<p>In 2003, I predicted dire consequences from a massive test redesign. What I got right--and wrong.
by John Cloud. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I was worried that the most vulnerable students would struggle on the new version...It was middle class and rich kids who account for the much reported decline.
[/quote]
The CB has a theory:
[quote]
The new SAT is less coachable...analogies and "quantitative comparisons"...disadvantaged students who did not have the resources, the motivation, the awareness to figure out how to approach them," says Camara."
Because it focuses more on what high schools teach and less on tricky reasoning questions, the SAT is now more, not less egalitarian.
[quote]
</p>
<p>Funny. I thought that analogies were supposed to help students who attended lousy schools. Also, I was not aware that poor students lacked the reasoning abilities involved in doing well on analogies and quantitative reasoning.</p>
<p>I suspect that, after the novelty has worn off, students attending better schools will have a disproportionate advantage over those whose school curricula are deficient.</p>
<p>Also from the article:
[quote]
I was right about one other thing: that the [essay] graders] would reward formulaic, colorless writing over sharp young voices.... the CB is now distributing a guide called "20 Outstanding SAT Essays"--all of them perfect scores--and many are unbearably mechanical and clch</p>
<p>Couldn't agree more with you -- & particularly with your ending quotation.</p>
<p>On one graduate school application I know of (& also at least one undergraduate app.), a student has an opportunity to comment on his or her perception of & performance on the particular standardized test(s) which was submitted. If I were on an admissions committee, I would count positively an applicant perceptive enough to notice the quality of the writing questions & to lament the lack of freshness, originality, individuality solicited by those & other questions. (I've also noticed such awareness by some CC students.)</p>
<p>Marite, when I read Cloud's article I thought it rang true. I think I see where you're coming from -- good schools = better grasp of facts and therefore better scores on fact-based SAT questions. But I remember from researching IQ testing years ago that something really counterintuitive goes on. Kids from middle/upperclass homes (and presumably better schools) did far better dealing with abstractions and analogies than poor kids, but only slightly better when dealing with concrete problems. The explanations were all over the map, some suggesting racial differences (not a popular POV), motivation, early stimulation, parental expectations, and so on, but the data were irrefutable.</p>
<p>
[quote]
The new SAT is only going to be "egalitarian" until the SAT prep industry figures out how to coach people on it.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>It's not, never has been, never will be "egalitarian." Standardized testing will always penalize the poor and reward the affluent, coaching or none. Growing up confidently in a home with books and music lessons and trips to Florence is all the prep one needs to "beat" the SAT.</p>
<p>If last year's revision made the SAT just a teensy bit less discriminatory, that's noteworthy. Now we must ask whether it's what the colleges, and mainstream society, really want. We'll see.</p>
<p>celloguy. Hmmm... I had read different stories about the impact of the reasoning sections of the old SAT on the performance of low-income students. I should try to locate the research on this issue.</p>
<p>I am not saying that a test that actually evaluates levels of preparation as opposed to raw talent is bad from the point of view of the colleges. Just that I had read different claims about the use of analogies. </p>
<p>On a different issue, I wonder how the new SAT will work to identify gifted 7th and 8th graders if it has become more curriculum-dependent.</p>
<p>"Growing up confidently in a home with books and music lessons and trips to Florence is all the prep one needs to "beat" the SAT."</p>
<p>You might be interested in reading E. D. Hirsch, Jr.'s book, The Knowledge Deficit, in which he argues that standardized testing penalizes poor kids because of the way reading is taught in the U.S. I'll try to briefly summarize, with apologies to Hirsch: modern teaching concentrates on developing formal skills rather than exposing kids to a base of knowledge that is common to kids with educated parents. With each passing year, poor kids fall further behind, because their out of school experiences are more limited. Poor readers get worse as good readers get better, because reading comprehension requires broad-based knowledge. Skills are not so transferable as believed. That isn't a very good summary, but the book is short and worth reading.
I think standardized tests, including the SAT, are potentially very useful, but there is no question some populations are not getting a fair crack at preparation. The state of K-12 schooling is too big a topic for this thread, though.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You might be interested in reading E. D. Hirsch, Jr.'s book, The Knowledge Deficit, in which he argues that standardized testing penalizes poor kids because of the way reading is taught in the U.S
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Sounds like a good read; I'll put in on my list. But till then ... does Hirsch say that making some change in the way reading is taught in school can help poor kids catch up? Sounds too good to be true. Unless maybe he's suggesting giving kids better books to read -- books with richer content, so they can tap into some of that general knowledge?</p>
<p>E.D. Hirsch is the originator of the Core Knowledge curriculum which some schools use very successfully. Although it has its detractors, the curriculum is by no means a Western-centric one. Hirsch's point is that the American student population is highly mobile and moving from school to school with disparate curricula is very disruptive to a student's education. The most mobile are actually poorer students. By providing common curricula, schools can minimize the disruptive effect of frequent moves. </p>
<p>A sociologist I met last year told me of research that showed that the spread of the internet is widening the gap between the literate and the illiterate and semi-literate, as proper spelling is crucial when doing internet searches.</p>
<p>Marite, this book is only partly about establishing a common curriculum, although he certainly is not backing away from that recommendation. Rather, the Knowledge Deficit is a critique of "formalism" in reading instruction, his point being that just teaching techniques in a content vacuum ends up as a sterile exercise. The distinction is important, I think, because the political problems with establishing a national curriculum are overwhelming, but his suggestions on reading instruction reform can be implemented at the local level. As for spelling, I don't know very many kids, even otherwise well-educated ones, who can spell well. For evidence of that, check out some of the cc sites visited by future elite college students. Ouch.</p>
<p>It's my contention that good spellers are born, not made. I can spell very well. My sons are pretty good spellers, too, My H is an uttelry attrocious speller and has always been. He is an avid reader, so it's not as if the problem resides in his non-acquaintance with books (and he has a Ph.D. to boot).
I'll try to get hold of Hirsch's book, thanks.</p>
On a different issue, I wonder how the new SAT will work to identify gifted 7th and 8th graders if it has become more curriculum-dependent.
[/quote]
Well, the ACT is used to identify gifted middle-schoolers, and it's more curriculum-dependent than the SAT, right? (Haha, that really is a question -- it's been a very long time since I took the ACT in 11th grade, and even longer since I took it in 8th grade!)</p>
<p>To Marite, re post 11: you may be a better speller than your husband, -- but you should note that the correct spelling for "uttelry attrocious" is "utterly atrocious". ;)</p>
<p>I agree with you that spelling is more of an innate ability than a learned skill, but I just want to point out that good spellers mess up a lot, too.</p>
<p>That was a typo, not a misspelling. There's a difference. But, yeah, not a one to make on such a statement. :(
I'm struggling with a new keyboard that is arranged differently from my old one and I'm making more typos than usual.</p>