The effort to institute minimum competency testing (MCT) is nearly universal despite the need to debate its basic definitions, implications, and consequences beforehand. There are seven distinct reasons for the MCT movement: (1) legislative zeal; (2) unfavorable allegations by local and national press; (3) economic accountability; (4) the "bandwagon" effect; (5) end result of management by objectives; (6) declining test scores; (7) the need for educational reform. While every state is at least considering MCT, programs from state to state show wide variations. The need appears to be pressing, but a number of issues should first be presented, understood, and accepted. Should the test measure life skills or school skills? What are the basics? With what should we measure? When should the test be given? Who will set the standards? Should the test be minimum or maximum? What should be done to help those who fail? Who will pay the cost? Will the test re-segregate? Will curriculum reform be necessary? How much time will be given for phase-in (the time between when the requirement to pass a MCT is instituted and the actual test is given)? Who will be accountable for failures? What are the legal ramifications? In the Springfield Public Schools, the use of the MCT for identifying underachievers is questionable since the Districts's CTBS testing program (California Test of Basic Skills) already serves the purpose for a reasonalby large number of ninth graders. In conclusion, the MCT debate is centered not at standard setting, but rather at the evaluation of those to whom the standard is applied. (Author/CP)