When you increase the test taking pool and there is an increasing number of ESL students taking the exam, average scores are going to drop. The problem isn't legislation like the Ted Kenney/GW Bush No Child Left Behind, it's that the important critical thinking and higher level reading skills required are being ignored in lieu of an increased focus on just getting kids to pass minimum standards. As a result, the majority of educational initiatives are aimed at the lower end of the educational achievement bell curve at the expense of the true "college bound" student.

There's also a push that "every child could/should go to college" as opposed to the old days when vocational and trade programs were more prominent. As a result more kids that have no interest or ability to succeed in college are taking the SAT. It's simple -- with a larger sample size, you'll have more low scores. However, one critical area that is being ignored is that the College Board routinely re-centers scores. The real question isn't what the reported scores are -- it's the difference in the raw test scores that are the key. I would argue that the raw scores are probably just the same as they've always been -- however if more people score "above average" then of course, the College Board will have to make the "average" score more average. One might be able to make the case that scores are actually higher now than they were in 1995 and as a result the scaled scores have been adjusted to reflect this new average.

I am a high school teacher in Shanghai and do private SAT tutoring and have been studying and dealing with SAT scoring and preparation for many years -- I'm not noticing a decline in students as much as I'm noticing an increased reliance upon test prep -- which would skew the averages to be higher and result in the College Board adjusting the reported score/raw score in order for the test to maintain validity in the eyes of the colleges.

In reality, the SAT is not a valid test of anything other than the ability to take the SAT. I could teach almost anyone to "beat" the test. It really isn't a function of intelligence as much as strategy. But the College Board is in the business of selling tests and so they must create some score distribution as a means for universities to short-cut their admissions process. It's much easier to compare 20000 applications on basis of SAT/GPA than it would be to consider GPA and the full range of other indicators. While universities do consider those indicators -- it's usually only after making their private cuts based on some numeric rubric. That's the real tragedy -- not that the SAT scores are going down, but that the SAT scores are still being used at all. It would make much more sense to use Advanced Placement results since those are actual college level courses. The SAT II is also more valid since those tests are actually subject matter exams rather than some arbitrary gauge of critical thinking skills. However, the SAT has been adapting someone with more emphasis on real academic skills, but it's still a very beatable, very trainable test. It would be much more difficult to coach someone on beating the AP exam, since those test actual knowledge and application rather than just simple strategy. An increase of the AP program would cost hundreds of millions for schools and there's no way they'll do it because they're too busy teaching 10th graders how to read and making sure that kids learn plenty of political correctness.