"A child's learning is the function more of the characteristics of his classmates than those of the teacher." James Coleman, 1972
Showing posts with label standarized testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label standarized testing. Show all posts

Monday, August 10, 2015

Why Have Some Civil Rights Groups Flipped on Standardized Testing?

By Ken Derstine @ Defend Public Education!
August 10, 2015
(Most recent link update August 13, 2015)


 
In 1947, as a student at Morehouse College, an eighteen-year old Martin Luther King, Jr. wrote an article for the student newspaper The Maroon Tiger. In the article, The Purpose of Education, he explained his vision of what education should be. He said education should not be about equipping students “with the proper instruments of exploitation so that they can forever trample over the masses”. He continued, education must also be about more than training for a career, stating,

“Education must also train one for quick, resolute and effective thinking. To think incisively and to think for one's self is very difficult. We are prone to let our mental life become invaded by legions of half truths, prejudices, and propaganda. At this point, I often wonder whether or not education is fulfilling its purpose. A great majority of the so-called educated people do not think logically and scientifically. Even the press, the classroom, the platform, and the pulpit in many instances do not give us objective and unbiased truths. To save man from the morass of propaganda, in my opinion, is one of the chief aims of education. Education must enable one to sift and weigh evidence, to discern the true from the false, the real from the unreal, and the facts from the fiction.” 
_______________

On October 28, 2014, eleven civil rights groups sent a letter to President Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan urging them to drop the test based K-12 ‘accountability’ system. In it they state,

“While the need for accountability is almost universally agreed upon, there have been concerns raised about overly punitive accountability systems that do not take into account the resources, geography, student population, and needs of specific schools. In particular, the No Child Left Behind law has not accomplished its intended goals of substantially expanding educational equity or significantly improving educational outcomes. Racial achievement and opportunity gaps remain large, and many struggling school systems have made little progress under rules that emphasize testing without investing. We must shift towards accountability strategies that promote equity and strengthen, rather than weaken, schools in our communities, so that they can better serve students and accelerate student success.”

The letter goes on to list eight recommendations – none of which call for high stakes testing.

The organizations signing the letter were:

Advancement Project
Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law
League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF)
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
National Opportunity to Learn (OTL) Campaign
National Urban League (NUL)
NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF)
National Council on Educating Black Children (NCEBC)
National Indian Education Association (NIEA)
Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC)

On May 5, 2015, twelve civil rights organizations, including some of those listed above issued a press release opposing opting-out of standardized tests. In it they state,

“Standardized tests, as ‘high stakes tests,’ have been misused over time to deny opportunity and undermine the educational purpose of schools, actions we have never supported and will never condone.  But the anti-testing efforts that appear to be growing in states across the nation, like in Colorado and New York, would sabotage important data and rob us of the right to know how our students are faring. When parents ‘opt out’ of tests—even when out of protest for legitimate concerns—they’re not only making a choice for their own child, they’re inadvertently making a choice to undermine efforts to improve schools for every child.”

The organizations signing the press release were:

*The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (also known as NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund)
The American Association of University Women (AAUW)
Association of University Centers on Disabilities (AUCD)
Council of Parent Attorneys and Advocates, Inc. (COPAA)
Disability Rights Education and Defense Fund (DREDF)
*League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC)
*NAACP
*National Council of La Raza (NCLR)
National Disability Rights Network (NDRN)
*National Urban League (NUL)
*Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC)
TASH

The organizations that signed both documents are marked with an asterisk.

That standardized tests are needed for funding decisions is a bogus claim. Community income levels should determine the needs of a school. Torturing students for hours with tests that have nothing to do with diagnosis or remediation of student learning deficits are not going to bring equity in education. Quite the opposite!

Under corporate education reform, which is a full-scale assault on public education, standardized tests are used to rank teachers and schools for the purpose of closing schools or doing a “turnaround” from a public to a charter school. The ultimate purpose of these tests is to advance a privatization agenda that affects low-income communities the hardest.

So why would these organizations, some of the largest civil rights organizations in the United States, jointly agree to do a one-eighty on standardized testing in just a few months?

On May 9, 2015, Wayne Au, associate professor in the School of Educational Studies at the University of Washington Bothell, and an editor for the social justice teaching magazine Rethinking Schools, had a column in the Washington Post, “Just whose rights do these civil rights groups think they are protecting?”

Au says,

“We cannot, of course, say that these groups came to the defense of high-stakes, standardized testing at the behest of the Gates Foundation, but we should be clear that their politics align with that of the Gates Foundation, and so the fact that these particular civil rights organizations came out in force to support a central reform backed by the foundation should come as no surprise to anyone.”

Au found the following funding of these organizations by the Gates Foundation:

National Council of La Raza: $33,446,160 total
National Urban League: $5,286,017 total
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights (also listed as the Leadership Conference Education Fund): $3,811,021 total
NAACP: $2,456,106 total
Southeast Asian Resource Center $1,680,105  total
League of United Latin American Citizens: $943,687 total

From the Walton Foundation (Walmart), Au found the following funding for civil rights organizations.
National Council on La Raza: $2,561,741 total
National Urban League (and Urban League of New Orleans): $731,300 total

Au notes,
According to Making Change At Walmart, Walmart is the largest single employer of African Americans in the country (20 percent of the 1.3 million total employees), pays employees an average of $8.81 an hour, and under Walmart’s definition of full-time work, an employee would only earn 65 percent of the 2014 federal poverty rate for a family of four. According to a brief by the Economic Policy Institute, the Walton Family’s total wealth equals that of 79 percent of the combined wealth of all African American families (or almost 78 percent of the combined wealth of all Latino families).

That two major leaders of corporate education reform have targeted civil rights organizations for “philanthropy” is no accident. It allows them to carry out their neoliberal stealth campaign giving their funding a progressive veneer, while actually targeting low-income communities as the most vulnerable for advancing their privatization agenda.
The Walton Foundation has been especially involved with the Black Alliance for Educational Opportunity in advancing the privatization agenda among civil rights organizations. Milwaukee-based BAEO is a promoter of charter schools and vouchers in urban areas all over the country. Founder Howard Fuller has said, “We wouldn’t exist without John Walton and this is one of the reasons I love that man.” See Corporate Education Reform and Civil Rights | Defend Public Education!

The National Urban League, at its recent national convention, gave Jeb Bush the platform to promote charter schools and the tax-credit voucher program which he pioneered while he was governor of Florida. In the August 6, 2015 GOP debate Bush advanced his support of Common Core, taking a states rights position that each state should have its own version of Common Core. This is to bring him in line with Congressional Republicans who are promoting the ALEC states rights position in the current Congressional Conference on the ESEA rewrite.

On the day of the GOP debate, Daniel Pfeiffer, a former senior advisor to President Obama for strategy and communications, tweeted that the White House was grateful to Jeb Bush for helping to promote Common Core. Probably meant in jest, it nevertheless shows the coming together of constituents from the two parties for the common goal of advancing the privatization of public education.

For their part, neoliberal Congressional Democrats continue to promote the goals of the Murphy Amendment in the Conference Committee that had been rejected in the Senate version of the ESEA rewrite. All but two Democrats voted for this doubling down of No Child Left Behind that would expand the role of testing in school and teacher evaluations. It was voted down because Senate Republicans saw it as an expansion of the federal role in education. Teacher blogger Mercedes Schneider describes the Murphy Amendment goal this way:

“Senator Murphy’s (D-CT) amendment 2241 (which Warren co-sponsored) went up for a vote and was rejected 43-54. The 12-page text of Murphy’s SA 2241 reads more like No Child Left Behind (NCLB), with its detailed prescription for reporting on student test results, for “meaningfully differentiating among all public schools” (i.e., grading schools), including publicly identifying the lowest five percent, and, among interventions, potentially firing staff and offering students the option to transfer to other schools and using part of the budget to pay for the transportation.

This amendment would have enacted tough, federal-mandated accountability, akin to setting up an “achievement school district” in every state.”

This will be a major goal of neoliberal Democrats when the Conference Committee resumes deliberations after a five-week summer break in September.

Neoliberal Democrats have used civil rights organizations as a way to justify expanding standardized testing.

The bill’s lead sponsor, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), said rejection of expansion of testing would “return the country to the days when states and school districts could ignore achievement gaps and allow poor, minority and disabled children to languish.”

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, on a panel at the Network for Public Education, on April 26, 2015 said, (47:00 in the linked video)

“The civil rights community and the President of the United States of America is fighting very hard to have annual tests for one purpose. They have seen in states for years, that if they didn’t have them that states would ignore children.”

The National Education Association, on the other hand, is against the Murphy Amendment because it “would result in an over-identification of failing schools, repeating a key problem with No Child Left Behind.” The union was attacked by the Gates funded Education Trust (see Education Trust: Profoundly Gates-funded, Test-driven-reform Machine by Mercedes Schneider) for its position. Its President, Kati Haycock, accused the NEA of working to protect suburban schools that perform well on average, but not “gritty urban districts” whom she claims need standardized tests to be funded.

U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan has been notorious for using waivers from the NCLB requirements to whip states desperate for federal funding into line. The Race to the Top program uses a carrot-and-stick approach for advancing the neoliberal privatization agenda.

Isn’t it obvious that corporate education reform “philanthropists” are using the same method to hold out desperately needed (whether for organizational survival or greed)  funding to civil rights organizations and others? They attempt to buy the loyalty of civil rights organizations while advancing corporate interests and higher profits that actually sells out the interests of the people they claim to represent.

How can public education and democracy itself survive when the interests of profit are put above the common good?

What would Martin Luther King do?

This is what he said at the close of The Purpose of Education,

“We must remember that intelligence is not enough. Intelligence plus character--that is the goal of true education. The complete education gives one not only power of concentration, but worthy objectives upon which to concentrate. The broad education will, therefore, transmit to one not only the accumulated knowledge of the race but also the accumulated experience of social living. 



If we are not careful, our colleges will produce a group of close-minded, unscientific, illogical propagandists, consumed with immoral acts. Be careful, ‘brethren!’ Be careful, teachers!”


Also see:

As of this writing, 623 organizations and 19,691 individuals have signed a resolution to the Obama Administration and Congress calling for the “overhaul the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, currently known as the "No Child Left Behind Act," reduce the testing mandates, promote multiple forms of evidence of student learning and school quality in accountability, and not mandate any fixed role for the use of student test scores in evaluating educators.” The Real News



Black Lives Do Matter But Do They Move?
The Real News – August 10, 2015

The Betrayal by the Black Elite with Chris Hedges and Cornel West
The Real News – August 11, 2015



Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Guest Post: Assumptions that 'Just Seem Obvious' to Steve Brill

Dr. John Thompson was an award-winning historian, lobbyist, and guerilla-gardener who became an award-winning inner city teacher after crack and gangs hit his neighborhood.By John Thompson

There is a long line of education experts exposing the factual errors in Steve Brill's Class Warfare so, instead, I set out to illuminate the assumptions underneath his brand of "reform." I was overwhelmed, however, by the number of times that Brill, and the non-educators he fawned over, discovered findings that "just seemed obvious." So, I only want to recount Brill's tale of the naive assumptions, opinions, and assertions, based on numbers from one district, that supposedly propelled Bill Gates into the experiment that Gates said was, "the riskiest thing we have ever done."

Brill begins with "Identifying Effective Teaching Using Performance on the Job," by Tom Kane, Robert Gordon, and Douglas Staiger. Kane et. al wrote, "the current credential-centered regime is built upon two questionable premises ..." They then presented evidence that was solid enough to contribute to the minor league debate over teacher certification. But then these economists made another leap, "the second premise is that school districts learn nothing more about teacher effectiveness." Without making any effort to link their data (and that assertion) to reality, Kane and company called for dangerous and revolutionary changes to the entire nation's educational systems. When I first read their opinions, I chalked them up to being academic theory.

If Brill's account is trustworthy, though, I was naive. Either Brill was loose with his words, or he was celebrating a classic "bait and switch." According to Brill, the authors asserted that the need for "paper qualifications" is a "bedrock of public education." Worse, Kane et. al supposedly claimed that the second core assumption of our system is that "districts can learn nothing more of teaching effectiveness after the initial hire," and "this was why almost all teachers initially receive satisfactory evaluations." (emphasis mine.) Even worse, they successfully convinced Bill Gates that a "surprising" lack of volatility in teachers' performances, measured by standardized tests, was grounds for overturning decades of social science research on teaching and learning, and the way that organizations change.

Rereading the paper, I fear that Brill accurately reported the authors' true intentions. Now I see the report as a grab bag of political soundbites. Kane et. al predicted an impending shortage of teachers, which would be most damaging for high-poverty schools. Their solution - based on the presumption that the lowest scoring teachers should be fired using a methodology that is systematically biased against teachers in high-poverty schools - would supposedly attract talent to those schools!?!?! To their credit, Kane and company recognized the need to adjust for circumstances beyond the teachers' control. For example, if construction was going on outside the window on testing day... But, they argued that test score growth models that would be used for evaluations should not be controlled for poverty.

Fortunately, the Gates team has subsequently distanced themselves from their initial overreach, but it still raises a huge question. What did they not know about peer effects and when did they not know it?

If Brill is accurate, having assumed that there is a single simple explanation for the sorry state of evaluations, the theorists did not need to search for other reasons why inner city schools have a hard time attracting and retaining talent. Having reached the shocking discovery that, "some teachers are better than others," Gates and company thus decided that the path to school improvement must go through their version of instruction-driven, standardized test-driven reforms.

According to Brill, Bill Gates bought the hypothesis that the lack of volatility in test scores meant that their version of teacher quality had to be the focus of reform. After a two-hour discussion, supposedly, Gates became increasingly frustrated that educators ignored a solution that "seemed so obvious."

I will leave it to the experts to analyze how stable or volatile test scores are. Subsequent research by Gates' scholars has been used to argue that teacher performance is no more unstable than major league baseball players' performance - as if that has much to do with fixing schools. My point is that their assumption could only have been made by people with no knowledge of the logistics of schooling. As I have explained, if Brill, Kane, or Gates had had a rudimentary knowledge of how schools are actually run, they could not have jumped to such a weird conclusion.

And that gets to other assumptions. When I was in school, Kane would not have begun such a paper with a mischaracterization of his opponents' positions. A reader used to assume that a scholar would start his argument by honestly summarizing what his evidence was and was not able to prove. In polite discourse, a summary of opposing arguments was always presented in a fair manner. Kane would have been honor-bound to summarize the record of longstanding evaluation methods such as the Toledo Plan, the Teacher Advancement Program, and other successful peer review and mentoring efforts, as well as National Board certification. Had Gates been briefed on the strengths and weaknesses of those union-endorsed methods, perhaps he would have chosen to fund efforts to better incorporate data into those holistic systems, or perhaps he would have financed a scaling up on those methods of improving teacher quality.

The bad news is that education, and educators, are held in such low esteem that revolutionary reforms are mandated by non-educators, based on what seems obvious after being exposed to a sliver of information. Too often, it presented only by self-interested parties who represent a small minority of scholars. The good news is that snap judgments can be reversed. Smart people have changed their minds when introduce to better evidence.

This era of primitive test-driven hypotheses reminds me of the rookie mistakes made by first generation econometricians such as Robert Fogel, Stanley Engerman, Alfred Conrad, and John Meyer. One even earned a Nobel Prize, showing that a bone-headed error, born of inexperience need not be a mark of shame. Back then, however, there were more checks and balances in regard to academic assertions. When I was in school, these economists made the daring, and soon-to-be-proven-silly proclamations that the building of the railroad system did not accelerate economic growth and that slavery was profitable. Those mistakes are humorous now, but then again, we did not cite their speculations as reasons to tear apart our railroads or reinstate slavery.

And we should remember a key reason why an econometric model, based on data from one state, reached such inaccurate conclusions about slavery across the nation. To the Harvard economists, it seemed obvious that half of Kentucky's mules must be momma mules and half must be daddy mules. Not knowing that mules are sterile, they assumed the profits due to mule reproduction.

If Gates and Kane would be more open about what they do not know, and listen to actual practitioners, they could still be a powerful force for good. But they need to listen to educators with concrete knowledge of how schools are run, and understand the power of peer pressure.

Dr. John Thompson was an award-winning historian, lobbyist, and guerilla-gardener who became an award-winning inner city teacher after crack and gangs hit his neighborhood. He blogs at thisweekineducation.com, and huffingtonpost.com, and is writing a book on 18 years of idealistic politics in the classroom and realistic politics outside.

Monday, August 29, 2011

Guest Post: The Facts Not Included in Steve Brill's Tell All

Dr. John Thompson was an award-winning historian, lobbyist, and guerilla-gardener who became an award-winning inner city teacher after crack and gangs hit his neighborhood.By John Thompson

Steve Brill’s Class Warfare is full of breathless accounts of the rich and powerful that are reminiscent of the biographies of Kitty Kelly. Ironically, the most valuable part of his Class Warfare may be his accounts of dramatic decisions to undertake risky and revolutionary "reforms" based on minimal evidence and some strange assumptions.

According to Brill, "Identifying Effective Teaching Using Performance on the Job" by Tom Kane, Robert Gordon, and Douglas Staiger was used to convince Bill Gates and President Obama that "teacher quality," measured by standardized tests, must be the focus of reform. According to Brill, they argued that tests showed, "remarkable consistency among teachers," and that "obviously" this suggested that the person in front of the classroom was the key to closing the achievement gap. Gates was supposedly told that the "surprising" lack of volatility in the test scores of one district meant we could trust algorithms to drive the firing of teachers. If we believe Brill, because of the stability in the charts that Kane and Gordon presented to Gates, we should presume that 25% of teachers with the lowest test score growth should be fired.

Perhaps I should make no assumptions, and use my 90% low-income district to explain Urban Education 101 for reformers. In our six magnet and charter high schools, the attendance rates never drop below 95%, while our seven neighborhood schools struggle to reach an attendance rate of 80%. When you add in the far lower enrollment rates and the far higher suspension rates in the neighborhood schools, their students attend class at a rate that is 1/4th to 1/3rd less than their peers in selective schools (and far less than their previous three years in middle school.) It would take a superhuman effort for neighborhood school teachers, with kids who are five to six years behind grade level in reading, to meet growth targets that were not controlled for school selectivity.

By the way, those patterns are all stable. Should we thus assume that the teachers in the magnet schools are better than the teachers in neighborhood schools with deplorable scores?

Neither would anyone with firsthand knowledge of actual classrooms assume that a relative lack of test score volatility within schools justifies the "reformers’" extraordinary conclusions. I would assume that Kane, at least, would know that even when student assignment policies are stable, students are assigned differently to tested and non-tested classes. I wonder how he would address a stable pattern in my district where middle school "Science" classes are taught to the names, dates, facts, and figures of the benchmark tests, producing pass rates ranging from 70 to 73%. Then freshmen Biology students have a pass rate that fluctuates from 30% to 51% to 41% on tests designed to measure scientific thinking. Since the Biology teachers’ growth targets would be based on middle school tests, would Kane support the mass firing of those teachers for failure to meet targets generated from the results of different tests?

Recognizing that districts differ, let us take some more obvious examples of stable patterns from my school system. As 5th graders, the kids of Zip Code 73120 attend schools with poverty rates ranging from 23%, 50%, 69%, and 76%, with the special education populations ranging from 5.5% to 14%. The number of suspensions are 0, 14, 33, and 86. The pass rates for 5th grade Reading range from 81% to 95%.

Between 5th and 6th grade, the district's student population drops by nearly 1/5th as the numbers of special education and ELL students increase. In 73120, the decline is more remarkable as the majority of their students move to magnet, enterprise, and charter schools, including four that have gained national recognition. So, the 6th graders arrive at a school with 2,020 disciplinary actions, which lost its middle class students after the campus policeman was hospitalized in a riot, and where 1/4th of their class are on IEPs. Should the 6th grade teachers to be blamed for a Reading pass rate of 44%? Is it reasonable to expect those teachers to meet test score targets based on the three previous years of performance in very different types of classrooms, with incomparably different peer effects?

Similarly, a non-educator might be unaware that the challenges facing an Algebra II class are radically different to those of an Algebra I class next door. The demographic differences between the two math classes, however, are just as stark as the unbelievable differences between our 5th and 6th graders. My school was the lowest-ranked secondary school in Oklahoma, but the percentages of poor and at-risk juniors in Algebra II were not dramatically different to the percentages in many suburban schools. After all, 1/3rd or more of the freshmen Algebra I students drop out before reaching their 11th grade year. (By the way, 9th grade is the year when the enrollment rate reaches rock bottom, with the average freshmen being in school for less than 2/3rds of a year, and when the truancy and suspension rates explode. Should we fire most, if not all inner city Algebra I teachers for not raising the performance of students who do not attend class?)

Worst of all, the Gates shop has given no indication that they have become aware of the difference between a student with a math or a reading disability, as opposed to a conduct disorder or serious emotional disturbances. Neither have they dealt with the effect of federal policies on how schools are allowed to handle those students, and the implication for schools where 35 to 40% of their students are on Individual Education Plans.

In other words, they do not have the background knowledge to comprehend the scenario described by Paul Tough where an inner city class of thirty kids, because it has 8 to 10 kids who have been traumatized to the point where their brain circuitry has been altered, degenerates into a culture of hitting and fighting. Otherwise, how could Kane and Gates assume that teachers with those sorts of classes would have a chance of hitting their growth targets?

Unless these theorists assumed that Seriously Emotionally Disturbed students are distributed evenly throughout our diverse nation's classrooms, they betrayed a basic misunderstanding of peer effects in urban schools. A class where a third of the students are well- behaved kids with cognitive differences, can not be compared to a class with a critical mass of children who have been victimized to the point where they can not control their behavior. And if the theorists have that level of ignorance, perhaps they also are unaware that schools facing an impossible load of the most difficult-to-educate students tend to turn certain classes into dumping grounds.

Brill’s Class Warfare included 19 pages of sources and endnotes, but there is no indication that he read any of the immense body of social science on teaching, learning, and schooling. According to Brill, Gates gave the go-ahead for his Measuring Effective Teaching effort after two hours of discussion. There was no indication that Gates was exposed to scholarship that contradicted the hypothesis that teacher quality must drive reform.

Had Gates been briefed on the way schools are organized, and the need for early education, a concentration on reading comprehension and socio-emotional skills before 3rd grade, the need for high-quality curriculum, and the promise of community schools that turn education into a team effort, I doubt this smart man would have assumed that there was only one way to fix urban schools.

If Gates, or for that matter, if President Obama (who later adopted the Gates agenda) had been provided a full and fair briefing by educators as well as economists, it would be no skin off Brill's nose. There are still plenty of Kitty Kelly-type books out there begging to be written by a person with Brill's confidence that he obviously knows all of the answers.

Dr. John Thompson was an award-winning historian, lobbyist, and guerilla-gardener who became an award-winning inner city teacher after crack and gangs hit his neighborhood. He blogs at thisweekineducation.com, and huffingtonpost.com, and is writing a book on 18 years of idealistic politics in the classroom and realistic politics outside.

Saturday, October 02, 2010

High School Senior, Sylvie Baldwin, Just Says No to Any More Testing

Story from Inside Higher Ed here.



Schools That Do Not Use SAT or ACT Scores for Admitting Substantial Numbers of Students Into Bachelor Degree Programs. Optional List from FairTest here.

Tuesday, September 14, 2010

New SATs Show Education Suicide Is Working

The new SATs are out with some predictable outcomes for a decade dedicated to narrowing the curriculum and teaching to tests and draining any care and joy from the classrooms, yet the "bold reformers" like charterite Jeanne Allen are calling for more of the same bullshit: "we must redouble our efforts to reform an education system that continues to spend more only to receive less in return."

A bit of different take from Fairtest yesterday (my bolds):
SAT college admissions scores released today show that “Test-and-punish school ‘reform’ policies are leaving more children further behind, even when measured by other standardized exams,” according to Bob Schaeffer, Public Education Director of FairTest, the National Center for Fair & Open Testing. Schaeffer noted, “The data contradict the claim that more high-takes testing improves educational quality and equity.”


A chart prepared by FairTest shows overall SAT averages declined since the “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) federal testing mandates went into effect. At the same time, gaps between Whites and Asians, on the one hand, and historically disadvantaged minority groups, particularly African-Americans and Hispanics, grew larger. ACT scores, made public last month, demonstrated comparable patterns. Scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) also indicate that educational progress has slowed in the NCLB era. Under NCLB, every public school student must be tested annually in grades three through eight and at least once in high school in both reading and math.


“Proponents of NCLB and similar state-level testing programs promised that overall achievement would improve while score gaps would narrow,” Schaeffer continued. “Precisely the opposite has taken place. Policymakers need to embrace very different policies if they are committed to real education reform.”


Schaeffer added, “Fortunately, more and more colleges have recognized the folly of fixating on the narrow, often biased, information provided by standardized tests and moved toward test-optional admissions.” According to a free web database maintained by FairTest (http:www.fairtest.org/university/optional), more than 840 accredited, bachelor-degree granting institutions will make admissions decisions about all or many applicants without regard to SAT or ACT scores.

2010 COLLEGE BOUND SENIORS AVERAGE SAT SCORES

with score changes from 2006*                                    
READING MATH WRITING TOTAL
ALL TEST-TAKERS   501 (- 2)  516 (- 2)  492 (-  5)  1509 (-  9)
GENDER
 Female  498(-4)  500(-2)  498(-4) 1498(-10)
 Male  503(-2)  534(-2)  486(-5) 1523(-9)
ETHNICITY
 Asian, Asian Amer. or Pac. Islander  519 (+9)  591 (+13)  526 (+14)  1623 (+36)
 White  528 (+1)  536 (    0)  516 ( -  3)  1580 (-   2)
 African American or Black  429 (- 5)  428 (-   1)  420 (-   8)  1277 (- 14)
 Amer. Indian or Alaskan Native  485 (- 2)  492 (-   2)  467 (-   7)  1444 (- 11)
 Mexican or Mexican American  454 (  0)  467 ( + 2)  448 (-   4)  1369 (-   2)
 Puerto Rican  454 (- 5)  452 (-   4)  443 (-   5)  1349 (- 14)
 Other Hispanic or Latino  454 (- 4)  462 (-   1)  447 ( -  3)  1363 (-   8)

























* The “No Child Left Behind” requirement to test every child annually in grades three through eight and at least once in high school went into effect in the 2005-2006 academic year. High school graduates in the class of 2006 were the first to take the SAT “Writing” Test.

calculated by FairTest from: College Board, College-Bound Seniors 2010: Total Group Profile Report and College-Bound Seniors 2006: Total Group Profile Report


Below is one of the charts from a beautiful analysis done by the NYTimes with last year' SAT scores.  It looks at the relationship of family income and scores, and what do you know--the positive correlation "for each test average/income range chart is about 0.95."  That's as close to a direct one to one as you are likely to find anywhere.  Remember: the SAT is objective and represents the essence of American meritocracy.

Here are all three test sections next to each other (zoomed in on the vertical axis, so you can see the variation among income groups a little more clearly):
SAT scores by income classSource: College Board
A few observations:
  • There’s a very strong positive correlation between income and test scores. (For the math geeks out there, the R2 for each test average/income range chart is about 0.95.)
  • On every test section, moving up an income category was associated with an average score boost of over 12 points.
  • Moving from the second-highest income group and the highest income group seemed to show the biggest score boost. However, keep in mind the top income category is uncapped, so it includes a much broader spectrum of families by wealth.