Author: By Ben Lieberman

Date: TUESDAY, November 17, 1998

Page: A27

Section: Op-Ed Page

Ben Lieberman is an assistant professor of social science at Fitchburg State College.

Much public attention has been focused on the issue of teacher testing in Massachusetts. But the recent approval by the state Board of Higher Education of a series of sweeping changes that could reduce educational opportunities for working families and students has gone relatively unnoticed.

In October the board changed admissions requirements for the nine state colleges in Massachusetts. Beginning in 2001, it decreed, only students with high school grade point averages of at least 3.0 will be eligible for admission automatically. Those with lower averages can be admitted to a state college only if they score high enough on the SATs, with higher SATs required for students who have lower grades.

Under the new requirements, a student with a grade point average of 2.51 to 2.99, for example, will have to achieve a minimum combined SAT score of 920. And a student with a grade point average of 2.00 to 2.10 will need a combined score of 1120.

The board's one-size-fits-all mandate ignores significant regional differences in SAT scores within Massachusetts. A combined score of 1120 may not be uncommon in some of the more affluent suburbs, but it is an extremely high score for students in many urban schools.

The board is also requiring that "each state college . . . achieve an average freshman SAT combined score of 1017 by fall of 2000 and at least 1025 by fall 2001." How will the colleges achieve this aggregate? One way is to try to attract a greater number of students with higher SATs, even if they have lower grade point averages. Unfortunately, another way is to reject students with high grade point averages but lower SAT scores -- even though they meet the board's criteria for admission.

This means that a talented student from a poorer community with high grades and strong recommendations might still face rejection if he or she has SAT scores that would bring down the required institutional average.

The new policy jeopardizes educational opportunities especially for the state's minority students.

The 1998 mean combined SAT score for the state's college-bound African-American high school seniors was 853, well below the required institutional aggregate. For Puerto Rican students the combined score was 817.

Minorities are not the only victims. Lower-income students will also suffer under the new policies. The mean combined score for college-bound high school seniors with family incomes of $10,000 to $20,000 was 902.

In a state with many elite private institutions of higher education that cater to national and even international constituencies, it is the mission of our public colleges to provide a high-quality, affordable college education to the state's lower- and middle-income students. By enacting policies that could force colleges to reject deserving students, the Board of Higher Education has jeopardized this mission.

Ironically, the board may also have breached it own commitment, stated in its list of responsibilities, "to ensure that systemwide and institutional policies, practices, and programs not only value but foster diversity in enrollment, retention, student achievement, and institutional work force and climate."

State college students often make tremendous sacrifices for the sake of a college education. Many of my students at Fitchburg State College have worked full time -- some on the night shift -- while attending school full time. Affording even a relatively inexpensive public college is often a struggle.

Many also have families, some with small children. One of my students gets up at 4 a.m. to do her course work before her young children wake up.

These Massachusetts students deserve access to high-quality public colleges. They deserve dedicated, qualified faculty, and they also deserve a Board of Higher Education that preserves educational opportunity for talented and hard-working students across the state. To better meet its own goals, the Board of Higher Education might begin by observing its own statutory responsibility to "foster decision-making close to the actual learning environment" instead of issuing sweeping mandates.

JWATSO;11/06 NIGRO ;11/17,06:35 LIEBER17