In fact, now that I’ve read the linked article, I’m surprised Ms. Meltzer didn’t figure this out earlier; I thought it was pretty obvious. She also doesn’t follow the reasoning and evidence nearly far enough. Let me make this as straightforward as I can:
ALL of the big SAT changes the last few years have been in response to the ACT’s state contracts and ensuing growing marketshare.
SAT and ACT are competing for state contracts to make their tests mandatory for all public school students. That means they have to position themselves as achievement tests at the summit of state education systems, that they must be able to argue that their tests evaluate cumulative learning done in school. So if you’re in charge of the SAT, what do you do?
You bring in the former Common Core guy to head your re-design.
And you know that when you do win some state contracts, people are going to freak out because their kids have already been prepping for the ACT. So what do you do?
You make your redesigned test as similar to the ACT as possible–four answer choices, optional essay, no deduction penalty, predictable passage organization (narrative first), etc.
Boom, the dominoes start to fall and before you know it, states are jumping ship and you’re winning back those test-takers and that marketshare.
Oh, and since you’re a “non-profit,” you don’t pay taxes.
Good work if you can get it, I suppose.