the present ⟦Intermediate⟧ and Advanced Mathematics Tests. Implications for Schools Since the choice between the two new tests involves ques- tions of mathematics curriculum and mathematical ability, it is imperative that the mathematics departments of sec- ondary schools participate with the guidance counselors in recommending to students which test to take. A knowledge of the content of the two tests in relation to the content of the courses the student has taken is crucial to the decision about test choice. If each student takes the test appropriate for him, schools can expect that the scores their students attain will not differ substantially from the school's past experience. Most students should be guided into the Level I (Stand- ard) test. A student should take the Level II test only if he is applying to a college that requires the Level II test or if he meets the following conditions: • he is taking an advanced placement course in mathe- matics or he is taking, or has completed, the fourth year of secondary school mathematics; and • his courses have covered most of the topics included in the Level II test at a fairly sophisticated level; and • in the school's judgment, based on past experience, he has the mathematical ability to attain a very high score— at least 690—on the present Advanced Mathematics Test. Description of the New Tests The introduction of two new levels of mathematics tests does not imply that the College Board Mathematics Achieve- ment Tests are undergoing a sharp shift toward "modern mathematics." Over a period of years, the present tests have been undergoing a very gradual shift toward the program recommended by the College Board Commission on Mathe- matics, particularly in those areas where this program and the various other curriculum revision groups are in funda- mental agreement. This gradual evolution will continue within each of the new examinations but no sudden, exten- sive change will take place. However, the modernization of the tests has reached the point where the symbols for union and intersection of sets may now be used, as well as the symbols for absolute value and inequalities which have been introduced in recent years. Level I (Standard) This test will be a combination of the present two tests but broader in coverage than either of them. By sampling the entire content domain of regular secondary school mathe- matics, it will provide an opportunity for candidates with widely different preparations to demonstrate their under- standing and achievement in those topics which they have
Archival unit 193
ceeb studied. It is not expected that all candidates will be familiar with all the topics included. At least half of the test will be algebra and plane geom- etry and the rest will consist of questions from other areas such as coordinate geometry, elementary trigonometry, func- tional notation, space perception and simple solids, and mathematical reasoning and proof. In algebra, the content domain will include such topics as equations through quadratics and simple cubics, logarithms, factoring, properties of numbers and number systems, ra- tional exponents, simple irrational equations, systems of equations, linear inequalities and their graphs, operations with complex numbers, and the notion of absolute value. Included in coordinate geometry will be topics such as rectangular coordinates, properties of straight lines, dis- tance between points, the elementary conics centered at the origin, and symmetry. The trigonometry in the test will be mostly numerical, including the trigonometry of angles, simple identities, interpolation, the law of sines and of co- sines, and the graphs of simple trigonometric functions. Level II (Intensive) This examination will be narrower in scope than Level I and will, in general, test material more advanced than Level I. The test will be composed of approximately equal amounts of algebra, geometry (including both coordinate and syn- thetic geometry of two and three dimensions), trigonometry, functions, and a miscellaneous category consisting of such topics as sequences and limits, logic and proof, probability and ⟦counting⟧ procedures, and approximations. This test to a large extent implements, after a ten-year wait, the recom- mendations of the Commission on Mathematics on three and one-half to four years of college preparatory mathematics. In general, greater technical facility and sophistication will be expected than in Level I. In trigonometry, the empha- sis will be on analytic trigonometry and the content to be sampled will be extended to include the trigonometry of real numbers, radian measure, polar coordinates, DeMoivre's Theorem, multiple angle formulas, trigonometric equations, inverse trigonometric functions, periodicity, amplitude and phase, and graphs of more complex trigonometric functions. In coordinate geometry, conics not centered at the origin, translations and simple rotations, distance from a point to a line and loci will be among the topics, in addition to those in Level I, from which questions may be drawn. In algebra and functions, questions will sample such topics as poly- nomials of degree greater than two, including theorems on roots and their relation to coefficients, exponential and loga- rithmic functions, natural logarithms, absolute value func- tions and their graphs, systems of equations and existence of solutions, irrational equations, inverses and composi- tion of functions, quadratic inequalities, and complex num- bers and their graphs. Both tests will continue to test for understanding of con- cepts and for the application of ideas in new situations rather than for rote recall. ⟦illegible⟧ T123P56 201600
Archival unit 194
COLLEGE ENTRANCE EXAMINATION BOARD Box 592, Princeton, New Jersey 08540 December 1963 MEMORANDUM FOR: College Admissions Officers / Secondary School Guidance Directors SUBJECT: Basic Changes in College Board Mathematics Achievement Tests The purpose of this memorandum is to alert you, a year in advance, to basic changes that will take place in the Mathe- matics Achievement Tests offered in the Admissions Testing Program of the College Entrance Examination Board. After three years of careful study, these changes were recom- mended by the College Board's Committee of Examiners in Mathematics* and approved by the Board's Committee on Examinations to take effect beginning with the December 1964 administration. Two copies of the memorandum are enclosed, one for you and one to forward to the chairman of your mathematics department. The present battery of Intermediate and Advanced Achievement Tests in Mathematics will be discontinued after the July 1964 administration. Starting with the 1964-65 academic year, two different tests will be offered. The Com- mittee of Examiners believes these new tests will provide a better and fairer measure of candidate ability and training in today's educational picture, characterized as it is by varying degrees of ferment and change in mathematics curriculums. ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ ⟦illegible⟧ The new tests will be: Level I (Standard)—This test is designed to be an adequate and reliable test in mathematics for admissions purposes at all but a few colleges. It is expected that at least 80 per cent of all candidates who elect to take a mathematics test will take this test, regardless of years of preparation. It will be a broad-range, cumulative test, combining much of the con- tent coverage of the present two tests. This test will be offered at all administrations. Level II (Intensive)—This is a test designed especially for candidates with high ability in mathematics who have had the opportunity to take enriched or accelerated courses in mathematics. It will be narrower in scope than the present Advanced Test and will include more advanced material, stressing those aspects of pre-calculus mathematics which are important to full preparation for a good course in cal- culus and analytic geometry. It can be taken by high ability students either in the fourth year, or after completion of four years, of such a secondary school mathematics pro- gram. In the first year, this test will be offered only in January 1965 and May 1965. More detailed information about the content of the two tests is given below in the section entitled Description of the New Tests. Reasons for the Change Over a long period of time, the Committee of Examiners in Mathematics has found it increasingly difficult to set fair examinations based on years of training. Among the prob- lems with which the Committee has been concerned are: • the blurring of course content distinctions by grade level and the concomitant gradual blurring of the lines of de- marcation between content specifications for the two present tests; • the difficulty that candidates encounter in selecting the test that is appropriate for them; • the overlapping, with respect to years of preparation, of the candidate groups taking the present two levels of tests, with many fourth year students taking the Intermediate Test; • rapidly changing curriculum in many schools, including shifts in grade placement of subject matter and the upgrad- ing of some courses; • the trend toward earlier testing dates for many candidates. The Committee concluded that a single test for most candidates would solve many of these problems and be a fairer measure in the complex situation arising from the growth of integrated courses and shifts in grade placement *Cletus O. Oakley, chairman of the department of mathematics at Haverford College, chairman; W. Eugene Ferguson, head of the department of mathematics at Newton High School, Newtonville, Mass.; George E. Forsythe, director of the computation center at Stanford University; Ransom VanB. Lynch, instructor in mathe- matics at Phillips Exeter Academy, Exeter, N.H.; and Henry Van Engen, professor of education and mathematics at the University of Wisconsin.
Archival unit 195
ETS and sequence of subject matter. Also, such a test would ⟦clarify⟧ and simplify for the colleges the problem of interpre- tation and comparability of scores. An extensive study was made to test this hypothesis, com- paring the results on a specially constructed single test of the kind the committee proposed with those on a special form of the Intermediate and on a special form of the Advanced Test administered in January 1962 to a large group of candidates who had taken either of the regular mathematics tests in the December or January administra- tions. Information was obtained from the candidates about their preparation in mathematics and questionnaires were sent to the participating schools to ascertain the nature of their curriculums in mathematics. The results of this study showed that the single test was entirely feasible from the viewpoint of good measurement and that it would serve admirably for college entrance screening for the candidate group as a whole at a variety of examination dates. The new Level I (Standard) exami- nation will be a test of this type. However, the Committee recognized that there is a small, but growing, group of students of high mathematical ability for whom neither the new Level I nor even the present Advanced Test would provide an adequate opportunity to demonstrate their training and achievement. At the same time, there are a few colleges which require for admission intensive preparation in mathematics and a very high level of ability. It is for these students and these colleges that the Level II test has been developed. the same as they would receive on the appropriate one of the current tests. Since the two tests will be scaled to reflect the ⟦greater⟧ difficulty of the Level II test and the greater mat⟦hematical⟧ sophistication required for it, it will be pos- sib⟦le for⟧ colleges to accept and use scores on either test. A candidate making a certain score on the Level II test can be presumed to be able to make at least as high a score on the Level I test. However, a particular score on the Level I test cannot be presumed to imply an equivalent score on the Level II test since the candidate probably would not have had the necessary training. Scores on both tests must, as always, be interpreted in terms of the student's secondary school record. While a stu- dent who has had training appropriate for the Level II test would not be able to demonstrate the full extent of his knowledge if he takes the Level I test, a student who takes the Level II test without adequate preparation for it would not have the opportunity, which would be provided by the Level I test, to demonstrate his grasp of the material he has studied. ⟦Consideration⟧ is being given to providing separate norms on ⟦the⟧ Level I test for candidates with different numbers of ye⟦ars⟧ of training. The desirability of providing such disti⟦nc-⟧ ti⟦ons⟧ is complicated by the difficulty in getting reliable information about years of training and by the fact that differences in ability, in curriculum, and in teaching, as well as in the number of years of preparation, lead to differences in results on any test. More specific information will be provided before you face the need to deal with scores on the new tests. Scores and Score Interpretation Implications for the Colleges Scores on the new tests will be reported on the regular Col- lege Board scale, although it is probable that the present score ceiling of 800 will be lifted for the Level II test. As the change to the new tests occurs, continuity with previous mathematics scales and the comparability of scores between the two tests will be maintained. On the Level I test, students with the same preparation can expect to receive scaled scores that are approximately Those colleges which require a Mathematics Achievement Test for admission will need to make a change next year in their catalogues and other publications dealing with admis- sions requirements. Most colleges will find Level I (Stand- ard) as satisfactory a test for admissions purposes as either the present Intermediate or Advanced Test. They may wish either to state that they prefer Level I but will accept Level II
Archival unit 196
ceeb scores or that they will accept either test without preference. A college would gain nothing by requiring the Level I test, since Level I and Level II scores for candidates ⟦with⟧ the appropriate preparation will be comparable and su⟦ch⟧ a re- quirement would create an unnecessary hardship f⟦or⟧ can- didate who is applying also to a college which requires the Level II test. A college may, of course, require the Level II test but such a requirement should be made with full recognition that this test is designed for the exceptional student with extensive preparation and should be required only by those colleges which demand outstanding mathematical ability and training of all their incoming students. Such colleges would typically require all freshmen to take a mathematics course which is as advanced as a thorough course in cal- culus with analytic geometry. Colleges which do not require such a course of all freshmen should give careful considera- tion to the possibility that the requirement of the Level II test might eliminate in advance some applicants whom the college might wish to admit. Those colleges which require Achievement Tests without specifying mathematics need make no change in ⟦their⟧ re- quirements and can accept scores on either test on ⟦the s⟧ame basis as they now do for the present Intermed⟦iate⟧ and Advanced Mathematics Tests. Implications for Schools Since the choice between the two new tests involves ques- tions of mathematics curriculum and mathematical ability, it is imperative that the mathematics departments of sec- ondary schools participate with the guidance counselors in recommending to students which test to take. A knowledge of the content of the two tests in relation to the content of the courses the student has taken is crucial to the decision about test choice. If each student takes the test appropriate for him, schools can expect that the scores their students attain will not differ substantially from the school's past experience. Most students should be guided into the Level I (Stand- ard) test. A student should take the Level II test only if he is applying to a college that requires the Level II test or if he meets the following conditions: • he is taking an advanced placement course in mathe- matics or he is taking, or has completed, the fourth year of secondary school mathematics; and • his courses have covered most of the topics included in the Level II test at a fairly sophisticated level; and • in the school's judgment, based on past experience, he has the mathematical ability to attain a very high score— at least 690—on the present Advanced Mathematics Test. Description of the New Tests The introduction of two new levels of mathematics tests does not imply that the College Board Mathematics Achieve- ment Tests are undergoing a sharp shift toward "modern" mathematics." Over a period of years, the present tests have been undergoing a very gradual shift toward the program recommended by the College Board Commission on Mathe- matics, particularly in those areas where this program and the various other curriculum revision groups are in funda- mental agreement. This gradual evolution will continue within each of the new examinations but no sudden, exten- sive change will take place. However, the moderniz⟦atio⟧n of the tests has reached the point where the symbols for union and intersection of sets may now be used, as well as the symbols for absolute value and inequalities which have been introduced in recent years. Level I (Standard) This test will be a combination of the present two tests but broader in coverage than either of them. By sampling the entire content domain of regular secondary school mathe- matics, it will provide an opportunity for candidates with widely different preparations to demonstrate their under- standing and achievement in those topics which they have
Archival unit 197
ceeb studied. It is not expected that all candidates will be familiar with ⟦t⟧he topics included. At least half of the test will be algebra and plane geom- etry and the rest will consist of questions from other areas ⟦such⟧ as coordinate geometry, elementary trigonometry, func- tional notation, space perception and simple solids, and mathematical reasoning and proof. In algebra, the content domain will include such topics as ⟦equat⟧ions through quadratics and simple cubics, logarithms, factoring, properties of numbers and number systems, ra- tional exponents, simple irrational equations, systems of equations, linear inequalities and their graphs, operations with complex numbers, and the notion of absolute value. Included in coordinate geometry will be topics such as rectangular coordinates, properties of straight lines, dis- tance between points, the elementary conics centered at the origin, and symmetry. The trigonometry in the test will be mostly numerical, including the trigonometry of angles, simple identities, interpolation, the law of sines and of co- sines, and the graphs of simple trigonometric functions. Level II (Intensive) This examination will be narrower in scope than Level I and will, in general, test material more advanced than Level I. The test will be composed of approximately equal amounts of algebra, geometry (including both coordinate and syn- thetic geometry of two and three dimensions), trigonometry, functions, and a miscellaneous category consisting of such topics as sequences and limits, logic and proof, probability and ⟦cou⟧nting procedures, and approximations. This test to a lar⟦ge⟧ extent implements, after a ten-year wait, the recom- mend⟦ati⟧ons of the Commission on Mathematics on three and one-h⟦alf⟧ to four years of college preparatory mathematics. In general, greater technical facility and sophistication will be expected than in Level I. In trigonometry, the empha- sis will be on analytic trigonometry and the content to be sampled will be extended to include the trigonometry of real numbers, radian measure, polar coordinates, DeMoivre's Theorem, multiple angle formulas, trigonometric equations, inverse trigonometric functions, periodicity, amplitude and phase, and graphs of more complex trigonometric functions. In coordinate geometry, conics not centered at the origin, translations and simple rotations, distance from a point to a line and loci will be among the topics, in addition to those in Level I, from which questions may be drawn. In algebra and functions, questions will sample such topics as poly- nomials of degree greater than two, including theorems on roots and their relation to coefficients, exponential and loga- rith⟦mic⟧ functions, natural logarithms, absolute value func- tion⟦s an⟧d their graphs, systems of equations and existence of ⟦solut⟧ions, irrational equations, inverses and composi- tion ⟦of⟧ functions, quadratic inequalities, and complex num- bers and their graphs. Both tests will continue to test for understanding of con- cepts and for the application of ideas in new situations rather than for rote recall. T123P56 201600
Archival unit 198
⟦illegible⟧N IT SAVE THE ⟦illegible⟧MONEY? Use of CPGA will cost the schools less than the practices it replaces. The information process- ing portion of the CPGA has been found to yield economies which range from savings of time alone to significant savings in money. This is particularly true in those schools which find ⟦hole⟧ore than half their senior classes in need of high school transcript services. Schools with as many as two-thirds college-bound have noted dollar savings of the order of 25 per cent. The entire CPGA system, including the records- keeping procedures, yields savings which are dramatic. Recent studies in Georgia and In- diana high schools that now use the CPGA in all its aspects revealed dollar savings of the order of 230 per cent. HOW CAN IT SAVE SCHOOL STAFF TIME? Through the use of professional, systematic methods and materials, CPGA encourages schools to streamline their clerical routines. ⟦hole⟧his has resulted in savings in clerks' time ranging from 40 to 75 per cent and savings of 65 to 75 per cent in time spent by teachers in posting student records. Guidance and ad- ministrative personnel have reported equally impressive economies. 6
Archival unit 199
ARE COMPUTERS REALLY NECESSARY? ⟦line⟧ A computer will do in one second the compil- ing, computing, analyzing, summarizing, and typing that would take a clerk and typist over an hour to do after they had become proficient. When the work is arranged so that a computer can process the records of students from many schools at one time, the machine will take in the records, compute the information, and print out the transcripts for class after class steadily and without getting tired or making errors. Whether computers are necessary for functions such as the preparation of student transcripts, then, is actually a question of whether schools can afford the valuable time of people to be spent on tasks that can be done better through electronics. The administration of student per- sonnel is so complex, and becoming increas- ingly more so, that computers do seem nec- essary. WHERE CAN WE FIND AN AVAILABLE COMPUTER? ⟦line⟧ This work does not require a computer in every school—not even in every city or county. One well programmed, large-scale computer at a university, in a state education agency, or in a regional educational data processing center could do this work for all of the schools in a state, or group of states, in several weeks dur- ing the summer. Meanwhile, as such arrangements evolve— and time is required to do this—the ETS com- puter center will process reports on all schools wishing to have them. So long as the CPGA does not grow too large too rapidly, it will be feasible to carry the load on a centralized basis. 7
Archival unit 200
HOW DOES IT HELP THE STUDENT? ⟦line⟧ The student benefits most of all by having a complete high school record. If he has held a part-time job, earned an award, or taken a special course, these facts are right there on the record along with his courses and grades. His record is in focus, with grade averages by subject field, area, and year to remind him of strengths and weaknesses, progress or slippage. His test scores are interpreted on a compara- tive basis with local and national groups. His class rankings clearly describe his school achievement in the light of competition with his classmates. Moreover, his record is avail- able for transmittal without delay to the col- leges in which he is interested. WHO ELSE BENEFITS? ⟦line⟧ The school benefits, too, for it has a compre- hensive and accurate student record system that requires less time to maintain and costs less. The principal benefits by letting the com- puter accomplish things which before de- manded time or remained undone. Teachers and counselors benefit by having at all times a comprehensive record for every student and, for seniors, a computed report. The school system benefits since through the CPGA it will become directly involved in a major application of electronic computers early in the history of their use in education. The college admissions people benefit by receiving transcripts that are clear, complete, and comparable from school to school. This takes the emphasis off test scores in reaching admissions decisions. 8 HOW MUCH DOES IT COST⟦...⟧ ⟦line⟧ Costs of the CPGA need to be looked at in two ways: while ETS alone is doing the process- ing and after the processing begins to be shared by other educational data processing centers. At present, the data processing service of CPGA, under which ETS provides coding ma- terials, computer service, and five copies of the report for each student, costs $1.55 p⟦er⟧ student (or 31 cents for each computed transcript). Materials for the record-keeping part of CPGA, replacing all current cumulative records, intermediate record files and report cards, cost about 20 cents per student per year. As the system matures, and others share in the computer programs ETS has developed, costs may vary somewhat. WHO PAYS FOR IT? ⟦line⟧ Through four years of design, development, and tryout, the considerable costs have been borne about equally by Educational Testing Service and the Ford Foundation, with large contributions of man-hours and small cont⟦ri⟧ butions in materials costs by the states a⟦nd⟧ schools involved. From this point onward, however, the schools that use the CPGA will pay for it. This is as it should be, for by March 1964 the CPGA will be a fully operational stu- dent information processing system tailored to a widely recognized educational need. Another way of putting this question is: who gets the money that CPGA saves the school? 5