Posted on 09/01/2002 9:02:27 AM PDT by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 3:56:52 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
The SAT scores are in again, and again they show that overall scores are not getting better, and again those who don't like it are saying, "Hey, bring that messenger over here, gang. Let's shoot the sucker."
It's the wrong approach, although maybe not much worse than the approach of the College Board, the nonprofit outfit that owns the test. It has been trying to improve scores through allotting more time on some of its sections, permitting the use of calculators, getting rid of some of the toughest material and changing the grading mechanism, according to the Center for Education Reform.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
Correctamundo.
Stats don't lie; Statisticians (interpreters) lie.
Hmmm. Is this nudging based on the old SAT I scores adjusted to to current SAT II scale, or current SAT II scores adjusted to the old SAT I scale using the College Board Conversion Chart? Or some other chart? Or no conversion at all? Or are they just guessing? Which SAT test did the students take?
The Washington Times had a previous article on August 28th which stated:
"But Jeanne Allen, president of the Center for Education Reform, a Washington-based advocacy group, called the results unimpressive. "The SAT has been restructured now so many times that even modest improvement in math scores, for example, doesn't mean much," she said.
The results are based on the College Board's adjusted scale, phased in five years ago. Under the new system, the College Board adds about 30 points to individual math scores and 80 points to verbal scores.
Hey, if you can't raise the scores, change the scale. What a joke!
Yeah, that's the ticket. Our kids will get smarter and smarter with that approach.
Parents who possibly can, should home school.
When I took the test in 1957(using clay tablets and cuniform chisels)the ONLY students encouraged to apply for the limited seating were members of the honor society whose grades and academic attitude were deemed worthy. The rest of the students at this very highly rated school simply didn't take the test at all. I suspect that students are taking the test today who would have been channeled into auto shop or steno school in my day.
One further note. I wasn't in the honor society, not because of grades, but because I had some "u's" on my record for "Unsatisfactory deportment". Therefore, I wasn't even told about the test. It took a caring and active home-room advisor to circumvent the rules and get me into the test. (My innate modesty prevents me from posting my scores--but I was able to choose between scholarships from Harvard and Columbia. Roar Lion, Roar.)
There are students taking the test today who would not have been in your class in your day. They would have been held back for one or two years. Not to knock those students in your day. Some of them probably took the SAT one or two years later, and did OK. The extra years, and the extra attention may have paid off.
By the same token, there were probably more kids who were promoted one or two grades in your time, also. The Leveling out of standards have leveled our kids at the same time.
That depends. In Michigan, very few students take the SAT because colleges in the midwest rely mostly on the ACT. As a result, not even all honor students take the SAT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.