
                         Roanoke Times
                 Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.

DATE: SUNDAY, September 25, 1994                   TAG: 9411050016
SECTION: EDITORIAL                    PAGE: D3   EDITION: METRO 
SOURCE: MICHAEL KIRST AND HENRY ROWEN
DATELINE:                                 LENGTH: Medium

SCRAP THE SAT

IT IS evident, except apparently to most American parents, that in science and math American students perform well below their peers in most developed countries. For instance, the average 10- to 11-year-old is about two years behind his peer in Taiwan or Japan in mathematics. The government's watered-down Goals 2000 legislation, intended to jack up our performance, will not do enough to change this dismal picture.

Among professionals at the elementary- and secondary-school level, there is growing recognition and concern about our failings. Many states are struggling to do better, but they are like people trying to push a string without much pull from the other end. In this case the missing ``pull'' is in higher education.

Much of the problem lies in reliance on the widely used Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT). This is a measurement whose time has come and gone. It is not a uniquely valuable predictor of college success. It has been justly criticized for unfairness to minorities. And it conflicts with current reform efforts (notably Goals 2000).

One result of heavy reliance on the SAT is that many high-school students seem to believe that what they study in high school, and how hard they study, won't make much difference to their futures. They act as if they can make up for their lack of effort by scoring well enough on the SAT to get into a decent college.

Because the SAT - recently renamed the SAT (I) - is primarily an aptitude test, it is similar to an IQ test, not a test of knowledge. Thus students are not necessarily wrong in scorning hard work in high school; both teachers and students know that improving the teaching of core subjects such as literature, science and history will have only a small effect on how students do on the SAT (I), because the tests aren't aligned with what is taught in class. SAT (I) contains some math covered in classes, but it is not aligned with the national curriculum content standards recommended by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.

There is a better way to go.

The College Board, which created the SAT, has long had subject-matter achievement tests (history, English, languages, mathematics, sciences), which are aligned with the high-school curriculum. These tests are offered in the SAT (II). Although many institutions now urge students to take several achievement tests, students have broken the code: They know that these have little weight in admissions decisions. Replacing the SAT (I) with the SAT (II) would dramatically change the incentives of both students and teachers.

Minimizing learning in high school is a peculiarly American phenomenon. School grades plus achievement tests (which vary from being fact-oriented in Japan to emphasizing open-ended essays in France) are the main determinant of who gets admitted in Germany, Canada, Australia, France, Japan and other developed countries. These exams are closely tied to the curricula.

This change needs to be led by higher education, which is in charge of the ``demand side'' of this system. Within higher education, the elite private institutions are best positioned to lead because they have more freedom in admissions than do other institutions. They have essentially nothing to lose regarding the mix of their students (because they use multiple criteria for admissions anyway), while all of higher education - and society as a whole - stands to benefit. But thus far only two selective private institutions, Bates and Bowdoin colleges, have dropped the SATs.

The SAT (I) should be dropped altogether; as long as it is used it will be perceived by students as the real hurdle. The SAT (II) achievement tests should be upgraded so that they are equivalent to international standards in various subject-matter fields. The most legitimate argument against switching entirely to achievement tests is that poor-quality curricula in some schools would hurt bright but poorly prepared students. But such a switch would give these districts a strong incentive to improve. And to give everyone a chance to get ready, there should be adequate notice of the change - say, four years. Who in higher education will step up and do it?

Michael Kirst is an education professor, and Henry Rowen is a business professor, at Stanford University.

The Washington Post

by CNB