[Vision2020] SAT Scores
Dale Courtney
dale@courtneys.us
Wed, 27 Aug 2003 13:01:57 -0700
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_00FC_01C36C9B.65ACF3F0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Visionaries,
Yesterday's Daily News carried a story that the national SAT
scores rose 6 points this year over 2002, with results on the verbal portion
of the exam showing the most significant gains in eight years. This article
is also available online at the Washington
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47512-2003Aug26?language=printer>
Post.
But there are two other issues to this otherwise cheerful story.
First, the types of questions asked in the SAT today are not the same as
in the past. They have been "dumbed-down" and the results "recentered." For
instance, the current SAT has had the following recent modifications made to
it:
* The scores have been "recentered" to make the mean score the
midpoint at 500 rather than accepting student performance wherever it should
fall.
* This big "recentering" came in 1996 when about 75 points were added
to the verbal and 25 points to the math.
* They then went back and recomputed the previous years' numbers and
made them comparable.
* Additional time has been provided to complete the math portion, and
calculators are now permitted (which just might have something to do with
modest increases over the years!).
* They have removed the challenging antonym sections.
* They have removed or changed questions that were thought to be
challenging to some students.
This means that the SAT of today is not nearly as challenging as the SAT
of the past. So the news is making an apples-to-oranges comparison at best.
The second issue is the cost for these SAT results. If we compare the
actual SAT results (ignoring the dumbing-down effect, which only exacerbates
the problem) to the spending per student in the USA, we find the following:
<http://courtneys.us/MSD/images/SAT.jpg>
Note: DPI is the SAT points per dollar of real per pupil expenditure.
The dollar figures are inflation-adjusted expenditures per student on
government education in constant FY 01 dollars.
Whereas the real cost to educate children in the government schools is
225% of what it was in 1967, the DPI has decreased (i.e., the "bang for the
buck" continues to decrease).
These same results <http://www.nber.org/digest/aug02/w8873.html> were
found by Caroline Hoxby, but she used NAEP scores instead of SAT scores, and
made some further adjustments. In a nutshell:
Hoxby examines the effect of choice on school productivity by looking at
three recent reforms that have introduced choice into areas that previously
had little: vouchers in Milwaukee, charter schools in Michigan, and charter
schools in Arizona. She looks at the productivity of public schools that
faced increased competition as a result of these reforms, not just at the
productivity of the voucher or charter schools themselves. For instance, she
compares the productivity of Milwaukee's public schools before and after the
voucher program provided competition. As a control group for these schools,
she uses urban public schools in Wisconsin that are located outside
Milwaukee (and are thus immune from voucher competition) but that serve
students similar to those of Milwaukee. She finds that Milwaukee's public
schools raised their productivity quickly and dramatically in response to
competition and that the Milwaukee schools that faced the most competition
raised their productivity the most. Productivity rose because the schools
achieved more while spending the same amount (as opposed to holding
achievement steady while reducing spending). In fact, in the Milwaukee
schools facing substantial competition, achievement rose by as much as 4.7
national percentile points faster per year than in control schools. Such
gains are virtually unprecedented for an American school reform. [emphasis
mine]
If the Left is really interested in educational results, then they must
first acknowledge that all of their methods of the past (e.g., throwing more
money at the problem) have failed -- and it will continue to fail. Only
school choice and competition will achieve the results that they say they
want.
Best,
Dale
------=_NextPart_000_00FC_01C36C9B.65ACF3F0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>SAT Scores</TITLE><BASE =
href=3Dhttp://courtneys.us/MSD/SAT.htm>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Language content=3Den-us>
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.2800.1226" name=3DGENERATOR>
<META content=3DFrontPage.Editor.Document name=3DProgId>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Dus-ascii"><!--mstheme--><LINK=20
href=3D"_themes/copy-of-shnarleys/copy1110.css" type=3Dtext/css =
rel=3Dstylesheet>
<META content=3D"copy-of-shnarleys 1110, default" name=3D"Microsoft =
Theme">
<META content=3D"tl, default" name=3D"Microsoft Border"></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D000205919-27082003>Visionaries,</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2><SPAN=20
class=3D000205919-27082003></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<TABLE dir=3Dltr cellSpacing=3D0 cellPadding=3D0 width=3D"100%" =
border=3D0>
<TBODY>
<TR>
<TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D"1%">
<P><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff size=3D2></FONT></P></TD>
<TD vAlign=3Dtop width=3D24></TD><!--msnavigation-->
<TD vAlign=3Dtop>
<P> Yesterday's Daily News carried a story that =
the=20
national SAT scores rose 6 points this year over 2002, with =
results on the=20
verbal portion of the exam showing the most significant gains in =
eight=20
years. This article is also available online at the <A=20
=
href=3D"http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A47512-2003Aug26?languag=
e=3Dprinter">Washington=20
Post</A>.</P>
<P> But there are two other issues to this =
otherwise=20
cheerful story.</P>
<P> First, the types of questions asked in the =
SAT today=20
are not the same as in the past. They have been "dumbed-down" and =
the=20
results "recentered." For instance, the current SAT has had =
the=20
following recent modifications made to it:</P>
<UL>
<LI>The scores have been "recentered" to make the mean score the =
midpoint at 500 rather than accepting student performance =
wherever it=20
should fall.
<UL>
<LI>This big "recentering" came in 1996 when about 75 points =
were=20
added to the verbal and 25 points to the math.=20
<LI>They then went back and recomputed the previous years' =
numbers and=20
made them comparable. </LI></UL>
<LI>Additional time has been provided to complete the math =
portion, and=20
calculators are now permitted (which just might have something =
to do=20
with modest increases over the years!).=20
<LI>They have removed the challenging antonym sections.=20
<LI>They have removed or changed questions that were thought to =
be=20
challenging to some students. </LI></UL>
<P> This means that the SAT of today is not =
nearly as=20
challenging as the SAT of the past. So the news is making an=20
apples-to-oranges comparison at best.</P>
<P> The second issue is the <U>cost</U> for =
these SAT=20
results. If we compare the <U>actual</U> SAT results (ignoring the =
dumbing-down effect, which only exacerbates the problem) to the =
spending=20
per student in the USA, we find the following:</P>
<P><IMG height=3D471 src=3D"images/SAT.jpg" width=3D751 =
border=3D0></P>
<P> Note: DPI is the <B>SAT points per dollar of =
real=20
per pupil expenditure</B>. The dollar figures are =
inflation-adjusted=20
expenditures per student on government education<B> </B>in =
constant FY 01=20
dollars.</P>
<P> Whereas the <U>real</U> cost to educate =
children in=20
the government schools is 225% of what it was in 1967, the DPI has =
<U>decreased</U> (i.e., the "bang for the buck" continues to =
decrease).=20
</P>
<P> These <A=20
href=3D"http://www.nber.org/digest/aug02/w8873.html">same =
results</A> were=20
found by Caroline Hoxby, but she used NAEP scores instead of SAT =
scores,=20
and made some further adjustments. In a nutshell: </P>
<BLOCKQUOTE>
<P>Hoxby examines <FONT color=3D#0000ff>the effect of choice on =
school=20
productivity</FONT> by looking at three recent reforms that have =
introduced <I>choice</I> into areas that previously had little: =
vouchers=20
in Milwaukee, charter schools in Michigan, and charter schools =
in=20
Arizona. She looks at the productivity of public schools that =
faced=20
increased <I>competition</I> as a result of these reforms, not =
just at=20
the productivity of the voucher or charter schools themselves. =
For=20
instance, she compares the productivity of Milwaukee's public =
schools=20
before and after the voucher program provided =
<I>competition</I>. As a=20
control group for these schools, she uses urban public schools =
in=20
Wisconsin that are located outside Milwaukee (and are thus =
immune from=20
voucher competition) but that serve students similar to those of =
Milwaukee. She finds that <FONT color=3D#0000ff>Milwaukee's =
public schools=20
raised their productivity quickly and dramatically in response =
to=20
competition and that the Milwaukee schools that faced the most=20
<I>competition</I> raised their productivity the most. =
Productivity rose=20
because the schools achieved more while spending the same amount =
</FONT>(as opposed to holding achievement steady while reducing=20
spending). In fact, in <FONT color=3D#0000ff>the Milwaukee =
schools facing=20
substantial <I>competition</I>, achievement rose by as much as =
4.7=20
national percentile points faster per year than in control =
schools. Such=20
gains are virtually unprecedented for an American school reform. =
</FONT>[emphasis mine]</P></BLOCKQUOTE>
<P> If the Left is <U>really</U> interested in=20
educational results, then they must first acknowledge that all of =
their=20
methods of the past (e.g., throwing more money at the problem) =
have failed=20
-- and it will continue to fail. Only school choice and =
competition will=20
achieve the results that they say they want. =
</P><!--msnavigation--></TD></TR><!--msnavigation--></TBODY></TABLE>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D000205919-27082003><FONT face=3DArial color=3D#0000ff =
size=3D2></FONT></SPAN> </DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D000205919-27082003><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Best,</FONT></SPAN></DIV>
<DIV><SPAN class=3D000205919-27082003><FONT face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Dale</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_00FC_01C36C9B.65ACF3F0--