After a quick skim, I agree with a few of his points but disagree with his main idea, that an achievement test is preferable. Isn't an outright achievement test much more coachable? I agree with him to the extent that he thinks a more g-loaded, pre-1994 SAT would be preferable.
He doesn't mention the option to take the ACT instead (isn't the ACT more achievement-oriented? How has that helped bright but disadvantaged students?).
He also doesn't mention the significant changes to the SAT that begin with the spring 2016 test - there may be no need to do away with the SAT as it may do away with itself, its old self, and morph entirely into an achievement test. I have read conflicting guesses on what is coming. Some say the College Board (and David Coleman, is that his name?) wants the SAT to be more like the ACT for market share reasons. However, I read someplace that kids who do better with proof/logic will like the new one, which to me implies more focus on ability. Then again, all questions will be mapped to the Common Core standards; I'm not prepared to say which way that cuts, though that would seem to be achievement-oriented, no?
Just thinking out loud, waiting for the coffee to sink in... I may read back through it more thoroughly though I'm not particularly interested in expending the energy as the SAT will never be abolished. It will just change.
