The New SAT Will Widen the Education Gap

Test Preparation
1

<p>“… Despite this intention, and the fact that low-income students will have the $51 test fee waived, I suspect the new SAT will widen, not narrow, the education gap in the United States.” …</p>

<p><a href=“http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304704504579429493504786468?mod=djemMER_h&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304704504579429493504786468.html%3Fmod%3DdjemMER_h”>http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304704504579429493504786468?mod=djemMER_h&mg=reno64-wsj&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702304704504579429493504786468.html%3Fmod%3DdjemMER_h&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

2

<p>If the new SAT is going to be built on the “College & Career Ready” standards of the Common Core then won’t all the schools that adopt the Common Core be teaching to the test? Isn’t that what the reformers hate? ;)</p>

3

<p>If we are simply going to test how well students have mastered the common core curriculum, then we should do it right and create a comprehensive series of exams such as they have in England and other foreign countries which can really test the learning more deeply. And we should call them common core exams, not rebrand a different exam. </p>

<p>Let’s also not forget that there are 5 states which did not adopt common core and I haven’t seen one comment or acknowledgement from Coleman about all those students–is it just tough luck for them? Another issue is that they are putting the cart in front of the horse here. Some states haven’t yet started teaching common core, yet, their students will be taking the new common core SAT.</p>

4

<p>

</p>

<p>Seems like if the SAT does not measure native intelligence or the ability to do well in college classes, then it needs to be changed to something more relevant, although not everyone agrees with the coming changes.</p>

5

<p>The New SAT is a veiled attempt to get their market share back from the ACT, which overtook it last year. Coleman has promoted the Common Core, and, as head of Collegeboard, it makes sense that he wants the new SAT to reflect the Common Core standards. What a perfect way to get more of us taking the the SAT, than having it taught in the classrooms. I have personally seen 2 experimental sections from the new test and it is HORRIBLE!!! I am telling all of my friends younger brothers and sisters to stick with the ACT, </p>

6

<p>@novelidea, horrible in what way? Poorly written or ambiguous questions? Not enough time to complete? Much harder or much easier than the current SAT? I have an 8th grader and am wondering if I should try to get her though SAT testing in the fall of her sophomore year, which will probably put her at a disadvantage due to age/maturity/education or else take the new SAT, which I don’t feel too comfortable about since we have no idea what it will look like and as far as I can tell, it will be less favorable to her strengths and education.</p>

<p>I’m wondering if this Khan academy material will include the kind of detailed instruction on our founding documents which Coleman advocates and has provided sample lessons for, and will be testing on every SAT. I’m sure many schools will jump to implement that but I know my daughter won’t be getting those lessons at her school. </p>

7

<p>I have a feeling Khan Academy will be very basic, but I could be wrong. The reason I say it is horrible is that it will require us to really THINK about the reading and the math. The SAT already did this ( much more os than the ACT) but this seems like it will be a lot harder for certain students. The math has been a lot harder in that you have to approach it a little differently. More words problems and applications of math. The Writing section seems very doable and very much like the ACT English section. The reading has charts, paired questions, etc that ask you to justify your answer. I often just know what the right answer is but then having to read through 5 lines to see which justifies my answer makes it more difficult. I don’t know. He is announcing more on April 16 but all of us that have had the experimentals thus far are not pleased with the changes. If I were you, I would just prep for the ACT- it’s known entity! Now, if she is scoring really high as a sophomore on the old SAT, then have her take it in the fall of her sophomore year. I wouldn’t have her take it unless she is scoing where she needs to be though. </p>

8

<p>I feel like since nobody in the class of 2017 and below will know what to expect, everybody is going to flock to the ACT. That’s what I would do, anyway.</p>

9

<p>I would also, except I don’t want to give up the National Merit competition.</p>

<p>Where did you see the notice about April 16? What I’d like to see is when are they going to release practice tests, so that we can see the new material and make an informed decision?</p>

10

<p>I’ll move to ACT</p>

11

<p>Is it surprising that Arguelles is critical of David Coleman’s reinvention of the SAT? Not at all.</p>

<p>Randolf Arguelles is the director of a Bay-area SAT Prep office owned by Elite Education, Inc. As such, he earns a sizable commission on all “sales” (test prep classes, one-on-one tutoring, etc.) made at his office. Needless to say, the current landscape of college admissions testing is very profitable for Arguelles. If free, online prep offered by Khan Academy is “sufficient” for the new SAT, then parents will be less willing to pay for expensive test prep, resulting in a significant loss of revenue for Elite and other test prep companies. Coleman’s proposed SAT changes directly attack Arguelles’ wallet.</p>

<p>If Arguelles is correct about the new SAT widening the education gap, then his criticism is rather hypocritical. For years, Elite Education, along with test prep companies like it, has been tilting the college admissions scales in favor of affluent high school students. The “haves” pay for expensive test prep, whereas the “have-nots” must settle for low-cost self-prep.

Arguelles’ comment regarding vocabulary is rather amusing. His company has been training kids to memorize vocabulary lists for years. The process works in the short-term (as evidenced by a modest bump in SAT Critical Reading scores), but it’s painful for the students…and isn’t a very effective method of expanding a student’s vocabulary in the long run. Students study 5 minutes before the weekly vocabulary quiz, memorize the 2-6 word definition out of context, and then regurgitate the material on a multiple-choice/matching-style test.</p>

<p>I point out all of this not to imply that Arguelles’ comments lack validity. In fact, he may be correct about the widening education gap. I just detect a fair amount of hypocrisy in his article. That’s all.</p>

12

<p>What, really, is the difference between a canned video presentation from any source, and a book? How is this free prep substantially different from the free prep which is already available? Are we saying that kids cannot learn from books anymore; they need online videos to learn? This is supposed to help their reading skills?</p>

13

<p>

</p>

<p>Having students THINK about something is a bad thing?</p>

14

<p>My comment seems to have nothing to do with the SAT, but it does. Essentially, to me, the author’s point falls short in acknowledging the reality of the human existence.</p>

<p>I read the article above and hope the level playing field concept mentioned never makes it to reality. Has anyone really stopped to think what that means? </p>

<p>To level the playing field means raising one group to match another. Sounds laudable, but to actually do that means that at some point the higher field stopped getting higher in order for the lower field to catch up. (Given the current disparities, no way can the lower groups accelerate at any speed to catch up really without limiting the higher groups). In the world I want to be in, if the lower playing fields are advancing, I darn sure hope that the current higher playing fields are advancing as well. There should be progress in both groups, and it is morally wrong to ■■■■■■ one group just because another is behind, especially for bright kids. Who would even advocate any student being less than the best that they could be? Bright kids should be allowed to shine too.</p>

<p>I will be in the minority here for sure, but I am fine with un-level playing fields. I understand the desire to help lower playing fields, but what I am not fine with it is retarding or lowering the advancement of the current upper fields at the expense of some false political theory of equality and level playing fields. Civilization advances because of inequality. Einstein was smarter than most (more brainpower than most); business riskers take more risks than most (do not mind losing more than others); artists create beautiful works (they visualize things others never see); I could go on and on.</p>

<p>What I would like to see is the promotion of all playing fields being higher so as humans we get the best out of everyone. Dumbing down any fields or thinking everyone needs the same field and resources sounds like a recipe of creating averageness, instead of promoting be your best to every student.</p>

<p>In short, if we are promoting and advancing all students, then there should always be inequality in the SAT. Not all students have the same brainpower, same internal drive, same will to achieve, same cultural values toward education - simple fact. So to think that all students need is some level playing field is off base. Many kids need a different, higher, more productive, more imaginative field than others. And, many kids need a lower playing field because they cannot cognitive process as much. Nothing is going to change that and thus unless the higher level kids are forcibly dumbed-down, there should always be wide variances in the the SAT, as there are wide variances in students. </p>

15

<p>

</p>

<p>The idealized goal is to raise the playing fields so that all people have a chance to achieve to their fullest potential, rather than having some be held back by starting in a lower part of the playing field and thus having their potential talent wasted. Inequality based on individual ability and motivation is generally more accepted, while inequality based on external factors (e.g. being born into a rich/poor family) is generally less accepted among people in the US and elsewhere, at least in an idealized sense (but there can be significant disagreement in terms of what to do in practice). Put another way, equality of opportunity is commonly seen as a desirable goal that equality of result is commonly not seen as.</p>

16

<p>@ucbalumnus - I agree with everything you say, but this is where we possibly part - you state, “Put another way, equality of opportunity is commonly seen as a desirable goal that equality of result is commonly not seen as.” </p>

<p>My point is the equality of opportunity says nothing about the outcomes, which the article indicates equality of opportunity will change things. If done fairly for ALL students, not one thing will change for the students in relation to each other, as it is now. Furthermore, there is a definite limit to that equal opportunity field.</p>

<p>There is nothing such as equal humans in terms of cognitive abilities, just like we do not all look alike (even twins really are not identical, except for DNA). It follows then regardless of how equal the opportunity it will have widely different outcomes for students because of their differing abilities. </p>

<p>Therefore, the SAT has posited in the article cannot close or widen the natural gaps that exists among students IF after getting that initial equal opportunity the more capable students are correctly moved to a higher field to maximize their talents, the less capable students moved to a lower field to maximize their talents and some stay on the original field. That is what I meant when I said I am fine with un-level playing fields because all students are not equal and each should be given instruction relative to his level. </p>

<p>And given a lot of stuff I see happening in public schools, I do think I am in the minority on this. I watched as one school decided not to get iPads for its AP science students because they could not get iPads for all students. That makes no sense - the AP students could utilize the devices in ways the less capable students could not dream of, but the AP students get ■■■■■■■■ because of some fairness doctrine that makes no logical sense. Hey, one set of kids is much smarter than the others and should be treated differently to respect their higher intelligence and to let them be the best they could be. Hopefully my point is clear now. </p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>I don’t think you are disagreeing here, at least in the abstract sense. Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of result; in an idealized sense, equality of opportunity will result in unequal results based purely on individual ability and motivation (not, for example, whether your parents were rich or poor).</p>

<p>What happens in a practical sense does not necessarily follow the idealized notion, nor it is possible to eliminate all inequality of opportunity. But that does not mean that we should ignore ways to remove limits on opportunities in low-opportunity areas.</p>

<p>Regarding the AP students and iPads, it is not necessarily a given that the AP students will necessarily benefit more than other students from the iPads; it depends on how they are to be used. In addition, if the AP students are mostly from higher SES families (as is common, due to lower K-8 opportunities available to low SES families in many school districts; in some cases, SES, racial, or ethnic background is often used as a factor to recommend lower placement even when the student appears to have the ability and motivation to take the more rigorous course options), then they may already be more likely to have tablets and computers at home than the other students. And it may be that the school has more cost effective places to spend money than any iPads.</p>

18

<p>@ubalumnus wrote: </p>

<ol>
<li><p>"…nor it is possible to eliminate all inequality of opportunity."</p></li>
<li><p>“it is not necessarily a given that the AP students will necessarily benefit more than other students from the iPads…”</p></li>
</ol>

<p>In overall theory, I do think we agree. However, what to do with the students and actual implementation, I sense we do differ.</p>

<p>With the first quote above, I am looking at it from the other side. I agree that initially there should be equality of opportunity, e.g., all kids should be able to read and do math etc. However, after a certain point where the differences in cognitive abilities are apparent, then I do advocate creating un-level fields and different opportunities, so that the higher level kids can reach their full potential too. They should not be held back in any way. The same effort to advance them at their higher levels should be made to help advance the lower cognitive kids at their level. I put it this way - equal advancement for all according to their cognitive abilities. That is what I consider fair to all students. Respect all students level of intelligence and adjust accordingly to advance them all. At some point, this requires inequality of opportunity because of different skill sets.</p>

<p>As for the second quote - sure it depends on how the iPads are used, but they never got to be used, so I really do not get the point. The reverse is equally true - the iPads could have been used and been absolutely great and useful, but the students and teachers will never know. </p>

<p>You mentioned SES, but I do not see where It matters at all the SES level of the kids. I am talking education of students. For students in a school, just because a student is in a higher SES does not mean that his education should not be as vigorously improved like anyone else’s, if the student has the cognitive ability. Again, I do believe in equal advancement for all according to their cognitive abilities - that is the fundamental mission of a school if it being fair to all students. </p>

<p>And yes, schools have to decide what to spend money on because it is limited, so that is not the issue that I see here. Economic decisions always have to be made. The issue here is the fundamental premise of why then how to spend the money. </p>

19

<p>I disagree. The new SAT seems to be a diluted version of the exam --easier vocabulary, mathematics, etc.–. I predict that it will narrow the gap between higher and lower-achieving students artificially, to the detriment of all students. The competition will increase considerably, and it is likely one will have to earn near-perfect or perfect scores in order to appear impressive to most colleges. I am very curious about the experimental sections, but from all of the descriptions and bits of information I have read, the new SAT is going to do the opposite of what it wishes to achieve (if one assumes that the SAT reform isn’t in response to the ACT).</p>

20

<p>

</p>

<p>The problem is, SES or other factors besides those reflecting student ability and motivation may be used inappropriately to track students into rigorous versus less rigorous tracks, rather than using only the student’s ability and motivation (and allowing late bloomers to move into the more rigorous tracks that they qualify for).</p>

<p>See the posts by perazziman in this thread:
<a href=“The Fallacy of "Fit" - #106 by ucbalumnus - Parents Forum - College Confidential Forums”>http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parents-forum/1553408-the-fallacy-of-fit-p8.html&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;