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.
Does anyone know what happened with the published SAT scores for Pleasantville? This site: SAT Scores
publishes SAT scores for NY school districts. I know SAT scores aren't the end all be all, but I find them helpful to compare schools along with all the other data available too. When I originally looked up Pleasantville's SAT scores, they were 1876 - which seemed pretty high for a school that was not ranked by US News and World Report (as compared to other schools in the area with equally high SAT scores) but was ranked by Newseek at 118 (high).
I went to check the scores for a different district today, and noticed that Pleasantville High School's scores dropped to 1636. 1876 to 1636 is a pretty significant drop. Some other schools scores on the list have changed, and others have not.
Anyone know what is going on? Was the original score a typo? Is the drop real? That's a big drop. Thanks for the info.
Probably pretty accurate, but I wouldn't be too concerned.
Remember, it's a pretty small sample size. The stats you are citing, are from 2007 with 129 students taking the test.
I believe last year, the Pleasantville mean score was 1672. High School Report Card - Westchester Magazine - April 2009 - Westchester, NY
In 2005, under the old system, the score was 1190. (out of 1600).
In 2004, also under the old system, the score was 1172.
In 2003, 1135.
Some fluctuation is pretty normal. A handful of very good scores or very bad scores can affect the average quite a bit. If anything, the high score of 2006 seems to be a bit of an outlier, higher than most years. While the 1636, is more of the low end of typical scores.
I am continually boggled that anyone pays any attention to SAT scores as an indicator of schools. Schools do not teach to the SATS. SATS do not test what kids learn in schools. Kids do better on SATS when they take SAT prep courses and study a lot. It has nothing to do with their education. SAT scores will tell you about the town's affluence and the willingness of parents to spend money on SAT prep classes and to force their kids to study. But it tells you nothing at all about the quality of the teaching in the school or how well the school has taught it's curriculum.
I apologize for ranting, but as someone who develops curriculum programs and assessment measures for schools the focus on SAT scores on this board drives me nutty! So, my answer to the OP is: Don't worry about it.
Thanks Havoc - So the 1876 is the 2007 score and it is real - however, it seems the 2008 score of 1672 is closer to the norm. Thanks! a 200 point difference for 1 year is a significant difference.
Some schools actually do have SAT prep classes, but I still understand the point you are making dma.
And you are right, in the sense that the school district mean SAT score will not tell you which school has better second grade teachers, or even better high school chemistry teachers.
But they do point to the achievement of the academic body as a whole. This achievement is influenced by the quality of the school, as well as their upbringing (family affluence, genetic intelligence, etc, etc).
In terms of the question -- Do high SAT scores indicate a good school district? It's not a simple yes, but it's also not a simple no.
It really is a chicken/egg argument, as to which comes first.
If you take a bunch of extremely rich and accomplished families, and put them in a school with mediocre programs, they will still do pretty well on the SATs. That's true. And if you take a bunch of poor, struggling families, and give the kids an above-average education, they still usually won't do as well on the SATs as the wealthy families.
But remember, really good school districts attract residential demand. In other words, if schools are really good, then families will compete to buy houses in the school district, driving up the prices, and eventually -- only the affluent can afford to live in this exceptional school district.
Secondly, these affluent communities contribute a larger tax base, typically giving the school district more money to spend.
Finally, really affluent and accomplished families won't tolerate a bad school, to the degree poorer families might. I'm not suggesting that poor people don't care about education. Many poor people care a great degree. And there are rich people who don't care very much. But in the grand scheme of things, there are families that are rich BECAUSE they value education, and there are poor families who are poor, precisely because they don't care enough about education. Accordingly, in the rich community, there will be a great deal of pressure for the school to live up to expectations.
In the end, when you look at the SAT scores, you certainly are not looking at a crystal clear picture of the school room education. But you are getting a complex view that combines the quality of the school, the affluence of community, and the value that the community places on education.
And in this sense, a high SAT score can be used as an indicator of the prestige and reputation of the schools.
Havoc, You have intersting theories but all I can tell you that there is a large body of research as to which assessements are indicative of school quality and teacher quality and almost every single study has found that SAT scrores have zero indicative value. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The only thing that SAT scores have ever been shown to correlate to is how much time the student spent in SAT prep classes and studying for the tests. Which is directly tied to family SES. I do agree that SAT scores are an "indicator of the prestige and reputation of the schools," but that just tells you how many wealthy people have no comprehension of what makes a good education.
Havoc said it so well! SAT scores are just ONE of the criteria to look at when selecting a school for your family. How much weight you base on them is up to you and your specific kids. Not to look though, or take it inot consideration, is kind of silly.
A specific child's school acheivement is not only based on the school, it is also based on the child and their personality. Some kids will do well no matter where they are, some kids will learn to extend themselves a bit more when they are surrounded by other kids that are extending themselves more. My oldest is that child, so I'd prefer to be in an environment where the majority of the student body as well as the teachers are reaching for their personal best and the standard of achievement is high. Of course, a pressure cooker environment is not good either. So you have to find the balance that is right for your kids. SAT scores can help families make the best choices for them.
I totally and utterly disagree with the idea that schools with higher SAT scores are those in which "the majority of the student body as well as the teachers are reaching for their personal best and the standard of achievement is high." I don't see anything at all to support any connection between the two at all. First of all, schools have no impact on SAT scores (something which has been repeatedly shown by research). Second of all, any educational community that considers a high SAT score as an indication of a student's "personal best" has totally missed the very essence of providing an education.
Havoc, You have intersting theories but all I can tell you that there is a large body of research as to which assessements are indicative of school quality and teacher quality and almost every single study has found that SAT scrores have zero indicative value. Zero. Zilch. Nada. The only thing that SAT scores have ever been shown to correlate to is how much time the student spent in SAT prep classes and studying for the tests. Which is directly tied to family SES. I do agree that SAT scores are an "indicator of the prestige and reputation of the schools," but that just tells you how many wealthy people have no comprehension of what makes a good education.
It's been a while, but there was a time when I taught some SAT classes, as well as LSAT classes. And I assure you, the scores are about far more than taking prep classes. Prep classes can boost scores by a few points, but that's about it. I've seen students with nearly perfect scores, who never took a prep class, and other students with score in the bottom, even after months of hard studying.
If it was a simple matter of prep classes, then "poor" school districts could equal Scarsdale, Bronxville, Chappaqua, just by offering extensive free SAT prep classes. (I took such a course in high school. I took no private classes, just the prep course offered by my high school. not sure how many schools offer them nowadays).
If anything, the real argument is that SAT primarily measures innate intelligence, which has nothing to do with schooling. Although, it could equally be argued that intelligence is partially nature (genetic), but also partially nurture. And to the degree innate intelligence is affected by nurture, it would be affected by homelife, as well as 12+ years of schooling.
Now, in terms of wealthy people not knowing what makes a good education --- While you can certainly say there is too much focus on SAT scores, I think it would be naive to say that wealthy people (in overall generic terms) don't know what makes a good education. Many many wealthy people, became wealthy, precisely because they took advantage of educational opportunities, and because they do know what makes a good education.
I certainly believe if you took 2 babies with identical genetic intelligence, and put one in a family, community, and school district, that put a great emphasis on scholastic achievement ---
And you took the second baby, and put them in a family, community and school district where education was less valued.... I am pretty confident that the first child will do significantly better on their SAT then the second child, regardless of SAT prep classes.
I assume you will at least acknowledge that innate intelligence is the biggest contributor to SAT score? In which case, who can necessarily blame a parent for wanting their children to live in the "smartest" community?
Again, I totally disagree. The SAT doesn't measure schooling or innate intelligence. It measures abiltiy to remember some info for a short period of time and test-taking skills. And yes, any school could equal Scarsdale etc. if the students had equal access to test prep classes and materials and spent an equal amount of time studying for the tests.
I didn't say that wealthy people as a rule don't understand what makes a good education. I said the fact that so many wealthy people will spend extra money to send their kids to schools with high SAT scores shows how many of them do not understand what makes a good education. Other wealthy people will spend 35K per kid to send their kids to private schools that routinely get poor SAT scores but produce exceptional thinkers.
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.
