The Formation of the College
Board and the Context of TodayThanos Patelis
Research and Development

Coordinated Session on Perspectives on the History of Testing in the US
Presentation at the Annual Meeting of the
National Council on Measurement in Education
New Orleans, LA
A il 10,April
10 2011
College Board Proprietary.
Copyright 2011 © College Board

1

My Perspective• The context that existed in the late 1800’s issimilari il tto whath t we fface ttoday
d iin earlyl 20002000.
• The issues that we currently face that are making

the Common Core State Standards a reality andthe efforts to produce assessments are similar toth thithethings ththatt were hhappeningi att ththe tturn off theth
20th century.
• However, even though there are similarities, there

are some very salient differences.
Historia est vitae magistra2

My Thesis•

Understanding the context and outcomesof the past can inform current efforts
efforts.

•

Lesson Learned:
 Start with ambitious goals, but take apragmatic, reasonable approach and buildfrom there.
 If this is about college, make sure that college

and university leaders are involved.
 MakeM k ththe enterpriseti self-sustaining
lf
t i i

economically.
 Ensure that sound measurement principles

are not compromised – strive for quality
improvement.
improvement
 Once there is a commitment to start, design

and implement the assessment system asquickly as possible.

3

The College Board Today•

Not-for-profit membership organization founded in 1900:•

5,900 members representing schools, districts, colleges/universities, and othereducationaldtil organizations
i ti•

The College Board is governed by 31-member Board of Trustees with guidance fromthree national assemblies and six regional assemblies.

•

Mission: Connect students to college
g success and opportunityppy•Serves 7 million students and their parents, 23,000 high schools, and 3,800
colleges through major programs and services in college admissions,guidance, assessment, financial aid, enrollment, and teaching and learning.
•

Assessments: ACCUPLACER,
ACCUPLACER Advanced Placement Program (AP)(AP), College Level
Examination Program (CLEP), PSAT/NMSQT, ReadiStep and SAT.

•

Educational Initiatives: AP Summer Institutes, CollegeEd, College Board Schools,
College Board Standards for College Success, District Reform Initiatives, Florida
Partnership, Exam Readiness Program, Professional Development, and Springboard.

•

Advocacy Efforts: Admissions in the 21st Century, College Affordability, College
Completion Agenda, Commission on Access, Admissions and Success in Higher
Education, Diversity & Equity in Education, National Commission on Writing, National
Office of School Counselor Advocacy, National Task Force on the Arts in Education•

Services:
S
iC
Collegell
G
Guidanceid
S
Services,iCCollege/University
ll
/U i
it E
Enrollment
lltM
Managementt
Services, Student Search Service

4

The Role of the SAT• The SAT did not come into existence until 1926•

So, theS
th outcomest
thatth t emergedd iin ththe llatet 1800’1800’s setting
tti thethoccasion for the formation of the College Board did not involve the
SAT• Other set of circumstances led to the formation of the SAT

in the 1920’s:•

New technology called the multiple-choice items•

Psychologists and the role of generalized reasoning orconceptualizations of intelligence•

Success seen with Army Alpha and Army Beta

• Excellent summary of the historical evolution of the SAT

and content from 1926 until 2001 is available in tworeportspbyy Ida Lawrence and colleagues.
g5The Context of the Late 1800’s•

1867  US Department of Education created•

IIn theth 1870’s
1870’  ShortageSh t
off collegell
studentst d t creating
ti a fifierce competition
titi
among universities•

By 1880  Number of high schools increased 200 times from 1869.

•

College admissions strategies changed and became quite diverse•

Mid-western universities admitted students from local high schools based on course of
study with the ability of university officials to inspect the high school courses as needed•

Eastern colleges/universities preferred their own entrance examinations.
•

Harvard had 10 exams including Geography, Algebra, Geometry, Physical Geometry, English
Grammar, English Composition, Ancient History, US History, Greek and Latin.

•

However, universities would alter the number and quality of its admission requirements at will.

•

Byy 1900 education in highg school and collegeg was necessary
y to improvep
citizenship, develop higher-order traits, and produce the managerial andprofessional leadership needed for rapid economic modernization.

•

Outcry from high schools that the changing, sometimes unknown admissions
requirements made it difficult to prepare students for examination
examination.

6

Significant Events in the Late 1800’s••

1892  National Council of Education (NCE), which was a group of 60
prominent educators from the National Education Association (NEA)
appointed a committee of 10 members•

Charge: Develop a document indicating uniform high school programs andrequirements for admission to college.

•

Came to be known as The Committee of 10.

•

Five university presidents, the US Commissioner of Education, a college
professor, and three headmasters/principals with only one being from a publicschool.

Three recommendations:1.

All students no matter what their ultimate goal (i.e., college or not) should betaught in the same way,2.

Schools and students can select their course of study but they should be
rigorous, and3.

If high schools offered the nine subject fields in the acceptable level of rigor,
every college and university would accept these for admissions to at least oneof their degree programs.

7

Outcomes of The Committee of Ten••

Huge criticisms:•

The practicalTh
ti l educationdti advocatesdt complainedl i d ththatt ththe curriculum
i lffocusedd ttoomuch on classical courses.

•

The emerging field of educational psychology led by G. Stanley Hall criticized
the report for its lack of non-cognitive and more global types of ability.

•

Others criticized that the make-up of the committee was comprised too heavily
with university members.

•

Secondary school teachers criticized the accuracy and reliability of the scoring of
the examinations by college faculty
faculty.

Regardless of the criticisms, the historically important outcomes of thereport were:•

Offered significant attention to a standardized secondary school curriculum thatinvolved an increased number of subjects for high schools;•

Highlighted the impact of universities on high school curricula.

8Significant Events in the Late 1800’s – cont’d• 1895  The National Education Association (NEA) appointed acommittee of 12 members called the Committee on College
Entrance Requirements•

Charge: Study current practices and consider methods of making themmore uniform.

•

Came to be known as The Committee of 12.

•

Four years of work collecting and analyzing the published requirementsyleading
g colleges
g across the country.
yof sixty-seven• Results:•

Confirmed huge variability in admissions requirements•

Did not endorse uniform admissions requirements•

Strongly indicated need for each college to state their requirements interms of national norms so that high schools could construct theircurriculum and course of study in response to these specifications
9Outcomes of The Committee of 12• Growing consensus in support of a close articulation

between high schools and colleges• Discussions and articles emerged involving secondary

school educators, college professors and university
presidents.
id t• Two become the most influential

in this time of significant
discourse and debate:•

Nicholas Murray Butler, professor ofphilosophy at Columbia University•

Charles Eliot, president of Harvard
University

10

The Culminating Event• December 2,1899,
 The Association of Collegesgand Secondary Schools of the Middle States andMaryland agreed that in five years a uniform set ofcollege admission requirements AND an entity tocoordinate the administration of these uniform
requirements.
requirements• November 17, 1900  The College EntranceE
Examinationi ti BBoard
d officially
ffi i ll announced.
d

11

The College Board Entrance Examination• December 2,1899  The Association of Colleges
g andSecondary Schools of the Middle States and Maryland
agreed that in five years a uniform set of college
admission requirements AND an entity to coordinate
the administration of these uniform requirements.
• November 17
17, 1900  The College Entrance

Examination Board officially announced.
• Professor Butler was put in charge of developing a

constitution for this organization and develop a systemof examinations.
12

The College Board Entrance Examination – First Year••For each subject tested:•

College faculty member was Chief Examiner and one additional college faculty member
and one secondary school teacher were Associate Examiners.

•

A staff of Readers to read and score and the answer books were appointed.

Answer books were scores on a scale of 100 with 60 being passing.
•

Any answer book below 60 needed to be read by two readers.

•

The fee for a candidate was set at $5.00.

•

Chemistry,y English,g
French, German, Greek, History,y Latin, Mathematics, andPhysics.

All examinations were essay-based.
• The first set of examinations were administered the week of June
17 1901 at 67 centers in the United States and 2 in Europe
17,
Europe.
••973 candidates submitted 7,889 papers.

•

39 men and women traveled to Columbia University Library toscore these examinations.
examinations•

40.7% of the papers scored were below 60 (passing).
13

Recap of the Late 1800’s• Driving forces in the formation of the College Entrance

Examination Board:•

Growing competition for students•

Concern over economic issues that needed educated workforce•

Need for uniform, transparent admissions requirements to articulate
and organize high school course of study•

Persuasive, daring leaders in both high schools and higher
education• Outcome:•Standardized,Std di d objective
bj ti assessmentst iin 13 didiscipline-specific
i li
ifi
assessments were developed and administered.

•

Articulation of admissions requirements

14

The Context of Today•2008  WICHE projections indicated high school graduates would
increase in the west and south,
south while declines in the northeast and midmid
west.

•

2008  College and high school completion ranking had dropped
dramatically; the proportion of adults with postsecondary credentials
was not keeping pace with growth in other industrialized nations; andsignificant disparities existed for low-income and minority students.

•

2010  The popular press and public opinion polls indicated that thekey to future economic growth in the US is anchored in education
education.

•2010  Educators cried out that state-by-state standards wereinconsistent and a gap between graduating high school and college
success e
existed.
sted•2010  Researchers suggesting that standards were not sufficiently
rigorous.

•

2010  The US DOE put significant funds under the Race to the Top
legislation.
15

Events & Outcomes•2003  Conley developed the Standards for Success based on a three-year
study ofo whatat students
stude ts area e expected
e pected to do in a sample
sa p e oof cocollegeseges acacrossoss ttheeUS.

•2004 – 2010  Other efforts emerged to develop a specification of whatdefines college readiness from the perspective of expectations from colleges
and universities
universities.
••••

The American Diploma Project (Achieve, 2004);
College Board Standards for College Success (College Board, 2006; 2009),
The ACT College Readiness Standards (ACT, 2010)
The Texas Collegeg and Career Readiness Standards ((THECB & TEA,, 2008).
)•

2010  The National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State
School Officers released the Common Core State Standards for grades K-12 inEnglish/LA and mathematics.

•

2010  43 statest t andd DC adopted
d t d ththe C
Common C
Core St
State
t St
Standards.
d d•2010  Two consortia, the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness forCollege and Careers (PARCC) and the SMARTER Balanced Assessment
Consortium ((SBAC),) formed receiving
g more than $175 million each from the US
Department of Education to design, develop and pilot test the next generation of
K-12 assessments over the next four years.
16

Similarities & Differencesb tbetweenLate
L t 1800’s
1800’ andd EarlyE l 2000’s
2000’
Similarities•

Differences

Education was considered an
economic issue.

•

Higher education was heavily involved in
the late 1800’s.
••

Competition existed amongcolleges for well preparedstudents.

•

In the 1800’s, there was a regional focus
that grew into a national effort.
•

•
•

•

It was about a clear articulationof college-level standards.

States (involving K-12 agencies) are theprimary drivers today.
today

Today, there is a national effort led by statesand supported by USDOE.

•

There were gaps in thearticulation of standards andassessments.
t

In the 1800’s it took longer to reachagreement, but seemingly less time todevelop the assessments.

•

There’s a push today for assessmentiinnovation
ti withith significantly
i ifi
tl morepsychometric know-how.

There was an outcry for better
assessment systems.

•

Public money is fueling the effort today
rather than test fees.

17Some Lessons• Start with ambitious goals, but take a pragmatic,

reasonable scope and build fromfthere.
• If this is about college, make sure that college anduniversity leaders are involved
involved.
• Make the enterprise self-sustaining economically.
• Ensure that sound measurement principles are notcompromised.
• O
Once
ce theree e iss a cocommitmente too sstart,a , design
des g aanddimplement the assessment system as quickly as
possible.

18

References
Achieve, Inc. (2004). Ready or Not: Creating a High School Diploma That Counts. Washington, DC: Author.
ACT (2010). College Readiness Standards. Iowa City, IO: Author.
Anastasi A.
Anastasi,
A Urbina,
Urbina S.
S (1997)(1997). Psychological Testing (7th Edition).
Edition) Upper Saddle River,River NJ: Pearson.
PearsonAngus, D. L. & Mirel, J. E. (2001). Presidents, Professors, and Lay Boards of Education: The Struggle for Influence over the American High School, 1860-1910. In M. C. Johanek (Ed.), A Faithful Mirror: Reflection on
the College Board and Education in America. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Bieber, T. & Martens, K. (2011). The OECD PISA Study as a Soft Power in Education? Lessons from Switzerland and the US. European Journal of Education, 46(1), 101-116.
College Board (2006a). The College Board Standards for College Success: English Language Arts. New York: Author.
College Board (2006b). The College Board Standards for College Success: Mathematics and Statistics. New York: Author.
College Board (2008). Coming to Our Senses: Education and the American Future. New York: Author.
College Board (2009). The College Board Standards for College Success: Science. New York: Author.
Common Core Standards Initiative (2010). www.corestandards.org. (March 15, 2011)
Conley, D. T. (2003). College Knowledge: What It Really Takes for Students to Succeed and What We Can Do to Get Them Ready.
Conley, D. T. (2005). College Knowledge: What It Takes for Students to Succeed and What We Can Do to Get Them Ready. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Conley, D. T. (2008). College Knowledge: What It Really Takes for Students to Succeed and What We Can Do to Get Them Ready. Jossey-Bass
Donlon, T. F. (1984). The College Board Technical Handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests. New York: The College Entrance Examination Board.
Feuss, C. M. (1967). The College Board: Its First Fifty Years. New York: College Entrance Examination Board
Forgione, P. D. & Doorey, N. A. (December, 2010). New Assessments for the Common Core State Standards. NCME Newsletter, 18(4), 9-18. (www.ncme.org)
Gorski, E. & Fram, A. (December 10, 2010). Poll: Better schools will strengthen U.S. economy - But residents say no to raising taxes for it. Newark, NJ: Star-Ledger. Organization for Economic Cooperation andDevelopment (2009).
Lawrence, I. M., Rigol, G. W., Van Essen, T. & Jackson, C. A. (2002). A Historical Perspective on the SAT 1926-2001. College Board Research Report 2002-7. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
www.collegeboard.org/research
Lawrence, I. M., Rigol, G. W., Van Essen, T. & Jackson, C. A. (2003). A Historical Perspective on the Content of the SAT. College Board Research Report 2003-3. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
www.collegeboard.org/research
Lee, J. M. & Rawls, A. (2010). The College Completion Agenda: 2010 Progress Report. New York: The College Board. http://completionagenda.collegeboard.org/
Runningen, R. (September 27, 2010). Obama Says the Future of U.S. Economy Depends on a Better Education System. Bloomsburg, LLC. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-09-27/obama-says-the-future-of-u-seconomy-depends-on-a-better-education-systemeconomydepends on a better education system.html
html
Schmidt, W. H., Cogan, L. S. & McKnight, C. C. (Winter, 2010-11). Equality of Educational Opportunity: Myth or Reality in U.S. Schooling? American Educator, 34(4), 12-19.
Second-Year Teacher (Spring, 2008). There’s a Hole in State Standards – and New Teachers Like Me are Falling Through. American Educator, 32(1), 6-7.
Texas Higher Education Coordinating Board & Texas Education Agency (2008). Texas College and Career Readiness Standards. Austin, TX: Author.
Wechsler, H. S. (2001). Eastern Standard Time: High School-College Collaboration and Admission to College, 1880-1930. . In M. C. Johanek (Ed.), A Faithful Mirror: Reflection on the College Board and Education in
America. New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
Western Interstate Commission on Higher Education. (2008). Knocking at the College Door: Projections of High School Graduates by State and Race/Ethnicity, 1992 to 2022. Boulder, CO: Author.

19

Questions, Comments, Suggestions• Researchers are encouraged to freely express

their professional judgment. Therefore, points ofview or opinions stated in College Board
presentations do not necessarily represent official
College Board position or policy.
• PleasePl
forwardfd any questions,ticomments,t anddsuggestions to: Thanos Patelis
tpatelis@collegeboard org or 212-649-8435
tpatelis@collegeboard.org
212-649-8435.
Thank you!!
20