http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/01/07/michigan-replaces-act-sat/21385299/
Cost saving driven - Universities are not set up for the change:
"The announcement was made by both the MDE and the Department of Technology, Management and Budget (DTMB). They said the SAT had won a three-year competitively bid contract, at a cost of $17.1 million.
The release noted that the bid from the SAT was $15.4 million less than the next bidder, the ACT.
Reaction to the news was swift and often negative.
“They just pulled the rug out from under us, with absolutely no warning,” said Michael Boulus, executive director of the Presidents Council, State Universities of Michigan. “It’s very clear from the news release that this was done purely out of cost savings, with little concern for the students and the admissions process we’ve been using for years. You just don’t reverse that.”
Wow, i knew CollegeBoard was hurting but surprised they are tactically “buying” their way into state testing in the midwest. The nice thing about the ACT was that the test was the ‘same’ as the national ACT so most kids used it as a practice run. I wonder if CollegeBoard will remaster the state tests to mimic the ACT since all high school students would need to take it.
I’m not sure it ultimately makes any difference. My son’s scores were dead-even in terms of correlation between the ACT and SAT (he took both, which is what any Michigan kid does if they’re serious about applying to top programs beyond the state.). At his school, they also took the PSAT, which also correlated almost exactly with his future scores on the SAT and ACT.
That’s anecdotal of course, but I don’t see why it will make much difference. If I can correlate a score off a grid, I’m pretty sure any Michigan admission counselor can 
but maybe I’m missing something here.
Strictly driven by money. That’s why Michigan replaced the MME with the ACT a few years ago.
And the bulk of Michigan kids are not “applying to top programs beyond the state”. If you look at the numbers before Michigan instituted the ACT, they were heavily skewed toward the ACT.
I agree with @kmcmom13 that I’m not sure if there is much difference between the test scores. My son did not take any prep classes for the ACT or the PSAT/SAT and his scores were “dead-even” too. I wonder if that is more often true than not.
Anyway, I’m also surprised and feel like @momofthreeboys that College Board is buying their way in.
It concerns me (even though I’m OOS and my youngest is graduating high school this year), because the SAT is being re-written by David Coleman, the architect of the Common Core State Standards Initiative. In my opinion the ‘jury is still out’ on Common Core, so to speak. I’ve heard a lot of criticism by teachers in our area, but I confess I don’t know much about it. (Our district started implementing it in grades beneath my children.)
For those of you who are interested, here is a link to an article talking about David Coleman and his influence on what are kids are learning.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/30/david-coleman-common-core-sat_n_3818107.html
If I am reading this right, Michigan uses the ACT, now to be the SAT as their test for all high schools students…I guess as the test required to graduate. I’ve often wondered why our state doesn’t do the same. We have a separate test, starting a new one this year). It would make so much more sense to use the one that colleges accept, prep the kids for that instead of a seemingly ever changing state specific test.
My point, dentmom4, was only that I don’t think its terribly difficult for in-state adcoms to adjust to seeing SAT scores as opposed to ACT scores…for the first year, they’d just correlate it to their previous SAT equivalencies.
This is one area where the amount of money spent isn’t particularly meaningful IMHO. If they can save 15 million on standardized testing, which to my mind contributes nothing to the classroom, well, why not? Use the money to lower the PTR, say I
The SAT is being revised and it will be slightly more ACT like. Last year, it was the first time students taking ACT more than those taking SAT. The main reason is because of the mandated ACT tests in more than a handful of states. SAT obviously needs to compete in this market to reverse the trend. I am not surprised that they will cut their arms to get the first few contracts particularly during their transition to the new format. You know the uncertainty and lack of preparation material may drive the students away initially. So this move may be a good move for CB and Michigan.
As for the students, I think it has a slight advantage too. First, they will take PSAT anyway so they would be at least aware of the format of SAT. It may be less confusing if they focus in one test format (e.g. to guess or not to guess). Second, retaking SAT would be more cost efficient than retaking ACT as many schools do superscoring SAT and there is no extra cost to have multiple test scores reported.
For students who will be taking both tests, it does not make any difference and I do recommend that as one may do better in one test than the other.
I don’t think there is any difficulty added to the adcom as they have been dealing with both scores all the time.
Note that there are awards and scholarships based on MME results.
I suppose I am just curious about the MOTIVE behind a sudden shift to the SAT. Yes, my first reaction (like @dentmom4) was that the change was “driven by money”. (a $15.4 million savings over 3 years!)
Now I question if it is the College Board’s way of combatting resistance to their Common Core Initiative. You know, lose a little on the SAT side, make it up and then some, on the Common Core side. (Maybe CB is hoping parents will embrace, perhaps lobby for Common Core if it will help their child “succeed”.)
I guess that isn’t a bad strategy IF Common Core is a really good thing.
Gah, guess I need to read up on Common Core now!
Does anyone want to share their knowledge or opinion about Common Core?
It’s really simple. It was money. That is a huge, huge discount College Board gave Michigan. But understandable since CB has been losing ground for at least 5 years if not more to the ACT. The cost of retooling the high school prep classes is a burden on the individual high schools. I don’t think the high schools “taught” to the ACT as the ACT covers pretty basic concepts that are learned in high school. The prep classes (at least one one my kids’ high school had) mostly taught the kids how to work through the speed issue of the ACT…not the content of the ACT. Uof M doesn’t have to do anything different when reviewing applications so the impact is nil, unless the “new” SAT bombs as a test of whether kids are prepared for college.
D is a jr, so she will not be affected by the change to SAT in 2016. Her HS has had ACT prep for years as a required course (dropped to elecdtive this year when we went back to semesters from trimesters); the focus was on test taking and speed, not content. This year less than 40 kids took the PSAT (class of 260).
Students don’t have to “pass” the standardized test with any specific score.
Not so fast…
An excerpt from the Freep link above suggests that the state flunked the writing component of the RFP:
“Dunn says in the letter that ACT was given lower marks for having submitted a bid for an “augmented” version of a college entrance exam — one that included a separate writing exam. She said the state’s request for proposals did not explicitly state it was only looking for a college entrance exam. Why does it matter? Dunn said the company’s bid was higher than the SAT because it included the writing test.”
If they don’t do the version with writing, then everybody who wants to go to college will still have to take it again on their own dime anyway. Ridiculous. Makes me glad my kids are in college already.
The college counselors say 25 percent of the students do better on ACT, 25 percent do better on the Sat and 50 percent of the students do the same on both. I just thought I’d throw that out there.