A frequent contributor to the blog’s discussions calls himself or herself “Democracy.” Here is the comment left by this reader in response to the announcement about changes that will be made to the SAT:
******************
“Democracy” writes:
I’ve noted this point multiple times on this blog but it bears repeating.
College enrollment specialists say that their research finds the SAT predicts between 3 and 15 percent of freshman-year college grades, and after than that nothing. Shoe size would work as well, or better. The ACT, the SAT’s big competitor, is only marginally better. The “new, improved” SAT will be no different. (though in a perverse twist, the SAT changes suggest that it will now make an attempt to enhance citizenship…don’t believe it).
The real story is that both the ACT and the College Board (purveyor of the PSAT, SAT, and the AP program) were major players in the development of the Common Core standards – and its massive testing regimen – which are about to be unleashed on public schools across the nation.
The Common Core was funded by Bill Gates, and it was largely the work of three main groups: Achieve, ACT, and College Board. Toss in the Education Trust. All of these groups are tied tightly to corporate-style “reform.”
Achieve, Inc.’s board includes Louis Gertner, who’s bad-mouthed public education for decades. It also includes Tennessee Republican governor Bill Haslam, a pro-life, anti-gay, corporate friendly politician. The board also includes Prudential executive (and former big banker) Mark Grier (Prudential has been fined multiple times for deceptive sales practices and improper trading), and Intel CEO Craig Barrett (who keeps repeating the STEM “crisis” myth). Intel has laid off thousands of workers and is masterful and aggressive at avoiding tax payments and seeking subsidization, much like Boeing, and Microsoft, and GE, and IBM, and Chevron, and AT & T. These are some of the biggest tax cheaters in the country. There’s a reason that Achieve’s main publications never mention democratic citizenship as a mission of public education.
Achieve’s funders include – not surprisingly – Boeing, Intel, GE, IBM, Chevron, JP Morgan Chase, Microsoft, Prudential (and State Farm, MetLife and other insurance companies), and the Gates Foundation. The Education Trust is funded by MetLife, State Farm, IBM, and by the Broad, Gates and Walton Foundations, among others.
The “leaders” at the College Board include president David Coleman, who was instrumental in writing the Common Core standards, and who was a former McKinsey consultant and treasurer of disgraced former DC chancellor Michelle Rhee’s StudentsFirst. It includes policy chief Stefanie Sanford, former policy director for Texas Governor Rick Perry and “director of advocacy” for the Gates Foundation. It includes assessment chief Cyndie Schmeiser, who is now in charge of the PSAT, SAT, and AccuPlacer (worthless academic measures), and who was previously the chief operating officer at ACT. And it includes Amy Wilkins, formerly of the Education Trust.
Slide on over to charlatan Wendy Kopp’s Teach for America, and one finds that the big contributors are the right-wing Arnold Foundation (which wants to privatize public pensions), the arch-conservative Kern Foundation (which even wants to inculcate ministers into the belief that unregulated “free enterprise” is a “moral system”), the Broad and Gates and Walton Foundations, Cisco, State Farm, and big banks –– Bank of America, Barclays, Credit Suisse, Wells Fargo –– that have paid billions and billions in penalties and fines (with a very hefty dose yet to come) for ripping off consumers and rigging “markets.”
The very same groups who seek to “reform” American public schooling so that no child is left behind, are selling snake oil that will –– and already does –– deny millions of kids a decent education. They perpetuate a corrupted system that marginalizes workers and citizens, that off-shores millions of jobs, that creates enormous inequities in income and wealth through transfers of money from public treasuries to private coffers, and they tell us that the solution lies in better teachers, more “rigorous” standards, and “accountability.”
These people and groups tout the importance of “transformative reform.” They all recite the same jargon, and they all seem to believe that teachers (especially those deemed the “best and brightest”) hold the key to restoring American “economic competitiveness,” which is the foundational rationale for the Common Core.
It’s all unmitigated foolishness. Nonsense. But you won’t read about any of that in mainstream press accounts of the SAT changes. And that’s a dire shame.

I believe it will matter. It will embed the Common Core in private and independent schools. It is being remade in the image of the Common Core and Coleman wants to include the ‘foundational documents’ he wants all students to read. Because the math is very different in CC, the SAT math problems will be very different as well.
Thus private schools will be pressured to adopt CC curriculum, or, at the least something very like it..
Same for states that do not adopt the Common Core. It it more “our will be done”.
LikeLike
Absolutely. Including the SAT and ACT and GED in their quiver completes their master plan. Lord Coleman and Co. will now have their hooks in 75,000,000 students K – college.
Isn’t there something fundamentally wrong here? Deep seeded, raw nerve wrong? Ethically, morally wrong? Legally wrong?
LikeLike
I get weekly emails from Achieve talking about the overwhelming support they have across the nation. And that their third poll shows great support of the CCSS and tests!!
When I read the emails I just scratch my head.
I think the answer is limiting the time allowed for testing and possibly even Common Core curriculum. There needs to be time limits on how much of a child or youth’s day can be spent on material that comes from national (or international) companies and so forth. And schools or counties can choose their tests, but the testing time must not take more than 5 to 10% of school time (unlike the 30% it is consuming now).
Because of the contracts that were signed with these companies when states accepted RttT money, if they disappear completely, it wil take some time (re-negotiating contracts or dissolving them all together takes time—particularly when there are large sums of money tied in—-think like a divorce). But meanwhile parents could and should (and are) demanding limits on how their children spend their day.
The loss of instruction time is unbelievable.
If parents can focus on two points we can start making progress:
1. Test based accountability is a failure. So any decisions structured around that premise are certain to be problematic. (They need to recite that conversation point over and over).
2. The loss of instruction time for children is not acceptable.
LikeLike
May I add an item to this list?
3. The loss of time developing social skills is not acceptable.
In terms of the volume and nature of schoolwork, Kindergarten looks like first, if not second grade these days. Children have less time to develop relationships and learn from interacting with peers at this most critical time in social brain development. This trickles up to the upper primary grades. One need only observe an elementary lunchroom or playground to see the deficiencies in social behavior.
LikeLike
4. We have re-defined the school experience in the hearts and minds of children. They will grow to despise their years spent prepping not learning
LikeLike
5% of a 180 school year is still 9 days of testing. That is still unacceptable especially for testing that gives us no information that can be translated into improvement in classroom practice or to teaching of individual students. Somebody with a puffed out chest wants to walk around announcing our superiority based on bogus metrics. Stupidity. We need an education secretary who doesn’t try to score education like a basketball game. Actually, I am beginning to wonder if we need a cabinet level bully pulpit.
LikeLike
According to Huff Post, the SAT and ACT are no longer required for admission to 800 colleges and universities. These admission opportunities will allow students to apply to one of these universities and bypass the SAT. I believe with increased opposition to the CC, more universities will follow suit and drop the SAT requirement. “FairTest officials maintain SAT and ACT scores are not well-rounded predictors of college success. “(Huff Post)
LikeLike
Standardized exams have never been required at my institution. At the beginning of my time teaching in state admission required a high school diploma. Now it is a 2.0 high school GPA over a set of academic classes.
LikeLike
The SAT will go away when students stop taking the exam and apply to universities that do not require it. Colleges that do not require it tend to have a more diverse student body. Why have a barrier in place that limits learning opportunities? It is time for students to exercise their power in the admissions process.
LikeLike
Would you allow schools to consider a range of standardized test scores (SAT, SAT 2, ACT, AMC 10/12, AIME, AP) in admission decisions?
LikeLike
If GPA is a better indicator of college success, why require stsndardized test? The cost of these exams put up barriers for some students.
LikeLike
At my institution ACT scores are predictive of student success, perhaps because we have a much wider range of ACT scores (16-36) than GPA (usually between 3.0 and 4.0). Exam scores also allow a student an alternative way to demonstrate academic ability. This is especially important for students that are not main stream students.
LikeLike
Schools can choose the information they consider and what weight they put on it without having it legislated. Each state faces different decisions about their education program as does each college or university. We don’t have to dip our fingers into everybody’s soup.
LikeLike
Actually it is ultimately the legislature that sets my institutions admission standards. Private schools like NYU can, of course, set their own.
LikeLike
More colleges SHOULD drop the ACT and SAT.
More high schools should stop emphasizing the ACT and SAT and AP.
But will they?
I wouldn’t hold my breath, especially now that the ACT and College Board claim their products are “aligned” with the Common Core.
Until and unless schools and educators and parents and students divorce themselves from the ACT and the College Board, the Common Core is a certainty.
LikeLike
Can NPE start a national petition “Drop the SAT/Stop ACT”?
LikeLike
It’s also a windfall for all the test-prep publishers who will have new books, online classes and materials, for new products. This is a new market and a money-maker for Princeton-Review, College board and of course Pearson.
LikeLike
jfraad: while self-serving, I think there is large measure of truth in the following pr release by Deborah Ellinger, CEO of The Princeton Review:
[start quote]
“I’m glad that the College Board has acknowledged the importance of prepping for the SAT, and I applaud Sal Khan, a former Princeton Review Teacher of the Year, for making test prep material available free through Khan Academy.
We believe all students should have access to test prep resources and coaching, which is why we work with schools and school districts across the country to ensure underserved students receive guidance and coaching not just on these tests, but on the additional challenges of finding the best fit college and securing financial aid. In fact, The Princeton Review serves more students through school districts and community programs than through our parent-paid courses. We have been working since the day we were founded to ensure equal access.
No standardized test is perfect, and the SAT in particular tends to be biased against women and various ethnic groups. I am very sorry to see the College Board has made optional the only section (essay) where women had better average scores that help offset part of the gender gap in the reading and math sections. We have to deal with this, though, because in spite of the SAT’s notable shortcomings, the reality is that most colleges use standardized tests for admissions decisions, and in many cases scholarships and other forms of financial aid are tied to test performance.
This is not the first time, nor do we expect it will be the last, that the College Board has changed the test. We support any effort to align the test more directly with what students are learning in school. A common refrain when these changes are announced is that they are being made because the old test was coachable, and that the new test will be better tied to curriculum and less coachable. We’ve never seen a test that wasn’t coachable.
The Princeton Review’s position about the SAT remains unchanged. We are not as concerned about the changes to the test as we are about students doing well on this high stakes exam. We will continue to teach our unique combination of test taking, problem solving, and methodology that helps maximize our students’ scores.
Ultimately, to put the whole matter into perspective, this is nothing more than a Coke versus Pepsi battle. In this case Pepsi (the ACT) has taken market leadership from Coke (the SAT), and Coke has responded. When viewed through that lens, these changes make a lot of business sense. From The Princeton Review’s point of view, the College Board has never designed a test that we couldn’t help students crack.”
[end quote]
Link: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the-princeton-review-comments-on-the-sat–changes-announced-by-the-college-board-on-march-5-249031981.html
Two of my favorite lines: “A common refrain when these changes are announced is that they are being made because the old test was coachable, and that the new test will be better tied to curriculum and less coachable. We’ve never seen a test that wasn’t coachable.” A Homer Simpson “Doh!” should follow.
And the last paragraph that frames the SAT changes as “nothing more than a Coke versus Pepsi battle”—another, if louder, “DOH!!!”
Thank you for your comments.
😎
LikeLike
WE MUST MOVE TOWARD “Institutionalizing” PORTFOLIO ASSESSMENTS. http://kennethfetterman.wordpress.com
Interested in teacher training school reform? http://www.smashwords.com/profile/view/kennethfetterman
LikeLike
I believe I read somewhere that SAT’s over about 1600 are quite predictive compared to much less. Since this amounts to an IQ of 120+ where most college work is fairly comprehensible, that’s no surprise. Ivy Leagues always looked at around 2100 as a cut off–High genius IQ’s–barring other evidence.
More colleges are dropping them and all look at grades, essays etc. Some top ones don’t use them, like St. John’s (Annapolis).
LikeLike