Joanne Yatvin was a teacher, principal, superintendent, and president of the National Council of Trachers of English.
She writes:
A few days ago the New York Times published an OP-Ed by Richard Atkinson and Saul Geiser about the new SAT that the College Board will implement in 1916. Although the writers approve of the direction of the new test, they argue that it does not go far enough. It will focus on students’ mastery of the subjects studied in high school, but still be norm-referenced rather than a strict measure of their performance against a fixed standard. Also, in the test a written essay is optional, not required, which allows students t o by-pass proving their competence in a skill that Atkinson and Geiser consider the “single most important one for success in college.”
In my view both the writers and the College Board are on the wrong track. Primarily, they have forgotten that the A in SAT stands for “aptitude.” Originally, the test was intended to identify students with native intelligence and rich personal learning, regardless of the quality of their schools or their own home backgrounds. In tough economic times the SAT sought to give bright and dedicated young people a chance at college that they would not have otherwise. In many states scholarships went to students with high-test scores.
Another problem I see is the strong emphasis that the Common Core State Standards will have on test results in the future. Considering that several states have decided to go with their own standards and that many schools in states still dedicated to the CCSS are not up to speed, countless numbers of students will not be prepared to do well on the new SAT.
About the New SAT’s stance on a written essay I have mixed emotions. I agree with Atkinson and Geiser about the importance of being able to write well, but I also recognize
that it’s very difficult to do that on demand in short time frame and with no opportunity to revise. Maybe requiring an essay written separately from taking the test would be a better option.
Finally, my own personal objection to both the CCSS and the new SAT is that they misconstrue the true nature of learning. Learning is not a detailed memory of school-selected knowledge and skills, but the ability to choose what is important for your personal life, career aspirations, and the societal roles you hope to play. Learners build their knowledge and skills on that foundation and can demonstrate them on a test that honors good thinking and problem solving.
……………………………..
P.S. Many years ago I created a proverbial saying that expressed my belief about the true nature of learning. Although I’ve often recited it to friends and colleagues, and edited over time, I’ve never made it public. Here it is: Learning is not climbing someone else’s ladder, but weaving your own web from the scraps of meaning you find along your way.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Reblogged this on David R. Taylor-Thoughts on Texas Education.
LikeLike
Actually, the “A” doesn’t stand for anything anymore. I think originally it stood for “Aptitude”, then they changed it to “Achievement” and then gave up entirely, as they realize the test really doesn’t (can’t) assess either one very well.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It stands for “Assess.” 🙂
LikeLike
Are you sure you didn’t put an extra s on the end? 😉
LikeLike
SAT is an acronym that stands for absolutely nothing.
LikeLike
In reality, the “A” stands for “access” because that’s what the test gives you.
The “Success Access Test”
It gives you access to the best colleges which, in turn, gives you access to the best paying jobs, which gives your kids access to a life that allows them to get a great SAT score, which gives them access to the best colleges…
It’s basically a gate and anyone who was handed the key (primarily by virtue of their family income) can pass through and those who don’t have the key can’t.
LikeLike
I think you meant 2016 ( and not 1916) in the original blog post.
LikeLike
“Learning is not climbing someone else’s ladder, but weaving your own web from the scraps of meaning you find along your way.”
as opposed to
“Down the rabbit chute”
“Chutes and Ladders”
Is “reform”
Hares and Hatters
Are the norm
LikeLike
@Dienne: You’re quite right. I was always amused by the notion that the SAT could measure “aptitude.” Given the usual meaning of that word, it would thus be impossible for anyone to improve his/her SAT score with study, practice, or anything else. And yet most of us who’ve worked with students closely on the SAT and similar tests are well aware that quite the opposite is the case.
Successful work on test improvement starts with helping to debunk the still-common belief that SAT scores are “God-given” or nearly so. And of course it makes zero sense that they could be, given that there is content for both the verbal and math sections that can be learned and mastered over time. Becoming a more effective analytic reader with more sensitivity for choosing the best answer among five choices to “comprehension” questions is neither an innate ability nor one that measures some sort of absolute intelligence. Rather, it’s a skill that students can develop and improve over time. Similarly, vocabulary words that are essential for doing well on sentence completion problems (as well as the now-obsolete antonym and analogy questions from past SATs) take exposure from reading and/or dedicated study. No one is born knowing a sufficiently wide spectrum of English vocabulary (with a lexicon of over a million non-technical and another million technical words) to knock the verbal part of the test out of the park.
As for the mathematics sections, clearly it is a test of both particular mathematical knowledge and facility at applying what one knows to the timed section of questions. I wasn’t particularly fabulous at the math section in high school, scoring in the 85th percentile. In my early 30s, I became really interested in math, just as real SAT tests were being released to the public. Within a short time, I was routinely scoring close to perfect 800s on a regular basis and scored a 780 on the math portion of the GRE in 1991 (compared with a 640 in 1973). Did I really gain so much aptitude through some late-breaking gift from God? Not too likely.
LikeLike
You must be a lot younger than I am, Michael. I took the SAT in 1947 without any study, practice, or tutoring. I didn’t have the slightest idea what was in it, and my math skils were mediocre. Yet, I scored well enough to get into a good college with a full tuition scholarship.
LikeLike
I’ll be 65 in July. Sounds like you’ve got me by a bit. But few people prepped for the SAT or knew much about it in the late ’60s (except perhaps for those who knew Stanley Kaplan in Brooklyn). We still believed in the SAT as a divine peek into our immutable IQs. I stopped believing in all that in my late teens after studying testing and measurement in college and haven’t looked back on the “holy” nature of standardized tests. Unfortunately, loads of people still believe, or at least are deeply invested in the idea that such tests are the sine qua non of education. I argue with some of them about mathematics education and other educational issues frequently and am convinced that some are true believers in testing, while others are simply reflecting their deep-seated conservative politics in their claims about high-stakes/standardized tests.
LikeLike
For a brief moment I thought this was going to be a historical comparison of the reaction to the introduction of the SAT to changes happening now. But then I realized the SAT really started in 1925 not 1916.
LikeLike
“Silly Attitude Test”
I know her 2.7 percent
We plan to tie the knot
Relationship is heaven sent
Her SAT is hot!
(According to findings of Jesse Rothstein 2.7 is the percent of grade variance for first year in college that can be accounted for by SAT)
LikeLike
Good that these teachers are taking a stand and speaking out re this testing mania.
LikeLike
The SAT and the ACT aren’t even needed. High school GPA and courses taken are a better predictor of college success. These tests are redundant, and just another example of unnecessary standardized testing.
Many colleges have gone test optional for admissions, and this includes some excellent colleges like Wake Forest University in North Carolina. Parents and students could save a lot of time and money if more colleges would go test optional.
LikeLike
Girls perform lower on the SAT, but they perform better in college than males.
LikeLike
Within the last month, nearly 200 colleges in six states have announced they will use scores on the Smarter Balanced assessment for students entering college. Students with a score of 4 (the highest level) will not have to have take and pass a college placement test. Placement tests are usually required to find out if students need to complete remedial courses. Based on cut scores established after field trials for SBAC tests (in 21 states, 2014), about 11% of students are expected to score at Level 4.
PARCC is supposed to have comparable cut scores. So far, only two colleges in Colorado will be accepting PARCC scores in lieu of placement tests, along with members of the Illinois Council of Community College Presidents (about 50).
The campaign to enlist many more colleges and universities to accept the Common Core and associated tests is underway with a messaging campaign funded by the National Governor’s Association. Among the recent spokespersons are Nancy Zimpher, Chancellor, State University of New York; Harold G. Levine, Dean of the school of education at the University of California, Davis; and Michael W. Kirst, president of the California state board of education and emeritus professor of education at Stanford University.
The campaign is not brand new. In July, 2014, the Association of American Colleges and Universities announced that it has joined “Higher Ed for Higher Standards,” a project of the much larger coalition of groups organized to keep up the drumbeat for the Common Core and associated tests of college-and career-readiness. Also on board as an approver of the Common Core is the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, The larger coalition that sponsors higher Ed for Higher Standards is the Collaborative for Student Success with about 30 groups including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
The Collaborative publishes surveys and news intended to shore up the Common Core and associated tests. The Collaborative for Student Success and Higher Ed For Higher standards are among many publicity machines for the Common Core.
The new “portrait” being painted of the Common Core and tests is one marked by exaggerated praise for the on-line “skill sets” that students must learn for testing, the virtue of close readings of texts, and the wondrous “breakthrough” on standards that emphasize critical thinking and solving of real world problems. The myth that these standards are state-led, analagous to a grassroots effort is sustained, but it is laced with swipes at failing schools as if that caricature applies to all public schools, also some references to the opt-out, “refuse the test” movement as misguided.
I find not one ounce of concern among these senior higher education “messengers” about the loss of academic freedom engulfing their institutions. Their easy acceptance of this agenda is a case of jumping on a bandwagon without due diligence. Also troubling is a certain “matter-of-factness” about the right of administrators to pre-empt faculty study, discussion, debate, and decisions about the merit of the CCSS and tests for”college readiness” across all disciplines.
I may be wrong, but I doubt that the college and university administrators who have signed on as marketers of the CCSS and tests have any deep knowledge of their origin, history, who paid for them, why they have been forwarded in federal polices, why they need to be marketed, and even less about the consequences of foisting them on thousands of students in public schools. Their ignorance of detail and substance is an occupational hazard. That is why faculty voice is vital, and noteworthy when it is absent.
LikeLike
Thank you, Laura, for continuing to post on this topic. I think few in higher education have been aware that standardization is coming for them, too. I can think of few schools of education which have stood up for the teachers – their graduates – who have been victimized by the edu-reformistas, either.
LikeLike
Oh, I can’t wait until college professors are responsible for their students’ test scores and their pay is directly related to them. And maybe they will be ranked by the scores of students they’ve never had in class. Oh happy day for this country!!!
LikeLike
I agree that the changes in the SAT are headed in the opposite direction to encouraging true learning and exploration of talents in high school years. This will further weigh on students as the prepare for college.
LikeLike
Joanne Yatvin is right on!
LikeLike
University of California, a prominent higher educational institution in this country states:
“While SAT Subject Tests are not required, some campuses recommend that freshman applicants interested in competitive majors take the tests to demonstrate subject proficiency.”
But on the other hand they do use the GPA from High School and the High School itself in their evaluation for admission to there freshman class.
LikeLike
Fixed auto correct problem below
University of California, a prominent higher educational institution in this country states:
“While SAT Subject Tests are not required, some campuses recommend that freshman applicants interested in competitive majors take the tests to demonstrate subject proficiency.”
But on the other hand they do use the GPA from High School and the High School itself in their evaluation for admission to their freshman class.
LikeLike
It is a conspiracy to stoke the fires of the Common Core. David Coleman, president of the college board understands quite well the psychology of parents who will be too fearful to opt out of a bogus program if it means they might falter on the SAT. If you want to stop the Common Core you need to confront the leader, i.e. David Coleman.
LikeLike
Thanks for the laugh, Dienne, up there @ 8:46 PM. TAGO!
LikeLike
Part 1
The SAT is a badly flawed and virtually worthless test, unless one is interested in determining the family incomes of students. And many colleges are, for reasons that have nothing to do with academics.
The best predictor of success in college is high school grade point average (including SAT score doesn’t add much). Moreover, research shows that “the best predictor of both first- and second-year college grades” is unweighted high school grade point average. A high school grade point average “weighted with a full bonus point for AP…is invariably the worst predictor of college performance.”
The College Board, which produces the PSAT, SAT, and Advanced Placement courses and tests, now recommends that schools “implement grade-weighting policies…starting as early as the sixth grade.” The SIXTH grade! If that sounds rather stupid, perhaps even fraudulent, that’s because it is.
College enrollment specialists say that their research finds the SAT predicts between 3 and 15 percent of freshman-year college grades, and after that nothing. As one commented, “I might as well measure their shoe size.” Matthew Quirk reported this in ‘The Best Class Money Can Buy:’
“The ACT and the College Board don’t just sell hundreds of thousands of student profiles to schools; they also offer software and consulting services that can be used to set crude wealth and test-score cutoffs, to target or eliminate students before they apply…That students are rejected on the basis of income is one of the most closely held secrets in admissions; enrollment managers say the practice is far more prevalent than most schools let on.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/the-best-class-money-can-buy/4307/2/
The authors of a study in Ohio found the ACT has minimal predictive power. For example, the ACT composite score predicts about 5 percent of the variance in freshman-year Grade Point Average at Akron University, 10 percent at Bowling Green, 13 percent at Cincinnati, 8 percent at Kent State, 12 percent at Miami of Ohio, 9 percent at Ohio University, 15 percent at Ohio State, 13 percent at Toledo, and 17 percent for all others. Hardly anything to get all excited about.
Here is what the authors say about the ACT in their concluding remarks:
“…why, in the competitive college admissions market, admission officers have not already discovered the shortcomings of the ACT composite score and reduced the weight they put on the Reading and Science components. The answer is not clear. Personal conversations suggest that most admission officers are simply unaware of the difference in predictive validity across the tests. They have trusted ACT Inc. to design a valid exam and never took the time (or had the resources) to analyze the predictive power of its various components. An alternative explanation is that schools have a strong incentive – perhaps due to highly publicized external rankings such as those compiled by U.S. News & World Report, which incorporate students’ entrance exam scores – to admit students with a high ACT composite score, even if this score turns out to be unhelpful.”
LikeLike
Part 2
As most people know, the Princeton Review does quite a bit if test prep for the SAT. Here’s Princeton Review founder John Katzman on the SAT:
“The SAT is a scam…It has never measured anything. And it continues to measure nothing. And the whole game is that everybody who does well on it, is so delighted by their good fortune that they don’t want to attack it. And they are the people in charge. Because of course, the way you get to be in charge is by having high test scores. So it’s this terrific kind of rolling scam that every so often, somebody sort of looks and says–well, you know, does it measure intelligence? No. Does it predict college grades? No. Does it tell you how much you learned in high school? No. Does it predict life happiness or life success in any measure? No. It’s measuring nothing. It is a test of very basic math and very basic reading skill. Nothing that a high school kid should be taking.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/katzman.html
Here’s author Nicholas Lemann –– whose book The Big Test is all about the SAT –– on the SAT’s severe limitations:
“The test has been, you know, fetishized. This whole culture and frenzy and mythology has been built around SATs. Tests, in general, SATs, in particular, and everybody seems to believe that it’s a measure of how smart you are or your innate worth or something. I mean, the level of obsession over these tests is way out of proportion to what they actually measure. And ETS, the maker of test, they don’t actively encourage the obsession, but they don’t actively discourage it either. Because they do sort of profit from it…every time somebody takes an SAT, it’s money to the ETS and the College Board. But there is something definitely weird about the psychological importance these tests have in America versus what they actually measure. And indeed, what difference do they make? Because, there’s two thousand colleges in the United States, and 1,950 of them are pretty much unselective. So, the SAT is a ticket to a few places.”
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/sats/interviews/lemann.html
LikeLike
I like the quote about how the SAT has been “fetishized.” I would say that test fetish is a huge problem in American education.
My child will not be going to school next Friday because students in a higher grade are taking a “big” state test. So, nobody can make noise in the rest of the school. His teachers can’t teach. He was told by one teacher to stay home if possible. What kind of an educational system prohibits teachers from teaching and students from learning? This is nuts.
LikeLike
Part 3
As to AP courses and tests, the hype is as great or greater than with the SAT. Students are told that if they want to be “well prepared for academically strenuous college classes” then they have to take “rigorous” high school classes, and counselors tell them that means AP classes. Jay Mathews of The Post has popularized the myth that “AP is better.” But the research doesn’t support Mathews’ contention, although students seem to understand the importance of constructing a facade. Students admit that ““You’re not trying to get educated; you’re trying to look good.” And “The focus is on the test and not necessarily on the fundamental knowledge of the material.”
Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005) found that AP students “…generally no more likely than non-AP students to return to school for a second year or to have higher first semester grades.” Moreover, they write that “close inspection of the [College Board] studies cited reveals that the existing evidence regarding the benefits of AP experience is questionable,” and “AP courses are not a necessary component of a rigorous curriculum.”
The College Board routinely coughs up “research studies” to show that their test products are valid and reliable. The problem is that independent, peer-reviewed research doesn’t back them up. The SAT and PSAT are shams. Colleges often use PSAT scores as a basis for sending solicitation letters to prospective students. However, as a former admissions officer noted, “The overwhelming majority of students receiving these mailings will not be admitted in the end.” Some say that the College Board, in essence, has turned the admissions process “into a profit-making opportunity.”
Advanced Placement may work well for some students, especially those who are already “college-bound to begin with” (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2010). Indeed, there are “systematic differences in student motivation, academic preparation, family background and high-school quality account for much of the observed difference in college outcomes between AP and non-AP students” (Geiser, 2007). College Board-funded studies do not control well for these student characteristics (even the College Board concedes that “interest and motivation” are keys to “success in any course”). Klopfenstein and Thomas (2010) find that when these demographic characteristics are controlled for, the claims made for AP disappear.
And guess what? ACT, Inc. and the College Board were instrumental in developing the Common Core. Both organizations say they have “aligned” all of their products with it. Both are avid supporters of it. And yet, it’s wholly unnecessary. It was based on the silly idea that better test scores are necessary for economic competitiveness and prosperity, a notion perpetrated by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Wall street entities, and the Business Roundtable, among others.
Students, parents, teachers, and school leaders –– not to mention admissions officials, reporters, and politicians and tutors –– would do well to heed the research and to stop perpetuating the myths. Because the future of public educator is at stake.
LikeLike
David Coleman has destroyed the reputation of the College Board and rendered AP, SAT pretty much meaningless. I believe we need a competitor to them. I also believe we need to boycott the College Board. Hit them where it hurts the most. AP is more about stroking ego than getting a student into college (most colleges don’t give any consideration for AP) and over 800 colleges allow students entrance by other means than an SAT. Lets get off the ego trips and send the College Board packing.
LikeLike
@ wewontforget:
I agree.
But it’s easier said than done. Many superintendents and administrators and teachers and parents are wedded to AP. Many guidance counselors still think the SAT is an important, meaningful test.
And then there’s this, as I pointed out in a comment on this blog some days back:
Recently, the Virginia Association of State Superintendents (VASS) named the “superintendent of the year” for 2016. While the award comes from VASS, a VASS-selected panel –– comprised of the state superintendent of instruction, and the heads of the Virginia Education Association, state PTA and state school boards association, the head of the state ASCD, and the directors of the state associations of secondary and elementary school principals –– picked the winner. In other words, the top education “leaders” in the state –– those who should be familiar with research and evidence –– were responsible for choosing the state’s “best” superintendent.
A few years back, this recently-named “superintendent of the year” forced a test-score-tracking software program called SchoolNet on teachers. She was advised against it because of its problems. But she went ahead anyway. It ended up being a $2 million-plus failure. SchoolNet was later bought by Pearson. The superintendent is still withholding 268 SchoolNet-related emails from public scrutiny, claiming they are “exempt” from the Freedom of Information Act.
Also several years back, the school division sent out what it termed a “leadership” survey. It wasn’t really. It was a skewed-question survey designed to produce pre-determined results. But it did allow for comments. And those comments –– which the superintendent also tried to shield but was forced to give up –– were instructive. They included comments such as “..this is the worst leadership the county has ever had,” and “Honesty, integrity and fairness are lacking,” and “…teachers have very little voice, and “…the system does not care about me or most other employees as individuals, and “county schools leaders seem to be increasingly inept and far-removed from the day-to-day realities of public education.” Again and again and again, commenters said these things about the top “leadership:”
* “does not listen to teachers…”
* does not ask what people think before it accepts major policies…”
* “…teachers are not listened to…our opinions have been requested and ignored…”
* “…when I offer my opinion, i has been dismissed.”
* “l..leaders seek input, but then usually, disregard the opinions of those not in agreement with the administration…decisions are made top-down before input is received.”
* “decision making is so top-down — stakeholders are seldom consulted…”
* “…decisions have already been made…”
* “…teachers feel that their professional judgment is not valued…”
* “most administrator are arrogant…and remove themselves with any type of collaborative dialogue with teachers.”
* “…they do not want to hear complaints, or you are labeled as a troublemaker…”
* “the county asks its employees for input but these requests are superficial…the decision have already been made by the people ‘downtown’…”
* “you ask people to think critically but we must toe the party line…”
* “We are not asked what we think…it is common knowledge here that you are not allowed to address concerns that may be negative…”
“I see few examples of teachers being involved in decision making.”
This “superintendent of the year” forced STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) “academies” on all of the county high schools. Originally, the claim was that research showed a STEM “crisis” in America, and that this move was “visionary.” Norm Augustine, former CEO of Lockheed Martin (which has laid of thousands of STEM workers), was invited to the schools to make his STEM spiel. Yet, when asked for the “research,” the superintendent couldn’t produce any. There’s a reason for that. The research shows there is no “crisis,” no “shortage.” In fact, there’s a glut.
For example, Beryl Lieff Benderly wrote this stunning statement recently in the Columbia Journalism Review (see: http://www.cjr.org/reports/what_scientist_shortage.php?page=all ):
“Leading experts on the STEM workforce, have said for years that the US produces ample numbers of excellent science students. In fact, according to the National Science Board’s authoritative publication Science and Engineering Indicators 2008, the country turns out three times as many STEM degrees as the economy can absorb into jobs related to their majors.”
When VASS selected this “superintendent of the year” for 2016, it noted certain “indicators of success.” What were they? It cited an increase in the “number of students enrolled in AP courses” and SAT scores that were higher that the state average. Never mind that the SAT is not tied to the school curriculum. This school division – by the way- is one of the most affluent in the state. And, there is no better predictor of SAT score than family income.
So, you see just how difficult change will be.
Our so-called “leaders” are a major part of the problem.
LikeLike
It’s a vicious circle.
By and large, our ‘leaders’ are the ones who did great on the exams and went to Ivy league schools which got them into positions of power and money.
Many of them have undoubtedly convinced themselves that their own success could have been predicted by their SAT scores.
There is a huge irony in all of this: the test is supposed to tells us about the mental capabilities of those taking the test but in fact, it tells us very little about that and far more about the mental capabilities of those using the tests (eg, for college admissions).
In my opinion, the SAT is a sort of inverse intelligence test for the latter. The more value you place on SAT as a college admissions officer, the dumber you are.
LikeLike
@Poet:
I know plenty of administrators who did not attend “elite” schools. And I know plenty who were not very good teachers, and plenty who didn’t teach for very long, and plenty who when they did teach, did not teach an academic subject.
I can assure you that most of these people were not stellar students.
I can also assure you that many of them know little about research in education or motivation or organizational management, nor do they really care.
But you are absolutely right…it’s a vicious circle.
LikeLike
I am not a fan of where the new SAT test seems to be heading, but I am less concerned about it. Why? Because EVERY student — whether in a public, private, charter or parochial school — takes the same test. That means the rich scions of the billionaire hedge funders are stuck with it, too. The only reason that Pearson can get away with such terrible state exams and setting unreasonable cut scores is because those private school kids don’t take the same tests.
Perhaps everyone will start switching to the ACT, but public school students can choose that opt out of the SAT just like private school students can.
Look at what happened with AP exams. They started out in the more elite high schools. But now that middle class and poor public school students often take the same exam and score well, suddenly the elite private high schools have begun saying they aren’t as rigorous as their own non-AP courses. That means their students don’t have to take an AP exam that compares them to the supposedly less well-educated public school students who might outscore them.
Maybe the wealthy parents of private school kids will find a way to have them exempt from taking any standardized exam that compares them directly to public school students. But until they do, I feel confident the SAT will not be designed to show how little students know. It may not be a fair test, but there is a limit to how far the test can be used for political reasons if the children of privatizers sit for it as well.
LikeLike
@ NYC parent:
The SAT is a norm-referenced test. What is measures best – by far – is family income. So if all students take the same SAT test, who do you think falls above the mean, and who falls below? Because, by design, half the test-takers WILL fall below the average.
The SAT is also a test that can be coached. See (above) what the founder of The Princeton Review said about it. Who do you think can afford the most and the “best” test prep?
And, as I noted, the College Board is all-in on the Common Core.
It’s way past time for the SAT and ACT – and AP – to be abandoned.
But I’m not hopeful. Too many people have bought into the nonsense.
Including educators.
LikeLike
@ democracy:
I understand that and it has always been so. And yes, family income is important.
And yet…….
I far prefer all students taking the exact same exam — regardless of family income — to public school students taking a crappy state exam and private school students taking the CTP4s or some other exam.
In NY State, private school students rarely take the Regents exams. Many are phasing out AP classes. But the SATs — they all take those (or the ACTs). Don’t you wonder why we don’t compare the SAT scores of students and excoriate the teachers at the schools that have lower “averages”?
Sure, some private schools that select students have high averages, but there are so many second and third rate private schools where the children of the 1% attend. No way will they allow their school’s average SAT score to reflect on the private school they choose for their child. How embarrassed they would be to find that the school they pay upwards of $50,000 a year tuition for has teachers who are far worse than the teachers in an affluent Westchester public schools.
The reason that private schools have disdained AP tests is that their students are finding it hard to compete for those 5s now. There is far more competition from those poorly taught public school students, so now they pretend that APs are worthless. Perhaps they are, but it’s also true that they aren’t happy when their expensively educated students are getting 3s or 4s. Uh oh.
The fact is that there will always be privately educated students who score lower on these tests. But their parents would never blame the teachers. It’s a dilemma for the privatizers when private and public school students take the same test.
LikeLike
NYC parent:
You pose this question:
“Don’t you wonder why we don’t compare the SAT scores of students and excoriate the teachers at the schools that have lower ‘averages’?”
This happens all the time. Schools with lower SAT scores are deemed “worse” than other schools. Realtors make this comparison every day. And, if the a school has low SAT scores, then the teachers in it are often considered “worse” than teachers in schools with high SAT scores.
But as I note in my comments it’s a false comparison. A fallacy.
You also write this:
“How embarrassed they would be to find that the school they pay upwards of $50,000 a year tuition for has teachers who are far worse than the teachers in an affluent Westchester public schools.”
This may be what some people think, but it has no merit. The SAT scores of students are not reflective of the quality of teachers.
Is this what you are suggesting? That somehow, SAT score is related directly to teaching quality?
LikeLike