July 10, 2008
SAT changes: A wolf in sheep’s clothing
The College Board – makers of the SAT Reasoning Test required for entrance by colleges across the nation – announced a policy change in June. Starting with the class of 2010, students can now choose to only show certain test scores to schools, with the ability to hide attempts that resulted in low grades. Colleges now won't know whether a score was earned in one try or six. Before the cheering begins, however, look at the other side of the coin. Although this change is a stress reliever for many, its repercussions, as well as the College Board's motives, are far more sinister.
The new policy may decrease test anxiety, but it does so by diluting the meaning of student accomplishments. The College Board bills the SAT as the "best independent, standardized measure of a student's college readiness," but as the number of attempts at the SAT increase, the test's ability to measure college readiness decreases. Eventually all that's measured is how well the student knows the test. Colleges may soon see a boost in scores reported by applicants, but the question will remain: is the student ready for college, or is the student simply well-prepared for the test? Admissions officers will be forced to either drastically decrease the SAT's weight in college entrance decisions or second-guess abnormally high and thus potentially phony achievers. As a result, those intelligent enough to earn higher scores in the typical two attempts at the SAT will have their accomplishments undercut by those using the new policy to play the test like a game. If the College Board wishes to maintain the reputation of the SAT and the significance of test results, then the decision to allow test score hiding must be reversed immediately.
At the very least, the new policy should benefit all students equally. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Those in privileged positions are placed at an undeserved advantage by these changes in a testing system already skewed in favor of the affluent. A large market exists for standardized test preparation - at least, for those who can afford it. Prestigious SAT prep programs such as Princeton Review's Private Tutoring and Kaplan's Premier Tutoring cost thousands of dollars and guarantee score increases. Students from families with incomes at or below the middle-class line are unfairly shut out. Now, those with enough money to afford tutoring can enroll in not just one, but several of these programs between attempts, effectively purchasing higher test scores. These are the same students who have access to teachers that challenge them, counselors that know them and a wide variety of resources already driving their college application process. The low-to-middle-income bracket that most Americans fall into is left in the dust, compounding an already unfair situation.
In fact, under current guidelines, families below a certain income level won't benefit from the new policy at all. Although the College Board's Fee Waiver Program waives testing fees for impoverished students, students are entitled to a maximum of two fee waivers. Any additional testing must be paid for by the student, constituting a financial burden that many less affluent students cannot shoulder.
Finally, the College Board's own motives for the shift in policy are questionable. This change mirrors an already-existing policy adopted by the SAT's main competitor, the ACT exam. It's not the first time that such copycat tactics have been employed, either. The writing section of the SAT was first administered in March 2005, following the introduction of a similar section on the ACT one month prior. The ACT is also chipping away at the SAT's traditional majority. One and a half million students of the class of 2007 took the SAT, compared to 1.3 million taking the ACT. The ACT continues to make headway, increasing its student registration levels by seven percent in 2007 compared to the SAT's two percent. With such a vast disparity in the number of additional registrations, the College Board's desire to repaint its age-old product is understandable, but as a non-profit corporation, its first responsibility should be to the students, not to its bottom line.
The credibility of standardized testing has long been criticized. If the recent changes to long-standing policy are not expediently reversed, colleges will have no choice but to abandon the SAT and the entire standardized testing formula.
The new policy may decrease test anxiety, but it does so by diluting the meaning of student accomplishments. The College Board bills the SAT as the "best independent, standardized measure of a student's college readiness," but as the number of attempts at the SAT increase, the test's ability to measure college readiness decreases. Eventually all that's measured is how well the student knows the test. Colleges may soon see a boost in scores reported by applicants, but the question will remain: is the student ready for college, or is the student simply well-prepared for the test? Admissions officers will be forced to either drastically decrease the SAT's weight in college entrance decisions or second-guess abnormally high and thus potentially phony achievers. As a result, those intelligent enough to earn higher scores in the typical two attempts at the SAT will have their accomplishments undercut by those using the new policy to play the test like a game. If the College Board wishes to maintain the reputation of the SAT and the significance of test results, then the decision to allow test score hiding must be reversed immediately.
At the very least, the new policy should benefit all students equally. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Those in privileged positions are placed at an undeserved advantage by these changes in a testing system already skewed in favor of the affluent. A large market exists for standardized test preparation - at least, for those who can afford it. Prestigious SAT prep programs such as Princeton Review's Private Tutoring and Kaplan's Premier Tutoring cost thousands of dollars and guarantee score increases. Students from families with incomes at or below the middle-class line are unfairly shut out. Now, those with enough money to afford tutoring can enroll in not just one, but several of these programs between attempts, effectively purchasing higher test scores. These are the same students who have access to teachers that challenge them, counselors that know them and a wide variety of resources already driving their college application process. The low-to-middle-income bracket that most Americans fall into is left in the dust, compounding an already unfair situation.
In fact, under current guidelines, families below a certain income level won't benefit from the new policy at all. Although the College Board's Fee Waiver Program waives testing fees for impoverished students, students are entitled to a maximum of two fee waivers. Any additional testing must be paid for by the student, constituting a financial burden that many less affluent students cannot shoulder.
Finally, the College Board's own motives for the shift in policy are questionable. This change mirrors an already-existing policy adopted by the SAT's main competitor, the ACT exam. It's not the first time that such copycat tactics have been employed, either. The writing section of the SAT was first administered in March 2005, following the introduction of a similar section on the ACT one month prior. The ACT is also chipping away at the SAT's traditional majority. One and a half million students of the class of 2007 took the SAT, compared to 1.3 million taking the ACT. The ACT continues to make headway, increasing its student registration levels by seven percent in 2007 compared to the SAT's two percent. With such a vast disparity in the number of additional registrations, the College Board's desire to repaint its age-old product is understandable, but as a non-profit corporation, its first responsibility should be to the students, not to its bottom line.
The credibility of standardized testing has long been criticized. If the recent changes to long-standing policy are not expediently reversed, colleges will have no choice but to abandon the SAT and the entire standardized testing formula.
Digg
del.icio.us
StumbleUpon
reddit
Facebook
Discuss this Article
This statement is unnecessary and insulting. We get it; rich kids have things available to them that poor kids do not. Teachers do not challenge students unless they are of a certain economic status? These kids might be more likely to be in classes that are considered challenging (Honors, AP). To say rich kids are challenged and poor kids aren't is simply wrong. Counselors only get to know kids that have money? Counselors spend more time with troubled students than with college bound SAT taking students. If you are on a college bound track, the only time you might see your counselor is for a schedule change.
So why is this a bad thing, again?
Of course the College Board will say that; it's their test! But the SAT was, is and always will be a test on how well you know the test. Isn't that what all the test prep books/courses try to help you do anyway? "Here are our secrets on how to crack the SAT and get your ideal score!"
And like the others have said, kids who were getting high scores will still get high scores and kids who are getting lower scores will still get lower scores, no matter how much they try. There's always that peak you hit and you can't get any higher than that.
"If the recent changes to long-standing policy are not expediently reversed, colleges will have no choice but to abandon the SAT and the entire standardized testing formula."
HUZZAH!!!
Well done Mr. Tao.
However, it goes on to say that because of this, the policy should be reversed, even though that does nothing to fix the problem of standardized testing being a terrible indicator of mastery.
Come on, stop dodging the problem here. This is a great change, it may actually lead to a revision of how we look at mastery of a subject. We need to move away from rote memorization and towards actual comprehension, even if it means more work for the people involved.
I totally agree. This policy shift is obviously to offset costs; their motives are questionable.
I can say this because I've attended some of the best and some of the worst schools in MD. Last time I checked, Baltimore City Public Schools didn't offer Honors or AP programs even for kids who were economically disadvantaged yet were certainly smart enough to participate in these programs. I wasn't once counseled about where I wanted to go for college (because it was assumed no one would go because no one could pay). I was taught how to apply to beauty school or be a good secretary or other low income worker, slaving for those were taught how to apply for college. This disparity in education begins in kindergarden(!), where poor kids in Head-start are learning how to write with a pencil while kids whose parents were rich enough to send them to preschool are already reading short stories. Poor kids are spending too much time playing catch-up with rich kids with extra years of schooling.
That gap can be closed, but the real damage is in how you treat kids and the expectation you set. When you expect nothing out of a child, they will give you nothing. When you expect only the best, the give only the best. The only reason I am in Honors and AP classes at Blair, coming from a much worse school district, is because the teachers in Baltimore expected more out of me, and I delivered. I wish we held those kind of expectations for everybody, and gave them the resources (I count nurturing and mentoring as a resource) that everyone needs to become a successful student.
I highly recommend the works of Jonathan Kozol. He'll defiantly explain my point about educational disparity with more overall quality (especially in regards to eloquence and precision) than my spiel.