Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If immigrants and their offspring who are taking the test lowered the average, I don't see that as a big problem in and of itself. It may explain why the average is lower, but I don't see why we need to have national pride in the average. In fact, I think it's a good thing if a wider pool of kids are taking the test and planning on going to college. Presumably those with lower scores will go to community colleges and other alternatives to a 4-year university.
What I do wonder about though is whether the lower scores have more to do with the over-abundance of media. Where I used to spend hours reading as a kid, because I had very little else to do, my 8th grade daughter is much more interested in watching Netflix, Youtube videos, Facebook, playing mindless games on her phone, etc. She basically only reads what she has to for school. I've told her that the lack of reading is going to affect her SAT scores later because she's not learning vocabulary, or reading complex sentence structures, etc., and sometimes I take away the electronics and make her read. But still, my first thought is that kids aren't scoring as high on reading because they're not reading for pleasure like they used to.
Good points! And if wasn't for three series of books (Harry Potter, Twilight and Hunger Games) the reading level would be even much lower. Many kids over the past 15 years have at least read these books, but have read very little of anything else including school textbooks.
Coming in with an average SAT reading score of 496, 2012's graduating seniors have the dubious distinction of having attained the worst reading score since 1972. Nearly half were minorities and about a quarter reported that English was not their first language. More than a quarter of public school test-takers — 27 percent — had family income low enough to qualify for a fee waiver. Another example of how immigration gone amok is affecting this country.
We spend more than any other country in the history of the world on education and this is what we get in return.
I'd be willing to bet you've never taught in an inner-city school. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if you've never set foot in an inner-city school.)
If you had, you would understand these teachers.
What appears to be inaccurate is the statement that you cannot compare test scores across years. It is actually designed so you can make comparisons from year to year. However, I agree with you that it would be difficult to make comparisons over a longer period of time because of testing changes.
I think the claim that the score is based on percentiles is also confusing. There are tests that are scored predominantly this way. They will give a score stating that your child scored in the 75 percentile, which means that your child scored better than 75% of the kids taking the test. The SAT is not quite scored that way. The hope is that 500 will be at 50%, but it is not always there. Therefore, they re-centered the scores in the 1990's, as I mentioned. They did this because the average score kept falling.
According to the news article, this past year the 50th percentile score for reading would be at 496, not a 500. A child who got a score of 500 would be above the 50th-percentile for that year. However, colleges are not likely to consider that since they are looking at the scale score and are not given a percentile rank.
I beg to differ. Colleges are very aware of the percentiles related to the various scores.
Look at it this way. Suppose John Doe takes the reading test in 2011 and James Doe takes it in 2012. Each test has the same number of questions, 67. Each boy gets 45 questions correct (To make it easier, ignore the deduction for wrong answers). Their raw scores are identical. In 2011, the average score for all test takers is exactly the same raw score that John Doe earned. His score is 500. In 2012, the average score for all takers is 40 questions correct. James did better than his peers and now has a score that is greater than 500. But the two students' performances on the two tests were identical. John's score is derived from his percentile rank compared to 2011 test takers and James' score is derived from 2012 test takers. The two scores do not tell you how John and James compared to each other, only how they compared to their peers taking the exams in their respective years.
The other thing to consider is that 500 and 496 are essentially the same score. For the SAT to show a clear difference in ability, the scores must differ by at least 60 points. See standard error of difference:
I beg to differ. Colleges are very aware of the percentiles related to the various scores.
Look at it this way. Suppose John Doe takes the reading test in 2011 and James Doe takes it in 2012. Each test has the same number of questions, 67. Each boy gets 45 questions correct (To make it easier, ignore the deduction for wrong answers). Their raw scores are identical. In 2011, the average score for all test takers is exactly the same raw score that John Doe earned. His score is 500. In 2012, the average score for all takers is 40 questions correct. James did better than his peers and now has a score that is greater than 500. But the two students' performances on the two tests were identical. John's score is derived from his percentile rank compared to 2011 test takers and James' score is derived from 2012 test takers. The two scores do not tell you how John and James compared to each other, only how they compared to their peers taking the exams in their respective years.
The other thing to consider is that 500 and 496 are essentially the same score. For the SAT to show a clear difference in ability, the scores must differ by at least 60 points. See standard error of difference:
According to what I am reading at the College Board, this is not correct. James' score would not be higher because he did better than his peers that year. They are not scoring the students based on how they did compared to other kids taking it the same year. This is why the scores are comparable across the years. Here is part of the quote I included before from the college board.
Quote:
Equating ensures that the different forms of the test or the level of ability of the students with whom you are tested do not affect your score.
Here is another quote from the College Board on the same issue:
Quote:
Equating also ensures that a student's score does not depend on how well others did on the same edition of the test.
I think the test would not be that fair if you got a lower score because you happen to have tougher "competition" one year over another. If they actually did do the scoring just based on percentiles, then it would be advantageous for high school students to have many struggling students take the test. It is easier to get a higher percentile rank if your "competition" is not that strong.
We spend more than any other country in the history of the world on education and this is what we get in return.
I don't think you can blame SAT scores on teachers, and certainly not reading scores. You pick up reading skills by ... reading and if kids are reading they're not going to do well on the test.
Good points! And if wasn't for three series of books (Harry Potter, Twilight and Hunger Games) the reading level would be even much lower. Many kids over the past 15 years have at least read these books, but have read very little of anything else including school textbooks.
So true. When I was a kid, we would have read a book like Twilight and we also would have read Wuthering Heights. Now kids are reading Twilight instead of Wuthering Heights. And I do think that is having a negative impact on their reading abilities. It's never been more important to encourage reading at home.
OTOH, kids these days are much more computer/technology savvy than many (most) adults.
Coming in with an average SAT reading score of 496, 2012's graduating seniors have the dubious distinction of having attained the worst reading score since 1972. Nearly half were minorities and about a quarter reported that English was not their first language. More than a quarter of public school test-takers — 27 percent — had family income low enough to qualify for a fee waiver. Another example of how immigration gone amok is affecting this country.
So, who are the immigrants to blame for this? The 25% for whom English was not their first language one presumes. Maybe some of the others....but the article gives no indication.
What this means is that the 75% native-born Americans weren't doing very well.
So true. When I was a kid, we would have read a book like Twilight and we also would have read Wuthering Heights. Now kids are reading Twilight instead of Wuthering Heights. And I do think that is having a negative impact on their reading abilities. It's never been more important to encourage reading at home.
OTOH, kids these days are much more computer/technology savvy than many (most) adults.
Finding appropriately challenging reading material for kids can be a struggle. Right now, I am sitting at the library trying to find fiction for my fifth grader, whose AR goal is a 7.2. It's not easy to find something at that level that will appeal to a middle-grader beyond Harry Potter and The Hobbit. There's Wind in the Willows, but try selling that to a 10-year-old boy! And he's not quite ready for Dickens or Shakespeare, so I'm losing my mind trying to find something relevant and engaging without turning him off to fiction completely.
Last edited by randomparent; 09-26-2012 at 04:28 PM..
Finding appropriately challenging reading material for kids can be a struggle. Right now, I am sitting at the library trying to find fiction for my fifth grader, whose AR goal is a 7.2. It's not easy to find something at that level that will appeal to a middle-grader beyond Harry Potter and The Hobbit. There's Wind in the Willows, but try selling that to a 10-year-old boy! And he's not quite ready for Dickens or Shakespeare, so I'm losing my mind trying to find something relevant and engaging without turning him off to fiction completely.
How's about Stephen King ?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
