The New York City Department of Education is starting a new program to provide online SAT prep for all high school juniors in the city. Their stated purpose is to do something about the steadily falling average SAT scores in the city, and if they’re lucky, maybe they’ll have some success with that (though, to be honest, I’m doubtful). Even if they do manage to raise some test scores, in the long run, are they doing anyone any good? (Anyone besides whoever gets paid to design and run the program, of course).
I have to wonder why anyone should care about the SAT at all. The SAT mostly tests how good you are at taking the SAT, and the few actual skills it does test–the ability to pick out useless information from a boring passage, a few basic math concepts (e.g. the angles of a triangle add up to 180 degrees), a bizarre assortment of supposedly crucial vocabulary words, and a few incorrect “rules” of English grammar–are either so pointless or so basic that it should be a national embarrassment that we waste high school students’ time by making them take this test. Still, given how much influence the SAT has over the lives of soon-to-be college students, New York City can hardly be blamed for wanting to improve students test scores. In any event, it’s the colleges that need to come to their senses and realize the pointlessness of the SAT (though a critical mass of parents and students might do), not the public school districts.
Still, let’s leave aside both the absurd pointlessness of the SAT and the probable failure of New York’s plan and assume that they do succeed in raising the average SAT scores of their students. In fact, let’s go a step farther and imagine that not only all New York students, but all students get access to a program like this. Will this do anything to encourage equality? Or to make sure that the “best” students get to go to the “best” schools? Or to ensure success for everyone? NO!
- Test prep can only do so much. Though no one is sure exactly how the connection between socioeconomic status and test scores works, as far as I know, no one doubts that there is at least a correlation. That graphic comes straight from The College Board, the people who sell the SAT (made for them by ETS) and who spend a great deal of time insisting that the test is in no way biased towards high income kids. No one is sure exactly why this is the case–Smarter parents? More test prep? Better schools? Higher expectations? A test taking gene that allowed those parents to be successful in the first place?–but you can bet that it’s not all due to test prep, at least not test prep on the scale that New York is planning to provide. A few students who are both motivated and get hours and hours of $400-per-hour private tutoring might make spectacular gains in prep scores, but even students who take expensive test prep classes don’t go from a 300 to a 700 (I know. I teach these classes.). In other words, I have trouble believing that this amount of test prep is going to make that big a difference for the kids who are limited to it. And even if it does make a difference, parents who can afford it are still going to pay for more test prep for their kids. The more free test prep there is out there, the more test prep companies are going to try to convince rich parents that their high priced programs will lead to more score improvement than that schlock the city is providing–and they’re probably right. Whatever gains can be had from test prep, rich kids will get more. In other words, the average score might rise, but the distribution of scores won’t change.
- However much we might talk about success for everyone, the SAT is explicitly designed to make it impossible for everyone to be successful. It is designed to produce a normal distribution or scores with a mean of about 500 (though I think the mean for the verbal section is actually something like 508) and a standard deviation of 100. If too many students get too good at the test, the ETS will simply pull the same trick they pulled in the mid-90s in reverse: they’ll “recenter” the scores. That’s the great benefit of their goofy 200-800 point scaled scoring system. Since it doesn’t directly reflect how many problems the test-taker answered correctly, they can simply change the scale any time they want.
- I suppose they could run into trouble in the unlikely event that so many students got so good at the test that scoring on a curve turned into complete absurdity (miss one problem, you get a 750, miss two problems you get a 500). In that case, they’ll just rewrite the test with harder problems. They have to keep the normal distribution of scores or else their whole argument that the SAT provides a standard way of comparing students from different schools descends into pointlessness.
- Even if the ETS does nothing, if average scores rise, schools will simply raise their expectations for SAT scores.
Regardless, the SAT can never allow everyone to be successful, and no amount of test prep is going to make a serious dent in the pattern of who ends up on top and who ends up on the bottom. The solution? Throw out the SAT. Throw out homogenized universal education to a pathetically minimal standard. Focus on education to help every student reach their own best potential in every area of life, not just the three Rs.
[Edited to add: Disclaimer: I do occasionally teach classes for major test prep companies. I don’t intend this to represent their views, and I don’t intend to argue for their best interests. I’d happily sacrifice that income stream to see the death of standardized testing. Make of that what you will.]