Scholastic Assessment Test

The column (Dec. 4) by Lee Coffin of Connecticut College about the SAT contains several inaccuracies that I would like to correct.

* The name of the exam is Scholastic Assessment Test; it has not been called an “aptitude” test for nearly two years.

* All the changes in the new SAT were derived from findings that support the work of teachers and how students learn in today’s classrooms. National professional teaching organizations helped advise the work done on the new SAT and the use of calculators was added at the behest of the mathematics community. Studies show that the vast majority of high school students use calculators, including inner-city and rural students.

* The allegations that the test is biased in relation to gender, culture, or race are false. No valid research supports such a claim. Each question used on the SAT I is rigorously pretested and any item found to be distinctively easy or hard for any particular group is discarded. Differences in average scores among subgroups reflect in large part the unequal educational opportunities accorded those groups, and the unequal academic preparation of some individuals in those groups.

* No credible research evidence supports claims of large score gains from special SAT coaching courses, advertising hype by the coaching schools to the contrary. The more academic study students pursue in school, the better they do on the SAT. Misplaced assertions about the value of coaching could well encourage families to spend large amounts of money needlessly.

* Re-centering SAT scores will change nothing regarding students’ actual test performance, merely the number given that performance. It is going to make scores easier to understand for students and others and it is going to improve the SAT’s measurement properties. Trend data for schools and the nation as a whole will still be available through the use of equivalency tables--which have already been distributed to schools and colleges.

* The argument that the SAT detracts from educational objectives because curricular issues become “secondary” belies history. The SAT was first developed in the ‘20s to counter the belief that exams that dealt only in subject-matter mastery and used constructed responses exclusively were having an undue influence on the teaching in America’s high schools. The ability of the SAT to measure academic readiness for college independent of any particular course curriculum was viewed then--as it is now--as highly beneficial. In today’s environment ofincreasing government regulation, the use of a test which reflects academic preparation but is not directly tied to curriculum has many virtues. While gauging readiness to do college-level work, it cannot be used as an accountability instrument that destroys academic freedom and professionalism.

* The majority of the nation’s 1,600 four-year colleges continue to use the SAT--78% of them currently, up from 71% in 1988. In a time when grade inflation is a major concern in many of America’s secondary schools and when other subjective criteria can be problematic, the value of the SAT as a rigorous, objective measure is greater than ever--a fact recognized by most of our best colleges.

I believe that any institution has the right to set whatever admissions policies it chooses. After all, each institution, not the College Board, sets its own standards. I also believe, however, that an institution should explain its decision in terms that do not mislead or misinform the public.

DONALD M. STEWART

President, The College Board

New York