SAT - Still Absolutely Terrible

By baker on August 26th, 2008 at 4:42 pm

An interesting post here, Will. I tend to agree that Jim Rex shouldn’t be claiming credit for SAT gains at private schools.

On the other hand, what’s this from the Policy Council about a “sharp” decrease in public school SATs? A 4-point decline? That’s way less than a percentage point, isn’t it (I’m not great at math)? Didn’t FITSNews deride Jim Rex for bragging about a similar-sized INCREASE on the ACT?

A small decline in scores is big news around here. A small increase in scores is laughed off.

And, of course, those who are informed about these national college entrance tests know how dicey state-by-state comparisons are. It’s obviously not good for SC’s public schools to have lower scores than the year past — no matter how slight the change — and it’s not good to be at or near the bottom. Not even the staunchest public school advocate would say all things are great.

But the percentage of kids taking the test matters, and it’s a statistic that varies widely from one state to another. The type of students taking the test matters — is it just the clearly college-bound kids or is most everyone encouraged to give it a shot? Even from one high school to the next WITHIN our state, these issues can affect rankings.

Will has a point about Rex claiming credit for private school gains. And we all know that our dropout rate is too high. But the inconsistency here between the coverage of ACT increase vs. SAT decrease speaks to an obvious propaganda effort. Of course, it’s Will’s blog, so he can write what he wants.

By Red Bank Bar on August 26th, 2008 at 9:26 pm

The Policy Council has long been exposed as a street-walking group for rent to the highest bidder. Obviously, Howie Rich has bought himself an astroturf SC group.

By baker on August 26th, 2008 at 10:04 pm

Will —

1. I said exactly what I think about the numbers. I think my assessment is pretty clear….the SAT numbers aren’t reassuring, to say the least, but state-to-state comparisons regarding the SAT or ACT are extremely unscientific. Even trying to compare or rank high schools WITHIN our own state (which some people, including some in the “mainstream media,” tend to do) is riddled with problems based on the sample size and type of test-takers.

2. I am not an educrat. Maybe you weren’t referring to me….sorry if I misread.

3. No, gripes about FITSNews or the Policy Council or Howard Rich don’t change the facts. You’re right. But it has everything to do with the tone, strategy, and everything else involved with the discussion. You guys go on and on about the La Socialista and the big-bad biased MSM and whoever else. Just as you all note propaganda found in Jim Rex’s press releases, inconsistencies in the daily newspapers, and media editorials with which you disagree, I think it’s entirely proper to point out the squirrely rhetoric and propaganda coming from the other direction, too.

Again, a fraction of a percent is a “sharp decline”? A slight increase in ACT scores is to be brushed aside (actually, I pretty much agree with that), but a similar decrease in SAT scores demands a lot of noise? You know good and well there’s an underlying dishonesty at play.

So, Will, you’re right. The facts are the same, whether Jim Rex attemps to slant things using a taxpayer funded PR operation….whether Mark Sanford attempts to slant things using a taxpayer funded PR operation….whether Howard Rich pours millions into front groups and campaigns that employ dirty tactics and propaganda.

Indeed, wouldn’t it be great if we could set aside propaganda on both sides, slurs, terms like “educrats,” dishonest campaign tactics, intentionally inconsistent analysis and the rest — and actually have an intelligent conversation about what’s real and not real and what practical solutions might make a real difference in education?

Maybe public money going to private schools is one of those practical solutions worth discussing. I happen to think it doesn’t make a great deal of sense, especially when our governor touts a plan that guarantees nothing to the poorest kids in the state…..but that’s a debate worth having, as long as folks care to be honest about things.

By Draven on August 27th, 2008 at 6:11 am

Two surprises here:

1. That Rex would be dumb enough to trumpet the results that include private schools.
2. That anyone would be surprised that private schools fared better — and that anyone would have to spend time “analyzing” the data to figure that out.

Also interesting that Washington D.C., which gives vouchers, was 50th and Maine, which gives vouchers was 51st. Florida, which gives vouchers, was 46th. Arizona, which gives vouchers, was 28th.

By baker on August 27th, 2008 at 7:54 am

Vagabond — Your response to my post has little intelligent content to even grapple with. I suppose that’s rude on my part, but good grief…..

1. As I mentioned, I am not an “educrat.”

2. I noted that there is propaganda on both sides.

3. I noted that, indeed, the numbers are what they are….but I do not believe a 5-point decline is a “sharp decline.” So, yeah, I would label the Policy Council’s description as a bit of propaganda.

4. Again and again and again, SAT scores give us absolutely nothing scientific to go on. Well, one thing sensible people can probably agree on is that private schools with admission standards that weed out struggling students of course have higher scores. Beyond that, who knows? Did our sample size increase? Were more different kinds of students encouraged to take the test last year? That may mean that our schools actually did a better job of reaching students — but having a wider range of test-takers brought scores down (SLIGHTLY). Or, maybe our schools did a worse job last year, and these scores are indicative of that. It’s hard to tell much from only reading an average of the scores. In any case, “dealing with numbers,” in my opinion, ought to mean striving for a more meaningful analysis than what you apparently mean.

By BIN News on August 27th, 2008 at 6:41 pm

will, you are such a pimp!