SAT HISTORY AT A GLANCE

Transcription

1

2 SAT HISTORY AT A GLANCE Carl Brigham (test has always had cloud of bias to this day) Princeton freshman HS students thereafter 1948 Educational Testing Service (ETS) 1952 Verbal and Math sections Writing section added

3 BEING A DISCRIMINATING READER Media eager to run yearly SAT story and compare at state and local levels as dip stick of school improvement. the college board acknowledges the scores cannot be used for the purpose the public uses them for, and on the other hand, it actively seeks widespread diffusion of the data. (Grissmer, 2000)

4 SAT A NORMATIVE TEST Norm Referenced Test Compare one student to a group of students (SAT, ACT) Criterion Referenced Test Compare student test takers to an absolute standard (NECAP, a driving test)

5 SAT A TEST USED OUT OF CONTEXT any aggregation of the SAT test scores above the level of the individual student by high school, school district, state and nation is simply uninterruptable as a measure of student achievement trends or as a measure of quality among schools (Grissmer, 2000)

6 Unfortunately, the SAT scores not only have no statistical validity for tracking trends in the achievement of American students, but they actually show a perverse relationship to the trends in achievement tracked by statistically valid scores. (Grissmer, 2000)

7 SAMPLE SIZE Self-selected sample of students taking the SAT each year Results are skewed NECAP all students take test (good measure) National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) random sample across country (past 25 years) 9, 13, 17 yr. olds (good measure) Schools doing a better job getting more kids college ready more test takers Regression to the mean The empirical results indicate a strong relationship between test scores and participation rates. As a rule of thumb, scores drop about 1.8 points for every one point increase in the participation rate... For a given state over time changes in participation are found to mask true increases or decreases in achievement, making the unadjusted SAT score a misleading indicator for policy analysis. (Dynarski, Univ of Cal., 2002) After adjustment for school demographic characteristics, participation rates were negatively associated with scores. (Fetler, American Ed. Research Journal, 1991)

8 MORE STUDENTS TAKE THE SAT 1960 s - 33% take test 1990 s - 40% %

9

10

11 DEMOGRAPHICS MATTER Texas 40-50K (9% and a 965) vs. 100k+ (16.5% and 1,097) Maryland 20-30K (7.9% and 894) vs. 110k+ (24.2% and1,121) Florida 60-70K (7.9% and 1004) vs K (9.7% and 1032)

12

13 DEMOGRAPHICS MATTER another factor having impact on student performance on the SAT is the level of education of the student s parents. There is a general correlation between parental educational attainment and student performance (College Board, 2003)

14

15 District Reading 2010 Math 2010 Writing 2010 TOTAL Per Capita 2010 STATE Free/Reduced Lunch % ( ) Barrington ,467 4% Bristol Warren ,238 33% Burrillville ,972 34% Central Falls ,094 81% Chariho ,155 22% Coventry ,599 26% Cranston ,653 38% Cumberland ,378 21% East Greenwich ,703 6% East Providence ,349 41% Exeter-West Green ,946 13% Foster-Glocester ,050 15% Johnston ,571 39% Lincoln ,186 24% Middletown ,848 25% Narragansett ,575 16% Newport ,816 59% North Kingstown ,286 19% North Providence ,793 33% North Smithfield ,993 14% Pawtucket ,957 75% Portsmouth ,052 12% Providence ,791 83% Scituate ,314 14% Smithfield ,018 13% South Kingstown ,646 17% Tiverton ,780 23% Warwick ,648 31% West Warwick ,570 43% Westerly ,895 32% Woonsocket ,846 63%

16 CUMBERLAND SAT stu. 501(V) 502(M) 486(W) stu. 520(V) 514(M) 509(W) stu. 523(V) 517(M) 516(W) stu. 500(V) 517(M) 501(W)

17 IF NOT SAT, THEN WHAT?

18 Overview of Assessment Classroom Common District Level External Assessments Assessments Assessments Assessments Most Formative More Formative More Summative Most Summative Daily Weekly Unit Monthly Semester Annual Ongoing Collaboratively Identify Groups Ranks and Benchmarks Student & Teacher Developed and of At-Risk Students Assessment Curriculum Entrance and Exit Embedded Criteria Quizzes, Essays, and Pyramid of Aims Web NECAP, Projects Interventions Investigations, NEAP, Writing Prompts PSAT, SAT School Level District Level

19 FOCUS FOR THIS YEAR Absolute need to clearly define where we are right now, set measurable targets, and a systemic measurable way to track progress Common rubrics across district (work to begin this year) Common benchmark work Total agreement on the what of teaching Common grading practices

20 CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN Published benchmarks on agreed upon standards and targets Formative (pulse checks) assessments to track progress