UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
BERKELEY • DAVIS • IRVINE • LOS ANGELES • MERCED • RIVERSIDE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO

SANTA BARBARA • SANTA CRUZOFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT1111 Franklin Street, 11th Floor
Oakland, California 94607-5200

December 16, 2020

University of California President Drake
RE: Feasibility of a new UC admissions test

Dear President Drake,
On behalf of the Feasibility Study Steering Committee (FSSC), we respectfully submit arecommendation on the viability of a new UC test for use in freshman admissions in accordance withthe Regents’ action of May 21, 2020.
The FSSC was charged with identifying “the high-level purpose and goal of a UC freshman
admissions test to guide the work of the Feasibility Study Work Group.” The steering committee wasasked to “(D)eliberate the work group’s findings and recommendation and develop arecommendation to the UC President to (1) pursue a new standardized test for use in UC freshman
admissions and selection or (2) eliminate standardized testing as a requirement at UC beginning withfall 2025 admissions.”
After careful deliberation, based on deep consideration of the report of the Feasibility Study WorkGroup (FSWG), the FSSC has determined that (1) it is potentially feasible to include an existing test
as an additional data point for admissions purposes; and (2) it is not feasible to develop a new test,
particularly within the required time frame. As such, we propose that the Smarter Balanced
Assessment (SB) be further studied and evaluated, especially with respect to disparity reduction
concerns, and that it be considered for use in a manner that is different from the previous high-stakes
use of the SAT or ACT.
In closing, the FSSC co-chairs would like to recognize the contributions of the steering committee
members, who dedicated their expertise to deliberate an issue for UC admissions that could have animpact on educational equity in California for years to come. The co-chairs also express deep
gratitude to the FSWG members, who devoted their invaluable expertise and countless precious
hours to this effort. They actively approached the process with a deep sense of responsibility,
creativity and open minds.
Respectfully,Michael Brown
Provost andExecutive Vice President for Academic Affairs

Mary Gauvain
Chair, Academic SenateRecommendation of the UC Feasibility Study Steering Committee

December 16, 2020

Recommendation of the Feasibility Study Steering Committee to UC President Drake
After careful deliberation and based on deep consideration of the report of the Feasibility StudyWork Group (FSWG), attached, the Feasibility Study Steering Committee (FSSC) has
determined that it is neither feasible nor desirable to create or develop a new test to takethe place of the SAT or ACT in UC admissions.
Throughout FSSC discussions, deliberators debated over the utilization of the Smarter Balanced
Assessment (SB) as a potential solution, perhaps with modifications, to add an additional data
point to the other sources of evidence utilized for admissions purposes. SB is required of all
public school students in California in 11th grade and in 15 other states or territories across theUnited States; the Steering Committee hastens to note concerns around avoiding high-stakes
testing contexts (explained below). As described below, we propose that the Smarter
Balanced Assessment (SB) be further studied and evaluated and that it be considered foruse in a manner that is different from the previous high-stakes use of the SAT or ACT.
The SB has several features that render it worth further interrogation and consideration as asource of admissions data for a state university system that has already predicated part of its
admissions decisions on course requirements that have been incorporated in the state’s K–12
curriculum system in ways that are intended to leverage stronger learning for students before
they enter college (viz., A-G course requirements). First, SB assesses the Common Core
curriculum adopted in California, which the Board of Admissions and Relations to Schools(BOARS), of UC’s Academic Senate, has also integrated into California’s A-G course
requirements. In addition, SB is criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced: It is designed
to measure curriculum-based knowledge and skills (like Advanced Placement or International
Baccalaureate tests are designed to do) rather than to create a normal curve that ranks students
against each other, benchmarked against a norming group that represents the most advantaged
students. Furthermore, the SB was designed to represent higher-order thinking and performanceskills as well as open-ended performance tasks in English language arts and mathematics that
require research, inquiry, writing and problem-solving of the kind required in college.
For these reasons, the FSSC believes that the SB may provide a tool that affords more students
from diverse backgrounds important opportunities to show what they know and can do.
The Importance of Lessening the “Stakes”
Both the FSSC and the FSWG expressed strong passion and commitment to avoid having any
new test become a high-stakes test like the SAT and the ACT. The FSSC understands, as does
the FSWG, that “high-stakes” testing has educationally distorting effects, effects that also havenegative psychological and equity impacts. That is, when test scores are overly relied upon to
make important decisions about students (or their teachers, their schools/districts, etc.), a rangeof threats and anxiety result. Moreover, educationally inappropriate (even illegal) behaviors canresult from efforts to increase a student’s status on the test. To the contrary, “low-stakes” testing2

Recommendation of the UC Feasibility Study Steering Committee

December 16, 2020

better supports proper educational behaviors, academic achievement, school improvement andthe associated policies and practices. A potential low-stakes benefit of the SB is that many
California public students have had familiarity with it since the 3rd grade; students take it in theirlocal schools with their classmates, and the test is administered by familiar school personnel. TheFSSC believes that more can, and should, be done to lessen the stakes associated with testing.
The FSSC recommends that the University consider multiple and diverse means of lowering thestakes associated with the future use of tests in admissions; for example, we recommend that thePresident, in collaboration with the Academic Senate, consider:•Allowing, instead of requiring, students to submit their SB scores as one data point in thecomprehensive review process, similar to the voluntary submission of AP and IB scores.
The use of these scores in comprehensive review is not a requirement. They reflect anaccomplishment that students can point to that describes their engagement with acurriculum. Some concerns about this were raised, and careful oversight would berequired.

•Using the SB score as one of many possible data points in holistic review, rather than as
fixed or heavily-weighted elements of admissions formulas.

•Exploring whether multiple testing opportunities would help avoid allowing a single test
administered on a single day during the junior year from becoming a high-stakes
situation, while also better achieving the desired goals of providing student performance
feedback and improvement opportunities. For example, multiple test-taking opportunitiesof the SB, perhaps as both a junior-year and a senior-year assessment, might not only
lower the stakes associated with the current test, but also better achieve the goals ofstudent performance feedback and improvement.

Accessibility
Our recommendation of including SB scores as one of many factors in comprehensive review isintended to provide students with an additional, educationally appropriate opportunity to
showcase their strengths. In contrast to the “traditional” way of using standardized test scores as
an artificial comparison of academic qualities among students, we advocate for a paradigm shift
where UC applies an equity lens to these traditional considerations. Under the Organic Act of1868, which gave birth to the University of California, the Regents of the University ofCalifornia have an affirmative duty, “according to population, to so apportion the representationof students, when necessary, that all portions of the State shall enjoy equal privilege therein.” It
is reasonable that the university provide more, not fewer, opportunities for different populationsof students, especially California students, to demonstrate their capabilities of succeeding at theuniversity.

3

Recommendation of the UC Feasibility Study Steering Committee

December 16, 2020

We therefore recommend that the President, in collaboration with the Academic Senate, theSmarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC), the State Board of Education (SBE) and theCalifornia Department of Education (CDE), examine:•Whether other students (e.g., California private school and homeschooled students,students outside of the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium) may take the SB.

•If there are other assessments analogous to the SB that other students, in or out of state,
can submit for consideration under holistic review.

•Whether there are other methods that are, perhaps, less subject to “high-stakes” effects
and consequences that would serve similar purposes without the costs associated withstandardized testing.

More Information is Needed•

To what extent does the test fill information gaps in an applicant’s file without
introducing additional inequities?

•A test score is a single-day snapshot of students’ abilities, yet it does not, in and of itself,
provide a complete picture of students’ potential. How can we ensure that this single data
point is not over-privileged in the admissions process?

By expanding upon the FSWG recommendations, such as those for SB disparity-reduction
procedures (at the item/performance task levels), and confirming with research that any change
will not further exacerbate disparities, these actions will substantiate our belief in the feasibilityof modifying an existing test for use in UC freshman admissions.

4