<p>I've copied the title and conclusion of the article. </p>
<p>The College Board's New Essay Reverses Decades of Progress Toward Literacy</p>
<p>
[quote]
The fact that the new SAT's writing section values correct English more than competent writing will have a negative impact on the teaching of grammar and usage in our schools. Correctness in language is not learned through memorization. It evolves through complex choices conditioned by the social and rhetorical context of specific acts of communication. The SAT's idea that questions about language can be answered a, b, c, d, or "none of the above" promotes the mistaken notion that there is only one right answer when it comes to good English, and thus will force language instruction to revert to simplistic, one-size-fits-all grammar drills. As a result, the new SAT will widen the gap between high and low achievement for speakers of nonstand-ard English and for those who speak English as a second language.</p>
<p>Instead of providing colleges with a more accurate measure of students' writing ability and linguistic knowledge, the new SAT will further disadvantage those students who are already educationally disadvantaged. Today's high schoolers will remember their SAT score not as the opener of educational doors but as the certificate of membership in, or exclusion from, the elite club of those whose writing and grammar already matches the College Board's idea of what is correct.
<p>The SAT's idea that questions about language can be answered a, b, c, d, or "none of the above" promotes the mistaken notion that there is only one right answer when it comes to good English</p>
<br>
<p>There may be different answers when it comes to "good English," whatever that means, but there is only one right answer when it comes to standard English, and I don't see the evil of measuring kids' grasp of it before you admit them to college. As a student of linguistics, I wholeheartedly agree that ORAL English takes many legitimate forms, but kids who want their writing to be taken seriously by any institution, business, publication, or profession must master standard written English.</p>
<br>
<p>thus will force language instruction to revert to simplistic, one-size-fits-all grammar drills.</p>
<br>
<p>If so, what a boon to the kids who speak nonstandard English or a foreign language at home! After all, that's how we teach American kids French or Latin.</p>
<br>
<p>the new SAT will further disadvantage those students who are already educationally disadvantaged.</p>
<br>
<p>Sounds like the author has a problem with standardized tests in general, then, because they ALL advantage the kids of white PhD's. I haven't seen data showing that the writing test is dramatically different from the existing verbal section on that metric. What colleges can do to combat this is weight the scores somewhat to take into account students' backgrounds -- in other words, how did this student do in comparison to others with his opportunities and experiences? But I don't think the answer is to run away from testing students' writing altogether.</p>
<p>I have a problem with the last four words of the title...where is the evidence that we've had any PROGRESS in literacy? Take a look at any state U system and all the kids that require remedial english/writing (and math, for that matter). If I recall, the SAT verbal was re-centered bcos the average was consistently below 500. </p>
<p>The author also fails to note that some of the recent 2400's were from kids who don't necessarily speak english full time at home, but spent the last four months in intensive prep.</p>
<p>One of the questions that beg for an answer is: Why are the seniors in high school mostly unable to ace the SAT writing? The grammar that is tested is far below the level that a college student should master. One huge part of the answer is that the teachers who are supposed to teach the material often know little about it. Take the answer keys away from teachers and they might be unable to score their own tests! Isn't anyone flabbergasted to hear that many English teachers use the books of Kaplan or Princeton Review to teach and test grammar. all the while remaining entirely oblivious to the many errors of the books and tests? </p>
<p>I would love to see Pearson administer the ENTIRE SAT to their hired guns who score the essays and POST the result on a public board. My guess is that less than 25% of the scorers would score above 600 on the writing and verbal sections. No wonder that Pearson is pushing for a robot!</p>
<p>The grammar that is tested is far below the level that a college student should master.</p>
<br>
<p>The same can be said of the math. Speed problems keep some good math students in the 650-750 range, but why is the average raw score so low? I don't know who is to blame (probably everyone involved), but it seems clear that most college-bound students aren't mastering high school skills.</p>
<p>I'm losing patience with the attacks on English grammar I've been seeing lately. That a basic knowledge of the structure of one's own language is expected by the time a student finishes high school is by no means presumptuous. In fact, I'm more alarmed hearing that so few kids have picked up these elementary concepts after 12 years of schooling.</p>
<p>Furthermore, I fail to understand the author's point about "nonstandard" usage. Theoretically, then, I suppose everyone should be allowed to make up individualized rules of usage, the outcome being garbled sentences that no one else could understand. Grammar isn't an arcane and irrelevant discipline--it's the structure upon which a language is built. Writing without grammar is like building a highrise without a blueprint. It's possible, sure, but the outcome won't be pretty.</p>
<p>FWIW, I speak Swedish at home, and English is my third language. I got 700+ on both verbal sections without a minute of studying. Big deal.</p>
<p>maybe others can chime in on what is taught in thier state, but here in the land of fruits and nuts, grammar is just taught at a cursory level, if at all. In the early '80s, Calif adopted whole language, which was the opposite of any grammar-like. (Remember Oakland trying to adopt ebonics?) Thus, we lost a whole generation of kids.....</p>
<p>I have to laugh at that article. What "decades of progress towards literacy?"
Right on, thisyearsgirl. You make me feel ashamed of our education system. It will take a long time to undo the damage that has been done to the teaching of language over the last few decades.</p>
<p>I agree with you comments about the writing section. Often the correct answer can be dubious. Now, I agree that good grammar is an essential part of language. But how many times in real life are you going to have to choose the "right" answer from a bunch of other similar-sounding phrases? I don't see my self getting a job any time in the near future with that ability.</p>
<p>"Take a look at any state U system and all the kids that require remedial english/writing (and math, for that matter). If I recall, the SAT verbal was re-centered bcos the average was consistently below 500. "</p>
<p>My understanding is that is because proportionately many more students are going to college (and even are graduating from h.s.) than when the SAT was begun. </p>
<p>Now, the majority of US students will go to college instead of college being something that only the elite attend.</p>
<p>Consequently, probably literacy has gone way up even though SAT scores have gone down.</p>
<p>yes, that is CB's argument, and I would suggest spin, since the only data they have to support their assertion is that a higher proportion of HS grads are going to college than they did in the 60's and 70's. Unfortunately, they don't have the data to prove it. </p>
<p>I would suggest that there were many smart, college capable students who for whatever reason chose not to further their education. For CB to statistically prove their point, they would need IQ's, grades, or some sort of other testing mechanism from the kids in the '60's that did NOT attend college. For example, if the top 25% HS grads went to college in the '60s, and the top 50% go to college now, we would need to study the literacy rate of that second 25% cohort during thier HS years. Of course, the data don't exist, so some HS principals can explain away their (abysmal) scores.</p>
<p>Secondly, if the CB arguement is true, why was the math barely changed at all, but the verbal was recentered significantly? Did math literarcy actually increase that much relative to verbal? </p>
<p>Actually, my fact-free guess is that the verbal was declining bcos more non-native speakers are taking the test. The second guess is that we just don't teach grammar anymore, at least in Calif. schools.</p>
<p>Xiggi: did you have a lot of elementary school grammar in Tx?</p>
<p>A decline in literacy and grammatical mastery is not fairly "blamed" just on the educational system--as if school and curriculum (if fairly funded for all) could simply "fix" it. As a culture that has moved away from reading and personal discourse to electronic/media addiction, driven in large part by corporate advertising and the force of human greed, we all share some responsibility....My kids' teachers have worked hard to instill principles of good writing and grammar--with reasonably good effects--but I think all good educators face an uphill battle today--and adding the "teach to the test" to their burden is a questionable improvement...</p>
<blockquote>
<p>Theoretically, then, I suppose everyone should be allowed to make up individualized rules of usage....<<</p>
</blockquote>
<br>
<p>Well, that's pretty much what the descriptionists believe. The language world can be roughly divided into prescriptionists who think that the dictionaries and grammar books should prescribe what constitutes proper English, and the descriptionists who hold that the language is a fluid, living thing that evolves, and the "rules" of spelling and grammar should mostly describe how the language is actually used rather than what is "right".</p>
<p>I tend toward the prescriptionist side myself, although there is some merit to the other argument. After all, French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, and Romainian all got their start as bad Latin. Rules do outlive their usefulness and unsuccessfully attempt to hold back the tide of a changing language. </p>
<p>But it will be a sad day in my opinon when the descriptionists carry the day and "lol", "u", "ur", and "definatly" all become acceptable usage.</p>
<p>In my humble opinion there is a HUGE difference between "writing" and "proofreading". The SAT writing section that deals with grammar is a proofreading task...you read what's there, and determine what is wrong with it. That is a very different task than writing something yourself. Both are valuable skills....but some folks are outstanding proofreaders and awful writers, and some folks are outstanding writers and awful proofreaders (some folks are more evenly developed).</p>
<p>When my father graduated from high school in 1929, he was the only one from his first grade class to do so. When my mother graduated in 1937, the average was 1 person in 7 graduating from high school. Of course the grammar and writing ability of the average high school graduate was higher then; they represented a far smaller population sample.</p>
<p>Why is the literacy rate a crisis then? Fewer and worse jobs for the illiterate.</p>
<p>Anybody take a look at Banesh Hoffman's 1962 critique of SAT? Still worth reading particularly in the context of the dumbing down of the SAT. Truth is that the writing section is intellectually a dubious exercise in proofreading and the 'critical reading' section an exercise in second guessing the dubiously literate who concocted the test. This as Jacques Barzun argued back in 'Teacher in America" imposes a crippling handicap on the creative and the clever. The dirty little secret is that if a teenager is capable of scoring 800 on the Mathematics section of the test he or she is probably quite a lot smarter than the people who concocted the verbal test and hence the test makers are probalby incapable of seeing how ambiguous their test selections might be once you start thinking about it. In a country where a largish proportion of the teachers woefully illiterate and unintellectual, you probably cannot get away from somehow normalizing school grades against some external measure but how good the current version of SAT is remains to be seen. We see on this site quite a lot of students who have let themselves be conned into becoming performing monkeys -- is my life over if I get only 2100 on the SAT. Spare me</p>
<p>One thing's for sure, there are going to be a lot of lower income and minority students who will suffer from the writing SAT. My friend's mom is an ESL professor, and one of the errors in a problem was so obscure she found herself wondering how kids in Compton will ever get out alive...</p>
<p>when I took the SAT II writing, I looked at a lot of those sentences and marked E for "no mistake"... I honestly couldn't find things wrong with a lot of them.</p>
<p>I don't know about other students, but grammar was never really taught to me. It seemed kinda that every English teacher you went to assumed you learned it last year, so the result was you never learned it. That said, I consider myself a pretty good writer, but I can't find detailed grammar mistakes to save my life.</p>
<p>One more well intentioned liberal reform gone haywire. Thank Richard Atkinson former president of the University of California system for the new SAT. Concerned about student self-esteem he threatened to drop the SAT as an entrance requirement for the UC's - the SAT's biggest customer thus prompting to "reformed" test.</p>
<p>Oddly Atkinson's real but unexpressed agenda was to take some of the pressure off of UC and other college administrators, particularly state university administrators so they could admit more minorities without pesky groups looking at test scores and then going to court and alledging reverse discrimination. The goal may or may not have been admirable but the net result is a test that is even more flawed than the old one - also a test that is more coachable and even more weighted towards native speakers of standard English.</p>
<p>"What a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive."</p>