In 2012, after creating and launching the Common Core, David Coleman accepted the leadership of the College Board, which is in charge of the SAT. At that time, his compensation package was about $750,000. That’s a good starting salary.
The SAT was reconfigured to match the Common Core, and now the results are in. A barely perceptible rise in scores, and the achievement gap remains static. How many billions did that cost Bill Gates and taxpayers? Coleman says that the point of the SAT is “not higher scores” but “the opportunity [for students] to own their future.”
SAT SCORES RISE, AS DO THE NUMBERS OF TEST-TAKERS: High school students did slightly better on the SAT this year compared with last year, but more than half still aren’t considered ready for college-level courses, according to the College Board’s annual look at student performance and participation on the test. Caitlin Emma has the full story.
— The average score on the test was 1,068, out of of 1,600, compared with 1,060 last year. About 47 percent of students this year scored well enough on math and English that the College Board deemed them prepared for entry-level college courses, compared with 46 percent last year. The College Board considers a college-ready score in English to be a 480 or higher out of 800. In math, it’s a 530 or higher. Seventy percent of all test takers hit that benchmark in English, compared with 49 percent in math.
— Racial achievement gaps persist. This year, just 21 percent of African-American students and 31 percent of Hispanic/Latino students hit both benchmarks in math and English, compared with 59 percent of white students. Those figures were also about the same last year.
— But College Board leaders say recent changes to the test and prep are meant to address inequity. The SAT underwent a major redesign in an effort to make it more reflective of what students are actually learning in the classroom. The revamped test, which debuted in 2016, scrapped obscure vocabulary questions and focuses on evidence-based reading and writing, for example. The College Board has also worked to provide millions of students with free test prep materials through the company Khan Academy, to offset the advantage that wealthier students are able to gain through paid test prep. College Board also began piloting a digital SAT this year.
— “Five years ago, we made a promise to transform the SAT into a test that delivers opportunities,” College Board CEO David Coleman said in a statement. “We changed the test itself, upended the landscape of costly test prep by offering free, personalized practice for all, and propelled students forward with fee waivers and scholarship opportunities. What is at stake is not higher scores. It’s students having the opportunity to own their future.”
Diane Ravitch's blog 
David Coleman might believe the slop he dishes out, but in reality he is a despicable, slimy, corrupt, greedy, virus-infected slug.
LikeLike
Coleman …. 👎
Agree.
LikeLike
I resemble those remarks.
LikeLike
Grades given by teachers have always been a far better predictor of success in college than the SAT has been. And the test doesn’t predict college success beyond the first year. See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2016/01/26/new-research-suggests-sat-under-or-overpredicts-first-year-grades-hundreds-thousands
The SAT has always been a scam, and its makers have had to reinvent a rationale for it again and again when their claims for it were proved to be false.The exam is worse, now, than ever, under Coleman, who has revised it so that it uses convoluted, questionable questions to measure his extraordinarily vague and thus untestable national “standards.”
Many colleges and universities have dropped it from their admissions requirements. See https://www.fairtest.org/actsat-testoptional-list-tops-1000-colleges-univer
It’s long past time for the rest of the nation’s colleges and universities to do the same. High-school would be a much better place if students spent less time diverting their energies to cramming for this useless test and more time learning.
The opportunity costs of the College Board’s SAT scam are too great. Kids shouldn’t be wasting enormous amounts of time preparing for this ridiculous test when they could be spending the same time learning something substantive.
LikeLike
All vocab and reading tests are really background knowledge tests. Coleman (like most education “experts”) doesn’t seem to get this. What does he mean when he says he’s altered the tests to make them “more reflective of what students actually learn”? He means he’s made them about the “reading skills” being practiced in schools today –that’s the main thing kids are “learning” now. Unfortunately it’s worthless snake oil. Reading ability is about background knowledge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I meant to add, “Would you agree, Bob?”
LikeLike
Mathematics tests are now reading tests. This concerned me when I was a member of the NAEP board. Were we testing students’ knowledge of math or of reading? No one could answer that question. The CC has made it even worse.
LikeLike
It’s snake oil. Precisely.
My analysis of the “reading skills” nonsense, here:
LikeLike
Yes, Ponderosa. Of course.
LikeLike
Diane: your observations about mah tests were the main problem for the now DOA PARRCCC test. Trial tests we did in geometry some years ago in Tennessee after we “won” all the RTTT money were so miserable that even reformers got off the wagon. They did not, however, quit writing questions with long and convoluted stories with data imbedded. Of course, no engineer or accountant uses data taken from stories, but instead from situations that are either familiar or explained from context, often in team meetings with other accountants or engineers. Students are being lied to. Modern math problems are said to be “real world” applications when they are really just drawing a triangle on a dolphin instead of a piece of paper. I taught geometry for 29 years and visits many aquariums but never saw a triangle on a dolphin or a mustache on a cabbage head.
LikeLike
Normally world knowledge and vocabulary should matter. However, these “reading items” reflect the completely subjective nature of CC standards. You could know all the words and ideas and still be left guessing. These SAT items read just like the grade 8 CC reading test; and not really much more advanced.
Some sample SAT items:
Mattie Silver had lived under Ethan’s roof for a year, and from early morning till they met at supper he had frequent chances of seeing her; but no moments in her company were comparable to those when, her arm in his, and her light step flying to keep time with his long stride, they walked back through the night to the farm.
In the context of the passage, the author’s use of the phrase “her light step flying to keep time with his long stride” is primarily meant to convey the idea that
A
Ethan and Mattie share a powerful enthusiasm.
B
Mattie strives to match the speed at which Ethan works.
C
Mattie and Ethan playfully compete with each other.
D
Ethan walks at a pace that frustrates Mattie.
The fact that admiration for his learning mingled with Mattie’s wonder at what he taught was not the least part of his pleasure. And there were other sensations, less definable but more exquisite, which drew them together with a shock of silent joy: the cold red of sunset behind winter hills, the flight of cloud-flocks over slopes of golden stubble, or the intensely blue shadows of hemlocks on sunlit snow. When she said to him once: “It looks just as if it was painted!” it seemed to Ethan that the art of definition could go no farther, and that words had at last been found to utter his secret soul….
The author includes the descriptions of the sunset, the clouds, and the hemlock shadows (lines 30–32) primarily to
A
suggest the peacefulness of the natural world.
B
emphasize the acuteness of two characters’ sensations.
C
foreshadow the declining fortunes of two characters.
D
offer a sense of how fleeting time can be.
LikeLike
Rage: you’re right. Background knowledge does not suffice here. Clairvoyance is required.
Oh, Jesus.
LikeLike
LMAO. Exactly!
LikeLike
If I had David Coleman in a room I would tell him that no one gives a s**t about what he thinks or feels about his stupid test.
LikeLike
I can’t tell you what I’d do if I had David Coleman in a room, but prison would probably be the ultimate result, so it’s probably best if that never happens.
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
Good one, Lisa–made me laugh–thanks!
LikeLike
LOL
LikeLike
Here, an analysis of one of Lord Coleman’s puerile “standards.” One could do the same with most of them. https://bobshepherdonline.wordpress.com/2014/03/15/what-happens-when-amateurs-write-standards/
LikeLike
“POLITICO: SAT Fails to Narrow the Achievement Gap”
I didn’t realize that the SAT was designed to “narrow the achievement gap” whatever the hell that means.
LikeLike
That was my reaction,too, Duane.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s the SAT (and other standardized tests) that create the so-called “achievement gap” in the first place by boiling down “achievement” to a score on a test that is biased in favor of affluent white kids.
LikeLiked by 1 person
dienne77 Good one.
This is BS. “What is at stake is not higher scores. It’s students having the opportunity to own their future.”
LikeLike
Agreed! The tests are biased to favor affluent students. A gap we are measuring is the poverty gap, but so-called reformers refuse to accept it. The poverty gap tells us nothing about the capabilities of poor students. The gap is a barometer of what experiences these students have missed due to lack of opportunity.
LikeLike
It is worse than that, Dienne. Standardized tests are normed on a bell curve. The bell curve NEVER closes. There will always be a “gap,” because the bell curve is designed to create a gap.
LikeLike
Yes, good point.
LikeLike
Essential understanding
LikeLike
“The SAT was reconfigured to match the Common Core, and now the results are in. A barely perceptible rise in scores….”
I’m confused. If the test was “reconfigured” how can scores “rise”? If it’s an entirely different test, how are scores from one comparable to scores from the other? It’s like saying, “when we gave students the driving test and then the GED test, there was a barely perceptible rise in scores”. Complete nonsense!
LikeLike
“. . . how are scores from one comparable to scores from the other?”
Obviously, Dienne, you don’t know what psychomeretricians actually do in regards to reliability of different tests. 😉
LikeLike
“…what psychomeretricians actually do….”
Is it something that makes hair grow on your palms?
LikeLike
Yes, that is caused by the mental masturbations involved in discussing standardized test scores.
Can’t remember who here came up with psychomeretrician but maybe he/she will take credit so I can properly cite. It wasn’t too long ago.
LikeLike
Hey, Duane, time for (drum roll, please) another Wilson rant (always new readers, here).
Also, WTH is up w/Coleman’s quote in the last paragraph of this post?
“We changed the test itself…upended landscape of test prep…” yada, yada, yada. Wasting $ to make even more $$$$$ on USELESS, ENDLESS test prepping (gee, it’s now FREE; thank you, our Master).
More & more, colleges & universities are opting out of using the SAT/ACT as grounds for admittance, & w/good reason.
Get over yourself, Coleman!
LikeLike
A reply, actually, to Dienne’s comment, below:
Love it…made me roar w/laughter! Thanks, I needed that (don’t we all?)!
LikeLike
Exactly, Dienne. These people at the College Board are liars, and they aren;’t even very good at it.
LikeLike
Many great comments on this.
Forgive me for not trusting any numbers or analysis that comes from the givers of this test.
LikeLike
An 8 pt. increase (1060 v 1068) amounts to one more correct response out of a total of 110 responses (52 Reading items; 58 math items). The score increase that they are touting is less than 1% – and well within the margin of error.
The “old” (pre-CC) SAT was last offered in January 2016.
So they are comparing the re-tooled, new and improved (Ha!) tests. The SAT pyscho-magicians claim that “equating” scores allows for a fair comparison of different versions administered on different exam dates.
The information below is from this link:
https://blog.prepscholar.com/how-is-the-sat-scored-scoring-charts
So how do those raw scores become scaled scores? It happens through a process that College Board calls equating: “Equating ensures that the different forms of the test or the level of ability of the students with whom you are tested do not affect your score. Equating makes it possible to make comparisons among test takers who take different editions of the test across different administrations.”
In other words, equating is not curving your score relative to other test takers on the day you take the test. Equating controls for slight variations in different SAT dates to ensure that scaled scores represent the same level of ability across different test dates. For example, a 600 on SAT Math in March has to represent the same ability level as a 600 on SAT Math in May. So if the May test turns out to be more difficult for students, the raw-score to scaled-score calculation will be adjusted so that a slightly lower raw score still nets a 600 scaled score.
Since the equating formula changes from test to test to keep the scores equal, there is no way to know for sure how a certain raw score will translate to a scaled score. However, the College Board releases raw score to scaled score ranges to give you an idea of what level of raw score you need to get to certain scaled score numbers. <
LikeLike
Scale scores = psychometric fudging
LikeLike
exactly
LikeLike
The achievement gap is not what exists between black/brown children and white children; it is the gap between black/brown children and THEIR FULLEST potential.
There is no test that measures that.
LikeLike
There is no standardized test that measures anything!
The most misleading concept/term in education is “measuring student achievement” or “measuring student learning”. The concept has been misleading educators into deluding themselves that the teaching and learning process can be analyzed/assessed using “scientific” methods which are actually pseudo-scientific at best and at worst a complete bastardization of rationo-logical thinking and language usage.
There never has been and never will be any “measuring” of the teaching and learning process and what each individual student learns in their schooling. There is and always has been assessing, evaluating, judging of what students learn but never a true “measuring” of it.
But, but, but, you’re trying to tell me that the supposedly august and venerable APA, AERA and/or the NCME have been wrong for more than the last 50 years, disseminating falsehoods and chimeras??
Who are you to question the authorities in testing???
Yes, they have been wrong and I (and many others, Wilson, Hoffman etc. . . ) question those authorities and challenge them (or any of you other advocates of the malpractices that are standards and testing) to answer to the following onto-epistemological analysis:
The TESTS MEASURE NOTHING, quite literally when you realize what is actually happening with them. Richard Phelps, a staunch standardized test proponent (he has written at least two books defending the standardized testing malpractices) in the introduction to “Correcting Fallacies About Educational and Psychological Testing” unwittingly lets the cat out of the bag with this statement:
“Physical tests, such as those conducted by engineers, can be standardized, of course [why of course of course], but in this volume , we focus on the measurement of latent (i.e., nonobservable) mental, and not physical, traits.” [my addition]
Notice how he is trying to assert by proximity that educational standardized testing and the testing done by engineers are basically the same, in other words a “truly scientific endeavor”. The same by proximity is not a good rhetorical/debating technique.
Since there is no agreement on a standard unit of learning, there is no exemplar of that standard unit and there is no measuring device calibrated against said non-existent standard unit, how is it possible to “measure the nonobservable”?
THE TESTS MEASURE NOTHING for how is it possible to “measure” the nonobservable with a non-existing measuring device that is not calibrated against a non-existing standard unit of learning?????
PURE LOGICAL INSANITY!
The basic fallacy of this is the confusing and conflating metrological (metrology is the scientific study of measurement) measuring and measuring that connotes assessing, evaluating and judging. The two meanings are not the same and confusing and conflating them is a very easy way to make it appear that standards and standardized testing are “scientific endeavors”-objective and not subjective like assessing, evaluating and judging.
Those supposedly objective results are used to justify discrimination against many students for their life circumstances and inherent intellectual traits.
LikeLike
Yay Duane…YES!!!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Duane,
I am concerned that some readers might think that when you write “There is no standardized test that measures anything!” you mean that there is no standardized test that measures anything.
In our discussions over the years you have specifically exempted standardized exams used for the diagnoses of learning disabilities. Have you changed your mind about that?
For reference, here is a website from the University of Michigan about standardized tests used to help diagnose dyslexia and other learning disabilities: http://dyslexiahelp.umich.edu/professionals/learn-about-dyslexia/diagnosing-dyslexia/tests
Perhaps you are of the view that it is the tests themselves that create the learning disability, and without the exams there would be no learning disabilities. I have seen others here make similar claims.
LikeLike
No, TE, that’s not a claim (that the tests create the disability) I would make. And, yes, I do distinguish between strictly diagnostic tests for disabilities and standardized tests that purport to “measure” (which I have shown the absurdity of using that term) and/or assess students’ abilities via such a simplistic method.
I just get lazy in my descriptions using standardized test as a moniker for those tests that are given en masse vs a diagnostic type test that is used for a specific individual for a specific concern.
LikeLike
Your link provides what I consider purely diagnostic tests for a specific learning disability. That type of test is a completely different ballgame in comparison/contrast to standardized academic tests. The purpose, the administration and the intended outcomes of the two types of tests are not the same. I might say that those academic type standardized tests have usurped/coopted/bastardized the thinking/rationales/ behind diagnostic tests for disabilities in order to lend a certain pseudo-scientific sheen/prestige to a process/type of test that is onto-epistemologically bankrupt.
LikeLike
And as it is, I don’t share that concern as I believe most, if not all understand the context in which I am using the term standardized tests. And that context isn’t about diagnosing disabilities.
LikeLike
Duane,
I do not remember an exception for “diagnostic” standardized tests in your posts about Wilson’s objection to standardized tests. How do “diagnostic” standardized tests escape from his criticism?
LikeLike
The diagnostic tests do not escape some of the fundamental onto-epistemological problems as described by Wilson. The objection is mine as I don’t remember Wilson addressing those types of tests.
But as I stated above those diagnostic tests are fundamentally different from academic standardized tests in purpose, administration and interpretation of results. So it seems to me to confuse and conflate the two is wrong. One, standardized tests are used to sort, separate and rank students, albeit in a completely invalid fashion whereas diagnostic test are used to determine disabilities-two completely different fundamental purposes with the diagnostic being as valid as they are for that purpose and the results of standardized tests being onto-epistemologically error and falsehood filled invalid for their purposes as shown by Wilson.
I’d say that diagnostic tests “escape Wilson’s criticism” in those conceptual aspects of developing, administering and interpreting the results due to the fundamental difference of purpose of test.
Thanks for the questions and comments, TE, as they help me organize and expound my thinking on this issue. I hope my responses make sense. Perhaps you don’t see the differences I see. If not I’d say it’s my bad for not explaining well enough my thoughts.
LikeLike
Duane
I am concerned that some readers may confuse diagnosis with measurement (and continue to confuse them even after the difference has been explained to them)
Failure to differentiate between diagnosis (eg, of a particular malady, disability or disease) and measurement (eg, of the length of a board or weight of a person) is a mistake that many people make, including some who should know better.
Though diagnosis (eg, of diabetes) MIGHT involve measurement (eg, of weight), it NEED NOT involve measurement.
For example, the diagnosis of a disease might only involve confirming the presence of a particular virus or cancerous tumor.
And the diagnosis of a learning disability usually involves consideration of a number of factors which may or may not include diagnostic tests (eg, there is no single test that can be used for diagnosis of dyslexia and there is certainly no MEASURE of dyslexia)
LikeLiked by 1 person
Exactly, thanks for helping out with the clarification SDP!
LikeLike
I have brought up the fact that somewhere along the way the teaching and learning process has taken on, or perhaps better said, been forced to take on, a diagnostic aspect, especially one based on standardized testing. Which I consider to be a horrible bastardization of the teaching and learning process. Identifying and addressing various disabilities of some of the students is one thing. The wholesale process of diagnosing instead of teaching and the students learning is a false, chimerical instructional strategy. (Actually a strajedy-meaning a bad, tragic strategy that doesn’t work.)
My belief is that in the teaching and learning process what should be focused on is how the student perceives and acts upon his/her own learning and not the “teacher as diagnostician” telling the student “what they are”.
That telling the student “what they are” has serious psychological and ethical issues in that the students internalize that “what they are”, many times in a very negative fashion. I know of quite a few examples of people my age (over 60) who internalized those negative “diagnoses” and it had a profound effect on their self being throughout their life.
LikeLike
Duane,
It would be helpful if you could state which onto-epistemological problems as described by Wilson diagnostic standardized tests escape and which they do not.
I am also surprised that you claim diagnostic standardized exams do not sort and separate students. Isn’t the very purpose of these exams to separate student into those with a learning disability and those without a learning disability? The law requires treat students differently depending on their score on these exams. There is no law that requires me to treat a student who has an SAT Math score of 500 any differently from one with a score of 790. The results of these diagnostic standardized tests have a far greater impact on students than the SAT or ACT exam.
LikeLike
I didn’t claim that BStests don’t rank, sort and separate. I’ve always stated emphatically that they do.
And while the law may not mandate that, the de facto practice is to discriminate between those whose scores are dramatically different-hell, even sometimes if they are only a few points apart. See Wilson’s explanation of the problem with cut points.
I disagree with your last sentence.
LikeLike
Duane
I am concerned (though not at all surprised) that some reader(s), when confronted with the fact that diagnosis and measurement are not the same, is (are) now desperately trying to avoid that very basic fact.
It would be helpful if such reader(s) did not continue to ignore most of what you said and make claims that you may or may not have ever made (with vague reference to past discussions with you)
LikeLiked by 1 person
The teacher in me makes me want to further explain-LOL!
LikeLike
PS
Duane
If such person(s) can not provide specific references (with links) to specific discussions with you where you indeed said the things they claim/imply you said, such person(s) should cease and desist from making such (so far) unsubstantiated claims.
LikeLiked by 1 person
SomeDAM Poet,
Duane and I have been discussing issues like this for many years. As a result of one discussion, he even modified the summary of Wilson’s argument. I can assure you that I am not mischaracterizing his position.
As for the difference between measurement and diagnosis, it seems to me that a good diagnosis requires measurement. The diagnosis of diabetes which you brought up, for example, is based on a having a fasting blood sugar level of 126mg/dL or higher on two separate tests. This would appear to be a measurement.
LikeLike
I won’t speak for Duane. He is able to do that for himself.
Yes, there is a difference between standardized tests that are used for nothing more than ranking and labeling students, teachers, and schools, and tests that are used solely for diagnostic purposes.
The diagnostic test gives instant feedback about what the student needs, about what specific learning issues he or she presents.
The typical standardized test used by states are returned months later and gives no information about individual students other than how they rank compared to others. That is not diagnostic information. It has no value other than for policymakers who want to use the data to reward schools and teachers with high scores and to punish those with low scores. That is not diagnostic.
LikeLike
Not all “good diagnosis” requires measurement. My rheumatoid doc was able to diagnose my rheumatic arthritis without “measurement” from the various physical manifestations of the disease throughout my body. Did he do bloodwork afterword, which, yes are measurements of various concerns? But that was not a part of the original diagnosis. Or my ortho doc looking at xrays and MRIs to determine the status of various joints in my body in which the diagnoses for three of them was such that I needed replacements. I wouldn’t count those diagnostic schemes as “measurements”.
LikeLike
Dr. Ravitch,
I do not believe the speed of response will be an issue Duane will consider important for his argument. After all, he has said in the past that teacher made exams and teacher assigned grades also fall to Wison’s criticism and are meaningless despite the speed of assigning grades.
As I pointed out earlier, these diagnostic exams label students as learning disabled. I have no idea what the ACT scores are for any of my students, but I do know if my students have a diagnosed learning disability and am required by law to accommodate that disability. These exams are the only standardized exams that label students in my classroom. Was it different in yours?
LikeLike
When I was teaching, I never used standardized exams.
When I was a student, I almost never took them. The ones I did take were a joke, like standardized exams to predict your future occupation, which were undoubtedly absurd, because the occupations then listed are mostly obsolete.
The exams mandated by the states and the federal government are used solely to rank and label students, teachers, and schools. They have no diagnostic value.
LikeLike
Duane,
I certainly agree that not all diagnoses requires explicit measurement, SomeDAM Poet’s example was poorly chosen, but isn’t a comparison to a body’s normal functioning a type of measurement?
Any thoughts about the epistemological difference between diagnostic standardized tests and other standardized tests or the labeling of students as learning disabled and sorting by different learning disabilities?
LikeLike
No, an assessment and/or diagnosis is not the same as a measurement or is not a type of measurement. It is a judgment. Measuring requires a standard unit of measurement, a measuring device, and then using the device for what it was designed to measure. None of those conditions obtain in many medical diagnoses.
As far as my thoughts, well, as I have written above a couple of times, the underlying conceptual foundations of, administration of and interpreting the results the two different assessing modes certainly point to epistemological differences.
LikeLike
TE
I can assure you that your assurance is worth nothing to me.
If you claim Duane said or even implied something, you had better link directly to the claim.
Either that or not even attempt to characterize what he said.
That’s the scientific approach.
I assume you have heard of the scientific approach?
LikeLike
And TE
You might believe it, but you are simply wrong that all good diagnosis requires measurement.
But it would certainly not be the first time you were wrong about something and probably not the last.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Duane
TEs claim is just total unmitigated BS
One counterexample and just one is required to demonstrate that TE is mistaken
From Mayo clinic
Diagnosis
Doctors often recognize polio by symptoms, such as neck and back stiffness, abnormal reflexes, and difficulty swallowing and breathing. To confirm the diagnosis, a sample of throat secretions, stool or a colorless fluid that surrounds your brain and spinal cord (cerebrospinal fluid) is checked for poliovirus.
https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/polio/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20376517
Then again, I actually gave the example of isolating a disease causing virus above and TE willfully and dishonestly ignored it.
We are not dealing with an honest person here.
LikeLike
Incidentally, if anyone wants to see where TE was actually wrong, here’s a specific example
From TEs keyboard:
My view of this literature is that we have reasons to believe good teaching is important to student learning independent of empirical regularity. That is certainly the opinion of most posters on this blog. Chetty et al is verifies that we see evidence of this causal relationship in the data.
Chetty does no such thing.
Chetty based his findings on correlation which is not the same as causation.
Even if one takes Chettys published correlations at face value –and that is a very big if based on his chetty picked results–, Chetty NEVER demonstrated a causal relationship between a teacher with a high VAM score and lifetime earnings.
And that is precisely what would be required to verify, in TEs word.
It is a logical fallacy to assume that because people recognize that good teachers have an impact, Chettys findings necessarily verify that we see evidence of this causal relationship in the data.
Here’s how TEs logical fallacy goes.
Many people recognize that there are good teachers who have a lasting impact
Chetty claims based on correlations between VAM and chetty picked data and extrapolation from earnings at 28 far into the future to show that teachers impact lifelong earnings
Therefore, Chetty verifies what people recognize
Many of things that people recognize as good teaching can not even be gauged with a standardized test (to say nothing of a verified with an unreliable, invalid value added model based on such tests)
LikeLike
SomeDAM Poet,
This is all a red herring and not relevant to the issue at hand.
The question here is if Wilson’s critique of standardized testing applies to standardized tests that are used to diagnose learning disabilities. If Wilson’s critique does not apply, being able to articulate why his critique applies to SAT tests but not, for example to Woodcock-Johnson or CLEF, would go a long way in understanding Wilson’s critique.
LikeLike
Wilson’s work focuses on the concepts of standards (as does my book) and standardized tests. As I wrote before I don’t believe he mentioned diagnostic type tests.
LikeLike
Not incidentally, it’s economists and their crackpot claims about VAM that have driven teachers out of the profession and not just because they got low VAM scores.
Mathvale, a math teacher (and fomer engineer) who used to comment here specifically cited VAM and other such idiocy as the reason he was leaving teaching.
For some reason, economists think they can judge a profession that they know little to nothing about.
It’s a cruel joke.
I suspect MathVale got very tired of replying to people like TE, assuming that they were honestly interested in learning.
LikeLike
I linked to another specific example where TE was wrong but it appears to be in moderation.
LikeLike
TE claims SomeDAM Poet’s example was poorly chosen
Funny that because one of the examples I gave was diagnosing a disease based on finding the disease causing virus
And that is precisely what Mayo Clinic says about the polio diagnosis.
Do you believe everyone here is stupid?
Ha ha ha.
LikeLike
Of course, TE chose to ignore that example because he is dishonest.
LikeLike
It appears that TE either has a reading comprehension problem or is purposefully mischaracterizing what I said about diabetes.
Here’s what I said
Though diagnosis (eg, of diabetes) MIGHT involve measurement (eg, of weight), it NEED NOT involve measurement.
I gave diabetes as an example of a diagnosis that actually does involve measurement (weight)
But my sentence indicates that there are diagnoses that need not involve measurement.
LikeLiked by 1 person
TE is the only red herring I see here.
Ha ha ha.
LikeLike
I have banned TE from this site on more than one occasion, but then he comes back and makes a neutral statement. Eventually he gets banned again either because of his need to show off his brilliance by demeaning the teaching profession or by personal insults to me. He is in moderation and I delete his most offensive comments. I will not allow him to criticize me for my decision to leave money to my alma mater. The nerve of him, wanting to dictate my will.
LikeLike
Dr. Ravitch,
What non-neutral statement have I made here? I was having a perfectly civil discussion with Duane about whether Wilson’s critique of standardized tests applies to the standardized tests that are used to diagnose learning disabilities. We had gotten to the point where Duane had said 1) “The diagnostic tests do not escape some of the fundamental onto-epistemological problems as described by Wilson” and 2) that the tests he criticizes “sort, separate and rank students”.
On the first point I had asked if he could clarify which of the fundamental onto-epistemological problems the diagnostic tests escape, and which they do not escape. On his second point, I disagreed, presenting an argument that the diagnostic tests did, in fact, sort and separate students.
At that point, SomeDAM Poet started posting. Unfortunately SomeDAM Poet is not the Wilson scholar that Duane is, so this was not helpful.
LikeLike
I don’t have time or interest in reviewing the many times you have posted offensive comments, usually to demonstrate your great intellectual superiority to those of us who post here.
LikeLike
Diane
Let him talk.
The more he talks, the more dishonest he looks.
Before this exchange, I thought maybe he was just misinformed and a little slow.
But after he quite purposefully ignored the example i gave to illustrate that diagnosis need not involve measurement (diagnosing a disease by confirming the presence of the virus that causes the disease)and also implied that I said something I did not about the diagnosis of diabetes, I have become convinced beyond any reasonable doubt that he is quite simply dishonest.
You can fix ignorance, bmut you can’t fix dishonesty.
LikeLike
Diane,
That’s his schtick.
He says stuff and then pretends he did not say it.
In the past I have tried to stear clear of his BS, but dishonesty is another ball of wax entirely.
TE is a perfect example of why economists have such a poor reputation among real scientists.
LikeLike
TE asks
What non-neutral statement have I made here? I was having a perfectly civil discussion….
“Civility”
Civil gist?
Or civil buzz?
Civil is
As civil does
It’s interesting that the folks who whine about civility the most often support some of the most uncivil policies.
Why is that?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Tone Deafness
The tone-deaf irked by tone?
The blind perturbed by light?
You better hold the phone
Cuz mute can speak tonight
LikeLiked by 1 person
The one way mirror
One way mirror
Little help
For finding error
In oneself
LikeLiked by 1 person
Self-Reverence”
Deform is a whine
In bottle of Klein
The fruit of a vine
With Möbius twine
LikeLiked by 1 person
Duane,
Do you have any interest in continuing the discussion about how Wilson’s arguments impact standardized tests designed to diagnose learning disabilities?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Feel free to contact me at duaneswacker@gmail.com.
LikeLike
Diane says Eventually (Teaching economists) gets banned again either because of his need to show off his brilliance by demeaning the teaching profession …
Many economists have this same superiority complex.
Raj Chetty seems to think he is Ramanujan reincarnated but the irony is that he is very poor at math, effectively equating correlation with causation and completely misconstruing statistical significance.
LikeLike
Yay, Duane…YES!!!
LikeLike
David Coleman has narrowed the intelligence gap (to zero) between the President of the College Board and the average (wooden) board you find at the Home Depot.
LikeLike
Like!
LikeLike
Excellent SomeDAM. Pretty much perfect, as usual.
LikeLike
I’ve noted on this blog repeatedly how bad the SAT is. The ACT isn’t much better. These tests are merely proxies for family income. And, as Diane noted, since their scores are based on the normal distribution, students are sorted and separated deliberately, and half the scores will always be above the mean while half will always fall below the mean.
Guess which students will be in the lower group?
LikeLike
The dumb ones?
LikeLike
At least that is what the students will tell you as they have internalized what the “authorities” have said about them via test scores.
LikeLike
Say it again and again: the achievement gaps on standardized tests never close. The bell curve is designed not to close.
LikeLike
“the opportunity [for students] to own their future.”
Can this man really believe this bilge? Ye gods, that is about as bad as it gets!
LikeLike
Yep. Taking the SAT, he says, gives students “the opportunity to own their futures.”
But what does it mean?
Taking a test changes your life? How?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, you said it Diane. And thanks for doing so–and everything else you say, for that matter.
LikeLike
Thank you!
LikeLike
Coleman and others at College Board have benefitted handsomely from SAT. Coleman makes at least $700,000 a year as President of the College Board.
What Coleman really means is that the SAT gives Coleman and his partners the opportunity to own THEIR own futures (houses, yachts, Porsches, etc)
Money for nothing and your checks for free.
LikeLike
The nonprofit status of College Board is a joke.
It’s a very profitable company with a revenue stream of hundreds of millions of dollars
https://patch.com/new-jersey/newbrunswick/bp–the-college-board-a-very-profitable-nonprofit
Of course, they dump their profit into salaries and bonuses in order to keep their official nonprofit status and thereby continue to evade taxes on their tens of millions in profits.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/answer-sheet/wp/2015/09/30/how-much-do-big-education-nonprofits-pay-their-bosses-quite-a-bit-it-turns-out/?utm_term=.6ec510c40c51
And SAT may have been changed to maximize revenue
https://www.businessinsider.com/the-sat-may-have-been-changed-to-help-college-board-maximize-revenue-2014-3
By the way, it’s curious that nonprofits don’t have to provide their latest 990 tax form. The latest one I could find for College Board was from 2014.
It seems to me that a nonprofit should be required to make available it’s 990 form to the public at the close of each fiscal year.
LikeLike
Your eyes are moist, you scream and shout
As though you were a man possessed
From deep inside comes rushing forth
All the anguish you suppressed
Upon your wall hangs your degree… Steppenwolf
Is a degree, an assessment, a judgement, an evaluation, a measurement,
of achievement, or learning?
Is a degree, an agreement, on a standard, defining learning or achievement?
Does the voluntary nature of “higher education” render the
“marks and their meaning” sacrosanct, considering:
“There never has been and never will be any “measuring” of the teaching and learning process and what each individual student learns in their schooling. There is and always has been assessing, evaluating, judging of what students learn but never a true “measuring” of it.”
LikeLike
The ending quote from Coleman is a hoot. College ‘Board’ is such a misnomer, it should be called College Products. Clearly the man is simply a salesman. Henceforth I shall cease to see him as a wrong-headed, self-important, tyrannical wannabe academic. Just as w/CCSS, he was hired by folks looking to make a buck to whip up some dross and peddle it as gold. That’s what he does.
LikeLike
Coleman used the Parkland masacre as an opportunity to sell AP.
Even the most egregious used car salesman would probably not stoop THAT low.
LikeLike
Coleman never even apologized for what he said after Parkland.
He’s just pathetic.
LikeLike
SDP,
What did Coleman say about the Parkland kids?
LikeLike
Among others, Scott Steinberg, vice president of university admissions at University of New England, called “It is now nearly two weeks since David Coleman, President and CEO of The College Board, sent his original e-mail – referenced below – plugging The College Board’s AP program while denigrating Parkland student and survivor Emma Gonzalez and still, there has been no public apology from Mr. Coleman…I’m simply beyond the point of giving Mr. Coleman or The College Board the benefit of the doubt any longer…Mr. Coleman’s actions – and inaction – reflect poorly on himself, The College Board, and by association, to its members. There are too many other current challenges facing higher education – especially our students – for us to have to worry about and deal with collateral damage being caused by The College Board and incompetent leadership. It is time for Mr. Coleman to step down. If he is unable – or unwilling – to do so, I call on the board of trustees of The College Board to terminate his employment.”
But of course, the trustees of the College Board did nothing because, despite the pretense by some to having a problem with what he said, they don’t have any problem with it.
They are as patgetic and disgusting as Coleman.
LikeLike
Diane
Here’s a link to an article that includes Coleman’s quotes after the Parkland massacre.
https://www.chronicle.com/article/College-Board-President-s/242604
He not only shamelessly took it as an opportunity to put in a plug for AP, but criticized Emma Gonzales on her comments calling forgun control.
Coleman is a real piece of work.
And so are all the people at College Board who continue to support him.
LikeLike
SDP,
Here is an important factoid about David Coleman. He was treasurer and a founding board member of Michelle Rhee’s hateful StudentsFirst, which was anti-teacher, anti-union, anti-public school, pro-charter, pro-voucher and funded candidates that agreed with her views.
LikeLike
Thank you. That was a disgusting statement by Coleman. To the College Board, PR is everything. He must have been shamed for his shameless self-promotion and the reaction to it
LikeLike
And here’s what the inimitable Mercedes Schneider said about Coleman’s comments in College Board CEO David Coleman Uses Florida School Shooting to Promote AP Courses
I do believe Coleman was sincere in his callous opportunism and second-priority expressions of sympathy.
That is pretty much David Coleman in a nut shell.
Ha ha ha!
LikeLike
To clarify, the part starting with That is pretty much David Coleman in a nutshell.
LikeLike
…was mine.
LikeLike
David Coleman is a perfect example of both the Dunning Kruger effect and an OxfordMoron.
He actually sincerely believes his own BS.
It’s actually very pathetic.
Maybe if College board gets hit with a fine for the class action suit over lax SAT test security the trustees will reconsider their backing of Coleman, but I won’t hold my breath.
They all seem to be as clueless as Coleman.
LikeLike