SAT HISTORY AT A GLANCE1926 - Carl Brigham (test has always had cloud

of bias to this day)Princeton freshmanHS students thereafter1948 – Educational Testing Service (ETS)1952 – Verbal and Math sections 2006 - Writing section added

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)

SAT – A NORMATIVE TESTNorm 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)

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)

“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)

SAMPLE SIZESelf-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)

http://www.cpec.ca.gov/StudentData/50StateSATScores.asp

MORE STUDENTS TAKE THE SAT

1960’s - 33% take test1990’s - 40% 2010 - 47%

DEMOGRAPHICS MATTERTexas – 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. 80-100K

(9.7% and 1032)

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)

District Reading 2010 Math 2010 Writing 2010 TOTAL Per CapitaFree/Reduced Lunch %

(10-1-10)

2010

STATE 485 488 478 1451

Barrington 570 589 563 1722 44,467 4%

Bristol Warren 476 491 473 1440 31,238 33%

Burrillville 509 516 494 1519 26,972 34%

Central Falls 390 374 383 1147 15,094 81%

Chariho 502 514 500 1516 33,155 22%

Coventry 489 492 482 1463 29,599 26%

Cranston 491 493 485 1469 27,653 38%

Cumberland 520 514 509 1543 32,378 21%

East Greenwich 591 602 597 1790 49,703 6%

East Providence 467 477 458 1402 27,349 41%

Exeter-West Green. 536 522 530 1588 35,946 13%

Foster-Glocester 529 517 520 1566 32,050 15%

Johnston 447 451 448 1346 27,571 39%

Lincoln 525 522 520 1567 36,186 24%

Middletown 519 527 503 1549 32,848 25%

Narragansett 532 541 525 1598 34,575 16%

Newport 450 453 451 1354 35,816 59%

North Kingstown 531 535 524 1590 40,286 19%

North Providence 469 471 463 1403 27,793 33%

North Smithfield 518 527 510 1555 33,993 14%

Pawtucket 420 437 413 1270 21,957 75%

Portsmouth 518 530 518 1566 40,052 12%

Providence 408 406 400 1214 20,791 83%

Scituate 526 530 517 1573 31,314 14%

Smithfield 498 500 491 1489 30,018 13%

South Kingstown 546 553 535 1634 32,646 17%

Tiverton 490 490 486 1466 30,780 23%

Warwick 488 489 486 1463 30,648 31%

West Warwick 470 465 470 1405 26,570 43%

Westerly 495 502 484 1481 31,895 32%

Woonsocket 465 469 453 1387 20,846 63%

0.87304 -0.9119332

CUMBERLAND SAT2011 259 stu. 501(V) 502(M) 486(W) 2010 214 stu. 520(V) 514(M) 509(W) 2009 175 stu. 523(V) 517(M) 516(W)2008 212 stu. 500(V) 517(M) 501(W)

IF NOT SAT, THEN WHAT?

Overview of AssessmentClassroom Common District Level ExternalAssessments Assessments Assessments Assessments

Most Formative More Formative More Summative Most Summative

Daily Weekly Unit Monthly Semester Annual

Ongoing Collaboratively Identify Groups Ranks and BenchmarksStudent & Teacher Developed and of At-Risk StudentsAssessment 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

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

Published benchmarks on agreed upon standards and targetsFormative (pulse checks) assessments to track progress

CLIMBING THE MOUNTAIN