#NNPA BlackPress

OPINION: Why High School Students Don’t Need the SAT Anymore

NNPA NEWSWIRE — Students this year and in the short term will be well served to keep asking questions like: “Is the investment of time and/or money to prepare for this test worth it? Is it safe and useful to take the test? And, does submitting my scores increase the likelihood that I’ll help my application or increase scholarship opportunities?
The post OPINION: Why High School Students Don’t Need the SAT Anymore first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

Published

2 years ago

December 4, 2022

admin

By Akil Bello and Harry Feder | The AFRO

College admissions is undergoing a sea change. The pandemic accelerated the already fast-moving trend of colleges reconsidering the value of SAT and ACT scores in the admission process. Many colleges have stopped considering test scores at all (test blind/free) or have allowed students to decide whether they want to include test scores as part of their applications (test-optional).

While the change in testing policy seems new to some, this movement is more than 50 years old. Almost half of all bachelor degree granting colleges had adopted test-optional or free policies before the pandemic.

Spurred by the difficulty of access to testing due to COVID but also prompted — and certainly sustained by — research on the minimal value and detrimental impact of standardized tests, more than 700 colleges have adopted a test-optional or test-free policy since 2020.

Currently, more than 1,800 colleges (roughly 80 percent of bachelor’s degree-granting colleges) have test-optional or test-free policies for those applying in 2023. These colleges range from Hampton University to CalTech to Michigan State University.

New testing policies — combined with changing demographics and the impacts of the pandemic — have changed the normal calculus of college admissions.

Some colleges have seen significantly more applications, some haven’t. Some families and students feel less certain about the advantage that a high test score provides, some are thankful that they don’t have to worry about testing. Some test prep businesses are worried about fading clientele, some are grateful to see the end of overtesting and test misuse. Some college counselors are happy they can recommend their strong students but poor test takers to colleges that might have rejected them because of a lower test score, some bemoan the loss of a potential advantage for the students they serve that test above their in-school performance.

Change brings uncertainty. Change will benefit some and disadvantage others. In this case, those who have historically benefited from testing have been wealthy White males with college-educated parents, and these changing policies threaten that advantage. For those traditionally disadvantaged by testing, minimizing the role of tests in admissions gives a sense of relief.

“There was a misconception that the number you get determines where you’d go to college,” said Star-Angel Oppong, a senior at Freedom High School in Virginia, who is currently applying to colleges. “The test instilled a lot of fear in me that I would not be successful without doing well on it.”

Oppong says some adults in her life, both intentionally and accidentally, conveyed that a student who “didn’t do well on the test, they might as well not go to college at all.”

Test optional has changed that.

The widespread adoption of these policies has created more opportunity. Students who might have been deterred from applying to certain schools simply because of scores below the published averages of that school are now applying without worrying about scores.

Amily Sylla, a first-year student at Virginia Commonwealth University, said, “It was a relief to not have to take a test and to not have the test be the reason why you didn’t get into college.” Having seen the challenges her sister faced the previous year preparing for and taking the SAT, Ms. Sylla was happy to forgo the preparation and testing process and spend her time focusing on more important things.

The smoother pathway created can be seen in data from Common App, the organization that runs a popular application by the same name used by over 900 colleges. Common App members have seen an increase in applications of more than 20 percent since the 2019-2020 application season, with the greatest increase coming from underrepresented students.

Even more dramatic than the growth in applications is the drop in scores submitted. In 2022, only 5 percent of Common App member schools required SAT or ACT tests to be submitted, and only 48 percent of applicants submitted scores.

But while these new policies decrease barriers for many, change can increase uncertainty. Some students and their supporters feel more uncertain about being able to predict the outcome of the admission process.

This nervousness is especially pronounced among those who have long relied on presenting test scores as the “key” to admissions and scholarships. Test makers, test prep companies, and independent college counselors have contributed to the anxiety by stoking fears, despite the assurances of colleges, that not testing creates a disadvantage in either admissions or access to scholarships, even at colleges that are test optional.

According to Ericka M. Jackson, Senior Director of Undergraduate Admissions for Wayne State University, “Many students and parents didn’t trust that they would really get a fair evaluation if they didn’t submit a test score. As college admissions offices, we spent a lot of time during that first test-optional admissions cycle explaining what test optional means at our institution and reassuring students, counselors, and parents that students would not be disadvantaged if they applied test optional.”

Since 2020, test publishers College Board and ACT have become particularly aggressive about marketing their tests as the key to “standing out” in the application process, suggesting that taking the test is intrinsic to securing admissions and “merit” scholarships.

But this narrative is misleading, if not outright false.

Candice Mackey, a college counselor at Los Angeles Center for Enriched Studies, said that “although all Cal-States and UCs are test-free, my students and families are ‘programmed’ for testing. It’s actually a little difficult at times to convince them otherwise that test-optional means optional.”

Making matters worse is the national media’s focus on highly rejective colleges, which make up less than 4 percent of colleges. News reports and prep company advertisements hyper-focus on scores as the reason for admission or rejection, even though these institutions almost always review applications holistically, considering many factors beyond test scores. This causes families to put undue misplaced pressure on testing.

Even in California, where public universities will not look at test scores even if submitted, the legacy of having required scores for 50 years casts a shadow on the current process. Mackey notes that “there is a lot of re-educating, explaining, and reframing what test-optional means and how testing factors into admissions.”

The confusion about how these policies play out in practice is evident in the lived experience of applicants. Wendy Jefferies, a knowledgeable graduate admissions coach, and her daughter, now a first year at Indiana University, still struggled through what was essentially two parallel admissions processes, one with scores and one without.

Jefferies expressed the uncertainty that many families face. “We didn’t know what was good or bad as a test score,” she said.

Jefferies and her daughter, who had a 27 ACT score (better than almost 90 percent of test takers nationally) and a 3.5 GPA, decided to apply with testing to Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and without to Predominantly White Institutions (PWIs).

This strategy was largely informed by popular narratives that suggested that scores would provide access to scholarships at HBCUs in a way they would not at PWIs. After falling short of her target ACT score twice, Jefferies and her daughter decided not to spend any more time or energy on testing. Here’s how her student did:

Colleges are not only having to deal with the difficulty of educating a public used to submitting scores, but they are often having to adjust their internal policies as their applicant pools shift from 100 percent of students submitting scores to less than half doing so.

Jackson says several adjustments were made in their policy between the first and second test optional cycles based on feedback from applicants and counselors, saying her institution was “pleased and knew that the decision we made, along with hundreds of other institutions, was in the best interest of students and removed a significant barrier to higher education, which was the ability to test. However, we quickly discovered that offering a test-optional pathway wasn’t enough, at least not for the students we served (many of whom attended under-resourced schools) and who were physically separated from the support they used to have in school because they were all learning remotely.”

The return to school has been a boon for many high school students as they are reconnected with the place-based resources that had been more difficult to access during remote learning. But the variation in policies at colleges poses a challenge to even the best-resourced college counseling office.

“It is understandable that students (and parents) were confused by so many institutions with so many different test-optional policies,” Jackson said. Some were test-optional, others were test free or test-flexible.”

Seniors applying this year and next will need to keep monitoring college websites and fairtest.org to track evolving college policies. But applicants will also need to take colleges at their word about what is important in the process. Colleges are responding to research, the current environment, and students’ needs and are updating their policies as necessary. This means there may be more tweaks in the coming years. College admission is moving away from what Mackey calls an ‘institution-centered” process.

For colleges and students alike, test-optional has been a “seismic shift,” according to Jackson. And Mackey points out that “entering year three of a mostly test-optional admissions cycle, my advisement with students and families in this particular area begins with the student first and their profile, followed by the institution second leading me to believe test-optional policy and practice is much more ‘student-centered.’”

Of course, “student-centered” considerations do not relieve the pressure on applicants to meet other competitive admissions criteria for a given institution – grades, extracurriculars, and the like.

But for many qualified students, the optional policies relieve a major application barrier.

Unfortunately, until every college follows the lead of California and removes test scores from all parts of its process, students will still have to consider how and when to engage with testing and test preparation.

Students this year and in the short term will be well served to keep asking questions like: “Is the investment of time and/or money to prepare for this test worth it? Is it safe and useful to take the test? And, does submitting my scores increase the likelihood that I’ll help my application or increase scholarship opportunities?

For students like Sylla, the answer was no. She felt her strong high school performance and activities more accurately reflected who she was and who she wanted colleges to consider. Preparing for the SAT or ACT wasn’t worth her time, and not testing didn’t prevent her from getting great outcomes. Sylla says not only did she get admitted to VCU and get scholarships, but “I got a lot, actually.”

Akil Bello serves as Senior Director of Advocacy and Advancement at FairTest. He is a former test prep company CEO, an educator, and a nationally recognized authority on educational access.

Harry Feder is the Executive Director of FairTest. He taught history in New York City public schools at Beacon School and Urban Academy Laboratory High School for 22 years. Prior to that he was an attorney in private litigation practice.

The opinions on this page are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the AFRO or BlackPressUSA. Send letters to The Afro-American • 145 W. Ostend Street Ste 600, Office #536, Baltimore, MD 21230 or fax to 1-877-570-9297 or e-mail to editor@afro.com

This article originally appeared in The Afro.

The post OPINION: Why High School Students Don’t Need the SAT Anymore first appeared on BlackPressUSA.

admin

Posts by admin

Up Next

White Teacher Fired After Telling Students His Race Was ‘Superior’

Don't Miss

Will Smith Returns in Apple Original Films’ Drama “Emancipation”

admin

Click to comment

#NNPA BlackPress

Rep. Al Green Files Articles of Impeachment Against President Trump

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — Rep. Green told Newsweek that he is moving on impeachment now before “tanks are rolling down the street.”

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

By Lauren Burke

Congressman Al Green (D-TX) has filed articles of impeachment against President Trump. Rep. Green, 77, has served in Congress since 2005. President Trump is the only President who has been impeached twice by the U.S. House of Representatives. Rep. Green told Newsweek that he is moving on impeachment now before “tanks are rolling down the street.” The impeachment resolution filed by Rep. Green on May 19, states that President Trump is, “unfit to represent the American values of decency and morality, respectability and civility, honesty, and propriety, reputability, and integrity, is unfit to defend the ideals that have made America great, is unfit to defend liberty and justice for all as extolled in the Pledge of Allegiance, is unfit to defend the American ideal of all persons being created equal as exalted in the Declaration of Independence, is unfit to ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare and to ensure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity as lauded in the preamble to the United States Constitution, is unfit to protect government of the people…” Whether Rep. Green can force a vote in the U.S. House on impeachment remains an unknown issue. President Trump was impeached on December 18, 2019, for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. He was then impeached a second time on January 13, 2021, for “Incitement of insurrection” in the wake of the violent January 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol by Trump’s supporters.

The White House stated Black Press USA on Rep. Green’s effort to impeach the President. “This week, Democrats ousted their DNC ‘leader,’ opposed the largest tax cut in history, and were exposed for actively covering up Joe Biden’s four-year cognitive decline. Now, Democrats have turned their sights to threatening impeachment. We are witnessing the collapse of the Democrat Party before our eyes. Not a single one of these efforts will help the American people. The contrast could not be more clear: President Trump is fighting for historic tax relief for the American people, Democrats are fighting themselves,” said White House Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly in a written statement. Several decisions and legal interpretations by the Trump Administration are currently being challenged in federal court. On May 15, the U.S. Supreme Court debated the issue of birthright citizenship after a legal challenge on the issue by the Trump Administration.

During that legal challenge, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson challenged Trump’s solicitor general Dean John Sauer by saying, “Your argument seems to turn our justice system into a catch-me-if-you-can kind of regime … where everybody has to have a lawyer and file a lawsuit in order for the government to stop violating people’s rights.” Rep. Green’s impeachment resolution also focused on the issue of ignoring judicial orders by the executive branch. A notable example was the deportation case of Maryland father Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Garcia was deported to a prison in El Salvador by federal officials on March 15, 2025.“The Constitution does not tolerate willful disobedience of judicial orders — especially by officials of a coordinate branch who have sworn an oath to uphold it. To permit such officials to freely ‘annul the judgments of the courts of the United States’ would not just ‘destroy the rights acquired under those judgments’; it would make a solemn mockery’ of ‘the constitution itself.’” “You have no mandate,” Congressman Green stood up and yelled at President Trump during his State of the Union Speech on March 4. After the incident, Republicans who control the U.S. House considered sanctioning Rep. Green, but they did not complete an action against him.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Affordable Childcare Remains a Barrier: Solutions in New Report

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — We also still haven’t put a dent in affordability for working families. That’s why we urgently need increased funding and new solutions.”

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Oakland Post

While America’s childcare supply grew nationally, the price of that care continues to rise—placing affordable, high-quality care out of reach for many families. A new report released by Child Care Aware® of America (CCAoA), Child Care in America: 2024 Price & Supply, shows that despite promising signs of increased supply, affordability remains a major barrier — and underscores the need for increased sustained federal and state investment.

From 2023 to 2024, the number of childcare centers increased by 1.6% (to 92,613) and the supply of licensed family childcare (FCC) homes increased by 4.8% (to 98,807). The national growth in FCC homes’ supply is driven largely by four states (CA, KS, MA, VA) and is especially notable as it reverses a year-long downward trend.

At the same time, the national average price for childcare rose by 29% from 2020 to 2024, outpacing inflation and exceeding other major family household expenses like rent or mortgage payments in many states. Childcare is now so expensive that it consumes 10% of a married couple with children’s median household income and a staggering 35% for a single parent. In most states, families pay more for childcare than rent, mortgage payments, or in-state university tuition.

“Childcare supply is increasing, and that is a win—but it’s not enough,” said Susan Gale Perry, Chief Executive Officer of CCAoA. “Recent federal and state pandemic-era investments have stabilized and grown supply in some places, but a significant supply gap still exists — especially in rural communities and for infants and toddlers. We also still haven’t put a dent in affordability for working families. That’s why we urgently need increased funding and new solutions.”

CCAoA’s Childcare in America: 2024 Price & Supply report also found that:

The average price of childcare increased by 29% from 2020 to 2024, outpacing the national inflation rate of 22%.
In 45 states plus Washington, DC, the average annual price of center-based childcare for two children exceeded mortgage payments, in some states by up to 78%.
In 49 states plus Washington, DC, the price of center-based childcare for two children exceeded median rent payments ranging from 19% to over 100%.
In 41 states plus Washington, DC, infant care in a center cost more than in-state university tuition.

CCAoA urges policymakers to increase childcare funding at both state and federal levels to maintain the momentum of growing supply, address rising prices, and expand access to childcare for families. Federal funding increases have fallen short of the need and our research shows that total state investments in child care or preschool vary widely from state to state, putting children, families, and communities across America on an uneven playing field. Further, targeted investments in childcare supply building and stabilization and childcare workforce recruitment and retention strategies are essential to help sustain an adequate supply of high-quality childcare options nationwide.

Child Care Aware® of America (CCAoA) is the only national organization that supports every part of the childcare system. Together with an on-the-ground network of people doing the work in states and communities, it helps America become child care strong by providing research that drives effective practice and policy, building strong child care programs and professionals, helping families find and afford quality child care, delivering thought leadership to the military and direct service to its families, and providing a real-world understanding of what works and what doesn’t to spur policymakers into action and help them build solutions.

Oakland Post

Posts by Oakland Post

#NNPA BlackPress

Sex, Coercion, and Stardom: Diddy Case Mirrors Music’s Ugly History

BLACKPRESSUSA NEWSWIRE — It started with a Reddit post that didn’t just speculate on Diddy’s fate but questioned the very foundations of the culture that made him

Published

4 days ago

May 19, 2025

Stacy M. Brown

By Stacy M. Brown
Black Press USA Senior National Correspondent

As Sean “Diddy” Combs faces a federal sex trafficking case and the slow unraveling of his once-untouchable legacy, a larger question looms: Is this the moment the music industry finally confronts its darkest secrets?

It started with a Reddit post that didn’t just speculate on Diddy’s fate but questioned the very foundations of the culture that made him: “How much damage could Diddy do to the state of hip hop?” the user asked. “Supposedly, he has incriminating evidence against those who attended his parties. The same parties that had a lot of bad things happen, to say the least.” The implication was chilling—if Diddy were to cooperate with federal authorities, the fallout might not stop at his feet. Names floated in the post—Jay-Z, Beyoncé, Usher, Justin Bieber—aren’t confirmed in any court filings, but their inclusion highlights the breadth of Diddy’s influence and the potential reach of any revelations. If even a fraction of the speculation proves true, the reverberations wouldn’t stop at hip-hop—they’d hit every corner of the music industry. For his part, Combs denies all allegations. His legal team has described the now-infamous “freak-offs” as consensual encounters, part of his non-monogamous lifestyle. But prosecutors allege something much more sinister: a criminal enterprise powered by the machinery of his music and business empire—one that trafficked women, coerced labor, obstructed justice, and used influence and intimidation to maintain control. Still, for all the headlines Combs generates, his alleged crimes do not exist in isolation. The music industry has long tolerated, enabled, and even glamorized behavior that would trigger career-ending consequences in other arenas. Diddy’s story might be shocking—but it’s not new.

Rock music has its own rogue’s gallery. Jerry Lee Lewis nearly destroyed his career in 1958 after marrying his 13-year-old cousin. Elvis Presley met 14-year-old Priscilla Beaulieu when he was 24 and later moved her into his home in Memphis. In more recent years, Aerosmith’s Steven Tyler faced (and ultimately evaded) a lawsuit from a woman who says he sexually assaulted her in the 1970s when she was 17. A judge dismissed the case due to the statute of limitations. Phil Spector, the genius producer behind the “Wall of Sound,” died in prison after being convicted of murdering actress Lana Clarkson. Gary Glitter was convicted of possessing child pornography and later child sex abuse. Kid Rock and Creed frontman Scott Stapp were filmed with strippers in a sex tape that leaked online in 2006. A new biography of the Rolling Stones claims Mick Jagger had sexual relationships with at least two of his male bandmates, raising further questions about the power dynamics inside even the most celebrated groups.

Journalist Ann Powers, writing for NPR, once noted that the “history of rock turns on moments in which women and young boys were exploited in myriad financial, emotional and sexual ways.” Powers added: “From the teen-scream 1950s onward, one of the music’s fundamental functions has been to frame and express sexual feelings for and from the very young… relating to older men whose glamour and influence encourages trust, not caution.” This brings the spotlight back to Diddy—not just as an accused individual but as a symbol. He was once the archetype of success: Harlem-born mogul, founder of Bad Boy Records, and kingmaker behind artists like Notorious B.I.G., Faith Evans, Ma$e, 112, and French Montana. He transformed hip-hop into a global business and amassed influence far beyond the recording booth. He sold more than 500 million records, earned multiple Grammy Awards, and was honored by MTV, Howard University, and the City of New York—until those honors were swiftly revoked after a video surfaced showing him physically assaulting singer Cassie Ventura. Ventura, his longtime partner and protégé, has accused Combs of brutal physical abuse and psychological control. Her lawsuit and the video evidence ignited a wave of allegations from other women and men, describing similar patterns of coercion, manipulation, and fear. “This is not just about bad behavior. This is about systemic exploitation and abuse made possible by fame, money, and silence,” said one advocate for survivors in the entertainment industry.

While hip-hop has long been a target of criticism for misogyny and violence, what’s now being laid bare is a broader, genre-defying truth: from rock and pop to hip-hop and beyond, the music industry has operated for decades without accountability for its biggest stars. “Sex isn’t the problem,” one Reddit user responded. “Coercion via job opportunities is.” Another added, “Zero [impact], just like R. Kelly and MJ did zero to R&B,” referencing the R&B superstar’s conviction and Michael Jackson’s controversial legacy. Others argued hip hop would endure, regardless of Combs’ fate. Maybe it will. But the Diddy scandal pulls back the curtain—not just on the parties, the rumors, or the headlines—but on an industry-wide culture that has, for too long, allowed power to shield predation. As one survivor put it outside a recent court appearance: “This isn’t just a hip hop problem. It’s not even just a music problem. It’s a power problem.” And now, the music industry has to decide: Will it finally tune in, or will it keep playing the same old song?