The College Board press release is at https://www.collegeboard.org/releases/2014/expand-opportunity-redesign-sat .

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/06/education/major-changes-in-sat-announced-by-college-board.html
Major Changes in SAT Announced by College Board
By TAMAR LEWIN
New York Times
MARCH 5, 2014

Saying its college admission exams do not focus enough on the important academic skills, the College Board announced on Wednesday a fundamental rethinking of the SAT, eliminating obligatory essays, ending the longstanding penalty for guessing wrong and cutting obscure vocabulary words.

David Coleman, president of the College Board, criticized his own test, the SAT and its main rival, the ACT, saying that both “have become disconnected from the work of our high schools.”

In addition, Mr. Coleman announced new programs to help low-income students, who will now be given fee waivers allowing them to apply to four colleges at no charge. And even before the new exam starts, the College Board, in partnership with Khan Academy, will offer free online practice problems from old tests and instructional videos showing how to solve them.

The changes coming to the exam are extensive: The SAT’s rarefied vocabulary words will be replaced by words that are common in college courses, such as “empirical” and “synthesis.” The math questions, now scattered widely across many topics, will focus more narrowly on linear equations, functions and proportional thinking. The use of a calculator will no longer be allowed on some of the math sections. The new exam will be available on paper and computer, and the scoring will revert to the old 1600 scale, with a top score of 800 on math and what will now be called “Evidence-Based Reading and Writing.” The optional essay will have a separate score.

...

Mr. Coleman, who came to the College Board in 2012, announced his plans to revise the SAT a year ago. He has spoken from the start about his dissatisfaction with the essay test added to the SAT in 2005, his desire to make the test mesh more closely with what students should be doing in high school, and his hopes of making a dent in the intense coaching and tutoring that give affluent students an advantage on the test and often turn junior year into a test-prep marathon.

“It is time for the College Board to say in a clearer voice that the culture and practice of costly test preparation that has arisen around admissions exams drives the perception of inequality and injustice in our country,” he said in a speech Wednesday in which he announced the changes. “It may not be our fault, but it is our problem.”

*************************************************

The group differences in SAT scores are also found in NAEP scores, which students are not directly preparing for. Differential access to test prep does not explain group differences in SAT scores. Coleman is effectively trying to reduce the g loading of the SAT, which used to stand for Scholastic Aptitude Test, but the g loading is the main reason it has predictive power for college grades in the first place.

Interesting article. American Mensa does not accept scores for SATs taken after Jan 1994 as qualifying, therefore it was my understanding that g was removed from SAT decades ago.

Still the changes seem analogous to removing "extended norms"... how might colleges distinguish among the best of the best when many are hitting the ceiling?

I respect what SAT desires to accomplish in terms of accessibility but am uncertain if this is the best way to go about it.

Great food for thought.

This is interesting. Will need to read more about this as it will directly affect DS15 (9th grade), and if we should have him take the SAT in the fall of 2015, his junior year AND the 'new' test in the spring. Wonder if it will affect the PSAT for that fall?

Is this in response to more schools complaining. I know adding the writing part was a direct result of the University of California system contemplating not requiring college testing at all.

One of the issues with the test, is that many many kids now get extensive test prep. I wonder how these changes will affect this. This test prep doesn't necessary make them better college students, but does make them better test takers. Colleges would like kids to do interesting things during their summer, but I know large groups spend their summer is SAT prep. (And these are the 'top' students.)

@ indigo — 

Reading comprehension is highly g-loaded (e.g. the WISC-IV comprehension subtest correlates with g at the 0.73 level http://alpha.fdu.edu/psychology/wisciv_gloadings.htm), and the SAT verbal section mostly tests reading comprehension.

Most of the math in the SAT math section consists of routine application of algorithms, but some of the items involve problem solving, and a lot of the items involve twists and turns such that it's easy to make errors without good working memory, and working memory correlates moderately with g (e.g. reverse digit span correlates at the ~0.5 level).

True, but SAT verbal questions aren't necessarily g-loaded. Many have no objectively right answers. This is why the directions tell you to choose the best answer, not the correct answer. They had to change to that phrase after many, many complaints about what was called the "correct" answer. The word "best" can't be debated and (IMO) got the College Board off the hook.

We've talked about this problem here before; I can't find the threads right now, but the upshot is generally that gifties tend to see nuances or overthink the answers and have trouble with the questions that don't have an objectively correct answer, while NT people tend not to have this problem.

I took the GRE before and after they removed the analogies. The analogies were a cakewalk for me: if I knew the vocabulary words, I knew the answer instantly and moved on. Then they substituted in questions that were more subjective. My score fell from solidly past the 99th percentile to 97th or 98th. It was the equivalent of a 40 point drop, I think. I had much more trouble with the new test: whereas I had finished the old one in time to check each answer, I only had time to check a portion of them on the new test. It was much more stressful because I couldn't figure out what some of the questions wanted. I remember thinking that some of the passages were relatively easy to understand, but the questions almost didn't make sense in context of the passage.

Oh boy. My favorite standardized test of all time was the GRE... the analytical portion. YAY!! I could have done those every weekend. Just for fun! {ahem} But apparently I was in a very tiny minority, judging from the cohort that I took the generals with-- they looked AWFULLY beat up after that section, and were consoling one another that most programs didn't look at your scores there.

Clearly they weren't STEM people, because au contraire... STEM programs LOVED that marker.

g-loaded? Oh, you bet they were.



Um...



why align with HIGH SCHOOL curriculum rather than what colleges would like students to know??

Oh, wait. I know!! I know this one!!

Coleman... Coleman... where have I heard that name before?


Oh, right. Here.

I don't know who College Board has been talking to in higher ed, but from what I hear (and see) from people I know, writing is one of the most profound skill gaps that faculty see in freshman who simply aren't ready for college level material.

I hardly see how rewriting the SAT is going to help that phenomenon by eliminating the (rather minimal, IMO) benchmark of a timed essay.

Nothing like members of the Elite who directly benefited from differentiated instruction (Stuyvesant is incredibly hard to get into - admissions are/were based on test scores) pulling the ladder up behind themselves under the smoke screen of making higher education more accessible.

@ Val — Thanks, these are interesting points.

@ kcab — Ok, I was misremembering. In any case, Arthur Jensen wrote http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Arthur_Jensen#The_g_factor:_The_science_of_mental_ability_.281998.29 "The most critical tool for scholastic learning beyond the primary grades— reading comprehension—is probably the most highly g-loaded attainment in the course of elementary education."

For my son it's too bad there aren't analogies in these tests anymore, my son really well with analogies. His GT Class from 4-8th grade competed in Word Masters, and he did very well with little effort. He really enjoyed them.

The SAT essay has been so deep in disrepute that it was unsalvageable - no surprise that that's going. Does sound suspiciously as though they want to make the maths easier and more routine, though.

After reading the details of the test, it starts to sound a whole lot more like the ACT. Particularly parts "Analyzing data and texts in real world context", and "Source documents originate from a wide range of academic disciplines, including science and social studies".

Could this be a reaction of the ACT taking a larger share of the testing market?

Doesn't sound like the essay is disappearing. Just becoming optional, like it is on the ACT. But many universities request the ACT with writing and might do that with the SAT. Thus 'optional' will depend on university.

Well, it seems so reasonable to think that the reading portion of the test would be g-loaded. But it's increasingly not (each successive iteration of the test seems to increase its penetration into the not category).

I agree with others about the essay being in disrepute and the grading being suboptimal. This blog post gives a wonderful summary of what's wrong with it. Here's an excerpt:

Related article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/09/magazine/the-story-behind-the-sat-overhaul.html
The Story Behind the SAT Overhaul
By TODD BALF
New York Times magazine
MARCH 6, 2014

...

A couple of weeks after his talk with Henderson, Coleman flew to Silicon Valley to discuss a partnership with Sal Khan. There was no discussion of financial terms, just an agreement in principle that they would join forces. (The College Board won’t pay Khan Academy.) They talked about a hypothetical test-prep experience in which students would log on to a personal dashboard, indicate that they wanted to prepare for the SAT and then work through a series of preliminary questions to demonstrate their initial skill level and identify the gaps in their knowledge. Khan said he could foresee a way to estimate the amount of time it would take to achieve certain benchmarks. “It might go something like, ‘O.K., we think you’ll be able to get to this level within the next month and this level within the next two months if you put in 30 minutes a day,’ ” he said. And he saw no reason the site couldn’t predict for anyone, anywhere the score he or she might hope to achieve with a commitment to a prescribed amount of work.

******************************************************

Some brilliant people believe that anyone could learn almost anything if they just put in enough effort, since this was true for them. It's not true for the general population.

Yes. The colleges looking for math talent may increasingly rely on scores in contests such as the AMC. The SAT is being revamped in part to reduce class and race score gaps (supposedly due to test prep), but how many "disadvantaged" students, relative to "privileged" ones, have *heard* of the AMC? In what kinds of schools is it offered? The SAT is a lightning rod, and if it is dumbed down for political reasons, selective colleges will look at a range of other metrics. This increases the complexity of the admissions process and benefits the children of Tiger Parents. So be it.

{sigh}

I fear that you're right, Bostonian.

Sadly, though, this makes it that much harder for HG+ students to find true peers in the end, though-- because the TigerParented bright-to-MG ones aren't *actual* peers. Only superficially so.

So yeah, I'm not elated by the notion that throwing away up to half of the actually HG+ cohort is "fine" in the name of getting more of the NT to pass at higher performance rates.

SATs no longer relevant? This guy doesn't understand averages and percentiles. Perhaps the percentiles corresponding to a certain scores will shift a bit, but the College Board always publishes the percentile charts.

Try telling my 10th grader who will take the SAT on Saturday that they are no longer relevant. If they aren't relevant, then why do 22% of kids who score 2300+ get into Princeton, but the overall admission rate is 8%?

Unless every kid gets the same score, no one can say that everyone does well on them.

I wish they would go back to the old SAT. It measures aptitude (more or less) and that differentiates it from the ACT.

I don't know why so many people think everyone should be "college ready". Why is the College Board so upset that only 43% are college ready? (I question if a 1550 is college ready, as that means when DD16 was in 7th grade, she was ready.) Try looking back about 50 years and see how many folks had college degrees - about 10%. College is supposed to be for higher learning, not to get a useless degree in something that ends in "Studies".

I think the everyone-must-go-to-college mania is a symptom of a larger problem, which the loss of good jobs for skilled people not holding degrees. We have a gap in this country, with a large pool of low-wage unskilled jobs on one end and high-wage highly-skilled jobs on the other. The middle section has been shrinking for a long time.

Even the unskilled jobs aren't what they used to be. A very large seller of clothing had a factory in a town where my family lived for a long time. For many years, the regular factory-floor employees did very well there. The company had a profit-sharing/retirement plan that put money into retirement accounts every month. The employees all earned living wages and retired well. None of that is true these days, and that same factory nickel and dimes its employees (but not the executives). The same is true for other factories in that town (the ones that are still there, anyway).

I think that a lot of people are just stuck. They can't get the jobs their parents or grandparents got 30 or 40 years ago, because those jobs either don't exist anymore or they pay lousy wages. The high schools are teaching less vocational ed., and employers expect people to come to work pre-trained. So they're really forced into college. It's awful.

A test that helps to level the playing field.

=Everyone must go to college, and we need a test that will get them the scores to get in.

Joy.

Because college is now high school.

Maybe there should be a pass/fail "ready for college" exam that has relevant curricular based limits on content. So many tests that report further out on a curve aren't normed at those levels and end up reporting perfectionism and test taking skills. For schools or programs interested in aptitudes, how bout a ramped up differntial aptitude test. For schools wanting specific knowledge depth, how about AP tests?

I like the sound of this, in principle.

Except that it's very expensive and there's still no guarantee that you won't end up working at Starbucks.

I hate that they are getting rid of "...the SAT’s rarefied vocabulary words". That part of the SAT rewarded lifetime readers. It was quite difficult to prep for the CR section in a short period of time because if it -- you either have it or you don't. My kids and I all did very, very well on that section with no prep because we are avid readers. Hate that they are dumbing it down...

But not all college bound kids TAKE AP Classes and not all High School even offer many AP classes. Particularly ones in poorer areas/districts. Are you saying the kids would NEED to take AP Classes to get into university. AP Classes are supposed to be "college level" classes. I don't want to debate the merits of AP Classes here, but they are administered by the same company that sells the SAT and are going through revisions and have problems of their own. I'm not sure they are any better indicator of college readiness than the SAT. What you are probably looking for is the SAT Subject test, and fewer and fewer school require those. Some schools like the UC System, now only require them if you are applying for programs like Engineering.

As for one test to show "ready for college", so who is going to make that test. Each college? And students are going to have to take multiple tests? At least that might stem the trend to applied to 15-20 colleges. In defense of a test like the ACT or SAT, different colleges expect different 'scores' and some look more carefully at sub scores. Grades alone without any standardized test have their own problem because there isn't one standard by witch all classes are graded even amount one high school.

I also disagree with the statement that 'college is high school'. This very much depends on what school. There are a whole range of universities & colleges in the US, with a huge variation is the level of their classwork. Many community colleges have many 'high school' level classes, and high schools have 'AP' classes. Thus making 'high school' and the first year of college a bit muddy. But I know very bright students who are at top ranked universities who worked extremely hard through high school, and now are often working harder than I certainly every did in college. This is really a topic that has previously been discussed on another tread, and I don't want to go into more here.

Back to the topic at hand. Not sure at all about these SAT changes will have to see more info. I don't think it's going to really change the SAT test prep situation. I don't like that my DS15 will be in on the first year of these new changes, and one of the guinea pig of the new test. And I do agree that these 'college' tests should test what colleges what to know, more than what high schools are teaching.

Sure subject tests, whatever. Something for schools or programs that want them. I hadn't heard of AP when I was in school, didn't realize it wasn't now ubiquitous.

The one test, seems to be where SAT is heading with the changes described.

eta: Reading a bit more, it seems that AP classes aren't required to take the exams.

All this nonsense just reinforces my inclination to have DD go to uni outside of this country. A country that still has institutions of higher learning in which academic merit, a solid work ethic and passion about ideas are still valued.

On the same, cheerful note:

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2014/03/07/us-data-show-2008-graduates-hit-hard-recession
Recession Hit 2008 Grads Hard
Inside Higher Education
March 7, 2014
By Andrea Watson

Americans who received bachelor's degrees in 2008 were roughly twice as likely to be unemployed after a year than were their peers who graduated in 1993 and 2000, the Education Department's National Center for Education Statistics said in a report Thursday. Mostly to blame, the researchers said: the recession.

...

When it comes to how much the graduates made annually one year out of college, the median annual salaries were much lower in 2009 than in 2001. For example, those in the humanities made $30,000 vs. $35,900.

**********************************************

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...ow-wage-jobs-displace-less-educated.html
College Grads Taking Low-Wage Jobs Displace Less Educated
By Katherine Peralta
Bloomberg Personal Finance
Mar 6, 2014 12:00 PM ET

Recent college graduates are ending up in more low-wage and part-time positions as it’s become harder to find education-level appropriate jobs, according to a January study by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York.

The share of Americans ages 22 to 27 with at least a bachelor’s degree in jobs that don’t require that level of education was 44 percent in 2012, up from 34 percent in 2001, the study found.

The recent rise in underemployment for college graduates represents a return to the levels of the early 1990s, according to the New York Fed study. The rate rose to 46 percent during the 1990-1991 recession, then declined during the economic expansion that followed as employers hired new graduates to keep pace with technological advances.

AMEN.

Because now, you see, all of the onus is on families/students to differentiate themselves from the hordes of coached 1600's which will follow.

Which is going to make the grooming/prepping frenzy even worse, I predict. {sigh}

Otherwise, what WILL institutions like Stanford, MIT, Harvard, etc. use to determine who is truly the best and brightest among candidates?

This isn't-- and has never really been about-- egalitarian ethos. I sure wish that K-12 education insiders and mover-shaker types would finally figure this out. No, not everyone is equally "able." Deal with it.

I suspect there's something else driving this overhaul other than the idea that they're responsible for fixing the prep craze. I mean, really? As long as there are parents there will be at least some test-prep.

Well, this will certainly fix some of THAT.

Because now colleges will be fully justified in going back to SES-loaded application line items, rather than the (previously) g-loaded standardized testing that was "so unfair" to so many merely average kids of higher SES.

Pretty sure that isn't going to make it so that more low-income students wind up at Ivies, though that may not really have been the point in the first place.

My prediction on the "what next" here is that we're probably at the event horizon for a national exit exam within the next ten years (naturally, offered by the College Board... I'd be AMAZED if this isn't part of long-range strategy, frankly, and if I were ACT, I'd be worried about market share with Coleman running CB right now given his ties to the DoEd and CCSS) and then more recentering once it becomes apparent that, well, high school students aren't doing so hot on it as a whole.

But I'm so very cynical about this at this point.

I loved the rarefied vocabulary words and, sad to say, thoroughly enjoyed taking both the SAT (7th grade and high school) and the GRE. I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't had a terrible cold when taking the high school SAT, but I digress.

I help students get used to what to expect for standardized exams (like the MCAT) as part of my job. I have always liked that the difficult words were something you couldn't just learn by studying a list; that doesn't convey the subtleties of meaning you learn by reading. I'm all for making sure that students know important, useful words (like synthesis), but I just don't see how removing those rarified words won't make it easier for students to be rewarded for test prep.

I often work with students who have a lot of ability but may be the first in their family to go to college and lack resources for all of the expensive test prep (which is why I help them, because it isn't actually my job and I don't get paid). I would love to see more opportunities for those who are disadvantaged by not having access to test prep or familiarity with the culture of applications, but I'm just not convinced from the descriptions I've read that these changes will accomplish that.

I am not a native speaker of English. Actually my native language has the longest distance from English linguistically. You all probably can take a guess. But I prepared GRE by memorizing a book of words. I got 96% in the verbal section and I am pretty sure I got all the reading question correctly.

Since I only came to the US for graduate school. I never took the SAT. But most of my friends who took the GRE with me found the math section laughably easy. It was hard for us to believe that any graduate program thinks that is an effective screening tool. Everybody got 800. I only got 790 and was laughed at. I did get 800 in the analytical section, which most people who prepared with me found it hard or harder.

I agree. I think the GRE math section is a joke. The SAT and ACT math sections, I thought, were somewhat challenging for my middle school son (who took SAT in 7th grade and ACT in 8th grade) because he has only taken a limited number of high school math courses, but he ended up scoring really high. This made me even more dismayed that the average score of college bound high-school graduates is so low. It really tells how weak the K-12 math education is.

Same goes for reading, actually. The dismal national average score of SAT and ACT really has no excuse.

I also agree with someone else earlier in this thread who mentioned the question "why should all kids be college ready?". I think the society cares too much about a diploma instead of what a person is really capable of doing. The high school curriculum, in my mind, is so watered-down these days, we are simply sending kids to college to learn a lot of the stuff that they should have learned in high school for free!

I'm a native speaker. I read a lot and have a large vocabulary as a result. On my first GRE practice run, I got a verbal score at the 97th or 98th percentile. Then I, too, learned a lot of words (wonder if we used the same book?) and my score went up to past the 99th. Honestly, I enjoyed doing that, and I've incorporated a lot of those words into my standard vocabulary (it helps that I have a friend who's a voracious reader and a daughter who wants to get to the national level of the spelling bee).

Thank you for sharing your lived experience and viewpoint that not being from the majority culture in the USA need not be an insurmountable hurdle to academic success. Many advocate for more access to world language courses, and learning of other cultures, in the USA.

You do not mention your major nor the major of the others who took GRE with you... suffice it to say, students may study many different areas, not everyone has an equally strong interest in or affinity for math... the world needs people with expertise in many areas. It is good to have a test which distinguishes the relative strength amongst students, including the best of the best (for example 790 vs 800), in any given area.

+1 (In fact, +2 )

I didn't prepare for the SAT or GRE. One thing that is sad is if people have to invest large amounts of time into preparation, even separate from whether it is unfair that some have the ability to do so and others don't.

In my post, though, I wasn't saying it was impossible to prepare. The reality is that many people do find it hard to score well. Otherwise the average scores would be much higher.

We may also be comparing different versions of exams. I know both the SAT and GRE have changed a lot since I took them (because I'm old). However, being able to take the SAT in seventh grade was a wonderful experience for me because it was the first time I felt like I had any sort of recognition for having academic ability. It is hard to see differences when everyone is doing the same grade level work and these out of level tests can be very useful.

I was a college professor in a big urban university befor emy current job. I am in a fairly quantitive field. I always said that I did not need my students to have had calculus in high school but they need to have had a solid background in algebra. Taking calculus as a freshman with a solid background in algebra won't set back the kids. But not solid on algebra is hard to remediate. Of course, none of this applies to a gifted child who is capable of an accelerated curriculum. I am just responding to what was said in the post I quoted.

I think that is why I hang out here even though my son is only 5. What I saw in my students scared me. I am trying to make sure that his education needs are served well. And I learn a lot from all of your experiences with your kids.

So true!! My husband's words are that, with validations that the kids get from outside activities, we can afford to ignore what the teachers have to say. My DS13 has had so much trouble at school for not paying attention in class, reading in class to the point that he couldn't hear the teachers, not participating in classroom discussions, forgetting to turn in homework--all because these activities were so much below his level that it was hard for a kid to play along day in and day out. A friend recommended that we let him take the SAT/ACT and said that the tests were a huge confidence booster for her kid who had the same issues at school. And it really worked for my son!

Bingo.

My DH and I have raised our 14yo with precisely those things in mind. We don't really care if she's a stellar high school student-- but more that she's actually prepared well for college (and what comes after), which (increasingly) seems to be "in spite of the efforts of the K-12 educational system as it now exists in this country."

This is the way it seems to have been intended, way back when these assessments began.

Some may feel sadder if this was not allowed... citing a broad array of reasons why they may need a feel to cram and "catch up" to make up for lost time.

Some may say that using a book (as mentioned by previous posters) is a method of test prep accessible to all?

The tests are meant to identify academic differences.

I would say students who speak mainly another language has to prepare. I learned English as a subject. But I did not learn Math in English. So I at least need to know how Math in English looks like to be on level playing field with the native speakers of English.

I think everyone can get higher scores by prep. But few people can get close to 2400 no matter how they prepped. At least that is how I felt when I took it 20 years ago.

According to the College Board report "SAT Benchmarks
Development of a College Readiness Benchmark and its
Relationship to Secondary and Postsecondary School Performance"
https://research.collegeboard.org/s...ness-benchmark-secondary-performance.pdf

in 43% of the 2010 cohort were "ready". Even if the same fraction of all groups were ready, the higher earnings and other favorable outcomes of college graduates would motivate policymakers to raise this fraction. (I don't think it's possible, because of the IQ distribution without further degrading the BA.)

There is a further problem. According to the report, only 15% of blacks and 24% of Hispanics, vs. 53% of whites were ready. Only 15% of the children of non-high-school gradates were ready, compared to 52% and 68% of the children of parents with bachelors's and graduate degrees. It is very politically incorrect to assert that that these groups differences reflect real differences in ability that cannot be bridged. It's easier to talk about the malign influence of test prep and promise to create a new test impervious to test prep and producing much smaller gaps, while still predicting college grades. Actually making such a test will be more difficult.

From what I can gather and infer, the SAT was originally not a test of knowledge as much as aptitude for learning.

This was needed to truly level the playing field so that people from the best prep schools would be on an even footing with those that had been taught in one room rural schoolhouses.

The facts that the people sitting the test had retained from their education were less important than being able to demonstrate that they were 'teachable' and that they had an innate ability to reason. The SAT at that time was a good proxy for 'g'.

Over the first 3 decades of its widespread use it had a tremendous meritocratic effect on American society and many returning servicemen were able to take advantage of the GI bills and rise from poverty blighted circumstances to being affluent and respected members of the professional class.

There was one fatal flaw; it was too fair - could not be prepped for. Worse yet, people that weren't very clever - from the affluent to the poorest - were not making the cut.

So from 1974 onwards the SAT has been steadily dumbed down. Dumbing it down allowed it to be prepped for and prepping costs money. What started off as a paragon of fairness was twisted into the mess that we have today. A test that allows affluent parents to have their offspring coached into getting perfect scores while children from disadvantaged schools are left far behind.

The SAT does need changing - changing back to being more 'g' loaded not less.

{raises hand}

Um-- I'm a person who believes that those values don't reflect a real ability gap. (Referring to Bostonian's post above)

With that said, however, such measures are profoundly stupid from my perspective as a taxpayer because they are ineffective.

Ill-prepared students do NOT graduate from college. If they do, they graduate with degrees that leave them relatively ill-prepared for the workplace.

Ergo, I do not want my tax dollars subsidizing college education (a somewhat scarce resource) for anyone that isn't LIKELY to make good use of that subsidization. It's a subtle distinction, but rather like the difference between "investment" and "gambling."



It's too little too late when we're talking about high school students who are demonstrably 2-6 years BEHIND their well-prepared peers. Even a reasonably bright student is going to have difficulty cramming 8 years of study into the next four, yet we seem to be operating under the delusion that remediation can, in point of fact, "bring them up to where they should be" once they are ENROLLED in college.

That's not a racial issue, but it is a question of "advantage/disadvantage" that also happens to break along SES and racial lines.

I'm frankly indignant that the only "solution" to this pervasive problem seems to be to hit the accelerator on the train, now that we've noticed that the brakes have failed and we're running out of track. Rather crazy to think this is going anywhere good, IMO.

Soon we will have to ! We came here for Higher institutions, great idea, great research...and I feel last 8 years the decline has been rapid with the push for equality at the cost of robbing the fruits of labor of handwork, intelligence and sacrifice...
By lower academic standards , you are making this country great ??? Alas !
Equality is Noble but for that you must enforce Equality in hard work and sacrifice (financial , emotional, social)

It just breaks my heart that now children who want to work hard and be smart/gifted...are no longer going to be rewarded !! I really thought that this administration knew better than to completely derail this country !

I refuse to lower the Bar for My kids - because we want to learn More and they are capable of learning more ! They value Knowledge more than the material bounties!

I have no problems with making the preparation for ACT/ Sat etc available for underprivileged kids ! That is leveling the playing field, don't lower the standards.

I am surprised that all this is going on unopposed !

This is my understanding as well.

Meanwhile CBS late-night TV comedian David Letterman did a brief faux news announcement, giving the top ten questions on the easier SAT.

Going on unopposed? The College Board is a FOR PROFIT Corporation. It is not a government agency. It can decided to do whatever it thinks will make it the most profit. It might think it's better business decision to market more towards the average student. We don't have to like it. We don't have to use their product. There is the ACT and there are institutions that will admit students without testing.

I'm confused you say you "feel" there has been a decline in higher education in the US for the past 8 years. Can you be more quantitative? What specific makes you think that US Higher Institutions have been going downhill?

As to colleges setting basic standards, many schools already set their own minimum standards. For example Cal State Schools (Long Beach State, San Jose State, etc) have a new requirements (the past 3-4 years) that everyone who enters the university have minimum math & writing skills. One does not NEED to take the SAT/ACT to get in IF ones grades are good enough. But one needs to demonstrate by passing a system wide math & writing test to enroll You can be exempted from taking the test with high enough SAT, ACT, or AP test scores. These tests aren't necessary for admission, but if a student doesn't pass them they must pass Remedial class before they enroll. And these classes no longer count towards graduation.

It is officially a non-profit, with it's 2011-2012 ANNUAL PHILANTHROPIC STEWARDSHIP REPORT http://media.collegeboard.com/homeOrg/content/pdf/Annual-Philanthropic-Stewardship-Report.pdf stating

"The College Board is a 501(c) (3) not-for-profit membership organization committed to excellence and equity in education."

Coleman believes that revamping the SAT and making preparation free on Khan Academy will increase equity.

OK your right.. I'm wrong. I should have know that since I have family friends who used to work for the company. I'm just reacting to the implication that it's some sort of government test.

On some level, though it may as well be a mandatory thing. This is particularly the case for kids like ours, who probably aren't on the side of things that is considering "minimum standards" for admission to second and third tier institutions as college students.

For the group that is elite college material, this move makes it HARDER to gain acceptance if you're lower SES, not easier.

Because it removes the g-loading to such a degree that now other things are going to be used as proxies since this will not longer have the same discriminating power. The only question is-- what KINDS of "other things" will this mean?

My suspicion is that this is going to mean an increased frenzy (already substantial in many areas) on EC's and competitions. Which of course leaves out kids who are disadvantaged geographically, economically, or by disability/temperment are not well-suited to those activities. My daughter would likely be among them, fwiw.

N'est pas?

I understand and I am not pleased about the changes. This could directly affect DS15 who might have a harder time gaining acceptance with the changes in this test. I had been counting on SAT testing as being a huge help for him. But my older daughter is one of those kids who has been on the "minimum standards" line and have seen the other side of this coin.

Does anyone know how this will affect the PSAT?

My understanding is that the Class of 2017 will take the PSAT based on the new format, as this class will be the first to take the new SAT.

This provides great food for thought. "They value Knowledge more than material bounties!" especially resonated with me.

Do other readers here take the opportunity to read the Davidson Institute Tweets (in the right-hand column, underneath Recent Posts)? Have others read the blog article at the recently tweeted link: http://giftedexchange.blogspot.com/2014/03/the-perfect-score-or-not.html? A comment there discusses coaching for SAT and ends with "There are documented racial differences in scores not because of aptitude but because of the cultural differences in examples used. If you've never seen a gazebo, it is going to throw you for a loop when it's used as an example in a question." While this would not apply to the math section of the exam, some may question what cultural difference, advantage, or bias exists related to "gazebo" as a vocabulary word?

Previous posters have mentioned the benefits of becoming familiar with rarified words by being well-read; books are available to all through our country's free public library system. Is it possible that more test-takers become familiar with gazebos through reading the word and looking it up, than through seeing a gazebo?

Wikipedia describes gazebos as being in public parks. Is it possible that test-takers have seen gazebos but not learned the word for them?

Ultimately our task may not be to oppose something so much as it may be to encourage conversation and sharing of many ideas with all who wish to learn... boosting a sense of confidence, a sense of internal locus of control, and a sense of dignity in saying, "I do not know. Will you tell me?." Or better yet, when seeing a child doodling, upon asking what they are drawing, and hearing "nothing...", maybe take the time to name the things you see in their sketches as they just may be drawing "nothing..." for a reason. Some children may enjoy drawing something that they've seen and would like to know the word for.

The same principles hold true for other vocabulary words.

Just for fun, in wordcount gazebo is the word ranked 42,689; rarified is not loaded into the wordcount database.

To repeat: college is the new high school. It's a certification process resulting from huge changes in our society in recent decades, most notably the loss of skilled and semi-skilled jobs that paid good wages. Young people are told in no uncertain terms that they need to go to college if they want to get decent jobs. Making matters worse, these days, "college" includes training that used to be available for free in high schools (e.g voc-ed) or at very low cost through local organizations (e.g paramedic certification; around here, you have to go to a community college now for that, and it's expensive. It used to be a Red Cross-run thing). Plus a lot of jobs requiring a BA these days didn't used to.

This means that a lot of kids MUST go to college. As a group, college freshmen today probably aren't as smart or well-prepared as college freshmen were in 1964. But kids in 1964 could mostly go get jobs on the strength of what they'd learned in high school. That's changed. Kids today don't have the luxury of debating ideas like the relative height of the bar or whether or not SAT words are too arcane. They need to get jobs and they need to pay bills, soon. The SAT blocks some of them because they score too low for admittance to some programs or their scores say that they aren't "college ready." This means that from many perspectives, they're being denied the ability to earn a living wage.

Yes, I know that this entire situation is insane. But it exists. IMO, this problem has very little to do with actual education as classically defined. For most students, college is about certification now. Even at elite schools (the certification is just different).

Agreed. And yet, in the midst of this economy of seemingly too few jobs, reminiscent of a game of musical chairs, while some may see the country's burgeoning debt crushing the middle class, others may say the "haves" are pulling up the ladder behind them, leaving the "have nots" without a way up.

We may have a chicken-or-egg situation: While some people call giftedness "elitist" and many suffer wrongly for that... some gifted people, when slighted, defensively refer to those who do not understand as "ignorant" and many suffer wrongly for that, as well.

Enmity creeps in.

Organizations cash in.

Not sure if this was posted yet; http://education.penelopetrunk.com/2014/03/06/what-new-sat-reforms-mean-for-the-future-of-education/

This lady is more than a bit, er, 'bold'...un-schooler and so forth. But she does a good job of turning things upside down to examine them, and occasionally hits a nail on the head, too.

I don't agree with anything that she says except for the goat barn barn being a great place for college prep (the cow barn would probably be even better).

Here's an interesting one -- I don't think it's gotten in here yet.

http://www.mindingthecampus.com/originals/2014/03/the_sat_upgrade_is_a_big_mista.html

Well, I agree with some of what he wrote and like the inclusion of the College Board's own material as evidence that he changes are politically motivated. But he goes overboard on dumping on the Common Core:


Hmm. One, algebra in 9th grade meals precalc in 12th, which sets students up for calculus as college freshmen. So that statement seems to be a blatant attempt to distort and mislead. Two, personally, I think that leaving calculus until college is a good thing, given the generally low quality of high school calculus courses these days. If this isn't dumbing down, I don't know what is.

Three, a major point of the CC math standards is that acceleration-itis is dumbing down the curriculum by virtue of equating rigor with taking it sooner (e.g. algebra for all in 8th grade). Most students aren't capable, so the solution seems to have been to water down the courses.

IMO, for a large majority of students, the new sequence will be beneficial (if the textbook manufacturers can do their jobs, and that's a big IF). For gifted students, the solution is to let them move through high-quality CC material at a faster rate. It's not the CC's fault if the schools don't do that. The standards themselves and how they're implemented are two very different things.

I tend to a agree with Val.

I think that a large part of the problem is the mentality that EVERYONE can take AP classes which itself stems from the unpalatability of tracking these days.

Having to move at the pace of the slowest means that something has to give - either rigor or the amount of curriculum that gets covered (as we cannot keep kids in high school forever) and given those choices I would choose rigor as the one to keep.

It is basically a version of the old project management conundrum of optimizing the three classic constraints of Time, Cost and Quality. To get things done in the real World more of one automatically means less of the others.

From the essay:

From a College Board site https://lp.collegeboard.org/all-in/educators for school administrators:
The AP Potential online tool projects a student's chance of earning a 3 or higher on an AP exam from his or her PSAT score.
Maybe students who score well on the PSAT math should be encouraged to take AP Calculus, but it should still be their choice. The College Board, in encouraging principals to push only qualified students of some races to take AP courses, is advocating discriminatory behavior that is both illegal and racist.

This post from the Marginal Revolution blog supports the assertions above.

http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2014/03/the-sat-test-prep-income-and-race.html
The SAT, Test Prep, Income and Race
by Alex Tabarrok on March 11, 2014 at 7:25 am

Thank you for sharing this link which contains interesting information both within the article text and the chart titled "A Test of Knowledge or Income?" Colleges and universities may be highly interested in an internally motivated student whose SAT score exceeded scores projected (by his/her family's income range) by >500 points, at age 14? Test prep, as I understand it, was limited to the free online sample test questions provided on the SAT website.

The purpose of this post is not to extoll the virtues of the SAT, but rather to share anecdotal evidence which runs counter to the chart summary: income isn't destiny. Even without the SAT this student was similarly distinguished by interests pursued due to a sense of internal locus of control.

I agree with encouragement of all pupils as well as the right of each pupil to own their decision and make it work, whether they may choose to take one or more AP courses or forego them. Students benefit from developing internal locus of control.

With regard to "ensuring that 100 percent..." some may say this type of influence upon a student's decision-making, if it is to be exercised at all, is best left to parents. Having an outside entity insert itself into the process may be overstepping. Do parents feel sufficiently out of the loop that they are willing to step aside from advising their children and welcome institutions to do this?

Targeting specific ethnicities blatantly treats people not as individuals but as demographic statistics.

Dumbing down is often done through subterfuge (warning: obscure word alert), but here it is blatant. Are college students never going to encounter "obscure vocabulary words" in their reading?

ETA: good discussion by Steve Sailer, with links to other news coverage at "New, probably not improved SAT questions"
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/04/new-probably-not-improved-sat-questions.html .

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/16/education/revised-sat-wont-include-obscure-vocabulary-words.html
Revised SAT Won’t Include Obscure Vocabulary Words
By TAMAR LEWIN
New York Times
APRIL 16, 2014

The College Board on Wednesday will release many details of its revised SAT, including sample questions and explanations of the research, goals and specifications behind them.

“We are committed to a clear and open SAT, and today is the first step in that commitment,” said Cyndie Schmeiser, the College Board’s chief of assessment, in a conference call on Monday, previewing the changes to be introduced in the spring of 2016.

She said the 211-page test specifications and supporting materials being shared publicly include “everything a student needs to know to walk into that test and not be surprised.”

One big change is in the vocabulary questions, which will no longer include obscure words. Instead, the focus will be on what the College Board calls “high utility” words that appear in many contexts, in many disciplines — often with shifting meanings — and they will be tested in context. For example, a question based on a passage about an artist who “vacated” from a tradition of landscape painting, asks whether it would be better to substitute the word “evacuated,” “departed” or “retired,” or to leave the sentence unchanged. (The right answer is “departed.”)

...

Unfortunately, college students actually may not encounter "obscure vocabulary words", as some believe that college/university studies may be required to move down a bit to meet students who've completed common core standards.

For example, it has been indicated that for students who completed common core, college/university cannot administer placement tests and require non-credit remediation courses. This may be to the detriment of any students who "squeaked by".

Similarly, the common core ELA standards prescribe one half reading material be instructional text and only one half of reading material be literature (often excerpts or passages, not entire works). This standard is sure to lower vocabulary considered "college prep"... indicating that college/university courses may need to be less rigorous in their vocabulary expectations in order to provide access to new high school graduates under the common core.

A defense of the current SAT:

http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...al_intelligence_predicts_school_and.html
Yes, IQ Really Matters: Critics of the SAT and other standardized testing are disregarding the data.
By David Z. Hambrick and Christopher Chabris
Slate
APRIL 14 2014 11:54 PM

The College Board—the standardized testing behemoth that develops and administers the SAT and other tests—has redesigned its flagship product again. Beginning in spring 2016, the writing section will be optional, the reading section will no longer test “obscure” vocabulary words, and the math section will put more emphasis on solving problems with real-world relevance. Overall, as the College Board explains on its website, “The redesigned SAT will more closely reflect the real work of college and career, where a flexible command of evidence—whether found in text or graphic [sic]—is more important than ever.”

A number of pressures may be behind this redesign. Perhaps it’s competition from the ACT, or fear that unless the SAT is made to seem more relevant, more colleges will go the way of Wake Forest, Brandeis, and Sarah Lawrence and join the “test optional admissions movement,” which already boasts several hundred members. Or maybe it’s the wave of bad press that standardized testing, in general, has received over the past few years.

Critics of standardized testing are grabbing this opportunity to take their best shot at the SAT. They make two main arguments. The first is simply that a person’s SAT score is essentially meaningless—that it says nothing about whether that person will go on to succeed in college.

...

Where did you see that? That is a scary thought.

This brings to mind the use of the word "schooling" in a recent post. While schooling can be compared/contrasted with education, schooling can also be compared/contrasted with shoaling.

The terms education and shoaling both indicate a level of autonomy or independent thinking as contrasted with schooling's uniformity.

And what I find disturbing about this kind of testing is that under the right set of circumstances-- or in the right writing context, a surprising word choice which is still correct in the technical sense serves a different purpose entirely, and that kind of metacognitive skill (or its capacity, even) is ignored by this kind of testing.

It's driven my DD nearly mad over the years spent with people of this mindset (new SAT/SmarterBalanced, etc) writing assessment items.

There's a reason that she loved the ACT (well-- okay, but it was a relief because it seemed to make sense) and found the entire mindset behind the SAT to be a cipher. Ahem. And yes, that is the word that I want there.

Questions like that don't HAVE actual "right/wrong" answers half the time-- they have "expected" answers. Shame on College Board for not understanding the difference. Such questions are not in fact very good candidates for multiple choice assessment in the first place, in my estimation.



As for colleges being "less rigorous" because they CAN'T expect more than the students have been exposed to, well, I seriously can't see how that is anything but inflammatory rhetoric at this point. Yes, they want students in seats, but administrators simply don't control what individual faculty do, nor what external accrediting agencies will tolerate. Ultimately, higher ed HAS mostly ignored the erosion of secondary education in terms of adjusting standards. Oh, they may offer more remedial coursework-- but think about it-- that remedial coursework is cheap to teach and brings in even MORE tuition $$. It's unclear who "they" is that would "prevent" colleges from establishing their own standards for coursework or majors. The vocabulary in primary sources and ground-breaking historical works isn't getting any easier to read just because we'd wish it so, and passing boards is still as difficult as it's ever been, ergo preparation in professional programs is not going to "adjust" for ill-prepared students-- it'll just chew them up and spit them out again after collecting some tuition money from them. Honestly, this is just more bad news for middle class families since it makes it (IMO) less likely that they can successfully pursue the some fields.

I expect this is going after are pre-university courses like exist at the CA State Universities. When you enter Cal State you need to demonstrate a minimum level of math & writing skills. You can do this with certain grades on the SAT/ACT, AP Tests, or their own placement tests that can be taken while still in H.S. You can be admitted to the various campuses without passing these courses, but you can not start taking regular classes until you have taken and passed remedial coursework. Math and/or a writing class taught over the summer. This coursework does not count towards your degree and does cost money. My guess the above is trying to suggest that if you pass Common Core Algebra II it is the equivalent of passing the math test. Algebra II proficiency is what these tests look for now so I assume that is the equivalent course one would need to pass.

Problem with that is assuming the same quality over all Algebra II classes throughout the U.S. is going to be quite a challenge. How is that going to be implemented, require passing a standardized test? Isn't that just pushing the pea around the pod.

Heard of this being in the original RFPs for grant writing for Race to the Top. Milgram speaks of it in the documentary created by Homeschool Legal Defense Association (HSLDA) here at about 18:40 - 19:28.

That is also my understanding.

Agreed! Consider this statement "… It is a shift about standards, it’s a shift about assessment because it means they will be equally measured, and it’s finally a shift about curriculum" at 3:33 – 3:38 in the documentary video. This seems to indicate that the quality across classes may be standardized by a shift in curriculum to that which seems correlated to the best assessment scores.

I think we need a source for the statement on common core and pre-test placement in sub-100 level remedial courses before we debate on that too much. "It has been indicated" obscures the source, and often indicates an appeal to authority fallacy. This may be much ado about nothing.

However...

It's worth stating that the use of sub-100 remedial courses is highly correlated with failure to attain a degree, so anything that reduces the use of such courses is a good thing. Realistically, they should not be needed by recent high school graduates, who should be graduating fully prepared for college. The fact that they're largely not prepared has been left as a problem for the colleges to solve, and the expansion of sub-100 courses is one of their very few options (rejecting applicants being another).

So, IF curriculum standards are designed such that certain courses aligned to them adequately prepare students for college, AND the grades earned in those classes reflect the level of success for the individual students in attaining that preparation, THEN it follows that for such students who completed such courses with sufficient grades, no pre-screening or remedial course placement should be necessary.

Some sources are more or less biased than others, as well. Just noting. I'm not seeing that College Board has alluded to anything of the sort on the credentialling front. It's not that they wouldn't, either-- they clearly DO just that with AP and CLEP, after all, and to a lesser extent, this is how they market subject tests.

Indeed, HK. I'm familiar with the writing placement exam for the UC system, since my local UC administered their test to all AP English students in their junior year of high school, as a practice. So I looked it up and saw that, yes, that's still a thing, though it's waived if you get a high enough score on the right sections of the SAT or ACT, or a passing grade on the AP English test.

Whether you take the UC test or not, you're still being assessed.

American society is committed to the idea that almost everyone should graduate from high school, including people with IQs in the 80s and 90s, who are just as numerous as the people with IQs in the 100s and 110s. You can give someone with a 90 IQ a high school diploma, but you cannot make him "fully prepared for college", unless you remove serious intellectual demands from college work.

On the other hand... for some, such phrases may refer to things which have become common knowledge, frequently discussed in some circles, and no longer needing a source. On a separate note: friend-of-a-friend eyewitness sources may be considered credible by those who know them, and making light reference to them here is not intended to subject individuals to scrutiny as this is not a court of law, but a forum of individuals with different knowledge bases.

Those seeking a primary source document rather than anecdotes may wish to file an open records request with their state department of education or public university for all documents related to Race to the Top, including RFPs.

When one offers research, some may want anecdotes... when one offers anecdotes, some may want primary source documents. C'est la vie. I do not feel the need to persuade or convince. In raising awareness that such ideas are part of the national discourse on common core, each person may respectfully follow his/her own inclinations and leanings.

Not all colleges are equally selective. Jason Zimba states the standards are “not for selective colleges” (20:49-21:24) in the video.

Keep in mind the term 'college' in the U.S. means vastly different things. Both research Universities and community college and many schools in between are considered college. There are vastly different expectations for getting into these schools. Part of the problem is we have turned what used to be vocational school into 2 year AA degrees at colleges.

The level to graduate from H.S. is really very low. In CA the "exit" exam is given to sophomores and only requires a freshman level or math & reading. And the students are required to pass 4 years of English, but it doesn't need to be college "prep". Most universities I know require a higher level of math & writing/reading. A H.S. diploma does not mean one is ready for university.

Agreed.

The fact that this attitude is now pervasive at College Board is perfectly odious. (Oh there I go again, using one of those words....)

Exactly, and it's not up to College Board to determine what the Board of Regents decides that it will accept as proof, either.

If the SAT proves unworthy as a tool, UC will simply ignore it and require everyone to sit the UC exam, which is what happened back when there was no essay.

Not relevant, because I said, "certain courses."

If completing Algebra II is the generally accepted math benchmark for college readiness, then college-bound students should complete at least Algebra II. I've never seen Algebra II as a requirement to get a high school diploma.

Ahhh-- maybe not SPECIFICALLY, no-- but in my state, at least, there are two requirements in mathematics which are a de facto requirement there.

1. All students must complete Geometry-- 1 yr

2. All students must complete one year of algebra.

3. Three years of mathematics at/beyond Algebra I are required for graduation with a regular {state} high school diploma.


So yes, in fact, in the sequence Algebra I, Geometry, Algebra II, and Precalculus, students MUST pass Algebra II in order to graduate with a regular (not "modified") diploma.

Look, it's embarrassing to have only a 70% high school graduation rate state-wide.

So, you pass everybody as long as they show up and let colleges deal with the problem.

Granted, you only get up to 83%....but that's much less embarrassing than 70%.

http://accrpt.ncpublicschools.org/app/2013/cgrext/

Nice. Well, this explains my why state's graduation rate is so stubbornly low, though-- those darned legislators, insisting on algebra skills. {sigh}

Wow.

In CA, the requirement is two years of high school math minimum, including Algebra I. The other year was satisfied by some of my friends on the five year plan (3-year school) with a class called "Business Math," which looked a lot like 6th grade arithmetic to me.

In LA, you have to finish Algebra I (which you can split into two years) and Geometry.

HK, I'm genuinely surprised that Algebra II is required for a regular HS diploma in your state. Not saying it shouln't be - just hadn't ever heard of it being required anywhere before!

FWIW, our school district requires 2.5 years of math credits, and completion of Algebra I - but there are watered-down versions of "Algebra I" which spread it out over 3 semesters.

polarbear

Our district has a 2-year Algebra I sequence and that covers the required two years of math & Algebra I requirement. The only schools that require Algebra II that I know are the private college prep schools. That isn't to say that most of the school does pass at least Algebra II as most universities require it and most kids are on a college prep track.

In my district you can also pass H.S. with D's on your transcript. Can't get into the state universities with ANY D's on your transcript. But you can graduate H.S.

Precisely-- the way that most schools HERE get around it is to build fluff courses that nominally have Algebra I as a "prerequisite" for the class...

(now, that's all done with a wink and nudge, since my DD took one of those classes just because the subject matter interested her, but it was NOTHING like "requiring" algebra I skills-- or, for that matter, pre-algebra ones).


So there is still very definitely a shell game happening there. It's just that two years PAST algebra I is a state requirement, and in smaller schools, that effectively means "algebra II" or a modified diploma (intended for SpEd students), since they lack the resources to teach both Algebra II and geometry as well as those made-up courses that appear to meet the terms of the state's requirements without, you know, actually being threshing machines for the less mathematically able students.

The upshot is that while the state doesn't say that algebra II is a required course, what it does require pretty much means that it is; unless schools play games with courses that are merely fluff with exalted titles and faux prerequisites. I'm pretty sure that DoE isn't actually checking for content level.

If I'm guessing right as to what state you are in. Quick google search shows there exists a "waiver" a parents can sign that allows a student to replace Algebra II with another math class "if it fits the students educational goals". So there is a way for a H.S. to slip in class of 'business math' for the non college bound students if the schools wants to go through the hassle.

IMO I would rather non college bound kids know their basic math WELL up to Algebra I well. And then take a class that teaches them math that everyone needs to function as an adult in the world, like how compound interest works, understanding how a loan works, some simple probability, how to balance your checkbook. Some of this requires Algebra II topics but doesn't need an entire Algebra II course.

My state also wants ALL high school graduates to go to college. Stated goal, that. Go ahead, ponder that for a moment...

Interesting. Is it planning to pay tuition for every student, and increase the size of the state university system to match the number of high school graduates?

Or just decrease the pool of graduates?

Or just... fail, and blame the kids' ambition?

Oh, of course not. This is one of The Very Important Big Ideas. For The Future of our State.

Our capacity is currently only enough for about 35% (including the private colleges) of our K-12 system's annual graduates. So "where would they all GO to college anyway" has definitely been asked, let's just say.

The powers that be don't say anything at all in response to THOSE questions... which, interestingly enough, plenty of well-educated people HAVE, in point of fact, been asking, particularly as "pay it forward" initiatives have been floated as a means of not introducing such overt forms of debt servitude upon my DD's generation and those behind her. Of course, wage garnishment sort of seems to be the same thing to me, but nobody has been saying that either.

The U.S. Department of Education's 15-page document, "Race to the Top Program Executive Summary", dated November 2009, and available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf, may be of interest.

The document mentions that standards are not stand-alone when it states, "... developing a rollout plan for the standards together with all of their supporting components;" (emphasis added). Interested parents may read the document for information on "all of their supporting components".

The same document also states: "... in cooperation with the State’s institutions of higher education, aligning high school exit criteria and college entrance requirements with the new standards and assessments;" (emphasis added). This seems to indicate no distinction between the skills/abilities used to define high school graduation and the skills/abilities used to define college entrance requirements at State institutions of higher education.

While some may see these statements as positives and others may see them as potentially "dumbing-down" higher education, few may question the credibility of the source.

None of this is actually factual. These are common misconceptions you see quoted on Facebook and in blogs that are myths.

The common core doesn't prescribe particular texts or particular passages to be read, and certainly doesn't suggest that students read only or mainly excerpts. The standards do contain SAMPLE texts which are excerpts, but these are meant only to help teachers better gauge the level of material indicated by particular standards.

Also, the ELA standards account for much of the dread "instructional text" to be read in non-ELA classes (like science or social studies).

I think this essay makes an important point: the College Board is making big changes in the SAT without any evidence that the new test will better predict success in college.

http://isteve.blogspot.com/2014/04/sat-new-test-hasnt-been-tested.html
SAT: The new test hasn't been tested
by Steve Sailer
April 16, 2014

Looking through the couple hundreds pages of verbiage that the College Board has released about their revisions to the SAT, I haven't found any evidence that they've tested the new test they've announced. It wouldn't be terribly hard to carry out research to see what kind of questions predict college performance best, but they don't seem to have done any research whatsoever involving potential questions. They've conducted various market research studies (focus groups, surveys, etc.) of what various people say they want in the SAT, but they have done nothing to see if what they've announced will actually work.

There's an amusing irony here: the SAT is a test used to predict how individuals do. But, as for predicting how the predictor is going to work, well, we'll just have to wing it. This strikes me as fundamentally irresponsible -- nearly a couple of million kids per year take the SAT -- but all too typical of contemporary elites in America.

...

I'm not sure of how much testing they have done on the new SAT, but there clearly has been some. Talk to any kid who took a recent SAT (say January or March), and they'll tell you that the experimental section was weird. The questions were nothing like the current SAT questions.

I think that smart kids will still do well on the SAT, and not-so-smart kids will continue to perform poorly on the SAT. The math questions look like they are critical thinking type questions. The kid that struggles to understand a basic textbook algebra problem will not do well. A preliminary look at the new SAT math can be found here:

http://pwnthesat.com/wp/2014/04/dig...-section-first-impressions/#.U0_BN1cvmDQ

For a tutor's take on the new essay,take a look here:

http://thecriticalreader.com/blog/item/400-sentence-completions-out-founding-documents-in.html

And we'll get some insight into the new SAT test/scoring scale when the HS Class of 2017 takes their junior year PSAT in the fall of 2015 - it will be the new SAT format.

Some are reading common core STANDARDS only, others are reading and taking into account "all of their supporting components" (as described by the U.S. Department of Education's 15-page document, "Race to the Top Program Executive Summary", dated November 2009, and available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf.)

The document mentions that standards are not stand-alone when it states, "... developing a rollout plan for the standards together with all of their supporting components;" (emphasis added). Interested parents may read the document for information on "all of their supporting components".

Shift in assessments and shifts in curriculum are prescribed.

For example, changes in the SAT (topic of this thread) may support "... aligning high school exit criteria and college entrance requirements with the new standards and assessments".

The shifts in curriculum including emphasizing shorter texts and passages, and the statements 'The Common Core State Standards require a greater focus on informational text in elementary school...'and "The standards call for elementary curriculum materials to be recalibrated to reflect a mix of 50 percent literary and 50 percent informational text" are found in the various publisher's criteria links here and here, which were found by following links from the official CCSS page here. These are not myths.

Please keep in mind that the changes in the SAT are intended to be responsive to the changes in schooling due to following common core.

The publisher's criteria reminds us: "Reading well means gaining the maximum insight or knowledge possible from each source." Interested parents may wish to read the common core links well.

Some may find this comforting, others may find this to be scope creep or tentacles of common core moving beyond the agreed-upon ELA and Math to encompass every subject. Interested parents may wish to see the information in the FAQs on the common core website (http://www.corestandards.org/resources/frequently-asked-questions) which includes links to:
- Science standards being developed (http://www.nextgenscience.org/),
- World Language standards being developed (http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Aligning_CCSS_Language_Standards_v6.pdf)
- Art standards being developed (http://www.arteducators.org/news/national-coalition-for-core-arts-standards-nccas) broken link

This blog entry links to an online lesson in the Federalist papers, from Groningen University, Nederlands. The relationship of this blog entry to the new SAT essay is not made clear.

Interested parents may do well to **** go directly to the source.

http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy/

http://www.corestandards.org/other-resources/key-shifts-in-english-language-arts/

Yes! As previously shared, the official CCSS website, corestandards.org, links to many other common core resources including but not limited to:
- achievethecore.org
- commoncoreworks.org
- Science standards being developed (http://www.nextgenscience.org/)
- World Language standards being developed (http://www.actfl.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/Aligning_CCSS_Language_Standards_v6.pdf)

Web pages may be subject to frequent update, and related web pages may not always agree with each other. Inconsistencies and discrepancies may also provide insight or knowledge.

U.S. Department of Education Links related to common core include:
- "Race to the Top Program Executive Summary", dated November 2009, and available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/executive-summary.pdf.) The document mentions that standards are not stand-alone when it states, "... developing a rollout plan for the standards together with all of their supporting components;" (emphasis added). Interested parents may read the document for information on "all of their supporting components".
- factsheet on "Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems", dated July 2009, and available online at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/slds/factsheet.html, may also be of interest.

These are not documents created by opponents to common core, rather these are documents created by common core proponents. While some may see the statements in these documents as positives and others may see them as moving in a direction opposite to the best interests of our students, few may question whether these sources are "biased" against common core.

I don't understand the significance of "supporting components" you keep bringing up. Standards are just meaningless statements unless put into practice by curriculum, and measured by assessments. It has never been a secret that these "supporting components" will be necessary, and it has never been a secret that this work will be left to businesses, states, and school districts.

It may be instructive to note that the 2009 documents mentioned above were published *before* the common core standards were developed (that process was started in 2009 and the standards were published in 2010), and thus while they may comment on the *idea* of the standards, they are not really relevant to the content of the standards as they exist now. I would agree with Dude that the core standards web site itself (i.e., the links he provided) is a good place to start if you want to learn about the standards.

Indigo, the College Board has stated that the new SAT will include reading passages from "Founding Documents". She was trying to point out that those documents contain some of the "arcane vocabulary" that the new SAT claims to eliminate. If you read some of her other blog posts, there are comments on the new SAT which make her thoughts clearer.

The significance of "supporting components" is that looking only at the STANDARDS themselves (as some may suggest) provides information on only one piece of common core. To better understand the common core, interested parties may wish to understand the "supporting components" as described by the U.S. Department of Education.

Understanding the "supporting components" provides context for major changes in SAT, potential impact on higher education, teacher evaluation, student privacy, and extensive data collection & sharing. Understanding the "supporting components" may also shine a light on the features of the educational landscape within which parents may be trying to navigate and advocate for appropriate level and pacing of instruction for their gifted children.

Families seeking common core resources other than those compiled by HSLDA have many to choose among, including links from the official CCSS website, and those from the U.S. Department of Education. Several have been shared in previous posts in this thread.

The documents are relevant to Race to the Top, and the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems, supporting components of the standards. There was no attempt to present them as standards content.

Yes, that is a great starting point for learning about the standards. Interested parties may wish to read further and explore the websites which common core links to, and also learn about the supporting components, as described by the US Department of Education (linked upthread).

Web pages are easily updateable; dated documents possibly less so. Each may serve a purpose toward "gaining the maximum insight or knowledge possible from each source".

and
Agreed. Readers may understand due to making connections with information from other sources, however in the blog entry the point was not made clear.

No, because that's equivocation.

Yes, the SAT is going to make changes in order to align with Common Core. But the SAT is not Common Core, it's the SAT. Learning about changes to the SAT doesn't teach you about Common Core, it teaches you about changes to the SAT.

There's nothing in the standards that says that the SAT should be testing for high-frequency vocabulary words rather than archaic ones. That's a choice they made on their own.

This is the fundamental problem, actually.

Well, it's not limited to College Board, either-- ACT dances around it, as well. The real reason why colleges are going test-optional, or, as Dude and I discussed earlier-- relying upon their OWN metrics with incoming students-- is that standardized testing is HORRIBLE at predicting college success, and every successive iteration seems to make the connection more tenuous still.

Oh. Tenuous. Another of those strange words, I suppose.



And while yes, I expect that the top 10% is likely to be relatively unfazed by the shift, the real problem is when you have teens who are living in a RADICALLY different mental/cognitive space from those writing test items. Just because something seems to be good at differentiating the center of the distribution curve (say the 5th through 95th percentiles) doesn't mean that weird things can't occur outside of that range.

What was the admission rate at the Ivies this year, again?

RIGHT.

So this kind of revamping stands (at least potentially) to harm the very top of the distribution by making the test questions unanswerable if you know TOO MUCH.

I've seen this again and again and again with DD-- the SAT already had issues this way, and everything I have seen of the 'rewrite' thus far indicates that it elevates ambiguity in trying to make itself much more "clever" than before... but the problem is that when a test like that is HARDER the more you know, it's not measuring performance or potential very well for the top __th percentile, whatever it turns out to be. The questions get harder when you can see them in ways that are CORRECT, but which test writers never anticipated.

Beta testing doesn't give you sufficient numbers to really KNOW that you have a big problem on your hands there until it happens during rollout.



This part of things (IMO) stands to harm MG+ students the most. Probably increasingly so with increasing LOG.

Not to mention the fact that validation here doesn't mean what they think it does. It's the dumbest idea EVER to 'align' the SAT with high school curriculum rather than with what college faculty are saying is deficient in incoming freshmen. I expect that this move will simply make that gap all the more apparent, myself. Hello? Secondary education? Yeah-- you're.not.listening.

The Race To the Top Executive Summary document indicates the alignments and supporting components which are required to be responsive to CCSS.

Therefore some may say that learning about changes to these components does provide insight into the specific item which they are required to be responsive to.

Understanding supporting components to better understand an object is not unique to common core and does not constitute equivocation. For example, in studying a gifted child, some experts wish to also know about the parents... in studying a bridge or building, it may be important to know what undergirds it.

The relationships between things indicate a system. There is no conflation, ambiguity, or deception. From the common core website "The Importance of a Standards-Based System Many respondents said that while it is important to get the standards right, standards are only one part of a complex system."

I do not feel the need to persuade or convince. In raising awareness of resources (shared in previous posts on this thread), each person may respectfully follow his/her own inclinations and leanings.

The publisher's criteria reminds us: "...reading well means gaining the maximum insight or knowledge possible from each source."

Wait. Does this mean they have to take the test ten times in order to make a connection? I made a connection once. I wouldn't want to do it again, but that's just me.

Yeah, I found it rather painful, myself

Another of those contextually ambiguous test items, that.

I'm sure that the average student would have no trouble with that statement. Ergo, it must be fine as a means of determining who understands the word tenuous.

Snort!

Agreed. In a 15-page document dated March 05, 2014, and titled Higher Education and the Redesigned SAT, College Board shares that there are plans to research predictive validity. Meanwhile there is a disclaimer - "Safe Use Warning: SAT scores should only be used in combination with other relevant information to make responsible decisions about students." Who knew?!

The free downloadable PDF document also shares that Khan Academy will provide free test prep... and rich score reports will be available (subscore reporting). More information in the 211-page DRAFT about the redesigned SAT test and scores, plus sample test questions including the Heart of Algebra.

Cartoon time, anyone? New buzzwords: Safe Use Warning... rich score reports... heart of algebra.