Barbara Jordan served as the hearing officer for three-day adversary evaluation hearings about the pros and cons of minimum competency testing (MCT). This report is the complete transcript of the first day of proceedings. James Popham and George Madaus presented the opening arguments for the pro team and con team, respectively. Michael Scriven, testifying for the pro team, asserted that MCT constitutes "the last hope of education." The pro team also presented testimony from witnesses from two states in which there are decent MCT programs: South Carolina and Virginia. Testifying for the con team, Ralph Nader argued that MCT is not a consumer protection device. Arthur Wise testified that MCT is politically motivated, but not educationally sound. Ralph Tyler described MCT as the public's response to their perceived difficulties. Gilbert Austin made the point that minimum competency tests are not the determining factor in an effective school. The remaining con testimony consisted of arguments from local or state school personnel that MCT does not improve school effectiveness, and the expression of concern about possible test bias from Ms. Taracido of the Puerto Rican Legal Defense and Education Fund. (BW)