The SC Policy Council (SCPC) in its August 2004 edition of The Insider report, greatly lamented the SAT tests results for SC. The Policy Council and Governor Sanford are cited as being greatly perturbed by the three point drop in the SC SAT score and ranking in the national ratings competive follies.

Both of these assessments are wrong headed and do a gross injustice to public education in SC. Both the Policy Council and the Governor’s offices have to be acutely aware of the caveat issued by the college Entrance Examination Board which oversees the SAT testing program. That admonition states you may not, you should not, you will not, and you cannot use the state by state SAT test results in a competitive manner!

The reason for such a disclaimer is caused by the wide variances and incompatibility state by state in demographics and the number of graduating students who are allowed to take the test. The top state in the nation is Iowa. The state allows only the best 4% of its graduating students to take the SAT test. Mississippi drags itself out of the cellar in SAT results by limiting the number of students who take the test to 4%. Thus they show up about 14th in the competition follies. SC doggedly opens the SAT test to any graduating student in SC who wishes to take it. This amounts to about 60% of the graduating students. SC should be commended for this generosity and thoughtfulness and not castigated for an alleged showing of incompetent public education. If SC would restrict its test participation to 4%, the national position should move into the top ten in competitive ratings and the clamor would probably cease.

To use my own school district (Richland School District Two) as an example, the following would be revealed. The national average for the SAT test was 1026 for 2003–04. Richland Two had 795 seniors graduate in 2003–04.

At a 4% testing rate (as in IA), the RDSD2 score would be 1363. At a 10 % testing rate, RSD2 score would be 1280. At a 50 % testing rate, the RSD2 score would be 1031.

To extrapolate the RSD2 4% rate to the state of SC, it could be surmised that the state would be in the top 10% or better in the national competitive follies. But this would not fit the agenda of SCPC nor the governor who are determined to selectively dissemble the basic goodness of the public education system in this state. What other faults would the SCPC and the Governor then turn their attention to? We should enhance that which is successful and take corrective action for that which does not meet that same success.

It is time for the general public to be informed about the SAT test follies and the persistant incorrectly used SAT results against public education in the state of SC.

Glen T. Newman