That is an argument against allowing phone apps. But doesn't excuse requiring students to pay $100+ for antiquated technology.
At least for widespread standardized tests that allow or require a calculator, the obvious solution would seem to be providing students with one at the beginning of the exam. In addition to preventing cheating with unauthorized programs when students bring their own, it ensures there's a level playing field for poorer students who might not be able to afford one. Add an extra $1 to the cost of the test if need be-- the calculators should last at least 100 tests or so, and they could probably get a volume discount anyway.
The SAT II Math isn't the only test. The normal SAT math component also allows calculators and is generally administered on different dates. The SAT is offered on 21 dates in 2019, so that's a total of 27 tests. Even at a full ~$100 per calculator, charging an extra $1 per test would still cover the cost in a little more than 3 years.
AP Exams: Unlike the SAT which has regional test locations, AP exams are generally administered in the school you attend, and the school should provide a calculator. For that matter, the whole issue could be solved if schools issued them as standard equipment that same way they do textbooks.
Finally, the whole point of these tests is to establish the level of knowledge a student has. That hasn't really been done if the test takers aren't on the same level playing field. All else being equal, the same score for a test taker with a calculator compared to one without would mean very different things. It's supposed to be a standardized test. All students should have the same equipment.
Adding any more logistics into this process would increase costs and provide no headline-worthy benefit.
* The teachers, not the students, use scantrons
Either way, the headline-worthy benefit, if I take your meaning with that phrase correctly, is that this is a standardized test. You don't get to "standardized" by not providing equal equipment to test takers. Regardless of whether it's "easy" to do, it is a necessary condition for actually being a standardized test.
If there’s any appreciable quantity of arithmetic involved, that’s a clear sign that you aren’t dealing with a “higher-level math class”.
“Lower level” math courses also should not have excessive amounts of arithmetic. What arithmetic is included should be there for the express purpose of practicing arithmetic (at which point a handheld calculator is exactly the opposite of what you want).
At any point that arithmetic isn’t the point of the problem, the arithmetic used should be designed to not be a barrier or time sink. In pretty much any possible problem requiring substantial arithmetic where calculators should be handling it instead of humans, the student should be sitting down in front of a full-sized keyboard with a more capable tool (e.g. a general-purpose programming language).
Math students at any level spending nontrivial amounts of time with handheld calculators is a huge waste of their time.
Learning to fluently navigate a handheld calculator is not an important life skill, and has little to do with mathematics.
But once you get to pure mathematics courses at the undergraduate level (i.e. beyond the service courses math departments offer to engineering and science students) there is pretty much no arithmetic.
> Learning to fluently navigate a handheld calculator is not an important life skill
It very arguably is. Contrary to what HNers seem to think, not everybody wants or is inclined to picking up Python to tally up a receipt or similar, and that's quite okay. (Sure, the handheld calculator is often now a phone, but that's a difference without much distinction)
If people want to buy $5 “scientific calculator”, a 4-function calculator with a paper tape, use a free calculator app on their phone, type their arithmetic into google, ...., that’s just fine.
These devices are simple and straight-forward, and do not need extensive practice to understand.
If schools really want to spend class time practicing computations with a portable calculation device, learning how a slide rule works is much more pedagogically valuable. At earlier ages, learning how to use a soroban or counting board is also worthwhile. These devices have no hidden parts, and learning to use them is, in itself, mathematical.
You on the other hand called _all_ handheld calculators a waste of time.
Spending nontrivial amounts of classroom time on practicing using a handheld calculator is a waste. Assigning high school students long lists of exercises where they punch numbers into calculators and then write down the answers is a waste of time and attention.